Slashdot Mirror

The Troll HOWTO

Dear Google Affiliate,

Beginning September 1, 2000, Google will change the reimbursement
policy for our affiliate program. We will be offering one cent
instead of three cents for each search from your site to us. This
letter outlines the reasons for this change as well as some
enhancements we will be adding to the program.

That's an interesting example you brought up. I tried their thing a while back. It didn't work. Then I found the whole show, and donated my bandwidth and server space to sharing it because I thought it was a great show.

If you like, I think it's over here.

A buck a song seems fair, until a virus or a hard disk crash costs you $2,000 in very expensive one and zeros. Well then you just download them again, you say. Well then why can't I download them after I buy a cd? Charging people money directly for downloads will not work, IMHO. The only way to give the product any real value is to support it with massive IP police.

Keep selling cds, playing live shows, make some cool shirts, and do jag commercials. And be creative with revenue streams, there are lots of ways to capitalize on mass attention. And subscriptions of one type or another will probably be real popular (i.e. the "band list" $5/mo. access to secure server, first dibs on tickets, etc)
--

Can we be trusted to use Napster responsibly?

This is something that the Stephen King experiment might shed some light on. I wrote a bit about it here

It will, IMHO, come down to THE ARTISTS THEMSELVES making sure their fans know the score. Smart bands would put all or most of their mp3's on the home site. If most bands do this, what is the motivation for using napster or a similar service. The bands get the pr and build the fan base that no-cost promotion gains, and can set up their virtual "guitar case" on the same page IN BIG TYPE as the mp3s. Include a blurb by the band about how they feel the whole thing and why they feel they should share. None of this precludes the selling of other merchandise either, CDs and what not.

Anyway, the crux of it comes for the artists challenging their fans. The RIAA would never go for such a thing, because they don't feel it would work, and for them it wouldn't. I have no sympathy or desire to drop money into corporate coffers, especially this organization which has been screwing me for years, but given the chance to give directly to the artist I am appreciating, it makes a lot more sense.

Of course this brings something else to the point, and is my biggest caveat about the whole deal. THE MIDDLEMAN SHOULD NOT CONTROL THE MARKET.


--

In fact, I brashly predict that the sudden freeing of the artist -- the ability for anyone with interest to form an effective distribution network -- will spark a great surge forward in creativity.

I totally agree with this one. The thing that Stephen King has done is bring the real point out. Morals. I didn't download the book, and I'm a big stephen king fan. I didn't, cause the last book of his that I read (The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon) sucked ass. The way he set up the license is awesome. It's him, asking you to be moral. Directly. That's the power it will take for this to work. That's why I didn't dl the book, because I didn't want to pay for it, and the last stuff he's written is shit.

Until I hear that this story kicks ass, it's not worth my time. The only way he can ask for such a license up front is because he is probably the most popular American author on the planet. Someone else would have to put a bit upfront, maybe a chapter. Then, for the second and more they could ask for $.25 to continue the game.

Anyway, my point: it will take moral consumers for this type of publishing to work. He's taking a small risk (the dude make $65,000,000,000 last year), but it's a worthwhile experiment.

--

good luck against the moderators on this one :(

A couple of ntpks

...who, like them, bought the CD. Neither of them bought the rights to the music to redistribute it. Neither of them are giving royalties to the band.

And neither of them are making any money off the deal, yet both of them are paying with effort and bandwidth.

And since currently their primary/only business is in enabling people to share/swap/copy music, one can presume that's how they intend to make their money.

That would make sense. They are providing the service of allowing music fans to listen to and share music. To make a somewhat real world analogy (keeping the same product and action) : Napster is a warehouse where millions of people can come and trade or borrow music from others. To keep the analogy real world, Napster also provides Personal Transporter Devices, which can instantly teleport you to the warehouse from any computer terminal. ALSO, Napster has created an amazing paging system (the Googo Searchamatic 5280) within the warehouse, where you can just shout out an artists name or a song title, (wait a bit) and you get a set of buttons you can press to jump immediately to the location of the music within the warehouse. You then take a few moments to fire up your Really Neat-o Replicator and make an exact copy of their music, while leaving their supply alone. You can do this as often as you like. Later, you can leave the Napster warehouse, and do anything you like. Including breaking other pre-existing laws or not, depending on your personal preferences. This is the service Napster offers.

Whether or not they should be allowed to profit from offering such a totally amazing out of this world service, is now left up to the courts. Personally, as a consumer, this is the type of service I expect from a company (because as a consumer I have a right to unrealistic expectations). I think they should be able to, for the reasons listed above.

And Napster devised the system that allowed this to happen. That's why Napster's bad.

Napster (or at least their real world equivalent) is damn cool. Whether or not that is "good" or "bad" is up to a California(?) judge. But I seriously doubt, either way, that this will be the end of it. (and Gnutella gets to totally avoid the "company, VC, profit" thing.)

If you think music should be free, why don't you go out and make some for us and share it with the world??

You can divide these tasks. Some can make, some can share. That makes it easier for everyone.
--

You might want to look into the most recent LPFM stuff. A number of industry lobbyists went full bore against it in the last few months. I believe they cut the availabe freqs in half after some totally contrived (emulated) tests showed that LPFM would degrade regular FM signals. I don't have the C-mens names, but they set up the "Radio Preservation Act" that pretty much slams LPFM.

Not to rain on your parade, just trying to inform you that many others are trying to keep you from having a parade permit.

Oh, and I hope they fear me too. :) (it's got links to a number of the things Ms. Love, hehe, mentioned in her speech)
--

We're counting on you to keep up your end of the bargain.

k, try some music from my friends. (I drew the picture and you can appreciate that for the same price) They are huge Napster fans. I'd quote what the lead singer has to say about the RIAA but there might be children reading.

And no, you can't just steal the work of others and claim that it's yours because you've got two hands capable of stealing it with.

Who is claiming it as their own? I just want to listen to music and give credit where it's due. I think the RIAA has overextended their credit limit (right about the time they started lobbying to take away artists' rights) so they get no more credit from me.
--

....because we find it easier to reward creators with "celebrity" rather than our dollars.

Exactly. We reward them with celebrity. Advertisers reward them with money to use the celebrity for advertising. It's a market. Note: I also still buy CDs because I know that supporting the music I like is a Good Thing(tm)

Oh, and I wasn't saying we should get rid of copyright, I just think it needs to be redefined. And under even my liberal redefinition, one wouldn't be allowed to sell another's work for profit. Here's a longer version And another one should be here soon (watch that .sig :).

--

Hehe, yea, her b.s. pissed me off too.

The funny part, IMHO, is when they start to bring morality into the equation. Record Executives and morality, that's almost as funny as that Seagram's guy decrying pirates...when his grandfather was a bootlegger (the real kind).

--

Try this one then. RIAARetort

--

Anyone got a better idea?

Yea, but we have to scoot back a little bit.

Combine an infinte supply with a zero dollar price tag, and you've got an infinite demand in old school economics.

I think it will work by creating an infinite demand but not quite like that. That is true, but it offers no reason for compensation. This sets the value at 1, i.e. the real value. Creating a motive above infinite demand is bit tougher as the only concept I can think of that fits the description is love. See the They Might Be Giants post in this thread. The fans will pay regardless, because they respect the artists, wish to have a physical artifact of the music, and understand that the only way the artists can make more music is with monetary support. At least that's how I justify buying CDs, buying t-shirts and paying for shows, YMMV.

or, as the guy just said. "They can play music for money."

A friend of mine said the same thing the other night between his first and second sets. "They can make money playing fuckin' music. That's what they do isn't it?" (emphasis from textual/tone conversion)

He plays guitar, check it out.

--

Here's a link about it.

I've learned a bit since then, but I think the one-to-one possibilities of the Net make it much easier than in times past. Just ask, man, just ask.
--

"If you don't have anything good to say, keep your mouth shut."

"I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." --Voltaire

Free speech is dirty and nasty, that's what makes it so fun. Remember, the only thing you know about a poster (usually) is what they write, not thier age, country of origin, race, mental state, motivations, or experiences. Parse it accordinly, and you might want to check this out too.

--

caveat emptor!

hehe

Dangerous products are dangerous products, regardless. People should at least have their own source to check. So, now I'm buying a car with the hood welded shut, that has a tendency to explode, and it's my fault if it happens. And it's very expensive. Proprietary software ROCKS!!

--

So? Everyone has lobbyists, and sometimes laws are passed based on that -- laws that you may or may not agree with. There are big problems with the system, and someone is always gonna end up cheesed off.

Yes, but I don't like lobbying from industries that try and get laws passed that hurt their workers (or at least their worker's rights). Read the links from here If you don't believe me. Yes, I. Am. So. Cheesed. Off. right now.

Sure, I think Disney got a bad law passed (copyright extension), but I think many of the copyright laws are still pretty darned good in design.

You might think they're "pretty darn good". I think they suck ass. This is a fundamental difference. I don't expect it to change, today, or even tomorrow. But that's why we talk about it, no?

I tip my hat to you then -- you are standing up for what you believe.

I say "Howdy". And I'm screaming it at the top of my lungs to anyone who's paying attention, not just standing there.

You ever read it?

No, I haven't read the entire code. I have read various abstracts and conversations, as well as citations from the code. Mainly I think I understand its spirit, and where that spirit has been tainted by self-interest.

First, it addresses the circumvention of copyright protection systems, not actual violations of copyright law. This means they'll go after the DeCSS people (another place where we disagree, I'm sure), not the kid in his basement burning himself a copy of the Matrix.

Just wait until they convince a judge or someone who picks judges (What's up G-Dub!?) that the "horrible" act of "ripping" an MP3 goes against the spirit of the law, in that it is a "circumvention" of the natural protections afforded by the inherent differences between a physical medium and a digital one.(i.e. "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" that's from here word find: "circumvent" :)

Second, the section on criminal offenses and penalties is very explicit in that it applies to violations for "commercial advantage or private financial gain". I haven't seen the list of 300,000 names, but I'm pretty sure most of them haven't made any money.

I think that's our loophole. We just want to give it away, we don't want to sell it. Read some of the those conversations under my user info for more details on this. Keep reading for the kicker...

I make a living by creating and selling IP, not music but software. I expect that these laws will help protect my work (and my job), and I fully endorse them. I'm not trying to get something for nothing, I'm trying to feed my family.

Software might be a tough business in a few years. A bunch of crazy hippies are giving a whole bunch away for free in hopes of capturing market share, and eventually maybe some bucks...some way or another. Or maybe they're just doing it for fun, but the stuff seems to work. Even if it is a BIT cryptic. But I understand your point. I think we need to protect absolutely the power of "selling IP" of software or any other media. Keep reading...

I am all for open source -- people who want to spend their time on something they will give away. I respect that decision, and I've even put some stuff out in the public domain. However, I resent the fact that some people on the other side don't respect my decision, my copyrights, and steal my product.

I used to be for open source. Then I realized I was more interested in Free Software. As an ideal at least, open source will most likely represent the reality of it. I also (back on topic) believe in Free Music. We'll see if it catches on.

My final solution to the whole deal is to add two words to this.

This part specifically...

"The congress shall have the Power To promote the progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

the two words I want added are "profit from". See if you can figure out where I want it. Shoot, even Republicans could get behind a "Profit From" movement....

This is the "dealing with it" part. ;0

--

So? Everyone has lobbyists, and sometimes laws are passed based on that -- laws that you may or may not agree with. There are big problems with the system, and someone is always gonna end up cheesed off.

Yes, but I don't like lobbying from industries that try and get laws passed that hurt their workers (or at least their worker's rights). Read the links from here If you don't believe me. Yes, I. Am. So. Cheesed. Off. right now.

Sure, I think Disney got a bad law passed (copyright extension), but I think many of the copyright laws are still pretty darned good in design.

You might think they're "pretty darn good". I think they suck ass. This is a fundamental difference. I don't expect it to change, today, or even tomorrow. But that's why we talk about it, no?

I tip my hat to you then -- you are standing up for what you believe.

I say "Howdy". And I'm screaming it at the top of my lungs to anyone who's paying attention, not just standing there.

You ever read it?

No, I haven't read the entire code. I have read various abstracts and conversations, as well as citations from the code. Mainly I think I understand its spirit, and where that spirit has been tainted by self-interest.

First, it addresses the circumvention of copyright protection systems, not actual violations of copyright law. This means they'll go after the DeCSS people (another place where we disagree, I'm sure), not the kid in his basement burning himself a copy of the Matrix.

Just wait until they convince a judge or someone who picks judges (What's up G-Dub!?) that the "horrible" act of "ripping" an MP3 goes against the spirit of the law, in that it is a "circumvention" of the natural protections afforded by the inherent differences between a physical medium and a digital one.(i.e. "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" that's from here word find: "circumvent" :)

Second, the section on criminal offenses and penalties is very explicit in that it applies to violations for "commercial advantage or private financial gain". I haven't seen the list of 300,000 names, but I'm pretty sure most of them haven't made any money.

I think that's our loophole. We just want to give it away, we don't want to sell it. Read some of the those conversations under my user info for more details on this. Keep reading for the kicker...

I make a living by creating and selling IP, not music but software. I expect that these laws will help protect my work (and my job), and I fully endorse them. I'm not trying to get something for nothing, I'm trying to feed my family.

Software might be a tough business in a few years. A bunch of crazy hippies are giving a whole bunch away for free in hopes of capturing market share, and eventually maybe some bucks...some way or another. Or maybe they're just doing it for fun, but the stuff seems to work. Even if it is a BIT cryptic. But I understand your point. I think we need to protect absolutely the power of "selling IP" of software or any other media. Keep reading...

I am all for open source -- people who want to spend their time on something they will give away. I respect that decision, and I've even put some stuff out in the public domain. However, I resent the fact that some people on the other side don't respect my decision, my copyrights, and steal my product.

I used to be for open source. Then I realized I was more interested in Free Software. As an ideal at least, open source will most likely represent the reality of it. I also (back on topic) believe in Free Music. We'll see if it catches on.

My final solution to the whole deal is to add two words to this.

This part specifically...

"The congress shall have the Power To promote the progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

the two words I want added are "profit from". See if you can figure out where I want it. Shoot, even Republicans could get behind a "Profit From" movement....

This is the "dealing with it" part. ;0

--

How about retorts? You like those? Try my user info or here.

It's FANatical, FUNdamental, and backed by FACTs.

Burning karma for FUN, FANS, and FACTS!
--

Not understanding one of the biggest shifts in the industry since the PC in the early '80s is a career-limiting mistake for a journalist who specializes in covering technology.

That's gonna be my new sig.

--

yea, sorry. numb (a.k.a G27) already slapped me down. Just got a bit excited. I'll be patient now....it's over here too...
--

Do you really think your flame will change anything, other than lowering my opinion of you?

No, my bad. shoulda done it as AC, I still think it was a troll. I sacrifice Karma from time to time to shut 'em up (and the other idiots who reply to them :). Sometimes it works, sometimes not. I think scores should go up to 10 (with 4x the moders) so I annoy people until Rob changes it. There's more than 6 levels of comments here. Oh, and I average about 20 hits a post, so you do the figgurin'. :-)
--

Let me make my bias clear. I think RMS rocks. Yea, he can be a stubborn, thick-headed asshole, but I think this question defines that side of him the best.

Q: Are there any things that you sort of care about, but not very much?

RMS: Sure, plenty--but I don't argue about those things.

Some other highlights.

I am not affiliated with the Open Source Movement. I founded the Free Software Movement, which has been working to spread freedom and cooperation since 1984, and is concerned not only with practical benefits but with a social and ethical issue: whether to encourage people to cooperate with their neighbors, or prohibit cooperation.

1984, what can you say...hehe. Funny that one of the things will make make sure we don't have a totalitarian regime in the future, was started the same year that totalitarian regime was supposed to take over.

Does the phrase "Don't Sweat the Small Stuff" (I'm thinking of the "GNU/Linux" thing) have any resonance at all with you?

followed by a paragraph long explanation on why you should call it GNU/Linux, hehe. He does have a sense of humor.:)

The DMCA is a perfect example of the harm done when business dominates government and society. One part of the law explicitly says that only commercially significant activities are considered important (to legitimize a program which is often used to bypass technological means of controlling the users)--showing explicit prejudice against educational uses, recreational uses, communitarian uses, military uses, and religious uses.

couldn't have said it better myself, and I've tried (click user info)

So I'm starting to think the guy gets in, but then I realize he's still learning...

I don't play music from files on my computer,
but I've occasionally made tapes of records and given them to my friends.

C'mon d00d, Keep the music flowing! hehe.

We have choices to make now. To insist on absolute certainty before starting to
apply ethics to life decisions is a way of choosing to be amoral.

amen, brother.
--

Let me make my bias clear. I think RMS rocks. Yea, he can be a stubborn, thick-headed asshole, but I think this question defines that side of him the best.

Q: Are there any things that you sort of care about, but not very much?

RMS: Sure, plenty--but I don't argue about those things.

Some other highlights.

I am not affiliated with the Open Source Movement. I founded the Free Software Movement, which has been working to spread freedom and cooperation since 1984, and is concerned not only with practical benefits but with a social and ethical issue: whether to encourage people to cooperate with their neighbors, or prohibit cooperation.

1984, what can you say...hehe. Funny that one of the things will make make sure we don't have a totalitarian regime in the future, was started the same year that totalitarian regime was supposed to take over.

Does the phrase "Don't Sweat the Small Stuff" (I'm thinking of the "GNU/Linux" thing) have any resonance at all with you?

followed by a paragraph long explanation on why you should call it GNU/Linux, hehe. He does have a sense of humor.:)

The DMCA is a perfect example of the harm done when business dominates government and society. One part of the law explicitly says that only commercially significant activities are considered important (to legitimize a program which is often used to bypass technological means of controlling the users)--showing explicit prejudice against educational uses, recreational uses, communitarian uses, military uses, and religious uses.

couldn't have said it better myself, and I've tried (click user info)

So I'm starting to think the guy gets in, but then I realize he's still learning...

I don't play music from files on my computer,
but I've occasionally made tapes of records and given them to my friends.

C'mon d00d, Keep the music flowing! hehe.

We have choices to make now. To insist on absolute certainty before starting to
apply ethics to life decisions is a way of choosing to be amoral.

amen, brother.
--

just a couple things, thanks for the discussion also. (here's a quick hello to everyone lurking,."Hello!")

I had a conversation about this last night with friends, some of which have high-speed connections.

Me too. We were listening to some of this (KVHW) using this. Them someone mentioned these guys. So I used this. And everyone heard what we were talking about. Which opened the door to summarize this discussion for them. :-) Later, I pointed out how we were all felons, pirates, and all that was evil in the world. Then, we went to this show, and made a night of it.

There is no philosophical connection between the Free Software/Open Source movement (if you merge them together for simplicity) and piracy of intellectual property.

Except that some folks in the FS/OM movement don't believe in piracy of intellectual property as a concept. I fall short of that extreme, but believe our current situation regarding IP, is, flawed.

Therefore, those who don't pay for such content are parasites relying on the "rubes" who do pay for it.

Then I guess I'm some sort of pararube, eh?

Basically, we'll be down to hobby content.

If Linux is an example of hobby content, then I'm all for this scenario. I like to think of Free Software (and hopefully someday Free Music) as the baseline for measuring software. If your commercial software isn't as good as the stuff I can get for free...your stuff sucks and isn't worth my money. As we raise the bar for what you can get for free, you have to raise even higher the bar of what you sell. This provides the necessary motivation to succeed, that other forms of communism (i.e. in the real world) lacked. Just so I can be honest with both you and myself on what I'm really talking about. Eliminating scarcity changes value fundamentally, it's time to deal with it.

If you want to continue this, may I suggest e-mail?

--

just a couple things, thanks for the discussion also. (here's a quick hello to everyone lurking,."Hello!")

I had a conversation about this last night with friends, some of which have high-speed connections.

Me too. We were listening to some of this (KVHW) using this. Them someone mentioned these guys. So I used this. And everyone heard what we were talking about. Which opened the door to summarize this discussion for them. :-) Later, I pointed out how we were all felons, pirates, and all that was evil in the world. Then, we went to this show, and made a night of it.

There is no philosophical connection between the Free Software/Open Source movement (if you merge them together for simplicity) and piracy of intellectual property.

Except that some folks in the FS/OM movement don't believe in piracy of intellectual property as a concept. I fall short of that extreme, but believe our current situation regarding IP, is, flawed.

Therefore, those who don't pay for such content are parasites relying on the "rubes" who do pay for it.

Then I guess I'm some sort of pararube, eh?

Basically, we'll be down to hobby content.

If Linux is an example of hobby content, then I'm all for this scenario. I like to think of Free Software (and hopefully someday Free Music) as the baseline for measuring software. If your commercial software isn't as good as the stuff I can get for free...your stuff sucks and isn't worth my money. As we raise the bar for what you can get for free, you have to raise even higher the bar of what you sell. This provides the necessary motivation to succeed, that other forms of communism (i.e. in the real world) lacked. Just so I can be honest with both you and myself on what I'm really talking about. Eliminating scarcity changes value fundamentally, it's time to deal with it.

If you want to continue this, may I suggest e-mail?

--

I'm not sure, but I think I might be the "idiot" you refer to.

Yup, sure looks likes it. :) (you shouldn't make it so easy)

Do you think people would create art full time if the knew there was no way they would get any compensation for it?

Where did you get this idea that there was "no way they would get any compensation"? That's what the government's job is to do, IMHO, control who has the right to profit from protected works. M'kay? If the owner of the work is the only one who can legally profit from a work, why can't we give it away. This has never been an issue before. We used to have this thing called scarcity. That law alone said that you should never, economically, give stuff away.

If the creation sucks, and/or the creator sets their price too high, no-one will buy it.

You remember supply and demand right? As a function for determining price? If you have an infinite supply, the price is zero (unless you have infinite demand*). So, if you follow simple market economics, the price for digital music should be $0, which is actually the exact same amount as it costs the original creator to attain worldwide distrubtion and produce (or allow to be produced) 6 billion copies (isn't this Internet thing cool?). You might be wondering how to make money in this situation, and if you're nice, I'll tell you..in the same vague philosophical terms this thread is producing....

It's like if I had a farm, and I produced food there. Way more food than I could ever eat. Now, I should be able to ask whatever price I want. If I say "$80 for an English cucumber", that's the price. You can't say "oh, that's too much, I'll just take one. He'll never know, and he's got way more cucumbers than he could eat on his own anyways."

It'd be like that if it was one of those farms were when you pull a cucumber out of the ground, it stay there for the next hungry man. Which is to say, it's not like a farm at all.

You have to realize that scarcity is no longer an issue in this environment for this product, unless your examples include that attribute, they will be easily refuted.
--
and in case you we're wondering what else I was doing while Typing this response, click below. God Bless /., America, and really good Trolling!!

Big Hollow Band Page!!

hehe.

*be nice and I'll tell you how, although that would be a bit recursive, no?
--

I'm not sure, but I think I might be the "idiot" you refer to.

Yup, sure looks likes it. :) (you shouldn't make it so easy)

Do you think people would create art full time if the knew there was no way they would get any compensation for it?

Where did you get this idea that there was "no way they would get any compensation"? That's what the government's job is to do, IMHO, control who has the right to profit from protected works. M'kay? If the owner of the work is the only one who can legally profit from a work, why can't we give it away. This has never been an issue before. We used to have this thing called scarcity. That law alone said that you should never, economically, give stuff away.

If the creation sucks, and/or the creator sets their price too high, no-one will buy it.

You remember supply and demand right? As a function for determining price? If you have an infinite supply, the price is zero (unless you have infinite demand*). So, if you follow simple market economics, the price for digital music should be $0, which is actually the exact same amount as it costs the original creator to attain worldwide distrubtion and produce (or allow to be produced) 6 billion copies (isn't this Internet thing cool?). You might be wondering how to make money in this situation, and if you're nice, I'll tell you..in the same vague philosophical terms this thread is producing....

It's like if I had a farm, and I produced food there. Way more food than I could ever eat. Now, I should be able to ask whatever price I want. If I say "$80 for an English cucumber", that's the price. You can't say "oh, that's too much, I'll just take one. He'll never know, and he's got way more cucumbers than he could eat on his own anyways."

It'd be like that if it was one of those farms were when you pull a cucumber out of the ground, it stay there for the next hungry man. Which is to say, it's not like a farm at all.

You have to realize that scarcity is no longer an issue in this environment for this product, unless your examples include that attribute, they will be easily refuted.
--
and in case you we're wondering what else I was doing while Typing this response, click below. God Bless /., America, and really good Trolling!!

Big Hollow Band Page!!

hehe.

*be nice and I'll tell you how, although that would be a bit recursive, no?
--

I'm not sure, but I think I might be the "idiot" you refer to.

Yup, sure looks likes it. :) (you shouldn't make it so easy)

Do you think people would create art full time if the knew there was no way they would get any compensation for it?

Where did you get this idea that there was "no way they would get any compensation"? That's what the government's job is to do, IMHO, control who has the right to profit from protected works. M'kay? If the owner of the work is the only one who can legally profit from a work, why can't we give it away. This has never been an issue before. We used to have this thing called scarcity. That law alone said that you should never, economically, give stuff away.

If the creation sucks, and/or the creator sets their price too high, no-one will buy it.

You remember supply and demand right? As a function for determining price? If you have an infinite supply, the price is zero (unless you have infinite demand*). So, if you follow simple market economics, the price for digital music should be $0, which is actually the exact same amount as it costs the original creator to attain worldwide distrubtion and produce (or allow to be produced) 6 billion copies (isn't this Internet thing cool?). You might be wondering how to make money in this situation, and if you're nice, I'll tell you..in the same vague philosophical terms this thread is producing....

It's like if I had a farm, and I produced food there. Way more food than I could ever eat. Now, I should be able to ask whatever price I want. If I say "$80 for an English cucumber", that's the price. You can't say "oh, that's too much, I'll just take one. He'll never know, and he's got way more cucumbers than he could eat on his own anyways."

It'd be like that if it was one of those farms were when you pull a cucumber out of the ground, it stay there for the next hungry man. Which is to say, it's not like a farm at all.

You have to realize that scarcity is no longer an issue in this environment for this product, unless your examples include that attribute, they will be easily refuted.
--
and in case you we're wondering what else I was doing while Typing this response, click below. God Bless /., America, and really good Trolling!!

Big Hollow Band Page!!

hehe.

*be nice and I'll tell you how, although that would be a bit recursive, no?
--

I'm not sure, but I think I might be the "idiot" you refer to.

Yup, sure looks likes it. :) (you shouldn't make it so easy)

Do you think people would create art full time if the knew there was no way they would get any compensation for it?

Where did you get this idea that there was "no way they would get any compensation"? That's what the government's job is to do, IMHO, control who has the right to profit from protected works. M'kay? If the owner of the work is the only one who can legally profit from a work, why can't we give it away. This has never been an issue before. We used to have this thing called scarcity. That law alone said that you should never, economically, give stuff away.

If the creation sucks, and/or the creator sets their price too high, no-one will buy it.

You remember supply and demand right? As a function for determining price? If you have an infinite supply, the price is zero (unless you have infinite demand*). So, if you follow simple market economics, the price for digital music should be $0, which is actually the exact same amount as it costs the original creator to attain worldwide distrubtion and produce (or allow to be produced) 6 billion copies (isn't this Internet thing cool?). You might be wondering how to make money in this situation, and if you're nice, I'll tell you..in the same vague philosophical terms this thread is producing....

It's like if I had a farm, and I produced food there. Way more food than I could ever eat. Now, I should be able to ask whatever price I want. If I say "$80 for an English cucumber", that's the price. You can't say "oh, that's too much, I'll just take one. He'll never know, and he's got way more cucumbers than he could eat on his own anyways."

It'd be like that if it was one of those farms were when you pull a cucumber out of the ground, it stay there for the next hungry man. Which is to say, it's not like a farm at all.

You have to realize that scarcity is no longer an issue in this environment for this product, unless your examples include that attribute, they will be easily refuted.
--
and in case you we're wondering what else I was doing while Typing this response, click below. God Bless /., America, and really good Trolling!!

Big Hollow Band Page!!

hehe.

*be nice and I'll tell you how, although that would be a bit recursive, no?
--

Ahh, you're talking about the next wave (and not the one where you get a free t-shirt for ratting on your friends), which is tough to decipher from the foam of the last.

I try not to wax prophetic on what the Net will do, but prefer to do it. That being said, I agree with most of what you said, but it will be a generation other than mine that wishes to borgify itself (i'll stick with piercing for the time being). I'm happy just sharing text. Although (to wax for a moment) a /.-like messaging system where we record voices versus type can't be too far away. The shouting matches would be great! :)

Oh, and I think we should work on natural empathy before we try to artificially enhance it. We can do pretty good without shiny gadgets.

One thing to remember "It's All About Bandwidth."

--

Was Streetlawyer trolling? a troll savant? Don't know. My opinions are (as usual) my own.

Check his user info, or check the underthreads, or read his (or DMG's??) TrollHOWTO, You can read some of it here, there's a link at the bottom

But that's how misinformed, naive, or just plain ignorant most of /. is now (at least the ones who post), they can't even recognize the trolls. Of course, this is because the trolls run the place now, because they get fed so often. Most of the time it's just fun to laugh at, but what can I say, it's monday, so there ya go.

--

And what makes you think there won't be a grillion folks out there saying "some rules NEED to be smashed" and breaking your license right and left for their own profit, just like you're doing to the existing schemes?

Maybe you could explain how they could? Given freely distributable music, where is the profit for pirates? Who, since they know the artists are making a leap of faith, would knowingly go through some other source, pay some other source, when they know they can buy it straight from an artist? And if we keep the insanely high prices of CDs standard, 1 sale from the artist whould give them as much revenue as roughly 20 sold under the yoke of an RIAA member company.

If what we're on about is getting paid from the end user directly to the artist in some strange math, what startup do we need?

Remember they are getting paid with the same value they get from radio play, free exposure to create rabid fans. What startup do we need? Why can't you be doing this already out of wahcentral.net? Glad you asked. And I am. It's a section called "Digital Caffeine" and hopes to use the /. style submission and comment method to generate content. It's not doing much right now, that's where the VC comes in. (Oh and if you "steal" my idea, let me know, and you can hire me to tell you how to do it right). Here's another one that's come to my attention from these discussions. Someone DOING something. Try here if you want to help with a cool project. ('sup numb :-) Locally is the best way to start revolutions.

--

Hey, I put (flame in the tag).

And what exactly was your argument again, oh yeah ..

Frankly, I don't necessarily see why there should be any defined expiration of the copyright.

and you we're saying?
--
o.k. flames aside (for now).

I am defending the public perception of the people who code gnutella. If you are one of them, why are you doing this? I'm not, probably won't be. I did buy a CVS book this weekend, so we'll see. These people are doing this because they want too. The only things they need from you are praise, hopes, and bug reports. And cash when they sell it. This shit you can shove back up your ass.

Your original flames against the people building the program..

"GnutellaNet sure seems to be collapsing under it's own weight" (takes notice)
"It's been over a week since I've had anything successfully download." (then move on, slowpoke)
"I have been running it, but am quickly starting to realize that there isn't much point to it, anymore" (so go away)
"once people leech the stuff" (what?!)
"thus reducing the potential load on my machine" (would that be the load of all the developement tools?)
"I know that the pages about the program, claim that it's a tool for filesharing. But be realistic. " (yes, maybe we should)
"There are a million easier ways to share files, that are far more reliable. " (And you're not using them ..because..? {emphasis mine})
"I'll email it to him. " (good, you do that. (power building {he's at 150K, Cap'n!))
"Or I'll toss it onto something like FilesAnywhere. " (so you won't even link for me, eh?)
"The only reason that I can think of, that people love stuff like this, is it's so much more anonymous than even an FTP site." (true, perhaps SSN's would be better as logins, twit (wonders if it's worth it {250K, I'm gettin' out of here, Cap'n})
"On Gnutella, et al, nobody has to identify themselves at all." (some would call it freedom)
"Just as a minor point, some cable systems use DHCP, and apparently PacBell DSL is starting to use it as well." (so minor as to be matched only by your usefulness)

and then the kickers.

"------ Count me grateful to MS. If they make it too easy to use, I'll have to get a real job."

(insult everyone who thinks for a living, a weak joke perhaps, ...chuckle...)

"I work with NT on a daily basis, because that's what the world uses. But it's just a tool."

It's a tool, and so are you. So when I said you were an "idiot", I wasn't joking. Idiots abound in this thing we call the Net. It is my duty to help point out to other would-be idiots, what one looks like, and how, precisely, they should be treated.

Did I say *idiot*, I meant complete fuckin' idiot, the kind of idiot that drools about lickin' grandma. The kind of shit-slurping dumbass that defends known felons. Didn't realize that, about your precious NT. Not only are they sick fuckin' thievin' bastards up there in Redmond, they're convicted criminals. And they still advertise on fuckin'TV DURING THE BIGGEST FUCKING COLLEGE BASKETBALL GAME OF THE YEAR!. So contortitionists like you can suck themselves off to that oh'so' grooovy beat. Fuck you and the bits you rode in on. Unicorn, your a thorn in my fine crusty ass, the only mythical thing about you is your intelligence and grasp of reality, find another virgin and maybe you can join the rest of us. The ones who don't take it up the ass all day and like it, begging for more, harder, bigger. How did you get around mommy's protection lock anyway? Aren't the Teletubbies on! Ohh, Inky-dinky-winky, he's my faavorite!.

Q:Smarter, better, nicer
A:All words I'd rather give to pile of whale dung that just raped my sister, shot my dog in the head, and got its MCSE, than to you.

Now, if you weren't such an idiot, you would realize...(continued)

..and that's all I got to say about that, 'cept for the .sig, which you also don't understand.

(aaaaahhh)
--

This is again where your personal notion of theft gets confusing again.

That's exactly what I wanted to address first. This word you keep using, "stealing". Everywhere you put that I would probably use sharing. I am not stealing songs from Napster, I'm sharing them. This is a big part of my argument. Not stealing, sharing. (to steal is not only to take, but also to deprive, IMO)

Contributing my personal resources, I become the equivalent of a radio station. Except my listeners get to pick their own music and listen to it on their own time. Like right now, there are 609,193 pieces of music that I could be listening to in less than 5 minutes. Many of them are duplicates, but that's why the RIAA has to go after Napster and not the individuals. That, of course, is a moot point already, as folks have taken the idea of distributed file storage networks, and run with it. THAT is the reality of the situation. Our laws need to reflect that reality rather than try and dictate a different one.

NOW, given that, you still need to be able to "promote the progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

This Right is what needs better defining. The wrong people are writing the laws.

But what scares the RIAA (and their (tense) clueless friends in Radio(the *worst* industry at moving to the Net, worse than newspapers.)) is those 609,084 songs. The Choice destroys their control. The availability destroys their marketing. And the digital transfer and reproduction destroys their usefulness.

You've admitted a couple of times that you don't like our current establishment, yet you defend the tactics they have used the establish that position. I understand the need to profit as an incentive to work, I hope somewhere you can see how some of the things I have mentioned would work, if not, be patient, wait until eveyone in your neighborhood has brodband and a home website (~10 years). Where / (v3.2), Shoutcast, and G27, are plug and play. Nanomedia, it's coming.

If you think overthrowing corporate popular culture is simply a matter of throwing out copyright laws (for certain things - anyway) alright!

Eh? Copyright is the only relevant major change needed to fix everything?! Whew

Yep, and they know it. Wouldn't that make you nervous and hostile? But it's not even throwing out copyright laws, we just need to bring them back to reality (which I outlined above for you, so argue that). I think we need them to stick with the Constitution, but I don't think they are even close now.

The RIAA has an easy time laughing someone like you off because you make such ridiculous statements.

The RIAA has an easy time laughing off someone like me, since they've been laughing off the COnstitution for over 20 years. Laughing all the way to the bank, as it were.

I want you to read this before replying. And then tell me which side of this battle you want to be one.

Read that story, read that part of the Constitution, and then tell me what that Right should be, given the Internet. We'll go from there.

--

With such insanely prolific commenting on slashdot (I originally tried to track your old replies via your user info -- so many comments they scrolled off the last 50 list in less than a week!) you'd think by now you'd gotten over the joy of weak personal attacks.

Two things about this. In less that two weeks of "insanely prolific posting", I have had over 600 individuals in 42 different countries visit my website (no other promotional effort on my part). The "weak personal attacks", are exactly that, jabs, just to see who I'm talking to. I've argued with fools on /. before and it usually comes out with a bit of prodding. That being said, this has been a fun debate, you are no fool.

--

In a discussion of copyright violation, value is irrelevant.

Sorry, I thought this was a discussion on how much a web site should be worth and why.

Copying the content does nothing to copy where it gets its value from (the attention). This is the same reason why copying MP3's adds value to the artist, rather than taking it away. (if you accept the no-cost to increase supply infinitely argument, which many don't)

If you don't believe me, try putting a value on a human life (your own, for instance).

Hehe. MHO

--

Religion is for idiots, and you're a fucking fag dude.

1 for 2 ain't bad. Shithead. LOL

--

I've got a page about it somewhere...

sorry about the double post.

--

first...

And Slashdot readers obviously subscribe to discussions like debian-legal, so the distance between a hasty mailing list post and the front page of a national newspaper can be as little as two clicks.

This is both true and very neat. Not that I'm famous, but the same thing (kinda) happened to me. The Internet makes control of digital media impossible, so things like this are bound to happen. As long as everything is sorted out in a reasonable time, what's the damage? There SO VERY MUCH information available, shouldn't it now be second nature to question everything you read, or at least wait for confirmation. I'm as guilty as the next party in jumping to rabid conclusions, that's emotion working, but before longterm opinions and biases set in I at least look for a confirming source.

That being said I would like to compliment slashdot on what I found yesterday. (check my homepage
if you don't understand) Get out your random string generators and you can have your precious small BBS done /. style. Personally I like having access to firsthand opinions/reactions of 100,000 geeks sorted by "goodness", and although there are advantages to being able to have a beer with your entire connected circle, there is strength in numbers. Even if that strength is only used to get to the bottom of a story.

enough.

18. Currently there are no products, nor are there likely to be any in the near future, that a significant percentage of consumers world-wide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC operating systems without incurring substantial costs.

and

19. Consumers could not turn from Intel-compatible PC operating systems to Intel- compatible server operating systems without incurring substantial costs, since the latter type of system is sold at a significantly higher price than the former. A consumer intent on acquiring a server operating system would also have to buy a computer of substantially greater power and price than an Intel-compatible PC, because server operating systems generally cannot function properly on PC hardware.

hmmmm. I guess my media-gx150 web server doesn't exist.

Linux makes these two "findings of fact" incorrect. How bad would it be if Linux helped overturn a ruling?