Re:So, what's it to him?
by
CSMastermind
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Well if you read his blog entry covered on/. here: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/27/14 11245&tid=98 you'll know that he owns alot of digital content. If MGM wins this case they could potentially shut down a valuable means for him to get that content to his customers.
Mark's talks about this issue in his blog
by
xmas2003
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The RIAA says music sales are down, more specifically they say sales of the top 100 cd are down and this is DUE TO PIRACY.
Well by Sales the Mean "Items Shipped to Stores" !
So all they Really Mean is Stores Stock Less.
In the US Nielsen Ratings are based on "Individual Sales to Customers" so are these REAL sales down?
"Soundscan recorded 146 million CDs sold in Q1 2003, against 160 million in Q1 2004 - an increase of nearly 10%. Figures for Q2, released this summer are expected to show yet another increase. The RIAA, on the other hand, are claiming a 7% decrease in revenue - but that's purely through managing shipments and returns."
Nope, Sales are up !!! By this more realistic definition Music Sales are up.
=> Therefore if we are to believe the RIAA but use a more realistic definition of sales then: FILE SWAPPING HAS INCREASED POPULAR MUSIC SALES.
It is about controlling the means of distribution.
Here is an Very Rigorous Academic Study of File Sharings Effect on Record Sales. The Conclusion:"File Sharing Has A Negligable Satistical Effect on Sales". http://www.p2pnet.net/zero/FileSharing_March2004.p df Here is A Japanese Study with much the same conclusion. http://www.iir.hit-u.ac.jp/file/WP05-08tanaka.pdf So the Lies are exposed, the **AA are just out to keep cartel control, make sure we only watch and buy what they have. Read How Exhorbitant Liscense Fees for Samples have crippled Modern Music in the excellent fast paced read. http://kembrew.com/documents/mcleod-freedomofexpre ssion3.pdf Freedom Of Expression by Kembrew McLeod also details many other ways in which Irresponsible Litigous Intellectual Property stifles research, innovation, cost millions of lives worldwide due to drug patents and holds back the development of important medicines for breast cancer due to human genome patents.
I think that P2P has revitalised Culture and learning, it has made the world a richer place and everyone has benefited from this, leechers, artists and business' alike.
Mark Cuban was one of the few dot-com millionaires smart enough to cash in his chips and leave the table before the bust.
He went on to buy the Dallas Mavericks and make a big jackass of himself ever since, but the sort of jackass who is fun to have around at a party.
He has been fined by the NBA for unsportmanlike conduct more than any other owner... probably more than any team owner in the history of sports.
He recently produced a "reality TV" program which was sort of a low-rent version of the Apprentice, in which he gave a million dollars away, making the contestants do really stupid shit and eliminating the losers on the basis of his own fickle whims.
--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:legitimate uses of P2P
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Well, just use the MPAA in or the BPI(British phonographic institute) as a case for P2P networks. Both of them say that P2P are good for entertainment, and they are only after illegal activity.
Maybe they should lobby against the RIAA.
NYtimes isn't just free registration, it's junk mail and having to wait for an add to go away. This AC doesn't like forced advertising.
ASHINGTON, March 29 - The much-heralded Supreme Court showdown in the Grokster case between old-fashioned entertainment and newfangled technology found the justices surprisingly responsive on Tuesday to warnings from Grokster, the software maker that allows Internet users to share computer files on peer-to-peer networks, that a broad definition of copyright infringement could curtail innovation.
Justice David H. Souter asked Donald B. Verrilli Jr., the lawyer arguing for the Hollywood studios and the recording industry, to envision "a guy sitting in his garage inventing the iPod."
"I know perfectly well that I can buy a CD and put it on my iPod," Justice Souter said. "But I also know if I can get music without buying it, I'm going to do so."
Because that possibility was so obvious, he continued: "How do we give the developer the confidence to go ahead? On your theory, why isn't it a foregone conclusion from the outset that the iPod inventor is going to lose his shirt?"
That Justice Souter, the least technically minded of the justices - he still drafts his opinions by hand on a legal pad - could even invite a dialogue about Apple iPods, much less suggest that he could be tempted to engage in illegal file sharing, was an indication of how this confrontation of powerful interests had engaged the court.
But by the end of the lively argument pitting Grokster and its allies on the electronic frontier against the entertainment community's stalwart defense of intellectual property rights, any prediction about what the court will actually decide appeared perilous. The justices themselves seemed taken aback by the procedural complexities of the case, Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios v. Grokster Ltd., No. 04-480, which moved through the lower federal courts on summary judgment, without a trial.
Some justices appeared tempted by the prospect of allowing the studios and record companies to get to trial on a legal theory that the lower courts did not address: that Grokster and the other defendant, StreamCast Networks, which offers the Morpheus file-sharing service, are liable for copyright infringement for having actively induced consumers to use their software to download copyrighted material on an immense scale.
The Federal District Court in Los Angeles, in a decision affirmed last year by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, took a different approach, ruling that the file-sharing networks were not liable because their services were "capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
The lower courts took that test from the Supreme Court's 1984 decision that absolved the Sony Corporation, manufacturer of the Betamax video recorder, of copyright liability for infringing uses that consumers might make of the product.
The Sony decision provided the right answer, and that should be the end of the case, Richard G. Taranto, arguing for Grokster and StreamCast, told the court. He said it was "critical" for the Supreme Court to adhere to the "clear Sony rule" for the sake of "innovation protection."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg objected, noting that the 1984 decision "goes on for 13 more pages" after articulating the test that provided Sony's defense.
"If the standard was that clear, the court would have stopped there," Justice Ginsburg continued. "I don't think you can take one sentence from a rather long opinion and say, 'Ah-hah, we have a clear rule.' "
In briefs filed as friends of the court, allies of the file-sharing networks in various technology industries and civil liberties organizations have depicted file sharing as a
Re:no dangling from gallows!
by
SilverspurG
·
· Score: 2, Informative
they can continue to extort obscene profits from us for healthcare
Continuing on that thought...
There are about 3 major insurance companies in the world. Those three have dozens of subsidiaries. Those dozen subsidiaries have hundreds, maybe thousands, of corporations. What this means, however, is that the effect on profit margin anywhere can and will be compensated anywhere else. Consider the late 90s and into early 2000 when the bust happened. Those businesses were insured. Some investors, usually those closest to the top of the investment chain, recouped losses through business insurance. That was very costly for the insurance companies holding the policies. They can't be expected to take a loss, though, so they must recoup the losses somewhere.
It's no coincidence that the cost of health care began skyrocketing as the stock market tumbled. There's no coincidence that the cost of gasoline began skyrocketing as the stock market tumbled. It's little more than a pyramid scheme of recouping losses from one investment by raising the prices of another. Ultimately we, the American public paying car/home/health insurance, will pay to rebuild the vacation homes and posh resorts devastated by the earthquakes on the other side of the globe. I have no problem philanthropically helping people in need but I don't relish the idea of seeing my auto insurance rise on my paltry salary while a spoiled brat with a gigantic ego sips pina coladas in a beach chair that I (indirectly) bought.
A pub in my home area had a bumper sticker,"We screw the other guy to pass the savings on to you." Alan Greenspan, George Bush... they're just the figureheads for a group of people who are screwing the general populance in order to pass the savings on to themselves.
If one would write a computer simulation of the business world with our current taxation system, and another computer simulation of any two-bit MLM or pyramid scheme, the code would probably be indistinguishable.
Slashdot Mirror
Well if you read his blog entry covered on /. here: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/27/14 11245&tid=98 you'll know that he owns alot of digital content. If MGM wins this case they could potentially shut down a valuable means for him to get that content to his customers.
Read Mark Cuban's Blog where he talks more about this.
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
Cubes has plenty of opinions on everything at his blog, but here's some more MGM v Grokster for you all... http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000237029704 /
http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000890030093 /
http://www.blogmaverick.com/entry/1234000523038163 /
The RIAA says music sales are down, more specifically they say sales of the top 100 cd are down and this is DUE TO PIRACY.
:
e ction=distribution&id=1222
p df e ssion3.pdf
Well by Sales the Mean "Items Shipped to Stores" !
So all they Really Mean is Stores Stock Less.
In the US Nielsen Ratings are based on "Individual Sales to Customers" so are these REAL sales down?
"Soundscan recorded 146 million CDs sold in Q1 2003, against 160 million in Q1 2004 - an increase of nearly 10%. Figures for Q2, released this summer are expected to show yet another increase. The RIAA, on the other hand, are claiming a 7% decrease in revenue - but that's purely through managing shipments and returns."
Nope, Sales are up !!!
By this more realistic definition Music Sales are up.
=> Therefore if we are to believe the RIAA but use a more realistic definition of sales then
FILE SWAPPING HAS INCREASED POPULAR MUSIC SALES.
Here is a Link with the sources http://digital-lifestyles.info/display_page.asp?s
People listen to more music than they buy.
The More Music People Listen to, the more they buy.
ADD in the spectacular rise of iTunes and Music Sales are through the roof.
File Sharing promotes music and increases sales.
Artists Win, The RIAA, wins, File Swappers Win, P2P wins - Everyone Wins !!!
It is about controlling the means of distribution.
Here is an Very Rigorous Academic Study of File Sharings Effect on Record Sales.
The Conclusion:"File Sharing Has A Negligable Satistical Effect on Sales".
http://www.p2pnet.net/zero/FileSharing_March2004.
Here is A Japanese Study with much the same conclusion.
http://www.iir.hit-u.ac.jp/file/WP05-08tanaka.pdf
So the Lies are exposed, the **AA are just out to keep cartel control, make sure we only watch and buy what they have.
Read How Exhorbitant Liscense Fees for Samples have crippled Modern Music in the excellent fast paced read.
http://kembrew.com/documents/mcleod-freedomofexpr
Freedom Of Expression by Kembrew McLeod also details many other ways in which Irresponsible Litigous Intellectual Property stifles research, innovation, cost millions of lives worldwide due to drug patents and holds back the development of important medicines for breast cancer due to human genome patents.
I think that P2P has revitalised Culture and learning, it has made the world a richer place and everyone has benefited from this, leechers, artists and business' alike.
Who the hell is Mark Cuban....?
Mark Cuban was one of the few dot-com millionaires smart enough to cash in his chips and leave the table before the bust.
He went on to buy the Dallas Mavericks and make a big jackass of himself ever since, but the sort of jackass who is fun to have around at a party.
He has been fined by the NBA for unsportmanlike conduct more than any other owner... probably more than any team owner in the history of sports.
He recently produced a "reality TV" program which was sort of a low-rent version of the Apprentice, in which he gave a million dollars away, making the contestants do really stupid shit and eliminating the losers on the basis of his own fickle whims.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Well, just use the MPAA in or the BPI(British phonographic institute) as a case for P2P networks. Both of them say that P2P are good for entertainment, and they are only after illegal activity.
Maybe they should lobby against the RIAA.
NYtimes isn't just free registration, it's junk mail and having to wait for an add to go away. This AC doesn't like forced advertising.
ASHINGTON, March 29 - The much-heralded Supreme Court showdown in the Grokster case between old-fashioned entertainment and newfangled technology found the justices surprisingly responsive on Tuesday to warnings from Grokster, the software maker that allows Internet users to share computer files on peer-to-peer networks, that a broad definition of copyright infringement could curtail innovation.
Justice David H. Souter asked Donald B. Verrilli Jr., the lawyer arguing for the Hollywood studios and the recording industry, to envision "a guy sitting in his garage inventing the iPod."
"I know perfectly well that I can buy a CD and put it on my iPod," Justice Souter said. "But I also know if I can get music without buying it, I'm going to do so."
Because that possibility was so obvious, he continued: "How do we give the developer the confidence to go ahead? On your theory, why isn't it a foregone conclusion from the outset that the iPod inventor is going to lose his shirt?"
That Justice Souter, the least technically minded of the justices - he still drafts his opinions by hand on a legal pad - could even invite a dialogue about Apple iPods, much less suggest that he could be tempted to engage in illegal file sharing, was an indication of how this confrontation of powerful interests had engaged the court.
But by the end of the lively argument pitting Grokster and its allies on the electronic frontier against the entertainment community's stalwart defense of intellectual property rights, any prediction about what the court will actually decide appeared perilous. The justices themselves seemed taken aback by the procedural complexities of the case, Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios v. Grokster Ltd., No. 04-480, which moved through the lower federal courts on summary judgment, without a trial.
Some justices appeared tempted by the prospect of allowing the studios and record companies to get to trial on a legal theory that the lower courts did not address: that Grokster and the other defendant, StreamCast Networks, which offers the Morpheus file-sharing service, are liable for copyright infringement for having actively induced consumers to use their software to download copyrighted material on an immense scale.
The Federal District Court in Los Angeles, in a decision affirmed last year by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, took a different approach, ruling that the file-sharing networks were not liable because their services were "capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
The lower courts took that test from the Supreme Court's 1984 decision that absolved the Sony Corporation, manufacturer of the Betamax video recorder, of copyright liability for infringing uses that consumers might make of the product.
The Sony decision provided the right answer, and that should be the end of the case, Richard G. Taranto, arguing for Grokster and StreamCast, told the court. He said it was "critical" for the Supreme Court to adhere to the "clear Sony rule" for the sake of "innovation protection."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg objected, noting that the 1984 decision "goes on for 13 more pages" after articulating the test that provided Sony's defense.
"If the standard was that clear, the court would have stopped there," Justice Ginsburg continued. "I don't think you can take one sentence from a rather long opinion and say, 'Ah-hah, we have a clear rule.' "
In briefs filed as friends of the court, allies of the file-sharing networks in various technology industries and civil liberties organizations have depicted file sharing as a
There are about 3 major insurance companies in the world. Those three have dozens of subsidiaries. Those dozen subsidiaries have hundreds, maybe thousands, of corporations. What this means, however, is that the effect on profit margin anywhere can and will be compensated anywhere else. Consider the late 90s and into early 2000 when the bust happened. Those businesses were insured. Some investors, usually those closest to the top of the investment chain, recouped losses through business insurance. That was very costly for the insurance companies holding the policies. They can't be expected to take a loss, though, so they must recoup the losses somewhere.
It's no coincidence that the cost of health care began skyrocketing as the stock market tumbled. There's no coincidence that the cost of gasoline began skyrocketing as the stock market tumbled. It's little more than a pyramid scheme of recouping losses from one investment by raising the prices of another. Ultimately we, the American public paying car/home/health insurance, will pay to rebuild the vacation homes and posh resorts devastated by the earthquakes on the other side of the globe. I have no problem philanthropically helping people in need but I don't relish the idea of seeing my auto insurance rise on my paltry salary while a spoiled brat with a gigantic ego sips pina coladas in a beach chair that I (indirectly) bought.
A pub in my home area had a bumper sticker,"We screw the other guy to pass the savings on to you." Alan Greenspan, George Bush... they're just the figureheads for a group of people who are screwing the general populance in order to pass the savings on to themselves.
If one would write a computer simulation of the business world with our current taxation system, and another computer simulation of any two-bit MLM or pyramid scheme, the code would probably be indistinguishable.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.