Slashdot Mirror


Licensing Issues Shut Down Pandora Outside US

randalotto writes "I'm in France for the summer and have been listening to Pandora at work. I tried logging on tonight and was greeted with a surprising message: 'We are deeply, deeply sorry to say that due to licensing constraints, we can no longer allow access to Pandora for listeners located outside of the US. We will continue to work diligently to realize the vision of a truly global Pandora, but for the time being we are required to restrict its use. We are very sad to have to do this, but there is no other alternative. ... The pace of global licensing is hard to predict, but we have the ultimate goal of being able to offer our service everywhere.' I'm not sure what the deal is or what licensing requirements suddenly changed, but Pandora in France is no more..." Note: the above link redirects to the main site, for those inside the US.

248 comments

  1. What's left for users outside the U.S.? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hope.

    1. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can't you get around it by using a proxy?

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    2. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by gringofrijolero · · Score: 0

      And change! Can you spare some?

      --
      Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
    3. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://spotify.com/

      After that, pandora feels kinda crappy...

    4. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Not available on your country yet"
      It looks equally crappy from here...

    5. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by clarkkent09 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't think he wants to get around hope.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    6. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by Fluffeh · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Trust a slashdot user to logically connect my post to the GP in CLEARLY the wrong way. I love it!

      I tip my hat to you sir!

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    7. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by Killer+Orca · · Score: 5, Funny

      Trust a slashdot user to logically connect my post to the GP in CLEARLY the wrong way. I love it! I tip my hat to you sir!

      That whooshing sound you hear is available to listeners inside the U.S. only due to licensing restrictions.

    8. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Funny

      So you're going with Change, then?

    9. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Last.fm, I switched for it when they closed Pandora for me.

    10. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by nonicknameavailable · · Score: 0

      "On what platforms can I use Spotify? Mac OS X 10.4 or later and Windows XP or later." not for linux users

      --
      Mendacem Memorem Esse Oportet
    11. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by nonicknameavailable · · Score: 1

      you can only listen to music for free if you live in USA, UK, Germany, on last fm

      --
      Mendacem Memorem Esse Oportet
    12. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by salmacis2 · · Score: 1

      "On what platforms can I use Spotify? Mac OS X 10.4 or later and Windows XP or later." not for linux users

      Works fine for me under wine. Auto update doesn't work, but it's 5 minutes tops to download and install a new version. Other than that, no problems.

    13. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by ciderVisor · · Score: 1

      Spotify works fine under Wine, so it's available to Linux users, too.

      --
      Squirrel!
    14. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      So why don't you quote the whole line?

      On what platforms can I use Spotify?
              Mac OS X 10.4 or later and Windows XP or later. You can also run Spotify in Wine on Linux.

    15. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't you get around it using Democracy for what it is intended sending those maafia guys in the jails they deserve?

    16. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Might be because your post had nothing to do with GP's post - thus CLEARLY marking you as an offtopic FP whore.

    17. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, why dont you use a Proxy service like www.superchargemytorrent.com?

      All the servers are local in the US which would allow you to bypass IP restrictions.

    18. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by sorak · · Score: 4, Funny

      Trust a slashdot user to logically connect my post to the GP in CLEARLY the wrong way. I love it!

      I tip my hat to you sir!

      That whooshing sound you hear is available to listeners inside the U.S. only due to licensing restrictions.

      aw, crap. Please don't tell me we've patented stupidity.

    19. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP = Original Post, GP = General Post?? Greater Post?? God Post?? What the frack is a GP?

    20. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by Sylos · · Score: 2, Informative

      Grandfather post. The post that starts this specific thread of conversation

      --
      'Number-memorizing Chinese people.'-Anon
    21. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by tixxit · · Score: 1

      OTOH, Last.fm clients are available for most popular media players on Linux (Amarok & RhythmBox, for example).

    22. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why don't you quote the whole line?

      Because you are a pedantic faggot?

    23. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by burnt1ce85 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There are free proxies out there like hotspot shield but I personally find that US Proxy very slow. Instead, I find a paid proxy like witopia works flawlessly without any lag. I have been using them for 2 months and I haven't had any problems with it. No software needed to be installed to use their service. You just simply login to their VPN, located in the US.

    24. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by ToastBusters · · Score: 1

      No, but we have trademarked it. Trademarks last longer.

    25. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't tell me we've patented stupidity.

      Not only that, we've cornered the market on it....

    26. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that be a good thing? I hope some patent troll with no real products go the patent. ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    27. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Missed a T. Whoops.
      (Mister T. Whoopass?)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    28. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they do not support linux! they tell you to use the ugly and slow windows version in wine

    29. Re:What's left for users outside the U.S.? by Mista2 · · Score: 1

      Well, Duh! Welcome to the club. Pandora had the best music recommendation system I had used. Now cant access it. thanks RIAA.

  2. Old news ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I thought they shut down listening to non-USA last year ?

    1. Re:Old news ? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is old news. However, it might be that the submitter only tried it in France and there it was still allowed and already disallowed in pretty much all other European countries.. While not pandora, consider last.fm... They shut down in Europe too, except for a few select countries (Germany and the UK) you can still use it without subscription. Otherwise, it's just have to pay. (No way, I'm doing that.)

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    2. Re:Old news ? by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pandora has been dead outside the US for some time. I was just getting into using it when they shut down access outside the US. I'm sure it was at LEAST two years ago this happened.

    3. Re:Old news ? by nkh · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's funny, I'm in France and I just discovered Last.fm today (yeah, I'm slow...) and the Mac program works great. I don't see any subscription here, maybe it's some kind of free trial. According to their subscription page, I can have "unlimited radio streaming" but it's not written anywhere in their program.

    4. Re:Old news ? by discontinuity · · Score: 1

      Yep, this is old news. I've been in France since this past December and Pandora has been inaccessible the entire time.

    5. Re:Old news ? by nkh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Woops, small update: Last.fm is limited to 30 tracks only for the free version. I'll try something else...

    6. Re:Old news ? by Dayze!Confused · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Although this is old news it brings to light again the growing trend of limiting content based on location. I am an American living in a foreign country and there are a lot of sites that I cannot go to because content is limited to US IP addresses.

      Sites such as cbs.com have content only available in the US. Youtube also has some videos only available in the US. Now, it seems from the discussion, that most music sites have also turned that way. Our globalized world is getting torn apart again by content providers.

      --
      "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
    7. Re:Old news ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try www.spotify.com - legal free music
      .

    8. Re:Old news ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad last.fm releases it's info to the RIAA. I believe you are better off with some other service.

    9. Re:Old news ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May 3, 2007 is the day Pandora died for everyone outside the US.

      The story's available quite clearly on their official blog:
      http://blog.pandora.com/pandora/archives/2007/05/breaking_pandor.html

      I'm amazed it took Slashdot so long to catch up to this.

      Next week: "Licensing issues shut down Hulu outside US"
      Week after: "Amazon MP3 Store Not Available in Canada"
      Ad Nauseum.

      Here's an easy way: If it involves intellectual property assume it's US-only and you'll usually be right.

    10. Re:Old news ? by Idbar · · Score: 1

      And it seems like there are tons of web sites doing the same. The last one I found on Friday, after hearing the news about Michael Jackson was Youtube.

      I was talking with a friend in South America about that, and decided to send him a link to Michael Jackson's Billy Jean. Turned out that while I was able to watch the video, he had an error message saying the video was not available anymore due to copyright issues.

    11. Re:Old news ? by tixxit · · Score: 1

      I'm in Canada and opted to pay the $3/month, considering I listen to it all day at work. Depending on your listening habits, you might want to consider subscribing.

    12. Re:Old news ? by tixxit · · Score: 1

      With the same restrictions as Pandora; it is only available in some countries (eg. not Canada).

    13. Re:Old news ? by AceofSpades19 · · Score: 1

      You get to listen to 30 songs before you have to pay

    14. Re:Old news ? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "I'm in Canada and opted to pay the $3/month, considering I listen to it all day at work. Depending on your listening habits, you might want to consider subscribing."

      Does your employer not have a policy against streaming content at the worksite?

      Most every place I have worked at, have pretty strict policies against streaming content both for legal and bandwidth reasons. Hell most places I've been at, won't even let you IM on work computers.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    15. Re:Old news ? by tixxit · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I am allowed to stream content, though we aren't allowed to IM. A few people here stream internet radio (in an office of ~15), there are no bandwidth issues. What are the legal complications with streaming music from last.fm though?

    16. Re:Old news ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use it all the time without a subscription and I've never seen any limitation like that (I'm located in the US).

  3. First post! by PMBjornerud · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...err, I mean. Isn't this old news?

    I though Europe was blocked 2 years or so earlier. Didn't know that France was an exception. Or he was lucky with his IP block being considered American.

    --
    I lost my sig.
    1. Re:First post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They've been blocking Germany for years now.

    2. Re:First post! by BikeHelmet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They blocked Canada a while back. 6 months? Maybe longer - I can't remember the exact date it first came up.

    3. Re:First post! by interactive_civilian · · Score: 4, Informative

      Indeed. This is the primary reason I have never used Pandora and why I did end up using Last.fm. Pandora has never been accessible to me from where I've been in the world. With Last.fm no longer being free to listen on, options are limited, though, if you continue using scrobbling, you can still use Last.fm to find some decent recommendations to check out. Then you can turn to other sources to sample that music.

      Though it isn't the same thing, in that you have no control over what you listen to, I'm going to go ahead and give a shout out to Triple J Radio, a radio station out of Melbourne, Australia that plays a wide range of music and very little top-40 crap.

      If anyone is looking for legal free music, it is worth surfing around Archive.org and/or LegalTorrents. There are a lot of good independent artists out there giving their music away.

      --
      "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    4. Re:First post! by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Yes, very old.

      BTW, that's why I prefer Last.fm - its recommendation engine works with local files, so it doesn't even really matter that I can't stream anymore (not living in Germany or UK...)

      Plus the idea of impartial algorithms of Last.fm worked for me better than "experts" of Pandora - the latter played either things I don't like, or...ones that I already know; it couldn't make the jump to music that perhaps isn't very similar to what I'm listening to, but one that I would probably like (because it's listened by large number of my partial musical neigbours)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    5. Re:First post! by BagOBones · · Score: 1

      Yes it is. Also put me down as another Last.fm user. Their engine isn't as detailed but it is good enough. Also the service does a good job of letting you know about local concerts for bands you like or might like.

      --
      EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
    6. Re:First post! by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Though one can still listen to previews of tracks, that's often enough when checking recommendations.

      And adding here another thought that I have after my previous comment to the story - does it all show disconnect of Americans from outside world? ;)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    7. Re:First post! by Phurge · · Score: 1

      Yeah I use last.fm to collect my listening & get reco's too. Have a look at http://8tracks.com/ its pretty good for finding new stuff.

      --
      I'll see your hokum and raise you a boondoggle.
    8. Re:First post! by psy · · Score: 1

      ...err, I mean. Isn't this old news?

      I though Europe was blocked 2 years or so earlier. Didn't know that France was an exception. Or he was lucky with his IP block being considered American.

      Being in Australia i was blocked off 1-2 years ago.

      I think the OP was just in a lucky IP range which they finally fixed up.

    9. Re:First post! by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Try Imeem.com. Although it's not a radiostation, it works for me.

      One for the geeks: http://www.imeem.com/people/iiS6AQH/music/I3tobUbT/lisa-miskovsky-still-alive-junkie-xl-mix/

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    10. Re:First post! by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      An alternative I forgot to mention is to use Hotspotshield, a free proxy-service. I'm not too sure what the risks and benefits on that one are, though, but you're supposed to be able to circumvent most of the IP-based bans. The download is free. Use at your own risk.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    11. Re:First post! by randalotto · · Score: 1

      After poking around on the internet a little more, I think you're probably right. I must have just been lucky with my IP for whatever reason. Since I'm only in Europe for the summer, I didn't realize this was an existing issue; given the sudden change, I thought something (more than just my ip address being recognized) had happened.

    12. Re:First post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      minor correction, triple j is an australian national non-commercial radio station, with most of the shows broadcasting from melbourne and sydney, but in no way restricted to just those cities

    13. Re:First post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      France is no exception. I live in France and was shut out of Pandora a couple of years ago. If the submitter managed to use it for a time, it was probably just a passing geolocalization glitch.

    14. Re:First post! by MonsterTrimble · · Score: 1

      Obviously I have way too much music or not enough free time - I didn't know last.fm had become non-free. This is what I get for still using Amarok 1.4 I suppose.

      Personally, I suscribe to a number of Podcasts, including a number of CBC (www.cbc.ca) ones as well as TVO's 'Search Engine' (www.tvo.org). As well, CBC has concerts on demand at http://www.cbc.ca/radio2/cod/

      I also second using Archive.org as a resource, although I find their search engine for music lacking. I haven't used legaltorrents yet, but I soon will!

      --
      I call it 'The Aristocrats'
    15. Re:First post! by Draek · · Score: 1

      If anyone is looking for legal free music, it is worth surfing around Archive.org and/or LegalTorrents. There are a lot of good independent artists out there giving their music away.

      There's also Jamendo.com which, IMHO, has a pretty nice selection as well.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
  4. Really old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hasn't this been the case for quite a while now?

    I live outside of the US, and I haven't been able to access pandora for more than a year (maybe even more).

    1. Re:Really old news by SEWilco · · Score: 1

      Yeah, really old. I've been hearing of closing Pandora's box for decades.

  5. Really? by neoprint · · Score: 1

    I haven't tried in a while, but I used to use Pandora a lot till it randomly stopped working, with that exact same error message in 2006. I live in New Zealand if anyone cares...

  6. Now the question remains by MSDos-486 · · Score: 1

    If you get it though a tunnel/proxy server will it work.

    IMHO the effectiveness of location based filtering/blocking is inversely proportional to the l33tness of you users.

    It sounds like you are over their for some school/work related thing. Both of those institutions commonly provide VPN service.

  7. And that is news how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been like this for months, if I remember.

  8. Doesn't make sense by adosch · · Score: 1

    On what sort of legal/copyright grounds (this time) would cause the shutdown of Pandora outside the U.S.? I thought the whole beauty and logical design of Pandora to make the streaming legit was the idea of the played music being based on the donated full, legit, and tangible music CDs they received from the community or public domain? I guess long live free recreational drug use in Europe; just won't be able to stream Paul Oakenfold anymore while doing it.

    1. Re:Doesn't make sense by EvanED · · Score: 5, Informative

      I thought the whole beauty and logical design of Pandora to make the streaming legit was the idea of the played music being based on the donated full, legit, and tangible music CDs they received from the community or public domain?

      Um, owning a CD is a far cry from having the rights to publicly exhibit/distribute it.

    2. Re:Doesn't make sense by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Different owners of copyrights in the given region.

      Also, difficulty with extracting profit via ads (that's why Last.fm now streams full songs only in Germany, UK and US; at least the rest of its funtionality works)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    3. Re:Doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's not the public, it's just a few million of my close friends.

    4. Re:Doesn't make sense by pinkushun · · Score: 1

      Good point! Pandora isn't at fault, I blame the cutthroat music industry. Luckily we have Mr Self Destruct to help us out!

    5. Re:Doesn't make sense by grahamm · · Score: 1

      Different owners of copyrights in the given region.

      In the modern 'wired' world, this does not make sense at all. The copyright owner might license various companies to create and distribute copies in different parts of the world, but how can they sell the copyright more than once? Once they have sold it once, it is no longer theirs to sell again.

    6. Re:Doesn't make sense by Hatta · · Score: 1

      No, ownership of a CD absolutely implies that you have all the rights to do whatever you want with it. The problem is under current laws, no one really owns anything.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Doesn't make sense by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Of course I've meant licensing; but in practise it means the same as copyright - "having it", but only in given area.

      And sure it doesn't make sense.

      It's just the way it is, with record companies still living in the age of physical recordings and localised broadcast media. In that past age there were good arguments for such licensing deals - markets & broadcasts were local and you can't be everywhere. Now it's just artificial limitation making legal usage less atractive.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    8. Re:Doesn't make sense by Vancorps · · Score: 2, Informative

      That is not true, the copyright owner can license as many people as he or she wants to distribute their work. It's just in most situations a recording artist will grant exclusive rights to a record label hopefully to get a better deal since exclusive licensing is worth more.

      Think of it this way, if I write software using a closed license like Microsoft does I may wish to license the code to both IBM and Novell so that they can use it too. A lot of this muddied the waters for the SCO debacle.

    9. Re:Doesn't make sense by adosch · · Score: 1

      Well you better put every pawn shop out of business then.

  9. Get a cheap VPN with a US server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just pick a VPN provider with a server in the US and location-based discrimination is a thing of the past.

    Here's a decent list:
    http://en.cship.org/wiki/VPN

    It's funny how "content rights" holders complain about all those evil people copying, when you cannot even do it their-way(TM) if you want to.

  10. Pandora not accessible for years here by Cimexus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So you could listen to Pandora in France until just recently? Interesting. I haven't been able to access Pandora in close to two years (I'm in Australia). I thought they barred all other countries simultaneously several years ago. But apparently not ... they must have been able to reach some interim agreement to continue to operate in France/EU that they couldn't do here.

    Anyway, I recently started working at a company with US-based offices, which allows me to choose to VPN in to the US. Pandora works for me via that method, which is nice. But prior to getting that job yeah, I had to do without Pandora for 18 months which made me sad :(

    The whole thing doesn't surprise me though. I'm not familiar with how copyright law in the US works, but it seems that virtually all US-based streaming media sites do this. E.g. most American TV stations websites have streaming video, but if you try and access it outside America, you get a "sorry, cannot display this content to IPs outside the US" message. Same with services like Hulu.

    By comparison though, when I travel overseas I can access most Australia streaming radio stations/TV sites (for instance, JJJ radio, ABC's downloadable shows, my local commercial radio stations) from outside Australia. Must just be a difference in the law I guess. It must piss off Americans who are abroad though, when they try and tune in to their local stations over the net to get some news from home, and get denied.

    1. Re:Pandora not accessible for years here by Skapare · · Score: 1

      People who rent certain kinds of web hosting, or dedicated servers, on which they can run their own proxy, could rent them in the country of the music source they are interested in. Just be sure to do it in a way that doesn't append an extra header exposing your real IP address (they might check that). Squid appends one by default but it can be overridden in the configuration. Other methods include doing a VPN or TCP redirection. Shell accounts can be used for the latter via SSH if they allow enough bandwidth.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    2. Re:Pandora not accessible for years here by raul2010 · · Score: 1

      I don't know about other EU countries, but Spain was also blocked two years ago.

    3. Re:Pandora not accessible for years here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you could listen to Pandora in France until just recently? Interesting. I haven't been able to access Pandora in close to two years (I'm in Australia). I thought they barred all other countries simultaneously several years ago. But apparently not ... they must have been able to reach some interim agreement to continue to operate in France/EU that they couldn't do here.

      Anyway, I recently started working at a company with US-based offices, which allows me to choose to VPN in to the US. Pandora works for me via that method, which is nice. But prior to getting that job yeah, I had to do without Pandora for 18 months which made me sad :(

      The whole thing doesn't surprise me though. I'm not familiar with how copyright law in the US works, but it seems that virtually all US-based streaming media sites do this. E.g. most American TV stations websites have streaming video, but if you try and access it outside America, you get a "sorry, cannot display this content to IPs outside the US" message. Same with services like Hulu.

      By comparison though, when I travel overseas I can access most Australia streaming radio stations/TV sites (for instance, JJJ radio, ABC's downloadable shows, my local commercial radio stations) from outside Australia. Must just be a difference in the law I guess. It must piss off Americans who are abroad though, when they try and tune in to their local stations over the net to get some news from home, and get denied.

      I've been listening to Pandora in France, too... but it was restricted for more than 2 years now (back in May 2007), I think Slashdot carried out the story back then, but I cannot find it with this damn search engine, so here's a link dating from back then: http://www.sciencetext.com/how-to-open-pandora-outside-the-us.html

    4. Re:Pandora not accessible for years here by Library+Spoff · · Score: 1

      You need `Freedom IP` new from Halliburton.

      Can't access Hulu, Pandora etc on your world travels? Log in using our sooper duper Web proxy. Soon to be available all across Iran and the free middle east. Our US Gov approved UAV's will broadcast wi-fi 24/7

      --
      Acid House saves Souls
    5. Re:Pandora not accessible for years here by rts008 · · Score: 1

      I'm not familiar with how copyright law in the US works, but it seems that virtually all US-based streaming media sites do this. E.g. most American TV stations websites have streaming video, but if you try and access it outside America, you get a "sorry, cannot display this content to IPs outside the US" message. Same with services like Hulu.

      IMHO, it has less to do with copyright law, and more to do with USA advertiser's dollars, and their perceived markets as targeted by the adverts.
      Why fund content with advertising fees(targeted to your market) for those outside of your market?

      Short sighted? You bet!
      *I am not justifying this mindset, nor agree with it-just offering an explanation for you*

      They seem to be missing out on a global market potential in this digital/internet age. The internet has already 'shrunk' the globe, and could shrink it further in regards to business.(this is where US IP laws and reg.'s/trade treaties do come into play)

      Some will wake up, some will not, and some cannot(some legitimately, and some by choice).

      The technology snowball is accelerating down the hill, and gaining mass. Some businesses will adapt, some will get snowballed.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  11. Jango by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 5, Informative

    alternative: www.jango.com works fine (at least from Italy)

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

    1. Re:Jango by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second this. Jango just works and it has nice collection of music. Give it a try!

  12. something about an old dog by pinkushun · · Score: 1

    The Pandora service stopped 1..2 years ago here in South Africa, and Last.fm in April this year - Not like we can afford the bandwidth in this place anymore...

  13. This is excellent! by gringofrijolero · · Score: 1

    Anything that exposes the atrocity of copyright law to the average person can only produce some great blowback. Just like all the youtube takedowns. And many are already getting pissed about not being able to copy their DVDs to their mp3 players. Bring it on! Eventually we will vote you out!

    --
    Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
    1. Re:This is excellent! by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      And many are already getting pissed about not being able to copy their DVDs to their mp3 players.

      Maybe if they bought something that played video they wouldn't have so much trouble.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  14. Try finetune by whois · · Score: 1

    It seems like there's a billion of these companies now. All of them somehow able to create a playlist based on your previous likes or dislikes.

    Finetune from what I've heard is a ton better than Pandora, but I don't keep track of either of them.

    As of 2007, Finetune was available outside the US where Pandora wasn't. http://lifehacker.com/234553/finetune-pandora+like-internet-radio

    Things may have changed though.

  15. ip law by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    does not foster technological and cultural innovation

    ip law is an impediment to technological and cultural innovation

    it has hopelessly been compromised by government agendas and corporate greed, and no longer serves individual innovators and creators

    it is your moral duty to ignore ip law, or better, destroy it

    i hope to see in my lifetime the complete neutralization of any effective ip law in this world. the internet makes it possible to route around the damage that is ip law, things like the pirate party in europe gives us hope as social opinion moves in line with obvious morality on the issue of the complete bankruptcy of ip law

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:ip law by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Care to elaborate a bit on the world without IP laws? How will musicians, writers, movie studios, news organizations, software companies etc even approach covering the costs of producing their work if the first person who buys it can make infinite number of copies and share them with the whole world?

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    2. Re:ip law by FlyingGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't waste your breath on these miscreants. These people create no artistic works, they make nothing of artistic value, they simply believe they can take what they want when they want it. They believe © means they have a right to copy and give away anything they please.

      I personally believe IP law needs serious reform, but you have to draw the line someplace.

      And least you forget, all record companies are evil ( even though they lay out huge sums of money and make a suckers bet every time they back a new artist ) and deserve absolutely no return on their investment.

      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    3. Re:ip law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Entertainment shouldn't be an industry. Why does everything have to be an industry and allow people to profit from? Without IP, there'll be fewer but better songs, movies, books, software, because the people that really want to do it will (and will be paid by their regular job which is not producing these things) and the people that were doing it just for the money will stop putting out crap. win-win- to me.

    4. Re:ip law by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Don't waste your breath on these miscreants. These people create no artistic works, they make nothing of artistic value, they simply believe they can take what they want when they want it. They believe © means they have a right to copy and give away anything they please.

      When i read those lines I first thought you were discussing record company executives, making free with my money.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    5. Re:ip law by gringofrijolero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...but you have to draw the line someplace.

      That's right! 18 years..max! Take it or leave it. And record companies can become simple hired press agents without no exclusivity and can get paid a small commission AFTER the creator gets paid. Real competition..the horror! I don't suppose you could ever get used to the idea that recordings are promotional material to entice people to pay for a performance as opposed to the recording actually being the performance. That's like the dummies who pay to receive a phone call, or a text message. Wow! If only my line of work worked like that...

      The shills come out at night..

      --
      Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
    6. Re:ip law by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Entertainment shouldn't be an industry.

      Why pick on entertainment? There is nothing wrong with exchanging your work for money, I bet you do it every day. Why do you feel its ok for you to be paid for your work, but its somehow wrong for artists, musicians, writers etc to demand be paid for theirs?

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    7. Re:ip law by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's right! 18 years..max!

      And what hat did you pull that number out of? I think the copyright term will have to be an arbitrary number but just curious how did you come up with that and not 25 or 50 etc.At least the lifetime of the creator of the work (but not his/her children) would make slightly more sense to me than just picking a number.

      And record companies can become simple hired press agents without no exclusivity and can get paid a small commission AFTER the creator gets paid.

      They can but that's a matter of contracts between them and the artists which frankly is not any of your business to put arbitrary limitations on. I hope artists can get a better deal for themselves and increasing availability of channels apart from traditional record companies may give them a better negotiating position. Free market will take care of it.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    8. Re:ip law by gringofrijolero · · Score: 1

      And what hat did you pull that number out of?

      You're right! It was 17 years.. You have my humblest apologies.

      --
      Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
    9. Re:ip law by selven · · Score: 1

      Movies - no IP laws means that only movies on a budget below $1 million will survive, so they will be forced to substitute special effects with actual content. This is a good thing.

      Software - Open source, custom software and software as a service are all doing fine.

      News - We have the internet and bloggers to inform us. If all major news stations die overnight, we'll have free services popping up to aggregate and filter crowdsourced news.

      All this is assuming, of course, that no one continues paying for work once IP law disappears. In the real world, we'll continue to have people that give out their works freely to the public.

    10. Re:ip law by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Paying artists is alright. Cut out the parasitic middlemen though. The artist can't expect me to pay fifteen middlemen just to hear his song, which I may or may not like. Stop signing those moronic contracts that give the parasites the right to suck the blood out of the industry.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    11. Re:ip law by grcumb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Care to elaborate a bit on the world without IP laws? How will musicians, writers, movie studios, news organizations, software companies etc even approach covering the costs of producing their work if the first person who buys it can make infinite number of copies and share them with the whole world?

      Care to speculate on how artists, musicians, writers, etc. managed in a world that not only lacked IP law, but also lacked the ability to reach anything approaching the kind of widespread audience that's available to modern artists?

      Creative artists have survived far longer without so-called Intellectual Property protections than they have with them. And they've done so under far, far less salubrious circumstances.

      Seriously, think about it: If strong copyright laws had existed in Elizabethan times, we'd probably have a much smaller Shakespearian canon than we do today. The Folios were compiled after his death by a couple of people who just happened to love his work. They collected partial manuscripts, interviewed actors, even worked from memory. And they did so not out of any particular desire for profit, but because they loved the man's work and wanted it to be remembered.

      Tragically, we call these people 'fanbois' today and ridicule their efforts - when we're not busy making them outright illegal. Thank the heavens for simpler times....

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    12. Re:ip law by Aceticon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It should just work just like any other job: artists should get paid for the work they do (like a performance) once and that's it.

      If a plumber comes over to install a new toilet at my place, he gets paid once, not every time anybody flushes it.

      Why should I pay Paul McCartney when I get a copy of a Beatles track and then again if I give a copy to my mother and then yet again (to his descendants) when in (say) 20 years time I give a copy of a Beatles track to my grandson?

      I don't see why the money I pay in taxes should be propping up a system where some people are by law privileged above all others.

    13. Re:ip law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because everyone else is paid for their work ONCE?

    14. Re:ip law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Software - Open source, custom software and software as a service are all doing fine.

      It works for some, but not for all kinds of software. Games for example do not appear to work as an open source model. Yes, there are a few open source games but they cannot even begin to compare to commercial titles, even those of indie companies.

      In my opinion, games get old too fast. Plus you have to coordinate too many disciplines.

    15. Re:ip law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if the artist would actually get paid...

    16. Re:ip law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why is that my problem? How does the lack of a natural business plan justify legislating in an artificial one? There are plenty of things I love to do that have a demand, but I haven't figured out a good way to make money at. Lets face it, that's the trick now isn't it?

    17. Re:ip law by horza · · Score: 1

      I was just thinking the same thing. Musicians still can make money from live performances and movie producers still make a profit from the cinema even without the dvd sales. Many software authors have already adapted: some pursue an open source model for the core and then charge to customise it for businesses, others provide regular updates as an incentive, and Valve has even manage to make DRM appear acceptable with Steam. I notice a lot of product placement these days in TV programmes.

      Not that I'm suggesting we do it, but if we abolished all IP tonight then tomorrow people will still be writing software and music, still reporting the news and making TV. Unfettered, new technologies and business models will spring up. Just as much money will still be made, and probably by much the same people, just differently.

      Phillip.

    18. Re:ip law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't object to artists, musicians, and writers being paid for their work. I object to the RIAA/MPAAA members taking the lions share of the money. I object to the RIAA/MPAA trying to tell me what I can and cannot do with my legally purchased music/movies/TV shows. No, I am not talking about giving friends illegal copies. BUT I SHOULD be allowed to listen and/or watch my legally purchased music/movies/TV shows on any device, converting them to whatever format is required, regardless what OS/hardware/firmware/software that device uses, without DRM or restriction. I should be able to sell or give away the ORIGINAL legally purchased media without restriction, as long as I do not keep any copies.

      I object to the RIAA/MPAA idea that I should have to pay again every time I listen to or watch my legally purchased music/movies/TV shows. I object to their frivolous, unwarranted lawsuits. I object to them trying to limit or take away my rights of fair use and first sale.

    19. Re:ip law by JakartaDean · · Score: 1

      Seriously, think about it: If strong copyright laws had existed in Elizabethan times, we'd probably have a much smaller Shakespearian canon than we do today. The Folios were compiled after his death by a couple of people who just happened to love his work. They collected partial manuscripts, interviewed actors, even worked from memory.

      Can you find a citation for this? Seriuosly, among the many people I disagree with in meatspace about IP laws, this would stop most of them in their tracks, if I could document it? TIA

      --
      The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
    20. Re:ip law by Aceticon · · Score: 1

      I work in an IP heavy profession - Software Engineering - and the funny part is that directly (and usually also indirectly) I make no money out of the IP of what I make: companies hire me and pay me to create and maintain software solutions to serve their specific needs.

      I'm not even an employee: I'm a freelancer.

      Like me, there are millions: the truth is, the vast majority of people employed in IT are not in any way whatsoever making their money directly or indirectly from IP.

      I all my 12 years of professional experience, only for 1 years did I worked in a Software Products which would have problems without IP laws - even those had a product which was so complex to setup that they would be able to get away without IP laws.

      The way I see it from my point of view IP only serves to create artificial barriers to entry and fatten up fat cats.

    21. Re:ip law by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Care to elaborate a bit on the world without IP laws? How will musicians, writers, movie studios, news organizations, software companies etc even approach covering the costs of producing their work if the first person who buys it can make infinite number of copies and share them with the whole world?

      Easy, people will sell their stuff to such first person at a higher price. As a result, the person buying it won't "share them with the whole world" very easily.

      That is how music and art was composed before. Except that, instead of "Record Companies" it was Kings and Queens who commissioned the creation of art.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    22. Re:ip law by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      These people create no artistic works, they make nothing of artistic value

      If you're going to throw ad hominems - citation needed.

    23. Re:ip law by HikingStick · · Score: 1

      One thing to remember about the days prior to IP law: there were far fewer artists out there.

      I carefully draw a line here between artists and artisans. I see artisans as people who create something that is needed, useful, or functional with great skill and artistry. I view artists as those who produce art only for consumption (i.e., viewing or listing) on its own merits (i.e., there is no requirement that art be needed, useful, or functional).

      In the days before IP law, artists earned their living by selling their services to a wealthy lord or other patron. The works that were created were created fro the one holding the purse strings. While the artist may have created other art outside of such service, it was the paying lord or patron who made it possible for the artist to produce any art at all, without needing to fall back on another career. Music and art history texts are full of examples of artists who made their way from one paying sponsor to another, often receiving room and board in addition to payment for a completed work. Artists today have a much broader marketplace, a marketplace created--like it or not--by the development of IP law.

      I'm by no means supporting what IP law is today. It is far too restrictive and it favors corporate entities that have purchased IP rights to the works of others. I'm just trying to make it clear that IP law is what allowed for the proliferation of art we have seen in our modern times.

      --
      I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
    24. Re:ip law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia as a primary source, but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Folio

    25. Re:ip law by kindbud · · Score: 1

      How will musicians, writers, movie studios, news organizations, software companies etc even approach covering the costs of producing their work if the first person who buys it can make infinite number of copies and share them with the whole world?

      You mean, how do they make money today?

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    26. Re:ip law by TheSunborn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But that logic don't work for most jobs. Let's look at cpus.

      Most of the cost of a cpu is research and development. Either direct (Someone from Intel/Amd/Freescale/IBM/Whatever had to design the cpu) or indirect (Most of the cost of a cpu factory, is really the cost of development of the equipment in the factory, not the building itself).

      So each time you buy a cpu you pay for a little part of the research done on that cpu. If you buy 100 cpus you pay 100 times as much for the research as the guy who only bought a single cpu. You can say that this is unfair(You both use the same research after all, so why should you pay more?) or fair (You pay for the research in proportion for how much you use it, given that with 100 cpus you use it 100 times as much as the guy with a single cpu).

      Just look at most art(Music/Movies/Games and so on) as products with very little margin cost, and very high development+research cost, and you can see that art is currently treated as any other goods produced by our civilization.
      The fact that the margin cost is so close to 0, that we will call it 0 does not really change anything.

      So the real question is: "Should art be treated as any other product"

      And the reason you pay your plumber by the hour with no price discrimination for usage is simply that his cost for research and development is 0.

      A system with no ip laws would not work in your world. Who would found research+development in for example solar panels, if your competitors could just copy your design when you were done, thus producing cheaper because they did not have as much research+development to pay for as you did.

      What would happen in a modern world with no ip protection is that the cost of goods, would be much closer to their Production cost, but that research and development of new goods would be much slower.

    27. Re:ip law by Locklin · · Score: 1

      There are other, potentially better, ways to fund the arts. I'm sure you are probably correct, but as a patron of the arts (mostly music, yes, real money), and someone who loves PirateBay, I can say your overgeneralizing. Some people believe good artists should have a living wage AND copyright should be abolished (or at least massively reduced in duration).

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    28. Re:ip law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to profit, because there are a million boring jobs required to make high quality entertainment that no one will do for free.

      As much as some people might create art out of love, I bet you all the media you like has also involved a hundred other people doing a hundred other very tedious jobs.

    29. Re:ip law by Espressor · · Score: 1

      I hope artists can get a better deal for themselves and increasing availability of channels apart from traditional record companies may give them a better negotiating position. Free market will take care of it.

      Considering the majors have a quasi-monopoly on the market, it's hard to trust that it will take care of it so easily.

    30. Re:ip law by Locklin · · Score: 1

      Care to elaborate a bit on the world without IP laws? How will musicians, writers, movie studios, news organizations, software companies etc even approach covering the costs of producing their work if the first person who buys it can make infinite number of copies and share them with the whole world?

      There are many models, but here's one: Consider that on a given $16 CD at Walmart, the artist is getting about $1.60. In a country without copyright, a CD price would be based on the cost to manufacture, advertise and sell a CD. Since anyone could do it, I can guarantee you it won't be $14.40/CD, probably more like a couple dollars. Implement a $1.60 sales tax on music sales that goes directly to the artist and you have $4 CDs where the artist gets funded and music is much more accessible. This model works even better with pharmaceuticals (patents). Of course there are lots of problems with taxation. Of course, this model *does not* make the majority of the population copyright criminals. That's a significant step right there.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    31. Re:ip law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great.

      As an musician, I would love to finish an album and immediately get paid in full for the entire cost of the production.

      Now, who's going to pay me?

    32. Re:ip law by Espressor · · Score: 1

      How will musicians, writers, movie studios, news organizations, software companies etc even approach covering the costs of producing their work if the first person who buys it can make infinite number of copies and share them with the whole world?

      1) musicians make money out of concerts

      2) writers: I don't see the demise of the printed book anytime soon

      3) news organizations do not own the news. If you think they don't "copy" news/data already made available, think again. News outlets survive because they (are supposed to) provide an added-value such as commentaries, opinion pieces, etc.

      4) movie studios make money from cinema entries, an experience which you cannot copy. Piracy has not diminished their revenue (studies), neither for that nor DVDs

      5) software companies make money out of maintenance and contract for upgrades. Necessary model even for Open Source s/w (see Red Hat).

    33. Re:ip law by tbradshaw · · Score: 1

      "I'm just trying to make it clear that IP law is what allowed for the proliferation of art we have seen in our modern times."

      This is the common assumption, but there is no evidence for this! It's just as empirically supported to say that the proliferation of art in modern times is what got us stuck with the IP law, not the other way around.

    34. Re:ip law by philicorda · · Score: 1

      They did not need IP law, as to copy anything was extremely expensive and time consuming.

      Do you have any idea how long it takes to typeset a book by hand? Or to paint a reproduction of a picture? Or to get an orchestra together to learn and play a piece of music?

      You could not just anonymously get a copy off the pirate bay.

      There were less people doing it too. It would be bloody obvious who made the copy, and who made the original. I bet you that people had their own, perhaps violent, ways of resolving these issues even if it was not coded into the law.

      The situation nowadays is completely different. The way artists and audiences interact is by mass distribution of recorded media, which is impractical without IP laws.

    35. Re:ip law by HikingStick · · Score: 1

      I'd argue that IP law is what allowed more individuals to pursue careers as artists, since IP law was created (in its original forms) to protect the right of the producer of the art to income associated with that art (i.e., it prohibited and penalized others from taking an artist's work and using it for their {the non-artists'} financial gain). I concede, however, that, in its modern form, IP law has allowed for an even greater proliferation of artists. It makes it appear as if there is a chicken-and-egg scenario, but I believe that most art historians would share my view--that IP law led to the initial expansion of artist-as-career, but that the system is now badly broken and promotes art-as-perpetual-income-source rather than art-as-a-temporarily-protected-work-product.

      --
      I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
    36. Re:ip law by thebjorn · · Score: 1

      That's right! 18 years..max!

      And what hat did you pull that number out of? I think the copyright term will have to be an arbitrary number but just curious how did you come up with that and not 25 or 50 etc.At least the lifetime of the creator of the work (but not his/her children) would make slightly more sense to me than just picking a number.

      I believe the copyright terms should only be long enough to cover the period when a work is considered "new". After the creator has had a chance to profit from his new creation it should become part of the general zeitgeist, and as such available for anyone else to create other works. Plagiarism should be illegal (if it isn't already). The period of "newness" should, imho, be between 12 and 18 months.

    37. Re:ip law by tbradshaw · · Score: 1

      Art historians do not. Art as a career did not proliferate as a result of IP law. Art as a career proliferated as a response to rising quality of life allowing for disposable income to facilitate the social surplus necessary to afford artistry. Not only do a lion share of great works pre-date IP law, the explosion of artists directly correlates with the advent of printing technology making cheap study material available worldwide for would-be painters. No, absolutely not, IP law was not a significant prerequisite for the proliferation of career artists in human history. That analysis is hopelessly out of sync with the actual historical order of events.

    38. Re:ip law by vivaelamor · · Score: 1

      Don't waste your breath on these miscreants. These people create no artistic works, they make nothing of artistic value, they simply believe they can take what they want when they want it. They believe © means they have a right to copy and give away anything they please.

      +++!!!ERROR!!!+++ Sarcasm Quota Exceeded, Please Insert Cheese.

      I personally believe IP law needs serious reform, but you have to draw the line someplace.

      'Drawing a line' in common usage refers to being forced to make an arbitrary decision based on a fuzzy distinction. I would think that if you applied that to this subject it would be a better argument against copyright as arbitrary decisions are rarely sought after.

      And least you forget, all record companies are evil ( even though they lay out huge sums of money and make a suckers bet every time they back a new artist ) and deserve absolutely no return on their investment.

      I think perhaps Steve Albini answered that one well enough some 15 or so years ago.

    39. Re:ip law by Locklin · · Score: 1

      A system with no ip laws would not work in your world. Who would found research+development in for example solar panels, if your competitors could just copy your design when you were done, thus producing cheaper because they did not have as much research+development to pay for as you did.

      You say that as if you have some evidence for your scenario. China has virtually no respect for intellectual property, and yet, that's where the people *making* solar panels are. You think there are not any engineers looking at their manufacturing process to improve it and squeeze out the "other guy?" Sure, they don't do a lot of basic research yet, but that's what federal granting agencies are for anyway.

      --
      "Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
    40. Re:ip law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "1) musicians make money out of concerts"

      Lol!
      99% of music people listen to is pre-recorded, much music people buy cannot be performed live, concerts normally lose money as their main intention is to promote record sales, merchandise sales go to the venue.. etc etc

      Not to mention this ignores music for films, computer games, television advertising, education, library music etc.

      Live performance is one facet of modern music. It's a big industry!

      "2) writers: I don't see the demise of the printed book anytime soon"

      Only because it's not nice to read a book on a screen. Once cheap E-ink devices are ubiquitous, it's go the same way as music. Audio-book piracy is rife.

    41. Re:ip law by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      Care to speculate on how artists, musicians, writers, etc. managed in a world that not only lacked IP law, but also lacked the ability to reach anything approaching the kind of widespread audience that's available to modern artists?

      There were far far fewer of them and they tended to be people who are either independently wealthy or who managed to find a wealthy patron to support them (and put themselves in a demeaning position of dependence on another person's good will), or who starved while they were producing their art. While you might applaud their dedication I wouldn't want to limit the marketplace of ideas to a small number of people because everybody else is too busy making a living. Having at least a possibility to make a living from creating something new, be it art or any kind of invention is a powerful incentive for people to take risks and put in their time, effort and money required up front. For example, why bother researching a new technology if somebody can just copy your design? Every incentive is to sit and wait and search for fools who are investing in creating new inventions so that you can copy them as soon as they're done.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    42. Re:ip law by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      All you are saying is that the protection of property rights (of which IP is a special case) is an artificial thing and therefore should be done without. You might as well say having a shoe store lacks a natural business plan because without "artificial" legislative protection anybody can just walk into your store and steal the shoes. I don't think that's what you mean but that's what you argument amounts to.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    43. Re:ip law by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      How will musicians, writers, movie studios, news organizations, software companies etc even approach covering the costs of producing their work if the first person who buys it can make infinite number of copies and share them with the whole world?

      Hire thugs to break that first person's thumbs. Same effect as lawyers really, but more efficient and less evil.

    44. Re:ip law by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

      Yes I have read this many times...

      I think perhaps Steve Albini [negativland.com] answered that one well enough some 15 or so years ago.

      What that does not talk about are all the other times when the record company invested the same amount of money and lost all of it do to any number of reasons including talent that simply goes south and is never heard from again.

      Idealistic kids should never sign shit without someone advising them of exactly what they are signing. The dollar signs are flashing in their eyes just as much as the A&R guys and that is the simple truth of it, they are both greedy.

      There is a local kid here in Oakland that has some pretty good chops and makes pretty good music. He was offered a letter of intent. He showed it to me before he signed it. I told him just write on it, in your hand-writing, "The term of this letter shall not exceed three months from the sate of signing."

      They don't call it the music business for nothing.

      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    45. Re:ip law by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      At least the lifetime of the creator of the work (but not his/her children) would make slightly more sense to me than just picking a number.

      "Lifetime of the creator" term implies that author is entitled to receive compensation for his work for as long as he can. I don't think it's the right message to send.

      Instead, I'd go for a year or two at most of implicit copyright (when you don't declare it), maybe 5 years or so of explicit "free" copyright, and after that you have to pay to extend it every year, and the amount grows every year (essentially, the author is compensating the public from withholding work from public domain for extended period of time). If your work is really popular even 50 years after it was originally released, then you should be able to afford to pay for further extension. If you cannot pay at some point, that's where usable commercial term ends, and work enters public domain.

      Setting the prices and the progression will be tricky to get right, but can be done with a little bit of experimentation (and it cannot be any worse than the present effective "author's life + infinity" terms).

    46. Re:ip law by vivaelamor · · Score: 1

      What that does not talk about are all the other times when the record company invested the same amount of money and lost all of it do to any number of reasons including talent that simply goes south and is never heard from again.

      I am unsure of your point, are you suggesting that artists tend to steal lots of expensive equipment? because I fail to see how else the record company could make a significant enough loss for this to be an issue. Perhaps you are instead suggesting that the record companies pay for the artists to use a studio without supervising them? In which case I would suggest that they are a bit less business wise than you seem to think.

      Idealistic kids should never sign shit without someone advising them of exactly what they are signing. The dollar signs are flashing in their eyes just as much as the A&R guys and that is the simple truth of it, they are both greedy.

      What does idealistic have to do with it? I agree that people of limited experience should never sign 'shit' (what an apt use of that word), without independent advice. The suggestion that all ignorant people are greedy is insubstantial though.

      There is a local kid here in Oakland that has some pretty good chops and makes pretty good music. He was offered a letter of intent. He showed it to me before he signed it. I told him just write on it, in your hand-writing, "The term of this letter shall not exceed three months from the sate of signing."

      Bully for you, maybe there is hope for the world if such a cynical person as yourself can be so altruistic. In fact, I'd say that supports my view that systems rewarding good intention are preferable to systems that reward exploitation and limit the effect of good intention.

      They don't call it the music business for nothing.

      They don't have to call it the music business at all, I'm all for them calling it 'get rich quick'. I don't think it would be any more or less relevant.

    47. Re:ip law by MarbleMunkey · · Score: 1

      So the real question is: "Should art be treated as any other product"

      And the reason you pay your plumber by the hour with no price discrimination for usage is simply that his cost for research and development is 0.

      A system with no ip laws would not work in your world. Who would found research+development in for example solar panels, if your competitors could just copy your design when you were done, thus producing cheaper because they did not have as much research+development to pay for as you did.

      What would happen in a modern world with no ip protection is that the cost of goods, would be much closer to their Production cost, but that research and development of new goods would be much slower.

      The point though, is that we don't quantify and track the Research & Design costs, and having too long of an artificial monopoly granted stagnates adoption of new technology. To continue your example, if every new invention had a rolaty assigned to it in perpetuity, then a simple Yo-Yo would become prohibitive (Someone has to get paid the royalty for the ball-bearing concept, the string concept, the wheel concept, etc.) The result is that no matter what people invented, no-one would adopt them because the costs would continue to rise.

      In an ideal world (to maximize both adoption and R&D) the costs of R&D for a given product would be nailed down to a hard number, and then the creator would be given an artificial monopoly (patent or copyright) that would last only until the creator had recuperated his costs; at that point it would become part of the public domain, so that the reduced costs will speed adoption.

      To reuse your example, if it cost IBM $40million to develop a chip, they should have a patent on that chip until they have made a net $40million dollars on sales of that chip. At that point, AMD or whoever could begin making chips and you are back to your free-market competition.

      The problem with this with art, is that the 'costs' are so much more subjective; If an artist finds that he has to spend 3 months meditating on top of a mountain in Peru in order to write his next big hit, is that worth more than the the prolific genius who dashes out 3 chart-toppers in a week? Assuming that the music is equally good, perhaps not...

    48. Re:ip law by HikingStick · · Score: 1

      I made no commentary on the number of "great works". Indeed, the majority of those works (prior to the industrial revolution) arose from the patronage system. Artists were commissioned for specific projects or needs. Yes, economic factors helped to facilitate a culture that allows for widespread creation of art, but I still hold that our culture would not support as many "career artists" if it were not for the development of IP. We would still have those commissioned for specific projects, but the idea that just about anyone could get out there and function professionally only from their creative endeavors is fairly novel in human history. Going back to my initial post, I clarified a difference between artist and artisan. We have always had artisans. Someone who can craft an elaborate spiral wooden staircase is an artisan. Only in relatively recent times would it have been possible for someone to use the same skills to create an elaborate spiral wooden staircase that was never intended for use as a staircase, but only as an art object to be placed on display.

      Beyond that, I guess I will agree to disagree.

      --
      I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
    49. Re:ip law by tbradshaw · · Score: 1

      You're very in-line in the conventional wisdom. Here's a starter article that shows the scholastic work being done to try and bring that conventional wisdom around to reality:

      http://www.reason.com/news/show/28703.html

      It's certainly not an end-all, be-all resource. But it's a nice starting point to broadening your discourse on intellectual property.

      It's not all just "common sense", and some things are certainly prerequisites to others. It's notable that in repeating some of your core points, you chose to still consider IP law a foundational element while trivializing my notion that quality of life and general wealth are the actual foundation of career artists. But it is logically certain. IP law doesn't pay anyone, it merely provides limited time monopolies on creatives works. However, *most notably*, all creatives works were *extremely difficult to duplicate* until very recent times. The natural monopoly of of physical existence, in combination with additional wealth allocated by society to the arts, makes IP law irrelevant until very recent times. However, career artists have not existed only in very recent times...

      I'll stop hammering the same conceptual points, but just because one can settle on conventional wisdom doesn't make it correct... it just makes it easy.

    50. Re:ip law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jackson owned a lot of the Beetles music.

    51. Re:ip law by maidix · · Score: 1

      It is extremely rare -- the exception, not the rule -- for a writer, musical artist, or any actual creative talent to make money in the distribution of their work. By the time it gets to distribution, they no longer own the work. (Note: this is where one of the fundamental flaws in the current model exists.)

      Where do they make money? Typically, public appearances and public performances. Remember, artists aren't like suits. They are compelled by the need to create, and the need for recognition. They will often work multiple second jobs just to sustain their ability to create (and to pay back their debt to some RIAA mafia company for the privilege of signing over their work for distribution).

      That is not to say that money is not being made off of distribution (pardon the double-negative). Someone most definitely is making money off of the distribution. Those "someones" are represented by the RIAA, and they disingenuously invoke the name of "the artist" in their campaigns. Making money off of distributing a work, without properly compensating the artist, is what piracy actually is. One can begin to guess why the RIAA mafia is working so hard to create a new definition of piracy.

      So why would artists put up with this? Simple. Exposure. Signing over their work, and oftentimes placing themselves into great debt to an RIAA mafia company just to get distributed, used to be the only way of getting their names out there.

      Now, there's a way of doing it that reaches a bigger audience, and doesn't require the artist to go into debt. It doesn't make any money for the mafia, though. But if you look at the numbers of what's actually happening, it sure does seem to be working for the artist.

      Don't mistake "artist" for "distribution company." The RIAA mafia works very hard to confuse the two. They are distinct, and separate.

      Mass, global distribution that doesn't place the artist in debt -- this is not only a good thing in theory. It has empirically been shown to correlate with greater ticket (and even album) sales.

      The RIAA mafia, incidentally, isn't claiming that their profits are going down. They are claiming that there is a decrease in the rate of increase. Think about what that really means, for a second. This is pure, irrational greed -- based on the insane notion that the rate of growth should always increase. They don't just want growth... they aren't content to continue to grow bigger and bigger. They cry foul, sue people en masse, and try to have the laws re-written... because the *rate* of positive growth is diminishing. They are angry because they aren't getting richer faster.

      RIAA != artist.

    52. Re:ip law by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

      What that does not talk about are all the other times when the record company invested the same amount of money and lost all of it do to any number of reasons including talent that simply goes south and is never heard from again.

      I am unsure of your point, are you suggesting that artists tend to steal lots of expensive equipment? because I fail to see how else the record company could make a significant enough loss for this to be an issue. Perhaps you are instead suggesting that the record companies pay for the artists to use a studio without supervising them? In which case I would suggest that they are a bit less business wise than you seem to think.

      My point is simple and you are trying to uphold an argument that will fail. For every Nervana, for every Tom Petty, for every [insert name of wildly successful band] there are many that simply fail to launch. Record companies make their best guess at the level of success that will be achieved, but are often wrong. The same 250K invested can q2uickly turn to a 250K loss because the record simply does not sell. The artist did his part, the record company did their part the music was professionally recorded, but the record just failed to take off. So for every story like the one referred to in the link there are many others that are the exact opposite.

      Idealistic kids should never sign shit without someone advising them of exactly what they are signing. The dollar signs are flashing in their eyes just as much as the A&R guys and that is the simple truth of it, they are both greedy.

      What does idealistic have to do with it? I agree that people of limited experience should never sign 'shit' (what an apt use of that word), without independent advice. The suggestion that all ignorant people are greedy is insubstantial though.

      There is a local kid here in Oakland that has some pretty good chops and makes pretty good music. He was offered a letter of intent. He showed it to me before he signed it. I told him just write on it, in your hand-writing, "The term of this letter shall not exceed three months from the sate of signing."

      Bully for you, maybe there is hope for the world if such a cynical person as yourself can be so altruistic. In fact, I'd say that supports my view that systems rewarding good intention are preferable to systems that reward exploitation and limit the effect of good intention.

      They don't call it the music business for nothing.

      They don't have to call it the music business at all, I'm all for them calling it 'get rich quick'. I don't think it would be any more or less relevant.

      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    53. Re:ip law by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

      Excuse me? No research by a plumber? Have you ever done any construction? A good plumber can fix things fast by years of experience. Trust me, when they start out, they get plenty of chances to lose money and customers. Any construction at all requires engineering and research for available parts with adequate capacity for the job. And then there's the permit process.

      What I'm paying for with a plumber is his experience by the hour. More experience, means more money per hour. Construction is based on open standards, and there's no IP involved unless you want to claim copyrights on the prints. That eliminates discriminatory pricing and rent seeking. Prints are filed with the permit application and so are a public record. And guess what, there is a ton of money to be made in construction. I've known a few millionaires in the business, so I have firsthand evidence of that.

      If you read my previous post about the book, "Against Intellectual Monopoly", then allow me to quote from that (Rudyard Kipling, from his book The Mary Gloster - out of copyright):

      I knew-I knew what was coming, when we bid on the Byfleet's keel-
      They piddled and piffled with iron: I'd given my orders for steel!
      Steel and the first expansions. It paid, I tell you, it paid,
      When we came with our nine-knot freighters and collared the long-run trade!
      And they asked me how I did it, and I gave 'em the Scripture text,
      "You keep your light so shining a little in front o' the next!"
      They copied all they could follow, but they couldn't copy my mind,
      And I left 'em sweating and stealing a year and a half behind.

      That desire to stay ahead is what drives innovation. IP just lets first movers sit on their laurels and establish monopolies. And if you ask me, I'd say a good plumber is an artist, too. They not only get the job done, they make it look nice, too.

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
  16. TPB...torrents...etc... by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 4, Informative

    And they wonder why sites like the TPB are so popular. :rolls_eyes:

  17. Tor by Sabre+Runner · · Score: 5, Informative

    A friend of mine is a long time Pandora user and he hasn't stopped when Pandora blocked everyone outside the US. Currently he says Tor helps. If I'm not mistaken, he's using a Tor/FoxyProxy combination but I haven't delved too much into it. I don't feel like hassling with something if there's an easier, equally good, solution. So now I'm listening to music via GrooveShark. FineTune, Deezer and other services are also available but most are annoying and anti-users, unlike GrooveShark. I admit, Pandora probably has the best song matching algorithms and GrooveShark's database is quite a mess but it does what it's suppose to do and short of quite obscure albums, I've found everything I wanted.

    --
    No one ever said being a Heretic was easy.
    Let us meet again in "Less Interesting Times"
    1. Re:Tor by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Given how slow Tor is (for me anyway), it's hard to imagine anyone listening to Pandora that way. Heck, I suspect even lynx would be annoyingly slow over Tor!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Tor by B4light · · Score: 2, Funny

      Mmm, I love the sound of slowly downloaded music in the morning.

    3. Re:Tor by rts008 · · Score: 4, Funny

      *sigh*
      I see similar posts frequently.
      Okay, here's how its done:

      You have to bypass the Heisenberg Compensaters to create an inertial sump, then reverse the polarity on the Warp Field Generators, then combine the streams(yes, this time you do!) and reroute the output to the deflector dish to emit a focused tachyon pulse that has to be synchronized and modulated with the inertia compensator's artificial gravity generator, pipe your Tor proxy through that and Lynx then flies at near light speeds down the 'tubes'!

      *disclaimer:you can exceed ISP 'bandwidth' caps in milliseconds this way, so type FAST!*
      [end sarcasm]

      I feel your pain.
      Tor is handy, but is far from 'the Silver Bullet' it is claimed to be.

      I also see streaming something like Pandora over Tor as problematic at best.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    4. Re:Tor by Jurily · · Score: 1

      Heck, I suspect even lynx would be annoyingly slow over Tor!

      With slow enough incoming data, all browsers are fast.

    5. Re:Tor by EdIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      TOR is NOT a proxy. It can be proxy like, but it is most certainly not a proxy.

      First and foremost, TOR was designed to create Anonymity through reasonable doubt. That's its primary goal above all else. As a consequence of it's method of achieving Anonymity, it must act as a proxy for other connections.

      Why the anal retentive distinction? Too many people are trying to use it in ways it was not designed too. It's ridiculous, but it's still in it's testing phase at the moment. People keep recommending TOR for one purpose or another, and then inevitably someone comes in and bad mouths TOR, which has already happened to your post and many others.

      Well of course it's not going to perform up to anybody's expectations at the moment. With the bandwidth that is actually allocated to TOR through it's members (the exit nodes) it can barely keep up. Most people seem to install TOR and never choose to be an exit node for the rest of their peers. It's like have a torrent system in where only 1% (I admit I am pulling that number out of my ass) ever seed a single kilobyte.

      If one does not need anonymity specifically, one can just look for regular proxies. There are plenty of free proxies, both anonymous (they don't send your IP through, but probably log) and paid proxies. A VPN to a system in the U.S with a hosting company is another solution too. Something in one of the "clouds". The choices are endless for this specific "problem".

      I only recommend TOR when the purpose is to be completely anonymous, or to an extent in which it is extraordinary difficult to identify you even with participation of some of those involved. Most, if not all, of those purposes involve small amounts of data that the TOR network can handle.

      It might be a little more work, but your friend could do a lot better than TOR, and it would be a good idea. At that very least he should at least be an exit node. I appreciate people who run exit nodes outside of the U.S.

      I may sound a bit touchy on the subject, but I depend on TOR. Anonymity is very important to me and TOR is a fantastic tool to that end. I just wish the network was not slammed so hard with trivial high bandwidth applications and people that have no intention of ever contributing back.

    6. Re:Tor by Sabre+Runner · · Score: 1

      Well, I saw that setup of his some time ago and he might have ditched it. I also heard him mentioning GrooveShark so he might have moved on completely.

      --
      No one ever said being a Heretic was easy.
      Let us meet again in "Less Interesting Times"
    7. Re:Tor by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2, Funny

      You have to bypass the Heisenberg Compensaters to create an inertial sump, then reverse the polarity on the Warp Field Generators, then combine the streams(yes, this time you do!) and reroute the output to the deflector dish to emit a focused tachyon pulse that has to be synchronized and modulated with the inertia compensator's artificial gravity generator, pipe your Tor proxy through that and Lynx then flies at near light speeds down the 'tubes'!

      Like putting too much air in a balloon! Of course, it's so simple now!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    8. Re:Tor by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      If Tor wasn't designed taking human nature into effect-- well, it was designed wrong. How come they didn't learn the lessons of email?

    9. Re:Tor by Chad+Birch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Conveniently, Pandora does its "where are you from?" check over the www.pandora.com domain, but streams the music over a different subdomain. This means that you can use FoxyProxy to have your connection to the www subdomain go through TOR, but the music still comes directly to your machine over your normal connection.

      Weird, yes. But this is how it works. The page is very slow to load through TOR, but the music plays perfectly once it finally does load. I don't know why they did it this way, but it's certainly helpful for all us non-Americans.

      P.S. Why is this news now? Canadians have been locked out of Pandora for at least a few years.

      --
      Sturgeon was an optimist.
    10. Re:Tor by overcaffein8d · · Score: 1

      *sigh*
      I see similar posts frequently.
      Okay, here's how its done:

      You have to bypass the Heisenberg Compensaters to create an inertial sump, then reverse the polarity on the Warp Field Generators, then combine the streams(yes, this time you do!) and reroute the output to the deflector dish to emit a focused tachyon pulse that has to be synchronized and modulated with the inertia compensator's artificial gravity generator, pipe your Tor proxy through that and Lynx then flies at near light speeds down the 'tubes'!

      *disclaimer:you can exceed ISP 'bandwidth' caps in milliseconds this way, so type FAST!*
      [end sarcasm]

      I feel your pain.
      Tor is handy, but is far from 'the Silver Bullet' it is claimed to be.

      I also see streaming something like Pandora over Tor as problematic at best.

      I hear that's what they have to do in Iran.

      --
      Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
    11. Re:Tor by srealm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The big problem with being an exit node is a legal one. Specifically the Cease and Desist notices from the RIAA/MPAA.

      I had an exit node with 2mbps bandwidth DEDICATED to TOR. Not too long later, my service provider started getting the copyright infringement emails. Even though I handled them all myself, and sent replies, called people, showed my service provider the TOR page about legal threats, and even promised to cover any legal costs *IF* it did ever get that that, eventually my service provider just got sick of receiving and forwarding the emails.

      Now I don't specifically blame my service provider for this - it IS a potential legal exposure/battle they just don't need. Now you could blame the people using TOR for P2P, but they're doing it for exactly the reason TOR was created - to avoid detection of who they really are. Now you can't tell people TOR cannot be used for illegal activity, because the very reason TOR was CREATED was to facilitate illegal activity (eg. dissident speech in China). So what is illegal or not is a judgement call.

      Therefore the blame ends up being on the RIAA/MPAA - but even there, they are legitimately trying to protect their rights. As unpopular as it sounds, and annoying and ineffective as it may be, there IS a reason they are sending out emails of the like. It's cheap for them to do it, and the threat of legal action is usually enough for ISP's to yank someone's pipe.

      So my TOR node was, in the end, turned into a non-exit node. Until this kind of problem is solved (for which I don't know what the solution would be), then exit nodes on TOR will be a rare commodity, and as such, bandwidth on the TOR network will be limited because it is being constrained to very few eligible pipes.

    12. Re:Tor by Toonol · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I have a question about how TOR works. If I installed it, and configured it so I WAS an exit node, would it appear that all the requests coming from TOR (terrorist manuals, bestiality, child pornography, and so forth), were actually coming directly from me? Then, when arrested, my defense would be that it was really coming from the TOR node I was running?

      Is there a way to clearly PROVE that it was a request coming from the TOR node, and I'm not a violent revolutionary furry pedophile?

    13. Re:Tor by mrbene · · Score: 1

      I feel your pain. Tor is handy, but is far from 'the Silver Bullet' it is claimed to be.

      Personally, I thought that Coors Light was 'the Silver Bullet'.

    14. Re:Tor by EdIII · · Score: 3, Informative

      would it appear that all the requests coming from TOR (terrorist manuals, bestiality, child pornography, and so forth), were actually coming directly from me?

      Absolutely. TOR achieves anonymity through reasonable doubt as to who is responsible for the packets. You are going to be sending out packets on behalf of someone else, and therefore you will be the one they look at, not the originator. The whole point is that they can never prove it was originated by YOU.

      Then, when arrested, my defense would be that it was really coming from the TOR node I was running?

      It's a better defense then you give it credit for. Terrorist manuals are not illegal. It's ridiculous to say that the possession of information is illegal, and it's a very disturbing trend to see people thinking they can get in trouble for it. Bestiality is not illegal either, the pictures I mean.

      Consider this:

      After the 300th arrest of a TOR exit node provider, prosecutors start realizing that there is never any forensic evidence collected off the systems showing actual guilt. The *only* thing the prosecutor has is an expert to call to say the "bad packets" came from the suspect's network. The defendant brings in experts on TOR and explains the "bad packets" never actually originated from his network, but were proxied through from another node and there are no logs.

      Prosecutors are not stupid, and they are most certainly not interested in guilt or innocence. They are whores of the highest degree. If they feel they cannot win a case, they don't even try. They are not like Level 80 Paladins that are going to pursue justice at all costs.

      I am willing to bet that after awhile they will begin checking people to see if they are an exit node FIRST when they suspect them based on "bad packets". If so, they are going to need on heck of a lot more evidence before busting down their doors and seizing equipment when 99.99999999999% of the time they never succeed in convicting anyone. It would not be smart to continue doing that, would it?

      Don't forget the BEST defense of all.............

      "The packets could have never originated from my actions your honor. All of MY packets go through someone else's exit node. 100% of packets that leave my network are originated from other TOR nodes, as that is how it is designed."

    15. Re:Tor by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Well I do appreciate your situation, and that you did attempt to fight it for awhile. I would of have gone MUCH MUCH farther though, and I am not saying anything negative about you with that statement. I respect that you had a limit.

      I would have LOVED to have been in your situation. If it was me, I would have sued my ISP before having my exit node shutdown. Anonymity has to be fought for tooth and nail like rabid little wolverines. In many cases, the only way to get progress is to be violated as you were. It's called a litigation vehicle.

      I pray every day for a cop to stop me while I am walking and demand my "papers". That way I can see if he will arrest me when I refuse, which will be easy since I don't even have my wallet most times while exercising. Why? It would be a litigation vehicle for the ACLU and other such PAC's. We could use it to fight the state and establish precedence and change laws so that we don't effectively live in Soviet Stalin Russia.

      Of course, I probably seem a little bit militant about Anonymity and Privacy :) I know. Most people would not be willing to put their lives into chaos to protect something like TOR, but somebody has to. I don't have any problem doing it for you either.

    16. Re:Tor by ProKras · · Score: 1

      You have to bypass the Heisenberg Compensaters to create an inertial sump, then reverse the polarity on the Warp Field Generators, then combine the streams(yes, this time you do!) and reroute the output to the deflector dish to emit a focused tachyon pulse that has to be synchronized and modulated with the inertia compensator's artificial gravity generator, pipe your Tor proxy through that and Lynx then flies at near light speeds down the 'tubes'!

      *disclaimer:you can exceed ISP 'bandwidth' caps in milliseconds this way, so type FAST!*

      Why don't you just focus the bandwidth using some dilithium crystals? You can order some at very good prices direct from Rura Penthe. They've got very little overhead, you see. Very cheap labor. But shipping costs can be a little much.

  18. Link? by adolf · · Score: 1

    Does anyone have a working link, for those of us who are in the US?

    The doesn't affect me much, really -- Pandora still works fine for me as long as I'm in the US. But it's inspiring to me to read about the new and interesting in which American companies find to conspire against other countries.

    So - I want to read the note. Someone post it, archive it, or something, so we USians can start arguing about who to boycott next.

    1. Re:Link? by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Here you go - this is what displays if I go to www.pandora.com. Only modification is removing the last 2 octets from the IP address.

      * * * * *

      Dear Pandora Visitor,

      We are deeply, deeply sorry to say that due to licensing constraints, we can no longer allow access to Pandora for listeners located outside of the U.S. We will continue to work diligently to realize the vision of a truly global Pandora, but for the time being we are required to restrict its use. We are very sad to have to do this, but there is no other alternative.

      We believe that you are in Australia (your IP address appears to be 202.55.yyy.xxx). If you believe we have made a mistake, we apologize and ask that you please contact us at pandora-support@pandora.com

      If you are a paid subscriber, please contact us at pandora-support@pandora.com and we will issue a pro-rated refund to the credit card you used to sign up. If you have been using Pandora, we will keep a record of your existing stations and bookmarked artists and songs, so that when we are able to launch in your country, they will be waiting for you.

      We will be notifying listeners as licensing agreements are established in individual countries. If you would like to be notified by email when Pandora is available in your country, please enter your email address below. The pace of global licensing is hard to predict, but we have the ultimate goal of being able to offer our service everywhere.

      We share your disappointment and greatly appreciate your understanding.

      Sincerely,

      Tim Westergren
      Founder

    2. Re:Link? by screamphilling · · Score: 0

      well I'm in the US but I connected to a Canadian proxy to access it

      http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/3149/pandoram.png
      there ya go

  19. They are blocking it since years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pandora is blocking acccess to non US listeners for years.

    I live in Belgium and I get this message for 2 years now.

    1. Re:They are blocking it since years. by Skapare · · Score: 1

      So for 2 years you haven't found a proxy?

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    2. Re:They are blocking it since years. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he found torrents.

  20. spotify by tobiah · · Score: 1

    Sure looks like it was designed for Americans, even if it's not available here. I don't feel like lining up a foreign VPN right now (maybe if they mentioned where it is available). Anyone have experience with it? What makes it so great?

    --
    "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
    1. Re:spotify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The OP was about 'what's for outside of US' and Spotify it is, won't work over there.

      http://www.spotify.com/en/help/faq/

      What countries is Spotify available in?
              Spotify is currently available in Sweden, Norway, Finland, the UK, France and Spain.

      I guess they'll add rest of the Europe and Nordic countries later.

    2. Re:spotify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Spotify Free is available in Sweden, Norway, Finland, the UK, France and Spain.
      There are a few more countries where Spotify Premium is available.

      IMO, what makes it great is:
      * 3.5M tracks in the library, growing each day.
      * Slick, easy to use UI
      * 160Kbps Vorbis for users of the free product, 320Kbps Vorbis for premium subscribers

      Another thing you might be interested in is that every once in a while, Spotify gets to release upcoming albums a week or two in advance of retail.

      Their execution up to this point has been more or less brilliant, and I, for one, am gladly paying them 10 EUR/month.

    3. Re:spotify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I second this!
      Spotify is just wonderful!

    4. Re:spotify by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      ...But for 10 Euros a month (~$15 US dollars) You can get a Zune Pass that lets you download unlimited amounts of songs (see http://www.zune.net/en-us/software/zunepass/default.htm for a reference).

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    5. Re:spotify by tixxit · · Score: 1

      But don't you ever think about switching services or stop paying them, or you'll lose your music.

    6. Re:spotify by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Is the Zune marketplace now available for music outside the US finally, as Microsoft's website doesn't seem to have any info on which countries it is available for?

      As of Feb 2009, it still wasn't available here in Canada...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    7. Re:spotify by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Not exactly sure (I don't use it myself, don't use any DRM'd music store for that matter) I simply used that as an example to show that $15 a month for streaming wasn't a huge bargain.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  21. Slacker.com? by Oyjord · · Score: 0

    Try slacker.com, not sure if it works outside the US.

  22. Re:I once knew a girl called Pandora by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No biggie. The only thing you'll find is a bearded clam...

  23. Old news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been this way for at least a year in France - I arrived in October of 2008, and was greatly disappointed to learn that my Pandora days were over. :(

  24. In Europe ? Deezer ! by testman123 · · Score: 1

    You are in France or Europe ? Then, you shall give a try to Deezer as a cool alternative : http://www.deezer.com/

    1. Re:In Europe ? Deezer ! by iamapizza · · Score: 1

      Because you can't possibly be in both at the same time.

      --
      Always proofread carefully to see if you any words out.
    2. Re:In Europe ? Deezer ! by Archon-X · · Score: 1

      Deezer is seconded.
      It's setup / owned by Free.fr (big ISP here) - runs very smoothly, and is at a high quality.
      It's genre / song matching / similar artists radio is fantastic - always plays something I'd like to hear.

    3. Re:In Europe ? Deezer ! by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      You're on Internet or in front of your computer?

    4. Re:In Europe ? Deezer ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't if you're in French Guiana.

  25. That's ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry, Pandora.
    Users outside the U.S. can mostly just download songs without fearing the RIAA.
    And then they can listen to the EXACT songs they want to.

    and this is OLD news.

  26. RIAA off the bend.. by ekran · · Score: 1

    So, this is how RIAA is going to combat piracy? It's the same with Spotify, if you're not UK or Swedish bound you can still register through a proxy, but the problem is, after using it for a while from your native country it starts whining.

    I guess the only solution is to obtain and constantly use proxy servers in order to route around this?

  27. l'histoire passée by otter42 · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, this isn't news. I haven't had access to Pandora since I can't remember. It's amazing how licensing only works in their favor. I have 200 CDs in America-- which according to the RIAA I only license-- and yet can't listen to them here because somehow it's illegal. Sigh...

    --
    www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
    1. Re:l'histoire passée by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Torrent the whole lot and you have instant access anywhere in the world :)

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    2. Re:l'histoire passée by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      According to RIAA you only have a license to listen. Not to criticize (in Amazon), not to sing-along and certainly not try to create mixtapes.
      Inspite of paying $29.99 for a CD.
      This is not new.
      When the Telegraph first came out, newspapers sued them non-stop. Slowly they realized that they could create Reuters which would disseminate information froma single source to all newspapers.
      Similar was the case with Gramaphone and Telephone. Telephone was used to pipe music to homes. Something that Edison strongly opposed as it would lead to music being heard by someone who did not pay for the same.
      RIAA, MPAA and even newspapers are modern-day neocons.
      They don't understand that internet stands for truly available globally.
      That is why iTunes can't sell me Akon songs with an non-US indian credit card.
      RIAA will not realize this because realizing this means they are out of the job.
      Games in Amazon i can't buy are many. So are many Audible books.
      Sigh...
      Fortunately i have RS and ML.
      I need content in my way when i want it. You are not willing to provide it? Fine. I will get it somehow. Don't like it? Sue me.
         

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    3. Re:l'histoire passée by notseamus · · Score: 1

      That is why iTunes can't sell me Akon songs with an non-US indian credit card.
       

      You'll not hear much praise for the RIAA around here, but it sounds like they're doing you a favour in this instance.

      --
      I dreamed of Freud: What does this mean?
  28. Commissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It used to be that a musician would either play on the street corner for tips, be hired to play live, or would be commissioned to compose a piece of music. Mozart never policed his fans to make sure they didn't hum his tunes without tossing him a few coins.

    Moot point though, it's the recording industry who isn't being paid here, not the musicians. I know plenty of musicians who make a fine living playing gigs, and from what i understand most rockstars make more money on concerts anyways.

    1. Re:Commissions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozart suffered terribly trying to make money from subscriptions to performances, after his initial successes.

      The strain destroyed him physically, and he died penniless in a pauper's grave.

  29. Pandora's a tease and so is Hulu - rant by RCC42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They did this like two years ago! Either none of the /. editors knew or they forgot about it entirely.

    Yeah it sucks to live in Canada for some things, Hulu too is happy to laugh in our face along with pretty much any 'convenient' or 'desirable' online method for watching TV shows. Pandora was GREAT while I was able to listen to it, very cool way to find new music, then I'm not allowed anymore because someone in a suit figured it wasn't a good idea to let Canadians (or anyone else) keep the happy status quo and that music was a bad thing to share.

    Such a frustrating state of affairs for U.S. Citizens alone having to deal with complicated or over-the-top IP law in their own country let alone other people in other countries having to deal with the shitstorm that Copy"rights" are and Digital "Rights" management are as well.

    When the technology exists to do something, people are going to want it and are going to take advantage of that new opportunity. Years ago back when dinosaurs ruled the land and the idea of a flat screen TV was still the twinkle in some engineer's eye... the only way to watch a show was to be there when it was on TV. That was it. Oh I guess you could buy the VHS box set but that would just be throwing money away. Nowadays I can click about a half dozen times on two websites and an hour later I can watch an entire series at exactly the pace I want to. This sort of on-demand service is already here and it's ridiculously easy. I can't think of any service or organization in history that, after making things *harder* to do would move on to success and glory.

    For some reason I keep thinking about how the Gutenberg printing press made it easier to get a hold of a bible... that didn't exactly make it easier for the church to possess the hearts and minds of their followers, despite insisting that good Christians should not read a now easily accessible bible and instead leave the hard work of figuring out when and where the bible should be read to you to the goodly priests who knew better. After all, free access to knowledge* and information could be *dangerous* (but for whom?)

    *Yes yes, I know that free access of information and pirating the latest episode of Desperate Housewives are not exactly the same thing... but I just wanted to rant about Pandora, that was awesome while it lasted :( (After all, we canadians need some hot music to stave off the cold and polar bears. Polar bears hate Queen, did you know? I do.)

  30. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is so old news, has been for years. Welcome to the world outside the US, where we can't legally use almost any media on the net. Glad to see some US-citizens hit by it though.

  31. Access denied by KamuZ · · Score: 1

    As a person who used to live in Mexico and now in Japan, i have always encountered these kind of problems and don't get your hopes up, so far i have never EVER seen a service to be available again outside from USA, so that's message could be translated as "Access denied." It sucks as USA have very cool online services which doesn't have counterparts locally.

  32. That's why people in the UK by imakemusic · · Score: 1

    use spotify

    --
    Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
  33. This and everything else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't see south park online or see full episodes of tv shows anywhere. even clips from shows are blocked on some sites like on some shows on Discovery. Can't rent movies on xbox, apple tv etc. There's a few online movie rental sites with a very limited catalog (20-30 movies). Can't get any proper recording boxes(want a record a show when it is available on any channel, and no microsoft media center is not an option)

    Really, the best option are a RSS feed from eztv or nzbtv., a NAS(that can download too) and a Popcorn Hour media player. Then you can see the shows you want, when you want it even if they don't broadcast them in your country.

    The TV and movie business are repeating the failures of the music industry(at least in scandinavia). I am sick and tired of seeing messages like this everywhere. http://martinklasch.blogspot.com/2008/10/cartoons-sorry-scandinavia.html

    I have seen that Discovery Channel now are sending some TV shows without a year or two in delay. For examples shows like mythbusters are only a month behind or something like that.

  34. No Hulu or Pandora in Canada by KoldFusion77 · · Score: 1

    No Hulu or Pandora in Canada. And so, I use the news groups and torrents.

  35. Failboat (Pirateboat) sails again? by icsx · · Score: 1

    I don't really get the idea they are after while blocking internet radios, YouTube videos and other services from people outside of US. That's like shooting yourself in a leg. Do i need to go pirate to listen and hear this stuff on them? Seriously, these people should get their heads out of ass already.

  36. A case of "wtf" by zefrer · · Score: 1

    In a case of what would be best described as "wtf", I work for a US company in the UK that uses a US based proxy for all web connections. As such I can connect to Pandora which is not available in the "UK" but can not connect to Spotify which is only available in the "UK" in a non-subscription basis.

    Obviously the internet cares not about borders so why are companies being forced into ridiculous limitation that are so easily bypassed for the sake of laws invented before human beings even conceived the idea of what eventually became the internet.

  37. Grooveshark by Miladinoski · · Score: 1

    Why don't you just simply use Grooveshark?

    It's really simple, available for every country and most importantly *free for all*

    Oh, and.. don't tell the RIAA about the site, okay? :)

    --
    [insert lame sig here]
    1. Re:Grooveshark by mini+me · · Score: 1
      1. "Popular" is about as close as it gets to matching Pandora. But it is, at least at time of writing, entirely composed of music most people are already familiar with. This makes it quite poor at doing what Pandora was so good at.
      2. As far as I know there are no mobile clients available for the service. Pandora is perfect for those long road trips when you don't want to be fumbling around with interfaces trying to find songs you want to hear.

      It is a cool service, but is in no way a replacement for Pandora.

  38. I don't see what the problem is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can still get the songs using Cabos, torrents, etc. Why does it matter if a single website goes down?

  39. Restrict and kill. by Fross · · Score: 2, Insightful

    More to the point, the headline should be "Record companies seek to club to death yet another new technology they are scared of, rather than try to embrace it".

    In the UK, Spotify is a reasonable alternatiev (I think, never got to use Pandora, but this does much the same thing)

    1. Re:Restrict and kill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the UK, Spotify is a reasonable alternatiev (I think, never got to use Pandora, but this does much the same thing)

      Spotify is great if you know what you want to listen to. I mostly use it if something reminds me of a particular track and I want to hear it. It's not great for discovering music though, which is where Pandora really shines (well, I assume it still does, I only got to use it for about 3 months before they had to block the UK)

  40. Bad in any region by swordgeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm surprised at how many people are missing the point here. Pandora (and Hulu, for that matter) is blocked outside of the US. A number of /. readers are responding with, "Oh, if you're in the UK go here." "In France, you can listen on this site."

    It's not (or at least shouldn't be) about what works in this region or that one or the other. It's fundamentally about the misapplication of national boundaries to an international (and nation-neutral) system. The internet restricted by borders is silly and wrongheaded.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    1. Re:Bad in any region by Shimmer · · Score: 1

      The internet restricted by borders is silly and wrongheaded.

      Only because your computer seems more real to you than old-fashioned notions of borders, nations, sovereignty, etc. While it's fun to imagine a world where these do not exist, there are good reasons why societies govern themselves the way they do - calling these restrictions "silly" just reveals your ignorance of the underlying issues.

      --
      The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
    2. Re:Bad in any region by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised at how many people are missing the point here. Pandora (and Hulu, for that matter) is blocked outside of the US. A number of /. readers are responding with, "Oh, if you're in the UK go here." "In France, you can listen on this site." It's not (or at least shouldn't be) about what works in this region or that one or the other. It's fundamentally about the misapplication of national boundaries to an international (and nation-neutral) system. The internet restricted by borders is silly and wrongheaded.

      You're the one missing the point: some people outside of the US want to listen to music as they would on pandora. I can appreciate that national laws shouldn't be applied in this manner here, but I still would want something to replace pandora. It's not as if I can send an e-mail to pandora, the US government, the RIAA or anyone else involved in this, telling them this is absurd, and they'll say "Oh okay, here's your pandora back." And it's not like using those alternatives changes anything in reguards to internet borders. If people overseas don't listen to any music online, the obsolete industry isn't going to see the err in their ways.

    3. Re:Bad in any region by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      Wow, so many incorrect assumptions about me in so few lines!

      I have no problems with borders, nations, and sovereignty. I'm not calling them silly per se, but silly in some contexts.

      Consider: I'm a citizen of country "x", and my border with your country "y" lies along a mountain range. We are geographically isolated to some extend, our weather patterns are different, our food supplies are different, and so forth. Eventually, we develop somewhat different societies, for these reasons amongst a host of others.

      Now my interactions with you are fundamentally governed by two sets of rules, mine and yours, based on the geographical location of each of us.

      Now, on the internet...

      First of all, the concept of geography is better defined as a combination of latency and speed. I am "neighbors" with someone who I can access quickly. Someone who is a long time away from me is a distant neighbor--even if they're actually two houses over from mine on the street.
      Say I find a close neighbor who happens to physically be in a different country. My travel path to get to them may go through a huge chunk of my country, some of theirs, a satellite or two, and a third country for good measure. Or, it may go directly almost directly to them. Or, it may take a different path every time!

      Geography as it pertains to the internet, then, is not only unrelated (or at best, loosely coupled) to physical borders, but is also constantly in flux. It's simply not feasible to try to tie the two together in lock-step. (ESPECIALLY when the technology is imperfect to begin with. One shopping site I often browse in my own country keeps popping up a window saying, "We have detected that you are coming from outside of our home country. Would you like to choose your location?")

      Now, let's look at viewing stuff online.

      Your country broadcasts TV signals. I'm near the border, so I get a nice antenna, and watch your shows. This has gone back and forth endlessly in international courts, but the generally accepted answer is that if I'm not reselling them, then I'm in the clear and not breaking any laws. This is fundamentally a very similar issue.

      Argh--my time's up for today. I stand by my statement, though: imposing geographical boundaries on the internet is flawed and silly.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
  41. And it continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The paranoid media industry slowly locks in the only export keeping the US relevant in the World Economy: Media and Entertainment.

    Slowly but surely, they'll lock all the media in, patent it to hell, and lock it down to the point where no one can (or will want to) see it, and the US will no longer be the world's entertainment outlet, hollywood will eventually become a joke. Might be a radical call, but this is what they seem to be heading for, licensing the hell out of everything, and licensing themselves into obscurity. Naturally though, they'll survive a little longer by managing to intertwine themselves into our yearly taxes for doing absolutely nothing at all (they have tried this in the past, including trying to get money from student financial aid to fund themselves) But it will not last long as beyond media exports, we have nothing to offer the rest of the world, the rest of the industrialized world have made themselves run independent of us when it comes to manufacturing, they only rely on us as a consumer economy now, which, will not last.

    hopefully future entrepreneurs wake up and start building a new infrastructure that will rise through the ashes of the old one once it fails. The green energy movement is helping in this respect, as tons of new jobs creating new alternatives are springing up, if this doesn't kill off the old dinosaurs, hopefully it will make them adapt and wake up and realize their own mistakes.

    GM dying? feh, They arent the only american automobile company, what about all the upstarts for electric and alternative cars? What about Ford? The latter being a company who knew when it was time to wise up where the former didn't.

    But either way, let's hope this continues, maybe people will wise up.

  42. Deezer by stress_weenie · · Score: 1

    Go with Deezer man. It is the best alternative to Pandora that we can find here in France. www.deezer.com

  43. ultrasurf by beadwindow · · Score: 1

    http://www.internetfreedom.org/ ultrasurf works with firefox just tried it

  44. Elaboration? by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Try the Against Monopoly website. I think technical discussions concerning circumvention are immediately useful, but the long term goal should be to have public discourse on the merits of the copyright system. It's clear from stories like these that the public benefits of a copyright system are significantly outweighed by their costs. The Against Monopoly website has, for me anyway, painted the clearest picture of what is so wrong with IP laws.

    You wanted to know how artists are supposed to support themselves without copyrights? Consider that the "First Mover" advantage can be a serious money maker, even without copyright protection. Take the 9/11 Commission report. Before publication, several publishing houses angled for exclusive rights to be the *first* printer and distributor of the book. The text of the report is not copyrighted, yet someone could see the profits waiting for them as the first printer of the report.

    To put it entirely differently, copyrights and patents create a tendency for artists, inventors and the corporations that support them, to sit on their laurels instead of finding ways to stay ahead of the pack with innovation. For a book that provides a lucid description of what life could be like without IP, check out "Against Intellectual Monopoly." It's an up to date analysis of how artists and inventors can still make money without intellectual property rights. I highly recommend it for anyone looking for a way to entertain debate on this issue.

    Oh, did I mention that the book is free to download?

    --
    The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
    1. Re:Elaboration? by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      Oh, did I mention that the book is free to download?

      It better be or the writers would have exposed themselves as hypocrites as well as fools. The arguments amount to three types, I'll label each with one word:

      Partial (tempted to say Dishonest but ok) - there are other ways to make money even though you are giving the work itself for free - training for example. If you think of IP in terms of its purpose, which is to be an incentive for people to produce new things, then this is a very weak special case argument that doesn't cover even a fraction of the incentive that IP provides

      Outdated - people did without IP before so they can do without it today. There were very few cases in the past where research and development expenses, and let's not forget the associated risk, were so hugely disproportionate to the copying cost as they are today in case of just about any advanced technology. Creating the first copy of the latest GTA game reportedly cost upwards of $100 million, while any further copies are essentially free to produce. Music, movies etc can be thought in the same terms as well.

      Inadequate - A surprisingly large portion of the book is devoted to a string of examples where people did ok without IP, without giving any explanation why that was so. For example Italian drug industry did ok without patents before 1978 is simply stated without any meaningful elaboration as to how. Another example is listing problems with today's pharmaceutical industry (e.g. spending more on advertising than research) without clear discussion of the core of the problem: why would somebody risk in same cases close to $1 billion dollars on research of a new drug which may or may not work, without IP protection? If you can find a clear answer to that in this book, please point it out to me because I couldn't.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    2. Re:Elaboration? by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      I should also point out that another book by the same author is not free ( http://www.dklevine.com/papers/contents.htm ) so I take the first sentence of my previous reply back: he is a hypocrite as well.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    3. Re:Elaboration? by Lorien_the_first_one · · Score: 1

      Then you missed an important part of the book. They weren't advocating giving away physical things. They were talking about the fact that ideas are free. Even ideas that take time to figure out. But profits can be made from physical things that express ideas.

      You might even be familiar with this quote, the most relevant point being that:

      "It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property."

      Yes, the context is of patents, but I believe the same could be true of digital information. Such information is almost as ephemeral as an idea. The marginal costs associated with reproduction are indeed close to zero. But there are other ways to make money with it.

      Another point I think you may have missed from the book is that the costs associated with intellectual property protection seem to have loomed far above the benefits of late. How many trees must die for this protection? Given the way copyrights and patents are treated, can we honestly say that Intellectual Property rights enforcement are consistent with ordinary property rights and freedom of expression?

      I respectfully disagree with your position and suggest that a more careful reading would have given you the answers you seek.

      --
      The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
  45. creative people: ancillary revenue streams by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    free music over the internet is simply nothing but advertising. this radical system brought to by emulating the almost century-old practice of radio play. money is made in concerts, advertising. for writers, its merchandicing tie ins, book signings, speaking engagements, movie deals, etc. movie houses, btw, survived tv, the vhs, dvd, and the internet, and are stil gaining in profits, and no one is saying you should be able to sneak into a movie theatre for free. hollywood producers just lose their aftermarket dvd revenue streams. boo fucking hoo: hollywood made plenty of cash before the dvd and the vhs... the vhs of course which they fought tooth and nail... before realizing it meant MORE money, not less money for them. meatspace is a finite resource and should be doled out via economic costs, it is genuinely scarce, the number of seats in concert/ theatre. no such scarcity exists with COPYING files. it's not philosophically impossible to steal something by copying it

    meanwhile, software writers have been doing fine giving away free software for decades now. ever hear linux? even in the windows world, go to sites like download.com, tucows.com: thousands of vendors giving away free software in order to generate business. they make their money via customization for specific clients. any generalized software is an opportunity to pad your resume and advertise your services and establish yourself as an authority

    what is this system called? make up your own mind, but it is vastly superior to trying to do the impossible of policing and filtering the internet and financially blackmailing the few 0.01% of uncareful sharers you do manage to catch

    the internet has already killed ip law. all that is happening now is the law, and the uninformed opinion of those like you, having to catch up to the new reality, the new status quo: anything that can be digitized is free. not because i say so, i'm no authority. it just IS free, because of what new technology has made possible. a pimply teenager in his basement in pasadena with broadband has greater distribution power of bertelsmann+time warner+every other publisher in 1980... hey dude in dresden: want every single creative output of an obscure lounge singer in wellington? here ya go. the only catch is: NO ONE CONTROLS THIS, or even can control this. sure they can bankrupt a few poor souls, as if that changes the behavior of millions of teenagers with no spending money and high technical acumen. no army of lawyers can defeat them

    its called disruptive technology, and plenty of examples from history exist of new technology coming along and dramatically overthrowing social and legal precedents and establishments. guess what? we still exist as a moral species, we're only richer now for those new technologies. oh darn

    what if you don't change your opinion or the law doesn't change? who fucking cares what you think. who fucking cares what i think. its all just damage damage for the internet to route around and do its thing

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:creative people: ancillary revenue streams by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      movie houses, btw, survived tv, the vhs, dvd, and the internet, and are stil gaining in profits, and no one is saying you should be able to sneak into a movie theatre for free. hollywood producers just lose their aftermarket dvd revenue streams. boo fucking hoo: hollywood made plenty of cash before the dvd and the vhs... the vhs of course which they fought tooth and nail... before realizing it meant MORE money, not less money for them. meatspace is a finite resource and should be doled out via economic costs, it is genuinely scarce, the number of seats in concert/ theatre.

      If there is no copyright, what is stopping another movie theater from showing the same movie, but not giving any money to whoever made the movie?

      Movies are rather expensive to produce. It is likely that there is plenty of waste in the budgets of modern movies, but they still involve a lot of people working together on a single project, so they are going to be expensive. Movies, like video games, seem to come out best with a creative lead and therefore a top-down organization. Basically, without copyright, I do not see a model where movies can earn millions of dollars and without incentives on that scale I cannot see movies of the quality of modern movies will get made.

      Perhaps you have an idea of a better structure? Or maybe you think this is an acceptable loss? Or maybe you think that if there is a demand for movies, then a workable structure will form, although you cannot necessarily predict its form?

      Actually, that said, trademark law might be able to help here: I would certainly be willing to pay more (i.e. how much a movie ticket currently costs) for a movie (or video game) knowing that the money was actually going (in part) to the creators as an incentive to create future works, so simply a sign at the theater saying "Authorized Theatre for [movie]" or something like that may be sufficient.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
  46. They have to stop relying on artificial scarcity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "How will musicians, writers, movie studios, news organizations, software companies etc even approach covering the costs of producing their work if the first person who buys it can make infinite number of copies and share them with the whole world?"

    Newsflash - that's already the case, and probably always will be the case from now on. The companies that are fighting it might as well be fighting against the tide coming in.

    In software, which is what I do and know about, the obvious outcome is that software will no longer be sold/licensed per copy. Proprietary software is getting replaced by Free/Open software, and by web-based apps and services. Even with free software, it still takes knowledge and work to put the programs to use, and that is what companies are paying for - the *work*, not the bits themselves.

    In music and movies, I don't know. I think we *will* see a big devaluation of pop music and Hollywood film industries. Their prominence is what proves that the previous, pay-per-copy based system was so wrong. Seriously, does it make the slightest bit of sense for a rock star or a movie star to be paid hundreds of times more than a head of state?

    Simply put, infinite copying is reality, and companies that can't adapt to it will go under.

  47. SW Licenses Turn off all kinds of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen where a CIO allowed our Veritas licenses to expire because the "business" managers said that IT was costing too much money. My team reminded him 3 months in advance of the $200K payment, then more and more until it came to the day prior to the expiration. The primary DB stopped working. The customers, clients, business, marketing, everyone screamed!

    $200K freed up that day to deal and a few days later another $200K arrived for other items the CIO had been nagging them about the last few months.

    At the time, I thought he was an idiot. Looking back years later, he may have been a genius.

  48. What the fuck is Pandora? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, just a simple one sentence explanation of what it is might be useful. Why do crap summaries like this get through?

  49. How to use Pandora full speed outside the US by TheSpoom · · Score: 3, Informative

    Get Firefox.

    Get Tor.

    Get the FoxyProxy FF add-on.

    Go to Torstat. Select the US CC and click Search. Click the sort buttons (the >) for Running, Fast, Exit, Stable, and Valid. Note down the nodes that come up.

    Open your torrc file. At the bottom, add the line

    StrictExitNodes 1

    And then a line that begins with the word 'exitnodes', a space, and then a comma-separated list of the nodes found earlier. Save. Restart Tor.

    Open up Firefox. Click the FoxyProxy status bar in the lower right. Make sure it's on "patterns" mode (the mode selector is at the top). Click the Proxies tab. Double-click the Tor proxy. Click Add New Pattern. For Pattern Name, type Pandora. For URL pattern, type this:

    "http://www.pandora.com/*"

    Without the quotes. Make sure it has Whitelist and Wildcards selected. Click OK and OK again to get out of the Pandora config.

    Access Pandora.

    You're welcome.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
    1. Re:How to use Pandora full speed outside the US by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      Get Firefox.
      Get Tor.
      Get the FoxyProxy FF add-on.
      . . .
      Access Pandora.
      You're welcome.

      For those people in the US who don't want their exit node slammed, please do the following:

      • edit /etc/hosts
      • insert the line "127.0.0.1 www.pandora.com"
      • save the file and restart
      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    2. Re:How to use Pandora full speed outside the US by TheSpoom · · Score: 2, Informative

      FYI, this doesn't put audio data through Tor, just the website, so we're not slamming you. For whatever reason, Pandora doesn't check the GeoIP on the audio servers, just the interface.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    3. Re:How to use Pandora full speed outside the US by Espressor · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the effort of posting the instructions, however this seems to promote usage of Tor as a proxy system, which is not what Tor is for. Someone pointed out in this thread that Tor is for anonymization, not simple proxy-ing. Using Tor to access music is not just overkill: it can somewhat hurt people who actually need its service.

    4. Re:How to use Pandora full speed outside the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tor is mainly meant for applications in which anonymity is of the utmost importance. Please, just use a proxy. Do not needlessly and inconsiderately waste the limited bandwidth of Tor endpoints.

    5. Re:How to use Pandora full speed outside the US by TheSpoom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Very little bandwidth is being "wasted" here since audio isn't being piped through Tor (note that I specified www.pandora.com as the server to proxy; audio data is piped over subdomains of pandora.com, so they get sent directly and not over Tor).

      And frankly, I think this is within the spirit of Tor. I'm using the system to access information that's being denied to me because of my origin. How is this not "anonymization"?

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    6. Re:How to use Pandora full speed outside the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... lets turn this around... are you saying I could follow this recipe and set it to an exit node in a country like sweeden, norway, or canada?

    7. Re:How to use Pandora full speed outside the US by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Absolutely.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    8. Re:How to use Pandora full speed outside the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's enough to keep them out of legal trouble. Why would they bother? Lucky us.

  50. Radio is not a free market by tepples · · Score: 1

    I hope artists can get a better deal for themselves and increasing availability of channels apart from traditional record companies may give them a better negotiating position. Free market will take care of it.

    Radio is not a free market; it is monopolized by FCC licensees. The major record labels have the advantage that they can promote their works on FM broadcast radio. Mobile Internet radio is still cost prohibitive: a typical mobile Internet plan costs $719.88 plus surcharges and tax per receiver per year.

  51. Pandora v. MeeMix by jargonCCNA · · Score: 1

    First tried out MeeMix shortly after moving from Halifax to Toronto (early months of 2007), discovering that they'd finally started cracking down on non-US IPs, and saw an ad for it on Facecrook. Here's the thing: MeeMix has some pretty cool interface options that I wish Pandora had. I couldn't give a toss about the social aspects of MeeMix--I don't care who listening to the same bands that I've never met--but I really like their sliding scale of like/dislike of a song. Pandora's very... polar about it. Thumbs up, meh, or die-in-a-fire. I really prefer being able to say anything between "This is awesome, I want to hear more like this", "This is pretty cool, I like it", "I'm not a huge fan, but it's not terrible" and "Seriously?!" before getting to die-in-a-fire. That being said, Pandora's been trained quite well. I have an entire station of nothing but early-to-mid-nineties alt rock (I can listen at work, I don't know why). It's great, it reminds me of when music was good. MeeMix hasn't been trained nearly so well, but they also introduced me to Fluke and Sparta. I say, if you miss Pandora, go with MeeMix. Takes a bit of doing to train it as well as Pandora, but they've got some pretty good stuff in there that might surprise you. And the eleven-point scale of like/dislike (and that doesn't even include the "I never want to hear this again" option) is great. That being said.. I really wish I could get Pandora at home.

    --
    Matthew G P Coe
    http://mgpcoe.blogspot.com/
  52. Who uses Pandora anymore? by Steegest · · Score: 1

    I remember trying this website only to realize that what they promised really only worked about 5% of the time. Then I found the light of hypem.com and I never returned to that terrible place...

  53. Horn-rimmed Glasses Says by patiodragon · · Score: 1

    "You have to bypass the Heisenberg Compensaters to create an inertial sump, then reverse the polarity on the Warp Field Generators, then combine the streams(yes, this time you do!) and reroute the output to the deflector dish to emit a focused tachyon pulse that has to be synchronized and modulated with the inertia compensator's artificial gravity generator, pipe your Tor proxy through that and Lynx then flies at near light speeds down the 'tubes'!"

    [rolls eyes and licks lips]: It's almost TOO easy!

  54. Patenting Stupidity by aoheno · · Score: 1

    aw, crap. Please don't tell me we've patented stupidity.

    Many have tried only to stumble when their own stupidity is found to be in violation of their own patent, rendering it invalid.

    --
    Her lips were softer than a duck's bill, but her quacks ...
  55. Nothing new to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has been like this for years in Germany :(

  56. The simple solution by kuzb · · Score: 1

    Just get anchorfree's Hotspot shield. It's usually too slow for streaming video, but it's fast enough for streaming audio, and costs nothing.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    1. Re:The simple solution by geekangel · · Score: 1

      Hotspot shield is oversubscribed, especially for streaming anything. If you are willing to shell out on the order of US$40/year, get a pptp account from http://witopia.net/. That works for hulu, last.fm, and probably pandora (although I haven't personally tried that one).

  57. Try Magnatune. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    Try Magnatune. They:

  58. global or go home by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

    this is the shit i am sick of. the internet is global, so regions be damned. license globally or don't fucking play. you are hurting the internets!!

    --
    ...
  59. Shoutcast as Plan B? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh well...

    If what is being listened to is streaming, there's always Shoutcast Radio. (I like VLC for this, but I'm sure there are others just as good.) I believe there's even portable apps that will let you listen. (So you can use your thumbdrive w/o an install.) Of course you won't necessarily have the same playlist selection feature a website may have had. But some of the people who do shoutcast "stations" are open to email playlist or song requests. Finding a variety station or something that caters to a genre isn't really hard. If you're looking for a playlist by a particular artist, then you may be SOL in that case. (But there are some pirate stations out there that don't give a shit about IP and licensing, and some of them may take requests.)

    But then again, if you're working at a place that won't let you run software to listen to shoutcast streams I guess finding another web-based service is your only option. Good luck with the other suggestions.

  60. this is not a news. by faargenwelsh · · Score: 1

    it has been so for at least three last years.