If you are on a DSL line with 300Kb/s upload rate. And you leave your computer on 24hrs a day, and people download from you at 100% usage, they are only going to get about 15 songs downloaded / day (based on 3.5MB file size), or about 450 songs/month. Assuming a more reasonable 10% utilization/day that's 10songs per month. So a single file sharer on DSL can cost the RIAA about $25/month in lost revenues, assuming the RIAA get 50% of that 0.99/song.
The RIAA should have to prove that (a) you are the file sharer, and (b) the amount of time you are sharing, i.e. a month, a year, etc. Clearly the RIAA is using the courts to scare people, frankly I find it appalling the absurd amount of money they ask for "settlement". The punishment would be much less severe to just steal a few cds from the record store (I do not advocate doing this!)
The digital era has thrown a wrench into the the system for 2 reasons.
1. The cost to make reproductions has gone to zero. I can copy a file as many times as I like, it doesn't cost me anything. If I want to make 10 copies of a VHS tape, I have to actually buy 10 tapes.
2. Tracking bootleggers has become close to impossible. If you buy 10,000 VHS tapes, produce 10,000 copies and sell them in Time Square for a buck each, you leave a paper trail. I can (well not me personally, I have no skills) figure out where the tape was sold, then who bought them and track them back to you. In the digital era, this become quite impossible. On the Internets, I might be able to figure out that a computer is hosting files to be downloaded, but I don't really have a good way to figure out who is downloading those file, or who even owns that computer that is hosting the files.
The RIAA is trying to get copyright law changed to say that if you even make it possible for another person to reproduce a copyrighted work, that you are "hosting", then you are in violation of copyright law. I've been told that the copyright doesn't work that way, but I am not a lawyer so I have no clue.
The problem that I personally have with the RIAA is not that they are trying to protect their copyrights, it's how they are doing it. They are using scare tactics to make people think if they share their music with others they might have to thousands of dollars, and they are (ab)using the legal to accomplish their task.
I think you messed up your math. The Notebook drive is about $0.62/GB. Flash is still about an order of magnitude more expensive than conventional hard drives.
There have been a few reports now of exploding batteries and laptops. The question for Slashdot is, how difficult would it be make a laptop explode/catch fire at will. I.e. could a terrorist get on a plane with a laptop and some other supplies, and cause a fire/explosion midair?
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, that should read 45 songs per month. I should double check my math. :)
If you are on a DSL line with 300Kb/s upload rate. And you leave your computer on 24hrs a day, and people download from you at 100% usage, they are only going to get about 15 songs downloaded / day (based on 3.5MB file size), or about 450 songs/month. Assuming a more reasonable 10% utilization/day that's 10songs per month. So a single file sharer on DSL can cost the RIAA about $25/month in lost revenues, assuming the RIAA get 50% of that 0.99/song.
The RIAA should have to prove that (a) you are the file sharer, and (b) the amount of time you are sharing, i.e. a month, a year, etc. Clearly the RIAA is using the courts to scare people, frankly I find it appalling the absurd amount of money they ask for "settlement". The punishment would be much less severe to just steal a few cds from the record store (I do not advocate doing this!)
The digital era has thrown a wrench into the the system for 2 reasons. 1. The cost to make reproductions has gone to zero. I can copy a file as many times as I like, it doesn't cost me anything. If I want to make 10 copies of a VHS tape, I have to actually buy 10 tapes. 2. Tracking bootleggers has become close to impossible. If you buy 10,000 VHS tapes, produce 10,000 copies and sell them in Time Square for a buck each, you leave a paper trail. I can (well not me personally, I have no skills) figure out where the tape was sold, then who bought them and track them back to you. In the digital era, this become quite impossible. On the Internets, I might be able to figure out that a computer is hosting files to be downloaded, but I don't really have a good way to figure out who is downloading those file, or who even owns that computer that is hosting the files. The RIAA is trying to get copyright law changed to say that if you even make it possible for another person to reproduce a copyrighted work, that you are "hosting", then you are in violation of copyright law. I've been told that the copyright doesn't work that way, but I am not a lawyer so I have no clue. The problem that I personally have with the RIAA is not that they are trying to protect their copyrights, it's how they are doing it. They are using scare tactics to make people think if they share their music with others they might have to thousands of dollars, and they are (ab)using the legal to accomplish their task.
I think you messed up your math. The Notebook drive is about $0.62/GB. Flash is still about an order of magnitude more expensive than conventional hard drives.
For a lawyer to call someone's employer? It sounds odd, but is it really rare and or unusual?
There have been a few reports now of exploding batteries and laptops. The question for Slashdot is, how difficult would it be make a laptop explode/catch fire at will. I.e. could a terrorist get on a plane with a laptop and some other supplies, and cause a fire/explosion midair?