Several of the questions that have been asked in this forum have already been answered by Metallica on the live chat on Tuesday. There are links to tramscripts of the chat here.
What I would like to know is how can I contact the so-called online detective agency NetPD (that seems to have no internet prescence) because I have a couple of questions about how they got their 335,456 copyright infringers? Are these people that were actively downloading songs or simply people that had Metallica songs on their machine (there is a big difference, since Napster shares all Mp3s on a machine)?
I guess you didn't read the article here's a quote:
Another thing a lot of us assumed about the i-opener is that sales were not going too well and that the company really didn't have much going for it anyway. The reality is that they are having trouble keeping up with the demand for the devices from their core market. They have been experiencing a predictable network effect as granny gets on-line and then wants all of her friends to join her so she has more people to e-mail. If their massive customer service department and the stories I heard from random employees I grabbed (who had no idea who I was) are any indication, the i-opener is actually doing very, very well with its core market (due to SEC regulations, exact numbers were unavailable).
and another: Netpliance never intended to focus on hardware. Hardware development is a relatively small part of the overall business. They have several times more employees working in software development, content delivery, interface design, and countless more working in customer service. Although they have a branded box that carries their services, the company is actually focused on providing the content and interface regardless of the device. They have already signed deals to have the i-opener software and content delivery deployed on set-top boxes developed by a major cable company, as well as R CA branded Internet devices; they are also looking to offer the i-opener service on other devices such as PDAs and screenphones.
The behavior of yourself and other slashdotters is like me asking MSFT to create a GeorgiaTech version of Windows 2000 simply because a few GeorgiaTech students wiill buy it. Now listen very carefully, if the return on investment is not large enough do not invest in the market Selling the hardware and allowing it to be configurable by users would involve jacking up prices, more expensive tech support and a restructuring of their revenue projections simply to satisfy people who can simply buy an I-opener at $99 and pay $20 a month, then tinker away to their heart's content. After all $99 plus $20 a month would be the equivalent of paying a lump sum of $400 or $500 for it if they sold only hardware.
The reason the poster called them a laughing stock is that... and correct me if I'm wrong... VA Linux's stock rose very high ($300+/share), then dropped very low (to about what it is now) all in one day. It was the highest rise and fall in one day.
Actually this isn't quite true. VA Linux stock didn't fall in one day. It closed at around $300 on the IPO day and has the record for being the largest rise in one day (approximately 900 to a 1000 percent from $30). The stock then dropped daily for months until it got to $26 a few weeks ago and now it's on the upswing. The reason it's called a laughing stock is because it is now a poster boy for everything that is wrong with today's stock market (overvaluation, banks bidding prices up unscrupolously, day traders, etc). For more info read their charts and check out the Yahoo message board to see what the investor sentiment is like.
I read the article and all I came up with was a resounding duh. The author acts as if it is a surprise that Netpliance was selling the terminals as a loss to gain market share to later recoup the cost on charging for service. Well...Duh, they were selling a PC for $100 - $300 (depending on what discount you got). It was obviously at a loss.
Personally, I have begun to grow tired of these so called emissarys of the open source movement who make the open spource community seem like raving fanatics or clueless cheapskates. It doesn't take a genius to realize that Netpliance was always planning to sell the service and to go there and ask them to change their entire business model to satisfy a bunch of geeks who are not part of their target audience is ludicrous (heck, some ISPs still don't support Linux). It seems to me that if Open Source advocates want to be taken seriously by corporate interests they should be conversant with basic economic concepts and have an idea of real-world business practices. If this doesn't happen then corporate interests will continue to view Open Source advocates with disdain, suspision (sp?) and distrust. Then again, do we reallly need corporate interests to satisfy all our wants? For example, if all you want to do is hack an I-opener, buy it, pay the $20 a month (if you're a good hack you make that much in an hour or two at work) and hack away. I'd simply see the $20 as a payment plan, similar to what I have on my car as opposed to buying a service (which it half is).
..the LOCKSS system is simply a webpage caching system with the added feature of being able to talk to other PCs and compare webcaches of the same document. Doesn't sound like a replacement for Napster or Gnutella to me.
I recently discovered that recent versions of Napster share every MP3 on a user's hard drive no matter where they may be. In former versions I could specify a shared song directory and then put other copyrighted MP3s in a seperate folder not available to the public, this is no longer the case. This new feature of Napster bothered me so much (somehow it seems like an exploit waiting to happen) that I now use an Open Source clone called JNap which not only does not have that feature but also gives one the option to browse a other people's music libraries as opposed to getting only hits specified from a search.
PS: The JNap author recently told me he has quit maintaining it and I'm interested in hacking in some new features. If anyone is interested in being a beta-tester or hacking some stuff in, give me a holler.:-)
Warning: Before reading this I will warn you, this post will probably contain profanity because I am very angry at Metallica
Now ever since slashdot and Jon Katz started attacking Metallica, Dr. Dre and the RIAA for exerting their rights granted by law to prevent theft of their copyrighted materials I have been vociferously on the side of the RIAA et al. This situation changed after I read this article. My points of contention are the following:
First Metallica is talking about spearheading a lobby to push "government" to get involved in the Napster proceedings, specifically "There has to be some laws and guidelines to go by before it gets too out of hand and sucks the life out of musicians who will stop making music," and this has to be done "before this whole Internet thing runs amok.". Now as if it isn't enough that my rights have been robbed by UCITA and DCMA some drug-adled rock group wants to create even more restrictive laws to preserve the status quo. Instead of being like Off spring, Limp Bizkit and Chuck D and realizing that a paradigm shift is taking place. If there is no outside intervention (i.e. from the government) eventually the RIAA as it currently exists cannot continue enforcing it's cartel like behavior which include illogical pricing of CDs and cassettes, raping of musicians financially (TLC sell millions of albums and are bankrupt???) and the bribing of radio station executives to play only member chosen material. The RIAA is fit to be replaced by a pro-artist digital distribution model that can benefit consumers (lower prices) and artists (more money instead of 50 cents per dozen song CD, 50 cents a song or more) alike. The only thing that will kill this revolution and stop it from ever happening is if the government steps in and passes laws that reinforce the status quo. Die Metallica
Secondly Lars Ulrich stated "The goal is clear and simple: Put Napster out of business." in their online chat session yesterday (which I missed due to taking finals, AAAAARGH). After reading the Halloween documents and all the MSFT internal emails that circulated when the DOJ case was active, such comments have instantly struck a negative chord within me. Now for a more rational response, Metallica wanting to ruin Napster as a company because of the behavior of it's users is the stupidest, vendetta-motivated shit I have ever heard. I am black and have never entertained thoughts of ruining slashdot because I browsed at -1 and read some ACs racist rants. I have never entertained thoughts that AOL should be destroyed because some of its users were rude to me in a chat room or sdent me spam. If Metallica has a problem with Napster's users that is fine, but to attempt to destroy the company due to the behavior of a percentage of it's customers is wrong.
Finally, I have tried to find the online firm NetPD that metallica claims to have used and cannot find hide nor hair of them on the Internet neither with Google, Yahoo nor at netpd.com. The reason I have sought them out is because until I see all 60,000 pages of logs showing 335,435 people downloading songs by Metallica in one weekend I refuse to believe it.
From the last paragraph of the article: But open-source advocates should face the facts: Put up some goods or your establishment will be ripped apart, too. Are you an open-source advocate, or do you just not care? Let me know in the talkback below.
ZDNet writes articles like this every once in a while that are blatantly false simply to generate traffic and comments (if you don't believe me look at the size of the Talkback and compare to other stories on ZDNet). To put it simply, there is no way that a reporter that is employed as a technical writer for a tech magazine cannot know of the successes of Open Source. Apache, *BSD, most of the important Unix tools (thanks to GNU), Perl, etc cannot be completely unknown to this writer or whoever he bothered to ask while researching this article. I wouldn't waste my time responding to this obvious troll either by posting to ZDNet or bothering to send him an email.
If Jon Katz was a reporter and this was a news site I would expect this from him but since the format of his article was more editorial than reporting I expeced it to actually contain a meaningful opinion or some insight and not merely be a restating of the news in long form.
Wow, I have never read a more content free article in my life. Jon Katz's entire article contained no opinions nor offered any insights but simply summarizes news that has already been on Slashdot or is easily available from glancing at the headlines provided by the any portal or news site. I hardly ever respond or read Jon Katz's articles but delight in reading the responses he evokes but I recently decided to actually read his articles and have now discovered why he is so badly tolerated by slashdotters. I have responded to the only parts of the article that are actually original content as opposed to regurgitating of readily available news.
Artists definitely have a right to be paid for their work, but branding a whole generation of music fans thieves seems simplistic, even self-destructive Why is it that Jon Katz not only refuses to mention artist's rights except for this one line but also refuses to accept the fact that people who misappropriate copyrighted material without rewarding the copyright owners is stealing. It isn't like if I started printing copies of his books and gave them away he would respond with "Hey, that's OK information want's to be free,anyway"
Do recording executives really believe that music fans will suddenly give up on acquiring diverse and numerous forms of music for free and go back to buying a handful of expensive CDs a few times a month? Of course not, and that is exactly why they are trying to shut down Napster.
That wouldn't protect artist's rights or those of music lovers. Why wouldn't it? Currently the rights of artists to decide who distributes their copyrighted material is being abused regularly by Napster users. Secondly, it would also protect the right of artists to be paid for their work.
This digital genie isn't going back into the bottle. Agreed, but before the Record labels will embrace the digital revolution they will try their best to make sure they are not going to be robbed blind before investing in or creating an online business model.
Successful negotiatioins between MP3.com and the music would be the sanest step yet in the music wars, and a healthy precedent for other businesses who sell intellectual property as well as artists. This completely true. If record labels can make deals with MTV and radio stations I don't see why similar deals could not have been made with MP3.com. From the exchange between MP3.com CEO and the RIAA representative when all this started it seems the RIAA just wanted to be unreasonable from the start. This leads me to believe that they are interested in creating such a service themselves if not now then later on in the future and that is why they decided against even considering MP3.com's offers to license the music.
PS: Why does he keep calling MP3.com MP3? How out of it can he possible be?
From the Ask Slashdot: I am concerned about the ownership rights to this compilation. The useage agreements seem reasonable enough now, but what assurance is there that this work will not become just another asset of the Time/Warner/AOL (read Netscape) media empire?
Your post: Is this really the right place to be asking this? Maybe you could just read the license instead.
Okay, I don't want to sound like an asshole but "What does your post have to do with the question?". The original poster is worried about how possible it would be for AOL, which has a liberal open content license with respect to dmoz currently, to decide to start exerting ownership rights and using proprietary practices with the dmoz project?
This is a very valid question and here's my answer. It is very possible for AOL to change the licensing agreements and become a ball buster with the dmoz project. Look no further than CDDB which changed it's license after being bought out by corporate interests and becoming a big enough entity. Of course, the solution to this is for there to be several such open services so that even if 1 of them becomes corrupted by greed the others will flourish and take it's place (like CD Index or FreeCDDB are replacements for CDDB).
The original poster also asks about Open Content Licenses and since I just read 30 posts and none of them mentioned this I'll also try to answer this question.
As to whether Open Content Licenses are practical, I say Yes, after all the dmoz project's license has proved this.
The only solution I can see is to insist on complete, keystroke-by-keystroke monitoring and logging of the creation of each and every source file, to be made available should a copyright lawsuit arise. These logs would naturally have to be kept whenever implementing a feature identical or similar to one in an already-extant product. And, to prevent companies with legal might to throw around such as Microsoft and Sun saying, "oops, no logs, but our high-priced lawyers will help you figure things out," absence of these logs would automatically put you in violation of copyright. This has to be done - there's no other way to protect our code.
I really hope that the above paragraph isn't why this post has been moderated up. Here are a few of the reasons why this seems like a stupid idea to me.
This is a worse violation of people's rights than anything UCITA or DMCA can conjure up. How would the logging software be configured? To log on any keystroke or for every keystroke in a text editor?
And the only reason for it is
just in case there is ever a lawsuit. So what stops one company from using this to steal secrets from another company. For example, AOL asking for all the logfiles for MSFT internet explorer and then using their new found knowledge for their AOL browser.
Exactly how will this be enforced and who will pay for it? Specifically who will pay for the logging software? Who will be the final arbiter to decide who gets to see what source code?
This will definitely be unfairly biased towards big companies since they'll have more chance to have some sort of mandatory coding practices in place than a startup or smaller company.
Basically, this seems like an idea that sounds good on paper until one actually starts to consider implementation details and then it falls apart.
Re:nVidia has incentive to remain closed-source...
on
GPL Violation - NVIDIA
·
· Score: 3
. I'd be willing to bet that their use of GPL'd code was on purpose, not an accident, and that there's other GPL'd code hidden in those binary-only drivers. The corporate attitude is probably that stealing open-source code is okay. And that's yet another reason that we should try extra hard, but with honey rather than vinegar, to get them to realize the merits of open-source driver development.
The above points amd the fact that the world is full of unscrupolous, lazy, developers is why I started considering using the BSDL instead of the GPL. With the BSDL folding of source code into proprietary code is acceptable while with the GPL this is not the case. Considering the fact that it is nigh impossible to know if your code has been stolen and used in some binary only application with no external dependecies (unlike the nVidia driver) without going through a lot of trouble to discover this (code dissasembly) and then a lot of trouble to prove it, I have started looking for an alternative to the GPL. I settled on the BSDL for a few reasons which I will list below
With the BSDL I am not under the illusion that my code
will not end up in some closed source software simply because I don't want it to.
With the BSDL developers are more free to do what they want with my code. If they want to keep their modifications open, that is fine. If they don't, it really doesn't matter either. I write code because I like doing it and I want
end users to have the best experience possible. If this means my code will end up in Windows (TM) or some other widely used closed source alternative then all the better.
I'm not getting paid either way so why
try to restrict people from making money of my software. After all, Redhat has proved that it is possible to get rich off other people's code even if it is GPLed.
The purpose of my post isn't to start a flame war so if that is your response when you read this, don't bother I'll simply laugh at it. On the other hand I am interested in well written, intelligent opposing viewpoints and/or exposures of flaws in my reasoning.
PS: It's 4 AM and instead of studying for my Calc III final I am posting to Slashdot. AAAAAAAAARGHHH!!!!
Well it looks like even if the DOJ gets its way George W. Bush if elected will make do his best to make sure MSFT is not harmed. You can find information about this on Reuters.
I don't get this no rules interactive project thing.
It seems like all the project does is ask you to view a site then type in a URL simillar to it by your own standards. Kind of like a web version of a psychologist's word association game. Okay so it seems that there is no censorship (i.e. I can enter http://goatse.cx) but besides that what is so novel about this? If we use something as tenous as lack of censorship to define an interactive project with no rules why not just point at USENET, or slashdot browsed at -1, or any webpage with a form that allows the user to input text. Heck, my own online survey can be said to have no rules because I have a field for best and worst software experience where users can type anything they want.
I recently posted to the Dr.Dre lawsuit thread about why lawsuits against Napster are inevitable and how the record industry has shown itself to be more forward thinking than most slashdotters. Instead of rehashing the points I made before I'll briefly (I have to go code, no time) enumerate more reasons why slashdot's advocacy of piracy has begun to turn my stomach and will address some of the responses to my original post.
Slashdot and Jon Katz claim to be about people's rights then openly advocate that the rights of musicians to profit from their work be ignored and trodden upon. Slashdot and Slashdotters have proven themselves to be the biggest hypocrites alive with the way they can castigate companies for abusing the GPL (which exists solely because there are copyright laws) in one breathe then say it's OK to
steal music that was expensive to create, produce, and market.
Some people have posted comparing the online music revolution to automobiles vs. coaches and printing presses vs. the bookmakers guild and have argued that the record industry should die and be replaced the same way that the coaches and bookmaker's guilds were replaced by automoblies and printing presses. The problem with this analogy is that both those revolutions took power out of the few and gave to the masses. Thus everyone (with enough income) could now print a book or get themselves from point A to point B. The Internet (along with other advances in other technology) have made it possible for anyone to create, market and sell music. Strangely enough after a watching places like
MP3.com it is clear even though people have been freed of the yoke of music distribution pressure there is still a need for record labels. MP3.com is yet to produce any stars while most people I have met (as well as myself) who use Napster download music from established artists who have cost the record labels million$ of dollars to find, produce and market. So it seems that to compare this so-called revolution to the printing presses vs. bookmakers guilds or coaches vs. automobiles is only valid if printing presses could copy book's painstakingly hand-engraved by bookmakers or if automobiles gave people the ability to sneak rides on coaches without paying
Concerts. Several people have commented that artists and record labels should give up on trying to make money from CD sales and should look to concerts as revenue earners. There are several flaws with this proposal. How are are small artistes supposed to pay for concerts? With this reasoning an artist can be massively popular but unable to afford to cover studio costs let alone put on shows. This of course will lead to a new ominous figure in the lives of artists: Concert sponsors : who will probably sign exclusive concerts et al until it's the entire record label fiasco again but limited to concerts. Secondly, how about forms of music that don't translate well to concerts. I have been to several rap concerts in the past few years and half of them sounded like shit even though the actual music when played at home/in the car/on a walkman sounded simply heavenly. Does this mean rap artists (the largest growing and second most lucrative music form in the U.S.) don't deserve to be paid but rock groups do?
The I'm a poor student argument. I am a poor student but unlike most Americans don't believe I have a right to stuff simply because I am alive. The "everyone has this so must I" attitude is probably one of the most disgusting aspects of modern American life. <kinda offtopic> I just had a discussion with my girlfriend last night where she made the illogical argument that Macy's is like drug dealers because they both sell things that cause youth to commit crime and hence must be punished in some way. Such abdication of personal responsibility is very distressing <\kinda offtopic >. Not being able to afford it does not give you the right to steal it and then redistribute the stolen music. If someone broke into an HMV or a Sam Goody's, stole some CDs, kept the originals and burned a bunch of copies, then gave them away on the corner
because he was poor is that somehow excusable?
The fact that the artists are rich is also a stupid argument. There is no law in the U.S. (where the lawsuits are being filed) that says "To each give according to his needs, but from each take according to his ability". The monetary success of Metallica and Dr. Dre is what gives them the ability to sue Napster. Do you think that struggling college bands whose music is being spread all across the net with no remuneration wouldn't sue if they could affors to and they were being ripped of as much as Dr. Dre and Metallica (every single one of their songs is on Napster). The amount of money the artists have is irrelevant what is relevant is that they are being robbed by so-called fans (who refuse to pay for the music).
In my original post I asked that instead of the typical bitching and moaning by music pirates we should instead discuss how the music industry (artists included) can survive in a digital world. Please read my
Forget him then. The only decent thing he's done recently is sign Eminem.
Actually he's released an album that has gone quadruple platinum which is more than Eminem's (triple platinum).
This is not about "piracy" at all in my mind. Sure there are plenty people downloading copyrighted music out there, but there are also plenty of people taping stuff off the radio. CD sales are up despite napster and despite CD-R availability, and studies have shown that the people who copy music are also more likely the people buying more records.
If it isn't about piracy what is it about? Up until the arrival of MP3s there was very little way for the average Joe to get digital copies of original copies without considerable cost. The report you link to is a red herring (it is from before MP3s when copying meant burning CDs or dubbing tapes and even then in 1989 it was inconclusive).
Dr. Dre, the RIAA and Metallica have shown themselves to be more technologically savvy and able to spot trends than most of the people posting to this thread. In a few years broadband will be ubiqituos and devices that play/record digital music will be cheap. Already my roomate and I who are music fans and probably own a combined total of 200 CDs, have almost stopped purchasing CDs. Between his portable MiniDisc player, my computer that always has Napster open, our entertainment center and my car Minidisc player we have myriad ways to listen to digital quality music we downloaded off Napster for free. This weekend, every song we saw on MTV or heard at the club on Saturday has been downloaded of Napster and is enjoyed by myself and my roomate in digital surround sound at no cost. In a few years, once DSL-like access is as common as 56k modem dialup and Minidisc players cost as much as Walkmans(sp?), the average person (not the music fanatic who MUST have that perfect digital sound) will see no reason to pay for music.
Now I am against paying $18 for a CD that contains only 1 or 2 songs I'll like as much as the next person but even I realize where this will eventually lead. I recently downloaded "Living la vida loca" which from an MTV special I saw cost $900,000 in production costs to create a video for. The reason I downloaded the song was because of the rather cool video. Now eventually when everyone and their mother has broadband and has access to cheap MP3 players (or other digital sound dplayers), where will the music industry as it currently exists be? The answer is Shit Outta luck. I have thought about different ways that the music industry can thrive in a digital world and none come to mind because no matter what the music industry comes up with it
cannot be easier to use than Napster, Gnutella or whatever comes after them.
cannot compete with them cost wise because the songs on them are free
cannot prevent people from simple taking their content and giving it away for free like people do with Napster (just for fun once I tagged a music file with my initials to see how many people would copy it after having it up on Napster for a month, currently I get at least 50 hits anytime I search for it).
cannot use encryption as a panacea because it will broken.
Given the above reasons, even if the music industry was going to embrace digital distribution just as they did CDs, it will take the elimination of competition that seeks to commoditize product that is expensive to promote, produce and market.
What I would really like to see on slashdot instead of the typical bitching and moaning by music pirates (of which I admit to being) who feel it is their right to disrespect the rights of copyright holders to save themselves a buck (of course, these same people would scream copyright violation if MSFT used GPL code in the next edition of Windows without open sourcing windows or if slashdot puts insignificant snippets of their rants and ravings in a book to help enlighten people). Instead I would like to see proposals for how the music industry can still make money in a digital. After all the music industry is in a life threatening situation and thus all their actions are understandable when placed in that light.
This isn't about piracy at all - it's about an industry that is afraid to change with the times. Get over yourself, Dre, and take a hint from your buddy Chuck D: the reason the industry is scared of napster is because it gives small unknown artists the power of distribution without having their work extorted by music industry gatekeepers!
What is that supposed to mean? How have is Napster giving artists the power of distribution. When last I checked Metallica and Dr. Dre were artists and they seem to be suing Napster for taking that right of distribution from them and giving it to cheapskates like me who will probably never contribute to the welfare of Dr. Dre, Metallica or any other artists whose music I steal and redistribute.
Hotmail's is a whole lot better than Yahoo's. Unless your name is specified in the To field it redirects it to a spam folder. In the past month I have only had 3 spammers slip through. On the flip side it thought a few emails from a company I interviewed with were spam since their response was mass mailed, it also seems to not like emails I send from a *nix command line like so
mail carnage4life@hotmail.com textfile
. Yahoo mail lets in spam daily, admittedly it isn't as much spam as before but I still get spam daily as opposed to hotmail which is once a week or so.
Listen twit, it's all done algorithmically based on how much time you spend on slashdot. So anyone can be a moderator provided they don't spend too much time on slashdot (like me) or too little. Secondly what is this crap about moderators pissing you off, there is all sorts of customizability to slashdot that enables people with accounts (like you) to never see scores or simply browse at -1. Why not read all the past articles on moderation?
And to satisfy the moderators who would love to mark this as offtopic. Here's my take on the AMD shortage. The article states that both AMD and Intel underestimated demand. This means that a possible reason for the large demand for AMD chips is less to do with price/performance as some posters have mentioned and more to do with the fact that Intel chips are rather scarce, and there won't be a large influx of them for at least two months.
PS: To all the twits that think slashdot sucks why not move? Go to Advogato or Kuro5hin or any of the dozens of other slash sites. Trying to wreck slashdot does you no good and doesn't do anyone any harm. Most people simply browse at 2 or 3 and never see your rantings and ravings anyway, and even if you did drive everyone away from slashdot, then what?
If you want to demonstrate, please send email to jim@valinux.com.
Slashdot probably doesn't want to seem like they are bending over backwards for their new masters at VA Linux. Posting this may have seemed like posting information about some VA Linux guy's pet project and a bunch of people probably would have flamed/protested.
Slashdot Mirror
Several of the questions that have been asked in this forum have already been answered by Metallica on the live chat on Tuesday. There are links to tramscripts of the chat here.
What I would like to know is how can I contact the so-called online detective agency NetPD (that seems to have no internet prescence) because I have a couple of questions about how they got their 335,456 copyright infringers? Are these people that were actively downloading songs or simply people that had Metallica songs on their machine (there is a big difference, since Napster shares all Mp3s on a machine)?
I guess you didn't read the article here's a quote:
Another thing a lot of us assumed about the i-opener is that sales were not going too well and that the company really didn't have much going for it anyway. The reality is that they are having trouble keeping up with the demand for the devices from their core market. They have been experiencing a predictable network effect as granny gets on-line and then wants all of her friends to join her so she has more people to e-mail. If their massive customer service department and the stories I heard from random employees I grabbed (who had no idea who I was) are any indication, the i-opener is actually doing very, very well with its core market (due to SEC regulations, exact numbers were unavailable).
and another:
Netpliance never intended to focus on hardware. Hardware development is a relatively small part of the overall business. They have several times more employees working in software development, content delivery, interface design, and countless more working in customer service. Although they have a branded box that carries their services, the company is actually focused on providing the content and interface regardless of the device. They have already signed deals to have the i-opener software and content delivery deployed on set-top boxes developed by a major cable company, as well as R CA branded Internet devices; they are also looking to offer the i-opener service on other devices such as PDAs and screenphones.
The behavior of yourself and other slashdotters is like me asking MSFT to create a GeorgiaTech version of Windows 2000 simply because a few GeorgiaTech students wiill buy it. Now listen very carefully, if the return on investment is not large enough do not invest in the market
Selling the hardware and allowing it to be configurable by users would involve jacking up prices, more expensive tech support and a restructuring of their revenue projections simply to satisfy people who can simply buy an I-opener at $99 and pay $20 a month, then tinker away to their heart's content. After all $99 plus $20 a month would be the equivalent of paying a lump sum of $400 or $500 for it if they sold only hardware.
The reason the poster called them a laughing stock is that ... and correct me if I'm wrong... VA Linux's stock rose very high ($300+/share), then dropped very low (to about what it is now) all in one day. It was the highest rise and fall in one day.
Actually this isn't quite true. VA Linux stock didn't fall in one day. It closed at around $300 on the IPO day and has the record for being the largest rise in one day (approximately 900 to a 1000 percent from $30). The stock then dropped daily for months until it got to $26 a few weeks ago and now it's on the upswing. The reason it's called a laughing stock is because it is now a poster boy for everything that is wrong with today's stock market (overvaluation, banks bidding prices up unscrupolously, day traders, etc). For more info read their charts and check out the Yahoo message board to see what the investor sentiment is like.
From this article it seems Corel's merger with Borland\Inprise may also be in danger if there is a negative shareholder vote.
PS: It took Slashdot long enough to post negative news about Linux companies. Hopefully this will stop all the ACs posting about a conspiracy theory.
I read the article and all I came up with was a resounding duh. The author acts as if it is a surprise that Netpliance was selling the terminals as a loss to gain market share to later recoup the cost on charging for service. Well ...Duh, they were selling a PC for $100 - $300 (depending on what discount you got). It was obviously at a loss.
Personally, I have begun to grow tired of these so called emissarys of the open source movement who make the open spource community seem like raving fanatics or clueless cheapskates. It doesn't take a genius to realize that Netpliance was always planning to sell the service and to go there and ask them to change their entire business model to satisfy a bunch of geeks who are not part of their target audience is ludicrous (heck, some ISPs still don't support Linux). It seems to me that if Open Source advocates want to be taken seriously by corporate interests they should be conversant with basic economic concepts and have an idea of real-world business practices. If this doesn't happen then corporate interests will continue to view Open Source advocates with disdain, suspision (sp?) and distrust.
Then again, do we reallly need corporate interests to satisfy all our wants? For example, if all you want to do is hack an I-opener, buy it, pay the $20 a month (if you're a good hack you make that much in an hour or two at work) and hack away. I'd simply see the $20 as a payment plan, similar to what I have on my car as opposed to buying a service (which it half is).
..the LOCKSS system is simply a webpage caching system with the added feature of being able to talk to other PCs and compare webcaches of the same document. Doesn't sound like a replacement for Napster or Gnutella to me.
I recently discovered that recent versions of Napster share every MP3 on a user's hard drive no matter where they may be. In former versions I could specify a shared song directory and then put other copyrighted MP3s in a seperate folder not available to the public, this is no longer the case. This new feature of Napster bothered me so much (somehow it seems like an exploit waiting to happen) that I now use an Open Source clone called JNap which not only does not have that feature but also gives one the option to browse a other people's music libraries as opposed to getting only hits specified from a search.
:-)
PS: The JNap author recently told me he has quit maintaining it and I'm interested in hacking in some new features. If anyone is interested in being a beta-tester or hacking some stuff in, give me a holler.
Warning: Before reading this I will warn you, this post will probably contain profanity because I am very angry at Metallica
Now ever since slashdot and Jon Katz started attacking Metallica, Dr. Dre and the RIAA for exerting their rights granted by law to prevent theft of their copyrighted materials I have been vociferously on the side of the RIAA et al. This situation changed after I read this article. My points of contention are the following:
First Metallica is talking about spearheading a lobby to push "government" to get involved in the Napster proceedings, specifically "There has to be some laws and guidelines to go by before it gets too out of hand and sucks the life out of musicians who will stop making music," and this has to be done "before this whole Internet thing runs amok.". Now as if it isn't enough that my rights have been robbed by UCITA and DCMA some drug-adled rock group wants to create even more restrictive laws to preserve the status quo. Instead of being like Off spring, Limp Bizkit and Chuck D and realizing that a paradigm shift is taking place. If there is no outside intervention (i.e. from the government) eventually the RIAA as it currently exists cannot continue enforcing it's cartel like behavior which include illogical pricing of CDs and cassettes, raping of musicians financially (TLC sell millions of albums and are bankrupt???) and the bribing of radio station executives to play only member chosen material. The RIAA is fit to be replaced by a pro-artist digital distribution model that can benefit consumers (lower prices) and artists (more money instead of 50 cents per dozen song CD, 50 cents a song or more) alike. The only thing that will kill this revolution and stop it from ever happening is if the government steps in and passes laws that reinforce the status quo. Die Metallica
Secondly Lars Ulrich stated "The goal is clear and simple: Put Napster out of business." in their online chat session yesterday (which I missed due to taking finals, AAAAARGH). After reading the Halloween documents and all the MSFT internal emails that circulated when the DOJ case was active, such comments have instantly struck a negative chord within me. Now for a more rational response, Metallica wanting to ruin Napster as a company because of the behavior of it's users is the stupidest, vendetta-motivated shit I have ever heard. I am black and have never entertained thoughts of ruining slashdot because I browsed at -1 and read some ACs racist rants. I have never entertained thoughts that AOL should be destroyed because some of its users were rude to me in a chat room or sdent me spam. If Metallica has a problem with Napster's users that is fine, but to attempt to destroy the company due to the behavior of a percentage of it's customers is wrong.
Finally, I have tried to find the online firm NetPD that metallica claims to have used and cannot find hide nor hair of them on the Internet neither with Google, Yahoo nor at netpd.com. The reason I have sought them out is because until I see all 60,000 pages of logs showing 335,435 people downloading songs by Metallica in one weekend I refuse to believe it.
ZDNet runs Netscape on Solaris while PCWeek runs Apache on Solaris. The article was originally posted on PCWeek.
From the last paragraph of the article:
But open-source advocates should face the facts: Put up some goods or your establishment will be ripped apart, too.
Are you an open-source advocate, or do you just not care? Let me know in the talkback below.
ZDNet writes articles like this every once in a while that are blatantly false simply to generate traffic and comments (if you don't believe me look at the size of the Talkback and compare to other stories on ZDNet). To put it simply, there is no way that a reporter that is employed as a technical writer for a tech magazine cannot know of the successes of Open Source. Apache, *BSD, most of the important Unix tools (thanks to GNU), Perl, etc cannot be completely unknown to this writer or whoever he bothered to ask while researching this article. I wouldn't waste my time responding to this obvious troll either by posting to ZDNet or bothering to send him an email.
Isn't that what objective journalism is?
If Jon Katz was a reporter and this was a news site I would expect this from him but since the format of his article was more editorial than reporting I expeced it to actually contain a meaningful opinion or some insight and not merely be a restating of the news in long form.
Wow, I have never read a more content free article in my life. Jon Katz's entire article contained no opinions nor offered any insights but simply summarizes news that has already been on Slashdot or is easily available from glancing at the headlines provided by the any portal or news site. I hardly ever respond or read Jon Katz's articles but delight in reading the responses he evokes but I recently decided to actually read his articles and have now discovered why he is so badly tolerated by slashdotters. I have responded to the only parts of the article that are actually original content as opposed to regurgitating of readily available news.
Artists definitely have a right to be paid for their work, but branding a whole generation of music fans thieves seems simplistic, even self-destructive
Why is it that Jon Katz not only refuses to mention artist's rights except for this one line but also refuses to accept the fact that people who misappropriate copyrighted material without rewarding the copyright owners is stealing. It isn't like if I started printing copies of his books and gave them away he would respond with "Hey, that's OK information want's to be free,anyway"
Do recording executives really believe that music fans will suddenly give up on acquiring diverse and numerous forms of music for free and go back to buying a handful of expensive CDs a few times a month?
Of course not, and that is exactly why they are trying to shut down Napster.
That wouldn't protect artist's rights or those of music lovers.
Why wouldn't it? Currently the rights of artists to decide who distributes their copyrighted material is being abused regularly by Napster users. Secondly, it would also protect the right of artists to be paid for their work.
This digital genie isn't going back into the bottle.
Agreed, but before the Record labels will embrace the digital revolution they will try their best to make sure they are not going to be robbed blind before investing in or creating an online business model.
Successful negotiatioins between MP3.com and the music would be the sanest step yet in the music wars, and a healthy precedent for other businesses who sell intellectual property as well as artists.
This completely true. If record labels can make deals with MTV and radio stations I don't see why similar deals could not have been made with MP3.com. From the exchange between MP3.com CEO and the RIAA representative when all this started it seems the RIAA just wanted to be unreasonable from the start. This leads me to believe that they are interested in creating such a service themselves if not now then later on in the future and that is why they decided against even considering MP3.com's offers to license the music.
PS: Why does he keep calling MP3.com MP3? How out of it can he possible be?
...here's the FAQ for the Websurfer, it is a set top box that plugs into a TV and allows internet access (i.e. It turns your TV into a WebTV).
From the Ask Slashdot:
I am concerned about the ownership rights to this compilation. The useage agreements seem reasonable enough now, but what assurance is there that this work will not become just another asset of the Time/Warner/AOL (read Netscape) media empire?
Your post:
Is this really the right place to be asking this? Maybe you could just read the license instead.
Okay, I don't want to sound like an asshole but "What does your post have to do with the question?". The original poster is worried about how possible it would be for AOL, which has a liberal open content license with respect to dmoz currently, to decide to start exerting ownership rights and using proprietary practices with the dmoz project?
This is a very valid question and here's my answer. It is very possible for AOL to change the licensing agreements and become a ball buster with the dmoz project. Look no further than CDDB which changed it's license after being bought out by corporate interests and becoming a big enough entity. Of course, the solution to this is for there to be several such open services so that even if 1 of them becomes corrupted by greed the others will flourish and take it's place (like CD Index or FreeCDDB are replacements for CDDB).
The original poster also asks about Open Content Licenses and since I just read 30 posts and none of them mentioned this I'll also try to answer this question.
As to whether Open Content Licenses are practical, I say Yes, after all the dmoz project's license has proved this.
I really hope that the above paragraph isn't why this post has been moderated up. Here are a few of the reasons why this seems like a stupid idea to me.
- This will definitely be unfairly biased towards big companies since they'll have more chance to have some sort of mandatory coding practices in place than a startup or smaller company.
Basically, this seems like an idea that sounds good on paper until one actually starts to consider implementation details and then it falls apart.The above points amd the fact that the world is full of unscrupolous, lazy, developers is why I started considering using the BSDL instead of the GPL. With the BSDL folding of source code into proprietary code is acceptable while with the GPL this is not the case. Considering the fact that it is nigh impossible to know if your code has been stolen and used in some binary only application with no external dependecies (unlike the nVidia driver) without going through a lot of trouble to discover this (code dissasembly) and then a lot of trouble to prove it, I have started looking for an alternative to the GPL. I settled on the BSDL for a few reasons which I will list below
- I'm not getting paid either way so why
- try to restrict people from making money of my software. After all, Redhat has proved that it is possible to get rich off other people's code even if it is GPLed.
The purpose of my post isn't to start a flame war so if that is your response when you read this, don't bother I'll simply laugh at it. On the other hand I am interested in well written, intelligent opposing viewpoints and/or exposures of flaws in my reasoning.PS: It's 4 AM and instead of studying for my Calc III final I am posting to Slashdot. AAAAAAAAARGHHH!!!!
Well it looks like even if the DOJ gets its way George W. Bush if elected will make do his best to make sure MSFT is not harmed. You can find information about this on Reuters.
I don't get this no rules interactive project thing.
It seems like all the project does is ask you to view a site then type in a URL simillar to it by your own standards. Kind of like a web version of a psychologist's word association game. Okay so it seems that there is no censorship (i.e. I can enter http://goatse.cx) but besides that what is so novel about this? If we use something as tenous as lack of censorship to define an interactive project with no rules why not just point at USENET, or slashdot browsed at -1, or any webpage with a form that allows the user to input text. Heck, my own online survey can be said to have no rules because I have a field for best and worst software experience where users can type anything they want.
- In my original post I asked that instead of the typical bitching and moaning by music pirates we should instead discuss how the music industry (artists included) can survive in a digital world. Please read my
- original post and respond below.
Damn, I have to go code....PS: I think it was stupid of Dre's lawyer's to mention something as ridiculous and difficult to enforce as suing Napster users.
Actually he's released an album that has gone quadruple platinum which is more than Eminem's (triple platinum).
This is not about "piracy" at all in my mind. Sure there are plenty people downloading copyrighted music out there, but there are also plenty of people taping stuff off the radio. CD sales are up despite napster and despite CD-R availability, and studies have shown that the people who copy music are also more likely the people buying more records.
If it isn't about piracy what is it about? Up until the arrival of MP3s there was very little way for the average Joe to get digital copies of original copies without considerable cost. The report you link to is a red herring (it is from before MP3s when copying meant burning CDs or dubbing tapes and even then in 1989 it was inconclusive).
Dr. Dre, the RIAA and Metallica have shown themselves to be more technologically savvy and able to spot trends than most of the people posting to this thread. In a few years broadband will be ubiqituos and devices that play/record digital music will be cheap. Already my roomate and I who are music fans and probably own a combined total of 200 CDs, have almost stopped purchasing CDs. Between his portable MiniDisc player, my computer that always has Napster open, our entertainment center and my car Minidisc player we have myriad ways to listen to digital quality music we downloaded off Napster for free. This weekend, every song we saw on MTV or heard at the club on Saturday has been downloaded of Napster and is enjoyed by myself and my roomate in digital surround sound at no cost. In a few years, once DSL-like access is as common as 56k modem dialup and Minidisc players cost as much as Walkmans(sp?), the average person (not the music fanatic who MUST have that perfect digital sound) will see no reason to pay for music.
Now I am against paying $18 for a CD that contains only 1 or 2 songs I'll like as much as the next person but even I realize where this will eventually lead. I recently downloaded "Living la vida loca" which from an MTV special I saw cost $900,000 in production costs to create a video for. The reason I downloaded the song was because of the rather cool video. Now eventually when everyone and their mother has broadband and has access to cheap MP3 players (or other digital sound dplayers), where will the music industry as it currently exists be? The answer is Shit Outta luck. I have thought about different ways that the music industry can thrive in a digital world and none come to mind because no matter what the music industry comes up with it
- cannot prevent people from simple taking their content and giving it away for free like people do with Napster (just for fun once I tagged a music file with my initials to see how many people would copy it after having it up on Napster for a month, currently I get at least 50 hits anytime I search for it).
cannot use encryption as a panacea because it will broken.Given the above reasons, even if the music industry was going to embrace digital distribution just as they did CDs, it will take the elimination of competition that seeks to commoditize product that is expensive to promote, produce and market.
What I would really like to see on slashdot instead of the typical bitching and moaning by music pirates (of which I admit to being) who feel it is their right to disrespect the rights of copyright holders to save themselves a buck (of course, these same people would scream copyright violation if MSFT used GPL code in the next edition of Windows without open sourcing windows or if slashdot puts insignificant snippets of their rants and ravings in a book to help enlighten people). Instead I would like to see proposals for how the music industry can still make money in a digital. After all the music industry is in a life threatening situation and thus all their actions are understandable when placed in that light.
This isn't about piracy at all - it's about an industry that is afraid to change with the times. Get over yourself, Dre, and take a hint from your buddy Chuck D: the reason the industry is scared of napster is because it gives small unknown artists the power of distribution without having their work extorted by music industry gatekeepers!
What is that supposed to mean? How have is Napster giving artists the power of distribution. When last I checked Metallica and Dr. Dre were artists and they seem to be suing Napster for taking that right of distribution from them and giving it to cheapskates like me who will probably never contribute to the welfare of Dr. Dre, Metallica or any other artists whose music I steal and redistribute.
PS: Why doesn't slashdot talk about the artists that support Napster? Such as the fact that Napster will be sponsoring Limp Bizkit's next tour which by the way will be free.
Hotmail's is a whole lot better than Yahoo's. Unless your name is specified in the To field it redirects it to a spam folder. In the past month I have only had 3 spammers slip through. On the flip side it thought a few emails from a company I interviewed with were spam since their response was mass mailed, it also seems to not like emails I send from a *nix command line like so
mail carnage4life@hotmail.com textfile
. Yahoo mail lets in spam daily, admittedly it isn't as much spam as before but I still get spam daily as opposed to hotmail which is once a week or so.
Listen twit, it's all done algorithmically based on how much time you spend on slashdot. So anyone can be a moderator provided they don't spend too much time on slashdot (like me) or too little. Secondly what is this crap about moderators pissing you off, there is all sorts of customizability to slashdot that enables people with accounts (like you) to never see scores or simply browse at -1. Why not read all the past articles on moderation?
Moderation Ideas by CmdrTaco on Tuesday September 14, @10:11AM EST 328
Slashdot's Meta Moderation by CmdrTaco on Tuesday September 07, @01:31PM EST 284
More Moderation Madness by CmdrTaco on Monday September 06, @05:07PM EST 321
Slashdot Moderation Phase 1.1 by CmdrTaco on Tuesday May 25, @07:15AM EST 71
Slashdot Notes by CmdrTaco on Monday May 24, @12:25PM EST 208
Assorted Slashdot Notes by CmdrTaco on Wednesday April 14, @11:00AM EST 69
Slashdot Forum Updates by CmdrTaco
And to satisfy the moderators who would love to mark this as offtopic. Here's my take on the AMD shortage. The article states that both AMD and Intel underestimated demand. This means that a possible reason for the large demand for AMD chips is less to do with price/performance as some posters have mentioned and more to do with the fact that Intel chips are rather scarce, and there won't be a large influx of them for at least two months.
PS: To all the twits that think slashdot sucks why not move? Go to Advogato or Kuro5hin or any of the dozens of other slash sites. Trying to wreck slashdot does you no good and doesn't do anyone any harm. Most people simply browse at 2 or 3 and never see your rantings and ravings anyway, and even if you did drive everyone away from slashdot, then what?
According th Reuters there are all sorts of ICQ, Usenet and IRC logs that connect Mafiaboy with the crime.
PS: Read the articles linked to the above article and judge for yourself if Mafiaboy is the real culprit or not.
If you want to demonstrate, please send email to jim@valinux.com.
Slashdot probably doesn't want to seem like they are bending over backwards for their new masters at VA Linux. Posting this may have seemed like posting information about some VA Linux guy's pet project and a bunch of people probably would have flamed/protested.
http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ti cker=mot&script=410&layout=7&item_id=865 82 For some reason the ahref didn't show up???