> the wanton copying between people who have neither met nor would care to
I think I understand your point, and sort of agree with it, but the relationship between the two people involved should have no bearing whatsoever.
Say I'm visiting a friend in another state and I meet some people at a party there whom I will never see again and don't care to become friends with. I play a CD they have never heard before, they love it and ask if they can make a few copies of it (at the party, I'm not loaning a stranger my CDs). So therefore, am I breaking the law by giving out copies to people I don't know?
> The battle between RIAA and P2P users actually bears some fruit
What fruit has it born (beared?)?
I know that you meant "in the future," but your post makes no sense without the provided title at the beginning. The title of the article is supposed to sum up what was said, not present the first half of the first sentence.
> I don't pay for my ISPs T3 lines, mail servers, or hard drives.
You get free Internet access? (And I don't mean your university, if you pay tuition or fees, that money is handled the same way) You lucky bastard. For those that have to pay for access, though, they give the money to the ISP & the ISP uses that money to pay for the equipment. Without that money, there is no equipment, so in essence (even though not directly) you are paying for that equipment.
> > You receive spam when it is sent to your server not your machine. > I don't have a server.
Then you don't have an EMail address and Spam isn't an issue. If you do have some way to receive EMail, then you have a server. Just because you don't understand the concept doesn't mean you are right.
> It's pretty hard to build a universal trust model when you're trafficking in an illegal product.
The product itself is not illegal at all. It is the act of copying it without permission that is illegal. If you already "own" a copy, you can download this (according to you) "illegal product" legally. In no scenario can you really get illegal things legally, with the exception of licensed professionals (ie, researching pot requires having some)
> I used to do this a lot when you had to upload 2 songs for every one you downloaded via ftp.
I love how there are 5 replies calling you a sonofabitch, and I'll bet that at least one of them has done the exact same thing, if not more than that. I did the same thing for porn, back B4 the Web became my home.
I consider myself a pretty likeable guy, for the most part. I'm friends with the whole world! Or at least, I'm friends with all the P2P users offering real content.
> It's the person sharing the work that's generating the copy and transmitting it to you.
While I admit to using P2P to get music and don't claim that I'll ever stop willingly, I don't like your logic here. If you are downloading a song, you are initiating the copying process. If you have a copy of MS Office you want to "share":) with someone else, it would not be a valid argument to say "well, I did it on a computer owned by a university, so it is actually them who copied the program -- I just requested a copy from the computer."
Despite the few trollish statements, you make a good point, especially about Grammy Malda's Jam.
Regarding the space at those record stores, were the RIAA to go under, there would probably be smaller recording companies that would get all that space, and therefore there would at least be some chance of having your music sold, instead of being guaranteed no placement, as it is now.
As for the Internet not being free, that's like saying these P2P networks are not free because someone had to pay for the computers to host all these songs on and also because Kazaa has advertising. Because someone CHOOSES to spend money on something and not pass the costs on to others doesn't mean it's not free, just that it's not free to access through certain (most) companies.
> > Why not let some free Music get play on MTV and maybe people wouldnt pirate the RIAA so much anymore. > most people do not want to listen to "free" or "independent" music
I doubt that very seriously. People choose not to listen to free/independent because they do not want to have to search for good music. If they were able to hear that music, say on the radio, these "independents" might become more popular, possibly even *GASP* pop music! I don't think that people, in general, care what company produces an album: as long as they get the chance to hear it. It's all about exposure, and the Recording Industry does not seem to like to "expose" those who do not fit perfectly into their plans.
> You, once again, are a completely and utterly nimwitted and retarded juvenile who lacks a superego. And you are acting like a pompous jerk who can't make a point without insulting the person you are talking to. Sounds like you lack superego as well. Or maybe superego is a made-up concept that doesn't exist. Of course, neither of us can say -- we aren't gods, or at least I don't claim to be one and don't think that you would either.
> in a true democracy, the rights of any minority go unprotected.
In a true democracy there is no minority or majority, it is "every man for himself." Only if you think you are in the minority, you will be. Of course, that is my narrow opinion which is just as narrow as anyone else's -- even if they like to scream about how open-minded they are.
Despite that, I agree that market should determine what companies live and die in that marketplace.
>.. the circle, huh? P2P was designed for freedom. This isn't.
I like off-topic posts... I agree. If that person can get your IP, etc, then that means that, if it is what he says it is, anyone can get that info. Screw that, it should be anonymous.
> If you consider Seinfeld horrid, I don't think your opinion on art and entertainment should be given much weight
If you think Seinfeld was enlightening, then you need serious help. If you think it was art, then you need a good whack upside the head.
Just because someone likes or dislikes something you (dis)like doesn't add or remove any weight to their opinion. It just makes it different. Guess what (say it together, now) "We are all different."
> You clearly have no taste.
If you think that Seinfeld is quality programming, you have no taste. You like being generalized?
> But since you were incapable of browsing that site further yourself
Since you are incapable of not being an ass... It's not that I couldn't browse the site, I did.
The search engine seems about worthless for me, since I don't know what to look for. Searching for "privacy" returns so much noise that finding the pertinent ones requires wading through all this crap that's impossible (and unnecessarily long) to read. That's why I asked for specific cases to begin with. I'm obviously not a lawyer or PolSci student.
Also, There is only so much I can find on my own, since I don't know dick about supreme court cases, not to mention that they are nearly impossible to read and retain anything useful. It's all legalese bullshit and long words. Not that there's anything wrong with long words, I understand most of them, but they intentionally use big words where shorter, more common ones would work just as well. That keeps the common people from understanding, just like the Catholics originally used only Latin so that the people needed priests to interpret it.
> Actually, based on knowing he exists, Descartes then goes on to prove the existence of God, and then of the universe
While I consider Descartes to be quite an intelligent thinker, one of the problems is that he doesn't prove the existence of God. All he does is simply reaffirm to the believers that they are right. There are too many assumptions in his "proofs" to actually prove anything.
Wow, boycott it for the sake of... your ego? Yeah right. If there was something I thought would cause harm, I would boycott it. Otherwise, it's a movie, get the fuck over it.
OTOH, if you don't want to risk the huge $7 investment (might need venture capitalists to back you up for that seven bucks), wait until the second day... or second week -- by then, if you ook hard enough, I'm sure you will find someone that doesn't like it, and then you have a reason not to go. Problem solved, everyone goes home happy -- except the ones who lost their shirt (a $7 shirt, mind you) in the "Great Matrix Scam of 2003."
Slashdot Mirror
> The whole stock market concept is fucked
No, it's the people in charge that are fucked. The stock market is a great idea, bu the poeple running it don't know how to do it correctly any more.
> the wanton copying between people who have neither met nor would care to
I think I understand your point, and sort of agree with it, but the relationship between the two people involved should have no bearing whatsoever.
Say I'm visiting a friend in another state and I meet some people at a party there whom I will never see again and don't care to become friends with. I play a CD they have never heard before, they love it and ask if they can make a few copies of it (at the party, I'm not loaning a stranger my CDs). So therefore, am I breaking the law by giving out copies to people I don't know?
> The battle between RIAA and P2P users actually bears some fruit
What fruit has it born (beared?)?
I know that you meant "in the future," but your post makes no sense without the provided title at the beginning. The title of the article is supposed to sum up what was said, not present the first half of the first sentence.
> Dave Matthews Band gulps choad
:)
That sounds like flamebait... But you're right
> I don't pay for my ISPs T3 lines, mail servers, or hard drives.
You get free Internet access? (And I don't mean your university, if you pay tuition or fees, that money is handled the same way) You lucky bastard. For those that have to pay for access, though, they give the money to the ISP & the ISP uses that money to pay for the equipment. Without that money, there is no equipment, so in essence (even though not directly) you are paying for that equipment.
> > You receive spam when it is sent to your server not your machine.
> I don't have a server.
Then you don't have an EMail address and Spam isn't an issue. If you do have some way to receive EMail, then you have a server. Just because you don't understand the concept doesn't mean you are right.
> It's pretty hard to build a universal trust model when you're trafficking in an illegal product.
The product itself is not illegal at all. It is the act of copying it without permission that is illegal. If you already "own" a copy, you can download this (according to you) "illegal product" legally. In no scenario can you really get illegal things legally, with the exception of licensed professionals (ie, researching pot requires having some)
> I used to do this a lot when you had to upload 2 songs for every one you downloaded via ftp.
I love how there are 5 replies calling you a sonofabitch, and I'll bet that at least one of them has done the exact same thing, if not more than that. I did the same thing for porn, back B4 the Web became my home.
> that sounds like an enormous restriction of ones right to control their own computer, you guys don't want that restricted do you?
:)
Damn you, for coming up with compelling arguments!
> making copies for friends for example is OK
I consider myself a pretty likeable guy, for the most part. I'm friends with the whole world! Or at least, I'm friends with all the P2P users offering real content.
I agree, but he specified "under fair use," under which ripping a CD (should be, anyway) is covered.
> It's the person sharing the work that's generating the copy and transmitting it to you.
:) with someone else, it would not be a valid argument to say "well, I did it on a computer owned by a university, so it is actually them who copied the program -- I just requested a copy from the computer."
While I admit to using P2P to get music and don't claim that I'll ever stop willingly, I don't like your logic here. If you are downloading a song, you are initiating the copying process. If you have a copy of MS Office you want to "share"
Despite the few trollish statements, you make a good point, especially about Grammy Malda's Jam.
Regarding the space at those record stores, were the RIAA to go under, there would probably be smaller recording companies that would get all that space, and therefore there would at least be some chance of having your music sold, instead of being guaranteed no placement, as it is now.
As for the Internet not being free, that's like saying these P2P networks are not free because someone had to pay for the computers to host all these songs on and also because Kazaa has advertising. Because someone CHOOSES to spend money on something and not pass the costs on to others doesn't mean it's not free, just that it's not free to access through certain (most) companies.
> > Why not let some free Music get play on MTV and maybe people wouldnt pirate the RIAA so much anymore.
> most people do not want to listen to "free" or "independent" music
I doubt that very seriously. People choose not to listen to free/independent because they do not want to have to search for good music. If they were able to hear that music, say on the radio, these "independents" might become more popular, possibly even *GASP* pop music! I don't think that people, in general, care what company produces an album: as long as they get the chance to hear it. It's all about exposure, and the Recording Industry does not seem to like to "expose" those who do not fit perfectly into their plans.
> You, once again, are a completely and utterly nimwitted and retarded juvenile who lacks a superego.
And you are acting like a pompous jerk who can't make a point without insulting the person you are talking to. Sounds like you lack superego as well. Or maybe superego is a made-up concept that doesn't exist. Of course, neither of us can say -- we aren't gods, or at least I don't claim to be one and don't think that you would either.
> in a true democracy, the rights of any minority go unprotected.
In a true democracy there is no minority or majority, it is "every man for himself." Only if you think you are in the minority, you will be. Of course, that is my narrow opinion which is just as narrow as anyone else's -- even if they like to scream about how open-minded they are.
Despite that, I agree that market should determine what companies live and die in that marketplace.
> I'd suggest reading the first couple paragraphs to get an idea what the case was about then googling the case to find articles
Aha, now that is helpful. Thank you very much, and sorry about jumping on ya', I've was real tense last week, anticipating my best friend's wedding.
> .. the circle, huh? P2P was designed for freedom. This isn't.
I like off-topic posts... I agree. If that person can get your IP, etc, then that means that, if it is what he says it is, anyone can get that info. Screw that, it should be anonymous.
> It'd be rich in virtual world vs. fighting machines in some crappy world
Remember that, in the story, that wasn't the first Matrix -- the one where people were all happy failed.
> just kill off all the humans and prevent any chance of revolution.
And therefore end their own lives, since they will have no energy.
> If you consider Seinfeld horrid, I don't think your opinion on art and entertainment should be given much weight
If you think Seinfeld was enlightening, then you need serious help. If you think it was art, then you need a good whack upside the head.
Just because someone likes or dislikes something you (dis)like doesn't add or remove any weight to their opinion. It just makes it different. Guess what (say it together, now) "We are all different."
> You clearly have no taste.
If you think that Seinfeld is quality programming, you have no taste. You like being generalized?
> But since you were incapable of browsing that site further yourself
Since you are incapable of not being an ass... It's not that I couldn't browse the site, I did.
The search engine seems about worthless for me, since I don't know what to look for. Searching for "privacy" returns so much noise that finding the pertinent ones requires wading through all this crap that's impossible (and unnecessarily long) to read. That's why I asked for specific cases to begin with. I'm obviously not a lawyer or PolSci student.
Also, There is only so much I can find on my own, since I don't know dick about supreme court cases, not to mention that they are nearly impossible to read and retain anything useful. It's all legalese bullshit and long words. Not that there's anything wrong with long words, I understand most of them, but they intentionally use big words where shorter, more common ones would work just as well. That keeps the common people from understanding, just like the Catholics originally used only Latin so that the people needed priests to interpret it.
> [...] get over yourself!
/..
That has become my most used phrase on
> "gnorance is bliss"
That's Gnu/Gnorance to you, pal.
> Actually, based on knowing he exists, Descartes then goes on to prove the existence of God, and then of the universe
While I consider Descartes to be quite an intelligent thinker, one of the problems is that he doesn't prove the existence of God. All he does is simply reaffirm to the believers that they are right. There are too many assumptions in his "proofs" to actually prove anything.
> I was just using the same logic and throwing in philosophy.
Not the same logic, skewed logic. You are assuming that the value of $philosophy is 0, when in fact, it may just be close to zero.
I meant that as a joke & also sorta' kinda' maybe real.
> Don't watch it. Boycott it,
Wow, boycott it for the sake of... your ego? Yeah right. If there was something I thought would cause harm, I would boycott it. Otherwise, it's a movie, get the fuck over it.
OTOH, if you don't want to risk the huge $7 investment (might need venture capitalists to back you up for that seven bucks), wait until the second day... or second week -- by then, if you ook hard enough, I'm sure you will find someone that doesn't like it, and then you have a reason not to go. Problem solved, everyone goes home happy -- except the ones who lost their shirt (a $7 shirt, mind you) in the "Great Matrix Scam of 2003."
G.A.L.