The question of necessity is entirely different from the question of feasibility. However, if something is infeasible, it often renders the question of appropriateness as moot.
I have serious doubts as to whether they actually can "create some technically sound method of mangling tracks just enough so that only one person could ever listen to it." Copyright protection measures in the past have often depended upon restricting the hardware. IOW, it doesn't matter whether a watermark exists or not unless the player checks for its existence. This worked reasonably well on things like VCR's, where the hardware is unique and proprietary. DeCSS indicates how effective relying on that technique is when it comes to computers.
We're not talking about general encryption, however. We're talking about a way to distribute music. It's hardly practical to encrypt every song with a different PGP key. The problem is to set up a system where the security is near transparent to a legitimate user but prevents a non-legitimate user from accessing the content. I won't say that it can't be done, but I will say that it has never been done and faces a lot of significant hurdles.
There's a kernel of truth to their propaganda here. However, as they explicityly state, the actual manufacturing is only a small fraction of the costs they detail. And this manufacturing cost is the only cost which would be defrayed by selling music online vice via CD. Add in the additional costs of creating and maintaining the electronic distribution site and savings are quite minimal.
I don't know what CDs you buy, but I'd think that the average would be closer to 10 or 12 than 17 to 20 songs per CD. And the actual manufacturing costs for a CD is extremely low, anyway.
First of all, Courney Love gave a very intelligent speech about music, MP3s, and how the recording industry is the real pirate
It seems to me we have a system in place here similar to the old feudal system in Europe. You have a rich nobility (the RIAA members) who own the land (a stranglehold on music publishing). The peasants (musicians) do all the work, while the nobility takes all the money. Then, they have the gall to sit around and complain that we're ripping off the poor, pitiful peasants.
??? And this has exactly what relation to the issue of whether or not those people who do use the net would be willing to purchase credit on line for micropayments?
You're right. Better tell Amazon, eBay, etc. to go ahead and shut down because people will never give them (some 3rd party) access to their bank and checking account.
Because you aren't paying anyone to remove banner ads. You're paying them for the content on that page. The removal of banner ads is a nice side effect.
I think it might be more accurate to say that there will be a blurring between "manufacturing" and "growing." When you include nanotechnology, which draws at least as much from organic principles as it does from traditional manufacturing processes, the most basic concepts of mass production are undergoing some fundamental changes. Granted, it is likely to be some time before we see the full fruits of this. We are just entering the "vacuum tube" stage of this technology.
Young, white, male, upwardly mobile English speakers are the majority in the net. Everybody else is a minority.
Technically, you're correct. Realistically, who cares? I have no way of knowing your true race, sex or religion. I can guess from your user name that you're of hispanic (or at least spanish speaking) descent. Of course, you could really be a 20 year old blonde-haired, blue- eyed female Swede; a 90 year old African Pygmy male or anything in between. But the only time it's an issue is when you bring it up.
BS. US culture is overwhelmingly predominant. If you are clueles about it, it will show, and people will notice.
So now everyone who isn't from the US is an oppressed minority on the Internet? Once again, so what if someone notices you aren't from the US? Does your email stop working? Do your comments on/. suddenly have a default moderation of -1? Do web pages stop working for your browser?
You should communicate with people with similar problems who have risen against them, and share your insights. I recommend that you consider the Inuits.
How do you know he isn't already in contact with them? And what does it matter here if he is? There might be a topic on/. where it's actually topical. If so, I'd be quite happy to hear it. For this topic, however, it doesn't matter at all. So why are you making such an issue of it? If you'd get the chip off your shoulder, you might find the world to be a pretty decent place in spite of its flaws.
i <sic> assume you actually mean Nick Dalius, and if you do, you're still incorrect. it is originally attributed to Napoleon, in response to an accusation of treason aimed at a subordinate, captain straight-fact.
And this is supposed to indicate what? Even if Pratt wrote about the quote in one of his fictions, it's doubtful that the actual text would be found online. The only reference I could find attributing this to Napoleon was on Jerry Pournelle's page, where a fan incorrectly referred to Nick Daimos as Nick Dalius. Jerry was unable to give a definitive source for attributing the quote to Napoleon, although he insisted it was correct, and suggested it was the kind of incident favored by Fletcher Pratt. The coincidence of confusing Nick Diamos name and references to Pratt suggest that this was your source as well. Perhaps you should do a bit more research, Private Wrong-fact.
First, if you're going to correct someone, I suggest you make sure you get facts straight. Otherwise, you make yourself look silly. The actual quote is "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity." It's by Nick Diamos. I like my version better. So sue me. It's my sig and I'll put it in there any way I want.
Second, I'm not ascribing malice to anyone. Neither Doubleclick nor the RIAA are acting out of a desire to hurt anyone. Their motive is nothing more nor less than profit. I accuse them of being cavalier, callous, avaricious, rapacious and a host of other sins. But not malicious.
I'd agree if the authors had limited themselves to a post in a newsgroup. However, I think the fact that they created pictures of the product, established a fairly complete website, and even took orders lifted the effort well beyond that of a mere troll and into the realm of hackdom.
I don't burn it every time, of course. And I don't use minute rice. To get rice just right, so it's fluffy and not sticky, you have to cook all of the water out, and you can't stir it while it's cooking. Take it off a tad too soon and it's sticky. Take it off a tad too late and the bottom burns. Have to pay attention those last few minutes and its easy to get distracted. (And please, don't anyone tell me to add oil to the water. Blech!)
(Sheesh, how to cook rice. It's true - hang around/. long enough and every subject will come up at least once.)
One of the things that I think he should consider is to take orders for a bound copy as well. If he self-publishes (normally a losing proposition, but should work well in this situation), he can sell them for a couple of dollars each and still make a profit.
Every time an inovation comes up, someone steps up and says "Nope, things don't work that way. Things work this way because they always have." Sometimes, they're right. Sometimes, they're wrong. All you can do is wait and see.
Actually, Richard Bachman was making a name for himself when he was "outed." King didn't reveal Bachman's identity - someone else figured it out and spilled the beans. And sales of Bachman books prior to that were increasing. Once the secret was out, they were released under King's name and sold much better. That doesn't mean King's name carried the books - it just means more people were aware of them. Personally, I read mostly sci-fi, fantasy and non-fiction. King is the only horror I read, and that's true of a number of King fans. The Bachman books were decent books, but I'd never have even picked them up to look at the back cover blurb if I hadn't known it was King. The name got my notice, but the books succeeded on their own merits.
A sucker bet? Why? Even if you download the first two chapters and never get the ending, what have you lost? It isn't like a lottery where you have nothing to show for your money. You paid two dollars for a few minutes entertainment. God knows I've spent five to seven bucks for paperbacks and tossed them after reading the first chapter. If you don't want to read the book, find. But don't imply that those who do are suckers.
The one problem I have with this is that movies simply don't have the impact on a small screen that they do in a theatre. That's why VCRs didn't kill the theatre industry.
But he's done more than just show that an author can make it on his or her own. He's actually come up with a honor-based download model that works.
Wonder if he thought to patent the idea before someone else does and tells him he has to pay a royalty in order to use it. (And don't tell me you can't patent it because of prior art. That hasn't worked for anything else, so why should it work here.)
I have a cast iron pan myself for eggs. Never sees soap - scrub it out with a little salt. But the rest of my cookware, including my pots, are teflon coated. Even burned rice cleans up easy.
Not so sure about that. If you cook or, even more important, if you're the lucky sod who gets to hand wash the dishes, you HAVE to put teflon in there.
Point taken but I think there are orders of magnitude of differences here. If I ignore my child, I'm esentially withholding something they desire from them. It's arguable as to how much of myself I'm obligated to give them, and the choice of how to respond to that lack still remains with the child. Not so when you alter their genetic make-up.
Slashdot Mirror
I have serious doubts as to whether they actually can "create some technically sound method of mangling tracks just enough so that only one person could ever listen to it." Copyright protection measures in the past have often depended upon restricting the hardware. IOW, it doesn't matter whether a watermark exists or not unless the player checks for its existence. This worked reasonably well on things like VCR's, where the hardware is unique and proprietary. DeCSS indicates how effective relying on that technique is when it comes to computers.
We're not talking about general encryption, however. We're talking about a way to distribute music. It's hardly practical to encrypt every song with a different PGP key. The problem is to set up a system where the security is near transparent to a legitimate user but prevents a non-legitimate user from accessing the content. I won't say that it can't be done, but I will say that it has never been done and faces a lot of significant hurdles.
There's a kernel of truth to their propaganda here. However, as they explicityly state, the actual manufacturing is only a small fraction of the costs they detail. And this manufacturing cost is the only cost which would be defrayed by selling music online vice via CD. Add in the additional costs of creating and maintaining the electronic distribution site and savings are quite minimal.
I don't know what CDs you buy, but I'd think that the average would be closer to 10 or 12 than 17 to 20 songs per CD. And the actual manufacturing costs for a CD is extremely low, anyway.
It seems to me we have a system in place here similar to the old feudal system in Europe. You have a rich nobility (the RIAA members) who own the land (a stranglehold on music publishing). The peasants (musicians) do all the work, while the nobility takes all the money. Then, they have the gall to sit around and complain that we're ripping off the poor, pitiful peasants.
??? And this has exactly what relation to the issue of whether or not those people who do use the net would be willing to purchase credit on line for micropayments?
You're right. Better tell Amazon, eBay, etc. to go ahead and shut down because people will never give them (some 3rd party) access to their bank and checking account.
Because you aren't paying anyone to remove banner ads. You're paying them for the content on that page. The removal of banner ads is a nice side effect.
I think it might be more accurate to say that there will be a blurring between "manufacturing" and "growing." When you include nanotechnology, which draws at least as much from organic principles as it does from traditional manufacturing processes, the most basic concepts of mass production are undergoing some fundamental changes. Granted, it is likely to be some time before we see the full fruits of this. We are just entering the "vacuum tube" stage of this technology.
Technically, you're correct. Realistically, who cares? I have no way of knowing your true race, sex or religion. I can guess from your user name that you're of hispanic (or at least spanish speaking) descent. Of course, you could really be a 20 year old blonde-haired, blue- eyed female Swede; a 90 year old African Pygmy male or anything in between. But the only time it's an issue is when you bring it up.
BS. US culture is overwhelmingly predominant. If you are clueles about it, it will show, and people will notice.
So now everyone who isn't from the US is an oppressed minority on the Internet? Once again, so what if someone notices you aren't from the US? Does your email stop working? Do your comments on /. suddenly have a default moderation of -1? Do web pages stop working for your browser?
You should communicate with people with similar problems who have risen against them, and share your insights. I recommend that you consider the Inuits.
How do you know he isn't already in contact with them? And what does it matter here if he is? There might be a topic on /. where it's actually topical. If so, I'd be quite happy to hear it. For this topic, however, it doesn't matter at all. So why are you making such an issue of it? If you'd get the chip off your shoulder, you might find the world to be a pretty decent place in spite of its flaws.
No, I meant Nick Diamos.
try a search for Fletcher Pratt's books
And this is supposed to indicate what? Even if Pratt wrote about the quote in one of his fictions, it's doubtful that the actual text would be found online. The only reference I could find attributing this to Napoleon was on Jerry Pournelle's page, where a fan incorrectly referred to Nick Daimos as Nick Dalius. Jerry was unable to give a definitive source for attributing the quote to Napoleon, although he insisted it was correct, and suggested it was the kind of incident favored by Fletcher Pratt. The coincidence of confusing Nick Diamos name and references to Pratt suggest that this was your source as well. Perhaps you should do a bit more research, Private Wrong-fact.
Second, I'm not ascribing malice to anyone. Neither Doubleclick nor the RIAA are acting out of a desire to hurt anyone. Their motive is nothing more nor less than profit. I accuse them of being cavalier, callous, avaricious, rapacious and a host of other sins. But not malicious.
Think we could talk the RIAA into allowing the public to self-regulate their use of copyrighted materials?
I'd agree if the authors had limited themselves to a post in a newsgroup. However, I think the fact that they created pictures of the product, established a fairly complete website, and even took orders lifted the effort well beyond that of a mere troll and into the realm of hackdom.
This wasn't a troll. It was a hack, and beautifully done too.
(Sheesh, how to cook rice. It's true - hang around /. long enough and every subject will come up at least once.)
One of the things that I think he should consider is to take orders for a bound copy as well. If he self-publishes (normally a losing proposition, but should work well in this situation), he can sell them for a couple of dollars each and still make a profit.
Every time an inovation comes up, someone steps up and says "Nope, things don't work that way. Things work this way because they always have." Sometimes, they're right. Sometimes, they're wrong. All you can do is wait and see.
Actually, Richard Bachman was making a name for himself when he was "outed." King didn't reveal Bachman's identity - someone else figured it out and spilled the beans. And sales of Bachman books prior to that were increasing. Once the secret was out, they were released under King's name and sold much better. That doesn't mean King's name carried the books - it just means more people were aware of them. Personally, I read mostly sci-fi, fantasy and non-fiction. King is the only horror I read, and that's true of a number of King fans. The Bachman books were decent books, but I'd never have even picked them up to look at the back cover blurb if I hadn't known it was King. The name got my notice, but the books succeeded on their own merits.
A sucker bet? Why? Even if you download the first two chapters and never get the ending, what have you lost? It isn't like a lottery where you have nothing to show for your money. You paid two dollars for a few minutes entertainment. God knows I've spent five to seven bucks for paperbacks and tossed them after reading the first chapter. If you don't want to read the book, find. But don't imply that those who do are suckers.
The one problem I have with this is that movies simply don't have the impact on a small screen that they do in a theatre. That's why VCRs didn't kill the theatre industry.
Wonder if he thought to patent the idea before someone else does and tells him he has to pay a royalty in order to use it. (And don't tell me you can't patent it because of prior art. That hasn't worked for anything else, so why should it work here.)
I have a cast iron pan myself for eggs. Never sees soap - scrub it out with a little salt. But the rest of my cookware, including my pots, are teflon coated. Even burned rice cleans up easy.
Not so sure about that. If you cook or, even more important, if you're the lucky sod who gets to hand wash the dishes, you HAVE to put teflon in there.
Point taken but I think there are orders of magnitude of differences here. If I ignore my child, I'm esentially withholding something they desire from them. It's arguable as to how much of myself I'm obligated to give them, and the choice of how to respond to that lack still remains with the child. Not so when you alter their genetic make-up.