Oh, crap. We need to sue Winrar. After all, everybody uses rars for piracy! If you weren't pirating you'd just use Zip! Ignore all the arguments otherwise! YES, KILL BUSINESSES WHICH PRODUCE SCARY SOUNDING PRODUCTS!
The point was badly phrased.
Rather, there is no common legitimate use for these products, unlike the Pirate Bay, which does have common legitimate uses (even if they are overshadowed by illegitimate uses.)
The sole purpose of the pirate bay for me personally is so that businesses and individuals can leverage the power of peer to peer networking in order to cost cost-effectively transfer game updates and other products which are either not protected by copyright or licensed appropriately to me.
How's that?
Are you serious!? The ability to transfer large amounts of data anonymously is critical.
Look at the wiki sites that are being harassed simply for posting instances of censorship (wikileaks). Sure, it's not that difficult to spread those, but what about bigger files like movies of detainee abuse, chinese abuse of the tibetan monks?
I understand your perspective. Remember, however, that the rates quoted are based on what the artists were getting off the original flat rates negotiated in 2007.
Nobody is proposing we stick with those. Artists would make more money with either deal - but negotiations are confidential, so the exact amounts are unknown.
Google isn't trying to steal their content. They're not saying "get on board with the new revolution", but rather "this is what our service can afford to pay." Sure, Microsoft and Sony subsidize their games consoles to a massive extent, but that could lead to massive profits. Agreeing to serve music at a big loss is likely to go nowhere good for Google. I'm sure they're looking at hundreds of strategies for making more money with youtube, but it looks like none will pay whatever it is the PRS wants.
When the PRS wants them to make a deal before the PRS will even say how many bands they represent, something's wrong...
According to Google, they make very little off this copyright content. While Youtube may be big and powerful, it's not necessarily easy to monetize without losing most of its userbase.
Maybe this will help it make more sense.
The digital artifacts in mp3-128 are usually relatively insignificant. Choice in speakers or headphones is 90% of the perceived sound quality, imho - - until you get up to really high end stuff (at least in the speaker world). You can do a blind test with foobar2000 if you want to test this; I have. What we're probably seeing is a small percentage of students preferring the more familiar sound against something which is barely any different (to them). Move the compression very far down from 128 and you'd see lots of love for the lossless.
Yeah. After all, the MPAA violated copyright on by copying the movie "Steal this movie", and got off scott-free. Their defense? The action was morally correct due to their production of only one copy which was safely stored in MPAA vaults.
From this, we can determine that there is one law for media industries which violate individual copyrights (which clean-stamp their own actions) and another for individuals who violate media industry copyrights.
I'm sure that this realization does plenty to encourage individual respect for the law, yes?
You have me completely wrong. I'm referring to what *they probably have* and not what I think is best. I have done blind audio tests between lossless and 128k and I have trouble telling the difference (have to listen for cymbals). I'm totally satisfied with 192. As for video, 1-2 gigabytes leaves me more than satisfied it'll look great on a big HDTV.
In addition, there are certain benefits to having the original DVD and audio (ability to recompress in whatever format you want, ability to burn DVDs you can play in standalone DVD players, etc..)
The point has been made before that it's likely the server was full of both original copies *and* transcodes (at least of popular stuff), using even more bandwidth. For that reason, it's pretty hard to calculate
I'll take 200 megabytes per album FLAC as a reasonable estimate. You're right; my numbers were rough and didn't take album length into account. It's still incredibly easy to eat huge amounts of space once you start dealing with lossless music, which many pirates now do. Collection side is a difficult matter to estimate without more information.
As for my point itself (65 TB is actually pretty small) I think the size of DVDs alone is validation enough.
How did you get that figure?
The itunes store has 10 million songs. Let's divide that by about ten and say this pirate only had 100k albums, right? In CD-quality audio, 100k albums at 650 megs per album is 60 terabytes.
Even in compressed (but still lossless) FLAC or APE format, 30 terabytes.
For standard movies, DVD dual layer = 9 gigs. Multiply by a slightly more reasonable 25,000 (88 is ridiculous), and you get 225 terabytes.
Plus, HD movies are 30 gigs EACH. 10-15ish if they're transcoded. That's about 2,000 movies to fill up the whole drive. Don't forget TV shows.
Unless you live in an urban metropolis, there's a fairly large cost to have stores nearby your house stocking all the games you might want. Once the pressure from retailers to keep digital sale prices high disappears, we'll see much more cheaper games online.
DRM is problematic, but Steam is at least *trying*.
I'm not sure I like the way you're phrasing your argument.
You're not asking for the right to freedom of speech as historically considered, but rather the freedom to be heard. I don't believe that you, or anyone, should have that right.
Rupert Murdoch does not need a clearly defined right in order to deserve the full use of the airwaves which he paid for. If you believe that the airwaves are being auctioned improperly, well, that's a different matter. Even so, I don't believe the government should be deciding the distributionof the airwaves based on political opinion.
Exactly! A drawing, text or combination of sounds only represents some form of art if it was constructed using officially approved tools. That is why Musique concrÃte has been so thoroughly and totally rejected in every form.
The very fact you ridicule any medium you don't understand shows that you truly are a luddite at heart, and subverts every argument you make. Good job.
The whole purpose of copyright isn't to funnel money from ordinary people to the creative types who "deserve" it, but get the software written.
If it doesn't take the promise of vast wealth to spur the creation of a program, we're rather lucky if OSS guys free it up, yes? After all, they're not stopping the creative types from creating glitzier, more smoothly functioning (yet closed, more expensive) versions.
For those of us who just want something that works without breaking the bank or locking us down, it's great not to be tied down to proprietary software.
That said, there's a reason this "OSS" stuff is spreading through the embedded devices market, among many others: without OSS, the cost of innumerable products you use would be higher. As much as certain politicians would like you to believe it, adding hidden taxes to everything to create fake jobs doesn't really boost the economy =)
Time spent writing OSS code is a weird creature which exists in a distant netherworld.
With a normal job, you have distinct goals as to how you will directly monetize your efforts. You end up producing useful work, you get paid.
With a hobby, there may (and probably will be) indirect benefits, but you have no expectation of a solid paycheck. On the other hand, unless you're "volunteering" you probably aren't simply donating your time to society, either.
Writing OSS code fits in a hazy region between both of these (and pure self-education). It's a balance of helping others, advancing yourself, and a receiving a variety of mostly intrinsic rewards (this is where the ego part comes in). Simply having extra time laying around is a pretty big requirement, so when regular work becomes hard to come by, time spent on OSS development should increase.
Slashdot Mirror
Border searches are performed in the never-neverland which is not technically within the United States, so certain protections do not apply.
Oh, crap. We need to sue Winrar. After all, everybody uses rars for piracy! If you weren't pirating you'd just use Zip! Ignore all the arguments otherwise! YES, KILL BUSINESSES WHICH PRODUCE SCARY SOUNDING PRODUCTS!
The point was badly phrased. Rather, there is no common legitimate use for these products, unlike the Pirate Bay, which does have common legitimate uses (even if they are overshadowed by illegitimate uses.)
The sole purpose of the pirate bay for me personally is so that businesses and individuals can leverage the power of peer to peer networking in order to cost cost-effectively transfer game updates and other products which are either not protected by copyright or licensed appropriately to me. How's that?
Are you serious!? The ability to transfer large amounts of data anonymously is critical. Look at the wiki sites that are being harassed simply for posting instances of censorship (wikileaks). Sure, it's not that difficult to spread those, but what about bigger files like movies of detainee abuse, chinese abuse of the tibetan monks?
I understand your perspective. Remember, however, that the rates quoted are based on what the artists were getting off the original flat rates negotiated in 2007. Nobody is proposing we stick with those. Artists would make more money with either deal - but negotiations are confidential, so the exact amounts are unknown. Google isn't trying to steal their content. They're not saying "get on board with the new revolution", but rather "this is what our service can afford to pay." Sure, Microsoft and Sony subsidize their games consoles to a massive extent, but that could lead to massive profits. Agreeing to serve music at a big loss is likely to go nowhere good for Google. I'm sure they're looking at hundreds of strategies for making more money with youtube, but it looks like none will pay whatever it is the PRS wants. When the PRS wants them to make a deal before the PRS will even say how many bands they represent, something's wrong...
According to Google, they make very little off this copyright content. While Youtube may be big and powerful, it's not necessarily easy to monetize without losing most of its userbase.
His point is that fighting for the ideals of free software seems rather useless to him when he will never personally take advantage of them directly.
How fast is that system? For me, heavy use makes XP start to really blow as time passes. I'm hoping this doesn't occur with Win7.
Huh? This is the exact opposite of what most audiophiles say...
Trent Reznor's HD footage: 400 gigs http://forum.nin.com/bb/read.php?52,378166 http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/index.php/download/ And, yes, the newest Ubuntu upon release.
Maybe this will help it make more sense. The digital artifacts in mp3-128 are usually relatively insignificant. Choice in speakers or headphones is 90% of the perceived sound quality, imho - - until you get up to really high end stuff (at least in the speaker world). You can do a blind test with foobar2000 if you want to test this; I have. What we're probably seeing is a small percentage of students preferring the more familiar sound against something which is barely any different (to them). Move the compression very far down from 128 and you'd see lots of love for the lossless.
Bwah. You're correct; thanks.
Yeah. After all, the MPAA violated copyright on by copying the movie "Steal this movie", and got off scott-free. Their defense? The action was morally correct due to their production of only one copy which was safely stored in MPAA vaults. From this, we can determine that there is one law for media industries which violate individual copyrights (which clean-stamp their own actions) and another for individuals who violate media industry copyrights. I'm sure that this realization does plenty to encourage individual respect for the law, yes?
haha, no problem =)
You have me completely wrong. I'm referring to what *they probably have* and not what I think is best. I have done blind audio tests between lossless and 128k and I have trouble telling the difference (have to listen for cymbals). I'm totally satisfied with 192. As for video, 1-2 gigabytes leaves me more than satisfied it'll look great on a big HDTV. In addition, there are certain benefits to having the original DVD and audio (ability to recompress in whatever format you want, ability to burn DVDs you can play in standalone DVD players, etc..) The point has been made before that it's likely the server was full of both original copies *and* transcodes (at least of popular stuff), using even more bandwidth. For that reason, it's pretty hard to calculate
I'll take 200 megabytes per album FLAC as a reasonable estimate. You're right; my numbers were rough and didn't take album length into account. It's still incredibly easy to eat huge amounts of space once you start dealing with lossless music, which many pirates now do. Collection side is a difficult matter to estimate without more information. As for my point itself (65 TB is actually pretty small) I think the size of DVDs alone is validation enough.
How did you get that figure? The itunes store has 10 million songs. Let's divide that by about ten and say this pirate only had 100k albums, right? In CD-quality audio, 100k albums at 650 megs per album is 60 terabytes. Even in compressed (but still lossless) FLAC or APE format, 30 terabytes. For standard movies, DVD dual layer = 9 gigs. Multiply by a slightly more reasonable 25,000 (88 is ridiculous), and you get 225 terabytes. Plus, HD movies are 30 gigs EACH. 10-15ish if they're transcoded. That's about 2,000 movies to fill up the whole drive. Don't forget TV shows.
Unless you live in an urban metropolis, there's a fairly large cost to have stores nearby your house stocking all the games you might want. Once the pressure from retailers to keep digital sale prices high disappears, we'll see much more cheaper games online. DRM is problematic, but Steam is at least *trying*.
Aren't theaters?
Many malls around the nation ban unattended youths at certain times of the day. I'd imagine that this would have been challenged if illegitimate.
I'm not sure I like the way you're phrasing your argument. You're not asking for the right to freedom of speech as historically considered, but rather the freedom to be heard. I don't believe that you, or anyone, should have that right. Rupert Murdoch does not need a clearly defined right in order to deserve the full use of the airwaves which he paid for. If you believe that the airwaves are being auctioned improperly, well, that's a different matter. Even so, I don't believe the government should be deciding the distributionof the airwaves based on political opinion.
Exactly! A drawing, text or combination of sounds only represents some form of art if it was constructed using officially approved tools. That is why Musique concrÃte has been so thoroughly and totally rejected in every form. The very fact you ridicule any medium you don't understand shows that you truly are a luddite at heart, and subverts every argument you make. Good job.
The whole purpose of copyright isn't to funnel money from ordinary people to the creative types who "deserve" it, but get the software written. If it doesn't take the promise of vast wealth to spur the creation of a program, we're rather lucky if OSS guys free it up, yes? After all, they're not stopping the creative types from creating glitzier, more smoothly functioning (yet closed, more expensive) versions. For those of us who just want something that works without breaking the bank or locking us down, it's great not to be tied down to proprietary software. That said, there's a reason this "OSS" stuff is spreading through the embedded devices market, among many others: without OSS, the cost of innumerable products you use would be higher. As much as certain politicians would like you to believe it, adding hidden taxes to everything to create fake jobs doesn't really boost the economy =)
Time spent writing OSS code is a weird creature which exists in a distant netherworld. With a normal job, you have distinct goals as to how you will directly monetize your efforts. You end up producing useful work, you get paid. With a hobby, there may (and probably will be) indirect benefits, but you have no expectation of a solid paycheck. On the other hand, unless you're "volunteering" you probably aren't simply donating your time to society, either. Writing OSS code fits in a hazy region between both of these (and pure self-education). It's a balance of helping others, advancing yourself, and a receiving a variety of mostly intrinsic rewards (this is where the ego part comes in). Simply having extra time laying around is a pretty big requirement, so when regular work becomes hard to come by, time spent on OSS development should increase.