So what happens when the government hires some third party to make these with built in networking where generals can control them from anywhere in the world, so what happens if somehow there was a divide-by-zero error and the system goes haywire? What happens if some script-kiddy ends up cracking the system? If theres one thing you learn by working with technology it is that anyone with the right amount of knowledge can easily crack them. Its a scary thought if someone was to crack the servers and send death-dealing robots on civilians or worse if an evil government ends up nuking an entire contanent. Please, keep the weapons dumb because human error is always better then human evil.
The fact though isn't that they included the web browser but rather that the browser is irremovable from the OS, and when its filled with security flaws its a risk for offices and businesses with the employees knowing nothing other then Word and Outlook go on IE when Firefox is installed and end up getting the computer infested with spyware. It is the same thing with the Media Player in the EU, theres no problem with them including it, but when it can't be removed, its a problem.
Exactly why there shouldn't be an ESRB, because all this leads to is parents not parenting and just letting the ESRB decide, what should and shouldn't be allowed, we are allowing them to define our culture, and all it does it give more government and ESRB-type companies, video games are being censored by this, if the Romans and Greeks had a Art Rating Board, how many great artist/sculptures wouldn't exist?
Is it the spammer's fault of MS and the big tech companies fault though? If Outlook (The most used E-Mail client currently) included a spam filter much like Thunderbird has anti-phishing filters, we wouldn't have this problem because spammers would get blocked, now its an epidemic because the companies did nothing to stop it, now we have a problem. Because of this spam continues, Im not trying to be anti-MS but when you look at it, its somewhat their fault.
Yes I agree, however the ESRB can't be trusted to give "accurate" ratings. For example, Fire Emblem is rated "T" for "violence" yet Tales of Symphonia where the characters swear alot (Seriously, every other sentence contains a swear) is rated "T" for "Language, Violence and Suggestive Themes" Its gotten a bit better with the "E10" thing, but still, "rating boards" do nothing but censor the content, what difference does it make if a 10 year old plays a shooting game, when I was 10 I was even hunting, sure theres a "link" between them but there hasn't been any conclusive evidence that they are directly linked. Also, what difference does it make if a 10 year old is swearing but yet its O.K. if a 17 year old can, seriously, these people are totally contradicting themselves. Also, does it make since to anyone else that "M" is supposedly 17 and up and "AO" is 18 and up, a year doesn't make a difference. Bottom line, get rid of the ESRB, Film Rating boards etc. if some parents will get all angry if their kids play a violent video game, then pick out the video games they can play themselves, if they don't care then let the kid decide themselves, its not hurting anything.
If its a needed product, and it has decent enough code, it will be accepted. For example, Linux is loaded with: Text Editors, IDEs, Media Players, Browsers based on the Gecko engine, simple rip-offs of games. Its the niche products that will survive, although there might not be 100 developers on it, it will be used by those that need it. The worst that will happen is its ignored, generally if theres a need for a program no one is going to flame you for bad code, they will either live with it, help you with it or privately fix it themselves. The reason most OSS projects don't succeed is because they end up falling into the "monopolies" (Not abusive monopolies that of the MS world but 1 de-facto standard) of the OSS world, for example, vi, emacs and somewhat nano are the only terminal based text editors that will be used by the majority of users, so whenever someone else comes up with one, its largely ignored, but things that put a "friendly" GUI on a common CLI program (Such as Synaptic for apt-get) it is usually appreciated, but bottom line, if it does something nothing else does, and does it better it will be accepted, if not then it will be largely ignored, you won't have people yelling at poorly documented code it will just be silently ignored.
Exactly, its not like Google isn't going to search stories critical to some group, if they did, it would be a story, its just an ad one of the many that pollute the web, and face it, most/.ers wouldn't have seen it because they use adblock.
Totally agreed. 3.1 was a leap ahead of DOS, 95 and 98 were easier to use then 3.1 and had the taskbar, 2000 was decent, although I never ran it when it was new, just on pre-existing machines, XP was, in my opinion, the best version of Windows, sure it wasn't the best it could be, but it kept the same learning curve as 95,98 and 2000, if you could use 95 you could use XP, It was that, that was keeping Linux from leaping ahead of Windows, now though Vista throws it totally out the windows, if you knew how to use XP, you still have to learn a new OS, so why pay $50 (OEM) to over $200, (Ultimate) when you can get the same level of functionality with Linux thats free, almost always gets better (mostly the code gets optimized, applications run faster, bugs get fixed....) unlike Windows where the next version seems more sluggish then the other version not to mention how easily you can get spyware/viruses just by visiting a website with IE. Most Windows "Everyday" users won't ever mess up Linux enough to even put it in an unusable state, the most that can usually happen is your home directory gets wiped. Thats it. With Windows even a simple hardware upgrade can give you a Blue screen of death (Once on Vista I got one because my Wireless card wasn't pushed in all the way....) on Linux that hasn't ever happened to me. I was happy with Windows until Vista, that just made me jump to Ubuntu even faster,
MS has alienated its customers, the age of MS is passed, like the age of IBM before it, now the age of Linux looms before us, a world where you can actually get the OS that you want
Because XP can be just as bad as Vista, both are dead-end platforms that will need to be "upgraded" with a $100 price tag to keep using some of the same software. If the consumer group wants to place things in the hands of consumers, it would be to ask for Linux. Sure you need to upgrade Linux, but the software is free and can be run on most any hardware platform, the same can't be said for Vista and XP. Not to mention the DRM thats built in, and WGA.... both of those are anti-consumer more then Vista alone and XP has both even though just minor doses.
Yes, even though I don't actually buy from Red Hat, it almost makes me want to go out and buy Fedora rather then download it next time I want to test it, its sad though that the companies who actually fight for freedom of code/user choice are those that don't have very many products to sell, except for the hardware vender's. Although I might buy some Red Hat stock....
Have you tried FF3? It is super fast compared to FF2, which was faster then FF1. In a world where speed is everything and as Vista shows, you can always tell people to buy a new computer/ram/CPU/graphics card using 50 MB of memory really isn't that much when you get the speed and speed has historically been the reason why people used IE, it was what stopped me from going all FF back when I used Windows, because FF is so poorly optimized in the default state. And for bugs, sure they are not all fixed but its better then the alternatives, Opera which is closed source, IE which is insecure 100% of the time and doesn't run on Linux, Konquorer which is lean and fast, but lacks support and a flash plugin, and I don't like the UI of Safari, plus it doesn't work on Linux anyways. Sure there are always "alternitive" browsers like Epiphany and Galelion but they are based on Gecko and work just about the same as FF. So yes, FF isn't the greatest, but its better then the competition and I hope that the new Minimo will help optimize the rendering speed of FF, something that I really want more then code optimization for resources
Although I don't know much about the Server edition MS software does not work well with OSS software. First off, playing of Ogg s are impossible without installing a third party codec (And its not patent-restricted like mp3) Second, Windows doesn't show Linux drives, yet Linux can see FAT16, FAT32, NTFS, ETC. Linux can also play WMAs (provided you installed the codecs) Linux can open up.zip files while Windows can't open.tar files. Linux recognizes many different formats by default, unlike Windows (Windows can't even recognize an ISO by default...) MS has done too much trying to make Linux look like a small project, yet Windows (And OSX) recognize that there is competition and can detect the filetypes and such. As I said though, this might not be true about Server 2008, this is based off of XP and Vista Windows editions.
At least this one adds functionality rather then just fixing bugs that would have already been fixed in the Alpha had it been an open source project.... I just hope this doesn't include more DRM, but it wouldn't affect me as I ditched Windows for Ubuntu about 4 months ago.
Because it will probably leave to more DRM and other things that the record companies end up killing themselves over. CDs (before they went to putting rootkits in them) worked well, I could buy the CD, rip the song to whatever format I felt like (WMA, MP3, Ogg...) play it on how many devices I wanted to on the physical CD (my home, car, portable CD player) or digital (My cell phone by way of SD card, my Mp3 player, iPod, Wii, Linux computer, Windows Computer, Mac) and I could make a backup copy to insure it in case I step on my CD. Now with digital music the way that the record companies want it, I can buy the song, listen to it in some DRMed or patent restricted format, pay extra and listen to it on devices other then a Windows computer. Pay for it again to have a ringtone of it, pay for it again to put it on a non "preferred" Mp3 player and probably never get it to play on a Linux computer. Yes there is e-music and other DRM free music stores, but whenever record companies try to attack innovation, its us consumers that lose every time.
People think that a Firewall is going to protect them and because Windows ships with a (low security) firewall they think they are protected. Also, it seems that the people who are unprotected aren't those that have low risk systems,I have had people on Dial-up pay for an anti-virus for checking their e-mails. And people who go online a ton seem to be unprotected. Ill admit, when I was on Windows all I had was ad-aware (free) to check for spyware every now and then. It only got really infected once. Then I switched to a Linux system and am very happy that the security risks are minimal all I really have to do is put chkrootkit on cron, install the updates, and set up iptables and Im mostly fine save I don't run unknown binaries or shellscripts. And because the code is open, I don't have to worry about installing software from the package manager because I know that someone has looked at the code and If I really want to I can look at the code and compile it from source. Unix security owns Windows insecurity
But usually the most common aspects of a system (Firefox, Linux kernel, X, Core Utilities) all have many people looking at the source. And there is very rarely an attack on any system Linux or Windows that doesn't take advantage of the things that most everyone has (Think of all the Outlook and Internet Explorer spyware/viruses/Trojans) rather then some obscure program that say 100 people use. And the author was saying that it made it more secure, not that it helped development (which it does also) And for the uncritical examination it is mostly because the Free/Open Source community is in dire need for that application, think of Linux, even though the Hurd kernel was going to come out sometime soon Linux was used because it was there, not necessarily because it was the best (Even though now it totally demolishes the Hurd in capability)
Because from an end user's prospective, IE7 fails. Its slower, has a totally different GUI, and uses up more memory then IE6. On people's computers who have upgraded from a Windows 98/2000 computer to XP it can make their computer just about unusable because it wasn't meant for use by people who have 256 MB of RAM on a 1 Gzh machine, and yes there is a lot of them out there and IE6 is about the only web browser that will run decent on there except possibly Opera (well Konqueror might work but these people have Windows) on XP. FF won't because it uses up around 50 MB of memory even when compiled from scratch after an hour or two of browsing.
Im assuming this means that you can run it in Wine if you want, but IE7 is just the slower, more bloated version of IE6 with a few security patches updated. Seriously, its slower I have no clue why but I guess that just makes me happier I wiped Windows off my hard drive long ago and now have Ubuntu installed. Now FF3 is much faster then FF2 just from the betas
That what game companies are realizing, just look at Nintendo's Virtual Console, it saves people who want the old games but cartrages are scarce or they broke, from downloading the ROMs, really the only benefit for the ROMs now are to play them on your computer/mobile device.
But then, MS wouldn't have a monopoly now, technology would explode in growth being not restricted by copyrights, and then the GPL becomes the BSD license, Apple has been doing the same with OS-X, take safari, they took KHTML konqueror's base then added a proprietary UI over it same thing what they did with the OS-X kernel by taking the BSD kernel + X and added a proprietary GUI, at least though apple has those components still open-sourced. But still, killing copyright wouldn't be bad, although if we could at least kill patents and make innovating technology legal without having to have the MPIAA/RIAA "approving" it, the technology industry would grow by leaps and bounds.
And thats the reason why the record companies are dying. They make "pirating" songs a ton easier then paying for them. Take for instance buying an iTunes song.
1. Set up an account (Not that hard)
2. Put money in your account (not hard at all)
3. Hope they have a song you want (They might, they might not)
4. Buy the song (Just takes a click)
5. Put the song on your iPod (not hard)
6. Put the song on your generic mp3 player (Oh wait you can't....)
7. Play the song on Linux (Oh wait, I have to use restricted drivers....)
8. Share the songs with your friends (Oh wait, it can only be copied to a certain amount of computers...)
And downloading the song illegitimately
1. Get the file (not hard unless you don't have seeders)
2. Put the song on your mp3 player (not hard)
3. Put the song on your Linux computer (you can usually get in.ogg format so not hard)
4. Put the song on your iPod (easy)
5. Share the songs (really easy)
So besides price "pirating" songs has so many advantages that the RIAA and others stupidly ignore in support of more DRM and higher prices rather then making it much easier for people to download and share songs, after all, your not going to buy a song if you haven't heard it for free somewhere else.
Still $222 THOUSAND dollars is outrageous for such a simple act. If Capital could prove that it hurt them for $222 thousand dollars it would be correct but at most it would have hurt them ~$100-200 at most. They should appeal this case and get a judge that doesn't inflict absurd penalties for simple acts. If Capital won a $300-$600 suit it would be justified but there is no way it could have hurt Capital for $222,000 and the worst part is the artists won't get a penny.
Slashdot Mirror
So what happens when the government hires some third party to make these with built in networking where generals can control them from anywhere in the world, so what happens if somehow there was a divide-by-zero error and the system goes haywire? What happens if some script-kiddy ends up cracking the system? If theres one thing you learn by working with technology it is that anyone with the right amount of knowledge can easily crack them. Its a scary thought if someone was to crack the servers and send death-dealing robots on civilians or worse if an evil government ends up nuking an entire contanent. Please, keep the weapons dumb because human error is always better then human evil.
I think this is the only time that most /.ers will RTFA, just to view the source
The fact though isn't that they included the web browser but rather that the browser is irremovable from the OS, and when its filled with security flaws its a risk for offices and businesses with the employees knowing nothing other then Word and Outlook go on IE when Firefox is installed and end up getting the computer infested with spyware. It is the same thing with the Media Player in the EU, theres no problem with them including it, but when it can't be removed, its a problem.
Exactly why there shouldn't be an ESRB, because all this leads to is parents not parenting and just letting the ESRB decide, what should and shouldn't be allowed, we are allowing them to define our culture, and all it does it give more government and ESRB-type companies, video games are being censored by this, if the Romans and Greeks had a Art Rating Board, how many great artist/sculptures wouldn't exist?
Is it the spammer's fault of MS and the big tech companies fault though? If Outlook (The most used E-Mail client currently) included a spam filter much like Thunderbird has anti-phishing filters, we wouldn't have this problem because spammers would get blocked, now its an epidemic because the companies did nothing to stop it, now we have a problem. Because of this spam continues, Im not trying to be anti-MS but when you look at it, its somewhat their fault.
Yes I agree, however the ESRB can't be trusted to give "accurate" ratings. For example, Fire Emblem is rated "T" for "violence" yet Tales of Symphonia where the characters swear alot (Seriously, every other sentence contains a swear) is rated "T" for "Language, Violence and Suggestive Themes" Its gotten a bit better with the "E10" thing, but still, "rating boards" do nothing but censor the content, what difference does it make if a 10 year old plays a shooting game, when I was 10 I was even hunting, sure theres a "link" between them but there hasn't been any conclusive evidence that they are directly linked. Also, what difference does it make if a 10 year old is swearing but yet its O.K. if a 17 year old can, seriously, these people are totally contradicting themselves. Also, does it make since to anyone else that "M" is supposedly 17 and up and "AO" is 18 and up, a year doesn't make a difference. Bottom line, get rid of the ESRB, Film Rating boards etc. if some parents will get all angry if their kids play a violent video game, then pick out the video games they can play themselves, if they don't care then let the kid decide themselves, its not hurting anything.
If its a needed product, and it has decent enough code, it will be accepted. For example, Linux is loaded with: Text Editors, IDEs, Media Players, Browsers based on the Gecko engine, simple rip-offs of games. Its the niche products that will survive, although there might not be 100 developers on it, it will be used by those that need it. The worst that will happen is its ignored, generally if theres a need for a program no one is going to flame you for bad code, they will either live with it, help you with it or privately fix it themselves. The reason most OSS projects don't succeed is because they end up falling into the "monopolies" (Not abusive monopolies that of the MS world but 1 de-facto standard) of the OSS world, for example, vi, emacs and somewhat nano are the only terminal based text editors that will be used by the majority of users, so whenever someone else comes up with one, its largely ignored, but things that put a "friendly" GUI on a common CLI program (Such as Synaptic for apt-get) it is usually appreciated, but bottom line, if it does something nothing else does, and does it better it will be accepted, if not then it will be largely ignored, you won't have people yelling at poorly documented code it will just be silently ignored.
Exactly, its not like Google isn't going to search stories critical to some group, if they did, it would be a story, its just an ad one of the many that pollute the web, and face it, most /.ers wouldn't have seen it because they use adblock.
Totally agreed. 3.1 was a leap ahead of DOS, 95 and 98 were easier to use then 3.1 and had the taskbar, 2000 was decent, although I never ran it when it was new, just on pre-existing machines, XP was, in my opinion, the best version of Windows, sure it wasn't the best it could be, but it kept the same learning curve as 95,98 and 2000, if you could use 95 you could use XP, It was that, that was keeping Linux from leaping ahead of Windows, now though Vista throws it totally out the windows, if you knew how to use XP, you still have to learn a new OS, so why pay $50 (OEM) to over $200, (Ultimate) when you can get the same level of functionality with Linux thats free, almost always gets better (mostly the code gets optimized, applications run faster, bugs get fixed....) unlike Windows where the next version seems more sluggish then the other version not to mention how easily you can get spyware/viruses just by visiting a website with IE. Most Windows "Everyday" users won't ever mess up Linux enough to even put it in an unusable state, the most that can usually happen is your home directory gets wiped. Thats it. With Windows even a simple hardware upgrade can give you a Blue screen of death (Once on Vista I got one because my Wireless card wasn't pushed in all the way....) on Linux that hasn't ever happened to me. I was happy with Windows until Vista, that just made me jump to Ubuntu even faster,
MS has alienated its customers, the age of MS is passed, like the age of IBM before it, now the age of Linux looms before us, a world where you can actually get the OS that you want
Because XP can be just as bad as Vista, both are dead-end platforms that will need to be "upgraded" with a $100 price tag to keep using some of the same software. If the consumer group wants to place things in the hands of consumers, it would be to ask for Linux. Sure you need to upgrade Linux, but the software is free and can be run on most any hardware platform, the same can't be said for Vista and XP. Not to mention the DRM thats built in, and WGA.... both of those are anti-consumer more then Vista alone and XP has both even though just minor doses.
Yes, even though I don't actually buy from Red Hat, it almost makes me want to go out and buy Fedora rather then download it next time I want to test it, its sad though that the companies who actually fight for freedom of code/user choice are those that don't have very many products to sell, except for the hardware vender's. Although I might buy some Red Hat stock....
Have you tried FF3? It is super fast compared to FF2, which was faster then FF1. In a world where speed is everything and as Vista shows, you can always tell people to buy a new computer/ram/CPU/graphics card using 50 MB of memory really isn't that much when you get the speed and speed has historically been the reason why people used IE, it was what stopped me from going all FF back when I used Windows, because FF is so poorly optimized in the default state. And for bugs, sure they are not all fixed but its better then the alternatives, Opera which is closed source, IE which is insecure 100% of the time and doesn't run on Linux, Konquorer which is lean and fast, but lacks support and a flash plugin, and I don't like the UI of Safari, plus it doesn't work on Linux anyways. Sure there are always "alternitive" browsers like Epiphany and Galelion but they are based on Gecko and work just about the same as FF. So yes, FF isn't the greatest, but its better then the competition and I hope that the new Minimo will help optimize the rendering speed of FF, something that I really want more then code optimization for resources
Although I don't know much about the Server edition MS software does not work well with OSS software. First off, playing of Ogg s are impossible without installing a third party codec (And its not patent-restricted like mp3) Second, Windows doesn't show Linux drives, yet Linux can see FAT16, FAT32, NTFS, ETC. Linux can also play WMAs (provided you installed the codecs) Linux can open up .zip files while Windows can't open .tar files. Linux recognizes many different formats by default, unlike Windows (Windows can't even recognize an ISO by default...) MS has done too much trying to make Linux look like a small project, yet Windows (And OSX) recognize that there is competition and can detect the filetypes and such. As I said though, this might not be true about Server 2008, this is based off of XP and Vista Windows editions.
At least this one adds functionality rather then just fixing bugs that would have already been fixed in the Alpha had it been an open source project.... I just hope this doesn't include more DRM, but it wouldn't affect me as I ditched Windows for Ubuntu about 4 months ago.
Because it will probably leave to more DRM and other things that the record companies end up killing themselves over. CDs (before they went to putting rootkits in them) worked well, I could buy the CD, rip the song to whatever format I felt like (WMA, MP3, Ogg...) play it on how many devices I wanted to on the physical CD (my home, car, portable CD player) or digital (My cell phone by way of SD card, my Mp3 player, iPod, Wii, Linux computer, Windows Computer, Mac) and I could make a backup copy to insure it in case I step on my CD. Now with digital music the way that the record companies want it, I can buy the song, listen to it in some DRMed or patent restricted format, pay extra and listen to it on devices other then a Windows computer. Pay for it again to have a ringtone of it, pay for it again to put it on a non "preferred" Mp3 player and probably never get it to play on a Linux computer. Yes there is e-music and other DRM free music stores, but whenever record companies try to attack innovation, its us consumers that lose every time.
People think that a Firewall is going to protect them and because Windows ships with a (low security) firewall they think they are protected. Also, it seems that the people who are unprotected aren't those that have low risk systems,I have had people on Dial-up pay for an anti-virus for checking their e-mails. And people who go online a ton seem to be unprotected. Ill admit, when I was on Windows all I had was ad-aware (free) to check for spyware every now and then. It only got really infected once. Then I switched to a Linux system and am very happy that the security risks are minimal all I really have to do is put chkrootkit on cron, install the updates, and set up iptables and Im mostly fine save I don't run unknown binaries or shellscripts. And because the code is open, I don't have to worry about installing software from the package manager because I know that someone has looked at the code and If I really want to I can look at the code and compile it from source. Unix security owns Windows insecurity
Like "Get The Facts" that MS did not to long ago?
But usually the most common aspects of a system (Firefox, Linux kernel, X, Core Utilities) all have many people looking at the source. And there is very rarely an attack on any system Linux or Windows that doesn't take advantage of the things that most everyone has (Think of all the Outlook and Internet Explorer spyware/viruses/Trojans) rather then some obscure program that say 100 people use. And the author was saying that it made it more secure, not that it helped development (which it does also) And for the uncritical examination it is mostly because the Free/Open Source community is in dire need for that application, think of Linux, even though the Hurd kernel was going to come out sometime soon Linux was used because it was there, not necessarily because it was the best (Even though now it totally demolishes the Hurd in capability)
Because from an end user's prospective, IE7 fails. Its slower, has a totally different GUI, and uses up more memory then IE6. On people's computers who have upgraded from a Windows 98/2000 computer to XP it can make their computer just about unusable because it wasn't meant for use by people who have 256 MB of RAM on a 1 Gzh machine, and yes there is a lot of them out there and IE6 is about the only web browser that will run decent on there except possibly Opera (well Konqueror might work but these people have Windows) on XP. FF won't because it uses up around 50 MB of memory even when compiled from scratch after an hour or two of browsing.
Im assuming this means that you can run it in Wine if you want, but IE7 is just the slower, more bloated version of IE6 with a few security patches updated. Seriously, its slower I have no clue why but I guess that just makes me happier I wiped Windows off my hard drive long ago and now have Ubuntu installed. Now FF3 is much faster then FF2 just from the betas
That what game companies are realizing, just look at Nintendo's Virtual Console, it saves people who want the old games but cartrages are scarce or they broke, from downloading the ROMs, really the only benefit for the ROMs now are to play them on your computer/mobile device.
I just hope the code is GPL'd
But then, MS wouldn't have a monopoly now, technology would explode in growth being not restricted by copyrights, and then the GPL becomes the BSD license, Apple has been doing the same with OS-X, take safari, they took KHTML konqueror's base then added a proprietary UI over it same thing what they did with the OS-X kernel by taking the BSD kernel + X and added a proprietary GUI, at least though apple has those components still open-sourced. But still, killing copyright wouldn't be bad, although if we could at least kill patents and make innovating technology legal without having to have the MPIAA/RIAA "approving" it, the technology industry would grow by leaps and bounds.
And thats the reason why the record companies are dying. They make "pirating" songs a ton easier then paying for them. Take for instance buying an iTunes song.
.ogg format so not hard)
1. Set up an account (Not that hard)
2. Put money in your account (not hard at all)
3. Hope they have a song you want (They might, they might not)
4. Buy the song (Just takes a click)
5. Put the song on your iPod (not hard)
6. Put the song on your generic mp3 player (Oh wait you can't....)
7. Play the song on Linux (Oh wait, I have to use restricted drivers....)
8. Share the songs with your friends (Oh wait, it can only be copied to a certain amount of computers...)
And downloading the song illegitimately
1. Get the file (not hard unless you don't have seeders)
2. Put the song on your mp3 player (not hard)
3. Put the song on your Linux computer (you can usually get in
4. Put the song on your iPod (easy)
5. Share the songs (really easy)
So besides price "pirating" songs has so many advantages that the RIAA and others stupidly ignore in support of more DRM and higher prices rather then making it much easier for people to download and share songs, after all, your not going to buy a song if you haven't heard it for free somewhere else.
Still $222 THOUSAND dollars is outrageous for such a simple act. If Capital could prove that it hurt them for $222 thousand dollars it would be correct but at most it would have hurt them ~$100-200 at most. They should appeal this case and get a judge that doesn't inflict absurd penalties for simple acts. If Capital won a $300-$600 suit it would be justified but there is no way it could have hurt Capital for $222,000 and the worst part is the artists won't get a penny.