I am currently seeking out other similar patents that would allow me to deliver quips with similar stunning terms, but if this patent goes through, I'll only be able to patent things that I haven't discovered.
I'm still a fan of using Rhapsody for $15/month, and syncing unlimited music to my mp3 player, and to my squeezebox duet music system throughout my house.
I personally don't care that I never own the music- I consume music at a rate that wouldn't be affordable at purchase price.
Moraelin, you are spot on with this entire discussion (although nobody here is really arguing against you), I went to update my account to be "friends" with you, but it turns out I already did that a while back.
Seriously, I wish more people thought with that level of insight- specifically my own friends. Sadly- slashdot is my helping of people who understand these things, because in the real world, people I know are just plainly lost...
I agree. I've had a few sandisk mp3 players over the years, and each one plays video. I've been happy over the industry freeing MP3s, because now I can feel good about buying the music-
But video- I've been torn. So far, there isn't a single legal way to get a video onto my mp3 player. Nada. I can't technically "rip" a dvd, because it bypasses the encryption, which is against the DMCA. I can't download video- because it's all DRM'd to hell, and no player plays drm'd video. I can't download TV shows- because only itunes does it for the ipod. I can't get "The Daily Show" even though it's FREE! because they're stuck in their flash player, so scared somebody will come along and steal it.
I've always hated that "The daily show" is $2/episode, while it's available for free on their website. $2 an episode is great for somebody who missed a single episode, but if I wanted to hit the entire month- I'm paying more than I would for cable. If they had a $10/month subscription, I'd seriously consider it.
Anyway, I'm rambling, I'm just pissed that I can't legally get a lot of content for my mp3 player. This is, I hope, a breakthrough in the right direction..
The concept of a space elevator, of course, requires a very very tall structure, or a pully of sorts from space. That would need to be a really damn strong system, to pull somebody up that high...
In other words, their "space elevator" will probably more closely resember a sleeker rocket/airplane design, and less like an actual elevator...
That's how marketing works. The market leader doesn't acknowledge the runner up, or any of their competition.
The runner up will usually reference the leader, however, in order to appear as the underdog, the new, hip thing that will save us from the market leader.
I believe that's the way it works, yes. That's the idea of the statutory license. Although you should always check with a lawyer and such, as I am not one.
The good news is, though, you should be able to get paid for it by contacting soundexchange. But it's going to be at their rate (minus their greedy cut), not your preferred rate.
That's absolutely not correct. The copyright owner has every right to license their property as they see fit. It has always been this way. If I own the copyright to a song, I can put a free download on my website, I can play a radio station online that plays this song on repeat for a year, or I could do nothing. As the copyright owner, that is my right.
Because of this, it's also my right to license my track to you, to play for a pre-agreed price, per-play, or blanket fee, or even free! That's my right.
From SoundExchange:
A statutory license permits qualified parties to exercise one (or more) of a copyright owner's exclusive rights without seeking permission from the copyright owner or negotiating rates and terms with the copyright owner.
(Emphasis: Mine)
That is the only time you pay statutory licensing fees, is when you use the statutory license (that is, don't get an explicit license from the copyright holder).
The concept for soundexchange was simply to make it easier to make a station without the hassle of contacting every-single content holder.
If you'd like a source for this information, I don't have a direct link (it's a flash based site, ugh), but go to soundexchange.com, click on "Licensing 101" and click on the first question "What is a statutory license?"
AT&T or Verizon? It's a hard pick... Also From TFA:
"You also agree to pay for all charges for services provided under this agreement even if such calls were not authorized by you."
So you have no ability to dispute any charges on your bill? The problem here is this: I've never been an AT&T customer, but I am a wireless customer of Verizon, and I haven't received a single bill from verizon that has been correct yet. I have the very strong suspicion that they either expect most people not to notice billing errors, or hope that people give up disputes, because it'd take too much time.
I regularly make phone calls to verizon to fix my bill. I certainly wouldn't trust a company who puts this in their TOS. I rely on fixing my phone bill.
As a side note, anybody know a company that doesn't do this?
If you negotiated a deal directly with the copyright owner, you would not have to go through sound-exchange. If you had specific signed contracts with each artist (or whomever reprisents the artist), you could arrange payment directly, and, no, you wouldn't have to pay sound exchange, unless there was an artist on your station you haven't had permission from.
What the hell kind of bar does that? If it's not football, nobody's watching. But applauding, in a bar, at something that's not a touchdown? That would get you some wierd looks at bars around here...
I agree. I don't bother with torrents- I just rent with blockbuster online. But they aren't making too much money off me- I'm definitely not buying anything.
Oh, and what's this nonsense with waiting an arbitrary amount of time before releasing to DVD? I want the latest season of House, but it takes a year after it's aired? That is the number one thing driving me to piracy lately.
Too late, Google owns both of your posts, thanks to the EULA of Chrome. It doesn't matter if you were using Chrome, because I am, and everything I view with it become's google's.
Step 1. Lock down media tight with cumbersome steps that are obnoxious to all. Step 2. Don't make a product anybody wants in the first place.
It's brilliant. I bet piracy goes down 5000% with this new scheme. I wish I had thought of this. Let's also release 3 hour clips of a jar of mayonaise, locked down with DRM. I betcha nobody will crack it.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
Newsflash: I have the patent on newsflashes.
I am currently seeking out other similar patents that would allow me to deliver quips with similar stunning terms, but if this patent goes through, I'll only be able to patent things that I haven't discovered.
I'm still a fan of using Rhapsody for $15/month, and syncing unlimited music to my mp3 player, and to my squeezebox duet music system throughout my house.
I personally don't care that I never own the music- I consume music at a rate that wouldn't be affordable at purchase price.
Moraelin, you are spot on with this entire discussion (although nobody here is really arguing against you), I went to update my account to be "friends" with you, but it turns out I already did that a while back.
Seriously, I wish more people thought with that level of insight- specifically my own friends. Sadly- slashdot is my helping of people who understand these things, because in the real world, people I know are just plainly lost...
Loudness wars are not related to a limitation in digital technology, but a limited desired outcome by the producers/engineers.
Don't have cable, and flashgot doesn't work on hulu...
I don't want to be a grammar nazi, but I just plainly couldn't keep reading what you wrote after the word "irregardless."
Please note the prefix "ir" means "not" and the suffix "less" means "without." That, my friend, is both a double negative, and isn't a word.
Mod me captian obvious, or stupid- but offtopic? I believe that "Space elevators" is the topic at hand...
I agree. I've had a few sandisk mp3 players over the years, and each one plays video. I've been happy over the industry freeing MP3s, because now I can feel good about buying the music-
But video- I've been torn. So far, there isn't a single legal way to get a video onto my mp3 player. Nada. I can't technically "rip" a dvd, because it bypasses the encryption, which is against the DMCA. I can't download video- because it's all DRM'd to hell, and no player plays drm'd video. I can't download TV shows- because only itunes does it for the ipod. I can't get "The Daily Show" even though it's FREE! because they're stuck in their flash player, so scared somebody will come along and steal it.
I've always hated that "The daily show" is $2/episode, while it's available for free on their website. $2 an episode is great for somebody who missed a single episode, but if I wanted to hit the entire month- I'm paying more than I would for cable. If they had a $10/month subscription, I'd seriously consider it.
Anyway, I'm rambling, I'm just pissed that I can't legally get a lot of content for my mp3 player. This is, I hope, a breakthrough in the right direction..
The concept of a space elevator, of course, requires a very very tall structure, or a pully of sorts from space. That would need to be a really damn strong system, to pull somebody up that high...
In other words, their "space elevator" will probably more closely resember a sleeker rocket/airplane design, and less like an actual elevator...
That's how marketing works. The market leader doesn't acknowledge the runner up, or any of their competition.
The runner up will usually reference the leader, however, in order to appear as the underdog, the new, hip thing that will save us from the market leader.
I believe that's the way it works, yes. That's the idea of the statutory license. Although you should always check with a lawyer and such, as I am not one.
The good news is, though, you should be able to get paid for it by contacting soundexchange. But it's going to be at their rate (minus their greedy cut), not your preferred rate.
Because of this, it's also my right to license my track to you, to play for a pre-agreed price, per-play, or blanket fee, or even free! That's my right.
From SoundExchange:
A statutory license permits qualified parties to exercise one (or more) of a copyright owner's exclusive rights without seeking permission from the copyright owner or negotiating rates and terms with the copyright owner.
(Emphasis: Mine)
That is the only time you pay statutory licensing fees, is when you use the statutory license (that is, don't get an explicit license from the copyright holder).
The concept for soundexchange was simply to make it easier to make a station without the hassle of contacting every-single content holder.
If you'd like a source for this information, I don't have a direct link (it's a flash based site, ugh), but go to soundexchange.com, click on "Licensing 101" and click on the first question "What is a statutory license?"
Also From TFA:
"You also agree to pay for all charges for services provided under this agreement even if such calls were not authorized by you."
So you have no ability to dispute any charges on your bill? The problem here is this: I've never been an AT&T customer, but I am a wireless customer of Verizon, and I haven't received a single bill from verizon that has been correct yet. I have the very strong suspicion that they either expect most people not to notice billing errors, or hope that people give up disputes, because it'd take too much time.
I regularly make phone calls to verizon to fix my bill. I certainly wouldn't trust a company who puts this in their TOS. I rely on fixing my phone bill.
As a side note, anybody know a company that doesn't do this?
If you negotiated a deal directly with the copyright owner, you would not have to go through sound-exchange. If you had specific signed contracts with each artist (or whomever reprisents the artist), you could arrange payment directly, and, no, you wouldn't have to pay sound exchange, unless there was an artist on your station you haven't had permission from.
I've been curious about this.. do they still do this? I haven't purchased a CD in years (Thank you Rhapsody).
What the hell kind of bar does that? If it's not football, nobody's watching. But applauding, in a bar, at something that's not a touchdown? That would get you some wierd looks at bars around here...
He's not, Kramer is.
I agree. I don't bother with torrents- I just rent with blockbuster online. But they aren't making too much money off me- I'm definitely not buying anything.
Oh, and what's this nonsense with waiting an arbitrary amount of time before releasing to DVD? I want the latest season of House, but it takes a year after it's aired? That is the number one thing driving me to piracy lately.
Uh, death, please. No, cake! Cake! Cake, sorry.
I'd start by posting the one about a $500 fine for detonating a nuke inside the Chico, CA city limits
Under the DCMA, I hereby demand you remove that statement, as it violates CA copyright.
Too late, Google owns both of your posts, thanks to the EULA of Chrome. It doesn't matter if you were using Chrome, because I am, and everything I view with it become's google's.
Guys, don't fall into this trap. I've been doing this since around 128 mb. I still have yet to actually purchase any hardware.
I mean, seriously? The next best is around the corner anyway...
It's the most brilliant DRM scheme to date.
Step 1. Lock down media tight with cumbersome steps that are obnoxious to all.
Step 2. Don't make a product anybody wants in the first place.
It's brilliant. I bet piracy goes down 5000% with this new scheme. I wish I had thought of this. Let's also release 3 hour clips of a jar of mayonaise, locked down with DRM. I betcha nobody will crack it.
What on earth are you talking about?
Please do fill in the missing steps. I would like to attempt the 6 second rip, but I must be missing something.