Meh. He's selling his current living conditions. He'll continue to live; if he's happy, he's still "winning," just like any of us. I'm not losing just because someone has more stuff than me (see George Carlin on that).
There's a bit of truth in what you say. Sports doesn't have a plot or theme per se; *seeing* it is the point of tuning in. In fact, my decision to buy my new 50" plasma was partly based on the presence of one of the two teams playing in the BCS championship game (I was not disappointed, in the picture quality nor in the outcome:) ).
Still, while a scripted show's quality won't be improved by the clarity of a TV's display, I derive more enjoyment from the overall experience when watching shows that are already quality productions in their own right (granted, hard to find many) in HD over the same show in standard def.
Whoa! Slow down cowboy, and take a deep and calming breath. The idea of doing this has people behind it http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_moon_resources_050223.html, but not everything we rely on is likely to be found in an as relatively easy-to-reach place as the moon. It's a good idea to work on the problems from both ends - conservation here, new sources out there (some of which, we have to reason, may be quite a long time in coming).
I viewed your blog site, and am happy to see that we actually agree on things. If you did happen to read my entire post, you may have noticed that I was simply pointing out that, if I read the article correctly, the RIAA claimed that the files were illegal once they were shared, not just because they were ripped. Perhaps your legal-oriented mind picks up on the technical negation of my using the term "however," so I will make a feeble attempt at clarity.
I do believe that making MP3 copies of tracks constitutes fair use. I do not support the RIAA (last album purchased was in 2001). I do not believe the RIAA business model is appropriate for today's technology and marketplace. I do not believe scare tactics used by the RIAA are ethical (no laughter, please), nor do I believe them to be effective; certainly their claims of loss-per-shared file seem ridiculous to the common layman. I also personally feel (along with many others) that their overall product offerings suck.
Sharing to circumvent the RIAA and kill them off - I say "go for it," even though it's illegal. The fact that it's illegal, and that that is so no matter who points it out including the RIAA, was my only point following my unfortunate choice of the word "however." I vehemently disagree with their assertion that the MP3s themselves became illegal at the moment they were shared.
As an aside, I do support musicians making money for their music. I wish I had a solution for fair compensation directly to musicians - the RIAA is antiquated and is not needed for artists to offer their output to us. Sadly, the "good Samaritan" mode of paying for downloads directly to the musicians doesn't seem to really work, as most people don't pay even when the individuals who should get the money are getting the money (Radiohead's experiment with their latest album In Rainbows hasn't yet proven otherwise). I have not had a chance to peruse all of your postings, but if you have an idea as to how this could be brought about I would be happy to read of it.
With all respect, I support your honesty and your efforts in our legal system on behalf of the common person. I simply expected that perhaps you, especially being an experienced lawyer, would have understood the intent of my statement.
I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy. However, the argument here isn't that the act of ripping and subsequent possession of MP3s was illegal; it's that the act of sharing the files made them illegal. Personally, I'd say the files are still legal, but the act of sharing itself isn't (clarifications: IANAL. I *do* agree that the music and film industries need to get with the times are rethink their business models. Also, yeah, I share on occasion).
I don't know if what I wrote is understandable, I'm not too good with long explanations in english.
Perfectly clear. You did a lot better than a lot of the native speakers do (we've evolved away from needing to use our language correctly - it's called the Text Messaging Effect).
I suppose I'm not a member of the "Most" Christian movement, as I wasn't consulted:( You know, some are going to read the Bible and accept it word for word, some are going to interpret it in various ways, some will say, "neat story," and others will burn it.
Be happy with how *you* feel with faith, religion, etc, and allow others to do the same.
(PS I just introduced my horses to each other last Thursday.)
Slashdot Mirror
Meh. He's selling his current living conditions. He'll continue to live; if he's happy, he's still "winning," just like any of us. I'm not losing just because someone has more stuff than me (see George Carlin on that).
I actually DVR American Idol just so I can forward through the whole damn thing and have the satisfaction of having actively ignored and rejected it!
Still, while a scripted show's quality won't be improved by the clarity of a TV's display, I derive more enjoyment from the overall experience when watching shows that are already quality productions in their own right (granted, hard to find many) in HD over the same show in standard def.
Naturally, YMMV per your taste.
Whoa! Slow down cowboy, and take a deep and calming breath. The idea of doing this has people behind it http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_moon_resources_050223.html, but not everything we rely on is likely to be found in an as relatively easy-to-reach place as the moon. It's a good idea to work on the problems from both ends - conservation here, new sources out there (some of which, we have to reason, may be quite a long time in coming).
As a fatass American, I sadly resemble that remark!
I viewed your blog site, and am happy to see that we actually agree on things. If you did happen to read my entire post, you may have noticed that I was simply pointing out that, if I read the article correctly, the RIAA claimed that the files were illegal once they were shared, not just because they were ripped. Perhaps your legal-oriented mind picks up on the technical negation of my using the term "however," so I will make a feeble attempt at clarity.
I do believe that making MP3 copies of tracks constitutes fair use. I do not support the RIAA (last album purchased was in 2001). I do not believe the RIAA business model is appropriate for today's technology and marketplace. I do not believe scare tactics used by the RIAA are ethical (no laughter, please), nor do I believe them to be effective; certainly their claims of loss-per-shared file seem ridiculous to the common layman. I also personally feel (along with many others) that their overall product offerings suck.
Sharing to circumvent the RIAA and kill them off - I say "go for it," even though it's illegal. The fact that it's illegal, and that that is so no matter who points it out including the RIAA, was my only point following my unfortunate choice of the word "however." I vehemently disagree with their assertion that the MP3s themselves became illegal at the moment they were shared.
As an aside, I do support musicians making money for their music. I wish I had a solution for fair compensation directly to musicians - the RIAA is antiquated and is not needed for artists to offer their output to us. Sadly, the "good Samaritan" mode of paying for downloads directly to the musicians doesn't seem to really work, as most people don't pay even when the individuals who should get the money are getting the money (Radiohead's experiment with their latest album In Rainbows hasn't yet proven otherwise). I have not had a chance to peruse all of your postings, but if you have an idea as to how this could be brought about I would be happy to read of it.
With all respect, I support your honesty and your efforts in our legal system on behalf of the common person. I simply expected that perhaps you, especially being an experienced lawyer, would have understood the intent of my statement.
Cheers,
John Douet
I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy. However, the argument here isn't that the act of ripping and subsequent possession of MP3s was illegal; it's that the act of sharing the files made them illegal. Personally, I'd say the files are still legal, but the act of sharing itself isn't (clarifications: IANAL. I *do* agree that the music and film industries need to get with the times are rethink their business models. Also, yeah, I share on occasion).
I don't know if what I wrote is understandable, I'm not too good with long explanations in english.
Perfectly clear. You did a lot better than a lot of the native speakers do (we've evolved away from needing to use our language correctly - it's called the Text Messaging Effect).
I suppose I'm not a member of the "Most" Christian movement, as I wasn't consulted :( You know, some are going to read the Bible and accept it word for word, some are going to interpret it in various ways, some will say, "neat story," and others will burn it.
Be happy with how *you* feel with faith, religion, etc, and allow others to do the same.
(PS I just introduced my horses to each other last Thursday.)