Bah.. When I lock my XP machine, iTunes stops streaming!
Re:Does this ver. solve the WinXP security "featur
on
Samba 3.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 5, Informative
There is an easy fix to this for XP:
Settings -> Control Panel -> Admin Tools -> Local Security Policy
Look under Local Policies, then Security Options.
Look for "Domain Member: Digitally encrypt or sign secured channel (always)" and set it to DISABLED.
That should solve some of your problems.
XP only wants to trust other Windows machines when working in a domain environment.
Other Programs...
on
Gator Examined
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
It would be interesting to see what other popular "helper" applications like Gator do. For example, I see plenty of people in my work place with WeatherBug or WebShots installed on their computers. They have to be collecting information and replacing ads much like Gator does.
Connecticut has a Rebate Advertising law requiring retailers who advertise the net price of an item after deduction of a manufacturer's rebate to pay consumers the amount of that rebate when they buy the item. If the retailers don't wish to do this, they cannot advertise the after-rebate price as the final price to be paid by the consumer. Thus, there should be no confusion about the amount the customer must pay at the cash register.
Here is the law:
Sec. 42-110b-19. Advertising "free," "reduced," "discount," "below cost," or a rebate
It shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice to:
(a) Advertise any merchandise or service as free by the use of the word "free" or any other terms of similar import when the merchandise or service is not, in fact, free (see (d) below). Failure to disclose any and all terms, conditions and obligations required of the consumer shall be a violation of these regulations.
(b) Advertise the price of merchandise or service as a reduced or sale price, or compare the price to a previous price unless the advertised price is lower than the actual, bona fide price for which the merchandise or service was offered to the public on a regular basis by the advertiser, for a reasonably substantial period of time prior to the advertisement or as a discount price, unless the advertised price is lower than the price being charged for the same merchandise or service by other sellers in the area; provided, however, in the case of a new product, if the advertised price is less than the price which the advertiser, in good faith, expects to charge after termination of the introductory sale, there is no violation of this subsection. The actual price after the sale shall be evidence of the advertiser's good faith expectations.
(c) Advertise the price of any merchandise as below cost, unless the price is, in fact, below the cost for which the merchandise was purchased and prepared for sale by the advertiser.
(d) Advertise merchandise or service as free or the price of merchandise or a service as a discount, reduced, or sale price if receipt of such merchandise or service is contingent upon the purchase of other merchandise or service at a price which is higher than the actual, bona fide price at which the merchandise or service was offered to the public on a regular basis by the advertiser for a reasonably substantial period of time prior to the advertisement, or at a price which is substantially higher than the price being charged for the same merchandise or service by other sellers in the area; provided, however, in the case of a new product, if the advertised price is less than the price which the advertiser, in good faith, expects to charge after termination of the introductory sale, there is no violation of this subsection. The actual price after the sale shall be evidence of the advertiser's good faith expectations.
(e) Advertise the availability of a manufacturer's rebate by displaying the net price of the advertised item in the advertisement, unless the amount of the manufacturer's rebate is provided to the consumer by the retailer at the time of purchase of the advertised item. A retailer will not be required to provide the purchaser of an advertised item with the amount of the manufacturer's rebate if the rebate advertises that a manufacturer's rebate is available without stating the net price of the item. For the purpose of this subsection, "net price" means the ultimate price paid by a consumer after he redeems the manufacturer's rebate offered for the advertised item.
[Sorry about my previous blank post.. my sausage like fingers accidently hit the return key.]
Anyway, a lot of these sales include prices after manufacture rebates. Bare in mind that many states, like the one I live in (Connecticut), have laws preventing retailers from advertising the net cost of an item after a rebate. Even if it says in small letters below the big shiney price (after $100 rebate), retailers can't do that. They must give the rebate at the time of purchase if they advertise like that. Check with your state's state library, or department of consumer protection to see if you have a law like this.
Here is the law from Connecticut: (notice paragraph e)
Sec. 42-110b-19. Advertising "free," "reduced," "discount," "below cost," or a rebate
It shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice to:
(a) Advertise any merchandise or service as free by the use of the word "free" or any other terms of similar import when the merchandise or service is not, in fact, free (see (d) below). Failure to disclose any and all terms, conditions and obligations required of the consumer shall be a violation of these regulations.
(b) Advertise the price of merchandise or service as a reduced or sale price, or compare the price to a previous price unless the advertised price is lower than the actual, bona fide price for which the merchandise or service was offered to the public on a regular basis by the advertiser, for a reasonably substantial period of time prior to the advertisement or as a discount price, unless the advertised price is lower than. the price being charged for the same merchandise or service by other sellers in the area; provided, however, in the case of a new product, if the advertised price is less than the price which the advertiser, in good faith, expects to charge after termination of the introductory sale, there is no violation of this subsection. The actual price after the sale shall be evidence of the advertiser's good faith expectations.
(c) Advertise the price of any merchandise as below cost, unless the price is, in fact, below the cost for which the merchandise was purchased and prepared for sale by the advertiser.
(d) Advertise merchandise or service as free or the price of merchandise or a service as a discount, reduced, or sale price if receipt of such merchandise or service is contingent upon the purchase of other merchandise or service at a price which is higher than the actual, bona fide price at which the merchandise or service was offered to the public on a regular basis by the advertiser for a reasonably substantial period of time prior to the advertisement, or at a price which is substantially higher than the price being charged for the same merchandise or service by other sellers in the area; provided, however, in the case of a new product, if the advertised price is less than the price which the advertiser, in good faith, expects to charge after termination of the introductory sale, there is no violation of this subsection. The actual price after the sale shall be evidence of the advertiser's good faith expectations.
(e) Advertise the availability of a manufacturer's rebate by displaying the net price of the advertised item in the advertisement, unless the amount of the manufacturer's rebate is provided to the consumer by the retailer at the time of purchase of the advertised item. A retailer will not be required to provide the purchaser of an advertised item with the amount of the manufacturer's rebate if the rebate advertises that a manufacturer's rebate is available without stating the net price of the item. For the purpose of this subsection, "net price" means the ultimate price paid by a consumer after he redeems the manufacturer's rebate offered for the advertised item.
If the Federal Government wants to force me to upgrade my Television to Digital, does that mean I can go out and purchase a $10,000 Plasma HDTV and write it off as a Tax Deductable expense? That would certainly be cool.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to these letters, it looks like the RIAA recruited some firm to reverse engineer the way Fast Track works by putting some faux supernode on their network to watch traffic. Doesn't this violate the DCMA? Oh no!
By the way, Hillary Rosen just seems bitter cuz she is fat and unattractive and can't get laid. Perhaps this bitterness is causing her to lash out against P2P software. Maybe we should start some sort of fund to pay some dude to sleep with her and all of the problems she is causing will go away.
Didn't Dave Mustaine sue Metallica for stealing his music. Not to mention Garage Days was a huge legal battle for Metallica, as every artist that they covered on that album sued them. Hmmm... hypocrites.
Teddy Roosevelt is turning over in his grave!
on
AOL Nation
·
· Score: 2
One of the big movements of the begining of the 20th century was Teddy's big smackdown on Big Business. Now it seems, everyone in DC has forgotten the message, Teddy was trying to set: Big Business corrupts the democracy of this country. But now that everyone is in it for the buck, we are slowly selling ourselves out, and before you know it, America will be one nation under a corporation for which it stands.
Here is the actual Connecticut State Law about Advertising Free stuph and Rebates
Sec. 42-110b-19. Advertising "free," "reduced," "discount," "below cost," or a rebate
It shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice to:
(a) Advertise any merchandise or service as free by the use of the word "free" or any other terms of similar import when the merchandise or service is not, in fact, free (see (d) below). Failure to disclose any and all terms, conditions and obligations required of the consumer shall be a violation of these regulations.
(b) Advertise the price of merchandise or service as a reduced or sale price, or compare the price to a previous price unless the advertised price is lower than the actual, bona fide price for which the merchandise or service was offered to the public on a regular basis by the advertiser, for a reasonably substantial period of time prior to the advertisement or as a discount price, unless the advertised price is lower than. the price being charged for the same merchandise or service by other sellers in the area; provided, however, in the case of a new product, if the advertised price is less than the price which the advertiser, in good faith, expects to charge after termination of the introductory sale, there is no violation of this subsection. The actual price after the sale shall be evidence of the advertiser's good faith expectations.
(c) Advertise the price of any merchandise as below cost, unless the price is, in fact, below the cost for which the merchandise was purchased and prepared for sale by the advertiser.
(d) Advertise merchandise or service as free or the price of merchandise or a service as a discount, reduced, or sale price if receipt of such merchandise or service is contingent upon the purchase of other merchandise or service at a price which is higher than the actual, bona fide price at which the merchandise or service was offered to the public on a regular basis by the advertiser for a reasonably substantial period of time prior to the advertisement, or at a price which is substantially higher than the price being charged for the same merchandise or service by other sellers in the area; provided, however, in the case of a new product, if the advertised price is less than the price which the advertiser, in good faith, expects to charge after termination of the introductory sale, there is no violation of this subsection. The actual price after the sale shall be evidence of the advertiser's good faith expectations.
(e) Advertise the availability of a manufacturer's rebate by displaying the net price of the advertised item in the advertisement, unless the amount of the manufacturer's rebate is provided to the consumer by the retailer at the time of purchase of the advertised item. A retailer will not be required to provide the purchaser of an advertised item with the amount of the manufacturer's rebate if the rebate advertises that a manufacturer's rebate is available without stating the net price of the item. For the purpose of this subsection, "net price" means the ultimate price paid by a consumer after he redeems the manufacturer's rebate offered for the advertised item.
I tried posting this story last week on how there is a loophole to the free computer, but I got rejected.
Anycase...
Connecticut has a Rebate Advertising law requiring retailers who advertise the net price of an item after deduction of a manufacturer's rebate to pay consumers the amount of that rebate when they buy the item. If the retailers don't wish to do this, they cannot advertise the after-rebate price as the final price to be paid by the consumer. Thus, there should be no confusion about the amount the customer must pay at the cash register.
In other words, if a retailer says a computer is $0 after rebate, they must give it to you for $0, no strings attached. No lifetime of MSN or Compuserve.
Outpost.com was advertising computers for $0 after rebate and because they are a retailer in Connecticut, they were forced to give computers out at $0.
Check with your state's Consumer Protection Department to see if they have any laws like the one in CT.
Re:I found a bug! -fixed link
on
Apocalypse Not
·
· Score: 1
Hey guys, my girlfriend just wrote this letter to the RIAA. I hope it encourages you to write to them as well. Here is the letter:
Dear RIAA,
I am writing to express my frustration with the recording industry, including, but not limited to, and culminating in the suit against Napster.
I find it highly ironic that the Recording Industry is suddenly so publicly concerned about the "rights of artists" in copyright infringement.
What Napster.com does is make music available to those who enjoy it and appreciate it. What the recording industry does is make music they want to sell us available to us. You have, in general, shown an absolute disregard for musicianship and talent for half a century. Why do you purport to care now?
When one of any of the companies represented by the RIAA takes an artist's music and copyrights it themselves, changes it through endless bouts of overproduction, completely forces the artist to give up their artistic integrity for the purpose of selling some plasticized, poppy product to the public, it is stealing something much more precious than money from artists.
Napster's intent is obviously not to make their favorite artists poor, what could possibly be their motive for doing something like that? Napster's intent is to lessen the hold that the RIAA and others have over artists. Artists like Ani Difranco have shown that nationwide distribution and large fanbases can be attained without the help of the RIAA or huge management corporations, that artistic integrity can be saved, and that the buying public LOVES it.
Now a new medium has swept our entire society. The Internet is everywhere, boys, and you'd better get used to it. The RIAA can no longer dominate every aspect of music listening and enjoyment in our country and around the world. Smart kids who love music will figure out a way to share art with everyone, no matter what kind of bullying, laissez-faire capitalistic greed you try to pull on them.
Your quotes from artists are laughable. They're being paid by you! Not from their music! How much more are you making per record sold than artists like Creed? Don't kid yourself into thinking that music listeners all over aren't on to you.
You cannot stop us. When I was a really poor kid growing up in rural Missouri, the only way I could have access to music was by dubbing it on old tape recorders from my friends' recordings. I don't feel guilty for keeping the artists from making their $.0005, and keeping you from making your $8.00, because through that listening, I have developed a deep and abiding love for music. I buy CDs now, I listen to what I want to, and I've probably paid for an executive's parking space in revenues. Yet you do not sue the companies who make blank tapes for dubbing...you do not sue the computer manufacturers whose technology allowed music to be converted to MP3 format, you do not sue internet providers for making mass communication between listeners possible. Do you refrain only because you know it is a losing battle? Because you are simply very afraid of these intelligent and slightly sneaky kids who are undermining your very way of life? All of the above and more.
Your entire industry disgusts me. When your entire motive is to take total advantage of artists in the interests of making more and more and more dollars, how can you expect us to side with you against some kids who may be doing some wrong, but certainly have the music in first place?
You are going to need to seriously reconsider your entire way of doing business, to wake up and hear the dialup...America is on to you, and you're not going to stop it.
Hey.. my girlfriend just wrote this great letter to the RIAA. Here is (Hope it encourages you to write to the RIAA):
Dear RIAA,
I am writing to express my frustration with the recording industry, including, but not limited to, and culminating in the suit against Napster.
I find it highly ironic that the Recording Industry is suddenly so publicly concerned about the "rights of artists" in copyright infringement.
What Napster.com does is make music available to those who enjoy it and appreciate it. What the recording industry does is make music they want to sell us available to us. You have, in general, shown an absolute disregard for musicianship and talent for half a century. Why do you purport to care now?
When one of any of the companies represented by the RIAA takes an artist's music and copyrights it themselves, changes it through endless bouts of overproduction, completely forces the artist to give up their artistic integrity for the purpose of selling some plasticized, poppy product to the public, it is stealing something much more precious than money from artists.
Napster's intent is obviously not to make their favorite artists poor, what could possibly be their motive for doing something like that? Napster's intent is to lessen the hold that the RIAA and others have over artists. Artists like Ani Difranco have shown that nationwide distribution and large fanbases can be attained without the help of the RIAA or huge management corporations, that artistic integrity can be saved, and that the buying public LOVES it.
Now a new medium has swept our entire society. The Internet is everywhere, boys, and you'd better get used to it. The RIAA can no longer dominate every aspect of music listening and enjoyment in our country and around the world. Smart kids who love music will figure out a way to share art with everyone, no matter what kind of bullying, laissez-faire capitalistic greed you try to pull on them.
Your quotes from artists are laughable. They're being paid by you! Not from their music! How much more are you making per record sold than artists like Creed? Don't kid yourself into thinking that music listeners all over aren't on to you.
You cannot stop us. When I was a really poor kid growing up in rural Missouri, the only way I could have access to music was by dubbing it on old tape recorders from my friends' recordings. I don't feel guilty for keeping the artists from making their $.0005, and keeping you from making your $8.00, because through that listening, I have developed a deep and abiding love for music. I buy CDs now, I listen to what I want to, and I've probably paid for an executive's parking space in revenues. Yet you do not sue the companies who make blank tapes for dubbing...you do not sue the computer manufacturers whose technology allowed music to be converted to MP3 format, you do not sue internet providers for making mass communication between listeners possible. Do you refrain only because you know it is a losing battle? Because you are simply very afraid of these intelligent and slightly sneaky kids who are undermining your very way of life? All of the above and more.
Your entire industry disgusts me. When your entire motive is to take total advantage of artists in the interests of making more and more and more dollars, how can you expect us to side with you against some kids who may be doing some wrong, but certainly have the music in first place?
You are going to need to seriously reconsider your entire way of doing business, to wake up and hear the dialup...America is on to you, and you're not going to stop it.
It doesn't make any sense for the RIAA to sue Napster. Napster is no different that the Diamond RIO. It's not about what it can do, it's what people do with it. Kinda like a gun. "guns don't kill people, people do."
They mind as well sue computer makers for creating a device that facilitates music piracy!
Haahaa.. what a a joke.
I say we all start a big boycott against buying any cd's or music that the RIAA is associated with.
Slashdot Mirror
Are there even enough viewers to support this channel?
Isn't one of the drawbacks of using wind power that it kills birds and other flying wildlife that cross the turbines' path?
I think I lost some IQ points watching this.
Not too mention Finnish isn't very funny. It's like trying to watch a pr0n in German... it just doesn't seem right.
Bah.. When I lock my XP machine, iTunes stops streaming!
There is an easy fix to this for XP:
Settings -> Control Panel -> Admin Tools -> Local Security Policy
Look under Local Policies, then Security Options.
Look for "Domain Member: Digitally encrypt or sign secured channel (always)" and set it to DISABLED.
That should solve some of your problems.
XP only wants to trust other Windows machines when working in a domain environment.
It would be interesting to see what other popular "helper" applications like Gator do. For example, I see plenty of people in my work place with WeatherBug or WebShots installed on their computers. They have to be collecting information and replacing ads much like Gator does.
Connecticut has a Rebate Advertising law requiring retailers who advertise the net price of an item after deduction of a manufacturer's rebate to pay consumers the amount of that rebate when they buy the item. If the retailers don't wish to do this, they cannot advertise the after-rebate price as the final price to be paid by the consumer. Thus, there should be no confusion about the amount the customer must pay at the cash register.
Here is the law:
Sec. 42-110b-19. Advertising "free," "reduced," "discount," "below cost," or a rebate
It shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice to:
(a) Advertise any merchandise or service as free by the use of the word "free" or any other terms of similar import when the merchandise or service is not, in fact, free (see (d) below). Failure to disclose any and all terms, conditions and obligations required of the consumer shall be a violation of these regulations.
(b) Advertise the price of merchandise or service as a reduced or sale price, or compare the price to a previous price unless the advertised price is lower than the actual, bona fide price for which the merchandise or service was offered to the public on a regular basis by the advertiser, for a reasonably substantial period of time prior to the advertisement or as a discount price, unless the advertised price is lower than the price being charged for the same merchandise or service by other sellers in the area; provided, however, in the case of a new product, if the advertised price is less than the price which the advertiser, in good faith, expects to charge after termination of the introductory sale, there is no violation of this subsection. The actual price after the sale shall be evidence of the advertiser's good faith expectations.
(c) Advertise the price of any merchandise as below cost, unless the price is, in fact, below the cost for which the merchandise was purchased and prepared for sale by the advertiser.
(d) Advertise merchandise or service as free or the price of merchandise or a service as a discount, reduced, or sale price if receipt of such merchandise or service is contingent upon the purchase of other merchandise or service at a price which is higher than the actual, bona fide price at which the merchandise or service was offered to the public on a regular basis by the advertiser for a reasonably substantial period of time prior to the advertisement, or at a price which is substantially higher than the price being charged for the same merchandise or service by other sellers in the area; provided, however, in the case of a new product, if the advertised price is less than the price which the advertiser, in good faith, expects to charge after termination of the introductory sale, there is no violation of this subsection. The actual price after the sale shall be evidence of the advertiser's good faith expectations.
(e) Advertise the availability of a manufacturer's rebate by displaying the net price of the advertised item in the advertisement, unless the amount of the manufacturer's rebate is provided to the consumer by the retailer at the time of purchase of the advertised item. A retailer will not be required to provide the purchaser of an advertised item with the amount of the manufacturer's rebate if the rebate advertises that a manufacturer's rebate is available without stating the net price of the item. For the purpose of this subsection, "net price" means the ultimate price paid by a consumer after he redeems the manufacturer's rebate offered for the advertised item.
Anyway, a lot of these sales include prices after manufacture rebates. Bare in mind that many states, like the one I live in (Connecticut), have laws preventing retailers from advertising the net cost of an item after a rebate. Even if it says in small letters below the big shiney price (after $100 rebate), retailers can't do that. They must give the rebate at the time of purchase if they advertise like that. Check with your state's state library, or department of consumer protection to see if you have a law like this.
Here is the law from Connecticut:
(notice paragraph e)
Who wrote this article? and for that matter, who edited it?
"The materials that the team used are stable, and the data don't degrade after repeated readings by the low-intensity laser."
The data "Don't" degrade? Shouldn't it be "doesn't"? Oh wait.. this is a Detroit newspaper.
Here is a thought...
If the Federal Government wants to force me to upgrade my Television to Digital, does that mean I can go out and purchase a $10,000 Plasma HDTV and write it off as a Tax Deductable expense? That would certainly be cool.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to these letters, it looks like the RIAA recruited some firm to reverse engineer the way Fast Track works by putting some faux supernode on their network to watch traffic. Doesn't this violate the DCMA? Oh no!
By the way, Hillary Rosen just seems bitter cuz she is fat and unattractive and can't get laid. Perhaps this bitterness is causing her to lash out against P2P software. Maybe we should start some sort of fund to pay some dude to sleep with her and all of the problems she is causing will go away.
Didn't Dave Mustaine sue Metallica for stealing his music. Not to mention Garage Days was a huge legal battle for Metallica, as every artist that they covered on that album sued them. Hmmm... hypocrites.
Sec. 42-110b-19. Advertising "free," "reduced," "discount," "below cost," or a rebate
It shall be an unfair or deceptive act or practice to:
(a) Advertise any merchandise or service as free by the use of the word "free" or any other terms of similar import when the merchandise or service is not, in fact, free (see (d) below). Failure to disclose any and all terms, conditions and obligations required of the consumer shall be a violation of these regulations.
(b) Advertise the price of merchandise or service as a reduced or sale price, or compare the price to a previous price unless the advertised price is lower than the actual, bona fide price for which the merchandise or service was offered to the public on a regular basis by the advertiser, for a reasonably substantial period of time prior to the advertisement or as a discount price, unless the advertised price is lower than. the price being charged for the same merchandise or service by other sellers in the area; provided, however, in the case of a new product, if the advertised price is less than the price which the advertiser, in good faith, expects to charge after termination of the introductory sale, there is no violation of this subsection. The actual price after the sale shall be evidence of the advertiser's good faith expectations.
(c) Advertise the price of any merchandise as below cost, unless the price is, in fact, below the cost for which the merchandise was purchased and prepared for sale by the advertiser.
(d) Advertise merchandise or service as free or the price of merchandise or a service as a discount, reduced, or sale price if receipt of such merchandise or service is contingent upon the purchase of other merchandise or service at a price which is higher than the actual, bona fide price at which the merchandise or service was offered to the public on a regular basis by the advertiser for a reasonably substantial period of time prior to the advertisement, or at a price which is substantially higher than the price being charged for the same merchandise or service by other sellers in the area; provided, however, in the case of a new product, if the advertised price is less than the price which the advertiser, in good faith, expects to charge after termination of the introductory sale, there is no violation of this subsection. The actual price after the sale shall be evidence of the advertiser's good faith expectations.
(e) Advertise the availability of a manufacturer's rebate by displaying the net price of the advertised item in the advertisement, unless the amount of the manufacturer's rebate is provided to the consumer by the retailer at the time of purchase of the advertised item. A retailer will not be required to provide the purchaser of an advertised item with the amount of the manufacturer's rebate if the rebate advertises that a manufacturer's rebate is available without stating the net price of the item. For the purpose of this subsection, "net price" means the ultimate price paid by a consumer after he redeems the manufacturer's rebate offered for the advertised item.
Anycase...
Connecticut has a Rebate Advertising law requiring retailers who advertise the net price of an item after deduction of a manufacturer's rebate to pay consumers the amount of that rebate when they buy the item. If the retailers don't wish to do this, they cannot advertise the after-rebate price as the final price to be paid by the consumer. Thus, there should be no confusion about the amount the customer must pay at the cash register.
In other words, if a retailer says a computer is $0 after rebate, they must give it to you for $0, no strings attached. No lifetime of MSN or Compuserve.
Outpost.com was advertising computers for $0 after rebate and because they are a retailer in Connecticut, they were forced to give computers out at $0.
Check with your state's Consumer Protection Department to see if they have any laws like the one in CT.
Dear RIAA,
I am writing to express my frustration with the recording industry, including, but not limited to, and culminating in the suit against Napster.
I find it highly ironic that the Recording Industry is suddenly so publicly concerned about the "rights of artists" in copyright infringement.
What Napster.com does is make music available to those who enjoy it and appreciate it. What the recording industry does is make music they want to sell us available to us. You have, in general, shown an absolute disregard for musicianship and talent for half a century. Why do you purport to care now?
When one of any of the companies represented by the RIAA takes an artist's music and copyrights it themselves, changes it through endless bouts of overproduction, completely forces the artist to give up their artistic integrity for the purpose of selling some plasticized, poppy product to the public, it is stealing something much more precious than money from artists.
Napster's intent is obviously not to make their favorite artists poor, what could possibly be their motive for doing something like that? Napster's intent is to lessen the hold that the RIAA and others have over artists. Artists like Ani Difranco have shown that nationwide distribution and large fanbases can be attained without the help of the RIAA or huge management corporations, that artistic integrity can be saved, and that the buying public LOVES it.
Now a new medium has swept our entire society. The Internet is everywhere, boys, and you'd better get used to it. The RIAA can no longer dominate every aspect of music listening and enjoyment in our country and around the world. Smart kids who love music will figure out a way to share art with everyone, no matter what kind of bullying, laissez-faire capitalistic greed you try to pull on them.
Your quotes from artists are laughable. They're being paid by you! Not from their music! How much more are you making per record sold than artists like Creed? Don't kid yourself into thinking that music listeners all over aren't on to you.
You cannot stop us. When I was a really poor kid growing up in rural Missouri, the only way I could have access to music was by dubbing it on old tape recorders from my friends' recordings. I don't feel guilty for keeping the artists from making their $.0005, and keeping you from making your $8.00, because through that listening, I have developed a deep and abiding love for music. I buy CDs now, I listen to what I want to, and I've probably paid for an executive's parking space in revenues. Yet you do not sue the companies who make blank tapes for dubbing...you do not sue the computer manufacturers whose technology allowed music to be converted to MP3 format, you do not sue internet providers for making mass communication between listeners possible. Do you refrain only because you know it is a losing battle? Because you are simply very afraid of these intelligent and slightly sneaky kids who are undermining your very way of life? All of the above and more.
Your entire industry disgusts me. When your entire motive is to take total advantage of artists in the interests of making more and more and more dollars, how can you expect us to side with you against some kids who may be doing some wrong, but certainly have the music in first place?
You are going to need to seriously reconsider your entire way of doing business, to wake up and hear the dialup...America is on to you, and you're not going to stop it.
Dear RIAA,
I am writing to express my frustration with the recording industry, including, but not limited to, and culminating in the suit against Napster.
I find it highly ironic that the Recording Industry is suddenly so publicly concerned about the "rights of artists" in copyright infringement.
What Napster.com does is make music available to those who enjoy it and appreciate it. What the recording industry does is make music they want to sell us available to us. You have, in general, shown an absolute disregard for musicianship and talent for half a century. Why do you purport to care now?
When one of any of the companies represented by the RIAA takes an artist's music and copyrights it themselves, changes it through endless bouts of overproduction, completely forces the artist to give up their artistic integrity for the purpose of selling some plasticized, poppy product to the public, it is stealing something much more precious than money from artists.
Napster's intent is obviously not to make their favorite artists poor, what could possibly be their motive for doing something like that? Napster's intent is to lessen the hold that the RIAA and others have over artists. Artists like Ani Difranco have shown that nationwide distribution and large fanbases can be attained without the help of the RIAA or huge management corporations, that artistic integrity can be saved, and that the buying public LOVES it.
Now a new medium has swept our entire society. The Internet is everywhere, boys, and you'd better get used to it. The RIAA can no longer dominate every aspect of music listening and enjoyment in our country and around the world. Smart kids who love music will figure out a way to share art with everyone, no matter what kind of bullying, laissez-faire capitalistic greed you try to pull on them.
Your quotes from artists are laughable. They're being paid by you! Not from their music! How much more are you making per record sold than artists like Creed? Don't kid yourself into thinking that music listeners all over aren't on to you.
You cannot stop us. When I was a really poor kid growing up in rural Missouri, the only way I could have access to music was by dubbing it on old tape recorders from my friends' recordings. I don't feel guilty for keeping the artists from making their $.0005, and keeping you from making your $8.00, because through that listening, I have developed a deep and abiding love for music. I buy CDs now, I listen to what I want to, and I've probably paid for an executive's parking space in revenues. Yet you do not sue the companies who make blank tapes for dubbing...you do not sue the computer manufacturers whose technology allowed music to be converted to MP3 format, you do not sue internet providers for making mass communication between listeners possible. Do you refrain only because you know it is a losing battle? Because you are simply very afraid of these intelligent and slightly sneaky kids who are undermining your very way of life? All of the above and more.
Your entire industry disgusts me. When your entire motive is to take total advantage of artists in the interests of making more and more and more dollars, how can you expect us to side with you against some kids who may be doing some wrong, but certainly have the music in first place?
You are going to need to seriously reconsider your entire way of doing business, to wake up and hear the dialup...America is on to you, and you're not going to stop it.
Sincerely,
They mind as well sue computer makers for creating a device that facilitates music piracy!
Haahaa.. what a a joke.
I say we all start a big boycott against buying any cd's or music that the RIAA is associated with.
Anyway.. those are my thoughts..