But the great thing is that AT&T isn't the only one in business with Cable or any high speed internet. Unlike cable, there's more choices of
companies to choose from, and there's better prices
In many areas AT&T is the only choice for cable. I know they just bought @home and already own Media one. Those are the only providers I know of in lower Michigan. In East Lansing @home is the only available provider. From what my friends tell me the service is really bad. I've heard complaints that connections are constantly down. It makes ssh'ing into the computer science server at midnight to upload a project really difficult. I know a few of my friends had to get an extension on the project they were working on because they couldn't upload it.
Re:The man sticking it to the people
on
RIAA CEO Speaks
·
· Score: 1
That's the problem with Corporations in this Country. Most Corporations don't give a damn about your rights. (Neither does the government)
If the RIAA can violate your rights in order to make a buck, they will (and are) do(ing) so without flinching.
This basically all stems back to the fact that most people don't vote. The election is so close right now that if even half of the students at my college voted, the election could be swayed.
I went out and registered the minute I turned 18, not because I felt it was my duty as an American or because I felt the need to flex my newfound Major muscles. I registered because I wanted my voice to be heard.
As a friend of mine once said: "By definition if you don't stand up for anything, you stand for nothing"
I couldn't finish the article
on
RIAA CEO Speaks
·
· Score: 4
I couldn't finish reading the article. Every pargraph just made me more and more angry. People from across the hall were coming in my room wondering where all the explictiives were coming from.
What follows is various passages and my responses to them. Yes I am just a bit cycinal. -- enjoy.
Kibo
Our concern is with those who consistently and intentionally fail to recognize that theft is theft simply because the method is new and their immediate benefit is great -- and then argue that stealing from a successful industry somehow justifies their actions.
Do as I say and not as I do huh? Your industry has been robbing consumers out of their mind for years. The price of a CD has remained relatively the same since it's inception. Look at the price of a CD in 1985 comparied to today
Again, let's not forget the underlying issue. This is not a matter profits and losses or of one industry attempting to stifle another, but rather one of defending the creative community's right to do with their craft and their property how they wish. And what they wish -- I assure you -- is to meet consumer demand and bring music to the Internet.
Not a matter of profits and losses??!?!... Isn't that what you've been complaining about? The only thing the RIAA is interested in is lining their pocketbooks. Your industry doesn't give two shits about the creative rights of your artists. Never mind the fact that you don't own any of the artist's songs THEY DO!
Clearly ignoring the intent of current copyright law and questioning the legal definition of "fair use," Mr. Somerson wrongly claims that if the entertainment industry had its way, people would "never again own anything outright." The fact is, if Mr. Somerson had his way, artists would never again own their own music, and there wouldn't be any further incentive to make it.
It's quite obvious to me you want to replace ownership with rental. You've even gone so far as to demand that Radio stations pay royalty fees for on-line broadcasts.
An advancement in technology isn't wrong. Swapping CDs with your friends isn't wrong. What is wrong is profiting from others' hard work and knowingly stealing another individual's copyrighted works. That is what will ultimately hurt the evolution of online music-- a lesson Mr. Somerson should learn.
You didn't give up any blood sweat and tears to make any of the music your industry promotes.
Telling me that you think swapping CD's isn't wrong is a bold faced lie... I think your suit against Napster is proof of that. -- how stupid to you think consumers are? You claim that swapping CD's isn't wrong, however it is prohibited by the DMCA. A set of Laws that your industry had a fair hand in writing. How can I respect someone who feels it's OK to violate laws that they themselves wrote?
I remembered seeing an earlier article on this topic... Link here
I thought the broadcasting setteled their suit out of court. I guess you can't get anything past the RIAA these days. I guess cool sites like I-wrif here in Detroit are going to be taken down. I don't see any reason radio stations should pay the RIAA because they're playing songs that are the properity of the RIAA. Has anyone else mentioned to them that the songs their industry produces are the properity of the artist and NOT the industry. They don't mention that part to us do they?
Next thing we'll be hearing is the RIAA suit against the Radio Broadcast Industry because people are using radio's to pirate songs. (wait a second...) But hey at least I won't be sued by Metallica. Good luck getting me kicked off of a radio station guys.
Sure it will run quake as long as you don't mind being in a really strong radiation field. You're processor and mainboard would be emitting gamma rays (possibly cosmic radiation) which carry a wavelength around 10^-22 m (extremely high energy)
This would most likely kill you within a few hours, possibly less depending on how much you catch. At the very least don't expect to have any kids. Lead vests aren't doing to do you much good here, just make sure you've got a couple meters of lead between you and your computer. That is of course assuming you can keep it cool (which with today's technology would be imposable)
I'm not sure how much the whole system would cost, but you can read the specs on the site.
I know someone at the University of Michigan that let a group of us play around with it. Very cool stuff. It's really strange becoming a character in Quake.
I've read rumors that someone is working on a Half-Life port for this system. Imagine actually becoming Gordon Freeman.
Linux users are not being barred from playing DVD movies on their
systems. The professor obviously is not aware that all Linux users
have available to them a licensed application to do precisely that.
I have not seen anything about any aplication that allows DVD's to be played under Linux. I know someone was working on a LinDVD, but I thought that was still under devlopment.
U.S. TV networks, among others, sued iCraveTV in federal court in
Pittsburgh (where its domain name was registered), and Canadian
producers and TV stations filed suit in Canada. The court's swift
response was a temporary restraining order, which commanded the
Web site to close pending a trial. Chief Judge Ziegler of the western
district of Pennsylvania made it clear the site was violating copyright
law.
I did a whois and found that yes the domain is registered to someone in PA, but the Administrative contact is listed in Toronto.
The Internet ranks alongside Gutenberg's movable type and the
invention of television as one of the three great inventions of human
society. But it cannot reach its potential if partisans insist on
following Lessig's tattered counsel.
Or if closed minded people like you try to tear it down claiming IP and copyright laws. You've been lucky this far... but I'd be willing to bet if this went on long enough you're going to find a court that doesn't agree with you.
No doubt "thieves" should be punished and content should not be
"stolen." But "theft" is defined relative to the law and the First
Amendment, not to an ideal of perfect control. And when the law
grants a right to speech, that right is ordinarily defended even if
control over that speech is not perfect. But according to the MPAA,
until iCraveTV can "guarantee" that no hacker can crack its security
system, iCraveTV should be enjoined from giving Canadians access to
desktop TV.
The principle is extraordinary. Does a movie theater lose the right to
show R-rated movies if local moralists can produce a ticket sold to a
15-year-old? Should Amazon.com (AMZN) be barred from selling Mein
Kampf anywhere if a German court finds that some Germans
succeeded in buying the illegal (in Germany) book? Can Congress ban
porn on the Net if it is shown that kids might be exposed?
A very frightening thought indeed. Ask yourself is this the type of world you want to live in??
Actually there are some lawyers that are going after the porno right now. There is a lawyer that wants Valve to patch half-life so that color spraypaint can't be used anymore. Aparently people are using the spraypaint to traffic porn to minors. I don't remember the link offhand... it may be at halflife.net
Industry executives close to the patent skirmish said
Rambus (stock: RMBS), Mountain View, Calif., is in
the midst of negotiating separate licensing agreements
with Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (stock: AMD),
Sunnyvale, Calif., and x86-processor start-up
Transmeta Corp., Santa Clara, Calif., both of which
have been heavy supporters of the double-data-rate
SDRAM interface Rambus claims to own.
Take note of last sentence. I think that interface is commonly referred to as Copper. Why don't these people just give up? I mean they've lost enough money as it is.
You do have a point, however DeCSS is not the only way to copy a DVD. It's easy enough to plug some cables into the video out on my video card or on my TV. I could then say copy it to a videocassette or say another DVD.
I know DeCSS does decrypt DVD's, but it's original intent was to make DVD playing under the Linux (or Unix) OS possible. Jon Johansson had no intention of opening Pandora's box or illegally copying all his DVD's to put up on the Internet. He was just a geek who was pissed because he couldn't play DVD's on his Linux Box.
I think Craig Newell got most of his information about DeCSS from the mainstream media and I have learned not to trust anything that the mainstream media tells me.
I never meant to imply that promotion isn't easy. I'm currently working with a friend of mine to help promote his band on-line.
I do understand your argument about artists wanting to spend more time on the creative side of things rather than the business side.
I'm just saying that I think out of the $13.00+ I spend for a CD I'd like to see more go to the artist for his/her blood sweat and tears. I'm sick of record companies fronting millions of dollars for some artist that (IMHO) has absolutely no talent. While some other artist sits in obscurity. I don't like seeing my money go toward something I have no interest in purchasing or listening to. Someone else however, may feel differently about a particular artist and want to support them. That's great. Everyone has different musical tastes. Where I feel a particular artist has no talent someone else may feel the exact oposite.
I think promotion over the Internet is a very good thing. There is so much good music that goes unnoticed by the mainstream. I realize that not everyone has the ability (or desire) to promote on his or her own. However, the Internet is making it much easier.
I just hope these lawsuits don't get out of hand and destroy all the progress we've made. (See sig below)
Mr. Newell: Certainly, Gene is right here. Whether it's on Scour
Exchange or someplace else, the file-sharing "craze" has begun to spread
to other media such as video and will continue to do so as technology
progresses. One reason for this is the DeCSS software that allows DVD
owners to decrypt the movie and pull it straight off of the DVD with no
loss of quality. This opens many possibilities, such as compressing it and
sharing it on the Internet.
This comment just pisses me off... People really need to be educated before they speak. Hey Craig Newell If you're reading this: THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF DeCSS WAS TO PLAY DVD's ON LINUX!!! I can't stress this enough. The MPAA doesn't want you to play DVD's on a computer unless they bless it first.
Mr. Smith: The subscription service makes sense. Folks can join, pay a
monthly fee, and from said fees, the provider can pay the music
companies for use of their material.
If I'm going to join a "subscription service" why the hell would I want to pay the music company? Why should the RIAA profit from the talent of others... all they do with that money is funnel it into people who have no talent anyway.
Ms. Rosen: Esther is right about the future, even if she is completely
wrong about what a record company does. New distribution systems
provide for new levels of competition, and record companies and all
sorts of others who work with artists in the future will have to prove their
worth to that artist (and their fans) in the new marketplace. Today, a
record company does that by investing in the "creation of the demand"
for an artist's music. I don't think that will change. Helping an artist create
the demand for their music is a critical factor in their careers. Some artists
do it themselves; most don't want to. There is a lot of music out there.
But we must all concede that we pay attention to certain music or certain
artists because they have become more popular, and we rely on the
natural selection processes of the marketplace. That process does not
come cheap in the physical world -- or in the online world.
I think I made my point above about financing of non-talent with real talent. If you need help "creating demand" for your music... You're in the wrong business. If you work hard long hours to make your music why would you not work even harder to promote it? And that is what has the RIAA frightened...
Mr. Boies: The Internet is both a threat and an opportunity. It is an
opportunity to efficiently promote and build demand. It is a threat
because it is a distribution and promotion channel that the record labels,
at least for now, do not control. It is the greatest opportunity for the 98
percent of artists that are not distributed by the major record labels. It is
the greatest threat to the RIAA and its members.
Mr. Boies: An industry at war with its customers is an industry in
trouble. The RIAA and its members are making users mad as hell, and
these users will find a way not to take it anymore.
Amen -- to both points
Ms. Rosen: The Internet is clearly viewed by the music community as
an opportunity. Mr. Boies's accusations are ridiculous and offensive. No
one can control the Internet. There are so many innovative technology
partnerships with the music community going on right now that no one
with any knowledge even thinks that is the music community's intention.
What we can do, however, is assure that certain simple rights are
enforced and that companies don't break the law.
No one can control the Internet... Isn't that what you're (the RIAA) trying to do? Insuring that companies don't break the law? You're sure putting up a fine example.
Ms. Rosen: Artists, musicians, songwriters, music publishers and record
companies are not asking for additional legislation. In selected areas, we
merely seek the existing law to be enforced. To suggest that illegal
activity by a single infringer like Napster is representative of all that is
going on is simply short-sighted. The Internet is being used every day by
all of us in the music community with many different technology partners
promoting, introducing, Webcasting and selling new music and favorite
artists to their fans. The marketplace is working. The fact that a few
companies are not abiding the law does not mean that Congress needs to
intervene. It simply means that the existing law should be respected.
Most are playing by the rules. A few are not.
The RIAA obviously don't respect existing laws. Have you ever heard of Fair use??
Things are the way they are because society wanted it that way. If people actually got out and voted and cared about what the government does there wouldn't be any mistrust, boredom, alienation or disgust.
The problem in this country is that nobody cares. This is brought on by the good economy. I'd be willing to bet that if the economy collapsed tomorrow more people would take an interest in politics.
When we were sucking down 98 cent gas nobody seemed to complain... the second gas prices shot up the first question on everyone's mind is "Where is the government on this one?"
Is the political system dead? No... We're just all too fat and weighted down with thick wallets to notice it's existence.
Although the part about loosing history is a frightening reality. Most of this document is pure BS. Ultimately it comes down to people pulling their heads out of their asses and waking up to reality. Is the future described in this document possible? Yeah I suppose, however unlikely.
First off I find it hard to believe Microsoft will be ruling the world in such a manner. The idea alone is absolutely absurd. Microsoft is just a Corporation that was in the right place at the right time. I think they contributed a lot to the advancement of technology into the home, but now they're just holding society back.
I gave up on the Internet a long time ago... aside from slashdot and a few other interesting sites there's nothing worth looking at that hasn't already disappeared. (anyone remember gopher?)
As far as the DMCA and UTCIA go I feel that if we as geeks can put on a suit and fight this one off our home ground we stand a fair chance of winning. The only thing the government has done to the Internet is move the battleground over intellectual property rights to a different location. I guess they figured we wouldn't fight this one. I think the worst thing we can do is to let things continue.
Personally I think our society hit it's peak just after World War I.. when the communist revolution was happening in Asia our government decided that personal rights and freedom were to take a back seat to National Security. (I give you the Red Scare and McCarthyism)
With the growth of the Internet I think society made an attempt to stand back on it's feet again, and if we don't stop the law makers now we're just going to get knocked back down. Consider this similar to the fall of the Roman Empire. We've got a chance albeit a small one, to get society back to where it belongs.
Getting back to the loosing history aspect. Someone rm -rf'ed the directory containing the constitution and bill of rights, but it's not happening twenty years in the future.... it's happening right now. WE NEED TO FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS IF WE REALLY WANT THEM BACK!!
I found this program quite a while ago... it's a real handy reg tweaking utility. With all of the available plugins you can download off the page you can disable all of IE's "features"
People are entitled to their own opinion, but it angers me when people say things like this:
"Having somebody who can screw around with my operating system would make me very, very nervous." -- Peter Firstbrook
There are many ways to screw around with an Operating system if you can't trust someone with root access, maybe you shouldn't give it to them.
If anyone out there is having a problem with their staff modifying the Kernel on their server/workstation or whatever perhaps you should blame the staff member and not the OS.
I want to understand why people seem to think IT Professionals need to know how to program. If I had extensive knowledge of C to go "screw around with my operating system" I sure as hell wouldn't be in the job I'm currently in.
The fact is I really don't like to program. (My apologies to all those awesome programmers out there... keep up the good work!!) I personally enjoy working with network security, as a sys admin god knows I deal with plenty of that on a daily basis.
I find it difficult to argue against such software when you've got a community of parents. Parents elect school board members, so naturally the school board members are going to have similar views/morals as the voting members of the community.
Where I work we have an "acceptable use" policy on Internet access.
We have an acceptable use policy where I work too. I'm a system admin for a community school. Acceptable use policy's are great, but try explaining to a parent or school board member why little Johnny was allowed to at porn when technology exists to stop such things. I know such technology can be easily circumvented, but the average parent has been BS'ed into believing that censorship is the best way to stop their child from doing something they think is wrong.
I think that the question shouldn't be: Why was little Johnny allowed to look at porn? but instead: Why was he looking at porn in the first place?
I applaud your taking a stand here and bringing your opinions to a public forum. I can see where you are coming from here and I agree with most of what you said.
However, I think your attempt to justify the government cracking down on free speech is wrong. I think this bill is the government telling me what's right for me. That's wrong. I don't use drugs of any kind and can't imagine why anyone would, but I still think people should have the right to do what is best for them. If someone wants to spend their Fri night with his or her head in a toilet, than who am I to judge?
I'm curious why you singled out LSD in your small list. I believe that it is "wrong" to do any of the activities you listed while using any drug. I think more people have died of alcohol & car related accidents than LSD & car related accidents.
Just because the majority of a population think something is wrong does not mean someone is wrong in doing it. I think people should have the right to do something, but have the responsibility and maturity not to.
Government doesn't want drugs in hands of citizens
Government outlaws drugs
Government tries to pass laws restricting speech/knowledge on drugs
Government can't get laws passed on their own
Government attaches drug restrictions on new bills
Government repeals 4th amendment (WTF?)
So what the government is saying is that they have the right to say what is right for me? Well, when it's put that way it doesn't sound as noble as I'm sure the government thinks it is. I think our country has been S.E.'d into thinking that the individual's rights mean nothing if you're protecting the greater good of society. What's so wrong with pot anyway? It's no better than alcohol.
And to kick us while we're down they repeal the 4th embedment? What is that all about? I'm not sure how they can make a jump like this:
Ok... we want to get rid of drugs, lets keep them from talking about drugs... and what the hell lets get rid of the 4th amendment as well, it has just been getting in the way. Rights??? What rights??... we tell them what their rights are... its written right here:
"We the people...."
No wait that's not it...
Anyway... what ever happened to We the People of the United States of America give the government these explicit rights? I thought it was the government existed at the will of the people, not the other way around. I distinctly remember reading the following somewhere:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I graduated (and currently work at) on of the most technologically advanced high schools/school districts in all of Michigan. We've got over 800 computers in the high school alone.
A computer is a tool nothing more. I think he is confusing a computer and the Internet in the article. Computers != Internet. We don't just use the computers in the school for surfing the net. We've got a lab of SGI Indys and a Linux networking Lab:) we've got a typing lab, a CAD lab, a robotics lab, the list goes on and on. Computers are not just a case monitor and keyboard/mouse. There's a whole other level of computers out there that are part of our every day life.
I don't think exposing kids to different operating systems and computer architectures is hurting anyone's education. We've also got a lot of real world examples.... take our AutoCad lab for example.
However, even though we were blessed with all of this technology, I don't think any of the teachers have forgotten the need for a pencil and paper. Most of the staff realizes that a computer is only as smart as its user. I don't think we're developing a generation of slackers who don't know the most basic of things as long as we remember what got us to where are.
I've spent the last 4 years working for my high school I graduated in 99, but I plan on spending my summers continuing to work here. While I was up at college I helped maintain the district's web page.
Currently our school district has the most advanced systems in all of Michigan. We have 8 Novell 5 servers and 2 NT. There are over 700 Compaq workstations in the high school alone. (pent III 500's running NT 4.0) We've got a lab of SGI Indy's. (running IRIX) I've even managed to convince the school board to start a networking lab running Linux:) which I'm currently working on setting up right now.
The pay isn't the best, but the work I do is great resume material. When I put on my resume I have 4 years of computer repair and networking experince and the fact that I helped build the district's WAN from the ground up... I'm pretty sure I can walk onto almost any job.
You may want to contact your local school district and see what kind of technology they have and what kind of support they need.
enough that a computer illiterate jury would agree that said product "sucks" and your statement was not libel but rather a true fact?
I would think that by definition something that "sucks" would have to be taken as an opinion and not as true fact. Although, I would love to see a court of law try to define something that "sucks".
suckvb1 to draw (as liquid) into the mouth through a suction force produced by movements of the lips and tongue. The baby sucked on his bottle. 2 to draw by or as if by suction. The tank was sucked dry. 3 to involve in an enterprise by compulsion or deceit. He was sucked into the situation. 4 to be extremely or disgustingly unpleasant or objectionable. (considered vulgar) That really sucks.
I really don't think you could go after someone for libel because his or her opinions about others are vulgar. As far as I know libel is being responsible for one's actions. This is what I thought the first amendment was supposed to protect. Then again if you are under the age of 18 you don't have any constitutional rights. And by the time you reach the age of 18 you realize the constitution is not set in stone like you were taught. The constitution is not absolute
I think it really sucks (no pun intended) that all of this happened... and I agree with you KATZ that free speech only applies in the real world. If people's rights keep getting squashed, the net is going to come crashing in on itself. Personally I don't spend too much time on the net anymore. (Slashdot and a few matches of Counter-strike and UT is about all I get into) During the last year I've been discovering a whole new world out there where my rights acutally mean something. The last 2 years I've spent on the net have been wasted. I think I'm better off because of it, but I still feel a void that needs to be filled and I'm not going to fill that void in a place where my rights don't mean anything anymore.
The first part of solving a problem is identifying what the problem is. Katz did a good job here identifying what the main problem on the net is. If we want to save the net (and free speech along with it) we need to get out there and educate people on why the net needs to be saved.
I've been on the net a good portion of my life (circa 1990) and in the begining I absolutely loved it. The free flowing of ideas and information was apealing to me. However, for the last few years I've watched the net become more and more like the real world. I really think it should be the other way around. If the government were to do the things corporations are doing on line in the real world people would take notice. There are these things called rights perhaps people have heard of them.
I'm sick and tierd of seeing my rights squashed because a few people of millions are illegally copying MP3's or DVD's. There are plenty of legitmant uses for MP3's. And I see no reason I can't play DVD's on my Linux box.
Where do we go from here? That is a tough question. We need to create new laws that protect the rights of everyone on the net. Don't let the government (and corporations) take away the Internet. Don't let them place political boundaries in cyberspace.
These days all I do on the net is read slashdot and watch my rights slowly fade away. I always thought moving to another country or starting my own one-day would solve all of these problems, but sadly I was mistaken.
I work for Clarkston Community Schools as a field tech. Our team implemented an on-line helpdesk for the teachers and misc staff to submit work orders on line. Before we implemented this all work order requests were routed through our voice mail system.
The system allows staff members to log on over our network and submit work orders on-line through our webserver. One of the techs here wrote a database program that catalogs all of the work orders and prints them out.
This really helps in identifying problem areas (high school students like to break things) and helps us come up with possible solutions to those problems. (like breaking some fingers off)
Check our Technology page to get some links and whatnot. (I know it's a really crappy page, so don't blame me for things I have no control over)
I agree with you completely. An individual is useless against corpratism. Individuals united however may stand a chance.
What is a corperation?
A group of collected individuals with a common goal.
Fight fire with fire I say.
The only problem I see here is that of the right of a company to exist. Corperations may not have the right of existance, but they do have the right to exist.
It would be extreemly hiprocritical (spelling?) of us to deny them that right. A corperation has as much right to be here as we do. However they do not have the right to screw us over. It's our business that keeps their bussiness in business.
Slashdot Mirror
In many areas AT&T is the only choice for cable. I know they just bought @home and already own Media one. Those are the only providers I know of in lower Michigan. In East Lansing @home is the only available provider. From what my friends tell me the service is really bad. I've heard complaints that connections are constantly down. It makes ssh'ing into the computer science server at midnight to upload a project really difficult. I know a few of my friends had to get an extension on the project they were working on because they couldn't upload it.
If the RIAA can violate your rights in order to make a buck, they will (and are) do(ing) so without flinching.
This basically all stems back to the fact that most people don't vote. The election is so close right now that if even half of the students at my college voted, the election could be swayed.
I went out and registered the minute I turned 18, not because I felt it was my duty as an American or because I felt the need to flex my newfound Major muscles. I registered because I wanted my voice to be heard.
As a friend of mine once said:
"By definition if you don't stand up for anything, you stand for nothing"
What follows is various passages and my responses to them. Yes I am just a bit cycinal. -- enjoy.
Kibo
Our concern is with those who consistently and intentionally fail to recognize that theft is theft simply because the method is new and their immediate benefit is great -- and then argue that stealing from a successful industry somehow justifies their actions.
Do as I say and not as I do huh? Your industry has been robbing consumers out of their mind for years. The price of a CD has remained relatively the same since it's inception. Look at the price of a CD in 1985 comparied to today
Again, let's not forget the underlying issue. This is not a matter profits and losses or of one industry attempting to stifle another, but rather one of defending the creative community's right to do with their craft and their property how they wish. And what they wish -- I assure you -- is to meet consumer demand and bring music to the Internet.
Not a matter of profits and losses??!?!... Isn't that what you've been complaining about? The only thing the RIAA is interested in is lining their pocketbooks. Your industry doesn't give two shits about the creative rights of your artists. Never mind the fact that you don't own any of the artist's songs THEY DO!
Clearly ignoring the intent of current copyright law and questioning the legal definition of "fair use," Mr. Somerson wrongly claims that if the entertainment industry had its way, people would "never again own anything outright." The fact is, if Mr. Somerson had his way, artists would never again own their own music, and there wouldn't be any further incentive to make it.
It's quite obvious to me you want to replace ownership with rental. You've even gone so far as to demand that Radio stations pay royalty fees for on-line broadcasts.
An advancement in technology isn't wrong. Swapping CDs with your friends isn't wrong. What is wrong is profiting from others' hard work and knowingly stealing another individual's copyrighted works. That is what will ultimately hurt the evolution of online music-- a lesson Mr. Somerson should learn.
You didn't give up any blood sweat and tears to make any of the music your industry promotes. Telling me that you think swapping CD's isn't wrong is a bold faced lie... I think your suit against Napster is proof of that. -- how stupid to you think consumers are? You claim that swapping CD's isn't wrong, however it is prohibited by the DMCA. A set of Laws that your industry had a fair hand in writing. How can I respect someone who feels it's OK to violate laws that they themselves wrote?
I thought the broadcasting setteled their suit out of court. I guess you can't get anything past the RIAA these days. I guess cool sites like I-wrif here in Detroit are going to be taken down. I don't see any reason radio stations should pay the RIAA because they're playing songs that are the properity of the RIAA. Has anyone else mentioned to them that the songs their industry produces are the properity of the artist and NOT the industry. They don't mention that part to us do they?
Next thing we'll be hearing is the RIAA suit against the Radio Broadcast Industry because people are using radio's to pirate songs. (wait a second...) But hey at least I won't be sued by Metallica. Good luck getting me kicked off of a radio station guys.
Sure it will run quake as long as you don't mind being in a really strong radiation field. You're processor and mainboard would be emitting gamma rays (possibly cosmic radiation) which carry a wavelength around 10^-22 m (extremely high energy)
This would most likely kill you within a few hours, possibly less depending on how much you catch. At the very least don't expect to have any kids. Lead vests aren't doing to do you much good here, just make sure you've got a couple meters of lead between you and your computer. That is of course assuming you can keep it cool (which with today's technology would be imposable)
http://brighton.ncsa.uiuc.edu/~prajlich/caveQuake/
I'm not sure how much the whole system would cost, but you can read the specs on the site.
I know someone at the University of Michigan that let a group of us play around with it. Very cool stuff. It's really strange becoming a character in Quake.
I've read rumors that someone is working on a Half-Life port for this system. Imagine actually becoming Gordon Freeman.
Linux users are not being barred from playing DVD movies on their systems. The professor obviously is not aware that all Linux users have available to them a licensed application to do precisely that.
I have not seen anything about any aplication that allows DVD's to be played under Linux. I know someone was working on a LinDVD, but I thought that was still under devlopment.
U.S. TV networks, among others, sued iCraveTV in federal court in Pittsburgh (where its domain name was registered), and Canadian producers and TV stations filed suit in Canada. The court's swift response was a temporary restraining order, which commanded the Web site to close pending a trial. Chief Judge Ziegler of the western district of Pennsylvania made it clear the site was violating copyright law.
I did a whois and found that yes the domain is registered to someone in PA, but the Administrative contact is listed in Toronto.
The Internet ranks alongside Gutenberg's movable type and the invention of television as one of the three great inventions of human society. But it cannot reach its potential if partisans insist on following Lessig's tattered counsel. Or if closed minded people like you try to tear it down claiming IP and copyright laws. You've been lucky this far... but I'd be willing to bet if this went on long enough you're going to find a court that doesn't agree with you.
----------------------------
References taken from http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151, 10885,00.html
No doubt "thieves" should be punished and content should not be "stolen." But "theft" is defined relative to the law and the First Amendment, not to an ideal of perfect control. And when the law grants a right to speech, that right is ordinarily defended even if control over that speech is not perfect. But according to the MPAA, until iCraveTV can "guarantee" that no hacker can crack its security system, iCraveTV should be enjoined from giving Canadians access to desktop TV. The principle is extraordinary. Does a movie theater lose the right to show R-rated movies if local moralists can produce a ticket sold to a 15-year-old? Should Amazon.com (AMZN) be barred from selling Mein Kampf anywhere if a German court finds that some Germans succeeded in buying the illegal (in Germany) book? Can Congress ban porn on the Net if it is shown that kids might be exposed?
A very frightening thought indeed. Ask yourself is this the type of world you want to live in??
Actually there are some lawyers that are going after the porno right now. There is a lawyer that wants Valve to patch half-life so that color spraypaint can't be used anymore. Aparently people are using the spraypaint to traffic porn to minors. I don't remember the link offhand... it may be at halflife.net
Take note of last sentence. I think that interface is commonly referred to as Copper. Why don't these people just give up? I mean they've lost enough money as it is.
I know DeCSS does decrypt DVD's, but it's original intent was to make DVD playing under the Linux (or Unix) OS possible. Jon Johansson had no intention of opening Pandora's box or illegally copying all his DVD's to put up on the Internet. He was just a geek who was pissed because he couldn't play DVD's on his Linux Box.
I think Craig Newell got most of his information about DeCSS from the mainstream media and I have learned not to trust anything that the mainstream media tells me.
I do understand your argument about artists wanting to spend more time on the creative side of things rather than the business side. I'm just saying that I think out of the $13.00+ I spend for a CD I'd like to see more go to the artist for his/her blood sweat and tears. I'm sick of record companies fronting millions of dollars for some artist that (IMHO) has absolutely no talent. While some other artist sits in obscurity. I don't like seeing my money go toward something I have no interest in purchasing or listening to. Someone else however, may feel differently about a particular artist and want to support them. That's great. Everyone has different musical tastes. Where I feel a particular artist has no talent someone else may feel the exact oposite.
I think promotion over the Internet is a very good thing. There is so much good music that goes unnoticed by the mainstream. I realize that not everyone has the ability (or desire) to promote on his or her own. However, the Internet is making it much easier.
I just hope these lawsuits don't get out of hand and destroy all the progress we've made. (See sig below)
This comment just pisses me off... People really need to be educated before they speak. Hey Craig Newell If you're reading this: THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF DeCSS WAS TO PLAY DVD's ON LINUX!!! I can't stress this enough. The MPAA doesn't want you to play DVD's on a computer unless they bless it first.
Mr. Smith: The subscription service makes sense. Folks can join, pay a monthly fee, and from said fees, the provider can pay the music companies for use of their material.
If I'm going to join a "subscription service" why the hell would I want to pay the music company? Why should the RIAA profit from the talent of others... all they do with that money is funnel it into people who have no talent anyway.
Ms. Rosen: Esther is right about the future, even if she is completely wrong about what a record company does. New distribution systems provide for new levels of competition, and record companies and all sorts of others who work with artists in the future will have to prove their worth to that artist (and their fans) in the new marketplace. Today, a record company does that by investing in the "creation of the demand" for an artist's music. I don't think that will change. Helping an artist create the demand for their music is a critical factor in their careers. Some artists do it themselves; most don't want to. There is a lot of music out there. But we must all concede that we pay attention to certain music or certain artists because they have become more popular, and we rely on the natural selection processes of the marketplace. That process does not come cheap in the physical world -- or in the online world.
I think I made my point above about financing of non-talent with real talent. If you need help "creating demand" for your music... You're in the wrong business. If you work hard long hours to make your music why would you not work even harder to promote it? And that is what has the RIAA frightened...
Mr. Boies: The Internet is both a threat and an opportunity. It is an opportunity to efficiently promote and build demand. It is a threat because it is a distribution and promotion channel that the record labels, at least for now, do not control. It is the greatest opportunity for the 98 percent of artists that are not distributed by the major record labels. It is the greatest threat to the RIAA and its members.
Mr. Boies: An industry at war with its customers is an industry in trouble. The RIAA and its members are making users mad as hell, and these users will find a way not to take it anymore.
Amen -- to both points
Ms. Rosen: The Internet is clearly viewed by the music community as an opportunity. Mr. Boies's accusations are ridiculous and offensive. No one can control the Internet. There are so many innovative technology partnerships with the music community going on right now that no one with any knowledge even thinks that is the music community's intention. What we can do, however, is assure that certain simple rights are enforced and that companies don't break the law.
No one can control the Internet... Isn't that what you're (the RIAA) trying to do? Insuring that companies don't break the law? You're sure putting up a fine example.
Ms. Rosen: Artists, musicians, songwriters, music publishers and record companies are not asking for additional legislation. In selected areas, we merely seek the existing law to be enforced. To suggest that illegal activity by a single infringer like Napster is representative of all that is going on is simply short-sighted. The Internet is being used every day by all of us in the music community with many different technology partners promoting, introducing, Webcasting and selling new music and favorite artists to their fans. The marketplace is working. The fact that a few companies are not abiding the law does not mean that Congress needs to intervene. It simply means that the existing law should be respected. Most are playing by the rules. A few are not.
The RIAA obviously don't respect existing laws. Have you ever heard of Fair use??
The problem in this country is that nobody cares. This is brought on by the good economy. I'd be willing to bet that if the economy collapsed tomorrow more people would take an interest in politics.
When we were sucking down 98 cent gas nobody seemed to complain... the second gas prices shot up the first question on everyone's mind is "Where is the government on this one?"
Is the political system dead? No... We're just all too fat and weighted down with thick wallets to notice it's existence.
First off I find it hard to believe Microsoft will be ruling the world in such a manner. The idea alone is absolutely absurd. Microsoft is just a Corporation that was in the right place at the right time. I think they contributed a lot to the advancement of technology into the home, but now they're just holding society back.
I gave up on the Internet a long time ago... aside from slashdot and a few other interesting sites there's nothing worth looking at that hasn't already disappeared. (anyone remember gopher?)
As far as the DMCA and UTCIA go I feel that if we as geeks can put on a suit and fight this one off our home ground we stand a fair chance of winning. The only thing the government has done to the Internet is move the battleground over intellectual property rights to a different location. I guess they figured we wouldn't fight this one. I think the worst thing we can do is to let things continue.
Personally I think our society hit it's peak just after World War I.. when the communist revolution was happening in Asia our government decided that personal rights and freedom were to take a back seat to National Security. (I give you the Red Scare and McCarthyism)
With the growth of the Internet I think society made an attempt to stand back on it's feet again, and if we don't stop the law makers now we're just going to get knocked back down. Consider this similar to the fall of the Roman Empire. We've got a chance albeit a small one, to get society back to where it belongs.
Getting back to the loosing history aspect. Someone rm -rf'ed the directory containing the constitution and bill of rights, but it's not happening twenty years in the future.... it's happening right now. WE NEED TO FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS IF WE REALLY WANT THEM BACK!!
http://www.xteq.com/main.html
The program is called x-setup... you can find links to more plugins on the page.
I want to understand why people seem to think IT Professionals need to know how to program. If I had extensive knowledge of C to go "screw around with my operating system" I sure as hell wouldn't be in the job I'm currently in. The fact is I really don't like to program. (My apologies to all those awesome programmers out there... keep up the good work!!) I personally enjoy working with network security, as a sys admin god knows I deal with plenty of that on a daily basis.
I think that the question shouldn't be: Why was little Johnny allowed to look at porn? but instead: Why was he looking at porn in the first place?
However, I think your attempt to justify the government cracking down on free speech is wrong. I think this bill is the government telling me what's right for me. That's wrong. I don't use drugs of any kind and can't imagine why anyone would, but I still think people should have the right to do what is best for them. If someone wants to spend their Fri night with his or her head in a toilet, than who am I to judge?
I'm curious why you singled out LSD in your small list. I believe that it is "wrong" to do any of the activities you listed while using any drug. I think more people have died of alcohol & car related accidents than LSD & car related accidents.
Just because the majority of a population think something is wrong does not mean someone is wrong in doing it. I think people should have the right to do something, but have the responsibility and maturity not to.
OK... let me see if I understand the logic here.
So what the government is saying is that they have the right to say what is right for me? Well, when it's put that way it doesn't sound as noble as I'm sure the government thinks it is. I think our country has been S.E.'d into thinking that the individual's rights mean nothing if you're protecting the greater good of society. What's so wrong with pot anyway? It's no better than alcohol.
And to kick us while we're down they repeal the 4th embedment? What is that all about? I'm not sure how they can make a jump like this:
Anyway... what ever happened to We the People of the United States of America give the government these explicit rights? I thought it was the government existed at the will of the people, not the other way around. I distinctly remember reading the following somewhere:</bitch>
A computer is a tool nothing more. I think he is confusing a computer and the Internet in the article. Computers != Internet. We don't just use the computers in the school for surfing the net. We've got a lab of SGI Indys and a Linux networking Lab :) we've got a typing lab, a CAD lab, a robotics lab, the list goes on and on. Computers are not just a case monitor and keyboard/mouse. There's a whole other level of computers out there that are part of our every day life.
I don't think exposing kids to different operating systems and computer architectures is hurting anyone's education. We've also got a lot of real world examples.... take our AutoCad lab for example.
However, even though we were blessed with all of this technology, I don't think any of the teachers have forgotten the need for a pencil and paper. Most of the staff realizes that a computer is only as smart as its user. I don't think we're developing a generation of slackers who don't know the most basic of things as long as we remember what got us to where are.
Currently our school district has the most advanced systems in all of Michigan. We have 8 Novell 5 servers and 2 NT. There are over 700 Compaq workstations in the high school alone. (pent III 500's running NT 4.0) We've got a lab of SGI Indy's. (running IRIX) I've even managed to convince the school board to start a networking lab running Linux :) which I'm currently working on setting up right now.
The pay isn't the best, but the work I do is great resume material. When I put on my resume I have 4 years of computer repair and networking experince and the fact that I helped build the district's WAN from the ground up... I'm pretty sure I can walk onto almost any job.
You may want to contact your local school district and see what kind of technology they have and what kind of support they need.
Good luck in your future.
I would think that by definition something that "sucks" would have to be taken as an opinion and not as true fact. Although, I would love to see a court of law try to define something that "sucks".
suck vb 1 to draw (as liquid) into the mouth through a suction force produced by movements of the lips and tongue. The baby sucked on his bottle. 2 to draw by or as if by suction. The tank was sucked dry. 3 to involve in an enterprise by compulsion or deceit. He was sucked into the situation. 4 to be extremely or disgustingly unpleasant or objectionable. (considered vulgar) That really sucks.
I really don't think you could go after someone for libel because his or her opinions about others are vulgar. As far as I know libel is being responsible for one's actions. This is what I thought the first amendment was supposed to protect. Then again if you are under the age of 18 you don't have any constitutional rights. And by the time you reach the age of 18 you realize the constitution is not set in stone like you were taught. The constitution is not absolute
I think it really sucks (no pun intended) that all of this happened... and I agree with you KATZ that free speech only applies in the real world. If people's rights keep getting squashed, the net is going to come crashing in on itself. Personally I don't spend too much time on the net anymore. (Slashdot and a few matches of Counter-strike and UT is about all I get into) During the last year I've been discovering a whole new world out there where my rights acutally mean something. The last 2 years I've spent on the net have been wasted. I think I'm better off because of it, but I still feel a void that needs to be filled and I'm not going to fill that void in a place where my rights don't mean anything anymore.
I've been on the net a good portion of my life (circa 1990) and in the begining I absolutely loved it. The free flowing of ideas and information was apealing to me. However, for the last few years I've watched the net become more and more like the real world. I really think it should be the other way around. If the government were to do the things corporations are doing on line in the real world people would take notice. There are these things called rights perhaps people have heard of them.
I'm sick and tierd of seeing my rights squashed because a few people of millions are illegally copying MP3's or DVD's. There are plenty of legitmant uses for MP3's. And I see no reason I can't play DVD's on my Linux box.
Where do we go from here? That is a tough question. We need to create new laws that protect the rights of everyone on the net. Don't let the government (and corporations) take away the Internet. Don't let them place political boundaries in cyberspace.
http://www.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html
These days all I do on the net is read slashdot and watch my rights slowly fade away. I always thought moving to another country or starting my own one-day would solve all of these problems, but sadly I was mistaken.
The system allows staff members to log on over our network and submit work orders on-line through our webserver. One of the techs here wrote a database program that catalogs all of the work orders and prints them out.
This really helps in identifying problem areas (high school students like to break things) and helps us come up with possible solutions to those problems. (like breaking some fingers off)
Check our Technology page to get some links and whatnot. (I know it's a really crappy page, so don't blame me for things I have no control over)
What is a corperation?
A group of collected individuals with a common goal.
Fight fire with fire I say.
The only problem I see here is that of the right of a company to exist. Corperations may not have the right of existance, but they do have the right to exist.
It would be extreemly hiprocritical (spelling?) of us to deny them that right. A corperation has as much right to be here as we do. However they do not have the right to screw us over. It's our business that keeps their bussiness in business.