That's right. I own a copy. The original is still in the possession of the author or inventor, who retains ownership of the original property. My rights to duplicate or otherwise distribute the copy that I own are limited by the terms of the agreement that transferred ownership of the copy to me. My perrsonal opinion or ideologically driven beliefs about intellectual property and copyright do not bear on that circumstance.
It would be nice if people arguing against intellectual property and against copyright would use something other than irrelevant analogies and unsubstantiated assertions to make their case.
An idea is just neuron firings, without consequence or value, until someone articulates it. It is the articulation of an idea -- by speaking, by writing, or otherwise recording and distributing it -- that conveys consequence and value to the idea. That articulation -- a score for a song, a published thesis -- constitutes property as much as the building in which it is housed.
That said, I agree with you that the entertainment industry has successfully distorted the political process in order to use IP and copyright law to maintain their distribution oligopoly. However, changing IP and copyright law will not afect that oligopoly. The status qou will persist until a viable and profitable alternative distribution channel is created that allows mainstream consumers to purchase mainstream entertainment.
I don't want to be screwed over by anyone, either. But, so far, the RIAA is winning, because most people have been suckered into fighting on their turf.
This fuss isn't about people recording something off the radio or TV doe individual use. It isn't even about copyright. It's about maintaining the entertainment industry's lock on distribution Putting CD's, DVD's, movies, etc., on p2p servers for global distribution threatens that lock. All the shoulds and oughts in the world won't change that fact.
Music is a luxury, especially for people with mortgages and car payments. Whether or not what you believe is "right" is beside the point. This is a political debate, not a debate about ethics. To change copyright law requires changing the way Congress votes. To change the behavior of the recording industry requires that consumers stop buying mainstream music and start buying from non-RIAA affiliated companies. Since the opponents of filesharing have successfully created the impression that the only constituency for filesharing is college students too cheap to pay for garage-band music, there's llittle chance that the votes of mainstream America or Congress will be swayed. If, by chance, Congress is swayed, it will certainly not be to abolish copyright. At best, they would alter the length of a copyright period. That would have no affect on the RIAA's behavior. If they want to chase you for copying something under copyright, they'll do that regardless of the length of that copyright.
As for your auto analogy: A CD or DVD is, as well, a physical thing. When it is copied and placed on a filesharing server accessible by anyone with Internet access, a cogent case can be made that some of the people downloading that copy would otherwise have purchased it. That deprives people of revenue they would otherwise receive. Your point that this isn't depriving people of an "idea" is not relevant. People care about money and, as we've seen, will usually act against those they believe are cutting into their profits. In addition, it is also quite easy to deprive someone of the benefits of an idea by copying it. Consider someone who has developed an idea to improve auto gas mileage by 100 percent. He publishes that idea. However, because of a total lack of copyright protection, someone else picks up that publication, re-publishes it under his own name, and strikes a deal with the auto manufacturers that brings him millions of dollars in royalties and payments. The actual originator is left high and dry.
In the end, all the analogies are moot, because no one has launched a court case to test the claim that large-scale filesharing of music is fair use. Until a successful outcome from such a challenge, the p2p fans don't have much of a case.
Well then, with that clarification, we're very much on the same wavelength. I contend that the RIAA is using copyright as a device to enforce its members' lock on distribution. As a result, they've managed to turn attention away from the real problem -- that lock on distribution -- to a argument about copyright. Nothing that Congress may or may not do with the language of the copyright law will affect that lock.
BeOS was/is a slick OS that deserves most of the praise it receives, but what it didn't need was a Linux binary compatability layer or a working implementation of Wine. People who want to run Windows or Lnux apps are already running Windows or Linux. What BeOS needed was some BeOS-only applications that gave the platform a competitive advantage.
BeOS was like a shiny new car, all polished but with nowhere to go.
And just what evil corporation is forcing people to buy all those CD's released by RIAA members?
Last I looked, music isn't addictive. If this issue was a important to mainstream America as it is to you, they'd do something about it. However, it isn't that important to them, for good reason.
If this issue was as important to real people as the typical/. poster would have us believe, CD and DVD shops would be going bankrupt by the thousands thanks to the public's refusal to buy.
People have no more right to "free" music than they have a right to free books, free newspapers, free automobiles, or free whatever.
I take issue with the letter's statement that intellectual property belongs to the public and is, in effect, leased back to the author or inventor.
That seems to imply that, at the moment of authorship or invention, the created work or invention belongs to everyone, not just to the author or inventor. This is fundamentally untrue and unsound. Untrue because the creation would not exist absent the labor of the creator, where ownership consequently resides until it is transferred elsewhere. Unsound because the financial rewards for authoring and inventing would shrink significantly, if not disappear, prompting a parallel reduction in the creation of new works and inventions.
I don't agree with the RIAA's efforts to distort copyright into enabling the members of their industry to continue to maintain a virtual oligolopy on distribution, nor do I support the large-scale transfer of ownership of copywritten commercial music under the paper-thin guise of "sharing" with a global audience. But this letter (which asserts, rather than proves, its basic premise) makes no sense when it attempts to make the case for communal ownership of private creation.
Get off it. There never will be anything like "copyright lapsing through neglect". Neglect by who? For how long? How measured?
The excuses for theft conjured up by music pirates are just as venal and self-serving as the RIAA's excuses for using copyright to enforce a middleman's monopoly.
If you want to fight the concept of copyright itself, come out of the closet. If all you really want is free music, stay in the closet and keep your mouth shut.
I don't care what anyone does with their toys. I'm just annoyed that the focus of both the open and closed software industries seems to be on turning PC's into glorified boom boxes. It's not like the music or the programming is worth all the fuss in the first place.
...if all the energy that goes into turning computers into expensive storage devices for throw-away pop rubbish, as well as all the energy that goes into those ego-boosting pyrhic fusilades against "the Man", went into creating some really original and useful software?
I'm tired of all the pompous ranting by both sides of the argument. I don't care of Richard Stallman writes the bloody code himself, or if Microsoft makes me turn over a DNA sample. I don't want to turn my computer into a jukebox any more than I want to turn my TV into a computer.
Right you are. If KDE or Gnome came out with a dialer that installed as easily as AOL's client, that found several local ISP phone numbers automatically, that simplified email, browsing, etc., and offered keyword access to thousands of geek-oriented sites, plus proprietary content thanks to deals with folks like OSDN, etc....well, there'd be some serious salivating and self-congratulating going on.
AOL probably doesn't make any more money from dialup customers than any other ISP. That's to say, selling dialup access is a l-o-w margin business.
Sure, they make money from the ads, but they also make money by channeling all those millions of users to businesses who pay AOL for the privilege.
Tech support is simply a cost of business. They need to retain their proprietary software and their proprietary dialer to maintain the lock on their customer base.
As for the "average computer literacy of AOL users"...well, who really knows, eh? They have put together a pretty slick piece of software, though, especially if you think the goal should be to increase use of computers rather than increase knowledge about computers.
AOL makes its money from all the "ad-laden" content and services it spoonfeeds to its subscribers. So don't expect them to produce software that enables AOL users to ignore that content. Or, to allow someone else to do the same without a legal challenge.
AOL has dallied with Linux dialers in the past, getting, I believe, at least one to beta. They've probably done the math and decided the costs of supporting Linux as an AOL client are more than the revenue they'd take in.
Under U.S. law, anyone who has registered a trademark must be seen to defend their rights to that trademark against infringers, or risk losing the trademakr altogether via a court decision that the trademarked language or art has lapsed into general usage. Years ago, Xerox went after use of the word "xerox" (which they'd trademarked) to refer generically to any copier. Even ran TV commercials telling people not to say "please xerox this".
Marketing a product that combines duplication of a proprietary product's functionality with an infringement of that product's copyright is tantamount to inviting a cease and desist order.
If you don't like this, at least realize that your real target isn't AOL but trademark law.
/. readers know about mp3's. Most everyone else doesn't. Why? No mainstream advertising. Few, if any, mainstream artists. In other words, no visibility, hardly anything that people want to buy.
There's a lot more music sold in the world than what the stereotypical Slashdot reader might buy. Even if "independent online music" satisfied their tastes and inclinations, someone needs to advertise and market the fact that it's there. That means advertising, TV commercials, Clear Channnel playlists, and all the other marketing techniques you dismiss.
The RIAA's distribution lock won't be broken until an alternative distribution channel is created that (1) allows musicians to earn an amount comparable to what they'd earn under RIAA auspices; and, (2) gives all music consumers the mainstream music they want.
In other words, college-age buyers may be happy with indie music, but they represent just one part of the market. Other consumers want to buy specific artists and genres that are only available as RIAA products. E.g., if I want to buy a Miles Davis CD first recorded in the '50's, I won't find it on an indie label. If my relatives want to buy a CD by somone they just saw on TV, odds are they want find it on an indie label.
Remember, insulting the people you are trying to influence is a recipe for failure.
I've been bashed and trashed here several times for posts rejecting illegal music distribution and the naivete of readers who think musicians will work for free. Holding those opinions doesn't mean I have to love the RIAA. Although the/. discussion usually focuses on music, the RIAA, et al, are threatening authors, artists and consumers across the board.
Need To Break RIAA's Distribution Lock
on
Dealing with the RIAA?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I have absolutely no data to support this, but my guess is that the entire Slashdot readership could stop buying RIAA products today, forever, and hardly register a blip in the media industry's spreadsheets. There just aren't that many of 'em.
At heart, the RIAA represents a distribution oligopoly. It isn't really about music or entertainment -- musicians and artists are simply the source of the RIAA's product. And, it really isn't about copyright or intellectual property -- the RIAA is using copyright and IP legislation to maintain its lock on the distribution channels.
Frankly, any reasonably possible alteration in U.S. copyright law won't break the RIAA's lock. Contrary to the wishes expressed here on occassion, the U.S. is not going to do away with the notions of copyright and intellectual property. The very best we can hope for -- via the Eldred case -- is a reversion to the shorter copyright terms of the 1976 legislation, if the Supreme Court acts against form and declares the Bono Act unconstitutional. Today's music would revert to the public domain when your grandchildren are in college, rather than your great grandchildren.The RIAA's lawyers would still chase you down for copying CD's to the net.
Nor can we expect musicians to willingly stop signing conracts with RIAA companies. Musicians and many other people in the music industry have a vested interest in copyright. (In fact, I've heard them make cogent arguments for perpetual copyright.) Their interest is in being paid. The contractual abuses that some musicians apparently fall prey to are not the issue here. (Musicians deal with that by hiring smarter managers and better lawters.) Musicians like/want/need money just as much as the rest of us. Plus, given a lucky break, they have a very tempting chance at real wealth. I wouldn't count on many musicians lining up to break RIAA's lock. (Yes, a few who are either rich enough or poor enough to afford it will thumb their noses at the RIAA, but not enough.)
I suspect the way to break the RIAA's distribution lock is to leverage technology to create another distribution channel. Napster, Kazaa and the others demonstrate that the technology is there. However, these channels do not offer professional musicians a profitable alternative distribution channel. (It isn't profitable if you don't sell it.)
I'd like to see a few popular and commercial successful recording artists start selling "Internet-only" music directly to customers. In other words, they use the net to sell music that is not available elsewhere. It won't be free, but if people are willing to pay, say, $9.00 instead of $18.00 for a CD's worth of music, maybe the RIAA's lock will start to rust.
The RIAA isn't interested in resolving this issue. Their only interest in copyright is as a legal tool to retain effective ownership of product. They don't want to see innovative distribution schemes. Proposals that would enable distribution of copywritten product within their stated parameters don't interest them. From their point of view, it's all unwanted competition.
Also, the notion of a database to track copyright is interesting, but, at least in the U.S., isn't copyright vested in the author, automatically, at the moment of authorship? Tracking who actually owns copyright at a given time would be more useful.
Given the assumption that "life as we know it" is most likely to develop on an Earth-like planet, each piece of evidence pointing to the widespread existence of Sol-like solar systems increases the odds that those Earth-like planets exist. Evidence of a large planet in the outer portion of a very young dust disk -- rather directly mirroring the presumed formation of our solar system -- increases those odds even more.
Consider how interesting it would be to detect large amounts of chlorophyll at one tiny nub in that dust disk.
Suppose you live in a cabin in the middle of nowhere, with contact with only a few other equally isolated people. Would you be justified in declaring the French do not exist, on the premise that if they did exist they would have visited you already?
It's been less that a century since we figured out how to fly. Our little bits of space travel are akin to the first neolithic boat builder's forays up and down the shore of the local lake. My assumption is that we're still an abysmally ignorant species that has only started to scratch the surface of the Universe. It's rather arrogant to draw conclusions about the limits of possibility given how little we know now.
Life is full of surprises, some good, some bad. If you're in your 20's and you think your life is set, cross your fingers. If your're in your 30's and you think you've life is in ruins, it might not be.
I know this sounds like pablum, but much of our lives is really out of our control.
eBay: "We Don't Review It...We Don't Vouch For It
on
EBay Letting Fraud Slide?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
In a feature last week about eBay, the Raleigh News & Observer quoted Kevin Purseglove, identified as senior director of communciations for eBay, as saying, quoting the paper, "eBay's policy is to let the buyer and seller sort out any differences among themselves. According o Purseglove, "Ebay will never evaluate the merchandise, we never receive it, we never review it, we don't ship it, we don't vouch for it."
Ebay apparently will refer you to an independent dispute resolution service if you wish.
Yes, but the network he is on appears to belong to the college. I.e., from the viewpoint of the college, it's a private network. That's the governing principle. They get to make the rules, or change them, no matter how simple ot innocuous the behavior. Aside from convincing the college that they should do what he's doing, his only alternatives are acquiescing or launching a legal challenge.
(E.g., I used to work in an office that banned making online purchases via their network. You could browse as you pleased, but could not conduct a transaction. Never made sense to me. Usage was monitored; first violation got you a warning; continued violations got you no network access.)
Yes, but this action was not taken against you, or any other individual XBox owner. It was directed at a single corporation. For whatever reason, no one seems to be talking about the specifics of the case. It would be nice to know more about it.
Analogies only go so far, and usually don't carry much weight in court, but I wonder what would happen to an auto aftermarket company advertising a device to bypass pollution controls. Would they be permitted continued sale of a product that enabled their customers to engage in an illegal act?
No one really knows until the issue ends up in the courts. Is the gaming community going to raise a legal challenge to MS?
Slashdot Mirror
That's right. I own a copy. The original is still in the possession of the author or inventor, who retains ownership of the original property. My rights to duplicate or otherwise distribute the copy that I own are limited by the terms of the agreement that transferred ownership of the copy to me. My perrsonal opinion or ideologically driven beliefs about intellectual property and copyright do not bear on that circumstance.
It would be nice if people arguing against intellectual property and against copyright would use something other than irrelevant analogies and unsubstantiated assertions to make their case.
An idea is just neuron firings, without consequence or value, until someone articulates it. It is the articulation of an idea -- by speaking, by writing, or otherwise recording and distributing it -- that conveys consequence and value to the idea. That articulation -- a score for a song, a published thesis -- constitutes property as much as the building in which it is housed.
That said, I agree with you that the entertainment industry has successfully distorted the political process in order to use IP and copyright law to maintain their distribution oligopoly. However, changing IP and copyright law will not afect that oligopoly. The status qou will persist until a viable and profitable alternative distribution channel is created that allows mainstream consumers to purchase mainstream entertainment.
I don't want to be screwed over by anyone, either. But, so far, the RIAA is winning, because most people have been suckered into fighting on their turf.
This fuss isn't about people recording something off the radio or TV doe individual use. It isn't even about copyright. It's about maintaining the entertainment industry's lock on distribution Putting CD's, DVD's, movies, etc., on p2p servers for global distribution threatens that lock. All the shoulds and oughts in the world won't change that fact.
Music is a luxury, especially for people with mortgages and car payments. Whether or not what you believe is "right" is beside the point. This is a political debate, not a debate about ethics. To change copyright law requires changing the way Congress votes. To change the behavior of the recording industry requires that consumers stop buying mainstream music and start buying from non-RIAA affiliated companies. Since the opponents of filesharing have successfully created the impression that the only constituency for filesharing is college students too cheap to pay for garage-band music, there's llittle chance that the votes of mainstream America or Congress will be swayed. If, by chance, Congress is swayed, it will certainly not be to abolish copyright. At best, they would alter the length of a copyright period. That would have no affect on the RIAA's behavior. If they want to chase you for copying something under copyright, they'll do that regardless of the length of that copyright.
As for your auto analogy: A CD or DVD is, as well, a physical thing. When it is copied and placed on a filesharing server accessible by anyone with Internet access, a cogent case can be made that some of the people downloading that copy would otherwise have purchased it. That deprives people of revenue they would otherwise receive. Your point that this isn't depriving people of an "idea" is not relevant. People care about money and, as we've seen, will usually act against those they believe are cutting into their profits. In addition, it is also quite easy to deprive someone of the benefits of an idea by copying it. Consider someone who has developed an idea to improve auto gas mileage by 100 percent. He publishes that idea. However, because of a total lack of copyright protection, someone else picks up that publication, re-publishes it under his own name, and strikes a deal with the auto manufacturers that brings him millions of dollars in royalties and payments. The actual originator is left high and dry.
In the end, all the analogies are moot, because no one has launched a court case to test the claim that large-scale filesharing of music is fair use. Until a successful outcome from such a challenge, the p2p fans don't have much of a case.
Well then, with that clarification, we're very much on the same wavelength. I contend that the RIAA is using copyright as a device to enforce its members' lock on distribution. As a result, they've managed to turn attention away from the real problem -- that lock on distribution -- to a argument about copyright. Nothing that Congress may or may not do with the language of the copyright law will affect that lock.
NetPositive seemed rather lame when I used it.
BeOS was/is a slick OS that deserves most of the praise it receives, but what it didn't need was a Linux binary compatability layer or a working implementation of Wine. People who want to run Windows or Lnux apps are already running Windows or Linux. What BeOS needed was some BeOS-only applications that gave the platform a competitive advantage.
BeOS was like a shiny new car, all polished but with nowhere to go.
And just what evil corporation is forcing people to buy all those CD's released by RIAA members?
/. poster would have us believe, CD and DVD shops would be going bankrupt by the thousands thanks to the public's refusal to buy.
Last I looked, music isn't addictive. If this issue was a important to mainstream America as it is to you, they'd do something about it. However, it isn't that important to them, for good reason.
If this issue was as important to real people as the typical
People have no more right to "free" music than they have a right to free books, free newspapers, free automobiles, or free whatever.
I take issue with the letter's statement that intellectual property belongs to the public and is, in effect, leased back to the author or inventor.
That seems to imply that, at the moment of authorship or invention, the created work or invention belongs to everyone, not just to the author or inventor. This is fundamentally untrue and unsound. Untrue because the creation would not exist absent the labor of the creator, where ownership consequently resides until it is transferred elsewhere. Unsound because the financial rewards for authoring and inventing would shrink significantly, if not disappear, prompting a parallel reduction in the creation of new works and inventions.
I don't agree with the RIAA's efforts to distort copyright into enabling the members of their industry to continue to maintain a virtual oligolopy on distribution, nor do I support the large-scale transfer of ownership of copywritten commercial music under the paper-thin guise of "sharing" with a global audience. But this letter (which asserts, rather than proves, its basic premise) makes no sense when it attempts to make the case for communal ownership of private creation.
Get off it. There never will be anything like "copyright lapsing through neglect". Neglect by who? For how long? How measured?
The excuses for theft conjured up by music pirates are just as venal and self-serving as the RIAA's excuses for using copyright to enforce a middleman's monopoly.
If you want to fight the concept of copyright itself, come out of the closet. If all you really want is free music, stay in the closet and keep your mouth shut.
I don't care what anyone does with their toys. I'm just annoyed that the focus of both the open and closed software industries seems to be on turning PC's into glorified boom boxes. It's not like the music or the programming is worth all the fuss in the first place.
It's all a waste.
...if all the energy that goes into turning computers into expensive storage devices for throw-away pop rubbish, as well as all the energy that goes into those ego-boosting pyrhic fusilades against "the Man", went into creating some really original and useful software?
I'm tired of all the pompous ranting by both sides of the argument. I don't care of Richard Stallman writes the bloody code himself, or if Microsoft makes me turn over a DNA sample. I don't want to turn my computer into a jukebox any more than I want to turn my TV into a computer.
Both sides should shut up and get on with it.
Right you are. If KDE or Gnome came out with a dialer that installed as easily as AOL's client, that found several local ISP phone numbers automatically, that simplified email, browsing, etc., and offered keyword access to thousands of geek-oriented sites, plus proprietary content thanks to deals with folks like OSDN, etc....well, there'd be some serious salivating and self-congratulating going on.
AOL probably doesn't make any more money from dialup customers than any other ISP. That's to say, selling dialup access is a l-o-w margin business.
Sure, they make money from the ads, but they also make money by channeling all those millions of users to businesses who pay AOL for the privilege.
Tech support is simply a cost of business. They need to retain their proprietary software and their proprietary dialer to maintain the lock on their customer base.
As for the "average computer literacy of AOL users"...well, who really knows, eh? They have put together a pretty slick piece of software, though, especially if you think the goal should be to increase use of computers rather than increase knowledge about computers.
Correction:
Make the next to last paragraph read "...infringement of that product's trademark is tantamount...." (replacing "copyright" with "trademark".)
Rats:-)
AOL makes its money from all the "ad-laden" content and services it spoonfeeds to its subscribers. So don't expect them to produce software that enables AOL users to ignore that content. Or, to allow someone else to do the same without a legal challenge.
AOL has dallied with Linux dialers in the past, getting, I believe, at least one to beta. They've probably done the math and decided the costs of supporting Linux as an AOL client are more than the revenue they'd take in.
Under U.S. law, anyone who has registered a trademark must be seen to defend their rights to that trademark against infringers, or risk losing the trademakr altogether via a court decision that the trademarked language or art has lapsed into general usage. Years ago, Xerox went after use of the word "xerox" (which they'd trademarked) to refer generically to any copier. Even ran TV commercials telling people not to say "please xerox this".
Marketing a product that combines duplication of a proprietary product's functionality with an infringement of that product's copyright is tantamount to inviting a cease and desist order.
If you don't like this, at least realize that your real target isn't AOL but trademark law.
/. readers know about mp3's. Most everyone else doesn't. Why? No mainstream advertising. Few, if any, mainstream artists. In other words, no visibility, hardly anything that people want to buy.
There's a lot more music sold in the world than what the stereotypical Slashdot reader might buy. Even if "independent online music" satisfied their tastes and inclinations, someone needs to advertise and market the fact that it's there. That means advertising, TV commercials, Clear Channnel playlists, and all the other marketing techniques you dismiss.
The RIAA's distribution lock won't be broken until an alternative distribution channel is created that (1) allows musicians to earn an amount comparable to what they'd earn under RIAA auspices; and, (2) gives all music consumers the mainstream music they want.
In other words, college-age buyers may be happy with indie music, but they represent just one part of the market. Other consumers want to buy specific artists and genres that are only available as RIAA products. E.g., if I want to buy a Miles Davis CD first recorded in the '50's, I won't find it on an indie label. If my relatives want to buy a CD by somone they just saw on TV, odds are they want find it on an indie label.
Remember, insulting the people you are trying to influence is a recipe for failure.
I've been bashed and trashed here several times for posts rejecting illegal music distribution and the naivete of readers who think musicians will work for free. Holding those opinions doesn't mean I have to love the RIAA. Although the /. discussion usually focuses on music, the RIAA, et al, are threatening authors, artists and consumers across the board.
I have absolutely no data to support this, but my guess is that the entire Slashdot readership could stop buying RIAA products today, forever, and hardly register a blip in the media industry's spreadsheets. There just aren't that many of 'em.
At heart, the RIAA represents a distribution oligopoly. It isn't really about music or entertainment -- musicians and artists are simply the source of the RIAA's product. And, it really isn't about copyright or intellectual property -- the RIAA is using copyright and IP legislation to maintain its lock on the distribution channels.
Frankly, any reasonably possible alteration in U.S. copyright law won't break the RIAA's lock. Contrary to the wishes expressed here on occassion, the U.S. is not going to do away with the notions of copyright and intellectual property. The very best we can hope for -- via the Eldred case -- is a reversion to the shorter copyright terms of the 1976 legislation, if the Supreme Court acts against form and declares the Bono Act unconstitutional. Today's music would revert to the public domain when your grandchildren are in college, rather than your great grandchildren.The RIAA's lawyers would still chase you down for copying CD's to the net.
Nor can we expect musicians to willingly stop signing conracts with RIAA companies. Musicians and many other people in the music industry have a vested interest in copyright. (In fact, I've heard them make cogent arguments for perpetual copyright.) Their interest is in being paid. The contractual abuses that some musicians apparently fall prey to are not the issue here. (Musicians deal with that by hiring smarter managers and better lawters.) Musicians like/want/need money just as much as the rest of us. Plus, given a lucky break, they have a very tempting chance at real wealth. I wouldn't count on many musicians lining up to break RIAA's lock. (Yes, a few who are either rich enough or poor enough to afford it will thumb their noses at the RIAA, but not enough.)
I suspect the way to break the RIAA's distribution lock is to leverage technology to create another distribution channel. Napster, Kazaa and the others demonstrate that the technology is there. However, these channels do not offer professional musicians a profitable alternative distribution channel. (It isn't profitable if you don't sell it.)
I'd like to see a few popular and commercial successful recording artists start selling "Internet-only" music directly to customers. In other words, they use the net to sell music that is not available elsewhere. It won't be free, but if people are willing to pay, say, $9.00 instead of $18.00 for a CD's worth of music, maybe the RIAA's lock will start to rust.
The RIAA isn't interested in resolving this issue. Their only interest in copyright is as a legal tool to retain effective ownership of product. They don't want to see innovative distribution schemes. Proposals that would enable distribution of copywritten product within their stated parameters don't interest them. From their point of view, it's all unwanted competition.
Also, the notion of a database to track copyright is interesting, but, at least in the U.S., isn't copyright vested in the author, automatically, at the moment of authorship? Tracking who actually owns copyright at a given time would be more useful.
Given the assumption that "life as we know it" is most likely to develop on an Earth-like planet, each piece of evidence pointing to the widespread existence of Sol-like solar systems increases the odds that those Earth-like planets exist. Evidence of a large planet in the outer portion of a very young dust disk -- rather directly mirroring the presumed formation of our solar system -- increases those odds even more.
Consider how interesting it would be to detect large amounts of chlorophyll at one tiny nub in that dust disk.
Suppose you live in a cabin in the middle of nowhere, with contact with only a few other equally isolated people. Would you be justified in declaring the French do not exist, on the premise that if they did exist they would have visited you already?
It's been less that a century since we figured out how to fly. Our little bits of space travel are akin to the first neolithic boat builder's forays up and down the shore of the local lake. My assumption is that we're still an abysmally ignorant species that has only started to scratch the surface of the Universe. It's rather arrogant to draw conclusions about the limits of possibility given how little we know now.
Life is full of surprises, some good, some bad. If you're in your 20's and you think your life is set, cross your fingers. If your're in your 30's and you think you've life is in ruins, it might not be.
I know this sounds like pablum, but much of our lives is really out of our control.
In a feature last week about eBay, the Raleigh News & Observer quoted Kevin Purseglove, identified as senior director of communciations for eBay, as saying, quoting the paper, "eBay's policy is to let the buyer and seller sort out any differences among themselves. According o Purseglove, "Ebay will never evaluate the merchandise, we never receive it, we never review it, we don't ship it, we don't vouch for it."
Ebay apparently will refer you to an independent dispute resolution service if you wish.
In other words, caveat emptor.
Yes, but the network he is on appears to belong to the college. I.e., from the viewpoint of the college, it's a private network. That's the governing principle. They get to make the rules, or change them, no matter how simple ot innocuous the behavior. Aside from convincing the college that they should do what he's doing, his only alternatives are acquiescing or launching a legal challenge.
(E.g., I used to work in an office that banned making online purchases via their network. You could browse as you pleased, but could not conduct a transaction. Never made sense to me. Usage was monitored; first violation got you a warning; continued violations got you no network access.)
Yes, but this action was not taken against you, or any other individual XBox owner. It was directed at a single corporation. For whatever reason, no one seems to be talking about the specifics of the case. It would be nice to know more about it.
Analogies only go so far, and usually don't carry much weight in court, but I wonder what would happen to an auto aftermarket company advertising a device to bypass pollution controls. Would they be permitted continued sale of a product that enabled their customers to engage in an illegal act?
No one really knows until the issue ends up in the courts. Is the gaming community going to raise a legal challenge to MS?