We will always be able to share MP3's. Maybe not on the same scale that Napster permitted, or maybe so. but there will ALWAYS be a risk of getting caught, and going to jail, that's why the concern about Gnutella, and need for Freenet.
The way I see it, it all depends on the interpretation of "fair use". Like Orrin Hatch said. If fair use includes the non-commercial sharing of an MP3 with a friend (or x friends), then what users on Napster are doing is NOT illegal. Why has the argument focused on abusive contracts, price gouging, etc.? This is the real battle. Fair use. If we don't win the fair use argument, then the RIAA comes in and has congress right some nasty provisions - and the end result will be, you can download music from record company servers, at the price they want, probably won't be able to copy it or share it (SMDI), and possibly, they'll be able to limit your listening of the file so you pay a fee every listen. Plus, what will be available will be a subset of music that exists, probably current top 40's only. That is not a regime I would like to be a consumer in. I would probably just not listen to music anymore. The day the music died.
Screw all the other bogus arguments, about "how will the poor artists eat" and crap like that. Our rights are at stake here. Fair use is important, and that's what we need to be aware of. Artists will still make music, and still become fabulously wealthy, and there will still be record companies, and they'll still be able to charge for people to download music - even if you can get the same file free from your buddy over the internet, that does not destroy the market for sale of legitimate first-time intellectual property, or a physical CD with liner notes and cover art and other value-added features. But that is fighting a bullshit argument anyway - focus on fair use. It's our right, let's not lose sight of that.
oh, I found I do have an intelligent question to ask afterall;
As a journalist, you probably have something to say about this topic. Assuming you're aware of this recent spat between nVidia and some of the hardware-review sites on the internet, what is your take on this issue?
Should companies be held ethically responsible (I'm not saying lawsuits and fines here - I'm talking court of public opinion) for "strongarm tactics" in selecting journalists to bestow prerelease hardware upon? Or do you think that the journalist who reviews a product should avoid conflicts of interest?
What do you think is the impact of this rather standard industry practice, and how do you think this practice could be eliminated?
3dfx is going to do this. They will, or they will perish. It's that simple. Until READERS start taking the reviewers to task for conflict of interest, innacurate and biased reviews, this will remain the standard, review sites will continue to let themselves be strongarmed (poor babies), and the only way people will be able to tell if they've got a quality product is to do their own comparisons. That's nice and cheap.
The industry is rife with this sort of thing. While it's not "playing nice" for a company to leverage reviewers like this, it is not at all unethical - for the producer. The producer of goods has a fiduciary responsibility to increase sales. They are ultimately not responsible for the accuracy of information printed in some trade rag or review site.
The ultimate responsibility for journalistic integrity is; SUPRISE! THE JOURNALIST!! If Jim's Hardware can't get a demo unit from nVidia for a review, and loses readers to ZDNet, TOO FUCKIN BAD! Wait until the product is released (what a concept) and anonymously buy it. Obtaining sample product any other way represents a CLEAR conflict of interest!
The way this is SUPPOSED to work is, ZDNet plays kissy-kissy with vendor, vendor plays kissy-kissy with ZDNet, who writes a favorable review for the vendor - a month in advance of the product's actual release (is this a review, or a press-release in sheep's clothing?). When the product is released, people buy the product, find out it's really poo, and get pissed off. A month later, Jim's Hardware has their reivew ready, and is honest, clear of any conflict of interest, and people read it and go - damn, I'm not going to trust ZDNet any more, I'm going to trust Jim's Hardware, because though their information was later in arriving, it was accurate. Jim's Hardware didn't SELL me to the vendor for a hot scoop.
If you're going to point your finger, learn WHERE you should point it.
Napster's intent is not to profit from other people's music. They profit from their service. Which is theirs, they provide it. They provide the tools, and the database.
On another line; the coders thought it was a neat thing, to have a tool that lets them share MP3's - I'm sure their personal MP3 collections got a great boost. But the business model for the company is to extort a sweet licensing deal with the record companies. Sort of the opposite of what MP3.COM did.
The thing is, Intel and AMD, and everyone else making CPUs know that 1000MHz *is* technically possible. The more tech savvy people know that there's really no reason why PPC chips should not be able to achieve these speeds, if Moto is "on the ball" and responding to competitive pressures. Instead the PR folks respond to competitive pressures by resting on their laurels; the whole "twice as fast" "RISC vs. CISC" argument.
The implication is that they're not trying their best. Moto switching over to all wintel systems for internal use implies the same.
Now, at home I have a 233 Beige, OC-ed to 300. It's run like a champ for two years OC-ed. At work, I've been using a P 233. I recently got upgraded to a PIII 600, and I tell ya, it's nice to have a machine at work that's almost as fast as the one I use at home - and that's the truth.
I think Apple's been waiting on the G4e chip out of Motorola, who are being slow, again, as usual, thanks to the satanic influence of Bill Walker, Intel's evil double-agent at Motorola.
Isn't that how virtually every major US industry works?
The oil/auto industry: Billions for roads and tax breaks for car manufacturers, and wars to ensure cheap foreign oil supply.
The air transportation industry; Billions for FAA regulation, defense contracts to prop up manufacturers, Echelon to ensure global market dominance of US manufacturers (relax, I'm only half-joking).
The power industry: Billions to construct electrification network.
The sports industry: Billions for "municipal" sports stadiums, law-enforcement to control riots and arrest sports stars who can't handle they're new wealth.
The Computer Industry: Billions in research for govt. constructed Internet.
The Motion Picture Industry: Billions in PR to glorify war and violence so people will watch movies about war and violence (fully joking here).
The Music Industry: FCC regulation of airwaves.
Tobacco Industry: direct subsidies.
Religion Industry: Tax breaks,
Insurance Industry: Pro-corporate legislation.
Legal Industry: Obfuscated and over abundant legistlation ensuring lengthy and multitudinous lawsuits and other litigation.
Advice to enterpreneurs: find a business that the government thinks is important to fund or otherwise interfere with. Get rich off the taxpayers. People will pay a little money for a good product, a LOT of money to keep from going to jail for non-payment of taxes.
hm. I don't think that the bible claims that the cross originated in any other way than the preferred method Romans used to execute criminals. What's so hard to believe about that?
"Fundamental belief is one thing. Pretending it's anything but belief is another. "
That's funny, that's my standard criticism of athiests. You believe on faith (certainly not rational thought - what you convince yourselves is rationalism) that there definately is no God. Yet you do not have sufficient evidence to claim that there is no God. It is a belief, which you have perverted into rationalism in your mind, to soothe - I don't know, your insecurity that humans can overcome all their troubles if they'd just all be rational, and believe only what their scientists tell them?
Tell me this, Mr. rationalism. Does Oat Bran, or does Oat Bran not, reduce cholesterol? Do silicone breast implants, or do silicone breast implants not have nasty side effects like cancer, and lupus, and other autoimmune disorders? Did OJ, or did OJ not, murder his wife? Is IE an application, or an OS?
How do you think us poor believers feel? Religion is perhaps the WORST THING EVER to happen to the relationship between God and man.
I'm convinced that religion, in general, is the work of Satan. (including the "church" of the MCSE). Clearly, God intended man to have fellowship, but I'm not at all certain that rituals and dogma, and rules, made anyone's life here (or spiritual health) better.
Just because religion is the root cause of many bad things that happen in the world, doesn't mean it's God's fault. Who is doing the bad things? God? No. People, just like you and me, people with selfish motives, and bent-up reasoning. Maybe it looks like religion made these people this way, but religion is a thing passed on to men from other men, so it's silly to blame God.
I can't *prove* your wrong. But neither can you *prove* me wrong. Absense of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. In fact, I find it higly illogical and unscientific for a person to claim that there definately without a doubt is no God, because there is no rigorous scientific evidence for His existence. That's just plain stupid. You can't draw conclusions based on no evidence. All you can do is say; I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that there definately IS a God. Until the day after you die, you should withold judgement, just like He is.
Don't go blaming God for things idiot people do. (or say, or write). God gave us "free will", that is, we can do whatever we want to. Except in a few historically significant places, (Pharoh not giving in because God "hardened his heart"), God doesn't interfere with the will of individual men. It has something to do with being free to CHOOSE which "side" we're on. Personally, I don't believe that God is up in heaven rooting for suicide bombers or anti-abortion activists, or Republicans. The God I believe in is "all powerful". If He wants something done, He'll damn well do it Himself, and He won't work up a sweat. He doesn't need anyone doing anything in His name. If you do something in His name, out of faith, you need to examine your motives, and the motives need to be; for His glory, as a personal act of worship. Or be prepared to explain to Him yourself why you broke His commandments trying to compel other people to obey them.
Slashdot Mirror
poor baby
Maybe some compelling new material would help him afford that new lexus with the cow-horns and stars-and-bars flag on the hood.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
The real issue is:
We will always be able to share MP3's. Maybe not on the same scale that Napster permitted, or maybe so. but there will ALWAYS be a risk of getting caught, and going to jail, that's why the concern about Gnutella, and need for Freenet.
The way I see it, it all depends on the interpretation of "fair use". Like Orrin Hatch said. If fair use includes the non-commercial sharing of an MP3 with a friend (or x friends), then what users on Napster are doing is NOT illegal. Why has the argument focused on abusive contracts, price gouging, etc.? This is the real battle. Fair use. If we don't win the fair use argument, then the RIAA comes in and has congress right some nasty provisions - and the end result will be, you can download music from record company servers, at the price they want, probably won't be able to copy it or share it (SMDI), and possibly, they'll be able to limit your listening of the file so you pay a fee every listen. Plus, what will be available will be a subset of music that exists, probably current top 40's only. That is not a regime I would like to be a consumer in. I would probably just not listen to music anymore. The day the music died.
Screw all the other bogus arguments, about "how will the poor artists eat" and crap like that. Our rights are at stake here. Fair use is important, and that's what we need to be aware of. Artists will still make music, and still become fabulously wealthy, and there will still be record companies, and they'll still be able to charge for people to download music - even if you can get the same file free from your buddy over the internet, that does not destroy the market for sale of legitimate first-time intellectual property, or a physical CD with liner notes and cover art and other value-added features. But that is fighting a bullshit argument anyway - focus on fair use. It's our right, let's not lose sight of that.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
oh, I found I do have an intelligent question to ask afterall;
As a journalist, you probably have something to say about this topic.
Assuming you're aware of this recent spat between nVidia and some of the hardware-review sites on the internet, what is your take on this issue?
Should companies be held ethically responsible (I'm not saying lawsuits and fines here - I'm talking court of public opinion) for "strongarm tactics" in selecting journalists to bestow prerelease hardware upon?
Or do you think that the journalist who reviews a product should avoid conflicts of interest?
What do you think is the impact of this rather standard industry practice, and how do you think this practice could be eliminated?
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Hey, were you at all interviewed for the recent book about Steve Jobs? Is this book really as inaccurate as they're saying?
And my final, most important question;
Tell us about your Porsche!
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
3dfx is going to do this. They will, or they will perish. It's that simple. Until READERS start taking the reviewers to task for conflict of interest, innacurate and biased reviews, this will remain the standard, review sites will continue to let themselves be strongarmed (poor babies), and the only way people will be able to tell if they've got a quality product is to do their own comparisons. That's nice and cheap.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Damn I'm hating this thread.
The industry is rife with this sort of thing. While it's not "playing nice" for a company to leverage reviewers like this, it is not at all unethical - for the producer. The producer of goods has a fiduciary responsibility to increase sales. They are ultimately not responsible for the accuracy of information printed in some trade rag or review site.
The ultimate responsibility for journalistic integrity is; SUPRISE! THE JOURNALIST!! If Jim's Hardware can't get a demo unit from nVidia for a review, and loses readers to ZDNet, TOO FUCKIN BAD! Wait until the product is released (what a concept) and anonymously buy it. Obtaining sample product any other way represents a CLEAR conflict of interest!
The way this is SUPPOSED to work is, ZDNet plays kissy-kissy with vendor, vendor plays kissy-kissy with ZDNet, who writes a favorable review for the vendor - a month in advance of the product's actual release (is this a review, or a press-release in sheep's clothing?). When the product is released, people buy the product, find out it's really poo, and get pissed off. A month later, Jim's Hardware has their reivew ready, and is honest, clear of any conflict of interest, and people read it and go - damn, I'm not going to trust ZDNet any more, I'm going to trust Jim's Hardware, because though their information was later in arriving, it was accurate. Jim's Hardware didn't SELL me to the vendor for a hot scoop.
If you're going to point your finger, learn WHERE you should point it.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
not Hillary Rosen's definition of "fair use".
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
I think you'll be disappointed.
OS X relies very heavily on the G4's AltiVec unit. A G3 will run OS X. But many of the functions are radically slower.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Napster's intent is not to profit from other people's music. They profit from their service. Which is theirs, they provide it. They provide the tools, and the database.
On another line; the coders thought it was a neat thing, to have a tool that lets them share MP3's - I'm sure their personal MP3 collections got a great boost. But the business model for the company is to extort a sweet licensing deal with the record companies. Sort of the opposite of what MP3.COM did.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
The thing is, Intel and AMD, and everyone else making CPUs know that 1000MHz *is* technically possible. The more tech savvy people know that there's really no reason why PPC chips should not be able to achieve these speeds, if Moto is "on the ball" and responding to competitive pressures. Instead the PR folks respond to competitive pressures by resting on their laurels; the whole "twice as fast" "RISC vs. CISC" argument.
The implication is that they're not trying their best. Moto switching over to all wintel systems for internal use implies the same.
Now, at home I have a 233 Beige, OC-ed to 300. It's run like a champ for two years OC-ed. At work, I've been using a P 233. I recently got upgraded to a PIII 600, and I tell ya, it's nice to have a machine at work that's almost as fast as the one I use at home - and that's the truth.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
I think Apple's been waiting on the G4e chip out of Motorola, who are being slow, again, as usual, thanks to the satanic influence of Bill Walker, Intel's evil double-agent at Motorola.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Isn't that how virtually every major US industry works?
The oil/auto industry: Billions for roads and tax breaks for car manufacturers, and wars to ensure cheap foreign oil supply.
The air transportation industry; Billions for FAA regulation, defense contracts to prop up manufacturers, Echelon to ensure global market dominance of US manufacturers (relax, I'm only half-joking).
The power industry: Billions to construct electrification network.
The sports industry: Billions for "municipal" sports stadiums, law-enforcement to control riots and arrest sports stars who can't handle they're new wealth.
The Computer Industry: Billions in research for govt. constructed Internet.
The Motion Picture Industry: Billions in PR to glorify war and violence so people will watch movies about war and violence (fully joking here).
The Music Industry: FCC regulation of airwaves.
Tobacco Industry: direct subsidies.
Religion Industry: Tax breaks,
Insurance Industry: Pro-corporate legislation.
Legal Industry: Obfuscated and over abundant legistlation ensuring lengthy and multitudinous lawsuits and other litigation.
Advice to enterpreneurs: find a business that the government thinks is important to fund or otherwise interfere with. Get rich off the taxpayers. People will pay a little money for a good product, a LOT of money to keep from going to jail for non-payment of taxes.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
YES! and giving a buddy a URL to a good free pr0n site would make you responsible for the death of millions of sperm!
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Anyone else here think this would be a nifty way to sheild an incoming warhead from potential interception?
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
If I send you a dollar, will you PROMISE not to post the rest of the story?
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
hm. I don't think that the bible claims that the cross originated in any other way than the preferred method Romans used to execute criminals. What's so hard to believe about that?
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
bastard! ha! I get it! His parents weren't married!
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
"Fundamental belief is one thing. Pretending it's anything but belief is another. "
That's funny, that's my standard criticism of athiests. You believe on faith (certainly not rational thought - what you convince yourselves is rationalism) that there definately is no God. Yet you do not have sufficient evidence to claim that there is no God. It is a belief, which you have perverted into rationalism in your mind, to soothe - I don't know, your insecurity that humans can overcome all their troubles if they'd just all be rational, and believe only what their scientists tell them?
Tell me this, Mr. rationalism. Does Oat Bran, or does Oat Bran not, reduce cholesterol? Do silicone breast implants, or do silicone breast implants not have nasty side effects like cancer, and lupus, and other autoimmune disorders? Did OJ, or did OJ not, murder his wife? Is IE an application, or an OS?
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Religion pisses you off?
How do you think us poor believers feel?
Religion is perhaps the WORST THING EVER to happen to the relationship between God and man.
I'm convinced that religion, in general, is the work of Satan. (including the "church" of the MCSE). Clearly, God intended man to have fellowship, but I'm not at all certain that rituals and dogma, and rules, made anyone's life here (or spiritual health) better.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
This, (in my opinion) is exactly why the Bible says Pi=3.0.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Just because religion is the root cause of many bad things that happen in the world, doesn't mean it's God's fault. Who is doing the bad things? God? No. People, just like you and me, people with selfish motives, and bent-up reasoning. Maybe it looks like religion made these people this way, but religion is a thing passed on to men from other men, so it's silly to blame God.
I can't *prove* your wrong. But neither can you *prove* me wrong. Absense of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. In fact, I find it higly illogical and unscientific for a person to claim that there definately without a doubt is no God, because there is no rigorous scientific evidence for His existence. That's just plain stupid. You can't draw conclusions based on no evidence. All you can do is say; I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe that there definately IS a God. Until the day after you die, you should withold judgement, just like He is.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
Don't go blaming God for things idiot people do. (or say, or write). God gave us "free will", that is, we can do whatever we want to. Except in a few historically significant places, (Pharoh not giving in because God "hardened his heart"), God doesn't interfere with the will of individual men. It has something to do with being free to CHOOSE which "side" we're on. Personally, I don't believe that God is up in heaven rooting for suicide bombers or anti-abortion activists, or Republicans. The God I believe in is "all powerful". If He wants something done, He'll damn well do it Himself, and He won't work up a sweat. He doesn't need anyone doing anything in His name. If you do something in His name, out of faith, you need to examine your motives, and the motives need to be; for His glory, as a personal act of worship. Or be prepared to explain to Him yourself why you broke His commandments trying to compel other people to obey them.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
yeah, and Ian Fleming also wrote about women named Pussy Galore, and Truly Scrupmtuous, (Halotta Fagina? yeah baby!) so we all know how that goes.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
MacGyver would desperately need to upgrade to a Leatherman. I bet he could hack into the Pentagon on his Palm VII!
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!
if it is a thing's first visit to Planet Earth, then it is not a re-entry to the atmosphere. It's an entry.
if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!