Not only that, but under the new Grockster ruling, if the point is to weed out the fake copyrighted files from the real copyrighted files, this will certainly be used as evidence that the purpose of the system is copyright infringement.
A friend of mine is captain of Team Banzai, and they're building the car's brains out of Macs and using iSight cameras for vision. The car is a VW Touareg.
This gives me an interesting (not saying it's good;-) idea. Someone should write a wikipedia text reader that can be called from skype. Then the Chinese could call it and get the information they want directly.
You mean like the availability of music on CD made limewire, etc., go away? Oh, wait...
The fact that you can buy anime on DVD isn't going to make fansubs go away if it's free/easy to get on-line. Anyone who questions that can look at p2p and the music situation. +90% of the music traded is available on CD.
His last statement about the end of the U.S. as a major force resonated with me. I've been thinking about the fact that it's becoming harder for us to compete in a global marketplace since China etc., can build pretty much anything we can for less. It seems like the only export that other countries can't replace to the same extent is entertainment media (movies, music). Granted there are always regional creators (like Bollywood), our movies and music are big hits overseas and it's rarely the other way around. However, those products are so easy to pirate, what's our major export in 10 years time? Without spending money to bring ourselves back into the technological lead vs China, India, Japan, and Russia it's certainly not going to be IT. And without changing our attitude about protecting IP, it's not going to be movies, music, games, or software.
Keep in mind that there are on-going talks on merging the formats (HD-DVD & Blu-Ray) next week so the timing of this is mostly political positioning. The change itself hasn't been discussed in the DVD forum and it's all vapor right now.
I use Rhapsody and love it (and no, I don't work for Real). The audio quality is great and my favorite feature is that there are lots of links to similar artists, albums, etc., so it makes discovering new music fun and easy. Not everyone likes to look for music, some people just want something to play in the background and they've got customizable pre-programmed streams for that.
The biggest weakness is that its still missing large swaths of content, mostly from the independents and for some reason, not every track on every album is available. At least they're adding new stuff all the time. But as someone who sits in front of a computer all day at work, I think it's WAY better than iTunes. I don't really need portability and rather than buying an album a month, I'd rather have constant access to hundreds of thousands of tracks. One other cool thing is that it has spoken word content like comedy routines and an increasing amount of international (e.g. Indian) music.
I think there's a free trial if you want to check it out without paying anything.
You are confusing two issues (1) your rights to a copyrighted work (2) perpetual copyright terms. The latter is clearly in conflict with the constitution, the former is not. Notice that the constitution says EXCLUSIVE RIGHTs are given to the creator. Promoting the arts and sciences means making a world where artists and scientist are modivated to create because they feel like they have some incentive, say, by way of patent or copyright licensing. You as a 3rd party don't have any right unless they choose to grant it. This, however, does not justify ever increasing copyright terms.
Maybe you should read section 8, clause 8 of the constitution. For those too lazy to look it up, here it is:
[Congress shall have the power... ] "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Notice the phrase "exclusive right". How do you think they expected the exclusive right to be preserved, by asking nicely?
Note to the clueless, there is nothing extortionary about suing people to enforce your copyrights. That's how the law dictates that you get people to stop abusing your copyrights. Also, whether it interefers with research is not the point - the point is that the students were breaking copyright law and the copyright owners' enforcement attack-dog went into action.
You are wrong about the society owning an author's works. Before making claims like that you really need to read up on the copyright law. Here's an exerpt from the government's FAQ on copyright, and notice the 2nd sentence:
"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright."
Now you are just rationalizing copyright violation because you disagree with the law. Personally I agree that the term is too long, but that still doesn't give you the right to take my music without compensating me for it. And it's not a work of the society, it's MY work. You are right that I have temporary control over my work, but the attitude on slashdot is that I have NO control (for any period of time) and that consumers can do whatever they want, regardless of copyright law. It's laughable for you to argue for "both sides of the issue" when I'm being told I have no rights whatsoever.
Err... the agreement you enter into is called "copyright law". The law is pretty clear on distribution of copyrighted material. Note that none of the pro-p2p talking heads claim that it's legal to trade copyrighted files. Their point, which is valid, is that P2P *technology* is not the problem.
I recommend that you not speak for people who make a living off of music, because copyright violation is exactly what it's about. We want to let consumers do whatever they want with their music *for their own enjoyment*. The fact that you bought copies of a shared CD puts you in the minority. Most people would not bother buying something they already got for free.
As an aritist, I have a right to decide how I want to make my music available. A consumer's desire to get it for free does not trump my right to sell it - at least not in America since we don't live by communism. Try and make the same rationalization in the context of something like a movie theater. Just because you think a theater is charging too much to watch a movie does not give you the right to sneak in for and see it for free.
What you are doing is unethical. So how do you rationalize this? It's clearly a violation of their agreement and you are not only cheating them, you are cheating artists too. Your desire to get an artist's content for free does not trump their desire to get paid. If I decide that I want to sell a song that I've written, you have no right to take it from me without compensation. The 14 day trial is so that you can try out the system, not so you can take artists' hard work for free. As someone who makes a living from music, I urge you to think twice about doing this. If you really want our music, pay for it. If you don't want to pay what we're asking (or what our representatives, the labels, are asking) then don't buy it and don't steal it either.
Note that the recently announced support by Universal Studios & others is non-exclusive, so they could still release Blu-Ray titles. This fact is usually omitted from the press. The speculation is that by announcing they got a break on the format royalties.
Re:It's called IP for a reason
on
Is IP Property?
·
· Score: 1
Creators are not forced into assigning their rights to corporations, they do so willingly in return for benefits such as up-front money and broad distribution. The corporation is charged by the creator with protecting the IP so by undermining IP owned by corporations you undermine the creator's rights.
And regarding the term, you would have the rights to a physical creation revert to the public upon the creator's death?
Slashdot Mirror
The Land Down Under doesn't have an iTunes store, yet, but they have lots of iPod users.
Not only that, but under the new Grockster ruling, if the point is to weed out the fake copyrighted files from the real copyrighted files, this will certainly be used as evidence that the purpose of the system is copyright infringement.
A friend of mine is captain of Team Banzai, and they're building the car's brains out of Macs and using iSight cameras for vision. The car is a VW Touareg.
I bet this could be done on a mac with some applescript and voiceover.
This gives me an interesting (not saying it's good ;-) idea. Someone should write a wikipedia text reader that can be called from skype. Then the Chinese could call it and get the information they want directly.
You mean like the availability of music on CD made limewire, etc., go away? Oh, wait...
The fact that you can buy anime on DVD isn't going to make fansubs go away if it's free/easy to get on-line. Anyone who questions that can look at p2p and the music situation. +90% of the music traded is available on CD.
You jest, but actually China is stepping up efforts due to international pressure.
His last statement about the end of the U.S. as a major force resonated with me. I've been thinking about the fact that it's becoming harder for us to compete in a global marketplace since China etc., can build pretty much anything we can for less. It seems like the only export that other countries can't replace to the same extent is entertainment media (movies, music). Granted there are always regional creators (like Bollywood), our movies and music are big hits overseas and it's rarely the other way around. However, those products are so easy to pirate, what's our major export in 10 years time? Without spending money to bring ourselves back into the technological lead vs China, India, Japan, and Russia it's certainly not going to be IT. And without changing our attitude about protecting IP, it's not going to be movies, music, games, or software.
Keep in mind that there are on-going talks on merging the formats (HD-DVD & Blu-Ray) next week so the timing of this is mostly political positioning. The change itself hasn't been discussed in the DVD forum and it's all vapor right now.
Yup, no one pays monthly for access. Oh, wait... cable or sat TV, DSL, XM Radio, Xbox Live, MMORGs, Netflix, telephone service... need I continue?
That's not the point. DRM is required to enable subscription. How else would you offer a subscription without DRM? Clearly open MP3s wouldn't work.
Maybe their plan was to wait to file the lawsuit so that Apple is under more pressure to settle quickly.
I use Rhapsody and love it (and no, I don't work for Real). The audio quality is great and my favorite feature is that there are lots of links to similar artists, albums, etc., so it makes discovering new music fun and easy. Not everyone likes to look for music, some people just want something to play in the background and they've got customizable pre-programmed streams for that.
The biggest weakness is that its still missing large swaths of content, mostly from the independents and for some reason, not every track on every album is available. At least they're adding new stuff all the time. But as someone who sits in front of a computer all day at work, I think it's WAY better than iTunes. I don't really need portability and rather than buying an album a month, I'd rather have constant access to hundreds of thousands of tracks. One other cool thing is that it has spoken word content like comedy routines and an increasing amount of international (e.g. Indian) music.
I think there's a free trial if you want to check it out without paying anything.
You are confusing two issues (1) your rights to a copyrighted work (2) perpetual copyright terms. The latter is clearly in conflict with the constitution, the former is not. Notice that the constitution says EXCLUSIVE RIGHTs are given to the creator. Promoting the arts and sciences means making a world where artists and scientist are modivated to create because they feel like they have some incentive, say, by way of patent or copyright licensing. You as a 3rd party don't have any right unless they choose to grant it. This, however, does not justify ever increasing copyright terms.
Maybe you should read section 8, clause 8 of the constitution. For those too lazy to look it up, here it is:
[Congress shall have the power... ] "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Notice the phrase "exclusive right". How do you think they expected the exclusive right to be preserved, by asking nicely?
Since when is it the RIAA's job to protect its members' copyrights? Oh, wait...
Note to the clueless, there is nothing extortionary about suing people to enforce your copyrights. That's how the law dictates that you get people to stop abusing your copyrights. Also, whether it interefers with research is not the point - the point is that the students were breaking copyright law and the copyright owners' enforcement attack-dog went into action.
You are wrong about the society owning an author's works. Before making claims like that you really need to read up on the copyright law. Here's an exerpt from the government's FAQ on copyright, and notice the 2nd sentence:
"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright."
For more, check out www.copyright.gov.
Now you are just rationalizing copyright violation because you disagree with the law. Personally I agree that the term is too long, but that still doesn't give you the right to take my music without compensating me for it. And it's not a work of the society, it's MY work. You are right that I have temporary control over my work, but the attitude on slashdot is that I have NO control (for any period of time) and that consumers can do whatever they want, regardless of copyright law. It's laughable for you to argue for "both sides of the issue" when I'm being told I have no rights whatsoever.
Err... the agreement you enter into is called "copyright law". The law is pretty clear on distribution of copyrighted material. Note that none of the pro-p2p talking heads claim that it's legal to trade copyrighted files. Their point, which is valid, is that P2P *technology* is not the problem.
I recommend that you not speak for people who make a living off of music, because copyright violation is exactly what it's about. We want to let consumers do whatever they want with their music *for their own enjoyment*. The fact that you bought copies of a shared CD puts you in the minority. Most people would not bother buying something they already got for free.
As an aritist, I have a right to decide how I want to make my music available. A consumer's desire to get it for free does not trump my right to sell it - at least not in America since we don't live by communism. Try and make the same rationalization in the context of something like a movie theater. Just because you think a theater is charging too much to watch a movie does not give you the right to sneak in for and see it for free.
What you are doing is unethical. So how do you rationalize this? It's clearly a violation of their agreement and you are not only cheating them, you are cheating artists too. Your desire to get an artist's content for free does not trump their desire to get paid. If I decide that I want to sell a song that I've written, you have no right to take it from me without compensation. The 14 day trial is so that you can try out the system, not so you can take artists' hard work for free. As someone who makes a living from music, I urge you to think twice about doing this. If you really want our music, pay for it. If you don't want to pay what we're asking (or what our representatives, the labels, are asking) then don't buy it and don't steal it either.
A 1x1 jpeg for the new iWarmer - a special USB powered heatsink for the G5 laptop that doubles as a drink warmer.
Note that the recently announced support by Universal Studios & others is non-exclusive, so they could still release Blu-Ray titles. This fact is usually omitted from the press. The speculation is that by announcing they got a break on the format royalties.
Creators are not forced into assigning their rights to corporations, they do so willingly in return for benefits such as up-front money and broad distribution. The corporation is charged by the creator with protecting the IP so by undermining IP owned by corporations you undermine the creator's rights.
And regarding the term, you would have the rights to a physical creation revert to the public upon the creator's death?