Or is this just your average case of an earlier work's influence on a new release?
Just your average case of MPAA hypocrisy, that's all.
--- DOOR!!
Re:/. crew's pro-democrat/left wing bias
on
Carnivore To Die?
·
· Score: 2
I for one am sick of the bullshit on/. about "Your Rights Online" posts talking about how evil corporate "rights violations" are when the government is doing worse. The corporations can't bloody well wiretap you legally unless (well the telecoms might, but they have nothing to gain by screwing your privacy since their monopoly status in their regions is contingent on playing nice guy) their people want to be sent to prison.
What about all the corporations that, through such things as large campaign contributions, are all but purchasing the government? I know/.ers say a lot about corporations buying laws, but the simple fact is that money talks. Corporations have tons of it, and we don't. Hence, they get the laws they want, and the consumer gets screwed.
My point is this: You seem to be implying that there is no connection whatsoever between corporations and the government. However, that couldn't be any further from the truth.
Seeing as most people dont have the means to train dogs to sniff out drugs would this ruling apply? My buddy was driving through georgia a few months back and was pulled over on I-75 with Florida plates. Dogs where called in and he was sent to jail for about $5 worth of weed (1.5 grams). Shouldt the 4th amendment protect us from this kind of harrasment?
Of course it *should*. However, the Supreme Court has in the past ruled that drug dogs are merely an extension of the officer's senses; thus, the use of a drug dog is not considered a search AT ALL - which IMO is a bunch of shit. That's just as ridiculous as saying that in the case this article refers to, the heat-sensing devices were merely an extension of the officers' own senses.
What impact, if any, will this ruling have on the legality of scanning high school parking lots with drug dogs? Since a drug dog extends what an officer can see, much as was the case in this ruling, it seems to me that this ruling might apply. The reason I ask this is because I knew people in high school (who were NOT drug users) that were harassed because of false positives by the dogs on their cars.
CDs first appeared on the market in 1983, and since then, the Consumer Price Index (a US benchmark of inflation) has risen by two-thirds. If the price of a CD had kept pace with inflation, an album that cost $15 in 1983 would cost $25 now. So the real (inflation-adjusted) cost of a CD has come down.
I know that there are marketing and royalty costs that come with each CD but to pay $15 for a CD is crazy.
What it all comes down to is this:
Customers treat a business the same way said business treats its customers. IOW, a business that treats its customers with respect will in turn be treated with respect by these same customers. Conversely, a business that treats its customers like crap will tend not to be treated so well by its customers.
This principle can easily be applied to the RIAA. One must not look far to see examples of the RIAA disrespecting its customers. Case in point: $15 CDs. Back when CDs came out, the RIAA promised that the only reason that they were so expensive was because of the new technology involved, and that they would soon become less expensive. Did this happen? No it didn't. So, in response to this and other RIAA actions, many of the RIAA's customers are becoming more and more pissed off with the RIAA. Just look at the proliferation of Napster-type music sharing services. Swapping music isn't all about getting free music; part of it involves compensating oneself for a perceived wrong committed by the recording industry.
And naturally, this principle can be applied to the motion picture industry as well. They say their intentions are good, but with such things as 1) going after anybody who even thinks about cracking CSS, 2) region coding, 3) Macrovision, 4) etc., their actions start to become suspicious at best. And the affected customers take action in response, proliferating DeCSS, swapping DVD rips, etc.
So why then is most of the public not concerned about the recent actions of the RIAA/MPAA? Simple. Because they don't know. Next time you go to the video store, ask the clerk...heck, ask the manager if they know what DeCSS is. Chances are you'll get a "no" in most cases. The public needs to be educated about things like this. Whether they'll care or not is a different story, but it would help a whole lot just to get the word out. The more people know about the actions of the entertainment industry, the better. And, the more people know, the more the entertainment industry will be likely to be willing to change its ways.
There are several open source word processors available and they all need to import and export the ubiquitous MS Word format
What about WordPerfect's *.wpd format? Yes, I know -- WordPerfect is available for Linux, and for free. But a lightweight, open source word processor along the lines of AbiWord or kWord would be real nice if it supported wpd files.
Again, another shining example of denying the antecedent. Microsoft did pay taxes. They simply paid $0. They had to file. They had tax liability. However, due to IRS laws, they found a way to reduce that tax liability to zero, as did other corporations.
No, Microsoft did not pay taxes. A payment of $0 is not a payment. By your flawed logic, it could be said that, for example, people who download Metallica MP3s are paying Metallica for these downloads. They're just paying $0.
Besides, with digital TV/HDTV you really do want to get the original MPEG2 stream instead of decoding it once, and then encoded again when you record. Any set-top boxers/satellite recievers with firewire out?
Unfortunately, the reason why you won't find any set-top boxes/receivers/etc. with Firewire output is because of our good friends at the MPAA. They won't allow it -- unencrypted digital video signals are their enemy because they "encourage piracy."
13. Upon information and belief, Defendant Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (RIAA) is a New York not-for-profit corporation with a place of business in Washington D.C. 20036. It represents entities which manufacture and distribute sound recordings, including the five major labels and many of their subsidiary labels.
Also, is the MPAA named in this suit? Like the RIAA, they too have been heavily abusing the DMCA. Or, would it not matter in this case anyway, just as long as the DMCA is struck down. Just think of the effects a win here would have on DeCSS, etc.
It had to be said, but we need a victory in this case.
--- I am getting damn sick of constantly losing karma for no reason.
CD players refuse to play audio off a "non-music" (really non-audio) CD-R. You can still copy files off a CD-ROM drive, but the play function on it or on a stereo only would work with an audio CD-R.
Not exactly. The stereos that have been coming out lately that can burn CDs will refuse to use non-audio CDs. But CD players (including these stereos IINM) do still play music off of non-audio CDRs. Heck, I have a regular, non-audio CDR in my CD player right now, and it works just fine.
--- I am getting damn sick of constantly losing karma for no reason.
Reminds me of a project my chemistry professor was working on a couple years ago. He was designing a mine-detection system that could sense as little as one molecule of explosive. IIRC, it involved a receptor chemical that would respond to TNT and only to TNT, and when TNT bonded to it, the minute change in mass would be detected and amplified by some sort of sensor (the details of this part escape me). His main job was to design the receptor chemical. Detecting TNT by smell would also work I guess, but it would take quite a bit more TNT.
Probably because even though linux is "Free" there is still "cost" associated with developing, customizing, supporting and deploying it. Once again, for the record - linux and associated "Free" software does come with a "self-price", but does come with "time-price" which translates into real dollars.
Or, to put it in different terms, the Linux being preloaded onto these cubes is free as in beer, and not free as in speech.
Further, all the present programmers were hired on with the specific mention that there is 'no dress code' (some as recently as a few weeks ago).
Were any contracts signed that mentioned this? If so, you'd have a breach of contract case. Failing that, you'd have to get a little more creative, of course. For example, you'd have to try and secretly organize enough employees to join with you on this, and do what you need to do to pressure management into giving it up.
And you're stealing money from the pockets off all those lowly pions who are part of that great corporation -- the RIAA, or MPAA, or MS
How in the hell does DeCSS constitute stealing? If anything, the MPAA is stealing from its consumer base by imposing such asinine rules on what they can watch, when, and on what. I know this is the "typical Slashdot view," but it's the plain truth.
As for the RIAA, I'll leave Napster out of the argument. However, they are royally fscking artists because they know they are a copyright cartel^W^W monopoly and thus can get away with it. (Ask Courtney Love). So basically, the RIAA is a monopoly that steals from the very people it is supposed to protect. (See last sentence of previous paragraph).
And besides, are there not laws against the abuse of monopoly status in the US? Don't tell me that the MPAA and RIAA are not abusing their monopoly status. IMO they deserve one heck of a bitchslapping from the government.
Thought of something as I was reading your post: AOL is going after Aimster because of the AIM in their name (which IMO is a bunch of BS), and some record labels that are controlled by AOLTW are now going after Aimster for another reason. So what you essentially have is one company fighting another on multiple fronts.
This is bad. Legal issues aside, this demonstrates what is wrong with having large, bloated corporations such as AOLTW -- they can pretty much squash out any company they feel like for whatever reason they feel like. Yes, I know -- it sounds like Microsoft. Personally, I'm wondering how in the hell the US government approved the AOL-TW merger in the first place.
Anybody who would bother reading anything related to Aimster beyond reading its name (read: 99% of the people who know about it) would know that Aimster != AOL != AIM. To me, this is just another classic example of a large corporation bullying around the little guy.
Slashdot Mirror
Or is this just your average case of an earlier work's influence on a new release?
Just your average case of MPAA hypocrisy, that's all.
---
DOOR!!
I for one am sick of the bullshit on /. about "Your Rights Online" posts talking about how evil corporate "rights violations" are when the government is doing worse. The corporations can't bloody well wiretap you legally unless (well the telecoms might, but they have nothing to gain by screwing your privacy since their monopoly status in their regions is contingent on playing nice guy) their people want to be sent to prison.
/.ers say a lot about corporations buying laws, but the simple fact is that money talks. Corporations have tons of it, and we don't. Hence, they get the laws they want, and the consumer gets screwed.
What about all the corporations that, through such things as large campaign contributions, are all but purchasing the government? I know
My point is this: You seem to be implying that there is no connection whatsoever between corporations and the government. However, that couldn't be any further from the truth.
---
DOOR!!
what's the best solution for me (as a part-time parent) to keep an eye on her surfing?
The best solution for you to keep an eye on her surfing...is to keep an eye on her surfing.
Try to trust her, don't get too intrusive, but at the same time be aware of where she is going online.
---
DOOR!!
Seeing as most people dont have the means to train dogs to sniff out drugs would this ruling apply? My buddy was driving through georgia a few months back and was pulled over on I-75 with Florida plates. Dogs where called in and he was sent to jail for about $5 worth of weed (1.5 grams). Shouldt the 4th amendment protect us from this kind of harrasment?
Of course it *should*. However, the Supreme Court has in the past ruled that drug dogs are merely an extension of the officer's senses; thus, the use of a drug dog is not considered a search AT ALL - which IMO is a bunch of shit. That's just as ridiculous as saying that in the case this article refers to, the heat-sensing devices were merely an extension of the officers' own senses.
---
DOOR!!
What impact, if any, will this ruling have on the legality of scanning high school parking lots with drug dogs? Since a drug dog extends what an officer can see, much as was the case in this ruling, it seems to me that this ruling might apply. The reason I ask this is because I knew people in high school (who were NOT drug users) that were harassed because of false positives by the dogs on their cars.
---
DOOR!!
CDs first appeared on the market in 1983, and since then, the Consumer Price Index (a US benchmark of inflation) has risen by two-thirds. If the price of a CD had kept pace with inflation, an album that cost $15 in 1983 would cost $25 now. So the real (inflation-adjusted) cost of a CD has come down.
Good point. But still, $15 is way too high.
---
DOOR!!
I know that there are marketing and royalty costs that come with each CD but to pay $15 for a CD is crazy.
What it all comes down to is this:
Customers treat a business the same way said business treats its customers. IOW, a business that treats its customers with respect will in turn be treated with respect by these same customers. Conversely, a business that treats its customers like crap will tend not to be treated so well by its customers.
This principle can easily be applied to the RIAA. One must not look far to see examples of the RIAA disrespecting its customers. Case in point: $15 CDs. Back when CDs came out, the RIAA promised that the only reason that they were so expensive was because of the new technology involved, and that they would soon become less expensive. Did this happen? No it didn't. So, in response to this and other RIAA actions, many of the RIAA's customers are becoming more and more pissed off with the RIAA. Just look at the proliferation of Napster-type music sharing services. Swapping music isn't all about getting free music; part of it involves compensating oneself for a perceived wrong committed by the recording industry.
And naturally, this principle can be applied to the motion picture industry as well. They say their intentions are good, but with such things as 1) going after anybody who even thinks about cracking CSS, 2) region coding, 3) Macrovision, 4) etc., their actions start to become suspicious at best. And the affected customers take action in response, proliferating DeCSS, swapping DVD rips, etc.
So why then is most of the public not concerned about the recent actions of the RIAA/MPAA? Simple. Because they don't know. Next time you go to the video store, ask the clerk...heck, ask the manager if they know what DeCSS is. Chances are you'll get a "no" in most cases. The public needs to be educated about things like this. Whether they'll care or not is a different story, but it would help a whole lot just to get the word out. The more people know about the actions of the entertainment industry, the better. And, the more people know, the more the entertainment industry will be likely to be willing to change its ways.
---
DOOR!!
But mp3 is a monopoly format. I cannot think of any other music format that is supported on pretty much every platform.
*ahem* OGG
---
DOOR!!
There are several open source word processors available and they all need to import and export the ubiquitous MS Word format
What about WordPerfect's *.wpd format? Yes, I know -- WordPerfect is available for Linux, and for free. But a lightweight, open source word processor along the lines of AbiWord or kWord would be real nice if it supported wpd files.
---
DOOR!!
Again, another shining example of denying the antecedent. Microsoft did pay taxes. They simply paid $0. They had to file. They had tax liability. However, due to IRS laws, they found a way to reduce that tax liability to zero, as did other corporations.
No, Microsoft did not pay taxes. A payment of $0 is not a payment. By your flawed logic, it could be said that, for example, people who download Metallica MP3s are paying Metallica for these downloads. They're just paying $0.
---
DOOR!!
If (and last time I check they do) corporations pay taxes, corporations have rights
So does this mean that Microsoft has no rights?
---
DOOR!!
Besides, with digital TV/HDTV you really do want to get the original MPEG2 stream instead of decoding it once, and then encoded again when you record. Any set-top boxers/satellite recievers with firewire out?
Unfortunately, the reason why you won't find any set-top boxes/receivers/etc. with Firewire output is because of our good friends at the MPAA. They won't allow it -- unencrypted digital video signals are their enemy because they "encourage piracy."
---
DOOR!!
13. Upon information and belief, Defendant Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (RIAA) is a New York not-for-profit corporation with a place of business in Washington D.C. 20036. It represents entities which manufacture and distribute sound recordings, including the five major labels and many of their subsidiary labels.
(Taken from the complaint)
How the hell can the RIAA call itself nonprofit? It's padding its own damn profit margins with all this secure music BS, not paying the artists, etc.
The RIAA may be nonprofit in name, but to say that they are actually a nonprofit organization is plain BS.
---
I am getting damn sick of constantly losing karma for no reason.
Also, is the MPAA named in this suit? Like the RIAA, they too have been heavily abusing the DMCA. Or, would it not matter in this case anyway, just as long as the DMCA is struck down. Just think of the effects a win here would have on DeCSS, etc.
It had to be said, but we need a victory in this case.
---
I am getting damn sick of constantly losing karma for no reason.
CD players refuse to play audio off a "non-music" (really non-audio) CD-R. You can still copy files off a CD-ROM drive, but the play function on it or on a stereo only would work with an audio CD-R.
Not exactly. The stereos that have been coming out lately that can burn CDs will refuse to use non-audio CDs. But CD players (including these stereos IINM) do still play music off of non-audio CDRs. Heck, I have a regular, non-audio CDR in my CD player right now, and it works just fine.
---
I am getting damn sick of constantly losing karma for no reason.
Reminds me of a project my chemistry professor was working on a couple years ago. He was designing a mine-detection system that could sense as little as one molecule of explosive. IIRC, it involved a receptor chemical that would respond to TNT and only to TNT, and when TNT bonded to it, the minute change in mass would be detected and amplified by some sort of sensor (the details of this part escape me). His main job was to design the receptor chemical. Detecting TNT by smell would also work I guess, but it would take quite a bit more TNT.
---
Check in...(OK!) Check out...(OK!)
Probably because even though linux is "Free" there is still "cost" associated with developing, customizing, supporting and deploying it. Once again, for the record - linux and associated "Free" software does come with a "self-price", but does come with "time-price" which translates into real dollars.
Or, to put it in different terms, the Linux being preloaded onto these cubes is free as in beer, and not free as in speech.
---
Check in...(OK!) Check out...(OK!)
Bob Dole?
---
Check in...(OK!) Check out...(OK!)
Further, all the present programmers were hired on with the specific mention that there is 'no dress code' (some as recently as a few weeks ago).
Were any contracts signed that mentioned this? If so, you'd have a breach of contract case. Failing that, you'd have to get a little more creative, of course. For example, you'd have to try and secretly organize enough employees to join with you on this, and do what you need to do to pressure management into giving it up.
---
Check in...(OK!) Check out...(OK!)
And you're stealing money from the pockets off all those lowly pions who are part of that great corporation -- the RIAA, or MPAA, or MS
How in the hell does DeCSS constitute stealing? If anything, the MPAA is stealing from its consumer base by imposing such asinine rules on what they can watch, when, and on what. I know this is the "typical Slashdot view," but it's the plain truth.
As for the RIAA, I'll leave Napster out of the argument. However, they are royally fscking artists because they know they are a copyright cartel^W^W monopoly and thus can get away with it. (Ask Courtney Love). So basically, the RIAA is a monopoly that steals from the very people it is supposed to protect. (See last sentence of previous paragraph).
And besides, are there not laws against the abuse of monopoly status in the US? Don't tell me that the MPAA and RIAA are not abusing their monopoly status. IMO they deserve one heck of a bitchslapping from the government.
---
Check in...(OK!) Check out...(OK!)
Of a merger between AOLTW and MS.
*shudder*
---
Check in...(OK!) Check out...(OK!)
Thought of something as I was reading your post: AOL is going after Aimster because of the AIM in their name (which IMO is a bunch of BS), and some record labels that are controlled by AOLTW are now going after Aimster for another reason. So what you essentially have is one company fighting another on multiple fronts.
This is bad. Legal issues aside, this demonstrates what is wrong with having large, bloated corporations such as AOLTW -- they can pretty much squash out any company they feel like for whatever reason they feel like. Yes, I know -- it sounds like Microsoft. Personally, I'm wondering how in the hell the US government approved the AOL-TW merger in the first place.
---
Check in...(OK!) Check out...(OK!)
but I thought they already do have a monopoly... How can one company get 2 monopolies?
They can be a ridiculously oversized corporation such as AOL-TW and thus have monopolies in more than one area.
---
Check in...(OK!) Check out...(OK!)
Any coincidence this happens right after the industry puts the breaks on SDMI?
You must mean brakes.
---
Check in...(OK!) Check out...(OK!)
there is a significant possibility for confusion
My ass.
Anybody who would bother reading anything related to Aimster beyond reading its name (read: 99% of the people who know about it) would know that Aimster != AOL != AIM. To me, this is just another classic example of a large corporation bullying around the little guy.
---
Check in...(OK!) Check out...(OK!)