Oh, spare me the "Oooooh, Slashdot is fascist, ops are nazis, I post as AC because the system won't let me speak my mind" act, because its, quite frankly, a load of bullshit.
The truth is, most, not all, but most, including you evidently, people who post as AC do so because they are TROLLS . Big, Warty, Nasty TROLLS.
It isn't the system that screws you over. It's you who screws the system over.
You want to know about the "only people who post logged in?" Let me tell you:
we are not all karma whores. you just need to change your definition of what a "karma whore" is. You attack people for posting "long, informative posts" for "karma whoring." Do you even realize how stupid this is?!? The whole goddam point of Slashdot is to share information and opinions. Being informative isn't always an attempt to gain Karma; often it's an attempt to make good conversation. But I bet you never even thought of that, did you, you troll?
You and your kind make me sick. You are ruining Slashdot. Do us all a favor: turn off your computer and go sit under a bridge where you belong.
I know that KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut are owned by PepsiCo
Not anymore, buddy. Pepsi sold off most of its subsidiaries, including all of its fast-food holdings. The only thing I know of that Pepsi still holds, outside of grocery-type-products, is Regal Cinemas, inc.
btw, the reason fast food joints only ever have one brand of soft drink is that they don't want to compete inside of a restaurant, so instead they compete for the restaurant, and the restaurtant picks whoever gives them a better deal.
Dischord Records (the old Minor Threat label) isn't.
Neither are Double Down Records (though you'd be hard pressed to find DDR releases anyway) and Consolidated Fruvous inc., the new internet-distributed-only label for Moxy Fruvous.
Also, Victory Records is not the same as Victory or Victory Music (I think), so they should be ok.
And there's always emusic. I'm pretty sure they aren't a member:)
Yeah, maybe, but I paid $1600 for an Athlon 850 system. And you're telling me that for $100 less I could've had a bright, shiny new 486/66?!? Where do I sign up?
But seriously, isn't that a bit much to spend on a 486, even if it is small and low powered?
But it isn't their job to protect the copyrights of everyone in the world! If an artist reports to Napster that a user has been pirating that artist's work, and can offer evidence, Napster bans the user. That should be enough to tell you that Napster is willing to cooperate with artists who want to protect their copyrights, just not do the whole job for them.
Radio - ASCAP or somebody makes sure that the creators see some cash every time the song is played on the radio.
So, ok, if I tape a song off the radio, and listen to my tape instead of buying a single, the artist is compensated by the radio play? No.
Movies - HBO pays money to rebroadcast them. Money exchanges hands.
Again, the money HBO pays to rebroadcast a movie is for broadcast rights only. Making a copy of a movie from HBO instead of buying a copy of the video is not paid for when HBO pays to broadcast it.
And think about this: where do mp3's come from? That's right, they're ripped from cd's. So that means that most of the mp3's on Napster were originally ripped from a cd. And that means that the artist and the RIAA were compensated at one time for the cd. Does that mean that that one cd paid for all the times the song is downloaded? No, no more than HBO's rights to a broadcast pay for people who tape it. It's simply a question of media, and for some reason, Napster is continually attacked for doing what TDK, Sony, Xerox, and every other company who makes video tapes, audio tapes, cdr's, photocopy machines, etc. is doing: facilitating copyright violation even though it is expressly forbidden. Facilitating, not aiding.
Come down on them all or come down on none, 'cause it's the same thing.
Did anyone notice that the site linked to in the post advocates boycotting concerts as well as cds?
What's the feeling on this? I mean, a boycott on cds would (if it worked) get the message through to the RIAA, and wouldn't hurt the individual artists much, but boycotting a concert seems like a singular attack against a particular artist, who it hurts more than the RIAA.
Napster is trying to make money off the works of others without compensating the producers of the works.
What I am about to say has been said again and again, in this discussion, in earlier discussions, on newsgroups and in chatrooms and in every real-world discussion between people who disagree about Napster, but apparently you didn't catch it any of those times, so I'll say it again.
first read this quote: Unauthorized copying, distribution, modification, public display, or public performance of copyrighted works is an infringement of the copyright holders' rights. You should be aware that some MP3 files may have been created or distributed without copyright owner authorization. As a condition to your account with Napster, you agree that you will not use the Napster service to infringe the intellectual property rights of others in any way. Napster will terminate the accounts of users who are repeat infringers of the copyrights, or other intellectual property rights, of others.
You know what that's from? the Napster Copyright Policy. You can read it here.
It is not up to Napster to make sure people don't rip off recording artists. Since the much-cited copy-shop metaphor (already used several times in this thread) doesn't appear to be working for you, here's a fresh one: Would you hold TDK responsible if one of the tapes they made and sold (and profitted from) was used to record a movie, say one on HBO, and therefore cut back on video sales?
If you would, well then, I don't know what to tell you.
But most people wouldn't, and I bet you wouldn't either. In fact, in almost any other situation, be it movies, books, tv, or even music taped from the radio, it seems ludicrous to attempt to hold the seller of the medium responsible. Yet for some reason, people like you want to hold Napster responsible for the uses of their product in copyright infringement.
And in response to the hypocrisy charge, Napster is not acting hypocritical by protecting its own copyrights and trademarks, because its lack of direct action against copyright-infringers is not meant to tell artists that they shouldn't try to protect their copyrights, but to tell artists that it is their job, not Napster's.
Yes, but the focus of the paper is not the choice one person makes to make the game easier for himself, but the choice a person makes to underhandedly advance himself over others.
If you or I want to type "it is a good day to die" in WII to make it easy and funny, that's fine. The problem is when a 1337 hax0r decides that starcraft is more fun when, for example, one drone is invincible and destroys the other guy's whole camp. (that's an actual bug, by the way.)
I'm not sure this is right, and I'm pretty damn sure it wouldn't hold up in court, but think about this:
According to the "Infinite Monkey Theorem," creating at random will, given an infinite amount of time, produce every possible thing, i.e., you could write a program that randomly fills a file with characters, to a certain length, and eventually you would have a randomly generated copy of "Enter Sandman" for example. Therefore, by running the program, <b>you</b> have created something which is, coincidentally, the same as something someone else created. So, if you manage to create by mere whimsy what took them very nearly a full hour to write, isn't your copy your own, to sell or give away as you choose?
The company my father works for paid through the nose to fix the iloveyou virus. How did it spread, you ask? The company sent out a warning saying "do not open any email with the words 'I love you' in the subject line." Apparently, somebody didn't see a problem with an email saying "I luv you" as the subject.
MS didn't get their monopoly status by sitting on their laurels and not developing a good product, or at least one perceived as such. It's a fallacy to say that you can refuse to develop and compete once you're ahead. If a company strives to be the best, then becomes the best, and then controls the majority of the market, they don't simply stop working and let others develop competitive products. A monopoly only gives power to those who work to sustain it.
Without laws I could kill people for no reason. But so too could I be killed. By the way, laws against murder, theft, etc. are fundamental to society, because they are as close to absolute evils as anything. But the moral status of monopoly and business powers is as subjective as the Christian doctrine that premarital sex is evil. Morality is not a cut-and-dry as it may seem to the majority believer. So what's the better path? Coming to power and enforcing your morals on whoever you reign over, believers or otherwise? No, I say the way to go is to allow people to make up their own minds, as long as they don't interfere with the ability of others to make up their own minds.
>Have you been following the same court case I've >been following? No one is suggesting breaking >them up.
actually, the guy whose post i was responding to seemed to be advocating breaking them up.
>>> it isn't an issue of what benefits the consumer or the industry, but an issue of basic right and wrong.
>Correct. They broke the law, they get punished.
I said "right" and "wrong," not "legal" and "illegal."
>Or is being rich & successful an excuse to be >able to ignore the law
This is not at all what I was saying. My point was that it is wrong for the government to intervene and publish companies who succeed in their business; not that such companies have the luxury of ignoring the laws, but that the laws themselves should not be in place.
>Have you been following the same court case I've >been following? No one is suggesting breaking >them up. actually, the guy whose post i was responding to seemed to be advocating breaking them up. >>> it isn't an issue of what benefits the consumer or the industry, but an issue of basic right and wrong. >Correct. They broke the law, they get punished. I said "right" and "wrong," not "legal" and "illegal." >Or is being rich & successful an excuse to be >able to ignore the law This is not at all what I was saying. My point was that it is wrong for the government to intervene and publish companies who succeed in their business; not that such companies have the luxury of ignoring the laws, but that the laws themselves should not be in place.
hmmm... Seems to me that trampling on someone's rights (even MS's) in the name of lower prices isn't exactly fair. MS created a successful product. A whole slew of them, in fact. So why punish them by breaking them up just because they've been successful? To me, it isn't an issue of what benefits the consumer or the industry, but an issue of basic right and wrong.
"silly little pop group?" "throwaway songs?" "nonsense lyrics?" (Well, ok, maybe the last one.) Regardless, They are a band who is recognizable, even if you don't like them. And releasing the first album available only on mp3 is a major breakthrough. I'm not a PE fan, but if they had released it, i would have been happy, and given them the credit they deserve. I'm not trying to take away from all the good things PE has done for electronic distribution of music, but credit should be given where it's due, and not denied to a group who has been at least as important, if not more important, than Public Enemy in encouraging artists to distribute their music via mp3, the internet, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I know. I said not all. But it's folks like that asshole that give not only AC's, but all of /. a bad name.
The truth is, most, not all, but most, including you evidently, people who post as AC do so because they are TROLLS . Big, Warty, Nasty TROLLS .
It isn't the system that screws you over. It's you who screws the system over.
You want to know about the "only people who post logged in?" Let me tell you:
we are not all karma whores. you just need to change your definition of what a "karma whore" is. You attack people for posting "long, informative posts" for "karma whoring." Do you even realize how stupid this is?!? The whole goddam point of Slashdot is to share information and opinions. Being informative isn't always an attempt to gain Karma; often it's an attempt to make good conversation. But I bet you never even thought of that, did you, you troll?
You and your kind make me sick. You are ruining Slashdot. Do us all a favor: turn off your computer and go sit under a bridge where you belong.
i meant that RC, inc. is the only thing that isn't "grocery-type-products."
Not anymore, buddy. Pepsi sold off most of its subsidiaries, including all of its fast-food holdings. The only thing I know of that Pepsi still holds, outside of grocery-type-products, is Regal Cinemas, inc.
btw, the reason fast food joints only ever have one brand of soft drink is that they don't want to compete inside of a restaurant, so instead they compete for the restaurant, and the restaurtant picks whoever gives them a better deal.
Neither are Double Down Records (though you'd be hard pressed to find DDR releases anyway) and Consolidated Fruvous inc., the new internet-distributed-only label for Moxy Fruvous.
Also, Victory Records is not the same as Victory or Victory Music (I think), so they should be ok.
And there's always emusic. I'm pretty sure they aren't a member :)
Or we could all protest it by not using browsers that support it. (My personal favorite is Arachne.)
But seriously, isn't that a bit much to spend on a 486, even if it is small and low powered?
At long last, I have been agreed with.
I agree completely. Someone go over there and moderate him to (-1, Troll).
Weren't keyboards and typewriters orginally invented so people didn't have to hand-write all the time?
But it isn't their job to protect the copyrights of everyone in the world! If an artist reports to Napster that a user has been pirating that artist's work, and can offer evidence, Napster bans the user. That should be enough to tell you that Napster is willing to cooperate with artists who want to protect their copyrights, just not do the whole job for them.
Well then why should they have to suffer the consequences?
Radio - ASCAP or somebody makes sure that the creators see some cash every time the song is played on the radio.
So, ok, if I tape a song off the radio, and listen to my tape instead of buying a single, the artist is compensated by the radio play? No.
Movies - HBO pays money to rebroadcast them. Money exchanges hands.
Again, the money HBO pays to rebroadcast a movie is for broadcast rights only. Making a copy of a movie from HBO instead of buying a copy of the video is not paid for when HBO pays to broadcast it.
And think about this: where do mp3's come from? That's right, they're ripped from cd's. So that means that most of the mp3's on Napster were originally ripped from a cd. And that means that the artist and the RIAA were compensated at one time for the cd. Does that mean that that one cd paid for all the times the song is downloaded? No, no more than HBO's rights to a broadcast pay for people who tape it. It's simply a question of media, and for some reason, Napster is continually attacked for doing what TDK, Sony, Xerox, and every other company who makes video tapes, audio tapes, cdr's, photocopy machines, etc. is doing: facilitating copyright violation even though it is expressly forbidden. Facilitating, not aiding.
Come down on them all or come down on none, 'cause it's the same thing.
Did anyone notice that the site linked to in the post advocates boycotting concerts as well as cds?
What's the feeling on this? I mean, a boycott on cds would (if it worked) get the message through to the RIAA, and wouldn't hurt the individual artists much, but boycotting a concert seems like a singular attack against a particular artist, who it hurts more than the RIAA.
What I am about to say has been said again and again, in this discussion, in earlier discussions, on newsgroups and in chatrooms and in every real-world discussion between people who disagree about Napster, but apparently you didn't catch it any of those times, so I'll say it again.
first read this quote: Unauthorized copying, distribution, modification, public display, or public performance of copyrighted works is an infringement of the copyright holders' rights. You should be aware that some MP3 files may have been created or distributed without copyright owner authorization. As a condition to your account with Napster, you agree that you will not use the Napster service to infringe the intellectual property rights of others in any way. Napster will terminate the accounts of users who are repeat infringers of the copyrights, or other intellectual property rights, of others.
You know what that's from? the Napster Copyright Policy. You can read it here.
It is not up to Napster to make sure people don't rip off recording artists. Since the much-cited copy-shop metaphor (already used several times in this thread) doesn't appear to be working for you, here's a fresh one: Would you hold TDK responsible if one of the tapes they made and sold (and profitted from) was used to record a movie, say one on HBO, and therefore cut back on video sales?
If you would, well then, I don't know what to tell you.
But most people wouldn't, and I bet you wouldn't either. In fact, in almost any other situation, be it movies, books, tv, or even music taped from the radio, it seems ludicrous to attempt to hold the seller of the medium responsible. Yet for some reason, people like you want to hold Napster responsible for the uses of their product in copyright infringement.
And in response to the hypocrisy charge, Napster is not acting hypocritical by protecting its own copyrights and trademarks, because its lack of direct action against copyright-infringers is not meant to tell artists that they shouldn't try to protect their copyrights, but to tell artists that it is their job, not Napster's.
If you or I want to type "it is a good day to die" in WII to make it easy and funny, that's fine. The problem is when a 1337 hax0r decides that starcraft is more fun when, for example, one drone is invincible and destroys the other guy's whole camp. (that's an actual bug, by the way.)
I'm not sure this is right, and I'm pretty damn sure it wouldn't hold up in court, but think about this:
According to the "Infinite Monkey Theorem," creating at random will, given an infinite amount of time, produce every possible thing, i.e., you could write a program that randomly fills a file with characters, to a certain length, and eventually you would have a randomly generated copy of "Enter Sandman" for example. Therefore, by running the program, <b>you</b> have created something which is, coincidentally, the same as something someone else created. So, if you manage to create by mere whimsy what took them very nearly a full hour to write, isn't your copy your own, to sell or give away as you choose?
not *all* of us do. we of the INTERCAL bent pronounce it "mesh".
The company my father works for paid through the nose to fix the iloveyou virus. How did it spread, you ask? The company sent out a warning saying "do not open any email with the words 'I love you' in the subject line." Apparently, somebody didn't see a problem with an email saying "I luv you" as the subject.
Without laws I could kill people for no reason. But so too could I be killed.
By the way, laws against murder, theft, etc. are fundamental to society, because they are as close to absolute evils as anything. But the moral status of monopoly and business powers is as subjective as the Christian doctrine that premarital sex is evil.
Morality is not a cut-and-dry as it may seem to the majority believer. So what's the better path? Coming to power and enforcing your morals on whoever you reign over, believers or otherwise? No, I say the way to go is to allow people to make up their own minds, as long as they don't interfere with the ability of others to make up their own minds.
>been following? No one is suggesting breaking
>them up.
actually, the guy whose post i was responding to seemed to be advocating breaking them up.
>>> it isn't an issue of what benefits the consumer or the industry, but an issue of basic right and wrong.
>Correct. They broke the law, they get punished.
I said "right" and "wrong," not "legal" and "illegal."
>Or is being rich & successful an excuse to be
>able to ignore the law
This is not at all what I was saying. My point was that it is wrong for the government to intervene and publish companies who succeed in their business; not that such companies have the luxury of ignoring the laws, but that the laws themselves should not be in place.
>Have you been following the same court case I've >been following? No one is suggesting breaking >them up. actually, the guy whose post i was responding to seemed to be advocating breaking them up. >>> it isn't an issue of what benefits the consumer or the industry, but an issue of basic right and wrong. >Correct. They broke the law, they get punished. I said "right" and "wrong," not "legal" and "illegal." >Or is being rich & successful an excuse to be >able to ignore the law This is not at all what I was saying. My point was that it is wrong for the government to intervene and publish companies who succeed in their business; not that such companies have the luxury of ignoring the laws, but that the laws themselves should not be in place.
hmmm... Seems to me that trampling on someone's rights (even MS's) in the name of lower prices isn't exactly fair. MS created a successful product. A whole slew of them, in fact. So why punish them by breaking them up just because they've been successful? To me, it isn't an issue of what benefits the consumer or the industry, but an issue of basic right and wrong.
He was using the royal "we." The rest of us still need to use TLDs for everything, only he is exempt.
"silly little pop group?" "throwaway songs?" "nonsense lyrics?" (Well, ok, maybe the last one.) Regardless, They are a band who is recognizable, even if you don't like them. And releasing the first album available only on mp3 is a major breakthrough. I'm not a PE fan, but if they had released it, i would have been happy, and given them the credit they deserve. I'm not trying to take away from all the good things PE has done for electronic distribution of music, but credit should be given where it's due, and not denied to a group who has been at least as important, if not more important, than Public Enemy in encouraging artists to distribute their music via mp3, the internet, etc.