i know i'm just reiterating what has already been said but the "entry" page is passe, overdone, and against good design sense nowadays.
the javascript status bar is one of the most annoying "features" being practiced today.
the whole site, from his "pixel defined layouts" to specific style extensions are entirely blindspotted. so far it's been totally unreadable/unusable on most computers i've tried to view it at (mostly linux/solaris/hp but including several windows boxes).
his page doesn't comply with standards (it failed validation). ironic from someone who is supposed to be establishing them?!
there are broken links (his links to third party pages of people using his graphics). it's easy to automate this to verify links are still good
the navigation is inconsistent and poor. sometimes there's a side bar, sometimes some links underneath...
there's a lot of self-hype that i find no justification in. so he scanned a lot of pictures and ran them through a few filters. big deal. looks like crap anyway. most of the pages using his "work" seem like warez waldo's or geospitties anyway.
no reverse support for older browsers, especially those that don't support javascript or only partially.
lastly, i just don't like his style a great deal. sure he's got "something" and he knows a little bit about design but i haven't done web design for a couple years now professionally and i could still crank out much better CSE validated, cross-platform, scaffolded code in a matter of a couple hours.
i will never begin to understand why so many people flock to certain sites touting how wonderful this designer or that designer is, hyping up their ego when there is neither substance nor good design rpesent in their work. it baffles me.
on the plus side, at least he's not abusing the blink tag and using every plug-in in the book. =)
first off, mp3.com had no legal ground to stand on and i am glad they lost. i love their "normal" service but my.mp3.com was such a blatant violation of IP/copyright law that all one could do is laugh.
i am expecting napster to lose as well, albeit a totally different case. someone on here posted the case that is guaranteed to be cited in the napster case. basically it says that you can't provide a facility that knowingly will be used for the purpose of violation of IP/copyright law. the naivety of napsters childish ceo will be quickly smitten from his face and i will be grateful.
i hope that mp3.com survives, as i love their service, both the downloads for consumers to preview artists and their distrobution of dam cd's for their artists. they're still ripping off the artists hard, another cd label making the big bucks while the artist gets pennies... but percentage wise, it helps a lot of epole who would never get heard make a little bit of bank more than they would chasing their dream with a record label that wouldn't give them the time of day.
as for napster though, i look forward to seeing it get smashed. i hope the ftp's follow. anyone with intelligence who truly wants to defy the law in pursuit of being "1337" should be using freenet anyway or staying in their mp3 crew. i feel sorry for all the poor souls who think this way though and i hope they someday grow up and realize what they are doing.
just a little rant.
Re:Don't worry about it, Napster's a different iss
on
MP3.com Loses In Court
·
· Score: 1
doesn't matter, their model was illegal... they had no right to distribute those mp3's, whether other people owned them or not. legally, if both you and someone else rip the same cd by the same group (separate copies) on identical machines, the files are identical (by some miracle given ripping process but for argument's sake =p), and suppose one of yours got "cooked", getting a copy fomr the other guy is illegal. they cannot redistribute. only legal way of doing this is rip it yourself and back it up somehow. it's what i do for my big ass cd collection, got another bigass mp3 cd collection. =)
most of the discussion is though irrelevant as what they are/were doing is very plainly illegal by IP/copyright law. however, i just want to note that i both agree and disagree with some of what you say.
yes this will hurt mp3.com in the business world. this was going to be their big claim. the owner went and regged God only knows how many domains on themes of my, beam-it, and their ilk. last i looked it was 100+ domains under his various identities (search for old slashdot articles about mp3.com and domain squatting and you can get a better idea). they were hoping for this to be HUGE and although it was an interesting concept, it's too broken. this isn't to say i love where the law is going, especially with SDMI (eek!?) but that their implimentation was illegal and i do not see any way to make one legal, not under current law (and if anything it will get 'worse').
in disagreement though, i have been a 'regular' visitor to mp3.com, have introduced countless others, and have used their services since inception. i probably have close to 20-30% of their music 'mirrored' on my mp3 servers at home. i have no use for the beam-it technology, the my.mp3.com concept... but hearing new artists is a wonderful concept. granted, a lot of people don't realize that even the mp3.com artists get screwed by the licensing label, albeit not as severe as most record labels, but still it's only a good percentage when you look at it relatively.
anyway, i guess i just wanted to say that they can build on their music selction, their criteria, maybe work on integrating with some fo their competitors like riffage and the like, and expand with better searches, content, negotiations. as much as i dislike their corporate attitudes, hippocrasy, and egotism, i do like a lot of the music and it has led many of my friends and myself to purchase DAM cd's. there are other ways to 'make their mark', assuming they don't die out already...
Slashdot Mirror
i know i'm just reiterating what has already been said but the "entry" page is passe, overdone, and against good design sense nowadays.
the javascript status bar is one of the most annoying "features" being practiced today.
the whole site, from his "pixel defined layouts" to specific style extensions are entirely blindspotted. so far it's been totally unreadable/unusable on most computers i've tried to view it at (mostly linux/solaris/hp but including several windows boxes).
his page doesn't comply with standards (it failed validation). ironic from someone who is supposed to be establishing them?!
there are broken links (his links to third party pages of people using his graphics). it's easy to automate this to verify links are still good
the navigation is inconsistent and poor. sometimes there's a side bar, sometimes some links underneath...
there's a lot of self-hype that i find no justification in. so he scanned a lot of pictures and ran them through a few filters. big deal. looks like crap anyway. most of the pages using his "work" seem like warez waldo's or geospitties anyway.
no reverse support for older browsers, especially those that don't support javascript or only partially.
lastly, i just don't like his style a great deal. sure he's got "something" and he knows a little bit about design but i haven't done web design for a couple years now professionally and i could still crank out much better CSE validated, cross-platform, scaffolded code in a matter of a couple hours.
i will never begin to understand why so many people flock to certain sites touting how wonderful this designer or that designer is, hyping up their ego when there is neither substance nor good design rpesent in their work. it baffles me.
on the plus side, at least he's not abusing the blink tag and using every plug-in in the book. =)
~sigh~ why can't designers learn how to design?
steve
first off, mp3.com had no legal ground to stand on and i am glad they lost. i love their "normal" service but my.mp3.com was such a blatant violation of IP/copyright law that all one could do is laugh.
i am expecting napster to lose as well, albeit a totally different case. someone on here posted the case that is guaranteed to be cited in the napster case. basically it says that you can't provide a facility that knowingly will be used for the purpose of violation of IP/copyright law. the naivety of napsters childish ceo will be quickly smitten from his face and i will be grateful.
i hope that mp3.com survives, as i love their service, both the downloads for consumers to preview artists and their distrobution of dam cd's for their artists. they're still ripping off the artists hard, another cd label making the big bucks while the artist gets pennies... but percentage wise, it helps a lot of epole who would never get heard make a little bit of bank more than they would chasing their dream with a record label that wouldn't give them the time of day.
as for napster though, i look forward to seeing it get smashed. i hope the ftp's follow. anyone with intelligence who truly wants to defy the law in pursuit of being "1337" should be using freenet anyway or staying in their mp3 crew. i feel sorry for all the poor souls who think this way though and i hope they someday grow up and realize what they are doing.
just a little rant.
doesn't matter, their model was illegal... they had no right to distribute those mp3's, whether other people owned them or not. legally, if both you and someone else rip the same cd by the same group (separate copies) on identical machines, the files are identical (by some miracle given ripping process but for argument's sake =p), and suppose one of yours got "cooked", getting a copy fomr the other guy is illegal. they cannot redistribute. only legal way of doing this is rip it yourself and back it up somehow. it's what i do for my big ass cd collection, got another bigass mp3 cd collection. =)
most of the discussion is though irrelevant as what they are/were doing is very plainly illegal by IP/copyright law. however, i just want to note that i both agree and disagree with some of what you say.
yes this will hurt mp3.com in the business world. this was going to be their big claim. the owner went and regged God only knows how many domains on themes of my, beam-it, and their ilk. last i looked it was 100+ domains under his various identities (search for old slashdot articles about mp3.com and domain squatting and you can get a better idea). they were hoping for this to be HUGE and although it was an interesting concept, it's too broken. this isn't to say i love where the law is going, especially with SDMI (eek!?) but that their implimentation was illegal and i do not see any way to make one legal, not under current law (and if anything it will get 'worse').
in disagreement though, i have been a 'regular' visitor to mp3.com, have introduced countless others, and have used their services since inception. i probably have close to 20-30% of their music 'mirrored' on my mp3 servers at home. i have no use for the beam-it technology, the my.mp3.com concept... but hearing new artists is a wonderful concept. granted, a lot of people don't realize that even the mp3.com artists get screwed by the licensing label, albeit not as severe as most record labels, but still it's only a good percentage when you look at it relatively.
anyway, i guess i just wanted to say that they can build on their music selction, their criteria, maybe work on integrating with some fo their competitors like riffage and the like, and expand with better searches, content, negotiations. as much as i dislike their corporate attitudes, hippocrasy, and egotism, i do like a lot of the music and it has led many of my friends and myself to purchase DAM cd's. there are other ways to 'make their mark', assuming they don't die out already...
another 2 bits...