DVD and VHS are different in the respects of licensing. With VHS, Blockbuster made a deal with many of the studios to give them a portion of rentals (I do believe, though, that late fees and previously viewed purchases are not included) and a guarantee on titles that are anticipated to be high rentals but low sales that they'll be priced for rental chains only. That is why you see some video, still today, as $100 titles when they first arrive, instead of the $20-$30 they are in places like Best Buy.
However, such deals do not exist with DVDs. Movie studios do not get a portion of rental fees, so there's no incentive for them to market any for rental chains first. What's the purpose to pricing them at $100 on release if the video stores will keep all the funds, instead of sharing the loot like VHS?
Plus, I still haven't seen a case precedence where renting a physical media such as VHS or DVD was illegal when there was no license purchased to rent them. Isn't there a case precedence already for software companies suing the public library system in the US for lending out software for free?
But then, where do you get the discs in the first place? They magically come to your residence by teleportation? Or do you have to go to a store to get them? Maybe online sales where they get to your place via truck or jeep or car?
I love how companies try to give a stupid idea justification while forgetting other parts that are just as bad.
Well, since WorldCon 2001 was in late August, and the winner of the Best Novel was "Harry Potter", and this isn't reflected on the Hugo website, I'm really getting disappointed with these awards.
The Seiun (Japanese Hugo) and the Nebula are still better representations of SF and Fantasy works, since their voting is done a little better and less of a clique setup. I mean, how does Harry Potter win over George R. R. Martin's A Storm of Swords and Robert J. Sawyer's Calculating God?
I remember using OS9 for the TRS-80 Color Computer 2 with the ability to create "Windows" on the text-based system. These windows were just areas of the screen where programs could be run independent of the system, much like Windows are today.
I can see that Microsoft Windows would be a registered trademark, but the term Windows has been around for a long time, and LindowsOS seems to use products already named *Windows as software.
The problem is, simply, that big record companies are using hot-selling bands or discs to help fund new startups or possibly dying bands or discs. Go check out major stores and look for the "notched" discs. Or find "clearance" or "big sale" items, and you'll notice most all of them are worthless titles or bands no one would ever bother with. Well, they went through the same processes as Metallica, including marketing, and yet sold barely anything.
Instead of taking the loss and deciding, "Hey, we should stop producing crap or mimicking bands," they decide they can turn out ten bands under the profits of one major one. If one of those other bands happens to make it, then they have another band to help sell more bands.
Sadly, though, this practice is done regularly, even with some of the independent labels. I just wish there were a distributor out there who would handle completely independent artists. You want to spend your money and time doing your own CDs for your band, send it to the distributor who puts out a catalog of discs. These discs can be ordered by any major chain or music store. Then it's just up to the bands themselves to promote themselves and let people know they have a disc out.
This would really make the costs dive down if people could just get into the stores without major labels and without the RIAA.
First off, Carmack seems to release the source code after two other complete games come out. Q1 Source came out after Q3A hit the shelves, now Q2 after Return to Castle Wolfenstein.
But don't forget, that if they released the source code when the game was being created, not only couldn't they make money on the license, but also other companies would be able to compete on the same level without paying a price for it.
Carmack gets paid for his programming skills, but you're arguing that he should get paid to program *everyone's* game, including his competitor, from one company. All the other companies could release their own Quake 3 Arena clones and make money, without even bothering to do anything with the programming.
And don't forget, that when Q3A sold for $40+, id didn't get all $40. It goes from id, to Activision, to the distributor, sometimes to the wholesaler or direct to the big name store, and then possibly to a smaller store. By then, after the expenses of doing the packaging and the duplication, you're talking only a couple dollars profit per game direct to id... Split that among their, what, twelve workers now in the proper ratios, and that's not that much. Less than a dollar each, probably.
Even multiplied by a few million, that's not that much money to pay those huge salaries. How do they make it up? Licensing.
With licensing, there is *no* middleman. It's a contract between id and the company licensing the engine. In the end, it's probably a larger chunk of change than a first month's release returns.
And secondly, you have to remember, as with Carmack's.plan update, that when you release the full code, people *will* find the ways they can use to cheat. They can modify the source for themselves, recompile the engine, and have it work for them. Therefore, the rampant cheats would cause multiplayer to go to pot upon release.
No, what Carmack does is *more* than enough, and these are the factors not only he, but id and other people who can understand the business, realize, and have to protect not only themselves, but their consumers, from these problems.
I chose to bring as much "in house" as I could, thus eliminating much of the liability with other businesses and the flow of money. My bank, KeyBank, also had services for businesses as well as personal accounts, and had their own Merchant Services.
Through this, I was able to get the terminal, account, PinPad for shows and conventions (great to take ATM cards), and the whole works, for about $28 a month including statement fees, for the lease. If it breaks, they replace it. Great product.
We also do our own e-commerce solution online, and process through this merchant account. If any money is frozen, it's due to my own account, no one else's.
However, with all merchant accounts, you must give a checking or holding account when you sign up for it, and sign an agreement that they can pull funds out of it. This is because if you refund more money than you charge, they have to pull that money out of your account, for the entire amount of those refunds.
This is why PayPal also requires it, and without limit. The only problem is, I wouldn't trust PayPal with that kind of power. I trust my bank more because it's all of partnerships and one major corporate conglomerate. If there's a problem, I can go to the bank to get information, instead of getting a runaround.
I highly recommend any and all people who run small businesses *not* to deal with any outside firms if they can help it, and ask their bank where they have their business accounts which merchant services they offer. Price them out and get the one proper for you.
And above all, when it's too good to be true, or it seems as though there are no fees, THERE ARE. Read the fine print, or ask other people who have dealt with the business before. Investigate, because it's not only your money, it's all your customers' money, too.
MS may just be wanting what Apple was doing during the 80s and early 90s: Trying to get people familiarized and hooked young on their platform. However, if California really wants MS to pay, why not have MS pay for the hardware for public schools and libraries to upgrade or implement computers for the classes, and then have another company, say Red Hat, etc., provide the software and training, at MS's expense. That way, they're not getting anything out of the settlement, and they can't possibly profit from it. Seems fair to me.
I stopped bothering with virus software, mainly because its problems and prices and maintenance outweighed its benefits.
Best thing: Download software from trusted companies and entities only, make backups of your registry and boot drive often, don't open attachments in email from those you don't fully trust not to carry viruses, and keep up to date on what new viruses are out there and how they operate.
This doesn't affect me much. Just wish we knew how the FBI's virus would work so it could be stopped at the router or mail server level.
...is a console system which will play the current systems on the market. GameCube, PS2/PSX, XBox and Dreamcast. Though, it would be hard to read those GBA carts while spinning on the spindle.
I've seen a lot of people say, that either it's good to rip off the RIAA by pirating music, or to give these bands exposure by sharing their music.
Has anyone bothered to stop and think about the artists here? Most artists are not dimwits, even though they have entered into contracts which steal most of their rights just so they can have a CD. If bands really want to give away their music, they can do it today.
Macs or low-end PCs are cheap enough and have access to software to make mp3s, and internet access is nearly everywhere in the world, there's no reason that an artist can't make his own works available if he so desires. If he doesn't want it traded around, isn't that *his* decision, not his fans?
Take a look at how bands like They Might Be Giants, who are still touring and making albums, decide how they will share their music. They put out a full length studio album, and promote it by releasing a few free mp3s to tie people over until it hits the shelves. They decide what they want people to pay for, and what they'd like to be shared.
In 2001, I'm fairly sure most artists know about p2p solutions and sharing, and if they did a bit of work, could get the necessary hardware and software to make their own mp3s, or could have someone act on their behalf to do so, if they wanted to do this. However, bands often do not. So when I hear people say that they're trading mp3s of these bands for the benefit of their music, it's just as bullshit as Hilary saying she cares about the bands.
Let's not forget that the bands are in the middle of all this, and they are the ones who should make the decisions.
Actually, no... The bandwidth belongs to those who setup the backbones and the connections and the routers, etc. The end user *leases* bandwidth from the ISP to get online. Just like a lease on a car, if you screw up that car or otherwise, and it cannot be returned at the end of the lease, you'll have to purchase it outright. Since no one who gets a standard consumer-level ISP account can usually afford to purchase huge pipelines of bandwidth, this is the only other precaution they could take.
I say more ISPs should start shutting down those who are affected until they patch, and if they find subnets full of affected machines that aren't being patched or shut down, block those packets from entering their network.
Aliens have come to Earth to speak to a paleontologist to find out about Earth's fossil records, to prove the existence of God, who has been present in sentient planets throughout the galaxy.
Pretty original. At least it's not another novel about dinos on an island.
If the Canadian Government imposes a tax for "losses incurred by piracy" for everyone to pay for a medium, then doesn't that just give acceptance that now it will be used for that purpose?
What's the use of charging people for an action, whether or not they do this, to compensate copyright holders for this action, and then state you still can't be doing this action?
I say, if the Government makes everyone pay, whether in jail, fines or taxes, for something certain people do, then it should be accepted that it's paid for and now allowed.
This is why I've never agreed with this tax. It's beneficial to copyright holders and still screws over the consumer.
The problem with this theory is the assumption that a person has bought the CD and this is the CD being used. What's stopping you from borrowing a friend's CD and popping it in, thus unlocking the CD forever for you when you never paid for it? Or borrowing it from the library? Or even buying it, popping it in, then returning it to the store?
There are many ways to defeat the system, and that becomes a problem to the indies, who need those sales to continue production of their discs. Even if others don't want to support them, that's no reason for people to stomp on their rights.
First off, your comparison is completely flawed as far as lifespans. To explain:
George Washington: 67 Y
John Adams: 90 Y
Thomas Jefferson: 83 Y
James Madison: 85 Y
James Monroe: 73 Y
John Q Adams: 80 Y
Averaged is about 79 Y. Take the last six presidents to die without assassination, you have:
Richard Nixon: 81 Y
Lyndon Johnson: 65 Y
Dwight Eisenhower: 78 Y
Harry Truman: 88 Y
Franklin Roosevelt: 63 Y
Herbert Hoover: 90 Y
77 Y average, and that's with Roosevelt, who was elected with health concerns already, dying in office of a stroke.
My point? Look at the presidents still alive: Gerald Ford, 88 Y, James Carter, 77 Y, Ronald Reagen, 90 Y, George Bush, 77 Y, William Clinton, 55 Y and George W Bush, 55 Y. All these men except for Ronald Reagen are in good health, with Reagen having Alzheimer's. But still, besides Clinton and Bush, our latest two presidents, they're all at the average of the previous presidents, with Ford and Reagen already past the previous average.
Your assumption matches late 18th and early 19th centure, to mid 20th century lifespans, and trying to apply them now to 21st century terms. They're already outdated.
People on the average live about 75-80 years in the US and Canada alone, with some other countries just a bit longer than us. That's a long time. Why shouldn't a novel you wrote when you were 30 still be yours when you're 80?
People don't take away your home after ten years because it makes a spectacular example of architecture, so it should be shared with everyone free of cost. People don't demand you give up your property because it would benefit the community to have more land, and throw you off without compensation. Why should we tell people their creative efforts are worth less than their own property?
Not only this, but you make no mention of when the ten years should expire, either from creation, or from publication. If it's republished, then what? If it's published in more than one medium, then what? If it's not published for a while, then what?
And as far as everyone's concerns for the copyright term, we have set forth ways to make sure the consumer has access to the copyrighted item, from the same people you argue wanted the copyrights shorter: It's called "LIBRARIES". Free unfettered access to nearly anything published and accessible, and if it's not there, they can either purchase a copy or borrow one from another library anywhere in the country. Great things, these Libraries.
Doesn't matter that access to published materials is easier and thus faster, the people behind those works often work hard, sometimes longer than ten years, in creating copyrightable works. They should enjoy these works in their lifetime. They should never have to compete against themselves in the marketplace if they so desire to keep selling the novel beyond its first publication.
Even these were seen as necessities of the founding fathers. That's why originally the Constitution stated, and I quote:
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;
Limited times, not absurdly short times. Ten years is nothing in a life of eighty years or more. We don't know even how long we'll be living this generation, so a bad assumption is to compare us to the lifespans in the mid 20th century.
Let the authors and artists choose whether they want to continue an exclusive right to their works in their lifetime, or release it to the public. If you push for a ten year limitation, watch the creative efforts slow to a halt, because they'll find other ways to make a living.
And that, as I can see from your argument, is fine enough for you, as long as you get something for free. Now who's greedy?
Protests, a manifesto (citizen's rights in the
IP age.. reasonable copyrights (ie. it expires
in 10 years).. and a whole slew of other things.
There's a huge difference between citizen's rights and quick-expiring copyrights, which effectively harm citizen's rights more than you'd believe.
What we need to do is go back to the original drafting of the intellectual property laws and see why the same founding fathers who planned one of the more perfect Unions of the day, also could come up with a plan for consumers and producers to have balanced rights.
Expiring rights in ten years is absurd. People live long lives today. What will ending the copyright on a novel in ten years do? People would stop worrying about buying a book, except die hard fans, because in ten years they'll be able to find it for free on a website or be able to pay $1 to get a loose-bound copy from a clearinghouse.
Patents? Trademarks? Copyrights? These things need protection. Some Slashdot readers feel that the only protection these put up are against consumers, and they aren't. These prevent the creators from having to compete against themselves in the open market.
You expire copyrights, patents and trademarks too early in their respective marketplaces, and suddenly all your research and hard work is scooped up by a competitor who did no research and no work, and can now compete on the same level as you. What do you think this will do with the economy and future production of creative efforts?
Now, before you jump all over this post, I'm against business models, software patents and anything which takes something already in use and adds "online" or "electronically" and makes it a new patent. By the time such methods are even in use and the patents granted, the technology's either out of date or they've already established a new technology or method underway. It's sad that this was allowed without much thought.
But it's just as sad that I read more and more users saying that copyrights and patents restrict consumers, when they don't. What does are stupid laws and extensions to these laws that lawmakers *we* put into office draft, discuss, pass and sign into law. It's not the deep pockets of the corporations so much as that we're the people putting those corporation-helpers into office to do their work.
Grab copies of all laws you don't like, find out who voted for it, who abstained, and who voted against it, if it was recorded. Write to those people, get word out, and let people know what kinds of priorities the people they elect into office have. Are they looking after the voters' best interests when in office, or just the people who will help donate to their campaign funds to get reelected, only to perform more favors?
And above all, if you can legally do so, run for office yourself, or help out at an election committee for a politician you do believe in. There are so many things you can do to help change the way we've altered the original ideals of the Founding Fathers, but saying an almost complete abolition of their ideas is a leap in the wrong direction.
The change for the better must be slow or it will be destructive in one form or another. Corporations have pushed for the DMCA, among others, slowly, we'll have to do the same to get them repealed.
These nasty emails I get from Time/Warner RoadRunner as well. Just today got a fully animated email from them which was sent to all customers, it seems, about the Osmosis Jones flick.
So I guess even those who don't directly have AOL access get spam, so what's stopping the horrible spam from filtering to accounts of SMS direct from AOL and its companies?
I'd be more concerned with that than what personal information, if any, they got from me, they shared.
The Government has conceded that yes, Video Games make kids smarter, but they also make them more violent. Therefore, a request has been sent to all schools, warning them of the possible criminal activity of those "smart" kids.
I'm sorry, but your protest does more harm than it ever could do good.
You're telling everyone to demand liberty and to hurt the companies. But then, you don't realize, or maybe you don't care, that you're breaking the law by copying and redistributing software that does not allow itself to be copied and redistributed. It's not going to hurt the company since they can just stick you and others in jail. And you'll be hurting the progress anyone could make to battle them that they're evil, because they'll help the media in painting the protestors as evil little thieves.
Plus, not paying taxes, that's just stupid. Why? You'll be thrown in jail quickly, and for what? Just not paying the government. No one will even notice you're not paying.
No, the best way to battle this, write your congressmen, or vote them out if they won't listen. If all else fails, run yourself!
I can tell you very firmly that this is absolutely incorrect with Network Solutions, and I'll tell you a little story that happened to me.
I first offered to purchase the.com to our domain (dragonmagic.com) from the original owner. He wasn't using it, and his site sat unupdated for over a year. He refused saying he may update it later.
Well, the domain was to expire May 3, 2000. And I sat and waited. His site never updated, and May 3, 2000, rolled around. Still was registered to him. In fact, about four months later, his hosting finally gave out, but his domain still showed in the Registry and at NSI.
Finally, in late June, 2001, that's well over a YEAR after it was going to expire, NSI returned that their database no longer had the domain, but it was still showing in the registry. I waited patiently some more, and saw that the registry hadn't updated for nearly a week on that bit of data.
Then, when I went to go check it the following day, it had been registered the previous week by a Hong Kong cybersquatter, who just sits on domains to resell them.
Apparently, they grab many domains that people have been looking for and waiting for them to expire. My guess, NSI is selling domain requests and these people go to the backorder query to reserve these domains in hopes of reselling them for big money.
Instead, we're building more sites, and only the main company site uses a.net. The rest are using.coms. Pissed me off, but what can you do when people just care about money and not about integrity?
P.S. If anyone wants to buy this domain and donate it to us, life-long cheap anime and gaming stuff await!
If you're going to boycott Adobe, why support their software in this manner? Using it would be okay, but remove the Generator tag and take that button off the site at least.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, no, this is not correct.
DVD and VHS are different in the respects of licensing. With VHS, Blockbuster made a deal with many of the studios to give them a portion of rentals (I do believe, though, that late fees and previously viewed purchases are not included) and a guarantee on titles that are anticipated to be high rentals but low sales that they'll be priced for rental chains only. That is why you see some video, still today, as $100 titles when they first arrive, instead of the $20-$30 they are in places like Best Buy.
However, such deals do not exist with DVDs. Movie studios do not get a portion of rental fees, so there's no incentive for them to market any for rental chains first. What's the purpose to pricing them at $100 on release if the video stores will keep all the funds, instead of sharing the loot like VHS?
Plus, I still haven't seen a case precedence where renting a physical media such as VHS or DVD was illegal when there was no license purchased to rent them. Isn't there a case precedence already for software companies suing the public library system in the US for lending out software for free?
But then, where do you get the discs in the first place? They magically come to your residence by teleportation? Or do you have to go to a store to get them? Maybe online sales where they get to your place via truck or jeep or car?
I love how companies try to give a stupid idea justification while forgetting other parts that are just as bad.
Weird Al also asks to use the songs he parodies, so there's no trouble brewing from the original artists. Most have senses of humour and allow it.
I don't think, though, that Mike has ever asked to do his parodies, he just does.
Well, since WorldCon 2001 was in late August, and the winner of the Best Novel was "Harry Potter", and this isn't reflected on the Hugo website, I'm really getting disappointed with these awards.
The Seiun (Japanese Hugo) and the Nebula are still better representations of SF and Fantasy works, since their voting is done a little better and less of a clique setup. I mean, how does Harry Potter win over George R. R. Martin's A Storm of Swords and Robert J. Sawyer's Calculating God?
I remember using OS9 for the TRS-80 Color Computer 2 with the ability to create "Windows" on the text-based system. These windows were just areas of the screen where programs could be run independent of the system, much like Windows are today.
I can see that Microsoft Windows would be a registered trademark, but the term Windows has been around for a long time, and LindowsOS seems to use products already named *Windows as software.
The problem is, simply, that big record companies are using hot-selling bands or discs to help fund new startups or possibly dying bands or discs. Go check out major stores and look for the "notched" discs. Or find "clearance" or "big sale" items, and you'll notice most all of them are worthless titles or bands no one would ever bother with. Well, they went through the same processes as Metallica, including marketing, and yet sold barely anything.
Instead of taking the loss and deciding, "Hey, we should stop producing crap or mimicking bands," they decide they can turn out ten bands under the profits of one major one. If one of those other bands happens to make it, then they have another band to help sell more bands.
Sadly, though, this practice is done regularly, even with some of the independent labels. I just wish there were a distributor out there who would handle completely independent artists. You want to spend your money and time doing your own CDs for your band, send it to the distributor who puts out a catalog of discs. These discs can be ordered by any major chain or music store. Then it's just up to the bands themselves to promote themselves and let people know they have a disc out.
This would really make the costs dive down if people could just get into the stores without major labels and without the RIAA.
First off, Carmack seems to release the source code after two other complete games come out. Q1 Source came out after Q3A hit the shelves, now Q2 after Return to Castle Wolfenstein.
.plan update, that when you release the full code, people *will* find the ways they can use to cheat. They can modify the source for themselves, recompile the engine, and have it work for them. Therefore, the rampant cheats would cause multiplayer to go to pot upon release.
But don't forget, that if they released the source code when the game was being created, not only couldn't they make money on the license, but also other companies would be able to compete on the same level without paying a price for it.
Carmack gets paid for his programming skills, but you're arguing that he should get paid to program *everyone's* game, including his competitor, from one company. All the other companies could release their own Quake 3 Arena clones and make money, without even bothering to do anything with the programming.
And don't forget, that when Q3A sold for $40+, id didn't get all $40. It goes from id, to Activision, to the distributor, sometimes to the wholesaler or direct to the big name store, and then possibly to a smaller store. By then, after the expenses of doing the packaging and the duplication, you're talking only a couple dollars profit per game direct to id... Split that among their, what, twelve workers now in the proper ratios, and that's not that much. Less than a dollar each, probably.
Even multiplied by a few million, that's not that much money to pay those huge salaries. How do they make it up? Licensing.
With licensing, there is *no* middleman. It's a contract between id and the company licensing the engine. In the end, it's probably a larger chunk of change than a first month's release returns.
And secondly, you have to remember, as with Carmack's
No, what Carmack does is *more* than enough, and these are the factors not only he, but id and other people who can understand the business, realize, and have to protect not only themselves, but their consumers, from these problems.
I chose to bring as much "in house" as I could, thus eliminating much of the liability with other businesses and the flow of money. My bank, KeyBank, also had services for businesses as well as personal accounts, and had their own Merchant Services.
Through this, I was able to get the terminal, account, PinPad for shows and conventions (great to take ATM cards), and the whole works, for about $28 a month including statement fees, for the lease. If it breaks, they replace it. Great product.
We also do our own e-commerce solution online, and process through this merchant account. If any money is frozen, it's due to my own account, no one else's.
However, with all merchant accounts, you must give a checking or holding account when you sign up for it, and sign an agreement that they can pull funds out of it. This is because if you refund more money than you charge, they have to pull that money out of your account, for the entire amount of those refunds.
This is why PayPal also requires it, and without limit. The only problem is, I wouldn't trust PayPal with that kind of power. I trust my bank more because it's all of partnerships and one major corporate conglomerate. If there's a problem, I can go to the bank to get information, instead of getting a runaround.
I highly recommend any and all people who run small businesses *not* to deal with any outside firms if they can help it, and ask their bank where they have their business accounts which merchant services they offer. Price them out and get the one proper for you.
And above all, when it's too good to be true, or it seems as though there are no fees, THERE ARE. Read the fine print, or ask other people who have dealt with the business before. Investigate, because it's not only your money, it's all your customers' money, too.
MS may just be wanting what Apple was doing during the 80s and early 90s: Trying to get people familiarized and hooked young on their platform. However, if California really wants MS to pay, why not have MS pay for the hardware for public schools and libraries to upgrade or implement computers for the classes, and then have another company, say Red Hat, etc., provide the software and training, at MS's expense. That way, they're not getting anything out of the settlement, and they can't possibly profit from it. Seems fair to me.
I stopped bothering with virus software, mainly because its problems and prices and maintenance outweighed its benefits.
Best thing: Download software from trusted companies and entities only, make backups of your registry and boot drive often, don't open attachments in email from those you don't fully trust not to carry viruses, and keep up to date on what new viruses are out there and how they operate.
This doesn't affect me much. Just wish we knew how the FBI's virus would work so it could be stopped at the router or mail server level.
...is a console system which will play the current systems on the market. GameCube, PS2/PSX, XBox and Dreamcast. Though, it would be hard to read those GBA carts while spinning on the spindle.
My gift idea needs more thought, maybe.
I've seen a lot of people say, that either it's good to rip off the RIAA by pirating music, or to give these bands exposure by sharing their music.
Has anyone bothered to stop and think about the artists here? Most artists are not dimwits, even though they have entered into contracts which steal most of their rights just so they can have a CD. If bands really want to give away their music, they can do it today.
Macs or low-end PCs are cheap enough and have access to software to make mp3s, and internet access is nearly everywhere in the world, there's no reason that an artist can't make his own works available if he so desires. If he doesn't want it traded around, isn't that *his* decision, not his fans?
Take a look at how bands like They Might Be Giants, who are still touring and making albums, decide how they will share their music. They put out a full length studio album, and promote it by releasing a few free mp3s to tie people over until it hits the shelves. They decide what they want people to pay for, and what they'd like to be shared.
In 2001, I'm fairly sure most artists know about p2p solutions and sharing, and if they did a bit of work, could get the necessary hardware and software to make their own mp3s, or could have someone act on their behalf to do so, if they wanted to do this. However, bands often do not. So when I hear people say that they're trading mp3s of these bands for the benefit of their music, it's just as bullshit as Hilary saying she cares about the bands.
Let's not forget that the bands are in the middle of all this, and they are the ones who should make the decisions.
Actually, no... The bandwidth belongs to those who setup the backbones and the connections and the routers, etc. The end user *leases* bandwidth from the ISP to get online. Just like a lease on a car, if you screw up that car or otherwise, and it cannot be returned at the end of the lease, you'll have to purchase it outright. Since no one who gets a standard consumer-level ISP account can usually afford to purchase huge pipelines of bandwidth, this is the only other precaution they could take.
I say more ISPs should start shutting down those who are affected until they patch, and if they find subnets full of affected machines that aren't being patched or shut down, block those packets from entering their network.
Well, one of the other nominees this year for the Hugo Novel was "Calculating God" by Robert J. Sawyer.
Aliens have come to Earth to speak to a paleontologist to find out about Earth's fossil records, to prove the existence of God, who has been present in sentient planets throughout the galaxy.
Pretty original. At least it's not another novel about dinos on an island.
If the Canadian Government imposes a tax for "losses incurred by piracy" for everyone to pay for a medium, then doesn't that just give acceptance that now it will be used for that purpose?
What's the use of charging people for an action, whether or not they do this, to compensate copyright holders for this action, and then state you still can't be doing this action?
I say, if the Government makes everyone pay, whether in jail, fines or taxes, for something certain people do, then it should be accepted that it's paid for and now allowed.
This is why I've never agreed with this tax. It's beneficial to copyright holders and still screws over the consumer.
The problem with this theory is the assumption that a person has bought the CD and this is the CD being used. What's stopping you from borrowing a friend's CD and popping it in, thus unlocking the CD forever for you when you never paid for it? Or borrowing it from the library? Or even buying it, popping it in, then returning it to the store?
There are many ways to defeat the system, and that becomes a problem to the indies, who need those sales to continue production of their discs. Even if others don't want to support them, that's no reason for people to stomp on their rights.
First off, your comparison is completely flawed as far as lifespans. To explain:
George Washington: 67 Y
John Adams: 90 Y
Thomas Jefferson: 83 Y
James Madison: 85 Y
James Monroe: 73 Y
John Q Adams: 80 Y
Averaged is about 79 Y. Take the last six presidents to die without assassination, you have:
Richard Nixon: 81 Y
Lyndon Johnson: 65 Y
Dwight Eisenhower: 78 Y
Harry Truman: 88 Y
Franklin Roosevelt: 63 Y
Herbert Hoover: 90 Y
77 Y average, and that's with Roosevelt, who was elected with health concerns already, dying in office of a stroke.
My point? Look at the presidents still alive: Gerald Ford, 88 Y, James Carter, 77 Y, Ronald Reagen, 90 Y, George Bush, 77 Y, William Clinton, 55 Y and George W Bush, 55 Y. All these men except for Ronald Reagen are in good health, with Reagen having Alzheimer's. But still, besides Clinton and Bush, our latest two presidents, they're all at the average of the previous presidents, with Ford and Reagen already past the previous average.
Your assumption matches late 18th and early 19th centure, to mid 20th century lifespans, and trying to apply them now to 21st century terms. They're already outdated.
People on the average live about 75-80 years in the US and Canada alone, with some other countries just a bit longer than us. That's a long time. Why shouldn't a novel you wrote when you were 30 still be yours when you're 80?
People don't take away your home after ten years because it makes a spectacular example of architecture, so it should be shared with everyone free of cost. People don't demand you give up your property because it would benefit the community to have more land, and throw you off without compensation. Why should we tell people their creative efforts are worth less than their own property?
Not only this, but you make no mention of when the ten years should expire, either from creation, or from publication. If it's republished, then what? If it's published in more than one medium, then what? If it's not published for a while, then what?
And as far as everyone's concerns for the copyright term, we have set forth ways to make sure the consumer has access to the copyrighted item, from the same people you argue wanted the copyrights shorter: It's called "LIBRARIES". Free unfettered access to nearly anything published and accessible, and if it's not there, they can either purchase a copy or borrow one from another library anywhere in the country. Great things, these Libraries.
Doesn't matter that access to published materials is easier and thus faster, the people behind those works often work hard, sometimes longer than ten years, in creating copyrightable works. They should enjoy these works in their lifetime. They should never have to compete against themselves in the marketplace if they so desire to keep selling the novel beyond its first publication.
Even these were seen as necessities of the founding fathers. That's why originally the Constitution stated, and I quote:
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;
Limited times, not absurdly short times. Ten years is nothing in a life of eighty years or more. We don't know even how long we'll be living this generation, so a bad assumption is to compare us to the lifespans in the mid 20th century.
Let the authors and artists choose whether they want to continue an exclusive right to their works in their lifetime, or release it to the public. If you push for a ten year limitation, watch the creative efforts slow to a halt, because they'll find other ways to make a living.
And that, as I can see from your argument, is fine enough for you, as long as you get something for free. Now who's greedy?
Protests, a manifesto (citizen's rights in the IP age.. reasonable copyrights (ie. it expires in 10 years).. and a whole slew of other things.
There's a huge difference between citizen's rights and quick-expiring copyrights, which effectively harm citizen's rights more than you'd believe.
What we need to do is go back to the original drafting of the intellectual property laws and see why the same founding fathers who planned one of the more perfect Unions of the day, also could come up with a plan for consumers and producers to have balanced rights.
Expiring rights in ten years is absurd. People live long lives today. What will ending the copyright on a novel in ten years do? People would stop worrying about buying a book, except die hard fans, because in ten years they'll be able to find it for free on a website or be able to pay $1 to get a loose-bound copy from a clearinghouse.
Patents? Trademarks? Copyrights? These things need protection. Some Slashdot readers feel that the only protection these put up are against consumers, and they aren't. These prevent the creators from having to compete against themselves in the open market.
You expire copyrights, patents and trademarks too early in their respective marketplaces, and suddenly all your research and hard work is scooped up by a competitor who did no research and no work, and can now compete on the same level as you. What do you think this will do with the economy and future production of creative efforts?
Now, before you jump all over this post, I'm against business models, software patents and anything which takes something already in use and adds "online" or "electronically" and makes it a new patent. By the time such methods are even in use and the patents granted, the technology's either out of date or they've already established a new technology or method underway. It's sad that this was allowed without much thought.
But it's just as sad that I read more and more users saying that copyrights and patents restrict consumers, when they don't. What does are stupid laws and extensions to these laws that lawmakers *we* put into office draft, discuss, pass and sign into law. It's not the deep pockets of the corporations so much as that we're the people putting those corporation-helpers into office to do their work.
Grab copies of all laws you don't like, find out who voted for it, who abstained, and who voted against it, if it was recorded. Write to those people, get word out, and let people know what kinds of priorities the people they elect into office have. Are they looking after the voters' best interests when in office, or just the people who will help donate to their campaign funds to get reelected, only to perform more favors?
And above all, if you can legally do so, run for office yourself, or help out at an election committee for a politician you do believe in. There are so many things you can do to help change the way we've altered the original ideals of the Founding Fathers, but saying an almost complete abolition of their ideas is a leap in the wrong direction.
The change for the better must be slow or it will be destructive in one form or another. Corporations have pushed for the DMCA, among others, slowly, we'll have to do the same to get them repealed.
These nasty emails I get from Time/Warner RoadRunner as well. Just today got a fully animated email from them which was sent to all customers, it seems, about the Osmosis Jones flick. So I guess even those who don't directly have AOL access get spam, so what's stopping the horrible spam from filtering to accounts of SMS direct from AOL and its companies? I'd be more concerned with that than what personal information, if any, they got from me, they shared.
Hate to spam, but we are still waiting for our original shipment, we ordered from an additional source, so we'll have an overstock.
_ action=detail&catalogno=PIO-AKI002D
Available at our store at 15% off retail, here's the link below:
http://www.dragonmagicstore.com/dmostore.cgi?user
Dragon Magic
The Government has conceded that yes, Video Games make kids smarter, but they also make them more violent. Therefore, a request has been sent to all schools, warning them of the possible criminal activity of those "smart" kids.
Dragon Magic
I'm sorry, but your protest does more harm than it ever could do good.
You're telling everyone to demand liberty and to hurt the companies. But then, you don't realize, or maybe you don't care, that you're breaking the law by copying and redistributing software that does not allow itself to be copied and redistributed. It's not going to hurt the company since they can just stick you and others in jail. And you'll be hurting the progress anyone could make to battle them that they're evil, because they'll help the media in painting the protestors as evil little thieves.
Plus, not paying taxes, that's just stupid. Why? You'll be thrown in jail quickly, and for what? Just not paying the government. No one will even notice you're not paying.
No, the best way to battle this, write your congressmen, or vote them out if they won't listen. If all else fails, run yourself!
Dragon Magic
I can tell you very firmly that this is absolutely incorrect with Network Solutions, and I'll tell you a little story that happened to me.
.com to our domain (dragonmagic.com) from the original owner. He wasn't using it, and his site sat unupdated for over a year. He refused saying he may update it later.
.net. The rest are using .coms. Pissed me off, but what can you do when people just care about money and not about integrity?
I first offered to purchase the
Well, the domain was to expire May 3, 2000. And I sat and waited. His site never updated, and May 3, 2000, rolled around. Still was registered to him. In fact, about four months later, his hosting finally gave out, but his domain still showed in the Registry and at NSI.
Finally, in late June, 2001, that's well over a YEAR after it was going to expire, NSI returned that their database no longer had the domain, but it was still showing in the registry. I waited patiently some more, and saw that the registry hadn't updated for nearly a week on that bit of data.
Then, when I went to go check it the following day, it had been registered the previous week by a Hong Kong cybersquatter, who just sits on domains to resell them.
Apparently, they grab many domains that people have been looking for and waiting for them to expire. My guess, NSI is selling domain requests and these people go to the backorder query to reserve these domains in hopes of reselling them for big money.
Instead, we're building more sites, and only the main company site uses a
P.S. If anyone wants to buy this domain and donate it to us, life-long cheap anime and gaming stuff await!
Dragon Magic
They arrested him under the DMCA, which means, he broke a Copyright (*cough* yeah right *cough*) law, not a patent law.
Dragon Magic
That the BoycottAdobe site is Made With Adobe GoLive (has button at the bottom as well). I mean:
<meta name="generator" content="Adobe GoLive 5">
<title>Boycott Adobe</title>
If you're going to boycott Adobe, why support their software in this manner? Using it would be okay, but remove the Generator tag and take that button off the site at least.
Dragon Magic