I can even stream music to my neighbor's PC and control the music from my Z. Now THAT'S a story!
It would really be a story if you could do this without his knowledge. Hehehe... suddenly, Celine Dion plays through his speakers at top volume, and he can't turn it off....
Cause nobody is going to do business with them again, because they're criminally untrustworthy, and they'll do anything including endanger themselves to beat the other guys.
We have a US Federal Justice's findings of fact clearly demonstrating that they already are criminally untrustworthy. Why would this make any more difference?
Sure, that's the window manager, but the stuff that looks like Windows is...guess what.... Windows! It's running in a window under vmware. This screenshot hardly makes the case that fvwm95 looks like windows.
Mind and body are really one and the same; the split between them is artificial. So changing diet, exercise, etc., will not just improve the physical aspects of attentiveness but also the mental/emotional. I think as you exercise more, quit caffeine, or eat better, you might find that your motivation increases and you may find yourself facing the emotional challenges in your personality in a healthier way.
You shouldn't be able to prevent someone from using your ideas like that, any more than you should be able to prevent a Nazi from footnoting a book you wrote in his own work. Should Nietzsche's estate (or, for that matter, Aristotle's) have been able to sue Hitler for making hateful use of his ideas? If you don't like it, don't make your ideas public. You quote the Berne convention, but frankly I think it goes too far in overturning the purpose of copyright in the American perspective (which was once much more liberal than the European perspective we adopted when we signed onto Berne) -- for the US Constitution, the purpose of copyright is to promote the progress of art and ideas. In other words, it serves a public goal; it is nothing to do with giving an artist the right to control what is done with his ideas. I don't think an artist should get that kind of control (and yes I consider myself an artist in this respect). You shouldn't be able to use an artist's work without crediting it, and you shouldn't be able to distribute that work in toto for a profit, but I don't think an artist should be able to prevent other people from quoting or sampling his work in whatever context they want. That's the tradition behind the US first amendment as well as our copyright laws.
my point is that I know it is not my right to do this forever.
yeah; only on days when I don't feel like getting on my high moral horse.
If you think sharing music is stealing, then don't do it. But if you do it yourself don't point accusatory fingers at everyone else who doesn't think it's criminal.
Get real. Nobody is stealing your art or taking away your rights. Incorporating samples and riffs into new pieces of art is just the natural evolution of art given advances in technology. Art builds on previous works; it always has. If you're a musician, did you make up every single note, chord, or chord progression that you play? Of course not. Is that stealing? No; it's learning. Now I'm not going to deny that there are people who make works that are nothing but copies of other peoples' works, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about using snippits of other peoples' work and incorporating it into a new work that is clearly and identifiably not a derivative of the previous work.
For example, Rob Base & DJ EZ Rock's 80's (or early 90s?) hit "It Takes Two" has a brilliant beat that is made up of samples directly taken from older funk songs. People knew the songs but nobody thought it was a ripoff; the combination of samples was ingenious. I don't know whether they cleared the samples -- I suspect not, since it was relatively early in the era of the digital sampler and the performance DJ; probably a bit before all the legal maneuvering that resulted in the current practice of "clearing" samples -- but in either case I don't believe they should have to, any more than any blues guitarist should have to pay to incorporate a standard blues progression into a new song. There's a difference between playing the same thing yourself on the guitar and using a sampler to play it only if you don't believe the sampler (or turntable) can itself be a musical instrument.
Now, I do think samples should be credited, absolutely in the case of big hits that turn an obscure old funk riff into dancefloor anthems; the only reason they aren't widely credited is because people are afraid of being sued. I DJ, and I know the crowd goes crazy when they hear what they think is the intro to a Fat Boy Slim song, only to hear the original funk record from the early 70s. Almost every time someone comes up to me and asks me who is remaking a fatboy slim song and I have to explain that it is Camille Yarbrough's beautiful voice that is sampled by Fatboy Slim and not the other way around. Fatboy Slim's song is a totally different song, unique and valid in its own right as an original work of art. But it clearly pays tribute to an earlier work, and the work is clearly credited (though in tiny print).
Now, I'm glad if the artist herself got paid for the sample, though I suspect the deal was cut strictly between record companies. But I don't think it is necessary to pay the artist or "clear" the sample any more than it would be necessary to pay shakespeare's estate for making a modern version of romeo and juliette. I don't object to the economic arrangement or the courtesy call ("We're going to sample your work in this new song and would like to know how you'd like to be credited"), but beyond that I absolutely disagree with an artist's (or company working on behalf of the artist) right to control whether or not you can use a sample. Whether or not Fatboy paid Camille Yarbrough to use the sample, she did get paid from his use of the sample in terms of increased popularity in an era when she would otherwise be forgotten (in fact, she had been forgotten until he came around). In either case I don't think she should have the right to say "no, you can't use the sample at all" to an artist making reasonable use of portions of her work with credit.
What bothers me most is people using that right to stifle artistic expression, prevent parody and silence criticism. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and any successful artist who doesn't see that is too blinded by their own ego to be making the rules about intellectual property.
English-speaking people don't bitch about "rendez-vous", "à propos", etc.
That's because we don't know what they mean.
Re:calling clueful car manufacturers
on
Pods Unite
·
· Score: 1
I have the Griffin iTrip, and it blows. I can't hear a damn thing in my car stereo with it. Apparently it works better in cities with few radio stations (I'm in LA; the airwaves are a little crowded). There are ways to slightly improve reception but it still is a waste of my 30 bucks. I can't find a car stereo with an aux in at my local car stereo dealer. Can anyone suggest one?
Not really; it's like saying, I support your right to speak, but I'm not going to contribute my resources to your cause if I don't believe in it. I support the right of Nazis to speak; am I thereby obligated to provide them with space on my website, or to buy advertising for them? Supporting the right to free speech and actively facilitating that speech are two different things. I am not obligated by a belief in liberty to do the latter.
In regards to freenet specifically (and I don't really agree with the other poster about not using it), I agree that its virtue may be in its inability to be selective, which means that in a legal sense it may be "safer." But that may backfire, in that all freenet users are potential targets for legal action based on content they may not know was on their hard drive.
One can believe in and support the right to free anonymous speech, yet still refuse to extend that support to the act of providing bandwidth for it. Freenet actually stores the files (or parts of them) on your computer; every node is part of the whole. So the grandparent poster is not necessarily against free speech, or even "information anarchy," just because he refuses to store child pr0n on his computer.
Shawn's college roommate invented Napster; Shawn stole the disk while he was asleep. Officially Shawn said he didn't consider it stealing; he was just borrowing the disk to see if he liked it.
Slashdot Mirror
It would really be a story if you could do this without his knowledge. Hehehe... suddenly, Celine Dion plays through his speakers at top volume, and he can't turn it off....
We have a US Federal Justice's findings of fact clearly demonstrating that they already are criminally untrustworthy. Why would this make any more difference?
Sure, that's the window manager, but the stuff that looks like Windows is...guess what.... Windows! It's running in a window under vmware. This screenshot hardly makes the case that fvwm95 looks like windows.
Gotta love slashdot. Where we can spend hours poring over web pages of conversations giving people advice to stay off the web.
Definitely. Cocaine is much cheaper and easier to come by, and you don't need a Doctor's prescription.
Stop posting to slashdot asking why you aren't getting work done.
Mind and body are really one and the same; the split between them is artificial. So changing diet, exercise, etc., will not just improve the physical aspects of attentiveness but also the mental/emotional. I think as you exercise more, quit caffeine, or eat better, you might find that your motivation increases and you may find yourself facing the emotional challenges in your personality in a healthier way.
You shouldn't be able to prevent someone from using your ideas like that, any more than you should be able to prevent a Nazi from footnoting a book you wrote in his own work. Should Nietzsche's estate (or, for that matter, Aristotle's) have been able to sue Hitler for making hateful use of his ideas? If you don't like it, don't make your ideas public. You quote the Berne convention, but frankly I think it goes too far in overturning the purpose of copyright in the American perspective (which was once much more liberal than the European perspective we adopted when we signed onto Berne) -- for the US Constitution, the purpose of copyright is to promote the progress of art and ideas. In other words, it serves a public goal; it is nothing to do with giving an artist the right to control what is done with his ideas. I don't think an artist should get that kind of control (and yes I consider myself an artist in this respect). You shouldn't be able to use an artist's work without crediting it, and you shouldn't be able to distribute that work in toto for a profit, but I don't think an artist should be able to prevent other people from quoting or sampling his work in whatever context they want. That's the tradition behind the US first amendment as well as our copyright laws.
yeah; only on days when I don't feel like getting on my high moral horse.
If you think sharing music is stealing, then don't do it. But if you do it yourself don't point accusatory fingers at everyone else who doesn't think it's criminal.
For example, Rob Base & DJ EZ Rock's 80's (or early 90s?) hit "It Takes Two" has a brilliant beat that is made up of samples directly taken from older funk songs. People knew the songs but nobody thought it was a ripoff; the combination of samples was ingenious. I don't know whether they cleared the samples -- I suspect not, since it was relatively early in the era of the digital sampler and the performance DJ; probably a bit before all the legal maneuvering that resulted in the current practice of "clearing" samples -- but in either case I don't believe they should have to, any more than any blues guitarist should have to pay to incorporate a standard blues progression into a new song. There's a difference between playing the same thing yourself on the guitar and using a sampler to play it only if you don't believe the sampler (or turntable) can itself be a musical instrument.
Now, I do think samples should be credited, absolutely in the case of big hits that turn an obscure old funk riff into dancefloor anthems; the only reason they aren't widely credited is because people are afraid of being sued. I DJ, and I know the crowd goes crazy when they hear what they think is the intro to a Fat Boy Slim song, only to hear the original funk record from the early 70s. Almost every time someone comes up to me and asks me who is remaking a fatboy slim song and I have to explain that it is Camille Yarbrough's beautiful voice that is sampled by Fatboy Slim and not the other way around. Fatboy Slim's song is a totally different song, unique and valid in its own right as an original work of art. But it clearly pays tribute to an earlier work, and the work is clearly credited (though in tiny print).
Now, I'm glad if the artist herself got paid for the sample, though I suspect the deal was cut strictly between record companies. But I don't think it is necessary to pay the artist or "clear" the sample any more than it would be necessary to pay shakespeare's estate for making a modern version of romeo and juliette. I don't object to the economic arrangement or the courtesy call ("We're going to sample your work in this new song and would like to know how you'd like to be credited"), but beyond that I absolutely disagree with an artist's (or company working on behalf of the artist) right to control whether or not you can use a sample. Whether or not Fatboy paid Camille Yarbrough to use the sample, she did get paid from his use of the sample in terms of increased popularity in an era when she would otherwise be forgotten (in fact, she had been forgotten until he came around). In either case I don't think she should have the right to say "no, you can't use the sample at all" to an artist making reasonable use of portions of her work with credit.
What bothers me most is people using that right to stifle artistic expression, prevent parody and silence criticism. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and any successful artist who doesn't see that is too blinded by their own ego to be making the rules about intellectual property.
validate slashdot, if you can. A great solution to the problem; screw making your code valid; just block requests from the validator in robots.txt!
Probably because they'll be read by the FTC, not the SEC.
Just don't get the iTrip unless you live someplace where no radio stations exist.
Why not just "Doomed"?
sharks. Don't forget the sharks. We need some place to put the freakin' lasers!
It's still on their ftp site; look earlier in this discussion, someone posted the link above.
That's because we don't know what they mean.
I have the Griffin iTrip, and it blows. I can't hear a damn thing in my car stereo with it. Apparently it works better in cities with few radio stations (I'm in LA; the airwaves are a little crowded). There are ways to slightly improve reception but it still is a waste of my 30 bucks. I can't find a car stereo with an aux in at my local car stereo dealer. Can anyone suggest one?
As long as you don't do anything stupid like brag on slashdot about where you get your copyrighted material....
even if the start up screen does say "YMRA EHT NOIJ"
...Apple puts a talking paperclip into TextEdit
According to these figures, Apple is DYING. The company's beleaguered, I tell you!
Not really; it's like saying, I support your right to speak, but I'm not going to contribute my resources to your cause if I don't believe in it. I support the right of Nazis to speak; am I thereby obligated to provide them with space on my website, or to buy advertising for them? Supporting the right to free speech and actively facilitating that speech are two different things. I am not obligated by a belief in liberty to do the latter.
In regards to freenet specifically (and I don't really agree with the other poster about not using it), I agree that its virtue may be in its inability to be selective, which means that in a legal sense it may be "safer." But that may backfire, in that all freenet users are potential targets for legal action based on content they may not know was on their hard drive.
One can believe in and support the right to free anonymous speech, yet still refuse to extend that support to the act of providing bandwidth for it. Freenet actually stores the files (or parts of them) on your computer; every node is part of the whole. So the grandparent poster is not necessarily against free speech, or even "information anarchy," just because he refuses to store child pr0n on his computer.
Shawn's college roommate invented Napster; Shawn stole the disk while he was asleep. Officially Shawn said he didn't consider it stealing; he was just borrowing the disk to see if he liked it.