Who in their right mind would pay $20,000+ for a domain like that? I can understand if some company actually used that name and intended on using it for their website, but....
Actually, today there was an article in the student newspaper claiming that Metallica has gone after UVa as well now. Speaking of which, to gain internet access, you must take a short "responsible usage quiz," on which there is a question about whether or not you should use napster.
They could make a report saying that cell phones turn people into complete vegetables and I would doubt that the majority of people would stop using them. Hell, they probably do turn people into vegetables.
Maybe finally the record labels are going to see that this is inevitable and will start cutting deals with mp3.com to get their music here. Hopefully they'll see that if you can't stop it, you might as well join it.
Umm, this isn't going to change anything. If it's available and people want it, they'll pay for it. I doubt it's going to come to signing a waiver and taking an aptitude test before you can get high speed access.
But don't mind me, I'll be sitting in my corner with my two cans and a string. Haven't been DoS'd by script kiddies yet...
How the hell is this offtopic? I long for the day when it when it doesn't just take the ability to click a mouse button, but instead some thinking skills to moderate a slashdot post.
My point is that Sony doesn't need the money, and they only want the piracy to stop. So it would be in everyone's best interest to just pull all pirated music from the site. It's obvious that they want a part of mp3 future since they want to do this on a royalty basis, so what good does the $20 million do other than corporate greed.
Don't get me wrong, I believe this is piracy and the people responsible should be punished, but a big fine doesn't realyl accomplish much especially if Sony now wants a role in what mp3.com does.
After the parties started, they stopped carding (I know with both of the VA places anyway). I simply waltzed right into the pool hall about an hour after it started along with a group of friends (all underage) and met up with other friends who were all over 21. The only time we were stopped was for them to put wrist bands on us indicating that we were 21.
It was a pretty cool party. I played pool with some people from VA, and was at the table next to Don Becker and two tables down from Linus himeself.
It may be just me, but $20 million seems like a lot of money for a company that doesn't really do anything. Second, this is going to set a VERY bad precendent for all other cases like this; "maybe if we sue enough people, someone will give in and give us some money." Though I guess that's the American Dream now, isn't it?
Wrong!
Metallica owns all of their music which was recorded prior to 1999 (when this law was written). And therefore has every right to sue for copyright infringement. And frankly, they're correct in doing so.
Has anyone seriosuly compared the time it takes to write something via hand writing recognition (i.e. on a Palm) vs. the time it takes with a keyboard?
Is there anyone that actually writes faster without a keyboard? I don't see why this is a feature other than possibly the size and durability of the laptop. I'm also sure a regular keyboard can function with far more dirt and debris on it than a tablet can....
It's funny, with more and more "internet appliances" coming onto the market, they each are more and more expensive. Each new appliance has more features than the competition, it's almost as if their goal is a complete PC. The irony is that eventually you'll be able to buy a complete PC for the same price (as seen with the eMachines).
The real question is, is the added performance and durability going to be at a much higher price? Since "Crusoe", "Transmeta", and "Linux" are the hot new buzzwords, I'd be worried about over inflated price tags (even though Transmeta gave a rather low projected cost for the chip itself).
The administrators of this site need to get their act together. This is probably the 20th time I've submitted a story and a week later it gets posted to slashdot under someone else's name. It's hard to believe that someone actually sent this in before me, since I submitted it the night of the press release...
It pisses me off, they should bother to actually read the submissions rather than postign randomly.
Although this is a landmark case, it's not going to have results such as making virii and cracks legal. Although the software itself would be legal, it's how you use it that makes it illegal. Using cracks is still a violation of copyrights, and infecting someone else's computer with a virus is still illegal. The difference is that the actual code behind it isn't illegal to posess. This would also apply to DeCSS, having the program isn't illegal, nor is viewing DVDs which you have rented or own, however using it to illegally copy DVDs is still illegal. It's all about how you use it.
This is a major landmark decision. Not only for DeCSS, but for other recent cases too. I'm wondering how if anyone is going to bring this up in relation to the DeCSS hearing, and if the MPAA will still persist (though we all know the answer to that).
Slashdot Mirror
Who in their right mind would pay $20,000+ for a domain like that? I can understand if some company actually used that name and intended on using it for their website, but....
Actually, today there was an article in the student newspaper claiming that Metallica has gone after UVa as well now. Speaking of which, to gain internet access, you must take a short "responsible usage quiz," on which there is a question about whether or not you should use napster.
They could make a report saying that cell phones turn people into complete vegetables and I would doubt that the majority of people would stop using them. Hell, they probably do turn people into vegetables.
Maybe finally the record labels are going to see that this is inevitable and will start cutting deals with mp3.com to get their music here. Hopefully they'll see that if you can't stop it, you might as well join it.
Umm, this isn't going to change anything. If it's available and people want it, they'll pay for it. I doubt it's going to come to signing a waiver and taking an aptitude test before you can get high speed access.
But don't mind me, I'll be sitting in my corner with my two cans and a string. Haven't been DoS'd by script kiddies yet...
o/~ she's a model and she's looking good, I'd like to take her home, that is understood o/~ --Kraftwerk
How the hell is this offtopic? I long for the day when it when it doesn't just take the ability to click a mouse button, but instead some thinking skills to moderate a slashdot post.
My point is that Sony doesn't need the money, and they only want the piracy to stop. So it would be in everyone's best interest to just pull all pirated music from the site. It's obvious that they want a part of mp3 future since they want to do this on a royalty basis, so what good does the $20 million do other than corporate greed.
Don't get me wrong, I believe this is piracy and the people responsible should be punished, but a big fine doesn't realyl accomplish much especially if Sony now wants a role in what mp3.com does.
After the parties started, they stopped carding (I know with both of the VA places anyway). I simply waltzed right into the pool hall about an hour after it started along with a group of friends (all underage) and met up with other friends who were all over 21. The only time we were stopped was for them to put wrist bands on us indicating that we were 21.
It was a pretty cool party. I played pool with some people from VA, and was at the table next to Don Becker and two tables down from Linus himeself.
It may be just me, but $20 million seems like a lot of money for a company that doesn't really do anything. Second, this is going to set a VERY bad precendent for all other cases like this; "maybe if we sue enough people, someone will give in and give us some money." Though I guess that's the American Dream now, isn't it?
Wrong! Metallica owns all of their music which was recorded prior to 1999 (when this law was written). And therefore has every right to sue for copyright infringement. And frankly, they're correct in doing so.
Has anyone seriosuly compared the time it takes to write something via hand writing recognition (i.e. on a Palm) vs. the time it takes with a keyboard?
Is there anyone that actually writes faster without a keyboard? I don't see why this is a feature other than possibly the size and durability of the laptop. I'm also sure a regular keyboard can function with far more dirt and debris on it than a tablet can....
Is there anything super special about this new release? Or is it just another release filled with bugfixes, etc.?
amen.
Hmm, it is rather curious that most other free software changes significantly more over a few years....
Is it just me?
It's funny, with more and more "internet appliances" coming onto the market, they each are more and more expensive. Each new appliance has more features than the competition, it's almost as if their goal is a complete PC. The irony is that eventually you'll be able to buy a complete PC for the same price (as seen with the eMachines).
Who says that performance is just measured in clock speed?
The real question is, is the added performance and durability going to be at a much higher price? Since "Crusoe", "Transmeta", and "Linux" are the hot new buzzwords, I'd be worried about over inflated price tags (even though Transmeta gave a rather low projected cost for the chip itself).
because *I* care.
The administrators of this site need to get their act together. This is probably the 20th time I've submitted a story and a week later it gets posted to slashdot under someone else's name. It's hard to believe that someone actually sent this in before me, since I submitted it the night of the press release...
It pisses me off, they should bother to actually read the submissions rather than postign randomly.
Quicktime for Linux already exists. It is just not being released yet because Apple wants to see if Linux is a "threat"
I guess you didn't read or understand what I was talking about...
Although this is a landmark case, it's not going to have results such as making virii and cracks legal. Although the software itself would be legal, it's how you use it that makes it illegal. Using cracks is still a violation of copyrights, and infecting someone else's computer with a virus is still illegal. The difference is that the actual code behind it isn't illegal to posess. This would also apply to DeCSS, having the program isn't illegal, nor is viewing DVDs which you have rented or own, however using it to illegally copy DVDs is still illegal. It's all about how you use it.
This is a major landmark decision. Not only for DeCSS, but for other recent cases too. I'm wondering how if anyone is going to bring this up in relation to the DeCSS hearing, and if the MPAA will still persist (though we all know the answer to that).
it's a movie review, you dolt. it's all opinion!