Not knowning all that much about how the EU is layed out, perhaps you can fill me in. Is the democratically elected body some how superior to the appointed body in all matters?
If so, then you may have a legitimate concern. However, if as I suspect it is not, then the system would seem to be working as it was designed and you may have a bigger fight on your hands than just one piece of legislation if you expect to stop this thing.
I decided to give the Yahoo music store a shot and signed up for a year subscription (still within my trial period though) and basically I have to agree with you.
I was and still am a diehard music collector, but at the price point ($60/year) it is hard to pass up for the amount of music you have access to. I consider it to be a preview service more than anything where you can download an album or two of a band and decide if its worth buying. If it saves me from buying 5 bad discs a year I've made up my subscription fee.
That said, I would never consider using it as my main source of music due to the DRM/lock-in issues, but as a supplement to my vinyl/cd collection and as a way to preview before buying it performs admirably for the price.
Just because something doesn't work out in the end doesn't mean that it was pointless to try. I'm sure there were a few nifty bits here and there that came out of the research for missle defense that were useful in other areas.
I just tried it with a song which I have been trying to figure out off and on for awhile. 411-song failed on two attempts, which I suppose isn't too suprising. On the bright side they claim that I won't be charged since they didn't identify the song.
Moodlogic as suggested by other people seems to want me to identify the artist and song title before it will tell me the artist and song title which seems about as worthless as anything.
Ladies and Gentlemen, come one, come all!! See karma whoring in its truest form!! Watch in amazement as a question is asked which could easily have been answered by Google, watch as 17 essential identical responses are posted in hopes of being modded "Informative". The showing is free, free, free but hurry as seats will go quickly.
I have to agree with the parent to your post. Allofmp3.com has a horrible selection from the limited searching that I did:
BBQ The Oblivians The Gories Hasil Adkins Dan Melchior Thee Headcoats The New Bomb Turks
All show up on the Yahoo thing but not on Allofmp3.com. Not a single one of those can be remotely considered a "latest boy band or latest greatest industry created diva".
Maybe Allofmp3.com caters to a different crowd of music listeners, but it sure doesn't seem to have anything that I would like.
Apple should think carefully whether they want to move even further away from UNIX sysadmin standards as they already have.
Why would Apple care? They're main market isn't hardcore UNIX folk, its normal people who just want the damn thing to work correctly without too much hassle.
Why not? If the copyright has expired, it becomes much harder for them to see any point in retaining the copy in their archives, and it becomes extremely hard for them to argue against releasing it to a public archive such as the Library of Congress.
Actually it is incredibly easy for them to argue against it:
Person: I see that the copyright for your recording of A has expired, can you make that recording freely available to the public.
Record Company: Sorry, we don't know where that tape is right now. Good Bye.
The public can't rely on record companies to archive everything for them and then freely release them when the copyrights have expired. It's just as easy for a record company to destroy an old recording as it is for them to release it to the public. Like it or not, record companies are in this business for profit, not to provide a service to the public. If you want better availability write your congressfolk and ask them to provide more funding for public libraries, or donate to projects like archive.org.
At a certain point, diminishing returns makes it impractical for copyright to provide a benefit to copyright holders, but still harms the public by impairing their freedom of action.
Lack of copyright does not garantee that a copy will be available for public use. If the records companies have tapes of old recordings for which the copyright has expired, they are under no obligation to allow the public to use those recordings. Not only that, but they probably wouldn't be any more willing to provide the public with a copy when the copyright has expired than they were when the copyright was still active.
I personally have tried get my hands on several recordings that are owned by various music houses. One very popular record label only offers 4% of it's catalogue for sale. I've also tried to get printings of a large number of books. Sometimes you can get lucky and find them in used book or record shops, but for the most part they are just not available. That means pretty much no one can read, watch, or listen to the vast majority of the copyrighted material for the last 60 years. Some of those works are amazing and would probably be regarded as great artistic works if only anyone could see or hear them.
The record companies stop selling those for a reason: very very few people have any interest in them. Do you honestly believe they would be any more readily available if copyright laws were changed?
You seem to be fighiting economics rather than copyright here.
While ChuckSchwab appears to be an idiot of the highest caliber, he does make a valid point about downloading not quite equaling theft.
The barrier someone must cross to decide that they will download a song is much much lower than the barrier for that person to buy the song due to basic economics. Of all the people who downloaded a song, only a fraction would have purchased the song at normal price, so you really can't say that the artist is being deprived of $10 just because 10 people downloaded a song which normally costs $1.
Whether or not "stealing" requires the victim to lose the piece of property which was stolen is a matter for debate. The real issue with downloading music is the right of reproduction. Technically "illegally reporduction" would be a more correct term than "stealing".
Re:A site like this is fine...
on
EZTree Shuts Down
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The Grateful Dead are perfectly fine with distribution of their lives shows. In fact, you can go here and download 2775 of them right now (in flac, shn or other lossless codes).
I read the article, which states some guy as claiming that the inventors withheld RFC's. Perhaps you can point out the RFC's which would be considered relavent prior art.
I checked here which seems to list RFC's pertaining to IPv6, but didn't see much which would be considered all that relevant to this patent.
Your forgot one letter: WIPO. They don't actually grant patents, but they do accept filings through a patent cooperation treaty (PCT) that allows you to file your application in multiple countries simultaneously.
I would't be terribly suprised if WIPO turns into what you describe at some point.
Nope, but the numbers are dwindling. There seem to be very few true music fans in the world who will buy albums and actually listen to the entire album, attend live concerts, actively search for new music instead of waiting for MTV/radio to tell them what to listen to, etc.
It's a sad state of affairs when a large portion of the world can't seem to take the time to listen to anything but the hit singles of a band and complains that albums aren't worth buying because there is only 1 or 2 good songs. Here's a thought: if you only like 1 or 2 songs of a band, chances are you don't like that band. Go find something else to listen to, there is definitely good stuff out there but you have to find it yourself.
Pop-up free for me, but adblock did block two javascript items which is probably why. With a combination of adblock and userContent.css in firefox I'm still pop-up ad free.
You might want to try something similar. If things get really desparate, using an blocking HOSTS file can help as well.
Random numbers predict the future! Unfortunately the people in charge of reading them are so far behind that they don't know what was predicted until after it happens.
Passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood. Passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood. Passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood. Passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood.
Slashdot Mirror
Not knowning all that much about how the EU is layed out, perhaps you can fill me in. Is the democratically elected body some how superior to the appointed body in all matters?
If so, then you may have a legitimate concern. However, if as I suspect it is not, then the system would seem to be working as it was designed and you may have a bigger fight on your hands than just one piece of legislation if you expect to stop this thing.
I decided to give the Yahoo music store a shot and signed up for a year subscription (still within my trial period though) and basically I have to agree with you.
I was and still am a diehard music collector, but at the price point ($60/year) it is hard to pass up for the amount of music you have access to. I consider it to be a preview service more than anything where you can download an album or two of a band and decide if its worth buying. If it saves me from buying 5 bad discs a year I've made up my subscription fee.
That said, I would never consider using it as my main source of music due to the DRM/lock-in issues, but as a supplement to my vinyl/cd collection and as a way to preview before buying it performs admirably for the price.
What about those who CAN but don't WANT to?
Just because something doesn't work out in the end doesn't mean that it was pointless to try. I'm sure there were a few nifty bits here and there that came out of the research for missle defense that were useful in other areas.
Wrong link, try here: http://www.wfmu.org/listen.ram?show=14706.
Sorry
I just tried it with a song which I have been trying to figure out off and on for awhile. 411-song failed on two attempts, which I suppose isn't too suprising. On the bright side they claim that I won't be charged since they didn't identify the song.
Moodlogic as suggested by other people seems to want me to identify the artist and song title before it will tell me the artist and song title which seems about as worthless as anything.
If anyone wants to take a crack at it, it is the second song played in this rm file: Glen Jones Radio Programme April 3, 2005
Ladies and Gentlemen, come one, come all!! See karma whoring in its truest form!! Watch in amazement as a question is asked which could easily have been answered by Google, watch as 17 essential identical responses are posted in hopes of being modded "Informative". The showing is free, free, free but hurry as seats will go quickly.
Seriously, were all 17 answers really necessary?
I have to agree with the parent to your post. Allofmp3.com has a horrible selection from the limited searching that I did:
BBQ
The Oblivians
The Gories
Hasil Adkins
Dan Melchior
Thee Headcoats
The New Bomb Turks
All show up on the Yahoo thing but not on Allofmp3.com. Not a single one of those can be remotely considered a "latest boy band or latest greatest industry created diva".
Maybe Allofmp3.com caters to a different crowd of music listeners, but it sure doesn't seem to have anything that I would like.
Apple should think carefully whether they want to move even further away from UNIX sysadmin standards as they already have.
Why would Apple care? They're main market isn't hardcore UNIX folk, its normal people who just want the damn thing to work correctly without too much hassle.
Look up interference practice in the MPEP sometime.
Actually it is incredibly easy for them to argue against it:The public can't rely on record companies to archive everything for them and then freely release them when the copyrights have expired. It's just as easy for a record company to destroy an old recording as it is for them to release it to the public. Like it or not, record companies are in this business for profit, not to provide a service to the public. If you want better availability write your congressfolk and ask them to provide more funding for public libraries, or donate to projects like archive.org.
Sounds a lot like a patent.
At a certain point, diminishing returns makes it impractical for copyright to provide a benefit to copyright holders, but still harms the public by impairing their freedom of action.
Lack of copyright does not garantee that a copy will be available for public use. If the records companies have tapes of old recordings for which the copyright has expired, they are under no obligation to allow the public to use those recordings. Not only that, but they probably wouldn't be any more willing to provide the public with a copy when the copyright has expired than they were when the copyright was still active.
I personally have tried get my hands on several recordings that are owned by various music houses. One very popular record label only offers 4% of it's catalogue for sale. I've also tried to get printings of a large number of books. Sometimes you can get lucky and find them in used book or record shops, but for the most part they are just not available. That means pretty much no one can read, watch, or listen to the vast majority of the copyrighted material for the last 60 years. Some of those works are amazing and would probably be regarded as great artistic works if only anyone could see or hear them.
The record companies stop selling those for a reason: very very few people have any interest in them. Do you honestly believe they would be any more readily available if copyright laws were changed?
You seem to be fighiting economics rather than copyright here.
While ChuckSchwab appears to be an idiot of the highest caliber, he does make a valid point about downloading not quite equaling theft.
The barrier someone must cross to decide that they will download a song is much much lower than the barrier for that person to buy the song due to basic economics. Of all the people who downloaded a song, only a fraction would have purchased the song at normal price, so you really can't say that the artist is being deprived of $10 just because 10 people downloaded a song which normally costs $1.
Whether or not "stealing" requires the victim to lose the piece of property which was stolen is a matter for debate. The real issue with downloading music is the right of reproduction. Technically "illegally reporduction" would be a more correct term than "stealing".
The Grateful Dead are perfectly fine with distribution of their lives shows. In fact, you can go here and download 2775 of them right now (in flac, shn or other lossless codes).
Not sure about other countries, but the USPTO has patent depository libraries scattered throughout the US. See here for details.
I read the article, which states some guy as claiming that the inventors withheld RFC's. Perhaps you can point out the RFC's which would be considered relavent prior art.
I checked here which seems to list RFC's pertaining to IPv6, but didn't see much which would be considered all that relevant to this patent.
Do you have any proof that this is fraudulent?
Why not try an interlibrary loan at your local library? There are more ways to obtain articles than simply searching online.
Your forgot one letter: WIPO. They don't actually grant patents, but they do accept filings through a patent cooperation treaty (PCT) that allows you to file your application in multiple countries simultaneously.
I would't be terribly suprised if WIPO turns into what you describe at some point.
Tomorrow on Slashdot, how to turn an ordinary car into a convertible by removing the roof.
Nope, but the numbers are dwindling. There seem to be very few true music fans in the world who will buy albums and actually listen to the entire album, attend live concerts, actively search for new music instead of waiting for MTV/radio to tell them what to listen to, etc.
It's a sad state of affairs when a large portion of the world can't seem to take the time to listen to anything but the hit singles of a band and complains that albums aren't worth buying because there is only 1 or 2 good songs. Here's a thought: if you only like 1 or 2 songs of a band, chances are you don't like that band. Go find something else to listen to, there is definitely good stuff out there but you have to find it yourself.
Pop-up free for me, but adblock did block two javascript items which is probably why. With a combination of adblock and userContent.css in firefox I'm still pop-up ad free.
You might want to try something similar. If things get really desparate, using an blocking HOSTS file can help as well.
fark? This sounds more like an Onion story to me.
Random numbers predict the future! Unfortunately the people in charge of reading them are so far behind that they don't know what was predicted until after it happens.
Passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood. Passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood. Passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood. Passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood.