No you could not. If you did.... Microsoft would do you in the ass repeatedly with a team of lawyers. Morally you would be obligated to tell everyone... but, legally they would screw you hard.
I just can imagine some greasy, evil money-changer from the RIAA standing out in front of people's houses collecting a buck for the royalties on "Silent Night" and "Jingle Bells".
Next thing you know... the recording industry will be hooking up little filters over our ears. Everytime we hear a song we will be billed 25 cents. This is getting completely out of control!
What can we do to hasten the demise of the recording industry? *stroking beard* Hmmmmmmm....
I don't have time to trace the whole trail back right now. But, crn.com is owned by CMP Media and they are owned by United Business Media, (a London-based marketing information company). Somebody somewhere up the chain either:
Well, I wonder if Sean Fanning ever realized what a powder-keg his idea was going to be. He was probably just trying to make his own life easier (instead of having to deal with the FTP bullshit). "Aye, Napster, we hardly knew ye!". Rest in peace.
Now, back to KaZaa, WinMX, Gnutella, and Morpheus!;-)
I used to work for one of the major Science/Tech/Medical publishers. Their business model works like this:
1) Sign up a "famous" editor. Someone who is known throughout the field for their research and is respected by his/her peers. This person is expected to do all the editing, peer-review, managment, etc... but usually makes little to no money considering the amount of time spent. Most editors hold their position for prestige not money.
2) Accept submissions from authors (usually researchers, grad students, and teachers). Convince them that they must "publish or perish". Authors receive free reprints of their article once it is published. But, other than that they must sign a waiver and do not get compensated for their work.
3) Publish articles in a Journal 6-12 times a year and sell to schools/libraries on a sliding scale. So far, the publisher has hardly paid a cent for the content. The Editors, Authors, and Peer-reviewers made little or no money on this. The Publisher sent the journal to Malaysia to be typset and printed so it cost them next to nothing. Now, they go to library "A" and offer a subscription for $4,000. Then, they go to college "B" and offer the SAME journal for $8,000.
During the last couple of years there has been some backlash from the libraries and the editors. People are asking: "Why do I have to pay this much money?". Editors have told the publishers to screw off and started their own, private, online Journals. The Publishers are afraid that their revenue stream is going away. They are nothing but middlemen (just like the RIAA) and they are becoming obsolete. Now, it looks like they are trying to sue to keep their jobs!
New.Net domains are Real.Fake. Their version of.kids has nothing to do with the ICANN version being proposed under.kids.us. (Although it is still a hokey second-level domain and not a "real" domain name) The major difference between the two is that.kids.us would be viewable on 100% of the browsers in the US. Whereas the New.Net version would require a browser plugin to see. Additionally, New.Net would install a bunch of spyware and crap on your machine and screw up your DNS settings while the plugin was getting installed.
I think that the judge was wrong in this particular case. I live in MA and I hope that my state plans to appeal this decision (preferable when the Bush administration is out of office). I just read the Final Decree and found an interesting part that I hadn't seen before:
"Starting three months after the entry of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall
make available for use by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating or
communicating with a Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and
non-discriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), any Communications Protocol
that is, on or after the date this Final Judgment is submitted to the Court, (i) implemented
in a Windows Operating System Product installed on a client computer, and (ii) used to
interoperate, or communicate, natively (i.e., without the addition of software code to the
client operating system product) with a Microsoft server operating system product."
So, what impact do you think this will have (if any?) Will this help people who are on projects like SAMBA, WinModems, or USB ???
Re:What? They're not PAYING me to burn their track
on
Burn A Song For 99 Cents
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You are absolutely right in saying that the record companies are not in the charity business. But, they aren't in the music business either. They are dead weight. Outlived. Dinosaurs. They are trying their damndest to carve out a job for themselves.
But, the truth is that we (the listeners and creators) of music don't need them any more. They are just trying real hard to be the middleman. I won't support their hair-brained schemes.
Some guy in the 1890's used to have the market cornered for buggy-whips. But, he was no longer needed and his source of income disappeared. The record companies (as they exist now) will be gone before you know it!
I buy music. I support local bands. And, I support artists who allow me to sample their music in non-proprietary formats (like OGG or MP3). And, I buy music from artists who sell directly. There is no need for me to give my money to the RIAA.
No my friend.... we are set up to fail from day one! There is no way in *hell* that we can get ahead because the deck is stacked against us. Check this site out for a complete explanation:
http://www.perfecteconomy.com/
Don't throw it away! Donate it to charity!
on
Discarded Cell Phones
·
· Score: 4, Informative
T-Mobile USA is a member of the T-Mobile International group, the mobile telecommunications subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom AG. The company used to be known as Voicestream. So, T-mobile bought a GSM network instead of trying to build something from scratch like SprintPCS did. Check out their history here:
Now I have to wait for 3 painfully slow days before I get it in the mail.:-(
I've heard nothing but good things about these units. My two biggest questions for the sales person were this:
1) Does it use a standard 2.5 mm jack that most other cellphones use for the headset?
2) Does it come with (or can I buy) a desktop charger?
She didn't know the answer to number 1 and the answer to number two is "not yet". It comes with a travel-type power supply. But, there was not a nice desktop stand unit available yet.
I can't WAIT to check this thing out! The price is right and the features are great! Why hasn't anyone else been able to come up with one of these before?
One thing that should be noted -- The $39.95/mo. unlimited data rate is only good for one year! After that it becomes $39.95/mo. for 15 MB of transfer and $3.50 / Mb after that.
Affording it is not the problem. It is whether or not I want to gamble. If you release the FULL version of a song and I get to listen to it all the way through for free -- I will pay 75 cents if I like the song. What I won't do is tolerate "samples" like they have on CDNOW (30 seconds of audio in Real or WMA format). If you can't let me listen to the entire song all the way through -- than I'm not spending any money on your download.
You used the analogy of a candy bar. When I go to the store and buy a "Milky Way" I know *exactly* what I'm buying. But, if there are bunch of generic candy bars in non-descript wrappers in a bin that says "75 cents" -- I won't touch it with a 40-foot pole.
You have to realize that MP3s have become a replacement for radio. Rather than listening to your songs on the air -- I download them and check them out. If I like your music -- I'll spend some money. But, I'm not about to throw my money away. I work hard for it... and I don't give it to starving artists because I feel sorry for them. If you impress me with your stuff - I'll open my wallet.
I'd pay.75 per song if I knew that *ALL* of the money was going directly to the artist. I won't pay a middleman. But, you have to get her name out there first. I won't gamble.75 cents on some unknown artist that I've never heard before.
Are you going to release your wife's music on P2P networks? That is one of the few ways that I can think of (besides a web site) to get her name and music out to millions of potential fans. Have you converted to MP3 or OGG format? Do you plan to?
You miss the whole point... it is large, greedy corporations against net-savy users. They want to take over the channels of distribution. Once all the Napsters of the world are gone... these guys are going to set up their *own* distribution channels and keep their status as middle-man. That is why they hate P2P and MP3s... because they can't control them! The net-savy users are telling the large, greedy corporations: "fuck you! you can't tell us what to do..." and the corporations are pissed off -- because for the first time in their lives -- they *can't* control the distribution medium. I don't think it is a crime to share copyrighted songs. The ENTIRE business model needs to change and what better way to initiate that change than start a revolution? The Artists who record music need to wise up and start selling their wares directly to the fans. All of us need to cut the middle-man out of the equation. The RI/MPAA aren't helping us. And they sure as hell aren't helping the artists! It's about time their theiving-racket is stopped.
The only problem with this scenario is that they hold you ransom. What if they raise the price? What if they start putting limits on how much you can download? They got you by the balls with this business model. They have all the power. That is why OGG and MP3 pisses them off so much -- they have absolutely no way to control it. I like to be in control of my music. I can listen to what I want, when I want, where I want -- with whatever hardware/software that I choose. The disk-space argument is kind of weak. You can pick up hard drives for pretty cheap now. I've got a 100Gb in this machine and it cost me next-to-nothing.
Anyone remember swapping files before Napster? We didn't need no stinking P2P network! FTP, IRC, and alt.binaries work too. File sharing is here to stay. There is nothing they can do to stop it.
Slashdot Mirror
No you could not. If you did.... Microsoft would do you in the ass repeatedly with a team of lawyers. Morally you would be obligated to tell everyone ... but, legally they would screw you hard.
And, just think of all the money you paid them even if you only burned data onto the CD-R's.
Here is the new Recording Industry motto:
"CHA-CHING!"
I just can imagine some greasy, evil money-changer from the RIAA standing out in front of people's houses collecting a buck for the royalties on "Silent Night" and "Jingle Bells".
Next thing you know... the recording industry will be hooking up little filters over our ears. Everytime we hear a song we will be billed 25 cents. This is getting completely out of control!
What can we do to hasten the demise of the recording industry? *stroking beard* Hmmmmmmm....
I guess I'll go download another Gig of MP3s.
Mwuahahahahahahahahaha!
I don't have time to trace the whole trail back right now. But, crn.com is owned by CMP Media and they are owned by United Business Media, (a London-based marketing information company). Somebody somewhere up the chain either:
a) Has a lot of Microft stock.
or,
b) Was given a lot of money by Microsoft.
Follow the money and you will find the truth!
I still have mine from "campchaos.com":
Napster Good!
Well, I wonder if Sean Fanning ever realized what a powder-keg his idea was going to be. He was probably just trying to make his own life easier (instead of having to deal with the FTP bullshit). "Aye, Napster, we hardly knew ye!". Rest in peace.
;-)
Now, back to KaZaa, WinMX, Gnutella, and Morpheus!
I used to work for one of the major Science/Tech/Medical publishers. Their business model works like this:
1) Sign up a "famous" editor. Someone who is known throughout the field for their research and is respected by his/her peers. This person is expected to do all the editing, peer-review, managment, etc... but usually makes little to no money considering the amount of time spent. Most editors hold their position for prestige not money.
2) Accept submissions from authors (usually researchers, grad students, and teachers). Convince them that they must "publish or perish". Authors receive free reprints of their article once it is published. But, other than that they must sign a waiver and do not get compensated for their work.
3) Publish articles in a Journal 6-12 times a year and sell to schools/libraries on a sliding scale. So far, the publisher has hardly paid a cent for the content. The Editors, Authors, and Peer-reviewers made little or no money on this. The Publisher sent the journal to Malaysia to be typset and printed so it cost them next to nothing. Now, they go to library "A" and offer a subscription for $4,000. Then, they go to college "B" and offer the SAME journal for $8,000.
During the last couple of years there has been some backlash from the libraries and the editors. People are asking: "Why do I have to pay this much money?". Editors have told the publishers to screw off and started their own, private, online Journals. The Publishers are afraid that their revenue stream is going away. They are nothing but middlemen (just like the RIAA) and they are becoming obsolete. Now, it looks like they are trying to sue to keep their jobs!
New.Net domains are Real.Fake. Their version of .kids has nothing to do with the ICANN version being proposed under .kids.us. (Although it is still a hokey second-level domain and not a "real" domain name) The major difference between the two is that .kids.us would be viewable on 100% of the browsers in the US. Whereas the New.Net version would require a browser plugin to see. Additionally, New.Net would install a bunch of spyware and crap on your machine and screw up your DNS settings while the plugin was getting installed.
This word already exists: "Corporate America".
But, maybe we can simplify it a bit:
"Corpamer" (CORP-Ah-mer): function verb.
Definition: People who have no touch with REALITY, and are living in their own little fantasy world.
"Starting three months after the entry of this Final Judgment to the Court, Microsoft shall make available for use by third parties, for the sole purpose of interoperating or communicating with a Windows Operating System Product, on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (consistent with Section III.I), any Communications Protocol that is, on or after the date this Final Judgment is submitted to the Court, (i) implemented in a Windows Operating System Product installed on a client computer, and (ii) used to interoperate, or communicate, natively (i.e., without the addition of software code to the client operating system product) with a Microsoft server operating system product."
So, what impact do you think this will have (if any?) Will this help people who are on projects like SAMBA, WinModems, or USB ???
You are absolutely right in saying that the record companies are not in the charity business. But, they aren't in the music business either. They are dead weight. Outlived. Dinosaurs. They are trying their damndest to carve out a job for themselves.
But, the truth is that we (the listeners and creators) of music don't need them any more. They are just trying real hard to be the middleman. I won't support their hair-brained schemes.
Some guy in the 1890's used to have the market cornered for buggy-whips. But, he was no longer needed and his source of income disappeared. The record companies (as they exist now) will be gone before you know it!
I buy music. I support local bands. And, I support artists who allow me to sample their music in non-proprietary formats (like OGG or MP3). And, I buy music from artists who sell directly. There is no need for me to give my money to the RIAA.
The maximum price I will pay is 25 cents and I want the songs in OGG or MP3 format.... no DRM bullshit (ie: Windows Media format).
P2P Radio is our future!
No my friend.... we are set up to fail from day one! There is no way in *hell* that we can get ahead because the deck is stacked against us. Check this site out for a complete explanation: http://www.perfecteconomy.com/
http://www.wirelessfoundation.org/12give/index2.cf m
Donated Phones are Tax Deductible!
Check it out here
T-Mobile USA is a member of the T-Mobile International group, the mobile telecommunications subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom AG. The company used to be known as Voicestream. So, T-mobile bought a GSM network instead of trying to build something from scratch like SprintPCS did. Check out their history here:
http://www.t-mobile.com/company/about/
Now I have to wait for 3 painfully slow days before I get it in the mail. :-(
I've heard nothing but good things about these units. My two biggest questions for the sales person were this:
1) Does it use a standard 2.5 mm jack that most other cellphones use for the headset?
2) Does it come with (or can I buy) a desktop charger?
She didn't know the answer to number 1 and the answer to number two is "not yet". It comes with a travel-type power supply. But, there was not a nice desktop stand unit available yet.
I can't WAIT to check this thing out! The price is right and the features are great! Why hasn't anyone else been able to come up with one of these before?
One thing that should be noted -- The $39.95/mo. unlimited data rate is only good for one year! After that it becomes $39.95/mo. for 15 MB of transfer and $3.50 / Mb after that.
Affording it is not the problem. It is whether or not I want to gamble. If you release the FULL version of a song and I get to listen to it all the way through for free -- I will pay 75 cents if I like the song. What I won't do is tolerate "samples" like they have on CDNOW (30 seconds of audio in Real or WMA format). If you can't let me listen to the entire song all the way through -- than I'm not spending any money on your download.
You used the analogy of a candy bar. When I go to the store and buy a "Milky Way" I know *exactly* what I'm buying. But, if there are bunch of generic candy bars in non-descript wrappers in a bin that says "75 cents" -- I won't touch it with a 40-foot pole.
You have to realize that MP3s have become a replacement for radio. Rather than listening to your songs on the air -- I download them and check them out. If I like your music -- I'll spend some money. But, I'm not about to throw my money away. I work hard for it... and I don't give it to starving artists because I feel sorry for them. If you impress me with your stuff - I'll open my wallet.
I'd pay .75 per song if I knew that *ALL* of the money was going directly to the artist. I won't pay a middleman. But, you have to get her name out there first. I won't gamble .75 cents on some unknown artist that I've never heard before.
Are you going to release your wife's music on P2P networks? That is one of the few ways that I can think of (besides a web site) to get her name and music out to millions of potential fans. Have you converted to MP3 or OGG format? Do you plan to?
You miss the whole point... it is large, greedy corporations against net-savy users. They want to take over the channels of distribution. Once all the Napsters of the world are gone ... these guys are going to set up their *own* distribution channels and keep their status as middle-man. That is why they hate P2P and MP3s ... because they can't control them! The net-savy users are telling the large, greedy corporations: "fuck you! you can't tell us what to do..." and the corporations are pissed off -- because for the first time in their lives -- they *can't* control the distribution medium. I don't think it is a crime to share copyrighted songs. The ENTIRE business model needs to change and what better way to initiate that change than start a revolution? The Artists who record music need to wise up and start selling their wares directly to the fans. All of us need to cut the middle-man out of the equation. The RI/MPAA aren't helping us. And they sure as hell aren't helping the artists! It's about time their theiving-racket is stopped.
The only problem with this scenario is that they hold you ransom. What if they raise the price? What if they start putting limits on how much you can download? They got you by the balls with this business model. They have all the power. That is why OGG and MP3 pisses them off so much -- they have absolutely no way to control it. I like to be in control of my music. I can listen to what I want, when I want, where I want -- with whatever hardware/software that I choose. The disk-space argument is kind of weak. You can pick up hard drives for pretty cheap now. I've got a 100Gb in this machine and it cost me next-to-nothing.
Anyone remember swapping files before Napster? We didn't need no stinking P2P network! FTP, IRC, and alt.binaries work too. File sharing is here to stay. There is nothing they can do to stop it.