P2P allows a person to access the music of real musicians, not the musicians choosen by record companies because of their image and their ability to sell.
and what type of music are people sharing? britney spears, N'sync,backstreet boys, and creed to name a few (otherwise, why would the record companies be so pissed, and why would you fight so hard for your "freedom to share").
these "real" musicians you are talking about will never be found, because you have to know their name first.
The only music p2p is good for, is popular, promoted music produced by the recording industry.
so it's all right for the programmer to FUCK the end users then?
you dumbshit, you really don't get it, do you?
Hey, if you feel that way, let me encrypt your entire hard drive and then I'll send you the key. and every time you change something in your hardware or copy a file to another machine or burn a CD you have to ask me for another KEY.
this is totally off-topic. Sounds like you don't know wht the fuck you are even talking about
would you like that? you sound like it would be heaven to you
heaven to me is getting paid for the hard work I have performed.
IMHO, piracy is good. It is the only weapon against the big corporations. The RIAA and the MPAA are whining about how much profit they loose. The truth is the they are very profitable. The "piracy" commited by home users just levels the playing field. It makes the system a little bit more balanced. What I mean is that these corporations are very rich. Without "piracy", they will be mega-rich. You may even call it civil disobidience
so just because they are "mega-rich", means we should take their rights away. What is too rich? Is it really for YOU to decide?
I have at least 5-10 apps that I paid for that are MINE and I cannot use because the moron-over-greedy programmer wrote it for a special key that changes each time. well now he is long-gone and I haveto scour warez and crack sites looking for either a keygen or a crack for that program.
programmers build keys like this into their programs, so they don't get fucked out of the hard earned money, that they deserve. Many companies hire programmers to do a job, and after they have the program in their possession, decide to pay only half the original amount, or none at all. This ensures that if the programmer doesn't get paid, the company doesn't use his program.
Another (unrelated) point is I (personally) hope freedom of Internet based distribution will be the death of the media company created mega star and that musicians will beable to make a living without havin to sell bucket loads of CD's since they would get a much much greater share of the pie.
unfortunatly, napster, kazaa, and every other non-paying music sharing service has convinced the average joe user, that music is free. Do you actually think it makes even a small difference, that the artist is selling the track, and not the RIAA? a new excuse will be thought of, as to why people NEED music for free. (just look at movies and software).
They both prove the socialist model does work for information based technologies such as source code,math, music, things like that
so just how is napster a proof of a socialist system "working"? Music was taken from thr artists, without any permission, and given away for free. Im going to start giving out $100 bills. What? it's really popular? A socialist bank must be a good idea...
if artists were giving out their OWN music on napster, I might just consider it a working idea.
Honestly all information should be open and free, medicine patents too.
However, some things cant be free anytime soon, like real labor, construction, these keep us from being able to go completely socialist.
We should however adapt capitalism.
wow, how considerate of you.
Re:ahem... COPYRIGHTS are NOT PROPERTY RIGHTS !!!
on
Reclaiming the Commons
·
· Score: 1
The right to controll what you produce is not a right after it leaves your domain. If I buy an apple from the store, they can't tell me how to eat it, who to share it with, or how I can resell it. If I take the sead of the apple and grow 10 coppies of it, that is my right too, and they can't tell me what to do with those eaither. The producers rights end when the apple leavs their domain, even if the apple can be coppied and distributed without cost. They are free to get money from the first sell, and they are free to provide apple services, make apple pies, etc... But what I do with that Apple after the fact is MY DAM RIGHT not theirs.
bad example.
unfortunatly, apples are naturally grown, and aren't "owned" by anyone. Now a new music album, on the other hand, is a creative work that could not have been gotten without the artist, so it SHOULD be copyrighted.
Software, however, comes with no such luck. You can't try it out at the shop (Apple Store excluded). You can't open it, discover it's shit (*cough* daikatana *cough* *cough* windows xp), and return it. You are required to guess whether you need it, shell out $50-$400 for it, and sign away your rights to share it, sell it, fix it, critize it and in some cases, even use it for its intended purpose, as well as the company's liabilities for their own mistakes.
that's because you can easily make a duplicate, *cough* return it, and never have to pay a dime. (which many people would do, if givin the chance).
and copyright infringers are mostly to blame for this.
Obviously, Free Software producers must be able to deny warranties, since they are not getting the consideration (money) necessary to provide them. People who want warranties should be able to buy them, either from the software producer, another software shop, or an insurance company.
now you know why many companies aren't using open sourced software.
Does that mean I can expect lower quality from Open Source? When a software shop doesn't offer liability or warrenty on software, it makes me wonder if even they themselves question its reliability.
What is needed to finally grab hold of these markets that seem so out of reach, is a single entity
I would just point them in the FreeBsd Direction. It is one single entity, and joe business user doesn't really give a shit whether it's "free" or not.
The next american revolution is coming and peace has already had its chance.
I think if there is another revolution, it sure as hell won't be about the RIAA and MPAA stopping kiddies on the Internet from getting their IP for free......
Re:Why not a partnership?
on
Borrowing ROMs
·
· Score: 1
So just what makes you think I'd buy Mario 2? There are many people (including me) who will try software simply because its free, but would rather go without instead of paying for it. Some things just aren't worth my money.
I have the same thoughts about that new BMW I see at the car dealership, but unfortunatly they call it stealing (im not sure why).
Re:Why not a partnership?
on
Borrowing ROMs
·
· Score: 1
That person will go out and buy a copy of Super Mario Advance so they can play it without emu bugs and on the bus, during coffee breaks, etc.
unfortunatly, you can get flash cartridges for GBA or GB, that will allow you to play any game you download, bug free.
Re:Changes the dynamic of the business
on
Borrowing ROMs
·
· Score: 1
I think that the music studios need to recognize that they must compete with free by selling quality, diversity, and convenience. Much of that applies to the other industries, too.
the music studios should only have to compete with free, if it's music that they have not created themselves, otherwise it's similar to a company having to compete with thieves.
Yes, thats why we need a new model for this sort of thing. Why don't i just try to sell the light from the sun? That'd be rather foolish, wouldn't it?
the sun isn't a man-made object that took creativity to manufacture...
Cars are not data, and cannot be copied with almost no cost. So you obviously missed the point of my post.
im afraid you missed my point. Cars, like anything else man-made (including IP), are not something that just appear one day. If adobe wasn't around to create photoshop, you would have no photoshop to copy. (trhis is where value comes in).
If IP is so worthless, why have things like the GPL? It seems the FSF goes after people for violating it....
Yes, thats why we need a new model for this sort of thing
yes, we do. We need a way to keep money-grubbing fuck like you from stealing others' IP.
What if i had a device to clone the Stratus (a la star trek)? Have i stolen anything? I didn't buy the car from them, but they aren't missing it either. And if such technology did exist, wouldn't it make such matters irrelevent since we can produce cars effortlessly and with little cost?
it costs nothing to replicate, but sometimes it costs millions of dollars to actually CREATE software such as adobe photoshop. This is what you are taking away from a company by pirating it. (or paying for when you actually buy it).
Such technology does not exist for cars, but it does for sound, video and other data. Data can be cloned endlessly, thus it has no value. So why are we artifically trying to keep something scarce that we can copy endlessly?
data has no value?
Then lets see you "create" the movie the matrix at your house, or how about the new creed album? or how about a car? If you can't (and you have an actualy use for them), it means the items in question have a value.
This is why the BSA targets corporations only, they know that if they went after the public that the ACLU, FSF would bring a whole pile of trouble on their heads, and BSA's customers won't want to be associated with this so the BSA would lose its funding.
is that before or after the hypocritical FSF goes after a company for violating the GPL?
I don't want to pay $15 if the artist is only going to see 10 cents of that.
so you just download their music, and they see $0. Makes perfect sense.
what about the millions of dollars it cost to promote such music? or produce it? or distribute it? Or is that conveniently forgotton so you can justify getting music for free.
I don't personally care who has jurasdiction, though. My problem is that they are somehow saying that Graffitists and Burglars deserve the same punishment as Murderers, and harsher punishment than Rapists, but only if their crime doesn't involve real, physical property. If they vandilize or steal something that actually exists in the physical world, well, 6 months in the county jail and 12 months probation is just fine.
YOU obviously didn't read the article. Hackers that knowingly (or accidentally) cause death by some means (taking over a flight controller as an example) get life in prison. Johnny script-kiddy that takes down a few websites does not.
Slashdot Mirror
P2P allows a person to access the music of real musicians, not the musicians choosen by record companies because of their image and their ability to sell.
and what type of music are people sharing? britney spears, N'sync,backstreet boys, and creed to name a few (otherwise, why would the record companies be so pissed, and why would you fight so hard for your "freedom to share").
these "real" musicians you are talking about will never be found, because you have to know their name first.
The only music p2p is good for, is popular, promoted music produced by the recording industry.
so it's all right for the programmer to FUCK the end users then?
you dumbshit, you really don't get it, do you?
Hey, if you feel that way, let me encrypt your entire hard drive and then I'll send you the key. and every time you change something in your hardware or copy a file to another machine or burn a CD you have to ask me for another KEY.
this is totally off-topic. Sounds like you don't know wht the fuck you are even talking about
would you like that? you sound like it would be heaven to you
heaven to me is getting paid for the hard work I have performed.
IMHO, piracy is good. It is the only weapon against the big corporations. The RIAA and the MPAA are whining about how much profit they loose. The truth is the they are very profitable. The "piracy" commited by home users just levels the playing field. It makes the system a little bit more balanced. What I mean is that these corporations are very rich. Without "piracy", they will be mega-rich. You may even call it civil disobidience
so just because they are "mega-rich", means we should take their rights away. What is too rich? Is it really for YOU to decide?
I have at least 5-10 apps that I paid for that are MINE and I cannot use because the moron-over-greedy programmer wrote it for a special key that changes each time. well now he is long-gone and I haveto scour warez and crack sites looking for either a keygen or a crack for that program.
programmers build keys like this into their programs, so they don't get fucked out of the hard earned money, that they deserve. Many companies hire programmers to do a job, and after they have the program in their possession, decide to pay only half the original amount, or none at all. This ensures that if the programmer doesn't get paid, the company doesn't use his program.
I dont want to hear manson, or metallica saying they hate peer to peer, people who cant make good music hate peer to peer
Their triple or quadruple platinum albums MUST be due to their shitty music...
Now the fans are in control, we decide what to pay for
before P2P, you always have had the choice of choosing "what to pay for". (you still do now) It's not like the RIAA had a gun to your head..
Music is not personal property, its public property.
When you release Music, it now belongs to the public.
if this had any truth to it at all, the GNU would not exist (after all, code belongs to the pubic after it is released).
You cannot control distribution, you can only profit from it
really? as usually you are full of complete shit.
why did many gnu supporters on slashdot think this was theft
Another (unrelated) point is I (personally) hope freedom of Internet based distribution will be the death of the media company created mega star and that musicians will beable to make a living without havin to sell bucket loads of CD's since they would get a much much greater share of the pie.
unfortunatly, napster, kazaa, and every other non-paying music sharing service has convinced the average joe user, that music is free. Do you actually think it makes even a small difference, that the artist is selling the track, and not the RIAA? a new excuse will be thought of, as to why people NEED music for free. (just look at movies and software).
They both prove the socialist model does work for information based technologies such as source code,math, music, things like that
so just how is napster a proof of a socialist system "working"? Music was taken from thr artists, without any permission, and given away for free. Im going to start giving out $100 bills. What? it's really popular? A socialist bank must be a good idea...
if artists were giving out their OWN music on napster, I might just consider it a working idea.
Honestly all information should be open and free, medicine patents too.
However, some things cant be free anytime soon, like real labor, construction, these keep us from being able to go completely socialist.
We should however adapt capitalism.
wow, how considerate of you.
The right to controll what you produce is not a right after it leaves your domain. If I buy an apple from the store, they can't tell me how to eat it, who to share it with, or how I can resell it. If I take the sead of the apple and grow 10 coppies of it, that is my right too, and they can't tell me what to do with those eaither. The producers rights end when the apple leavs their domain, even if the apple can be coppied and distributed without cost. They are free to get money from the first sell, and they are free to provide apple services, make apple pies, etc... But what I do with that Apple after the fact is MY DAM RIGHT not theirs.
bad example.
unfortunatly, apples are naturally grown, and aren't "owned" by anyone. Now a new music album, on the other hand, is a creative work that could not have been gotten without the artist, so it SHOULD be copyrighted.
Software, however, comes with no such luck. You can't try it out at the shop (Apple Store excluded). You can't open it, discover it's shit (*cough* daikatana *cough* *cough* windows xp), and return it. You are required to guess whether you need it, shell out $50-$400 for it, and sign away your rights to share it, sell it, fix it, critize it and in some cases, even use it for its intended purpose, as well as the company's liabilities for their own mistakes.
that's because you can easily make a duplicate, *cough* return it, and never have to pay a dime. (which many people would do, if givin the chance).
and copyright infringers are mostly to blame for this.
Obviously, Free Software producers must be able to deny warranties, since they are not getting the consideration (money) necessary to provide them. People who want warranties should be able to buy them, either from the software producer, another software shop, or an insurance company.
now you know why many companies aren't using open sourced software.
Does that mean I can expect lower quality from Open Source? When a software shop doesn't offer liability or warrenty on software, it makes me wonder if even they themselves question its reliability.
Are you serious?
You can edit the licensing in a GUI app using a hex editor.
Use your head.
You can also bypass the license on a GNU app. What does the slashdot crowd think of this?
What is needed to finally grab hold of these markets that seem so out of reach, is a single entity
I would just point them in the FreeBsd Direction. It is one single entity, and joe business user doesn't really give a shit whether it's "free" or not.
The next american revolution is coming and peace has already had its chance.
I think if there is another revolution, it sure as hell won't be about the RIAA and MPAA stopping kiddies on the Internet from getting their IP for free......
So just what makes you think I'd buy Mario 2? There are many people (including me) who will try software simply because its free, but would rather go without instead of paying for it. Some things just aren't worth my money.
I have the same thoughts about that new BMW I see at the car dealership, but unfortunatly they call it stealing (im not sure why).
That person will go out and buy a copy of Super Mario Advance so they can play it without emu bugs and on the bus, during coffee breaks, etc.
unfortunatly, you can get flash cartridges for GBA or GB, that will allow you to play any game you download, bug free.
I think that the music studios need to recognize that they must compete with free by selling quality, diversity, and convenience. Much of that applies to the other industries, too.
the music studios should only have to compete with free, if it's music that they have not created themselves, otherwise it's similar to a company having to compete with thieves.
Yes, thats why we need a new model for this sort of thing. Why don't i just try to sell the light from the sun? That'd be rather foolish, wouldn't it?
the sun isn't a man-made object that took creativity to manufacture...
Cars are not data, and cannot be copied with almost no cost. So you obviously missed the point of my post.
im afraid you missed my point. Cars, like anything else man-made (including IP), are not something that just appear one day. If adobe wasn't around to create photoshop, you would have no photoshop to copy. (trhis is where value comes in).
If IP is so worthless, why have things like the GPL? It seems the FSF goes after people for violating it....
Yes, thats why we need a new model for this sort of thing
yes, we do. We need a way to keep money-grubbing fuck like you from stealing others' IP.
Are you preaching it's ok to download mp3s
stealing music has a different excuse: "the artists are getting screwed"
I have yet to hear a good excuse for the stealing of movies, though.
What if i had a device to clone the Stratus (a la star trek)? Have i stolen anything? I didn't buy the car from them, but they aren't missing it either. And if such technology did exist, wouldn't it make such matters irrelevent since we can produce cars effortlessly and with little cost?
it costs nothing to replicate, but sometimes it costs millions of dollars to actually CREATE software such as adobe photoshop. This is what you are taking away from a company by pirating it. (or paying for when you actually buy it).
Such technology does not exist for cars, but it does for sound, video and other data. Data can be cloned endlessly, thus it has no value. So why are we artifically trying to keep something scarce that we can copy endlessly?
data has no value?
Then lets see you "create" the movie the matrix at your house, or how about the new creed album? or how about a car? If you can't (and you have an actualy use for them), it means the items in question have a value.
This is why the BSA targets corporations only, they know that if they went after the public that the ACLU, FSF would bring a whole pile of trouble on their heads, and BSA's customers won't want to be associated with this so the BSA would lose its funding.
is that before or after the hypocritical FSF goes after a company for violating the GPL?
I don't want to pay $15 if the artist is only going to see 10 cents of that.
so you just download their music, and they see $0. Makes perfect sense.
what about the millions of dollars it cost to promote such music? or produce it? or distribute it? Or is that conveniently forgotton so you can justify getting music for free.
A VIA C3... you can get it on an EPIA board for about a tenth the price of Transmeta's eval board, natch.
too bad via chips only have 64K l2 cache..
Sharing code is inherent in using GPL, like not installing microsoft software on more than one system.
and this is freedom??
I don't personally care who has jurasdiction, though. My problem is that they are somehow saying that Graffitists and Burglars deserve the same punishment as Murderers, and harsher punishment than Rapists, but only if their crime doesn't involve real, physical property. If they vandilize or steal something that actually exists in the physical world, well, 6 months in the county jail and 12 months probation is just fine.
YOU obviously didn't read the article. Hackers that knowingly (or accidentally) cause death by some means (taking over a flight controller as an example) get life in prison. Johnny script-kiddy that takes down a few websites does not.