Well, now they can make guaranteed payouts to rights holders; I'm not so sure this is a death knell. Probably an intense metamorphosis in subscriber base.
The problem comes from trying to ride out the change in subscriber base. The people I know who have subscribed to eMusic have universally been people who pull down many tracks to try out artists they're not familiar with. Or entire albums of things like "A Ska Tribut to Metallica" just out of curiosity. That is, the old setup seemed geared to attract people who want to listen to a lot of different things in search of something they like. The new plan, while fairly good pricewise, is much more appropriate for people who already know what they want. When the old subscribers flee en masse, they're going to have to find a way to keep things afloat until they attract an entirely different userbase, assuming they ever do with several competing services available (eMusic didn't really have any competition in the all-you-can-download arena).
O great warrior, of noble stock might I enquire as to what's up doc?
I believe you meant "O mighty warrior of great fighting stock/Might I enquire to ask, eh, what's up doc?"
I know this is so very far off-topic that you can't even see the topic from here, but we all have little irrational things that make our sphincters clench up. Misquoting Bugs Bunny and improper use of ``begs the question'' are mine.
It makes no sense to dissect the letter and refute every false claim, because this will either be ignored or countered with more lies. Can we just stay calm and think of ways to get through to the few uninformed decision makers who believe the libel.
Actually, I'm always quite happy to see someone refute the SCO FUD point by point, and because of the very concern you mentioned: I find it very useful to have somewhere I can point people if they start looking worried about the latest insanity that rolls out of SCO.
Yes, to a great extent, it's just "busy work" for someone to slog through and refute claims which, at this point, are very slight variations on a limited set of themes. But having the facts handy when the head of your department starts casting nervous glances at the Debian mail server is very comforting.
Once it's been purchased and scanned out of the system if you go back to the store (or another store) you won't be charged because that store knows it doesn't have a product with that ID to sell.
Of course, it *will* keep track of things previously sold, so it can compliment you on (for example) your Dockers if you happen to come back into the store wearing them. Or maybe suggest that the underwear you bought there six months ago is due for replacing. Or both at the same time, over a handy nearby speaker:
``Hey, Mr. Jonas, I guess those Dockers are working out for you, though the BVDs are reaching their `smell-by date,' if you catch my drift. Howzabout I have someone bring a new pair of each to checkout counter five for you?''
Eat the food, eat the chips, instant tracking implants in everyone.
Well, until I, um, relieve myself of the tracking implant. Of course, this makes me worry that they'll start installing RFID readers in the sewers and selling the data to manufacturers of digestive aids. All of a sudden, I'll be getting coupons for Bean-O in my mail and have not the faintest idea why.
When music theieves try to attack the technicality of the RIAA's rhetoric, such as trying to say that the word "stealing" isn't correct, they end up looking like a kid that got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and is trying to manipulate words and circumstance to somehow make himself look either innocent or "less guilty". This behavior reveals to judges and intelligent people just what kind of a person they are dealing with.
The point here, and the reason it keeps getting brought up, is that this isn't some kind of hair-splitting quibble -- the word ``theft'' means something, and that something is all but completely unrelated to copyright infringement. The people who wave their hands and ignore this central and obvious fact are not, I'm sorry to inform you, the intelligent ones.
All he said is that the cave troll skewered Frodo with the spear.
Actually, upon re-reading the series, I was relieved to find that it was the captain of the Orc guard (not the troll) who got Frodo, and Frodo's side hurt for days afterwards. I don't believe there was any mention of him getting pinned against the wall, either. So, sadly, I think Jackson has to take the total weight of this particular nitpick.
I'm wondering when cash transactions over a certain value would be outlawed altogether.
I don't know if it will ever go quite that far; it seems a little ham-fisted. However, if private businesses are held in any way responsible for accepting stolen cash (or cash which is suspected to have come from one of those horrid drug dealers), they will, without any law requiring it, themselves adopt no-cash policies like the ones you've run up against. Since the government isn't mandating it, consitutional protections of privacy don't apply.
The fact that law enforcement then has access to absolutely every purchase you make over $100 is just a happy coincidence.
Maybe someone should sue Best Buy on the grounds that the cash actually says ``This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.'' (emphasis mine)
Re:What does the NDA encompass?
on
My Visit to SCO
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Perhaps you can give us some light as to what the NDA swore you to?
Most NDAs I've heard anything about were obviously written by people who saw ``Fight Club'':
``First rule of the NDA: you do not talk about the NDA.''
"If source code is copied from protected Unix code," the SCO document adds, "there is no way for Linus Torvalds to identify that fact."
You'd want Linus to compare both codes and after that sue him for "inspiration"?
It's statements like this from SCO that really make me stare in mute wonder. Linus can't identify proprietary code? Of course he can't, because he has no access to the original, and therefore can't compare submitted code to it.
He couldn't read SCO code for inspiration if he wanted to. Though I think SCO press releases are becoming surreal enough to bring about enlightenment.
Whats next, No you can't look at the accident scene, those are my private skid marks which may tend to incrimate me"
Actually, it would probably be something more along the lines of ``no, you can't photograph my skid mark, because I've got a copyright on it and don't authorize you to reproduce or distribute it.''
The "He got what he deserved" comment comes from my gut impression where I'm imagining my 2 year old playing in the front yard while a car plows through doing 114mph. At that speed, my 2 year old is very dead!
My daughter just turned two, so I think I can understand where you're coming from emotionally; I would die to protect my daughter, and given free rein, happily lock up (or cripple) any person on the planet who might, some day, be a danger to her. I also understand that laws can't be written from the perspective of a fiercely protective parent.
Now, I don't think that's at all what you were advocating; however, there are a lot of parents who want precisely that kind of litigation: ``I don't care whose rights it violates if it keeps my little girl safe.'' It's precisely that kind of fear that can lead to a police state.
I would have much preferred hearing them debate. Now that would have been interesting. I'd like to see how each would respond to the other's various arguments.
A debate is very sorely needed; specifically, the RIAA canned position statements need to be challenged directly and in a forum that requires a response. In this instance, I really wish Lessig had been given an opportunity to call ``bullshit'' on things the RIAA spokesman was saying -- but since he wasn't, all we got were the usual restatements of position and refutations thereof, going in the same circle they've been going in for, what? Years?
I'm not sure MonsterPatterns has the funds to launch a lawsuit against a large corporation, especially if their site gets shut down and they suddenly have limited income. (I note, however, that the site is currently still up.)
Can he honestly think that SCO won't be reduced to so much virtual matchwood?
As several people on/. and elsewhere have speculated, this may well be a bid by SCO for IBM to buy them out, which would be a cheaper solution for IBM than going to court.
What I'm hoping will happen is that, while it would likely be monetarily cheaper to just buy SCO, IBM decides to go to court anyway in order to really settle the issue, and thereby make Linux less susceptible to the next wave of FUD (which Balmer has already started with the ``you don't know where Open Source code comes from'' routine).
Since IBM has committed a chunk of their business to Linux, making sure Linux remains a viable solution in the eyes of IT managers may well be worth the extra money it would take to try the case against SCO.
Slashdot posting 5 years from now: "I run a small studio. I'm not happy about the new Microsoft media licensing either, especially the royalty-per-view terms. But we've invested so much in Microsoft software, equipment and training that we just can't afford to switch. We've decided to suck up and pay. Plus, with the exclusive deal Microsoft has with all the theater chains, we just can't use any other format. It's industry standard. I wish there was another viable solution, but this is the only game in town."
Gads, but I wish I had a mod point handy. This is precisely the problem, and I can't understand why it keeps being dismissed as ``Microsoft bashing.'' (Usually by people who have a Score:3 post who, at some point lament ``I'm sure I'll be modded to Hell for saying this, but...'')
The progression is obvious and has been seen a number of times already: Microsoft behaves in a seemingly generous manner (in this case, setting up low-cost digital projection systems so smaller film producers have a shot at distribution; previously, it was giving away a web browser), gets a whole lot of people using one of their proprietary formats, manages to lock out other formats thereby, and then starts jacking up licensing fees once they're the only game in town.
``And you fall for it every single time.'' --Angelus
It says in the article that this is proposed under the LFLAN thingie, which basically means the actual device won't be implemented for another 15-20 years.Then they go on to list some of the technical hurdles needed to complete this thing, one of which is is a sufficient energy source.
You should go on to RTFPDF. The proposal itself goes into some detail about the power source, which would be based on Polonium 210. Indeed, one of the problems is what to do with all the excess thermal energy being generated while the rifle isn't being fired.
Labels like these are not the solution and only restrict manufacturer's rights and put a crimp on their profits for no reason whatsoever.
The labels may not be the answer (as you said, a lot of people probably won't read them), but I don't see how this is a restriction on the manufacturer's rights, except insofar as you think they have a right to sell a broken CD as if it were a real CD.
If they insist on doing so, they should have their profits crimped.
I saw an interview with Jackie Chan wherein someone asked him if he played any video games. He mentioned that he used to play Tetris all the time, until he started having nightmares about trying to choreograph fight scenes and discovering that his head didn't fit into any of the openings in gates, ladders, etc. that he wanted to use in the scene. He stopped playing right after that.
I, myself, had only one marathon Tetris session. Afterwards, I tried to read a book -- and the words kept sliding over to the right margin of the page, flipping around, and dropping. Seriously. I never played the game again, and still have a minor dread of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, now they can make guaranteed payouts to rights holders; I'm not so sure this is a death knell. Probably an intense metamorphosis in subscriber base.
The problem comes from trying to ride out the change in subscriber base. The people I know who have subscribed to eMusic have universally been people who pull down many tracks to try out artists they're not familiar with. Or entire albums of things like "A Ska Tribut to Metallica" just out of curiosity. That is, the old setup seemed geared to attract people who want to listen to a lot of different things in search of something they like. The new plan, while fairly good pricewise, is much more appropriate for people who already know what they want. When the old subscribers flee en masse, they're going to have to find a way to keep things afloat until they attract an entirely different userbase, assuming they ever do with several competing services available (eMusic didn't really have any competition in the all-you-can-download arena).
O great warrior, of noble stock
might I enquire as to what's up doc?
I believe you meant "O mighty warrior of great fighting stock/Might I enquire to ask, eh, what's up doc?"
I know this is so very far off-topic that you can't even see the topic from here, but we all have little irrational things that make our sphincters clench up. Misquoting Bugs Bunny and improper use of ``begs the question'' are mine.
Well, two of mine.
Everything said by Geer, Black and Schneier is correct. What does @stake not agree with?
I believe their chief disagreement is with the implied statment ``we don't want Microsoft's money.'' That, right there, is a factual inaccuracy.
It makes no sense to dissect the letter and refute every false claim, because this will either be ignored or countered with more lies. Can we just stay calm and think of ways to get through to the few uninformed decision makers who believe the libel.
Actually, I'm always quite happy to see someone refute the SCO FUD point by point, and because of the very concern you mentioned: I find it very useful to have somewhere I can point people if they start looking worried about the latest insanity that rolls out of SCO.
Yes, to a great extent, it's just "busy work" for someone to slog through and refute claims which, at this point, are very slight variations on a limited set of themes. But having the facts handy when the head of your department starts casting nervous glances at the Debian mail server is very comforting.
Once it's been purchased and scanned out of the system if you go back to the store (or another store) you won't be charged because that store knows it doesn't have a product with that ID to sell.
Of course, it *will* keep track of things previously sold, so it can compliment you on (for example) your Dockers if you happen to come back into the store wearing them. Or maybe suggest that the underwear you bought there six months ago is due for replacing. Or both at the same time, over a handy nearby speaker:
``Hey, Mr. Jonas, I guess those Dockers are working out for you, though the BVDs are reaching their `smell-by date,' if you catch my drift. Howzabout I have someone bring a new pair of each to checkout counter five for you?''
There are many bad things one may rightly say about SCO, but to suggest that they have anything to do with the compromise is just plain stupid!
Indeed. For one thing, I don't think they're technically competent enough.
Eat the food, eat the chips, instant tracking implants in everyone.
Well, until I, um, relieve myself of the tracking implant. Of course, this makes me worry that they'll start installing RFID readers in the sewers and selling the data to manufacturers of digestive aids. All of a sudden, I'll be getting coupons for Bean-O in my mail and have not the faintest idea why.
When music theieves try to attack the technicality of the RIAA's rhetoric, such as trying to say that the word "stealing" isn't correct, they end up looking like a kid that got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and is trying to manipulate words and circumstance to somehow make himself look either innocent or "less guilty". This behavior reveals to judges and intelligent people just what kind of a person they are dealing with.
The point here, and the reason it keeps getting brought up, is that this isn't some kind of hair-splitting quibble -- the word ``theft'' means something, and that something is all but completely unrelated to copyright infringement. The people who wave their hands and ignore this central and obvious fact are not, I'm sorry to inform you, the intelligent ones.
All he said is that the cave troll skewered Frodo with the spear.
Actually, upon re-reading the series, I was relieved to find that it was the captain of the Orc guard (not the troll) who got Frodo, and Frodo's side hurt for days afterwards. I don't believe there was any mention of him getting pinned against the wall, either. So, sadly, I think Jackson has to take the total weight of this particular nitpick.
I'm wondering when cash transactions over a certain value would be outlawed altogether.
I don't know if it will ever go quite that far; it seems a little ham-fisted. However, if private businesses are held in any way responsible for accepting stolen cash (or cash which is suspected to have come from one of those horrid drug dealers), they will, without any law requiring it, themselves adopt no-cash policies like the ones you've run up against. Since the government isn't mandating it, consitutional protections of privacy don't apply.
The fact that law enforcement then has access to absolutely every purchase you make over $100 is just a happy coincidence.
Maybe someone should sue Best Buy on the grounds that the cash actually says ``This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.'' (emphasis mine)
Perhaps you can give us some light as to what the NDA swore you to?
Most NDAs I've heard anything about were obviously written by people who saw ``Fight Club'':
``First rule of the NDA: you do not talk about the NDA.''
From the article:
"If source code is copied from protected Unix code," the SCO document adds, "there is no way for Linus Torvalds to identify that fact."
You'd want Linus to compare both codes and after that sue him for "inspiration"?
It's statements like this from SCO that really make me stare in mute wonder. Linus can't identify proprietary code? Of course he can't, because he has no access to the original, and therefore can't compare submitted code to it.
He couldn't read SCO code for inspiration if he wanted to. Though I think SCO press releases are becoming surreal enough to bring about enlightenment.
What I REALLY wonder about is all the idiots buying SCO stock, and why it's still hovering around $10 as opposed to the 1 cent it's really worth.
You have, perhaps, not heard of the speculative practice of shorting stock.
Whats next, No you can't look at the accident scene, those are my private skid marks which may tend to incrimate me"
Actually, it would probably be something more along the lines of ``no, you can't photograph my skid mark, because I've got a copyright on it and don't authorize you to reproduce or distribute it.''
The "He got what he deserved" comment comes from my gut impression where I'm imagining my 2 year old playing in the front yard while a car plows through doing 114mph. At that speed, my 2 year old is very dead!
My daughter just turned two, so I think I can understand where you're coming from emotionally; I would die to protect my daughter, and given free rein, happily lock up (or cripple) any person on the planet who might, some day, be a danger to her. I also understand that laws can't be written from the perspective of a fiercely protective parent.
Now, I don't think that's at all what you were advocating; however, there are a lot of parents who want precisely that kind of litigation: ``I don't care whose rights it violates if it keeps my little girl safe.'' It's precisely that kind of fear that can lead to a police state.
I would have much preferred hearing them debate. Now that would have been interesting. I'd like to see how each would respond to the other's various arguments.
A debate is very sorely needed; specifically, the RIAA canned position statements need to be challenged directly and in a forum that requires a response. In this instance, I really wish Lessig had been given an opportunity to call ``bullshit'' on things the RIAA spokesman was saying -- but since he wasn't, all we got were the usual restatements of position and refutations thereof, going in the same circle they've been going in for, what? Years?
I hope McCalls gets sued real good on this one.
I'm not sure MonsterPatterns has the funds to launch a lawsuit against a large corporation, especially if their site gets shut down and they suddenly have limited income. (I note, however, that the site is currently still up.)
Can he honestly think that SCO won't be reduced to so much virtual matchwood?
/. and elsewhere have speculated, this may well be a bid by SCO for IBM to buy them out, which would be a cheaper solution for IBM than going to court.
As several people on
What I'm hoping will happen is that, while it would likely be monetarily cheaper to just buy SCO, IBM decides to go to court anyway in order to really settle the issue, and thereby make Linux less susceptible to the next wave of FUD (which Balmer has already started with the ``you don't know where Open Source code comes from'' routine).
Since IBM has committed a chunk of their business to Linux, making sure Linux remains a viable solution in the eyes of IT managers may well be worth the extra money it would take to try the case against SCO.
If that HD is packaged in an MP3 player we will have to pay a huge levy on that gigabyte.
In corporatist Canada, blank media burns you.
(Score: -1; Moldering meta-joke)
Slashdot posting 5 years from now: "I run a small studio. I'm not happy about the new Microsoft media licensing either, especially the royalty-per-view terms. But we've invested so much in Microsoft software, equipment and training that we just can't afford to switch. We've decided to suck up and pay. Plus, with the exclusive deal Microsoft has with all the theater chains, we just can't use any other format. It's industry standard. I wish there was another viable solution, but this is the only game in town."
Gads, but I wish I had a mod point handy. This is precisely the problem, and I can't understand why it keeps being dismissed as ``Microsoft bashing.'' (Usually by people who have a Score:3 post who, at some point lament ``I'm sure I'll be modded to Hell for saying this, but...'')
The progression is obvious and has been seen a number of times already: Microsoft behaves in a seemingly generous manner (in this case, setting up low-cost digital projection systems so smaller film producers have a shot at distribution; previously, it was giving away a web browser), gets a whole lot of people using one of their proprietary formats, manages to lock out other formats thereby, and then starts jacking up licensing fees once they're the only game in town.
``And you fall for it every single time.''
--Angelus
It says in the article that this is proposed under the LFLAN thingie, which basically means the actual device won't be implemented for another 15-20 years.Then they go on to list some of the technical hurdles needed to complete this thing, one of which is is a sufficient energy source.
You should go on to RTFPDF. The proposal itself goes into some detail about the power source, which would be based on Polonium 210. Indeed, one of the problems is what to do with all the excess thermal energy being generated while the rifle isn't being fired.
The labels may not be the answer (as you said, a lot of people probably won't read them), but I don't see how this is a restriction on the manufacturer's rights, except insofar as you think they have a right to sell a broken CD as if it were a real CD. If they insist on doing so, they should have their profits crimped.
I'm sure they could set it up with Eliza and a keyboard. You'd probably get better feedback than most of the flesh-and-blood variety would give.
"How do you feel about Windows 98 crashed again?"
If you broadcast a signal at someone's house, you don't get to complain if they decide to tune it in.
I saw an interview with Jackie Chan wherein someone asked him if he played any video games. He mentioned that he used to play Tetris all the time, until he started having nightmares about trying to choreograph fight scenes and discovering that his head didn't fit into any of the openings in gates, ladders, etc. that he wanted to use in the scene. He stopped playing right after that.
I, myself, had only one marathon Tetris session. Afterwards, I tried to read a book -- and the words kept sliding over to the right margin of the page, flipping around, and dropping. Seriously. I never played the game again, and still have a minor dread of it.