When Gov Bush and Dick Chaney were walking to the podium to give their short speech today, I could have sworn that I heard part of one of Bush's comments bleeped out (I was watching CNN). Did anybody else notice this, or was I hearing things?
It was supposedly broadcast live so I expect that it was just me, but if not I'd sure like to know what he said.
Functionally this works about the same way that mp3.com does, I let Xdrive "know" that I have the rights to use specific mp3's by uploading them. I have to look at ads on their site to download/use them from another location. So under the mp3.com argument Xdive is profiting from the use of copyrighted material by allowing me to store my mp3's there.
The ONLY difference I see between mp3.com's BeamIt and Xdrive is in technical efficiency - mp3.com doesn't force me to waste time and bandwidth uploading something they already in their storage.
BeamIt is really just a fancy fileserver, and I still don't see how the RIAA had a leg to stand on in this case. Hell, they should have been HAPPY mp3.com created BeamIt - it ENCOURAGES people to buy more music by making the experience more efficient, and BeamIt is the ONLY "enhanced file sharing service" I know of that takes any reasonable steps to ensure I have the rights to use what I store there.
Of course we all know the case against mp3.com ultimately isn't actually about BeamIt at all - it's about a cartel using the legal system as a weapon try and prevent music from being perceived as the art that it is instead of the consumable commodity they've turned it into.
The thing is, that it's all a game of mindshare. Do you think that the average "buy a CD this week with my allowance mommy gave me" teeney-bopper is going to want to keep track of the hundreds of obscure indie garage bands and their psychotically designed websites to download MP3's? At least a very large part of music enjoyment among many people is cultural conformance
That's probably true. Even a 30-year-old like myself gets more enjoyment out of the cultural experiences I can share with others!
But as it stands now all the major labels and RIAA have to do is manufacture some over-produced teeny-bopper band, market the hell out of them, and rake in the millions while kids suck up the music, often not even realizing that they had a real choice.
When I first got into music when I was 10 or 11, I pretty much fit that pattern. When I was around 15 I was fortunate enough to meet a group of people who had setup a tape trading network for good, obscure independent bands. It wasn't long before nearly all of my disposable income was being spent on the amazing music that I discovered as a result of being part of that network. And I got a lot of other major-label music consuming drones involved, and converted, as well.
Napster accomplishes the same thing on a much grander scale, and I believe that there are a LOT of kids out there who would alter their music-purchasing habits given the chance to hear what they're missing. The RIAA does have good reason to be afraid!
I contend that if Napster pulled ALL illegal materials from their database, they would definately lose a large chunk of freeloaders. On the other hand, I think that a great indie scene would thrive there. Especially if these bands began to actively exploit it, instead of posting their stuff on their own Netscape-crashing web pages, and hoping people will stumble onto the URL's.
Converting Napster to an mp3.com-like independent artist playground is an interesting idea, but I like that fact that I can discover music from ANY artist there. The amazing thing about Napster is how quickly the network effect works its magic. The good stuff gets propogated at a blistering pace, regardless of whether it's major-label or indie. It's actually interesting to do some searches and see what's HARD to find on Napster - the stuff that noone thought was good enough to even bother putting in their mp3 libraries.
I know it's unpopular here on Slashdot for musicians to actually get paid for their work.
What the HELL are you talking about?? I can't remember seeing a single post on slashdot that even IMPLIED that the artists should not get compensated for their work. I use Napster for the same reason that many other readers do - to find good music that I would not otherwise know about so that I can BUY it!
Two days after I downloaded Napster I placed an order on CDNow for $350 of music. That's more than I've spent on music at one time in more than 4 years.
I appreciate the thoughtful response. At the risk of becoming Slashdot flamebait, I'll say that I do use and like several of Microsoft's products. I believe that there are a lot of very smart, very innovative people working for Microsoft - I do know some of them personally! And I agree that at least some of the postings on Slashdot were indeed an infraction against Microsoft's legal rights.
What saddens me is that a company with so many smart people is collectively acting so foolishly IMO. I started this thread mainly to shed light on that paradox. Microsoft has an enormous opportunity to take a leadership role in the open source community, but there appears to be a very small constituency in the company that is preventing that from happening. Your own comments would suggest that it's a very small constituency indeed!
Losing the Borg image sounded like a good idea to me at first. I tend to believe that our actions and attitudes shape our reality on many levels, so perhaps if we stopped collectively thinking about MS as the Borg they might act less like the Borg.
But thinking more about the suggestion, I've come to the conculsion that Microsoft has earned the image through its own actions - why would someone have come up with the analaoy otherwise? In the networked age a company has to take responsibility for it's own actions, and will ultimately be forced to do so. If a car company gets a reputation for making cheap cars that break down, it's almost certainly because they make cheap cars that break down. If the company wants to change their image, they've gotta make good cars. If Microsoft wants to lose the Borg image, they'll have to stop acting like the Borg.
The ZDNet comparison doesn't work for me either. ZDNet is a "traditional media company" that does little more than report sterile facts (a useful and needed role to be sure.) Slashdot is different - it's a community of individuals, expressing their individual and collective feelings and opinions.
So here's the billion-dollar question for Microsoft: What has greater influence over a company's success in the networked era? Sterile "facts" about its products and services, or the persona it chooses to adopt in the community it serves?
We've heard from Slashdot's readers, and we've heard from the press. I want to know how Microsoft's own employees feel about the ongoing Kerberos battle (not just the attack against Slashdot).
Employees of Microsoft, does your company's upper management and legal department speak for YOU? Microsoft is effectively declaring war against open engineering standards and the progress that open standards foster, an openness enjoyed by all other engineering disciplines. How do YOU feel about that?
So, post anonymously if you feel you must, but post and tell us YOUR position! Or are you all to stricken by Redmonditis and your own FUD tactics to let the world know how you feel?
If the brass at Microsoft does not speak for you, let yourself be heard. If you (and all of us) are lucky, the Microsoft "spies" that allegedly lurk on Slashdot might see how their employees feel. And maybe, just maybe, Gates and the rest will hop on board the cluetrain next time it stops in Redmond.
Slashdot Mirror
It was supposedly broadcast live so I expect that it was just me, but if not I'd sure like to know what he said.
Mormon
Methodist
Jewish
Muslim
(no other answers allowed)
rm -rf *
Take a look at Xdrive - www.xdrive.com.
Functionally this works about the same way that mp3.com does, I let Xdrive "know" that I have the rights to use specific mp3's by uploading them. I have to look at ads on their site to download/use them from another location. So under the mp3.com argument Xdive is profiting from the use of copyrighted material by allowing me to store my mp3's there.
The ONLY difference I see between mp3.com's BeamIt and Xdrive is in technical efficiency - mp3.com doesn't force me to waste time and bandwidth uploading something they already in their storage. BeamIt is really just a fancy fileserver, and I still don't see how the RIAA had a leg to stand on in this case. Hell, they should have been HAPPY mp3.com created BeamIt - it ENCOURAGES people to buy more music by making the experience more efficient, and BeamIt is the ONLY "enhanced file sharing service" I know of that takes any reasonable steps to ensure I have the rights to use what I store there.
Of course we all know the case against mp3.com ultimately isn't actually about BeamIt at all - it's about a cartel using the legal system as a weapon try and prevent music from being perceived as the art that it is instead of the consumable commodity they've turned it into.
That's probably true. Even a 30-year-old like myself gets more enjoyment out of the cultural experiences I can share with others!
But as it stands now all the major labels and RIAA have to do is manufacture some over-produced teeny-bopper band, market the hell out of them, and rake in the millions while kids suck up the music, often not even realizing that they had a real choice.
When I first got into music when I was 10 or 11, I pretty much fit that pattern. When I was around 15 I was fortunate enough to meet a group of people who had setup a tape trading network for good, obscure independent bands. It wasn't long before nearly all of my disposable income was being spent on the amazing music that I discovered as a result of being part of that network. And I got a lot of other major-label music consuming drones involved, and converted, as well.
Napster accomplishes the same thing on a much grander scale, and I believe that there are a LOT of kids out there who would alter their music-purchasing habits given the chance to hear what they're missing. The RIAA does have good reason to be afraid!
I contend that if Napster pulled ALL illegal materials from their database, they would definately lose a large chunk of freeloaders. On the other hand, I think that a great indie scene would thrive there. Especially if these bands began to actively exploit it, instead of posting their stuff on their own Netscape-crashing web pages, and hoping people will stumble onto the URL's.
Converting Napster to an mp3.com-like independent artist playground is an interesting idea, but I like that fact that I can discover music from ANY artist there. The amazing thing about Napster is how quickly the network effect works its magic. The good stuff gets propogated at a blistering pace, regardless of whether it's major-label or indie. It's actually interesting to do some searches and see what's HARD to find on Napster - the stuff that noone thought was good enough to even bother putting in their mp3 libraries.
everyone should see #510
What the HELL are you talking about?? I can't remember seeing a single post on slashdot that even IMPLIED that the artists should not get compensated for their work. I use Napster for the same reason that many other readers do - to find good music that I would not otherwise know about so that I can BUY it!
Two days after I downloaded Napster I placed an order on CDNow for $350 of music. That's more than I've spent on music at one time in more than 4 years.
What saddens me is that a company with so many smart people is collectively acting so foolishly IMO. I started this thread mainly to shed light on that paradox. Microsoft has an enormous opportunity to take a leadership role in the open source community, but there appears to be a very small constituency in the company that is preventing that from happening. Your own comments would suggest that it's a very small constituency indeed!
But thinking more about the suggestion, I've come to the conculsion that Microsoft has earned the image through its own actions - why would someone have come up with the analaoy otherwise? In the networked age a company has to take responsibility for it's own actions, and will ultimately be forced to do so. If a car company gets a reputation for making cheap cars that break down, it's almost certainly because they make cheap cars that break down. If the company wants to change their image, they've gotta make good cars. If Microsoft wants to lose the Borg image, they'll have to stop acting like the Borg.
The ZDNet comparison doesn't work for me either. ZDNet is a "traditional media company" that does little more than report sterile facts (a useful and needed role to be sure.) Slashdot is different - it's a community of individuals, expressing their individual and collective feelings and opinions.
So here's the billion-dollar question for Microsoft: What has greater influence over a company's success in the networked era? Sterile "facts" about its products and services, or the persona it chooses to adopt in the community it serves?
Employees of Microsoft, does your company's upper management and legal department speak for YOU? Microsoft is effectively declaring war against open engineering standards and the progress that open standards foster, an openness enjoyed by all other engineering disciplines. How do YOU feel about that?
So, post anonymously if you feel you must, but post and tell us YOUR position! Or are you all to stricken by Redmonditis and your own FUD tactics to let the world know how you feel?
If the brass at Microsoft does not speak for you, let yourself be heard. If you (and all of us) are lucky, the Microsoft "spies" that allegedly lurk on Slashdot might see how their employees feel. And maybe, just maybe, Gates and the rest will hop on board the cluetrain next time it stops in Redmond.