> > Fans can copy tracks, burn them to CDs and > > transfer them to other devices as much as they > > want "within reason", he added. > And what, pray tell, would be "unreasonable"?
Doesn't really matter, does it? Once you burn it (I assume they mean to a plain old audio cd) there's not much they can do to stop you from doing whatever you like with the data.
Providing cash incentives to pursue exploits is one reason why this is a bad idea.
Maybe not. I've been toying with the idea of a game that takes the exact oppisite route. Make the game quite hackable. And not even the game, but the game servers. Everyone would 'cheat' and that would be part of the game. After all, in games these days, cheating is fairly equal oppourtunity. If one player can take advantage of an exploit, so can all the other players. So why not just make the exploits a part of the game? The object of the game would be to hack it the best. Sounds like extremely geeky fun to me.
If an artist didn't assign exclusive distribution rights to a label, why on earth would the label bother to produce the artist's album?
It's worth pointing out that you can give someone exclusing right to distribute something without giving up the copyright. This is how almost all books work (they ars still copyright the author, though the publishers has exlusive rights to distribute it for a while).
One of the reasons the RIAA is targeting a specific group of files (in addition to target market, etc.) is that the RIAA is acting, legally, as the agent of the copyright owner. The RIAA doesn't own the copyrights to the music--generally, neither do the record labels. The "artists" (using the term very broadly in a few cases) own the copyrights, and the RIAA is acting on their behalf. They're looking for U2 files because U2 has given them permission to haul kids into court on a trumped-up infringement action.
While a good theory on the surface, this simply not true. Music recording falls under "work-for-hire". This means that when an artist records a song, he or she does not actually own the copyright, the label does, and the copyright will never revert to the artist. Check any CD you own, the copyright will be in the name of the label. This law was meant for things like newspapers: ie, a newspaper will own the copyright to any story writen by one of its reporters. Musicians were always a bit of a gray area until the RIAA sucessfully lobbied (read, bribed) congress to cause music recording fall under work-for-hire (this definition change was slipped into a 1,740 page bill without fanfare). In conclusion, it doesn't matter what U2 thinks, because they don't actually own any of their own songs.
More information: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0 ,1283,38129,00.html http://www.prosoundweb.com/editorial/dana/d ana1114 00.shtml http://www.rapcoalition.org/work_for_hir e_sucks.ht m
Yeah, I'm not sure why exactly they use the download manager. But it's not like the manager is a big pain in the ass or anything (at least, not in Windows). I've been very happy with emusic, although it would be nice if more labels joined. It doesn't seem likely that the big boys would join, but emusic already has some of the heavy hitters form teh indie world, like Matador and Epitaph. It's a pretty sweet deal.
Thank you. I also can't wait to pay for fast downloads of good music in a completely DRM-free (and preferable patent-free) format. And I really think it can happen.
Try emusic.com. It's not patent free, but you do get plain old mp3s. completely DRM free.
They make full-screen monitor magnifiers for people with vision problems.
This isn't the point. I've used those magnifiers before (although my vision is good), and they make the whole screen look distorted. But that's not the point, either. The point is we have more and more screen real estate, and a lot of times in the desktop realm, it basically goes to waste. It used to be we needed thos extra pixels to fit more information on the screen. But I think we've hit the point that we doesn't need much more information to fit on the screen. And now instead of things getting smoother and smoother (like in a full-screen 3d game) things just get smaller and smaller. Sure, you can fit more 'stuff' it on the screen, but I'd bet at least 50% of computer users (even those without vision problems) dislike the teeny-tiny text and widgets that comes with an uber-large resolution, and would instead prefer a smoother dsiplay. I know I would
There are several problems I've noticed that will have to adressed to deal with huge resolutions. I don't think fixing these problem would make or break Linux, but it would make a nive bullet point. There a problems like the teeny-tiny text I've mentioned, and tiny icons, but that can be easily fixed. The biggest problems are on the brower front. If you have your resolution jacked up terribly high, rather than getting a smoother-looking website, you usually get a tiny little strip on the left side of your browser. This is largely due to the fact that most website layouts are largely depended on fixed-size raster images (despite the intent of HTML). But even the most popular vector formant, Flash, just stays in a tiny little fixed-size box on the web page, despite your resolution. And what sense does that make? If you visit homestarrunner.com with a huge resolution, you end up with a talking postage stamp, even though it is a vector-based postage stamp, and therefore inherently infinitely scalable without loss of clarity! What is needed is less of a reliance of pixel graphics, and more of a reliace on vector formats, coupled with a browser that can scale the whole page at once, not just the text.
On the operating system front, we need scalable widgets, scalable icons, and easily changed font default font sizes. I know you can change the dpi of your monitor in Windows, but how many average users want to wander into a section marked 'Advanced Settings'?
Face it, this is and issue, and it does need to be adressed.
No, seriously. I don't run debian primarily because I don't want to go through the install process. I don't know what chipset my nic has, and I really don't care to know, know what I mean? Ditto with everything else.
Then don't install Debian. You're not the target audience anyway. Debian is pretty much aimed at the server crowd first, and desktop user as a distat second, from what I can tell. This explains the long release cycle (to ensure packages are rock solid), the difficult install (Debian installers know what they want, and the installer gives it to them), the mediocre desktop support (it's not Debian's primary goal) and the lack of hardware detection (what kind of server gets new hardware every other week?). I run Debian right now, and I'm quite happy with it. It acts as a NAT router and a web server. It doesn't have a keyboard or monitor plugged into it, let alone a waco mtablet or a web camera. Debian isn't a desktop distributing designed to pass teh 'mom test'. It's a server distribution, designed to give people who konw what they're doing exactly what they want. And it does it very, very well.
It also encourages teachers to teach in the manner that influences their grading
Assumming the reviewers write fair, intelligent reviews, this is a good thing. If 'the manner that influences their grading' is quality, than the teachers will be encouranged to be better treachers by bad reviews. This is clearly a good thing.
Re:Do younger minds absorb quicker?
on
Ageism in IT?
·
· Score: 1
Although you make a very good point, and I would tend to agree with you, I have to quibble. You said "Composers haven't introduced new semi-tone notes, located between B and B-flat." However, there is a (very interesting) movement in music currently called microtonal music, and composers are doing just what you say they aren't, writing music using notes between B and B-flat, and anywhere else they want to put them.
...ummm, think about that student loan part for a minute....then think about how many years it would take to pay it back at minimum wage after graduation.
That's not the point. I'm counting student loans as income. The idea is, if they weren't in school, they could be working (at minumum wage) and earning as much as they are borrowing. A college student's income puts them well below the poverty level, counting student loans as income.
Minimum wage is a fucking joke. The only people willing to work for that are high school students because they don't have to pay the rent. Nobody can actually live off of minimum wage.
I live quit comfortably off of $8.00 and hour, 30 hours a weeks. This works out to considerably less than a full-time job at minimum wage.
Take a look at most college students. Take their job income, add their student loans and grants, and subtract tuition and books. You end up with a person with a wage that puts them considerably below the povery line. Yet they all live very well.
My conclusion is that minumum wage isn't a problem. It's how people use it. You can actually live off of minumum wage. It's not that hard.
Perhaps, if we can't explain why we're at war, we shouldn't be at war?
The point is not that there is no explanation, there certainly is. The point is that the protestors don't take the time to understand what the reasons are, and instead blindly protest under the umbrella of "war is bad". If anti-war protestors can't even be bothered to understand the pro-war arguements, how can they expect to effictively counter them?
Really, rather interesting things. Kind of makes a "nueron net" of the database (or web, for tangle). You get to see everyone's thought patterns, from the relevant links to the one or two offbeat ones.
Next, Searchking will be suing slashdot.org for purposely and arbitrarily lauching a devious attack on the website that prevented their customers from accessing it.
Out of curiousity, what royalties are webcast stations paying now? Why can't they just join ASCAP, like we real radio stations do? According to their payment plan ASCAP distributes rights to "radio, TV, cable, bars, clubs, restaurants, shopping malls, concert halls, web sites, airlines, orchestras, etc."
I understand that CARP stinks, and I agree that webcaster shouldn't have to pay such high fees. But what, if anything are they paying now? And what's wrong with existing solutions?
However, I would like a place where I could download very high quality, RAW.wav or Ogg Vorbis or MP3 files for, say, $0.50-$1.00 each. Maybe $5.00 for a whole album. From a fast server. That are not in some sort of DRM vault.
Try www.emusic.com. It doesn't charge you per song, it's more like $45 for three month's unlimited access, but you get to download high quality mp3s (no DRM) from their reliable web server from something like 900 record labels. My friend joined up and downloaded a couple hundred albums worth of great music, all completely legally, and for less than fifty bucks! Check it out.
Of course, sustaining a 13 petabyte per second transfer would require that you have a fleet of station wagons running bumper-to-bumper down the freeway...
Correct. The calculations were done assuming this (that the highway was packed with station wagons). So while the lag is incredible, you still get amazing bandwidth.
Slashdot Mirror
> > Fans can copy tracks, burn them to CDs and
> > transfer them to other devices as much as they
> > want "within reason", he added.
> And what, pray tell, would be "unreasonable"?
Doesn't really matter, does it? Once you burn it (I assume they mean to a plain old audio cd) there's not much they can do to stop you from doing whatever you like with the data.
Essay nothing. He wrote a whole book on the subject.
Maybe not. I've been toying with the idea of a game that takes the exact oppisite route. Make the game quite hackable. And not even the game, but the game servers. Everyone would 'cheat' and that would be part of the game. After all, in games these days, cheating is fairly equal oppourtunity. If one player can take advantage of an exploit, so can all the other players. So why not just make the exploits a part of the game? The object of the game would be to hack it the best. Sounds like extremely geeky fun to me.
I'm not entirely sure which is geekier, someone who ares that much about Elvish, or someone that cares this much about fonts. ;)
More information:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/
http://www.prosoundweb.com/editorial/dana/
http://www.rapcoalition.org/work_for_hi
Yeah, I'm not sure why exactly they use the download manager. But it's not like the manager is a big pain in the ass or anything (at least, not in Windows). I've been very happy with emusic, although it would be nice if more labels joined. It doesn't seem likely that the big boys would join, but emusic already has some of the heavy hitters form teh indie world, like Matador and Epitaph. It's a pretty sweet deal.
Sounds a lot like www.emusic.com to me.
Try emusic.com. It's not patent free, but you do get plain old mp3s. completely DRM free.
This isn't the point. I've used those magnifiers before (although my vision is good), and they make the whole screen look distorted. But that's not the point, either. The point is we have more and more screen real estate, and a lot of times in the desktop realm, it basically goes to waste. It used to be we needed thos extra pixels to fit more information on the screen. But I think we've hit the point that we doesn't need much more information to fit on the screen. And now instead of things getting smoother and smoother (like in a full-screen 3d game) things just get smaller and smaller. Sure, you can fit more 'stuff' it on the screen, but I'd bet at least 50% of computer users (even those without vision problems) dislike the teeny-tiny text and widgets that comes with an uber-large resolution, and would instead prefer a smoother dsiplay. I know I would
There are several problems I've noticed that will have to adressed to deal with huge resolutions. I don't think fixing these problem would make or break Linux, but it would make a nive bullet point. There a problems like the teeny-tiny text I've mentioned, and tiny icons, but that can be easily fixed. The biggest problems are on the brower front. If you have your resolution jacked up terribly high, rather than getting a smoother-looking website, you usually get a tiny little strip on the left side of your browser. This is largely due to the fact that most website layouts are largely depended on fixed-size raster images (despite the intent of HTML). But even the most popular vector formant, Flash, just stays in a tiny little fixed-size box on the web page, despite your resolution. And what sense does that make? If you visit homestarrunner.com with a huge resolution, you end up with a talking postage stamp, even though it is a vector-based postage stamp, and therefore inherently infinitely scalable without loss of clarity! What is needed is less of a reliance of pixel graphics, and more of a reliace on vector formats, coupled with a browser that can scale the whole page at once, not just the text.
On the operating system front, we need scalable widgets, scalable icons, and easily changed font default font sizes. I know you can change the dpi of your monitor in Windows, but how many average users want to wander into a section marked 'Advanced Settings'?
Face it, this is and issue, and it does need to be adressed.
Then don't install Debian. You're not the target audience anyway. Debian is pretty much aimed at the server crowd first, and desktop user as a distat second, from what I can tell. This explains the long release cycle (to ensure packages are rock solid), the difficult install (Debian installers know what they want, and the installer gives it to them), the mediocre desktop support (it's not Debian's primary goal) and the lack of hardware detection (what kind of server gets new hardware every other week?).
I run Debian right now, and I'm quite happy with it. It acts as a NAT router and a web server. It doesn't have a keyboard or monitor plugged into it, let alone a waco mtablet or a web camera. Debian isn't a desktop distributing designed to pass teh 'mom test'. It's a server distribution, designed to give people who konw what they're doing exactly what they want. And it does it very, very well.
Assumming the reviewers write fair, intelligent reviews, this is a good thing. If 'the manner that influences their grading' is quality, than the teachers will be encouranged to be better treachers by bad reviews. This is clearly a good thing.
Although you make a very good point, and I would tend to agree with you, I have to quibble. You said "Composers haven't introduced new semi-tone notes, located between B and B-flat." However, there is a (very interesting) movement in music currently called microtonal music, and composers are doing just what you say they aren't, writing music using notes between B and B-flat, and anywhere else they want to put them.
That's not the point. I'm counting student loans as income. The idea is, if they weren't in school, they could be working (at minumum wage) and earning as much as they are borrowing. A college student's income puts them well below the poverty level, counting student loans as income.
I live quit comfortably off of $8.00 and hour, 30 hours a weeks. This works out to considerably less than a full-time job at minimum wage.
Take a look at most college students. Take their job income, add their student loans and grants, and subtract tuition and books. You end up with a person with a wage that puts them considerably below the povery line. Yet they all live very well.
My conclusion is that minumum wage isn't a problem. It's how people use it. You can actually live off of minumum wage. It's not that hard.
Actually, it only costs $15.
The point is not that there is no explanation, there certainly is. The point is that the protestors don't take the time to understand what the reasons are, and instead blindly protest under the umbrella of "war is bad". If anti-war protestors can't even be bothered to understand the pro-war arguements, how can they expect to effictively counter them?
Which mod's mission is it to mod everything about everything2 redundant? It seems perfectly relevant...
No, (s)he's right. Turns out the article specifically mentioned E2's softlinks. My bad.
This sure sounds a lot like softlinks on Everything2.
Really, rather interesting things. Kind of makes a "nueron net" of the database (or web, for tangle). You get to see everyone's thought patterns, from the relevant links to the one or two offbeat ones.
Next, Searchking will be suing slashdot.org for purposely and arbitrarily lauching a devious attack on the website that prevented their customers from accessing it.
Out of curiousity, what royalties are webcast stations paying now? Why can't they just join ASCAP, like we real radio stations do? According to their payment plan ASCAP distributes rights to "radio, TV, cable, bars, clubs, restaurants, shopping malls, concert halls, web sites, airlines, orchestras, etc."
I understand that CARP stinks, and I agree that webcaster shouldn't have to pay such high fees. But what, if anything are they paying now? And what's wrong with existing solutions?
Try www.emusic.com. It doesn't charge you per song, it's more like $45 for three month's unlimited access, but you get to download high quality mp3s (no DRM) from their reliable web server from something like 900 record labels. My friend joined up and downloaded a couple hundred albums worth of great music, all completely legally, and for less than fifty bucks! Check it out.
Looks like his site is Slashdotted. However, since the art is all based on google groups, it's still a long way from slashdotted. :)
Here's what he's come up with:
Bart
Lincoln
Spam
Correct. The calculations were done assuming this (that the highway was packed with station wagons). So while the lag is incredible, you still get amazing bandwidth.