Napster complained about an anti-competitive clause in the contract they signed with MusicNet
Question: Why would they sign such a contract?
Because they didn't have any other viable options. It was either bend over for the RIAA or be forced into liquidation via legal fees/fines/reparations/etc...
This may seem to be too soft, but if a terrorist group ever originated in the US and waged this kind of attack on another
nation, the US gov't would assure the victim nation that it would take care of things. We would never allow another country to
go terrorist hunting on our turf, even if that country seemed entitled to swift retribution.
You're spot-on there. We'd see it as an invasion, and I'm sure whoever's hosting the mastermind behind these attacks would see it the same.
We need to show that terrorism is an impotent tool.
Impossible. The point of the strikes this morning has already hit home. YOU ARE NOT IMMUNE. The entire country has been paralyzed.
Granted, I don't think the answer is to level a few countries to the ground. But this can't go unchecked or unanswered. Otherwise they'll just go and do it again.
To not retaliate means we render the loss of life meaningless and the destruction of property irrelevant. Sure, it would in the long run discourage the terrorists out of pure apathy, but how many have to die before this happens?
What this means is another judge takes the Findings of Fact (which still implicate M$ of illegal monopolistic practices) and starts reviewing it.
It does NOT mean that Microsoft has gotten away with it. Depending on what the new judge decides, Microsoft may end up splintered even worse than Jackson ruled.
I don't think new evidence can be entered in at this point; anything new would have to be filed as a separate complaint. (i.e. SmartTags)
I wonder how long it will take a cracker to make a malformed SmartTag code with a dummy name to gain access to anyone's system who uses it?
Sounds like a good way to insert a Trojan.
You can't solely blame the industry. I admit, they haven't really helped their cause much by blatantly keeping CD prices stagnant when they should have slowly dripped down. Blaming the artists is outright ludicrous. They're the ones most affected by piracy. If people copy their songs and stop buying their albums, the band comes under risk of being dropped from their label. Record labels care about the bands on a direct proportion with the income they provide. Pirates have to be held responsible as well. With greater access to information comes greater responsibility to handle that information. The rampant MP3 pirating is just a lack of responsibility of the users to handle that data. If people want to deal in MP3s, let them. They had just better not act surprised when the snake bites them for it.
Perhaps, BUT they don't look at it that way. You're supposed to buy into the hype and buy the album having heard only what the company has selectively released. I could buy it when CDs were $18 as a new media type. But in today's day and age? Not likely. I'd love to see where that $18 goes.
Slashdot Mirror
Napster complained about an anti-competitive clause in the contract they signed with MusicNet
Question: Why would they sign such a contract?
Because they didn't have any other viable options. It was either bend over for the RIAA or be forced into liquidation via legal fees/fines/reparations/etc...
You're spot-on there. We'd see it as an invasion, and I'm sure whoever's hosting the mastermind behind these attacks would see it the same.
Impossible. The point of the strikes this morning has already hit home. YOU ARE NOT IMMUNE. The entire country has been paralyzed.
Granted, I don't think the answer is to level a few countries to the ground. But this can't go unchecked or unanswered. Otherwise they'll just go and do it again.
To not retaliate means we render the loss of life meaningless and the destruction of property irrelevant. Sure, it would in the long run discourage the terrorists out of pure apathy, but how many have to die before this happens?
What this means is another judge takes the Findings of Fact (which still implicate M$ of illegal monopolistic practices) and starts reviewing it.
It does NOT mean that Microsoft has gotten away with it. Depending on what the new judge decides, Microsoft may end up splintered even worse than Jackson ruled.
I don't think new evidence can be entered in at this point; anything new would have to be filed as a separate complaint. (i.e. SmartTags)
I wonder how long it will take a cracker to make a malformed SmartTag code with a dummy name to gain access to anyone's system who uses it? Sounds like a good way to insert a Trojan.
music industry fearing smaller profit line attacks a scapegoat
You can't solely blame the industry. I admit, they haven't really helped their cause much by blatantly keeping CD prices stagnant when they should have slowly dripped down. Blaming the artists is outright ludicrous. They're the ones most affected by piracy. If people copy their songs and stop buying their albums, the band comes under risk of being dropped from their label. Record labels care about the bands on a direct proportion with the income they provide. Pirates have to be held responsible as well. With greater access to information comes greater responsibility to handle that information. The rampant MP3 pirating is just a lack of responsibility of the users to handle that data. If people want to deal in MP3s, let them. They had just better not act surprised when the snake bites them for it.
Perhaps, BUT they don't look at it that way. You're supposed to buy into the hype and buy the album having heard only what the company has selectively released. I could buy it when CDs were $18 as a new media type. But in today's day and age? Not likely. I'd love to see where that $18 goes.