What I think the legal issue here is that in order for somebody to have obtained any information about an unreleased Apple product, they would have to be an employee of Apple or an Apple contractor. In both cases, employees are more than likely required to willfully sign into a terms of employment contract stating that they will not release intellectual property or associated trade secrets, or face termination of employment or possible criminal prosecution. Logicly, this should be the only source where intellectual property or a trade secret could originate in the public forum. Any other means would be espionage and likewise illegal. Going on the assumption that there are no legal means of obtaining such material, news media, rumor sites, etc. must have obtained their information by unauthorized means at some point in time, if not directly, perhaps second hand, etc.
But is Apple overreacting to the situation? Perhaps it is a bit of an extreme measure for them to take. But think about this, if the headline read "Leak at Apple Costs Them $2 Billion, Apple Sues Employees" we would all have a different view on Apple's actions. Although the information on the Cube was so close to release that nobody could have realisticly stolen the concept before it was publicly released, if it were something else perhaps it wouldn't have been. Responsability for determining what information is acceptable for public release and what information isn't is a decision that only parties within the company entrusted with that responsability should make. Apple needs to establish that it means business when it comes to enforcing their corperate policy. I think that they might have gotten off easy with this one. Had the headlines actually read that they lost $2Billion, the defendants would be in a lot deeper sh*t than they are now. Above all, Apple, like all large (and small) companies, needs to maintain control over their property and ideas. Remember, big companies never loose money, they just pass the cost along to us. At least they're not suing their fans for looking at the pics on the rumor pages;)
This post sais a little more on my opinion about this.
"Am I the only one who finds netscape to be stable ?"
On average, I have Netscape crash about once a day (Win98). I rarely use IE, but that too, crashes about as regularly. I haven't upgraded yet, but a good SysAdmin friend of mine advised me that IE V5.5 is even more unstable, and had huge problems with it when he upgraded his work systems. Can't verify that, haven't used it yet. The only problem I have with Netscape is that often when it crashes, I cannot close the "Netscape has performed an illegal operation...etc... close/details" box, it just reappears every time. Ctrl/alt/del no longer functions after that, nor does the computer shut down properly. Anyone else have this problem? IE occationaly does that to me after crashes, but usually the box closes properly.
I think it is one of those balance things. I also agree, to an extent, that this "hype" is good for Apple. It is good for any business, and many business's use this as part of their marketing stratigy, to leak information just prior to the release of a product to generate anticipation. But it would seem that someone, somewhere, has violated some sort of agreement. Unfortionately, these are things that can't be taken lightly. If Apple (or any company for that matter) allows this to continue, how far will it go? Where is the line drawn? Is it ok if it's one week before release, because nobody else would have time to copy it? A month? Or is it ok if it's a case design, but not if it's something revolutionary? Is a new case revolutionary?
So I digress... it's a balance. The media will always do what they can to get "the story." And companies will always do what they can to protect themselves from the media. They have to. Remember, the media is a business too, and big stories make the big bucks for them, legit sources or not. If Apple doesn't flex some muscle now, next time the leak could be source code, or early engineering ideas. They have chosen to draw the line here, and have now established a precident as to where that line is. I'm sure that Apple has invested millions into advertising and market research. If they wanted it "leaked," it would have been.
I agree that the hype was probably good for Apple. However, Apple needs to protect themselves. Also, Jobs is not the only person the world of Apple has to answer to. Even he I'm sure has investors, stockholders, or some other financial entity to answer to, and if they see that Apple has sloppy policies on enforcing their copyrights, the corperation could loose them too. That would spell much worse news for them than a little leak. So don't try to pin the whole thing on Jobs. This time I don't think it's about somebody blabbing about the cube. It's about principle, and it's about setting a standard. Look at it from that point of view, you may see it a little differently.
Kalak451 writes "Napsters one saving grace was that it was only used for music."
This is not true either. Although other file formats might be far less popular for trade on Napster, there is a program available for download known as Wrapster that masks *.(any) extention to a *.mp3 extention, and allows any type of file to be posted for DL on Napster. The files are generally named after their content, ie: "Natalie_Portman_Nude.mp3" After downloading, the "Wrapster" utility converts the fake *.mp3 file back into whatever it was.
CMiYC writes: I think if we look at it from the point of view, "where can we get with it,"
Hmm.. mabey that can be their motto, Microsoft has "Where do you want to go today" and they can have "Where can we get with it", or mabey "What purpose does it serve?"
Back on topic: Being that most popular applications have been ported to other OS's (*nix, MacOS.x, etc.), you may be thinking "why would we need a Micro$oft clone?" Well, this would be the most direct competition to MS, as all MS software would run on it, as well as non MS software written for windows. And since we already know that MS is the most popular desktop OS, a free 100% compatible OS could allow computer manufactures to lower prices by not having to include the price of an OS. This is good for everybody. The advantage of using a Win9x clone is that it could smoothly intigrated into the mainstream, as most people are already familliar with the Win9x environment. Thus business could install this on all their systems at a fraction of the cost, and not have to pay for employee training on the new OS. But the biggest advantage is still the direct compitition to MS, after all, how could they compete with free? For the record, I'm not against Linux, MacOSx, BSD, etc. They are wonderful operating systems. I'm just trying to be realistic. If somebody produced an almost transparent Win9x clone, it would have the best shot of hitting mainstream. I just hope that they don't copy the bugs!
Ok, so the court didn't exactly say Napster has to shut down the servers. But think about this. The court probably couldn't tell them that that is exactly what they had to do, but by forcing them to do something of wich they have no control over, what other choice did they have? The RIAA knew if they could get the court to grant such an injunction, that Napster would have no other choice but to shut down. Its just one of those legal jargon things that gets what somebody wants done one way or the other, just not directly. I'm sure Napster, and many other people, realize this, so I aggree with Napster's statement that they were forced to shut down their servers. After this injunction, if the RIAA could prove that even ONE copyrighted song was traded on Napster, it would be over for them.
traffic that comes from outside the UK? Say for example, that I am in the US, and sending a mail to someone in Japan. Now, say that the mail has to get routed through a UK server, does this bill permit them to read it, even though it wasn't generated or terminated in the UK? The article did say ALL traffic sent through their servers. And what about mail terminating in the UK but from some other country? Or is it only mail originating in the UK? This could be a very dangerous international example, many govornments use programs from other govornments as examples and models for their own. If this works in the UK, it might not be far behind that the USA and any other country for that matter adopts a similar law. We should all keep a close eye on what the outcome of this is, you can bet that your gov't is.
There is no law against having an MP3 file in your posession, copyrighted or not. It only stipulates that you cannot illegally reproduce copyrighted material for the purpose of distribution. But the laws have grey areas as far as distributing copies to friends, etc. I don't know the specifics on that law so I will not try to explain it. Perhaps someone else could. There is no law, however, that says I cannot copy a CD or other format to MP3 for my own personal use, and there are many legit personal uses for MP3, whether it be for a personal MP3 player, use in a PRIVATE studio, etc. I'd be amazed to see the Gov. ban a file format of all things. Give it time, I suppose...
On the other hand, there should be laws against the RIAA giants charging $18 for a damn CD......
Hmm.... Anyone have a few extra copies of "Catcher in the Rye"? I'm hoping that nobody really thinks that the FBI would really shut down the US internet. With all the B2B and consumer web businesses hosted here, it would cause havoc on the US economy if they did. I'm not saying that the stock market would crash, but it would hurt. A lot. And not only the web business, but all IT industry. Computer sales would drop, thousands of people would loose their jobs. ISP's would close. And I'm sure Steve Case would have a big lawsuite overnight. Even if they just shut it down for a few days, things would go crazy. And then we would all have to wonder when it was going to happen again. How could anyone make a business plan or an investment if we didn't know day to day if the internet would even be there? And you thought Y2K was bad!!! What I really think we should worry about is the Carnivore or some other system controlling content. Like a big CyberPatrol that we have no control over.
If I understand the article correctly, there will be no sound in the bubble. Why? Well, if the craft causes cavitation, then the bubble will essentially be a vaccuum. Sound cannot travel through a vaccuum. The only 2 possibilties would be if the exhaust from the rockets creates pressure within the cavity, or atomized water droplets might cause a sort of an atmosphere, particularly if they are friction heated into steam. The article didn't really describe that much the exact properties of the cavity, but in theory, the physical properties of cavitation create a vaccuum. Because the craft is underwater, air will never be exposed to it, and a normal atmosphere as we know it cannot exist. As I'm sure that the exact properties of this technoligy will remain secret for some time to come, we might just have to wait and see. Also, if the craft is traveling at super-sonic speeds, any sound should be left behind, and even though it could be transmitted through the water back to the front of the vessel (wich is contacting the water), the craft would be going too fast for the sound to "catch up" to the nose of the craft. Where the sound might stay is in the bubbles left behind the craft from the rockets. For those who don't believe me, tie an M-80 to a rock and drop it in a few feet of water. You will hear a low noise when the munition detonates, and a very loud noise a second later when the bubble reaches the surface and opens. It's a very cool effect. The concern I have is that sound travels faster underwater than it does at normal atmospheric densities, and for much longer distances. What affect will an underwater sonic boom have on wildlife and small surface craft? I for one wouldn't want to be in a small boat above one of these things.
They took the image down, "Under Threat of Apple Legal Action Images Have Been Removed".... guess they are scared of "Apple's legion of legal representation." Did anybody save the image?
"he's quite wealthy. back in 1996 (i *think*) he was estimated at $200 million"...last I heard, Bill Gates was worth $28 billion. I think that's what the comparison is to. Not that I'd mind being Woz.....
Good idea, but what is to stop me from buying "apple.computers" or "America.online" or "General.motors" etc, and squatting them? I realize that the potential names would be almost limitless, however, many of the bigger names (and there are a lot) that would be the most logical, and thus most desireable to these companies, could still be squatted. Also, the fact that trademarked companies couldn't buy up all TLD variations of their names, could create potential for unscrupulous people to create "imitation" sites that could fool people into thinking that they are dealing with the real company. Imagine the personal information that could be gathered from people thinking that they are really on Microsoft's website, or any online business that would, for legitimate purposes, collect information like address, phone numbers, or credit card information. On my final rant, even though most major (mainstream) sites are.com, could you imagine the confusion if they go to a standardized system, ie:.sex,.tv,.geek, etc? Who would be responsable for catagorizing the content of the site? For example, is/. a.Linux site? Or a.news site? A.forum site? What really needs to happen is to find a way to end the practice of squatting domains. A domain police? Perhaps there could be a way to do this economicly. To sell a domain for a high price, it would most likely be sold in a popular place. (ebay, yahoo auctions, etc.) Time limits could be set on the time from a registration to actual publication of the site. Or perhaps an application that would describe the content of the site and require a contract to be signed stating that you will use the name for your personal and intended content and not resell the domain until or unless you sell it as part of an internet business, etc, otherwise it would be reclaimed by the registrars for further use. This is a very simplified idea, but it could be written to exclude loopholes that would prevent would be squatters from buying "freecomputer.com" (just a random example, I don't even know if its a valid domain) and selling it for $5000 by putting a picture of their pet cat on the site and calling it "published".
Do you mean there are more than six good bands a year? Amazing!!!!! Gee, I had no idea that the RIAA held bands back. But this is the way I've felt all along. The power is going to go back to the consumer to choose what they want to listen to, NOT what the "industry" feels like "selling" us. If the RIAA doesn't like that, well, too bad. Musical expression should be free (mabey not free as in no money but free from corperate control I mean) and that is where it is going to go from here. Since I turned 21 a year and a half ago, I have seen countless struggeling and talented local bands. The days of make or break are over. There will still be some big names, no doubt, but I believe it will be mostly middle ground level bands, with a multitude of choices for the consumer. The RIAA can stop Napster, mabey even Gnutella, but I doubt they will ever control people as a whole. Encryption won't stop an analog audio stream, advertisements can be edited, net connections will get faster, and MP3 or some format will be traded until something comes along to replace the computer. (now that's a deep thought, what would?) They are going to just have to face the music, no pun intended, and realize that their reign on musical control is over. Sorry guys!
I've never had a problem listening to even a few seconds of a downloading MP3 file on Winamp. Is the version of Winamp that you are using on Windows or Linux?
What the law does say, at least for music copyrights, and I'm assuming copyrights in general, is if you ABUSE the power of copyrights and the power associated with them, then you risk loosing your copyright. I can't remember where I saw the article, but it was a statement from the Napster defense lawyer, who, coincidently, is one of the prosicuters for the Microsoft case. Hmm.. a few paralells here too, huh?
If you want to check out some of this rediculous "domain name real estate speculation" check out Ebay and search "domain name." I'm sure some of the prices are bogus bids, but none the less, I have seen many a domain name sell for $5000 and higher. What can be done to stop this rediculous practice of buying up huge blocks of domain names and selling them for much higher than normal prices? These are mostly new domains, not established business domains, wich could have some capital value.
I doubt many Home Depot officials read/. So instead of complaining here, why don't we complain to them? They have a contact page on their site with webform submission, so you don't have to use your personal email. It does ask for an email, but there is no reason you can't use a fake one. If we as net consumers don't get the message across now, what's to stop this from becoming a popular occurance? Personally, I'd hate to have to right click every link and open it in a new window someday because nobody ever said anything about the practice. And yes, I already have submitted a complaint to them. A reference to lost business might drive the point home a little faster, and there is nothing in Net.Law (sorry Rob, I just love that one) that says you can't tell them you are boycotting them even if you're not.
Mabey somethign to track missing socks. Remote controls mabey? This way, next time I'm missing my remote, everyone on the web can tell me "It's under the couch cushin stupid!"
What we have here I believe is a bit of a revolution. This goes way, way deeper than Napster. If Napster wins this on those grounds, what will stop people from copying ANYTHING and giving it away? This will make the entire copyright system basicly useless in this modern age, where perfect or at least near perfect copys of any intilectual material can be easily reproduced. Or do these copyright laws only apply to music? Either way, I support Napster all the way. The RIAA has far too strong a hold on music for too long. When AOL can afford to send out CD's by the bargeload, it has become obvious to me that CD's cost very little to produce. The fact that the industry commands 18 dollars (US) for a CD is obscene. I, for one, would buy far more CD's if they were affordable, but I currently find it difficult do justify spending that much money on ANY CD. To walk into a store with $50 and come out with 3 CD's is a very unrewarding experience. To walk out with say, 10 CD's, would be far more gratifying and I believe that the labels, as well as the retailers, would make at least the same profit on sheer volume.
So what does all of this have to do with copyrights? Well, by having such a strong hold on musical distribution, promotion, and sales, they have willfully discouraged competition in the music business. A musician has little choice but to go to a corperate giant to have his/her music ever see widespread distribution. Because of this tremendous power, and in effors to keep CD prices high, they allow very little to ever make it to market. Not to say that everyone who submits a demo to a label should be signed, but by limiting to such a great extend who gets exposure, they limit comsumer choice. By limiting consumer choice, they can keep prices high. After all, what else are you going to buy? This brings us back to the case against Napster. Like the article stated, if Napster can prove that the labels have "abused their market power to block alternative channels of music distribution, along with an obscure antitrust law, the attorney says the labels have lost the legal ability to enforce their copyrights.", then they could loose rights to almost all of their profitible artists. And so the entire lawsuit will backfire in their faces. Eat your heart out MTV, the musical revolution begins NOW!
I think the loonies from Totl did something like this too a while ago in a freezer, and beer was one of the key ingredients. In fact, I think they used the beer cans as "icebags" for the CPU as well. Funny how these things work, isn't it?
It's about time somebody did this! I have been wanting to do this since I first heard about overclocking, and the heat problems that accompany it. 650 Mhz from a Celeron 366? Hmmmm... anybody wanna try a 1Ghz Athalon?
Slashdot Mirror
But is Apple overreacting to the situation? Perhaps it is a bit of an extreme measure for them to take. But think about this, if the headline read "Leak at Apple Costs Them $2 Billion, Apple Sues Employees" we would all have a different view on Apple's actions. Although the information on the Cube was so close to release that nobody could have realisticly stolen the concept before it was publicly released, if it were something else perhaps it wouldn't have been. Responsability for determining what information is acceptable for public release and what information isn't is a decision that only parties within the company entrusted with that responsability should make. Apple needs to establish that it means business when it comes to enforcing their corperate policy. I think that they might have gotten off easy with this one. Had the headlines actually read that they lost $2Billion, the defendants would be in a lot deeper sh*t than they are now. Above all, Apple, like all large (and small) companies, needs to maintain control over their property and ideas. Remember, big companies never loose money, they just pass the cost along to us. At least they're not suing their fans for looking at the pics on the rumor pages ;)
This post sais a little more on my opinion about this.
On average, I have Netscape crash about once a day (Win98). I rarely use IE, but that too, crashes about as regularly. I haven't upgraded yet, but a good SysAdmin friend of mine advised me that IE V5.5 is even more unstable, and had huge problems with it when he upgraded his work systems. Can't verify that, haven't used it yet. The only problem I have with Netscape is that often when it crashes, I cannot close the "Netscape has performed an illegal operation...etc... close/details" box, it just reappears every time. Ctrl/alt/del no longer functions after that, nor does the computer shut down properly. Anyone else have this problem? IE occationaly does that to me after crashes, but usually the box closes properly.
So I digress... it's a balance. The media will always do what they can to get "the story." And companies will always do what they can to protect themselves from the media. They have to. Remember, the media is a business too, and big stories make the big bucks for them, legit sources or not. If Apple doesn't flex some muscle now, next time the leak could be source code, or early engineering ideas. They have chosen to draw the line here, and have now established a precident as to where that line is. I'm sure that Apple has invested millions into advertising and market research. If they wanted it "leaked," it would have been.
I agree that the hype was probably good for Apple. However, Apple needs to protect themselves. Also, Jobs is not the only person the world of Apple has to answer to. Even he I'm sure has investors, stockholders, or some other financial entity to answer to, and if they see that Apple has sloppy policies on enforcing their copyrights, the corperation could loose them too. That would spell much worse news for them than a little leak. So don't try to pin the whole thing on Jobs. This time I don't think it's about somebody blabbing about the cube. It's about principle, and it's about setting a standard. Look at it from that point of view, you may see it a little differently.
This is not true either. Although other file formats might be far less popular for trade on Napster, there is a program available for download known as Wrapster that masks *.(any) extention to a *.mp3 extention, and allows any type of file to be posted for DL on Napster. The files are generally named after their content, ie: "Natalie_Portman_Nude.mp3" After downloading, the "Wrapster" utility converts the fake *.mp3 file back into whatever it was.
Hmm.. mabey that can be their motto, Microsoft has "Where do you want to go today" and they can have "Where can we get with it", or mabey "What purpose does it serve?"
Back on topic: Being that most popular applications have been ported to other OS's (*nix, MacOS.x, etc.), you may be thinking "why would we need a Micro$oft clone?" Well, this would be the most direct competition to MS, as all MS software would run on it, as well as non MS software written for windows. And since we already know that MS is the most popular desktop OS, a free 100% compatible OS could allow computer manufactures to lower prices by not having to include the price of an OS. This is good for everybody. The advantage of using a Win9x clone is that it could smoothly intigrated into the mainstream, as most people are already familliar with the Win9x environment. Thus business could install this on all their systems at a fraction of the cost, and not have to pay for employee training on the new OS. But the biggest advantage is still the direct compitition to MS, after all, how could they compete with free? For the record, I'm not against Linux, MacOSx, BSD, etc. They are wonderful operating systems. I'm just trying to be realistic. If somebody produced an almost transparent Win9x clone, it would have the best shot of hitting mainstream. I just hope that they don't copy the bugs!
On the other hand, there should be laws against the RIAA giants charging $18 for a damn CD......
If I understand the article correctly, there will be no sound in the bubble. Why? Well, if the craft causes cavitation, then the bubble will essentially be a vaccuum. Sound cannot travel through a vaccuum. The only 2 possibilties would be if the exhaust from the rockets creates pressure within the cavity, or atomized water droplets might cause a sort of an atmosphere, particularly if they are friction heated into steam. The article didn't really describe that much the exact properties of the cavity, but in theory, the physical properties of cavitation create a vaccuum. Because the craft is underwater, air will never be exposed to it, and a normal atmosphere as we know it cannot exist. As I'm sure that the exact properties of this technoligy will remain secret for some time to come, we might just have to wait and see. Also, if the craft is traveling at super-sonic speeds, any sound should be left behind, and even though it could be transmitted through the water back to the front of the vessel (wich is contacting the water), the craft would be going too fast for the sound to "catch up" to the nose of the craft. Where the sound might stay is in the bubbles left behind the craft from the rockets. For those who don't believe me, tie an M-80 to a rock and drop it in a few feet of water. You will hear a low noise when the munition detonates, and a very loud noise a second later when the bubble reaches the surface and opens. It's a very cool effect. The concern I have is that sound travels faster underwater than it does at normal atmospheric densities, and for much longer distances. What affect will an underwater sonic boom have on wildlife and small surface craft? I for one wouldn't want to be in a small boat above one of these things.
They took the image down, "Under Threat of Apple Legal Action Images Have Been Removed".... guess they are scared of "Apple's legion of legal representation." Did anybody save the image?
"he's quite wealthy. back in 1996 (i *think*) he was estimated at $200 million"...last I heard, Bill Gates was worth $28 billion. I think that's what the comparison is to. Not that I'd mind being Woz.....
Good idea, but what is to stop me from buying "apple.computers" or "America.online" or "General.motors" etc, and squatting them? I realize that the potential names would be almost limitless, however, many of the bigger names (and there are a lot) that would be the most logical, and thus most desireable to these companies, could still be squatted. Also, the fact that trademarked companies couldn't buy up all TLD variations of their names, could create potential for unscrupulous people to create "imitation" sites that could fool people into thinking that they are dealing with the real company. Imagine the personal information that could be gathered from people thinking that they are really on Microsoft's website, or any online business that would, for legitimate purposes, collect information like address, phone numbers, or credit card information. On my final rant, even though most major (mainstream) sites are .com, could you imagine the confusion if they go to a standardized system, ie: .sex, .tv, .geek, etc? Who would be responsable for catagorizing the content of the site? For example, is /. a .Linux site? Or a .news site? A .forum site? What really needs to happen is to find a way to end the practice of squatting domains. A domain police? Perhaps there could be a way to do this economicly. To sell a domain for a high price, it would most likely be sold in a popular place. (ebay, yahoo auctions, etc.) Time limits could be set on the time from a registration to actual publication of the site. Or perhaps an application that would describe the content of the site and require a contract to be signed stating that you will use the name for your personal and intended content and not resell the domain until or unless you sell it as part of an internet business, etc, otherwise it would be reclaimed by the registrars for further use. This is a very simplified idea, but it could be written to exclude loopholes that would prevent would be squatters from buying "freecomputer.com" (just a random example, I don't even know if its a valid domain) and selling it for $5000 by putting a picture of their pet cat on the site and calling it "published".
Do you mean there are more than six good bands a year? Amazing!!!!! Gee, I had no idea that the RIAA held bands back. But this is the way I've felt all along. The power is going to go back to the consumer to choose what they want to listen to, NOT what the "industry" feels like "selling" us. If the RIAA doesn't like that, well, too bad. Musical expression should be free (mabey not free as in no money but free from corperate control I mean) and that is where it is going to go from here. Since I turned 21 a year and a half ago, I have seen countless struggeling and talented local bands. The days of make or break are over. There will still be some big names, no doubt, but I believe it will be mostly middle ground level bands, with a multitude of choices for the consumer. The RIAA can stop Napster, mabey even Gnutella, but I doubt they will ever control people as a whole. Encryption won't stop an analog audio stream, advertisements can be edited, net connections will get faster, and MP3 or some format will be traded until something comes along to replace the computer. (now that's a deep thought, what would?) They are going to just have to face the music, no pun intended, and realize that their reign on musical control is over. Sorry guys!
I've never had a problem listening to even a few seconds of a downloading MP3 file on Winamp. Is the version of Winamp that you are using on Windows or Linux?
What the law does say, at least for music copyrights, and I'm assuming copyrights in general, is if you ABUSE the power of copyrights and the power associated with them, then you risk loosing your copyright. I can't remember where I saw the article, but it was a statement from the Napster defense lawyer, who, coincidently, is one of the prosicuters for the Microsoft case. Hmm.. a few paralells here too, huh?
If you want to check out some of this rediculous "domain name real estate speculation" check out Ebay and search "domain name." I'm sure some of the prices are bogus bids, but none the less, I have seen many a domain name sell for $5000 and higher. What can be done to stop this rediculous practice of buying up huge blocks of domain names and selling them for much higher than normal prices? These are mostly new domains, not established business domains, wich could have some capital value.
I doubt many Home Depot officials read /. So instead of complaining here, why don't we complain to them? They have a contact page on their site with webform submission, so you don't have to use your personal email. It does ask for an email, but there is no reason you can't use a fake one. If we as net consumers don't get the message across now, what's to stop this from becoming a popular occurance? Personally, I'd hate to have to right click every link and open it in a new window someday because nobody ever said anything about the practice. And yes, I already have submitted a complaint to them. A reference to lost business might drive the point home a little faster, and there is nothing in Net.Law (sorry Rob, I just love that one) that says you can't tell them you are boycotting them even if you're not.
Mabey somethign to track missing socks. Remote controls mabey? This way, next time I'm missing my remote, everyone on the web can tell me "It's under the couch cushin stupid!"
So what does all of this have to do with copyrights? Well, by having such a strong hold on musical distribution, promotion, and sales, they have willfully discouraged competition in the music business. A musician has little choice but to go to a corperate giant to have his/her music ever see widespread distribution. Because of this tremendous power, and in effors to keep CD prices high, they allow very little to ever make it to market. Not to say that everyone who submits a demo to a label should be signed, but by limiting to such a great extend who gets exposure, they limit comsumer choice. By limiting consumer choice, they can keep prices high. After all, what else are you going to buy? This brings us back to the case against Napster. Like the article stated, if Napster can prove that the labels have "abused their market power to block alternative channels of music distribution, along with an obscure antitrust law, the attorney says the labels have lost the legal ability to enforce their copyrights.", then they could loose rights to almost all of their profitible artists. And so the entire lawsuit will backfire in their faces. Eat your heart out MTV, the musical revolution begins NOW!
I think the loonies from Totl did something like this too a while ago in a freezer, and beer was one of the key ingredients. In fact, I think they used the beer cans as "icebags" for the CPU as well. Funny how these things work, isn't it?
It's about time somebody did this! I have been wanting to do this since I first heard about overclocking, and the heat problems that accompany it. 650 Mhz from a Celeron 366? Hmmmm... anybody wanna try a 1Ghz Athalon?