You are wrong about the extent to which you are able to fairly use that material. College professors had to deal with this a while back...
More to the point, your example clearly illustrates the difference between acceptable fair use and unacceptable use in relation to music sharing(see I didn't use the word stealing:))
Namely, if you are truly unable to honestly differentiate between your personal use -- a lesser copy of the original for your own short term intelectual gain(i.e. studying, researching) -- and wholesale illegal distribution (sharing a music file that you either did or didn't purchase and legally license from the owner of the copyright) then you are really just deluding yourself in an attempt to justify your illegal behavior.
Also, to use the 'Library Argument(C)" as it will now be referred to, and not acknowledge the fact that those works are both specifically paid for by our taxes(or donations) in the spirit of providing access for those who cannot afford them on their own, and thereby placed in a context where they could be easily copied but are in good faith not draconian-ly restricted, is to do a diservice to the system of public good that has been erected in the pursuit of a completely unrelated and specious argument.
"Well, lets see, RIAA sets up a cartel, overcharges for CDs (and still does)"
This is the most moronic reasoning I am forced to hear over and over...Who are you to say what a CD should cost -- I understand what you would like for them to cost, but from what part of your anatomy do you pull your numbers from. --
I would like you to work for half of what you usually get paid(I assume you have a job and are not either living with your parents/in a dorm/in a basement)...I just feel that you are paid too much and I believe that you should be compensated less. Sure the business you work for has costs, but can't they really just get by on less. I know I would appreciate it if the widgets you produced cost less. Since they don't cost less, I figure instead of not purchasing your widgets, I will partake of them and constantly berate your inability to just lower your wage and make it easier for me to access them...
-- Insert luxury car analogy here --
...so in conclusion, I wan't that Porsche. I know it doesn't really cost twice as much as that nice Buick, but I really deserve it and therefore demand that you price it accordingly. I mean how can I afford the actual price on my allowance...
I still don't feel that the 'free market economy' is in a position to demand anything -- that is I don't think you should be legally allowed to download til they change their pricing -- that just seems like extortion. The 'F.M.E.' should only be able to not partake in the consumption of music as it's legal course of action. You don't get to just decide that the copyright holders are wrong but still consume what they are providing to you.
Also, I don't know when it became a right to try out things to see if you don't like them -- I agree it makes for a better business model (iTMS) but I don't get to wear a pair of levi's for a couple of days and then return them because they just don't look right. Not to mention the fact that you can only return something if you actually PAY FOR IT.
Bottom line is Brittney has many fans, they knowingly download her music, and I don't for a moment believe that they are downloading and discarding her songs.
"The flipside is, people don't see value in music anymore (gee...I wonder why: Britney, Boy Bands...etc), so they won't pay for it...It's called a free market economy. "
This makes no sense -- If you (not you literally) download a Spears track, don't you in effect WANT the product and thereby ENJOY the fruits of her labor? Where does not paying for it fit in? It seems the 'free market economy' is screaming that they want more Spears music...
Also, as to the Porsche replicator, you are free to cobble together cardboard boxes and old toilet paper tubes into something that looks like a Porsche, but it ain't a Porsche...rather, you are free to grab your guitar, play your own version of "Ziggy Stardust" into some sort of recording device and enjoy your own recording of it in your own home. No one will want to buy it in place of the actual recording. Mind you it should still be illegal for you to sell it as you are depriving Mr. Bowie of his royalties much like sampling, and he should be able to demand damages up to every dollar you 'profited'.
More to the point, the actual design of the Porsche and all it's constituent parts are something that hundreds of engineers and designers spent tens of thousands of hours toiling over -- when your replicator exists, it should be up to Porsche to effectively lower their cost of manufacturing so that you are only paying for the I.P. costs of the vehicle(it's design costs) as well it's promotional costs, etc...
It is not your right to pirate someone elses designs -- better you design your own improved car and GPL the design for everyone else to replicate. There is nothing wrong with open-source design, but don't assume you have a right to other peoples expressly protected work without their permission.
When you copy a music file, you have a perfect complete re-distributable image of the file that someone might pay a dollar for. When you xerox the page from national geographic you have a blurry representation of a portion of the magazine that no one else would pay a nickle for. I am sure if you were file-trading five second snippets, the RIAA would probably care less because you would actually have an incentive to purchase full copies of the product at a later time and they would view the swapping as promotional advertising. This is the argument that file-traders employ -- I am doing the bands and labels a favor by advertising for them. The truth is that by swapping songs in their entirety in formats nearly identical to the original, you are removing the impetus to purchase that music through the proper channels.
The concept of property vs. ideas is not that difficult to understand if you are not trying to convince yourself that ideas are not valuable. That is the bottom line. It is lost business if you 'take' something you cannot afford, because you are now in possesion of something that you WANTED and will not likely purchase that something in the future when you can afford it...spare me the defense that "you still would buy the music in the future if you REALLY liked it enough, once you could afford it, so as to have more high-fidelity copies of it...
"Artists would get treated more like authors, and retain the rights to their work."
Most 'authors' I know, namely screenwriters, don't retain any rights to their work -- once they have sold their work to the studio for a load of money -- in order for the studio to commence production of the "author's" story. I don't see why retaining the rights is so important once you have been properly compensated. And that is what copyright is about...compensation.
I worked as a music producer as well for a while, and I got a first hand introduction into the 'creative' -- read "flakey self-absorbed" musician vs. "the-guy-footing-all-the-costs" producer/studio -- Me. I didn't even make my artists jump through contractual hoops or draconian law-speak, nor did I attempt to mire them in repayment plans and such.
Moral of the story, artists flake, money wasted, lesson learned...I now believe mechanical reproductions and copyright infringement are the realm of the label/studio -- rather, the labels risk massive amounts of money to weed out the few artists who are either talented or appealing and hopefully both and get burned %95 of the time on the rest of the worthless trash who while talking a good game actually want something for nothing -- everyone want's to be rich and famous without doing the work or making the sacrifices. I see nothing wrong with nearly all proceeds of major-label recorded albums going back to the label who risked all the money. Conversely, I believe artists should reap the majority of their perfrormance profits -- as they generally do, minus the costs of the performance.
Now as to copyright infringement, Everyone who says it is not stealing is really being dishonest. It is stealing from the people who bankrolled the artists who you are ACTIVELY trying to enjoy. The artists you want to listen to would most likely not have a recording for you to listen to if they were not bankrolled by some deep pockets. Spare me the indie label crap. There is nothing stoping indie labels from developing artists and their careers. Most musicians I know don't want some obscure existence on an indie label. They want the mother lode -- fancy label, fancy touring options, big promotion, airplay...and those things only get provided by people with money willing to risk it on musicians without it.
p.s. I really don't like the **AA's -- but I dislike those who believe they are not stealing because they have some misguided sense of Robin-Hood-Syndrome. You are the ones who want to listen to the 'crap' the labels promote by the fact that you are the one's infringing the copyright of artists you claim to despise.
in our own lifetimes. Is the public domain not something that continues long after our own demise? The consumer's that is. I agree that works over one or two hundred years old should be in the public domain, but just because the entire "Journey" catalog is not freely available twenty years after it was concieved doesn't make copyright laws broken. Somehow, we all paid for our entertainment ten years ago. Just because we have technology to do something previously illegal doesn't magically make things legal, no matter how much we wish it to be so.
"And as far as creative people having their food stolen: the screenwriters and songwriters and musicians whose "rights" are supposedly being "protected" by the RIAA/MPAA Sturmabteilung are also systematically being raped up the butt, no Crisco offered, by the same Big Media companies that the RIAA and MPAA actually represent."
Yeah, so that is a really good reason to contribute to the 'raping'. That is the kind of logic that gets girls in trouble in Central Park. Are the writers/musicians just asking for it? Are they doing business provocatively? I can only speak from personal experience when I say that I am thankful for 'sane' copyright laws...they have fed my family over the years.
Two other things...How did I only manage a moderation total of '1' -- damn devil's advocate:) and I hope it is clear that I don't support 600-year copyright extensions
"All Richie asks is for you to not plagiarize his songs, or use them in movies, TV shows or paid compilations without first contacting him. The songs are copyrighted, but you are free to share them however you like. Share and Enjoy."
I think it is funny that with all the rhetoric about sharing and freedom, there is still an obvious desire to protect some dimension of your husbands 'rights' regarding his work. I think the answer to copyright restrictions lies in the vast grey area between what the artists want and what the consumers want (i.e. your husband wants to distribute his music in the broadest fashion, and the consumer wants to use his music(one day, hopefully:) in bootleg compilations sold on the street corner).
I would bet that everything you're interested in has been concieved in the last thirty years and your desire to not properly respect copyright law is directly related to your total lack of having created any type of content worth protecting. Write a movie, record a song, and then tell me that you don't want your rights respected when people start to literaly steal food from your plate.
It does seem as though he had 5000 units/customers waiting for delivery. If he wasn't going to deliver, then he would be guilty of mail fraud or something which could be even worse.
Actual damages: $180,000,000 / 5,000 = $36,000 per 'customer"
Potential damages: $900,000,000 / 5,000 = $180,000 per "customer"
That is a lot of satellite television. That's like 30 years at $100 a month. How long could one of those devices actually be useful for? Forget about the "potential damages" math, it hurts the head...
let's please make up our minds...
on
Jaguar is Over
·
· Score: 1
Let me get this straight -- when the Mac was slower than the PC and all the Mac-zealots were saying that speed doesn't matter that much, all the PC-ers couldn't stop crowing about the Mhz gap. Now, the Mac smokes the fastest PC, and the PC-ers are saying that having the fastest computer isn't that important...
And "bragging rights"? Are you fuckin' high? I can't remember a day on/. where there was not a baker's dozen worth of comments touting how fast someone's Dell was over the newest Mac.
Maybe now, for the next year or so, we'll start to have Mac users tormenting the PC-speed freaks with the benchmarking-ugly-stick...
I remember having graffiti software for an old messagepad 130 I had in the early ninties. I still have the floppy disk. I believe this was before the palm existed. I think this is a pretty lame patent win for xerox.
I think developing media codecs from scratch is a little more involved and time consuming than rewritting a tetris clone copied out of "How to program computer games" book.
for Directv subscribers who have at least a $35 a month service package and use a combo Directv/TiVo reciever -- we had an older phillips combo unit that we had payed the lifetime subscription for, and we just got bought the same type of unit branded by Hughes and discovered the inclusion of TiVo service for free.
There is a lady who pays drug addicts in exchange for sterilizing them. I think this offer should extend to all adults. $200 bucks and you relieve society of the potential fallout from your perilous breeding and parenting.
What I couldn't figure out while I was in the middle of it, was how the scam worked. While he didn't 'lead' me to an escrow service, I only had my own suspicions regarding how escrow itself worked. If the money wasn't transferred til I recieved the car and okay'd it, it didn't make sense how the guy could profit...However, with the disclosure of scam sites, it is more clear. It is a crap shoot on his end. He hopes that I do not research my escrow options and use a service that he can game.
BTW, I looked into a number of escrow sites -- e-gold services and such, talk about shady characters...I think I will stick to my local classifieds for anything over a couple of hundred bucks.
Slashdot Mirror
You are wrong about the extent to which you are able to fairly use that material. College professors had to deal with this a while back...
More to the point, your example clearly illustrates the difference between acceptable fair use and unacceptable use in relation to music sharing(see I didn't use the word stealing:))
Namely, if you are truly unable to honestly differentiate between your personal use -- a lesser copy of the original for your own short term intelectual gain(i.e. studying, researching) -- and wholesale illegal distribution (sharing a music file that you either did or didn't purchase and legally license from the owner of the copyright) then you are really just deluding yourself in an attempt to justify your illegal behavior.
Also, to use the 'Library Argument(C)" as it will now be referred to, and not acknowledge the fact that those works are both specifically paid for by our taxes(or donations) in the spirit of providing access for those who cannot afford them on their own, and thereby placed in a context where they could be easily copied but are in good faith not draconian-ly restricted, is to do a diservice to the system of public good that has been erected in the pursuit of a completely unrelated and specious argument.
"Well, lets see, RIAA sets up a cartel, overcharges for CDs (and still does)"
...so in conclusion, I wan't that Porsche. I know it doesn't really cost twice as much as that nice Buick, but I really deserve it and therefore demand that you price it accordingly. I mean how can I afford the actual price on my allowance...
This is the most moronic reasoning I am forced to hear over and over...Who are you to say what a CD should cost -- I understand what you would like for them to cost, but from what part of your anatomy do you pull your numbers from. --
I would like you to work for half of what you usually get paid(I assume you have a job and are not either living with your parents/in a dorm/in a basement)...I just feel that you are paid too much and I believe that you should be compensated less. Sure the business you work for has costs, but can't they really just get by on less. I know I would appreciate it if the widgets you produced cost less. Since they don't cost less, I figure instead of not purchasing your widgets, I will partake of them and constantly berate your inability to just lower your wage and make it easier for me to access them...
-- Insert luxury car analogy here --
I really do love iTMS :) It is wonderful...
I still don't feel that the 'free market economy' is in a position to demand anything -- that is I don't think you should be legally allowed to download til they change their pricing -- that just seems like extortion. The 'F.M.E.' should only be able to not partake in the consumption of music as it's legal course of action. You don't get to just decide that the copyright holders are wrong but still consume what they are providing to you.
Also, I don't know when it became a right to try out things to see if you don't like them -- I agree it makes for a better business model (iTMS) but I don't get to wear a pair of levi's for a couple of days and then return them because they just don't look right. Not to mention the fact that you can only return something if you actually PAY FOR IT.
Bottom line is Brittney has many fans, they knowingly download her music, and I don't for a moment believe that they are downloading and discarding her songs.
"The flipside is, people don't see value in music anymore (gee...I wonder why: Britney, Boy Bands...etc), so they won't pay for it...It's called a free market economy. "
This makes no sense -- If you (not you literally) download a Spears track, don't you in effect WANT the product and thereby ENJOY the fruits of her labor? Where does not paying for it fit in? It seems the 'free market economy' is screaming that they want more Spears music...
Also, as to the Porsche replicator, you are free to cobble together cardboard boxes and old toilet paper tubes into something that looks like a Porsche, but it ain't a Porsche...rather, you are free to grab your guitar, play your own version of "Ziggy Stardust" into some sort of recording device and enjoy your own recording of it in your own home. No one will want to buy it in place of the actual recording. Mind you it should still be illegal for you to sell it as you are depriving Mr. Bowie of his royalties much like sampling, and he should be able to demand damages up to every dollar you 'profited'.
More to the point, the actual design of the Porsche and all it's constituent parts are something that hundreds of engineers and designers spent tens of thousands of hours toiling over -- when your replicator exists, it should be up to Porsche to effectively lower their cost of manufacturing so that you are only paying for the I.P. costs of the vehicle(it's design costs) as well it's promotional costs, etc...
It is not your right to pirate someone elses designs -- better you design your own improved car and GPL the design for everyone else to replicate. There is nothing wrong with open-source design, but don't assume you have a right to other peoples expressly protected work without their permission.
When you copy a music file, you have a perfect complete re-distributable image of the file that someone might pay a dollar for. When you xerox the page from national geographic you have a blurry representation of a portion of the magazine that no one else would pay a nickle for. I am sure if you were file-trading five second snippets, the RIAA would probably care less because you would actually have an incentive to purchase full copies of the product at a later time and they would view the swapping as promotional advertising. This is the argument that file-traders employ -- I am doing the bands and labels a favor by advertising for them. The truth is that by swapping songs in their entirety in formats nearly identical to the original, you are removing the impetus to purchase that music through the proper channels.
You sir are a moron! Sorry, I couldn't resist...
The concept of property vs. ideas is not that difficult to understand if you are not trying to convince yourself that ideas are not valuable. That is the bottom line. It is lost business if you 'take' something you cannot afford, because you are now in possesion of something that you WANTED and will not likely purchase that something in the future when you can afford it...spare me the defense that "you still would buy the music in the future if you REALLY liked it enough, once you could afford it, so as to have more high-fidelity copies of it...
"Artists would get treated more like authors, and retain the rights to their work."
Most 'authors' I know, namely screenwriters, don't retain any rights to their work -- once they have sold their work to the studio for a load of money -- in order for the studio to commence production of the "author's" story. I don't see why retaining the rights is so important once you have been properly compensated. And that is what copyright is about...compensation.
I worked as a music producer as well for a while, and I got a first hand introduction into the 'creative' -- read "flakey self-absorbed" musician vs. "the-guy-footing-all-the-costs" producer/studio -- Me. I didn't even make my artists jump through contractual hoops or draconian law-speak, nor did I attempt to mire them in repayment plans and such.
Moral of the story, artists flake, money wasted, lesson learned...I now believe mechanical reproductions and copyright infringement are the realm of the label/studio -- rather, the labels risk massive amounts of money to weed out the few artists who are either talented or appealing and hopefully both and get burned %95 of the time on the rest of the worthless trash who while talking a good game actually want something for nothing -- everyone want's to be rich and famous without doing the work or making the sacrifices. I see nothing wrong with nearly all proceeds of major-label recorded albums going back to the label who risked all the money. Conversely, I believe artists should reap the majority of their perfrormance profits -- as they generally do, minus the costs of the performance.
Now as to copyright infringement, Everyone who says it is not stealing is really being dishonest. It is stealing from the people who bankrolled the artists who you are ACTIVELY trying to enjoy. The artists you want to listen to would most likely not have a recording for you to listen to if they were not bankrolled by some deep pockets. Spare me the indie label crap. There is nothing stoping indie labels from developing artists and their careers. Most musicians I know don't want some obscure existence on an indie label. They want the mother lode -- fancy label, fancy touring options, big promotion, airplay...and those things only get provided by people with money willing to risk it on musicians without it.
p.s. I really don't like the **AA's -- but I dislike those who believe they are not stealing because they have some misguided sense of Robin-Hood-Syndrome. You are the ones who want to listen to the 'crap' the labels promote by the fact that you are the one's infringing the copyright of artists you claim to despise.
in our own lifetimes. Is the public domain not something that continues long after our own demise? The consumer's that is. I agree that works over one or two hundred years old should be in the public domain, but just because the entire "Journey" catalog is not freely available twenty years after it was concieved doesn't make copyright laws broken. Somehow, we all paid for our entertainment ten years ago. Just because we have technology to do something previously illegal doesn't magically make things legal, no matter how much we wish it to be so.
"And as far as creative people having their food stolen: the screenwriters and songwriters and musicians whose "rights" are supposedly being "protected" by the RIAA/MPAA Sturmabteilung are also systematically being raped up the butt, no Crisco offered, by the same Big Media companies that the RIAA and MPAA actually represent."
Yeah, so that is a really good reason to contribute to the 'raping'. That is the kind of logic that gets girls in trouble in Central Park. Are the writers/musicians just asking for it? Are they doing business provocatively? I can only speak from personal experience when I say that I am thankful for 'sane' copyright laws...they have fed my family over the years.
Two other things...How did I only manage a moderation total of '1' -- damn devil's advocate:) and I hope it is clear that I don't support 600-year copyright extensions
"All Richie asks is for you to not plagiarize his songs, or use them in movies, TV shows or paid compilations without first contacting him. The songs are copyrighted, but you are free to share them however you like. Share and Enjoy."
I think it is funny that with all the rhetoric about sharing and freedom, there is still an obvious desire to protect some dimension of your husbands 'rights' regarding his work. I think the answer to copyright restrictions lies in the vast grey area between what the artists want and what the consumers want (i.e. your husband wants to distribute his music in the broadest fashion, and the consumer wants to use his music(one day, hopefully:) in bootleg compilations sold on the street corner).
I would bet that everything you're interested in has been concieved in the last thirty years and your desire to not properly respect copyright law is directly related to your total lack of having created any type of content worth protecting.
Write a movie, record a song, and then tell me that you don't want your rights respected when people start to literaly steal food from your plate.
It must have been floating in the ether...
It does seem as though he had 5000 units/customers waiting for delivery. If he wasn't going to deliver, then he would be guilty of mail fraud or something which could be even worse.
Actual damages: $180,000,000 / 5,000 = $36,000 per 'customer"
Potential damages: $900,000,000 / 5,000 = $180,000 per "customer"
That is a lot of satellite television. That's like 30 years at $100 a month. How long could one of those devices actually be useful for? Forget about the "potential damages" math, it hurts the head...
Let me get this straight -- when the Mac was slower than the PC and all the Mac-zealots were saying that speed doesn't matter that much, all the PC-ers couldn't stop crowing about the Mhz gap. Now, the Mac smokes the fastest PC, and the PC-ers are saying that having the fastest computer isn't that important...
/. where there was not a baker's dozen worth of comments touting how fast someone's Dell was over the newest Mac.
And "bragging rights"? Are you fuckin' high? I can't remember a day on
Maybe now, for the next year or so, we'll start to have Mac users tormenting the PC-speed freaks with the benchmarking-ugly-stick...
By distributing "leaked keys" MS assures itself of easy market penetration -- like when they gave their browser away...
Get enough people using the software, and you can call it a de facto standard...
The single greatest enhancement to OS X is Launchbar--
Find, manipulate, launch anything anywhere on your computer...applications or files. You will not understand how you lived without it.
I remember having graffiti software for an old messagepad 130 I had in the early ninties. I still have the floppy disk. I believe this was before the palm existed. I think this is a pretty lame patent win for xerox.
Correct. Total Choice Premium is around $80 and I do think we got our new TiVo service for free because of our previous lifetime subscription.
I think developing media codecs from scratch is a little more involved and time consuming than rewritting a tetris clone copied out of "How to program computer games" book.
for Directv subscribers who have at least a $35 a month service package and use a combo Directv/TiVo reciever -- we had an older phillips combo unit that we had payed the lifetime subscription for, and we just got bought the same type of unit branded by Hughes and discovered the inclusion of TiVo service for free.
Or even better, regulate parents.
There is a lady who pays drug addicts in exchange for sterilizing them. I think this offer should extend to all adults. $200 bucks and you relieve society of the potential fallout from your perilous breeding and parenting.
Any takers?
I believe I narrowly avoided this scam a few months ago. While looking for a used BMW M5, I found a deal which seemed 'to good to be true©'. The price was fifteen grand below market value, and the guy selling it was supposedly somewhere in N.Y. After a few weeks of e-mail, and my trying in vain to get the guy to call me in person, I called him out on his ploy...something to the effect of "I cannot go forward without speaking to you in person. Escrow or not. Needless to say I never heard from the guy again, and subsequently the car was no longer listed on cars.com
What I couldn't figure out while I was in the middle of it, was how the scam worked. While he didn't 'lead' me to an escrow service, I only had my own suspicions regarding how escrow itself worked. If the money wasn't transferred til I recieved the car and okay'd it, it didn't make sense how the guy could profit...However, with the disclosure of scam sites, it is more clear. It is a crap shoot on his end. He hopes that I do not research my escrow options and use a service that he can game.
BTW, I looked into a number of escrow sites -- e-gold services and such, talk about shady characters...I think I will stick to my local classifieds for anything over a couple of hundred bucks.