What? Not hard to accomplish? 90 mph. Average. Including stops for fuel and restrooms and such. For every minute stopped at zero, you have to go 180 to make up for it. Also, his car was stealthed. No stickers.
* If a product is good, an advance review lets readers plan accordingly. They know something better is coming out soon, and they can avoid buying whatever's on the market right now.
Isn't something better ALWAYS coming out?
For a while I had them on my.Mac account until I crippled their servers and they asked me to remove them. I think I cost them thousands in burstable bandwidth charges.
After that I put up a plea for mirrors and I had the videos mirrored across a number of places and then a company offered to put them on a new data center they had just built as a stress test. We had almost 30Gbps sustained for 3 days straight. Moved over a petabyte in total is my best guess.
I'm the reason.Mac now has bandwidth limits. Sorry y'all!
I'm moving them over to Google Video slowly but surely, now that.Mac has actually started enforcing their bandwidth limits.
Actually there used to be a lot more there until I too moved to my own server for my new blog. To generate more PV's over there, I redirect the video viewers.
Here is my SiteMeter account for that page. 7m PV's.
While I am sure "bandwidth-wise" I would have been fine (except for the actual video which used up over a petabyte of BW), would their basic account have been able to handle 1m PV's a day for a week straight? I doubt it, since so many pages go down when merely Slashdotted which sends a significant amount of traffic, but nothing like what I got.
Ah, it's so nice to be self-hosted. Back when I was on Blogger.com, myself and many other users who received links from Slashdot stories or news sites became the target of a spammer who's sole purpose was to screw up the service for everyone.
I disagree on this point... I got Drudged when I was hosting tsunami videos and got something in the realm of 7 million hits in the span of a week. Were I on my own server I would have gotten slammed with nasty overage charges if my server were to stay up. Blogger took the traffic and didn't even blink.
There are times when it's nice to be on someone else's system...
The reality that the laws, as written and enforced, have no Constitutional basis and are in all reality in clear violation of the 9th and 10th amendments.
Yes, and all gun control laws are in clear violation of the 2nd amendment. Would you approve of getting rid of those as well?
An assumption of guilt just because someone is arrested does take away someone's rights. The Criminal Justice System doesn't exist in a vaccuum... we are it!
Yes, when someone is arrested it does take away their rights, however habeas corpus allows them to contest their detainment and get their rights back should the People fail to make their case in front of a jury of their peers. Isn't America wonderful?
It enjoys a monopoly on its product, controlled by the state. Therefore it is a state controlled monopoly.
I am sorry, you are incorrect.
Monopoly: Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.
It is clearly not a monopoly, because there are many different movie studios around the world with both large and small budgets. There are also made for TV movies and movies produced by film schools.
State-controlled: Subscribing to the socialistic doctrine of ownership by the people collectively
It is clear that the movie studios are not owned by the people collectively (they may be publically owned, but that is quite different that the state owning them).
State controlled monopolies, such as the movie industry are neither capitalism or a right.
You don't seem to know the definitions of "state-controlled", "monopoly", "capitalism" or "right".
The movie industry is not a state-controlled monopoly. The movie industry IS capitalism at it's finest, and the pursuit of riches and wealth and fame and fortune IS a right.
The point is that I have the right to share, not that I am required to share.
Aha! Exactly!
You are not required to share. If the record companies and movie companies wish to release their product for free (to SHARE) they are allowed to. You are not allowed to FORCE them to "share".
Thank you for proving my point for me!
Therefore, if the copyright owners wish to enfore their copyright (by not sharing) they are allowed to.
otherwise we're back to chopping off hands for stealing apples.
Yeah, but I bet people would stop stealing apples.
But seriously, this doesn't mean that people shouldn't be charged with the crime just because you think the penalty might be too high. They should think about the risk/reward of their actions and proceed accordingly. If you want to change the penalty, write your congresscritter.
I wanted to clear up whether or not you were defending them because they were alleged copyright violators or because they were just not proven guilty yet.
It's certainly not a perfect system, and we should all work to change it. Donate money to your local Defendants Rights organization, or something.
I have had experience with this very issue, and it is very very messy and very very painful.
In this particular case (didn't happen to me thank god) the record was 'sealed' which doesn't mean that much, but the person doesn't have to check 'have you been arrested' box...
This is the heart of it. If you don't want it shared, don't give it out.
They aren't giving it out, they're SELLING it. For money. To make a profit, so they can pay taxes and pay for that fine tunnel that they just built in my city. (The Big Dig). Thanks for that guys.
What reality should the media companies face up to? Yes, they should accept content distribution over the internet, but that does not make it OK to steal their product. (Steal = watch/listen to without paying for)
It's not my law and it's my right to speak out agains the frivolous use of my taxpayer money to enforce the rights of the yuppie next door to his latest finger-painting. Screw him. His work sucks, his art sucks, and it's not worth my protection.
If you live in the United States it IS your law, and you are welcome to speak out against it, but do not say that we should not be going after people who break it. Write your congresscritter if you like, that is a better way to accomplish what you want.
Even if his art sucks it is still worth copyright protection, quality of work does not affect that.
You want to be a hard-nose? Fine. Copying is a right. It's called nature and nature existed long before capitalism.
Actually copying without paying (theft) is not a right. It says so right there in the US Code and does not mention anything about copying in the Constitution.
Has nothing to do with the DMCA or file-sharing. Artists existed long before any laws.
And this has to do with copyright violation how?
I learned about monopolies, cartels, and money-laundering. Perhaps you slept through those classes.
And the Government investigates and punishes monopolies, cartels and money-launderers. Again, I fail to see what this has to do with copying copywritten material.
There are plenty of indie movie studios out there, what's your point?
Software copying became a right when pursuit of unlimited profits using taxpayer subsidized guido goons became a right.
THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW! LAW ENFORCEMENT GOES AFTER THEM!
WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE DEFENDING THEM?
I cannot understand this, if someone broke into your house, you would want them arrested and brought to justice... (or maybe you wouldn't, that would explain a lot actually)
Also, pursuit of unlimited profits IS a right. It's capitalism, the American way, providing jobs for millions of Americans by way of actors, cameramen, publicists, agents, script writers, gafferrs, electricians, carpenters, gardeners, car dealers, airline employees, swimming pool installers, restaurants, grocery stores, and many many more. The movie industry funds a lot of other industries, and perhaps you should take an economics class to learn about it.
As someone with experience in these matters, yes you are an alleged criminal and they are innocent until proven guilty, and yes, the grandparent post should have inserted the word alleged This is an important point.
HOWEVER, I cannot tell if you are defending these folks on Constitutional grounds or if you are defending them because they are pirates and violating copyright...
Slashdot Mirror
What? Not hard to accomplish? 90 mph. Average. Including stops for fuel and restrooms and such. For every minute stopped at zero, you have to go 180 to make up for it. Also, his car was stealthed. No stickers.
Ah, that must be why it's stood for 22 years. Let's see you do it.
90 mph average from NY to LA? Good luck.
* If a product is good, an advance review lets readers plan accordingly. They know something better is coming out soon, and they can avoid buying whatever's on the market right now. Isn't something better ALWAYS coming out?
For a while I had them on my .Mac account until I crippled their servers and they asked me to remove them. I think I cost them thousands in burstable bandwidth charges.
.Mac now has bandwidth limits. Sorry y'all!
.Mac has actually started enforcing their bandwidth limits.
After that I put up a plea for mirrors and I had the videos mirrored across a number of places and then a company offered to put them on a new data center they had just built as a stress test. We had almost 30Gbps sustained for 3 days straight. Moved over a petabyte in total is my best guess.
I'm the reason
I'm moving them over to Google Video slowly but surely, now that
Here's the wsj article about me: http://jlgolson.googlepages.com/wsj.html
Actually there used to be a lot more there until I too moved to my own server for my new blog. To generate more PV's over there, I redirect the video viewers.
= 0
_ videos.html
Here is my SiteMeter account for that page. 7m PV's.
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=sm7jlgolson&r
Content wise, it was very similar to what I have here: http://thestormtrack.com/archives/2004/12/tsunami
While I am sure "bandwidth-wise" I would have been fine (except for the actual video which used up over a petabyte of BW), would their basic account have been able to handle 1m PV's a day for a week straight? I doubt it, since so many pages go down when merely Slashdotted which sends a significant amount of traffic, but nothing like what I got.
Ah, it's so nice to be self-hosted. Back when I was on Blogger.com, myself and many other users who received links from Slashdot stories or news sites became the target of a spammer who's sole purpose was to screw up the service for everyone.
I disagree on this point... I got Drudged when I was hosting tsunami videos and got something in the realm of 7 million hits in the span of a week. Were I on my own server I would have gotten slammed with nasty overage charges if my server were to stay up. Blogger took the traffic and didn't even blink.
There are times when it's nice to be on someone else's system...
The reality that the laws, as written and enforced, have no Constitutional basis and are in all reality in clear violation of the 9th and 10th amendments.
Yes, and all gun control laws are in clear violation of the 2nd amendment. Would you approve of getting rid of those as well?
in a Deomcracy, WE are the ones jailing them.
Actually this is a Republic, not a democracy.
An assumption of guilt just because someone is arrested does take away someone's rights. The Criminal Justice System doesn't exist in a vaccuum... we are it!
Yes, when someone is arrested it does take away their rights, however habeas corpus allows them to contest their detainment and get their rights back should the People fail to make their case in front of a jury of their peers. Isn't America wonderful?
You're an idiot and a communist.
Copyright = state-controlled monopoly?
That's a warped view of things, to say that because laws exist preventing copyright infringement it is monopoly enabling.
Are you an anarchist?
It enjoys a monopoly on its product, controlled by the state. Therefore it is a state controlled monopoly.
I am sorry, you are incorrect.
Monopoly: Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.
It is clearly not a monopoly, because there are many different movie studios around the world with both large and small budgets. There are also made for TV movies and movies produced by film schools.
State-controlled: Subscribing to the socialistic doctrine of ownership by the people collectively
It is clear that the movie studios are not owned by the people collectively (they may be publically owned, but that is quite different that the state owning them).
State controlled monopolies, such as the movie industry are neither capitalism or a right.
You don't seem to know the definitions of "state-controlled", "monopoly", "capitalism" or "right".
The movie industry is not a state-controlled monopoly. The movie industry IS capitalism at it's finest, and the pursuit of riches and wealth and fame and fortune IS a right.
I want to exercise my "right" (under your definition) to shoot you in the head. If it happens to piss off "the man" or you, so be it.
It's the equivalent of me making a copy of my egg and giving it to everyone who was going to buy eggs from you.
Now only I have bought an egg from you, causing you to miss out on a large revenue stream.
Awkward analogy but it's true.
The point is that I have the right to share, not that I am required to share.
Aha! Exactly!
You are not required to share. If the record companies and movie companies wish to release their product for free (to SHARE) they are allowed to. You are not allowed to FORCE them to "share".
Thank you for proving my point for me!
Therefore, if the copyright owners wish to enfore their copyright (by not sharing) they are allowed to.
Whatever you want to call it, copyright infringement is illegal.
Downloading music and movies and sharing it with other people without paying for it is illegal.
You may think it is not wrong, but that does not make it any less illegal.
otherwise we're back to chopping off hands for stealing apples.
Yeah, but I bet people would stop stealing apples.
But seriously, this doesn't mean that people shouldn't be charged with the crime just because you think the penalty might be too high. They should think about the risk/reward of their actions and proceed accordingly. If you want to change the penalty, write your congresscritter.
OK, I completely agree.
I wanted to clear up whether or not you were defending them because they were alleged copyright violators or because they were just not proven guilty yet.
It's certainly not a perfect system, and we should all work to change it. Donate money to your local Defendants Rights organization, or something.
I have had experience with this very issue, and it is very very messy and very very painful.
In this particular case (didn't happen to me thank god) the record was 'sealed' which doesn't mean that much, but the person doesn't have to check 'have you been arrested' box...
This is the heart of it. If you don't want it shared, don't give it out.
They aren't giving it out, they're SELLING it. For money. To make a profit, so they can pay taxes and pay for that fine tunnel that they just built in my city. (The Big Dig). Thanks for that guys.
What reality should the media companies face up to? Yes, they should accept content distribution over the internet, but that does not make it OK to steal their product. (Steal = watch/listen to without paying for)
Your argument is terrible.
It's not my law and it's my right to speak out agains the frivolous use of my taxpayer money to enforce the rights of the yuppie next door to his latest finger-painting. Screw him. His work sucks, his art sucks, and it's not worth my protection.
If you live in the United States it IS your law, and you are welcome to speak out against it, but do not say that we should not be going after people who break it. Write your congresscritter if you like, that is a better way to accomplish what you want.
Even if his art sucks it is still worth copyright protection, quality of work does not affect that.
You want to be a hard-nose? Fine. Copying is a right. It's called nature and nature existed long before capitalism.
Actually copying without paying (theft) is not a right. It says so right there in the US Code and does not mention anything about copying in the Constitution.
Has nothing to do with the DMCA or file-sharing. Artists existed long before any laws.
And this has to do with copyright violation how?
I learned about monopolies, cartels, and money-laundering. Perhaps you slept through those classes.
And the Government investigates and punishes monopolies, cartels and money-launderers. Again, I fail to see what this has to do with copying copywritten material.
There are plenty of indie movie studios out there, what's your point?
If the penalty was 15 years for speeding, I don't think many people would speed.
If there are harsh punishments for illegal file trading, what is the problem?
As long as the punishment is laid out beforehand, who cares? They made their bed, now it's time to lay in it.
-jg
May I have your address please? I would like to share your eggs. And your television. And your wife.
This will come at no net financial cost to you, as you are so generously sharing what is yours. There is no profit involved.
Thanks so much!
Software copying became a right when pursuit of unlimited profits using taxpayer subsidized guido goons became a right.
THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW! LAW ENFORCEMENT GOES AFTER THEM!
WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE DEFENDING THEM?
I cannot understand this, if someone broke into your house, you would want them arrested and brought to justice... (or maybe you wouldn't, that would explain a lot actually)
Also, pursuit of unlimited profits IS a right. It's capitalism, the American way, providing jobs for millions of Americans by way of actors, cameramen, publicists, agents, script writers, gafferrs, electricians, carpenters, gardeners, car dealers, airline employees, swimming pool installers, restaurants, grocery stores, and many many more. The movie industry funds a lot of other industries, and perhaps you should take an economics class to learn about it.
As someone with experience in these matters, yes you are an alleged criminal and they are innocent until proven guilty, and yes, the grandparent post should have inserted the word alleged This is an important point.
HOWEVER, I cannot tell if you are defending these folks on Constitutional grounds or if you are defending them because they are pirates and violating copyright...
66.25.045.010
(sorta)