As nice as a DNC list might be, it _does_ create two classes of speech, something the government cannot regulate.
So how come the govt can regulate that cigarette companies can't advertise at sporting events? If advertising is "free speech," then shouldn't it be equally unregulatable then? In addition, there are most definitely regulations on "free" speech (try making a joke about a bomb in an airport these days, or good old fashioned libel). In various court opinions i've read, the protection free speech is afforded is affected by its the level of commerciality. I don't really see how this is any different.
The reason why DVD's can afford to exist on a $10 to $20 price range is because 12M people already went to a theater and shelled out $10 to see it on the big screen and most of these costs have already been covered.
Even if that were true (which I'm not convinced of), it seems irrelevant. Making an album is far, far from a 120 million dollar endeavor, so unlike the movie, you don't need a large box office audience to subsidize it in order to charge a palatable amount for a CD. Your logic seems to be: movies are expensive to make, and dvds can only be cheap because theater costs cover the large expense. Applying that to CDs fails at the first statement (albums aren't *that* expensive to make), so the comparison is not really very meaningful.
Also, the major point of the article is simply that the record industry has done nothing to make music a more attractive option, especially compared to what the movie industry has in lowering prices, providing additional features, increasing availability and range, and not suing its consumers.
Once we can make nanobots, I'm sure we'll be able to copy the electicity creating process of the bacteria in a significantly more efficient and more controllable nano-design
Oh really? Well since nanobots as described here won't likely exist in the forseeable future, you could be right (though I still doubt it). Trust me, copying nature on a macroscale is hard enough (hell, just understanding nature is far from trivial), doing so on a nanoscale will be orders of magnitude harder. Nature has had billions of years to develop these kinds of systems, while we're working on centuries (millienia if you want to push it). I mean we are still working on figuring out how bumblebees fly, and having finally figured out what the secret of spider silk is, we are years from being able to re-create it in any kind of quantity.
Where did this idea that Governments should use taxes as tools of social engineering ever get started?
Where did this idea that Governments should use laws as tools of social engineering ever get started?
The gov't has always been a manner of social control (one hopes in accordance with the majority of the population). The continuum of methods ranges from laws to taxes to advisories, all of them useful for different things.
which reduces finger strain from stroking the mouse
If you're *ahem* stroking the mouse *ahem* enough to cause finger strain, maybe you ought to cut down on the porn. Or at least switch hands once and a while.
One of my college professors actually outlined a similar scheme several years ago. But (as he admitted) it had a fatal flaw: the keyspace was too small. In other words, it is not hard to assemble a list of under 50 possible passwords or two-letter combinations that describe a given inkblot.
That doesn't seem to make sense to me for a few reasons. First, because even if an inkblot looks strongly like one thing (which is rarely the case) the way in which a person describes it will vary greatly by individual. Take image #10, which looks like batman doing someone from behind. I could term it 'batman doing someone,' 'batman likes anal,' down the chocolate highway for batman,' 'hardcore superhero sex,' etc etc etc. I can easily imagine over 50 possible two-letter combos describing how i see the image, and that is one person's decription of one person's image. I would imagine you would have as great or better luck in picking 50 likely combos simply by looking at a frequency chart for letter position. That being said, I would be interested in any testing of this hypothesis that you might be aware of.
Secondly, even if you can hack it down to 50 likely combos, you are still going to have to combinatorially check each of those 50 against 9 other sets of 50 combos. That ends up being a pretty significant number of total passwords.
Third, you could easily get around that by increasing the complexity (Use the first or last letters of the first or last three words, or use the second letters, or etc etc)
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism -- ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt
A private Power cannot easily become as powerful as the government through the free market. They will need an army that rivals that of the government, and even if they do try to spend the money on an army it probably wont sit too well with the stock holders(less profit for a while, and huge risk when the company goes up against the government; besides the shareholders are people too, and I dont think they want the corporation to rule every aspect of their lives).
In the way I read FDR's quote, power means not guns and troops, but economic/political power. Around the turn of the 19th century, you had the robber barons and tremendous wealth & power in vital monopolies (oil, steel, coal, etc). These few men had power that was on the order of the government, and had the trusts not been broken it is certainly conceivable that the private power could have blatently dictated public policy without even bothering with laws.
This is the ultimate problem of monopolies, especially in important industries. If Standard Oil (which at one point controlled 90% of the oil refined in the country), or Microsoft can dictate political decisions, in the background either through bribes (or the current equivalent of lobbyists), or simply through business decisions (say Microsoft wanted access to a senators email via a windows update backdoor containing 'patch') then the democratic state is effectively subverted. Actually, though a monopoly streamlines this process, it appears to many (myself included), that our current incarnation of government is only somewhat less corporation controlled. The Bush administration seems to be offensively corporatist. This is different from real capitalism (which requires a lack of government intervention) as it uses government power to help a select subset of (usually big, well-connected) coporations.
Now, I'm pretty sure I've never heard that statement uttered, even in the most drunken stupor known to college students on spring break in panama city.
MythTV looks like a good start, but the effort required to get it working is significant, and it doesn't do anything BUT timeshift and record. It can't playback your DVD, VCDs, SVCDs, or Divx CDs, it can't save your recorded shows to CD/DVD, it can't playback music or display images, etc... Once MythTV/Freevo gets all these features, then this current software won't be that impressive. For now, since there is nothing else out there like it, it certainly is impresive.
Then if your boss has half a brain, you'll never be in a position of authority, because you're a moron. You don't make hardware and software purchase decisions based on politics or your personal feelings. You buy the best for the job at hand at a certain budget. If Solaris on Sparc makes the most sense for the task, then that's what you buy.
Bullshit. I see this on here all the time and it makes me gag. Just because a business is a non-human entity does not mean it must be soulless. Yes, businesses exist to make money for their owners, but that does not require that those in charge of the business drop their convictions at the door. I don't think is wrong for decisions to not be based solely on money, rather, a modicum of morality added to the process it is a good thing. This is just as true for corporations as it is for individuals.
I see no reason why a company needs to be a totally rational system, deviod of any feelings or beliefs. If you and your business have the choice of buying the newest widget from company A that is slightly more expensive, or from company B that is slightly cheaper but is known to anally rape baby seals in the manufacturing process, which do you choose? If you are in a position of making such decisions, it seems idiotic and immoral to ignore everything outside the bottom line.
Yeah, "I used to be rich. I owned Mickey Mouse Massage Parlors. Then those Disney sleazeballs shut me down, I said look, I'll change the logo, I'll put Mickey's pants back on. You just can't reason with some people"
So what actually constitutes as a thumbnail? A lower quality version of an original source? This could apply to music as well, since a low bitrate mp3 is a poorer quality version of the original raw cda. In terms of electronic use, all data comes down to 1s and 0s. Does this ruling apply to other forms of electronic duplication like music, or is imagery a whol
The issue is less what constitutes a thumbnail? than what are the circumstances in which it is used?. Fair-use allows exact copying within limits, so allowing inferior copying within limits is really not that big of a deal. The opinion clearly goes through the fair-use requirements and points out that 1. the use was not substantially commercially exploitive, 2. in this context, thumbnails are clearly transformative, and 3. the use of the thumbnails does not compromise the future use of the original images.
For the case of mp3s, the degradation is really irrelevant for a fair-use argument, as the other requirements matter. For ring-tones however, it might be, though I would suspect the other factors would be more important. The context of mp3 usage vs thumbnail usage is vastly different, and the legal system (for all its faults) tends to be very particular about the details of each case and how that affects the application of the laws.
Our laws should not be setup to control people, but to give them the freedom to make choices - and suffer the consequences if they make shitty ones that result in something bad. Make the consequences for killing someone on the highway a lot more serious...and you'll get a lot more peole who will make the right decision (not to talk on phone) not because they're forced to, but out of good judgement.
This is a point on which we disagree then. Laws are very much there as a manner of control (and that is true whether you use my preferred laws, or yours). In my view, there are a number of problems with only punishing crimes after the fact. You are trusting people as a whole to be aware, and beyond that, to be smart enough avoid the dangerous behavior. It is apparent that people aren't always the former, and often not the latter.
Alcohol, in particular complicates this issue. When you are drunk, you act in ways your often wouldn't sober, including doing many things you *know* better than to do. Expecting to define your safety on the roads by counting on a drunk driver to be aware enough of the consequences of the relatively unlikely event that they hit someone is just scary. Hell, it is known how many people choose to drive drunk, even though the penalties are well known. Why do you think people will make the right decision about a cell phone (which is an action most people would rate as far less of a safety issue)?
I'd rather have safety because of responsible people acting that way because they have liberty and live well within its bounds...than have percieved safety because of a tyrany that's made every POSSIBLE cause of harm illegal.
Sure, so would I. However, the former is a utopian ideal. People as a whole are not responsible, regardless of how few laws there are. Our society understands that some behaviors have a significant downside, and this is weighed against how large a limitation of rights restricting the behavior would be. We have not chosen to outlaw all cars, because although that may prevent all auto accidents, it is too severe a limitation. We have chosen to restrict some of the things you can do in cars (live driving drunk), when the value of that act (not very great) is outweighed by the risks to yourself and others (very high). This is despite the fact that most drunk drivers don't cause accidents. As a society, we have chosen the benefits of minimal tyranny & prevention of accidents to complete freedom & unabated public danger.
Would you leave matches around for your little kid to play with, but say "now don't use these or you might 1. burn yourself, and/or 2. burn the house down and/or 3. get grounded for a week" or would you simply put the matches in a cupboard not easily accessed by a 5 year old?
"Benchmarks from the scalar version of Jet3D are shown in Figure 1 (MFLOPS) and Figure 2 (MFLOPS normalized by MHz). In terms of raw MFLOPS, the 2GHz G5 is about 32% faster than the 2GHz P4, 97% faster than the 1.25GHz G4, 142% faster than the 1GHz G4, and within 1 MFLOP of the 2.66GHz P4."
Translation: Slower than the P4 for anyone who didn't look at the grid. And M stands for million. Not one.
Sure, but a difference of 1 out of 255 is pretty tiny (~0.4%), regardless of if you say it as 255 MFLOP vs 254 MFLOP, or 255000000 FLOP vs 254000000 FLOP.
This cannot be executed or copied from a third party memory card ala 007. So opening the box is required. Partial payment maybe.
Um, maybe i'm misunderstanding, but doesn't the 007 trick let you run an ftp server on the box? And the current hack involves adding & adjusting some files on the HD (such as with the ftp server) which then allows you to load whatever. So, after the first use of the 007 ftp trick, you have a totally modded system....or am i missing something.
I should be able to do whatever I want in my car while driving, even if it's really stupid. But, the instant that effects someone else (I hit someone/something) I should be punished accordingly (because I will have then actually infringed on someone).
Right, and that will help the family of four you killed how? The point of these laws is to protect lives and prevent accidents by limiting the dangerous situations that cause them.
Illegal file swapping is an entirely different situation than an automobile accident (i.e. file swapping doesn't kill or maim people), and one that should be dealt with differently. Hell, by your logic, driving drunk should be allowed, we just ought to punish them more severely if they cause an accident.
We do, and should legislate certain dangerous behaviors, especially when they potentially impact on other people's safety.
Maybe you should read the two sentences again. He's saying loaning something is different then duplicating something and giving it away (like say NFL sports jackets or Oakly sunglasses).
I've read the sentences numerous times. Read mine again. I do not claim duplicating == loaning. Using the logic that a duplication means money out of someone's pocket, then the use of a single copy for multiple people is just as equally economically depriving. I am not claiming copying is good or right, merely pointing out that if copying = depriving people of their hard earned money, then the logical conclusion of that limited reasoning is that libraries also deprive people of hard earned money.
While I might agree with you in concept, what the hell numbers are you quickly looking at? You got a great reference: sight it. Otherwise as far as I can tell you pulled that out of your ass.
One story stating musicnet as 75,000 subscribers, which is better than pressplay. Perhaps it would be better to say the public response to the variety of such ventures is lukewarm at best (excepting the iTunes store). BTW, the word is cite, not sight.
Bingo, this is the business world. They aren't there to protect your rights, just their interests. See the well know industry attempts at more percise crippling attempts: Palladium, Digital Rights Management
Exactly. This response was to a question about fair use rights of the consumer, and his answer was essentially a "we're concerned with our interests, not your your rights." Rather than give an honest answer, the response was that we want a technology that can determine your intent and prevent the "bad" kind, a task that is obviously impossible.
Finally, a reference. Here I'm just curious: does anyone really believe that as P2P becomes more common it wouldn't disrupt sales? The paradigm has shifted, thats the issue here. Does the Recording Industry have the right to limit our rights in order to protect an out moded business model?
Actually, I'm not sure how much it will disrupt sales. I submit that what might actually happen is a change in the breadth of what is bought, rather than an absolute decline. This is a point I am very open to discuss, yet my original point is that the riaa drones that maintain P2P is the cause of the sales decline when there I've seen no real evidence of that suggestion. You and I can sit here and debate the outcomes we expect, yet that will be as much meaningless blather as the drones in the absence of real data.
Who's the thief? I mean do you know who your stealing from every time you download? Are you sure you haven't downloaded anything self distributed? There are honest people in the music industry and dishonest people, what's your point?
The recording industry = the thief, downloaders = second thief. There are a number of highly publicized artists who've claimed that the real thieves are the record companies themselves. This was what the question was about, and taking the viewpoint of those artists, it becomes an interesting excercise in hypocrisy. If this group is essentially stealing from artists, and then blasting listeners for "stealing from artists," who is really harming the artists more? Again, I am not suggesting we steal, shoplift or illegally download to Fight-the-Man (tm), merely making a counter-point to the riaa drone.
Stealing a DVD is depriving ownership of an object, Copying a song is depriving no one of ownership.
..you make a cohesive point. But of course it is depriving someone of ownership: the record company and the artist.
of course? I think this issue is much more complicated than that. When I copy a file, I am
In the first answer to a question about libraries, Oppenheim says:
Sharing involves lending something to somebody, and while it is on loan, the owner no longer has it. "Sharing" in the P2P context has become a euphemism for "copying." That copying is neither legal nor ethical and then From an ethical perspective, when individuals engage in illegal copying, they are taking money out of the pockets of all of the people who have put their hard work into making the music...
Yet using the same logic, reading a book checked out from the library would be just as unethical since you are "taking money out of the pockets..."
Those companies (including Pressplay, Rhapsody, Listen, etc.) are delivering to consumers high quality music online in a format and form that consumers have demanded.
Actually, a quick look at the subscription numbers of those services shows quite well how that is simply not true. Consumers have not demanded a crippled product that disallows most of the abilities they want.
The goal of copy protection in CDs is not to prevent individuals from making copies that they want to make for personal use, but rather to prevent individuals from distributing the recordings or making copies they don't have a right to make.
Yet it seems they have not discovered the magic way of discerning between those two, so will happily prevent both.
The record industry has been hit very hard in the last few years as a result of illegal downloading and piracy.
In 2002, unit sales were down about 11 percent.
In 2001, unit sales were down about 10 percent.
In 2000, unit sales were down seven percent.
During that same period, illegal Internet downloading has skyrocketed. On the FastTrack network alone, there are about 900 million files being distributed at any given moment. The majority of those files are music files. Polls confirm that those individuals who are downloading illegally online are buying less. That illegal downloading is decreasing sales is probably not a surprise to anyone.
Such a common, simple, wrong assumption at work here. A decrease in sales and an increase in music downloading have *not* been shown to be related. The economy as a whole has been hit very hard in the last few years. In fact, studies have suggested this effect can explain nearly all of the riaa members' decreased sales. It is handy to have a scape-goat, but as usual, the scape-goat is likely not the problem at all.
In any event, are you suggesting that a royalty dispute between an artist and a label is justification for stealing from both of them? Would you feel free to shoplift a CD from a record store based on that logic?
Hm, I wonder, is it ok to steal from a thief. You could just as easily frame it as 'how dare you steal my stolen goods!'
Given the increased cost to produce and distribute copyrighted works, Congress has tried to keep pace with what it has believed is necessary to continue to incentivize creators and publishers
Increased cost? That seems to be backwards, progress has decreased the barrier not increased it. As for the second clause, bullshit. Congress has bowed to corporate lobbying. You can't honestly say with a straight face that any person needs life+70years' worth of fiduciary recovery as incentive.
Just as you would not go into a video store and steal a DVD copy of Star Wars and claim that you should be permitted to do that because you own the VHS version, you cannot download somebody else's copy of a recording
Again, apples and oranges. Stealing a DVD is depriving ownership of an object, Copying a song is depriving no one of ownership.
It all comes down to the fact that if you're watchign their signals, they're not getting paid for it, and that causes a loss of profits.
No. That is not a fact at all. That is just like the RIAA claiming a 'loss' of billions and billions. The assumption that a copied mp3 = a lost sale is just plain false. Likewise, a watched, un-paid-for signal != lost profit. Especially in this case where you can not buy the service in the country hosting the forum.
Slashdot Mirror
So how come the govt can regulate that cigarette companies can't advertise at sporting events? If advertising is "free speech," then shouldn't it be equally unregulatable then? In addition, there are most definitely regulations on "free" speech (try making a joke about a bomb in an airport these days, or good old fashioned libel). In various court opinions i've read, the protection free speech is afforded is affected by its the level of commerciality. I don't really see how this is any different.
-Ted
Even if that were true (which I'm not convinced of), it seems irrelevant. Making an album is far, far from a 120 million dollar endeavor, so unlike the movie, you don't need a large box office audience to subsidize it in order to charge a palatable amount for a CD. Your logic seems to be: movies are expensive to make, and dvds can only be cheap because theater costs cover the large expense. Applying that to CDs fails at the first statement (albums aren't *that* expensive to make), so the comparison is not really very meaningful.
Also, the major point of the article is simply that the record industry has done nothing to make music a more attractive option, especially compared to what the movie industry has in lowering prices, providing additional features, increasing availability and range, and not suing its consumers.
-Ted
Oh really? Well since nanobots as described here won't likely exist in the forseeable future, you could be right (though I still doubt it). Trust me, copying nature on a macroscale is hard enough (hell, just understanding nature is far from trivial), doing so on a nanoscale will be orders of magnitude harder. Nature has had billions of years to develop these kinds of systems, while we're working on centuries (millienia if you want to push it). I mean we are still working on figuring out how bumblebees fly, and having finally figured out what the secret of spider silk is, we are years from being able to re-create it in any kind of quantity.
-Ted
Where did this idea that Governments should use laws as tools of social engineering ever get started?
The gov't has always been a manner of social control (one hopes in accordance with the majority of the population). The continuum of methods ranges from laws to taxes to advisories, all of them useful for different things.
-Ted
If you're *ahem* stroking the mouse *ahem* enough to cause finger strain, maybe you ought to cut down on the porn. Or at least switch hands once and a while.
-Ted
In fact, I did meet a really hot chick
but then
as I fucking hate bush
-Ted
Only if you use the term 'evidence' in the loosest sense.
-Ted
That doesn't seem to make sense to me for a few reasons. First, because even if an inkblot looks strongly like one thing (which is rarely the case) the way in which a person describes it will vary greatly by individual. Take image #10, which looks like batman doing someone from behind. I could term it 'batman doing someone,' 'batman likes anal,' down the chocolate highway for batman,' 'hardcore superhero sex,' etc etc etc. I can easily imagine over 50 possible two-letter combos describing how i see the image, and that is one person's decription of one person's image. I would imagine you would have as great or better luck in picking 50 likely combos simply by looking at a frequency chart for letter position. That being said, I would be interested in any testing of this hypothesis that you might be aware of.
Secondly, even if you can hack it down to 50 likely combos, you are still going to have to combinatorially check each of those 50 against 9 other sets of 50 combos. That ends up being a pretty significant number of total passwords.
Third, you could easily get around that by increasing the complexity (Use the first or last letters of the first or last three words, or use the second letters, or etc etc)
-Ted
A private Power cannot easily become as powerful as the government through the free market. They will need an army that rivals that of the government, and even if they do try to spend the money on an army it probably wont sit too well with the stock holders(less profit for a while, and huge risk when the company goes up against the government; besides the shareholders are people too, and I dont think they want the corporation to rule every aspect of their lives).
In the way I read FDR's quote, power means not guns and troops, but economic/political power. Around the turn of the 19th century, you had the robber barons and tremendous wealth & power in vital monopolies (oil, steel, coal, etc). These few men had power that was on the order of the government, and had the trusts not been broken it is certainly conceivable that the private power could have blatently dictated public policy without even bothering with laws.
This is the ultimate problem of monopolies, especially in important industries. If Standard Oil (which at one point controlled 90% of the oil refined in the country), or Microsoft can dictate political decisions, in the background either through bribes (or the current equivalent of lobbyists), or simply through business decisions (say Microsoft wanted access to a senators email via a windows update backdoor containing 'patch') then the democratic state is effectively subverted. Actually, though a monopoly streamlines this process, it appears to many (myself included), that our current incarnation of government is only somewhat less corporation controlled. The Bush administration seems to be offensively corporatist. This is different from real capitalism (which requires a lack of government intervention) as it uses government power to help a select subset of (usually big, well-connected) coporations.
-Ted
Now, I'm pretty sure I've never heard that statement uttered, even in the most drunken stupor known to college students on spring break in panama city.
-Ted
-Ted
Um, really?
-Ted
Bullshit. I see this on here all the time and it makes me gag. Just because a business is a non-human entity does not mean it must be soulless. Yes, businesses exist to make money for their owners, but that does not require that those in charge of the business drop their convictions at the door. I don't think is wrong for decisions to not be based solely on money, rather, a modicum of morality added to the process it is a good thing. This is just as true for corporations as it is for individuals.
I see no reason why a company needs to be a totally rational system, deviod of any feelings or beliefs. If you and your business have the choice of buying the newest widget from company A that is slightly more expensive, or from company B that is slightly cheaper but is known to anally rape baby seals in the manufacturing process, which do you choose? If you are in a position of making such decisions, it seems idiotic and immoral to ignore everything outside the bottom line.
-Ted
Yeah, "I used to be rich. I owned Mickey Mouse Massage Parlors. Then those Disney sleazeballs shut me down, I said look, I'll change the logo, I'll put Mickey's pants back on. You just can't reason with some people"
-Ted
The issue is less what constitutes a thumbnail? than what are the circumstances in which it is used?. Fair-use allows exact copying within limits, so allowing inferior copying within limits is really not that big of a deal. The opinion clearly goes through the fair-use requirements and points out that 1. the use was not substantially commercially exploitive, 2. in this context, thumbnails are clearly transformative, and 3. the use of the thumbnails does not compromise the future use of the original images.
For the case of mp3s, the degradation is really irrelevant for a fair-use argument, as the other requirements matter. For ring-tones however, it might be, though I would suspect the other factors would be more important. The context of mp3 usage vs thumbnail usage is vastly different, and the legal system (for all its faults) tends to be very particular about the details of each case and how that affects the application of the laws.
-Ted
This is a point on which we disagree then. Laws are very much there as a manner of control (and that is true whether you use my preferred laws, or yours). In my view, there are a number of problems with only punishing crimes after the fact. You are trusting people as a whole to be aware, and beyond that, to be smart enough avoid the dangerous behavior. It is apparent that people aren't always the former, and often not the latter.
Alcohol, in particular complicates this issue. When you are drunk, you act in ways your often wouldn't sober, including doing many things you *know* better than to do. Expecting to define your safety on the roads by counting on a drunk driver to be aware enough of the consequences of the relatively unlikely event that they hit someone is just scary. Hell, it is known how many people choose to drive drunk, even though the penalties are well known. Why do you think people will make the right decision about a cell phone (which is an action most people would rate as far less of a safety issue)?
I'd rather have safety because of responsible people acting that way because they have liberty and live well within its bounds...than have percieved safety because of a tyrany that's made every POSSIBLE cause of harm illegal.
Sure, so would I. However, the former is a utopian ideal. People as a whole are not responsible, regardless of how few laws there are. Our society understands that some behaviors have a significant downside, and this is weighed against how large a limitation of rights restricting the behavior would be. We have not chosen to outlaw all cars, because although that may prevent all auto accidents, it is too severe a limitation. We have chosen to restrict some of the things you can do in cars (live driving drunk), when the value of that act (not very great) is outweighed by the risks to yourself and others (very high). This is despite the fact that most drunk drivers don't cause accidents. As a society, we have chosen the benefits of minimal tyranny & prevention of accidents to complete freedom & unabated public danger.
Would you leave matches around for your little kid to play with, but say "now don't use these or you might 1. burn yourself, and/or 2. burn the house down and/or 3. get grounded for a week" or would you simply put the matches in a cupboard not easily accessed by a 5 year old?
-Ted
Translation: Slower than the P4 for anyone who didn't look at the grid. And M stands for million. Not one.
Sure, but a difference of 1 out of 255 is pretty tiny (~0.4%), regardless of if you say it as 255 MFLOP vs 254 MFLOP, or 255000000 FLOP vs 254000000 FLOP.
-Ted
Um, maybe i'm misunderstanding, but doesn't the 007 trick let you run an ftp server on the box? And the current hack involves adding & adjusting some files on the HD (such as with the ftp server) which then allows you to load whatever. So, after the first use of the 007 ftp trick, you have a totally modded system....or am i missing something.
Like this comment says...
-Ted
Right, and that will help the family of four you killed how? The point of these laws is to protect lives and prevent accidents by limiting the dangerous situations that cause them.
Illegal file swapping is an entirely different situation than an automobile accident (i.e. file swapping doesn't kill or maim people), and one that should be dealt with differently. Hell, by your logic, driving drunk should be allowed, we just ought to punish them more severely if they cause an accident.
We do, and should legislate certain dangerous behaviors, especially when they potentially impact on other people's safety.
-Ted
-Ted
I've read the sentences numerous times. Read mine again. I do not claim duplicating == loaning. Using the logic that a duplication means money out of someone's pocket, then the use of a single copy for multiple people is just as equally economically depriving. I am not claiming copying is good or right, merely pointing out that if copying = depriving people of their hard earned money, then the logical conclusion of that limited reasoning is that libraries also deprive people of hard earned money.
While I might agree with you in concept, what the hell numbers are you quickly looking at? You got a great reference: sight it. Otherwise as far as I can tell you pulled that out of your ass.
One story stating musicnet as 75,000 subscribers, which is better than pressplay. Perhaps it would be better to say the public response to the variety of such ventures is lukewarm at best (excepting the iTunes store). BTW, the word is cite, not sight.
Bingo, this is the business world. They aren't there to protect your rights, just their interests. See the well know industry attempts at more percise crippling attempts: Palladium, Digital Rights Management
Exactly. This response was to a question about fair use rights of the consumer, and his answer was essentially a "we're concerned with our interests, not your your rights." Rather than give an honest answer, the response was that we want a technology that can determine your intent and prevent the "bad" kind, a task that is obviously impossible.
Finally, a reference. Here I'm just curious: does anyone really believe that as P2P becomes more common it wouldn't disrupt sales? The paradigm has shifted, thats the issue here. Does the Recording Industry have the right to limit our rights in order to protect an out moded business model?
Actually, I'm not sure how much it will disrupt sales. I submit that what might actually happen is a change in the breadth of what is bought, rather than an absolute decline. This is a point I am very open to discuss, yet my original point is that the riaa drones that maintain P2P is the cause of the sales decline when there I've seen no real evidence of that suggestion. You and I can sit here and debate the outcomes we expect, yet that will be as much meaningless blather as the drones in the absence of real data.
Who's the thief? I mean do you know who your stealing from every time you download? Are you sure you haven't downloaded anything self distributed? There are honest people in the music industry and dishonest people, what's your point?
The recording industry = the thief, downloaders = second thief. There are a number of highly publicized artists who've claimed that the real thieves are the record companies themselves. This was what the question was about, and taking the viewpoint of those artists, it becomes an interesting excercise in hypocrisy. If this group is essentially stealing from artists, and then blasting listeners for "stealing from artists," who is really harming the artists more? Again, I am not suggesting we steal, shoplift or illegally download to Fight-the-Man (tm), merely making a counter-point to the riaa drone.
Stealing a DVD is depriving ownership of an object, Copying a song is depriving no one of ownership.
of course? I think this issue is much more complicated than that. When I copy a file, I am
If you are a car dealer, you're done for
Exactly, yet if you are an original car maker, then you are still in business.
-Ted
Sharing involves lending something to somebody, and while it is on loan, the owner no longer has it. "Sharing" in the P2P context has become a euphemism for "copying." That copying is neither legal nor ethical
and then From an ethical perspective, when individuals engage in illegal copying, they are taking money out of the pockets of all of the people who have put their hard work into making the music...
Yet using the same logic, reading a book checked out from the library would be just as unethical since you are "taking money out of the pockets..."
Those companies (including Pressplay, Rhapsody, Listen, etc.) are delivering to consumers high quality music online in a format and form that consumers have demanded.
Actually, a quick look at the subscription numbers of those services shows quite well how that is simply not true. Consumers have not demanded a crippled product that disallows most of the abilities they want.
The goal of copy protection in CDs is not to prevent individuals from making copies that they want to make for personal use, but rather to prevent individuals from distributing the recordings or making copies they don't have a right to make.
Yet it seems they have not discovered the magic way of discerning between those two, so will happily prevent both.
The record industry has been hit very hard in the last few years as a result of illegal downloading and piracy.
In 2002, unit sales were down about 11 percent.
In 2001, unit sales were down about 10 percent.
In 2000, unit sales were down seven percent.
During that same period, illegal Internet downloading has skyrocketed. On the FastTrack network alone, there are about 900 million files being distributed at any given moment. The majority of those files are music files. Polls confirm that those individuals who are downloading illegally online are buying less. That illegal downloading is decreasing sales is probably not a surprise to anyone.
Such a common, simple, wrong assumption at work here. A decrease in sales and an increase in music downloading have *not* been shown to be related. The economy as a whole has been hit very hard in the last few years. In fact, studies have suggested this effect can explain nearly all of the riaa members' decreased sales. It is handy to have a scape-goat, but as usual, the scape-goat is likely not the problem at all.
In any event, are you suggesting that a royalty dispute between an artist and a label is justification for stealing from both of them? Would you feel free to shoplift a CD from a record store based on that logic?
Hm, I wonder, is it ok to steal from a thief. You could just as easily frame it as 'how dare you steal my stolen goods!'
Given the increased cost to produce and distribute copyrighted works, Congress has tried to keep pace with what it has believed is necessary to continue to incentivize creators and publishers
Increased cost? That seems to be backwards, progress has decreased the barrier not increased it. As for the second clause, bullshit. Congress has bowed to corporate lobbying. You can't honestly say with a straight face that any person needs life+70years' worth of fiduciary recovery as incentive.
Just as you would not go into a video store and steal a DVD copy of Star Wars and claim that you should be permitted to do that because you own the VHS version, you cannot download somebody else's copy of a recording
Again, apples and oranges. Stealing a DVD is depriving ownership of an object, Copying a song is depriving no one of ownership.
-Ted
And 100,000 lemmings can't be wrong...
-Ted
No. That is not a fact at all. That is just like the RIAA claiming a 'loss' of billions and billions. The assumption that a copied mp3 = a lost sale is just plain false. Likewise, a watched, un-paid-for signal != lost profit. Especially in this case where you can not buy the service in the country hosting the forum.
-Ted