Aol just needs to start renting/selling movies online - via DVDs and/or streaming/downloads. Time Warner has the largest movies archives in the world...use that content, drop all the other useless services...sell those to Earthlink...eventually aol becomes a media portal.
Napster splits what is offered to you at any one moment in time. You can not see every user's library. I am not sure if they set it up geographically, by internet traffic, or what. Plus, not every napster user is online when you are.
You nailed it. This is very similar to what pseudo.com and mp3.com and many of the other "Music Service Providers" are doing. You pay $3 a month at mp3.com for their classical music services. All the classical music you want. They are working on other genres, but that's it for now. And now that they have settled up with EMI, and only have one more really big record company after them, I am sure you will see more choices very soon. The really cool thing will be when your cell phone company offers a $3 a month service that will play any genere of music (mp3's) over your cellular phone, or any other portable/mobile computing device. The future will rock...
I am sure that your place of residence has similar laws. Anyways, this is a case about American technology companies and the copyrights of RIAA artists. Oh, by the way, they can be from any country!!!! And of course, if they are selling music in America, you can bet that they pay their dues....so this law does involve you, if you want to continue to do online business with American companies. You know, you can always use the napster like trading service in Europe, or west bumble fuck, or wherever. I am sure that there are a few in Europe, Aussieland, or Asia. But the point of this, is that it is setting a precedent for the future. Senator Hatch told the big (US) recording companies that "they must make this [digital distribution] work". In other words, the RIAA needs to stop bringing lawsuits up against digital entertainment companies. If not, congress will intervene. Which means that they will change the law if they have too. But, US law makers would like to avoid that if possible. Lazy old men, what can you do. And again, I go back to what I was saying in my reply. It is not illegal for you to trade music, just as long as you don't make money. But is it legal for a company to help you trade music? It is a gray area. Not black and white like you think. Oh, and the US state Mississippi finally outlawed slavery in the early 1990's. Don't tell me that if I wanted to own slaves back then I could have, just because it was still a law. I will admitt that this is a rare instance, but this is not an issue of fighting against a law anymore. Napster and other forms of digital distribution have become entrenched into the daily lives of people through out the world. You can't just say, "stop that...don't do that anymore". It is here and it will continue. This is one of those rare cases in which the world has to change with it. They must find ways to adapt to it and stop trying to contain it. Make secure CD's, find better forms of encryption. Do whatever has to be done. So, my question is this, if you feel so strongly against American laws, then why do you continue to use American companies on the Internet? Simply use a local company. If you live in Fiji, I am afraid that you are SOL though.
YOU SAID: "Trading MP3's online is no different to recording a bunch of songs from the radio or TV shows/movies and letting your friends have copies of those recordings. Its illegal...." Hold on my friend.... You are incorrect. It is legal for you to share your recordings with friends and family. You can make digital mp3s or analog cassette tapes, but these recordings can not be apart of any commercial setting. Of course, the law was written back in 1989. In the year 2000, your friends live all over the world thanks to the Internet. So, is it any more wrong for you to share your digital recordings with a friend in Europe than it is with your friend next door? Of course not. That's the whole point of this. The law is outdated, ambiguous, and it is restricting the entire digital entertainment industry. The law must be changed in order for progress to be made. Look at MP3.com. They are slowly settling lawsuit after lawsuit from the big 5 record companies. 4 down and god only knows how many more will come in the end. The law was made in hopes of protecting the music and film industries from piracy, but it was not written to limit the growth of a new economic sector and to give monopoly-like powers to the RIAA. So write senator Hatch and tell him that he is the man!
Really...I do. That way, open source napster-like rouge services can proliferate through-out the net and truly screw RIAA artists by not being a liable business for the RIAA to take to court. Anyways, What is the RIAA really trying to do? For the past 15 years or so, industry professionals have seen the RIAA stifle every new and upcoming form of digital distribution technology. Look at the history of the DAT machine for example. It scared the bejesus out of them. Now they sit back and receive royalties for every DAT sold. The RIAA also tried to do the same thing to the rio players back in 1998 when they first came to market. Many of us remember the excitement that the rio brought for the future of digital music, but I also remember the bitter taste that the RIAA left in my mouth with that lawsuit. So, I say let the RIAA win this one. Just remember this, the Internet has been forever changed, and the possibility for a napster backlash is unlike anything the net has seen.
Slashdot Mirror
Aol just needs to start renting/selling movies online - via DVDs and/or streaming/downloads. Time Warner has the largest movies archives in the world...use that content, drop all the other useless services...sell those to Earthlink...eventually aol becomes a media portal.
Nothing else matters if you have a great chair!!!!
Seriously...one less piece of multimedia DRM software.
Yeah...have fun downloading the uncompress pcm format...idiot
Napster splits what is offered to you at any one moment in time. You can not see every user's library. I am not sure if they set it up geographically, by internet traffic, or what. Plus, not every napster user is online when you are.
You nailed it. This is very similar to what pseudo.com and mp3.com and many of the other "Music Service Providers" are doing. You pay $3 a month at mp3.com for their classical music services. All the classical music you want. They are working on other genres, but that's it for now. And now that they have settled up with EMI, and only have one more really big record company after them, I am sure you will see more choices very soon. The really cool thing will be when your cell phone company offers a $3 a month service that will play any genere of music (mp3's) over your cellular phone, or any other portable/mobile computing device. The future will rock...
I am sure that your place of residence has similar laws. Anyways, this is a case about American technology companies and the copyrights of RIAA artists. Oh, by the way, they can be from any country!!!! And of course, if they are selling music in America, you can bet that they pay their dues....so this law does involve you, if you want to continue to do online business with American companies. You know, you can always use the napster like trading service in Europe, or west bumble fuck, or wherever. I am sure that there are a few in Europe, Aussieland, or Asia. But the point of this, is that it is setting a precedent for the future. Senator Hatch told the big (US) recording companies that "they must make this [digital distribution] work". In other words, the RIAA needs to stop bringing lawsuits up against digital entertainment companies. If not, congress will intervene. Which means that they will change the law if they have too. But, US law makers would like to avoid that if possible. Lazy old men, what can you do. And again, I go back to what I was saying in my reply. It is not illegal for you to trade music, just as long as you don't make money. But is it legal for a company to help you trade music? It is a gray area. Not black and white like you think. Oh, and the US state Mississippi finally outlawed slavery in the early 1990's. Don't tell me that if I wanted to own slaves back then I could have, just because it was still a law. I will admitt that this is a rare instance, but this is not an issue of fighting against a law anymore. Napster and other forms of digital distribution have become entrenched into the daily lives of people through out the world. You can't just say, "stop that...don't do that anymore". It is here and it will continue. This is one of those rare cases in which the world has to change with it. They must find ways to adapt to it and stop trying to contain it. Make secure CD's, find better forms of encryption. Do whatever has to be done. So, my question is this, if you feel so strongly against American laws, then why do you continue to use American companies on the Internet? Simply use a local company. If you live in Fiji, I am afraid that you are SOL though.
YOU SAID: "Trading MP3's online is no different to recording a bunch of songs from the radio or TV shows/movies and letting your friends have copies of those recordings. Its illegal...." Hold on my friend.... You are incorrect. It is legal for you to share your recordings with friends and family. You can make digital mp3s or analog cassette tapes, but these recordings can not be apart of any commercial setting. Of course, the law was written back in 1989. In the year 2000, your friends live all over the world thanks to the Internet. So, is it any more wrong for you to share your digital recordings with a friend in Europe than it is with your friend next door? Of course not. That's the whole point of this. The law is outdated, ambiguous, and it is restricting the entire digital entertainment industry. The law must be changed in order for progress to be made. Look at MP3.com. They are slowly settling lawsuit after lawsuit from the big 5 record companies. 4 down and god only knows how many more will come in the end. The law was made in hopes of protecting the music and film industries from piracy, but it was not written to limit the growth of a new economic sector and to give monopoly-like powers to the RIAA. So write senator Hatch and tell him that he is the man!
Really...I do. That way, open source napster-like rouge services can proliferate through-out the net and truly screw RIAA artists by not being a liable business for the RIAA to take to court. Anyways, What is the RIAA really trying to do? For the past 15 years or so, industry professionals have seen the RIAA stifle every new and upcoming form of digital distribution technology. Look at the history of the DAT machine for example. It scared the bejesus out of them. Now they sit back and receive royalties for every DAT sold. The RIAA also tried to do the same thing to the rio players back in 1998 when they first came to market. Many of us remember the excitement that the rio brought for the future of digital music, but I also remember the bitter taste that the RIAA left in my mouth with that lawsuit. So, I say let the RIAA win this one. Just remember this, the Internet has been forever changed, and the possibility for a napster backlash is unlike anything the net has seen.