This book is filled with great tips and advice on finding the "right" job. Moreover, apart from specific suggestions, its approach will get you thinking outside the box, so to speak, and you'll come up with your own ideas.
I've had some great ideas, over the years. Some have proven successful, and others had led to spectacular failure. But I've never regretted being creative in search of a good job, because it's always landed me someplace worth being.
Keep your resume and correspondence brief and sharp. You're almost always in competition for a prospective employer's attention, so you have to stand out from the pack. A four-page resume with solid blocks of text is a bad idea. Plan your resume visually, just like an advertisement -- because that's exactly what it is.
Do whatever you can to bypass the wall of "human resources," and get to the people who are empowered to recognize skill and talent. The primary purpose of an HR department is not to hire, but rather to screen. The first thing an HR employee looks for, when picking up someone's resume, is a reason why this person can't be right for the job.
Remind yourself of some basic marketing tips and techniques. I recommend all three of Harry Beckwith's books, starting with Selling the Invisible. Everything, from your cover letter to your interview, is about selling yourself. Mention your skills, but focus on yourself. At the end of the day, in most cases, an employer isn't hiring a resume or a set of skills: He's hiring a person. You. The first three seconds of the interview are the most important, so smile and offer a firm handshake. Dress just a little bit better than is appropriate for the job; don't wear jeans, and don't wear a tux. Carry a "Thank You" card with you to the interview, and drop it into a mailbox as you leave.
Instead of trying to prove that you're the best choice, convince the employer that you're a good choice.
This is utter nonsense. A writer KNOWS what font he writes in makes know difference, the magazine/publisher will likely decide this. This is akin to blaming the existance of pencils and electric sharpeners for his incessant pencil sharpening.
Speaking as a writer -- which you're clearly not -- I'll say that you're missing the point, which is that a toolbox oughtn't be cluttered with extra, unnecessary tools. In most cases, you're exactly right: font and other formatting decisions will not be the writer's domain. This is exactly why posters are arguing that the tools for these decisions shouldn't be scripted into software for writers. Let writing software remain writing software, and let publishing software be publishing software.
Some years ago, I noticed that I was doing almost none of my writing in Microsoft Word. I used Word to save and to print, but I was writing most text in AOL documents. When I realized this, I started using Apple's Stickies software, and I've found that to be the best solution. I don't have to look at even one foolish toolbar, and I can easily open, re-size, re-color, and re-arrange multiple windows -- allowing me to essentially write on digital 'notecards,' which is particularly useful in speechwriting.
Of course SUV drivers don't have a higher survival rate than other cars...
"Of course" they don't? You state that as if it were common sense. I don't know any statistics on either side, personally, and I'm certainly not an expert. But if I were going to resort to 'common sense,' I'd think that a larger vehicle would offer more protection to its occupants.
I drove a Ford Explorer in high school. In my senior year, I flipped it over. I was driving on the highway late at night, and made the mistake of using cruise control during icy conditions. I hit a patch of black ice, and the cruise control tried to accelerate. The Explorer bounced off the guardrail, which tore a chunk from the front driver's wheel, and the truck flipped five times.
I was with two friends. One friend was unharmed, and the other just had to have his eyes flushed as a precaution. I was pretty banged up, and have glass "shrapnel" in my elbow and knee to this day...but none of us suffered any major injuries. We were all able to climb from the wreck on our own. Frankly, aside from my concussion, the worst part was waiting in the cold for help to arrive. (And the fright of looking out the windshield and seeing the world start to tilt. That's a sight I'll never forget.)
Now, take that anecdotal evidence for what it's worth. Today, I drive a sedan, and I don't think I would buy another SUV. But I really don't have any safety concerns about them, and my experience proved (to me) they can be as safe as a Volvo. I wrecked one about as bad as possible, and I barely missed a day of school. I certainly don't consider it "common knowledge" that bigger isn't better. And while I wouldn't have flipped in the first place in a lower car, I doubt I'd have survived a similar accident in certain automobiles.
I assume you mean the WHITE guy who writes for "West Wing"? Why the heck would I care what he thinks? He makes millions of dollars writing leftist dreck for Time Warner...
While clearly a liberal-leaning Democrat, Sorkin actually does a marvelous job of portraying opposing sides in equal light through his writing. His scripts have dealt with campaign finance, drug legalization, gun control, and numerous other hot-button issues, and his treatments have always been (pardon the phrase) fair and balanced. And I say that as a conservative, a Republican, and a man who probably disagrees personally with Sorkin on a great many issues.
Why you choose to stress "white," I wonder. Your implication is that you shouldn't care what any white folks think about you. I find that an odd remark to make on a website which is visited by overwhelmingly white males. But that aside, you should care what anyone thinks about you, generally speaking. You shouldn't obsess, of course, but as a member of a cooperative society (a redundant phrase if ever there were) you should allow some weight to the opinions of your peers. Otherwise you end up an overweight, bald, unshaven, single guy living alone in your parents' basement, surrounded by pizza crusts and empty cans of Mountain Dew while playing EverQuest and...um...refreshing...Slashdot...
And for the record, the quote wasn't actually uttered by Sorkin himself. He wrote the line for a character played by notable African-American actor Robert Guillame, in Sorkin's television series "Sports Night." The first season of that show included Guillame's most remarkable episode, titled "The Six Southern Gentlemen of Tennessee," which featured some of the most poignant writing about race relations in modern television.
The question for file-sharers is: at what point does sharing become a valid act of civil disobedience.
I agree with the substance of your opinions, here. And I love that you reference Dr. King's "Letter," which I believe is one of the most prolific and monumental documents in American history.
But your line, above, following that reference, goes too far. To quote Aaron Sorkin, "No rich young white guy ever got anywhere with me comparing himself to Rosa Parks." There will never be a point at which middle-class children downloading unauthorized files over broadband access will be comparable to Dr. King's crusade. I can see both sides of this debate, and there's reason on each. But there's nothing reasonable about drawing lines between copyright law, however 'oppressive' it may seem, and 'separate but equal,' Jim Crow, and the plight of blacks in this country during decades past.
For the edification of anyone interested in learning more, I always recommend Milton Viorst's classic, "Fire in the Streets: America in the 1960s." It's one of my all-time favorite books on American history, and it's the best portrayal of the civil rights movement that I've encountered. Lamentably, it's out-of-print...but you can buy a copy used, online, for about a buck-fifty. READ IT.
As these are CIVIL trials, they will not be appearing in front of a jury, just a judge.
You're probably a nice fellow, but you've just proved why you should never try to correct another person if you don't know what you're talking about. Everyone is wrong now and then, but you want to avoid compounding your mistake by looking like a jackass. (Seriously...no offense. Just a tip.)
Do you believe that they are innocent and that the RIAA has unfairly targeted them?
No. I believe, as a blanket statement, that file-sharing is wrong. I wrote an Op-Ed explaining that position, some months ago. And while I don't know anything specific about any of these 261 defendants, I know the RIAA has hired many skilled attorneys -- and I would guess that those attorneys have selected, from among thousands of possibilities, 261 cases which they feel are clear-cut, and easy to win. They're probably right.
However, everyone deserves a fair day in court. And more to the point, since most of us have read a hundred similar debates on the P2P subject, I thought I'd take an opportunity to steer the discussion in a different course, which I thought might prove interesting or helpful to some folks.
Everyone, including myself, has already sounded off their opinions about every facet of this issue. Even this story isn't really "news"; it's simply an official statement of something we knew was inevitable. Rather than revisit old arguments, then, let's try to offer some new thoughts. And in that spirit: If any defendants are reading this, now, here are a few tips, should you go to trial. (I have studied law, and I have served on a jury. If that qualifies this advice, so be it.)
Everything is sales. This is certainly true of trial law. Those 12 jurors are, ultimately, American consumers. They are bombarded with consumerism day and night, and one thing is true of American consumers: If they want to buy it, they will. (Witness the success of the SUV.) Make them want to buy your story.
Introduce yourself. It's much easier to royally screw "The Defendant" than it is Billy, or Jake, or Tom. The first words out of your lawyer's mouth should be, "Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is John. This is Billy." Your first name should be the most repeated word in the courtroom. If Juror #12 has a son your age, you want her unable to separate her son's face from yours during deliberations.
Dress sharply. Packaging is a crucial element of marketing. Your appearance will matter -- to jurors, to the judge, and even to your personal confidence and demeanor at your table and on the stand. If you come down to your last $1,000 and you can't decide whether to buy food or pay your lawyer, do neither: Buy a suit. Check out Alan Flusser, or another expert for advice. Straighten your tie. Button your collar. Wear a blue shirt. If you think it sounds silly, consider this: If the jury finds against you in the amount of $12 million, you're going to spend the night sitting awake in bed, asking yourself, "Did I do absolutely every little thing I could have done?"
Smile."More bees with honey," and so forth. You can't overestimate the value of a good impression. Watch a reality dating show, some afternoon. You'll hear plenty of folks say about their blind date, "When I first saw him, he was smiling. That really put me at ease, and I felt very comfortable." Your jury should be convinced that you are a warm, friendly person. "Caring" is a nice adjective, too...but seriously, it should fall third, behind "warm" and "friendly." Put your jury at ease.
Admit your anger. This is a cardinal rule for criminal trials, but you might find it useful here. Some lawyers will tell you, "Remain calm. Never flash anger." That's bunk. The jury knows you're not a robot, and they will distrust you if you act like one. You shouldn't get visibly upset every time a witness for the other side says something against you, of course. But if you take the stand, it can help if you admit, "I'm angry, at being in this position." In criminal trials, take it a bit further: Admit that you resent the jury. Don't antagonize them, and be careful how you speak...but admit the truth. "I am not guilty of this crime. And truthfully, I'm angry. I resent the fact that you 12 people are going to decide whether I may remain free. I don't mean to offend you...but I resent this. I'm not guilty, and I'm angry that you have the power to lock me up for something I didn't do." It's natural. If you admit your resentment (without hostility), the jury is reminded that you're a man. An innocent man.
Consider delivering your own closing argument. Don't represent yourself, of course. Even if you are an attorney, you'd be a fool not to hire someone else. But when the time comes for summations, it's often best to favor the human argument over the legal. The jury has already heard the law -- and they'll be reminded of it again, when the judge offers instructions. Be a salesman. Be yourself. Stand up, and sell yourself. Speak, don't read. Use notecards if you must, but don't read a speech. Just talk. Make eye contact. Take the
Certainly, you paint this situation as an open-and-shut case. From your explanation, there seems little reason why any lawyer take this woman seriously. Problem is, that perception is based on having heard only your side of the story -- and I'm sure you'll agree, you're biased. For all I know, this lawyer may have a mirror-image position: He may have heard only the woman's side of the story, and from that account your position may seem utterly ridiculous.
The first thing you learn in law school is that nothing is ever clear-cut. First, most things simply aren't; they're too complicated. But even for situations which should, in theory, be clear-cut (like a traffic violation, which carry "strict liability")...they're about marketing, to judges and to juries. There's always an exception to be made, and there's always a new interpretation to be heard. Old decisions are subject to review.
Trial law is very much like the profession portrayed in "Glengarry Glen Ross." When you're standing before a jury, "ABC" is a helpful mantra to keep in mind: Always be closing. The people sitting in that jury box are, ultimately, American consumers. If they want to buy it, they will.
This woman's story may seem foolish to you. But allow for the possibilities that (a) her story seems plausible to her lawyer, or that (b) regardless of merit, her lawyer believes he can sell this story to a jury.
Standards and practices are one thing; federal regulations are quite another. Yes, chess should remain as it is: to play properly, one must remember how the pieces move. However, if you and I choose to sit in Starbucks and tinker with a chess set, skipping our pieces randomly across the board, we don't worry about being fined by the FCC.
Now, true, chess is a game, rather than a communications tool; and our "tinkering" doesn't affect others, whereas a broadcast can be picked up by anyone. But we're not talking about someone's right to trample across the airwaves yelling, "LiMp BiZkiT RuLeZZ!!!" One operator's inability to use Morse Code won't significantly detract from someone else's ability to use the airwaves.
There's another element, as well: consistency. In 1999, the United States Coast Guard stopped monitoring the Morse maritime distress frequency, and the International Maritime Organization dropped a requirement that ships over 300 tons have telegraph capabilities." (Source.) If the government is taking steps to recognize the obsolescence of Morse Code, shouldn't FCC requirements for radio licenses be first on the trash list? It seems foolish, to me, to require that people learn a code which is so out-of-date that our own government has stopped listening for it.
Personally, I'd go the other way. I think Morse Code's advantages in a potential catastrophe warrant its being kept alive. Suggesting that students learn Morse Code in school migh sound foolish, at first...but it's more practical than the redundant (and required) "cursive" script, isn't it? And with the quality of public education in this country, oughn't we give due consideration to almost any suggestion, before laughing it off the table?
But in the meantime, if our government doesn't even bother monitoring Morse Code, the only reason I see for requiring it for FCC licenses is to maintain the "elite" nature of ham radio. And while I agree that there are benefits in erecting chickenwire to keep out the riffraff, I certainly don't think that's an appropriate job for federal legislation.
I'm typing from 30 miles southwest of Boston. I've heard reports that Boston is affected; but here in the suburbs, we're not having any problems.
It's worth noting that, no matter what caused the initial problem: The results we're seeing are exactly what happens when the populace fails to concern itself with potential problems. We Americans, even today, suffer from a serious case of "It'll-never-happen-to-me." Experts have warned for years that our power grids had dangerous "pressure points," where small problems could cause massive failures.
Unfortunately, when we hear the phrase "potential problem," we hear the first word and never bother to listen to what follows. "If it's not a sure bet, why worry about it?" Well...here's why.
One tactic among many: EVERY time you obtain or receive a Business Reply Mail
card or envelope: MAIL IT.
Every issue of Scientific American comes with no less than six BRM subscription cards. Most magazines are just as bad. Oftentimes junk mail includes BRM envelopes, to facilitate your reply. What you need to understand is that the companies do not pay postage for Business Reply Mail, unless the cards and envelopes are actually mailed. Yes, they pay an annual fee for the license; but actual postage is only charged for each piece of mail actually processed.
In other words: When you throw these items in the trash, you achieve nothing. If you mail them, however, not only are you forcing the companies to pay postage (plus their costs in processing dead-end replies), but you're actually giving their money to the post office -- theoretically, helping to keep down the cost of our stamps.;-)
If we help him out, any symbolic victory of theirs is lost...
How do you figure? The kid settled for $12,000. That's what's being reported by the national media. Period. If you manage to help him recover the money, that might get reported on a few nerd websites; but I don't see it damaging the RIAA's "symbolic victory" one iota.
I doubt we're getting the whole story -- here, or with the other four students who settled last month. I'd like to see someone ask them one question: "Did you have any pirated music?" I've never used Napster/KaZaA/etc. in my life. (I'm a Mac user.) If the RIAA came after me for writing one of these programs, you can bet that would be the first thing out of my mouth to any reporter who'd listen: "I have never traded music."
The software may not be as devious as the RIAA is painting it; but if these kids did in fact have pirated MP3s, then it's going to be pretty tough to convince a jury that their hands were squeaky-clean.
And BTW, did anyone else notice the kid's father beaming with pride? "He has stood up to the schoolyard bullies that are pulling this," he says of his son. The kid forked over his life's savings, without a hint of protest. It's pretty hard to keep a straight face listening to the nerd tell you how he beat up the bully, while his nose is still bleeding and his lunch money's gone.
One final note: This kid was a college student at a polytech school, with $12,000 in his bank account. You know a lot of college students who are sitting on $12,000? If you want to donate your money to charitable use, that's commendable; but there are better fronts to fight in this battle, and I suspect there are more needy victims than little Jesse Jordan.
You can't just hook line out to line in and expect a decent result. You need some decent software as well. this guy [lp2cd.com] makes a living doing decent conversions. If it was truly as easy as you say, he'd be out of business.
I've never seen that site before. I have done a lot of business with Hamilton Audio/Video, however. They do great work.
Even if creating a good, noise-reduced digital recording from an LP were "easy," I still wouldn't do it myself. I don't currently own a record player. I'd have to spend a fair bit of money to get the quality equipment that Hamilton already owns. Besides which, the LPs I own that I want transferred are so old, rare, and valuable that I feel more comfortable having them played by someone who does it for a living. I wouldn't trust myself not to scratch something.
For about 50 bucks, I get a great-sounding CD, including cover art, from each LP. This is done by professionals, using high-grade equipment and software. I consider it worth my money.
This is because they don't screen the comments....ebay feedback is like graffiti, no one controls it and it just sort of sits there.
Yes -- but that's because eBay designed their system that way, and they continue to maintain it in that fashion. They can't really claim solace in a policy that is entirely under their own discretion.
Personally, I think Grace sounds like a slimebag. But his argument does have merit: eBay is not simply a conduit for information, like an ISP. eBay actively publishes content onto the web, and Grace is arguing that eBay should be held responsible when that content violates the law.
Without reading the judge's decision, it's difficult to speculate as to his reasoning. [I'm not very familiar with the CDA.] I wonder whether his decision applies only to libel. If someone posted an auction including child pornography images, for example, and that auction made its way onto the search pages...could the government prosecute eBay, as a publisher of that illegal content?
It's also worth noting that the entire case has not been dismissed. Grace sued both eBay and the "memorabilia dealer" who allegedly posted the "libelous feedback." The judge dismissed Grace's claim against eBay (Grace vows to appeal), but presumably the claim against the dealer still stands.
Well, feel free to take my K5 suggestion as a starting point. We could also all bookmark each others journals, and watch for mention of good, independent music that we each discover.
BTW, Richard Cook and Brian Morton have just released the 6th edition of their popular Penguin Guide to Jazz on CD. At $17.50, for over 1700 pages of small-type reviews, it's a pretty fucking terrific deal. The 5th edition was invaluable to me -- and I already knew a ton about jazz. I imagine it'd be exponentially more valuable to a newcomer.
Besides, in my book if your last name is "Biddle," you're automatically an asshole.
Maybe there's a joke, there, that I'm missing. But FYI, Charles Biddle is not only a spectacular and legendary jazz bassist; he's also the owner of Biddle's Jazz & Ribs in Montreal, one of the premier jazz clubs in the world.
IMO, there's a small group of users [b]from both projects[/b] being asses, and the rest of the people are going "Christ, get over yourselves, one's a browser the others a database."
Well, IMO, people saying that are being asses, as well. Most of the people, I think, understand that since both products are software, IBPhoenix and the FireBird (DB) project have a legitimate complaint.
Let's find a litmus test. Ms. Harrison offers an analogy: Apple's trademark would not be infringed by a business called "Apple Cleaners." If common sense will prevent the everday consumer from being confused, then you're fine. However, if your best excuse is that consumers won't be confused because your product only appeals to an elite niche, then you're too close for comfort. Pick a new name.
I really don't understand how anyone could defend Mozilla's actions, here. Even if you don't understand the trademark argument, don't y'all have a grasp of "good manners"? What happened to being considerate of other people? Part of professionalism, in my book, is conducting business in good-faith. Using someone else's trademark simply because your lawyers tell you they can beat the case doesn't pass the "good faith" test by a mile.
The bottom line is simple: People are defending Mozilla, not their actions. Remember Uzi Nissan's website? Didn't we all jump to his defense, and condemn the big, bad corporation who was trying to wrestle away his trademark? If the "Firebird" browser belonged to Microsoft, or Apple, every Linux user in the world would be seeing red about this situation. But because we're talking about Mozilla, too many people are willing to excuse bad-faith acts.
That doesn't do the Open Source community any good, IMO.
I strongly recommend that as a compensatory measure, non-AOL MTAs be configured to deny all incoming mail from AOL's domain."
Yeah...because when a big corporation does something wrong, we should exact revenge upon all of its customers.
That's very mature. Particularly in the case of AOL, which services the vast majority of under-educated internet users. You'll fuck up all of their personal email communications, and they won't have the first clue why.
So, what you are saying is that "i" in the begining of any word is a trademark of Apple, right? Since when?
[Sigh.]
Apple revitalized its line several years back with a model they called the "iMac." They've since maintained and improved that line, and added a comparable tier to their laptop line -- which they call the "iBook."
So you're telling us that it's just one big, innocent coincidence that Fraser has decided to start manufacturing a computer which is, by his own words, aimed specifically at customers looking to buy a low-end, easily-customizable Mac computer...and called an "iBox"?
Yes, law is about technicalities. But it's not a mathematical system. It involves human beings, making sometimes-complicated arguments in front of human judges and/or juries. And although law offers few guarantees, there is one I can give you: If this kid gets dragged into court by Apple, and he stands up to say (as you suggest), "I can use a word beginning with 'i' without harming Apple!!"...then the judge, when he manages to compose himself after fits of roaring laughter, is going to slam down his gavel and find for the plaintiff. 20 minutes later, Fraser and his family will be living in a van, down by the river.
Pardon my blunt tone, sir, but your argument is fucking stupid.
Instead of huge editing consoles with separate monitors, reporters are editing their own pieces on laptop computers and then sending them like e-mail back to the network through a satellite Internet connection.
IMO, this is a point worth talking about. One side effect of technology has often been the erosion of jobs. In some cases, it's been as simple as machines reducing the need for laborers. This is a different case. The technology ("desktop video," for instance) seems to offer more options and flexibility to each reporter. The indirect effect, however, is that the overall product suffers. A reporter puts together his own piece of video. This is cheaper than paying a video producer, but the work is likely of lower quality. Untrained, the reporter cannot equally utilize the software; and more importantly, he lacks the seasoned wisdom of the experienced professional in making judgments -- which angle to use, which clips to cut, which order to sequence, etc. (Not being a professional myself, I don't know precisely how many variables there are. Anyone else want to weigh in?)
Ask any elder newspaperman, and he'll likely tell you his first complaint about today's journalists: "They can't fucking write." Last Wednesday, the New York Times website's front-page photo was captioned, "Ana Palacio, Spain's foreign minister, told reporters today that a draft resolution on Iraq that it supports along with the U.S. may not be put to a vote to avoid a French veto." No, it's not incomprehensible (contrasted with some examples), but how the hell did that dreck get onto the front page?
Spell-check software has replaced practicing editors, in many newsrooms. A month or so ago, MSNBC ran an article about Cardinal Law's decision to step down, and it mentioned some Boston politicians who had visited Rome to offer their support. One of the names in the article? FBI "Ten Most Wanted" fugitive Whitey Bulger. Obviously, the writer meant to name brother Billy Bulger, a former president of the Massachusetts Senate. That mistake never would have made it past an experienced, practicing editor. But a spell-checker is indifferent to glaring factual errors, and text entry into HTML is a simple task. So writers end up looking like buffoons.
"Specialization" was one of the first trends in industrial society. When technology becomes more accessible, "specialists" are no longer needed. And more often than not, this results in (1) more people able to produce the work, and (2) far fewer people able to produce the work at an expert level.
Pros vs. Cons: Is it better to have more voices in the mix, or for the expert voices not to be drowned out? Is it better to practice reporting and video-editing and HTML now, to be competent at all three later...or is it better to be the best damn reporter, later, who admittedly can't tell RealPlayer from Napster? I'd tell my reporters to leave the video to the engineers, and to concentrate on reporting. When you get untrained amateurs trying to compete with professionals, you end up with Ain't It Cool News.
Starting from left field: The Russian mob makes millions of dollars from so-called "piracy." They produce illegal copies of CDs, DVDs, software, etc., and they sell them on the black market. Some of you may recall this concern being publicized when Nintendo was designing the GameCube; because it caused the design team to shift to a smaller-sized DVD, in order to make bootlegging more difficult.
Bootlegging is illegal for the same reasons as is "free" P2P. Everyone knows the first reason: Illegal distribution competes with legitimate distribution, and legitimate sales are lost to the black market. But that reason is simply a consequence of the underlying issue, which is often overlooked by those defending P2P: Control. By up- and downloading other artist's music, you are violating that artist's right to control distribution of his own work.
Y'all say, "Well, everyone knows that increased distribution helps the artist." And in many cases, you're right. But that fact notwithstanding, copyright law assures an artist an absolute right to control distribution. And that's as it should be. If an artist doesn't want to be "helped," he should have that right.
Any artist's reasons for limiting distribution are, of course, none of your damn business. But just for the sake of argument: An artist has the right to produce only 100 copies of a record, and feel assured that its distribution will not exceed that number. A young musician, in need of a demo, has the right to say, "I only own a cheap eight-track, and one microphone. So I'll dash something off, quickly, and give it to the club owners...but I won't have to worry about anyone else hearing it. I'll have a chance to put my best foot forward, when I decide the time is right." Likewise, an older musician, newly discovering success, has the right to feel assured that the shoddy recording he made in his basement in 1963 won't rear its head in stores and MP3 lists today, and potentially harm his new career.
J-Live is probably quite happy that his first album, The Best Part, was widely bootlegged and traded. His reputation grew underground, and led directly to his position today: He can tour profitably, he recorded a second album which gained wider distribution, and he even re-released The Best Part. But there's also the mirror image: A young local band sets up in a friend's garage, and walks out with a comically-bad cassette recording of themselves. They scrawl their names on the tape and give it to a friend, who laughs and copies it for a friend...who laughs, and copies it for a friend. Down the line, someone uploads it into KaZaA. Now people on the opposite coast are laughing at a bunch of teenagers who never intended their music for public distribution. Maybe everyone forgets them...or maybe the tape is remembered by a record exec who hears their demo five years later, and he turns them away because of it. Either way, they had the right to control distribution of their music, and that control was violated.
A third time: CONTROL. The issue is not simply distribution, but control of distribution. You might say, "Well, when an artist releases a recording, he has chosen to distribute it." You're right. But he maintains control over that distribution. If he wants to limit that distribution to 100, or 1,000, he has that right. When he sells a copy to you, he is not relinquishing that control -- he is exercising it.
You have the right to buy a copy of the new Britney Spears CD. You have the right to burn copies of that CD for your work and car, if you like. You even have the right to burn 20,000 copies of that CD, and stack them in your bedroom, if that happens to be your fetish. But as soon as you hand one of those copies to another person -- literally, or online -- you have become a "distributor." Whether or not you accept money is irrelevant. You have no right to distribute. And that is the issue.
Most people realize (intuitively) that downloading music/movies/software is (at the very least) a victimless crime in that 99.99% of the stuff that is downloaded and not later bought would never have been bought anyway.
Most people, yourself included, fail to realize that profit is only part of the issue, here. And for independent artists who oppose Napster, etc., profit is a small part (pun intended). The larger issue is an artist's ability to control his own works. That control is assured by copyright law. When you up- or download a piece of music, you are exercising control over that music -- control to which you have no right. You are violating the artist's ability to control his own work.
Let's take a conceptual art work, as an example. I'm a musician. I decide that I want to create an artwork, consisting of two stages: producing a recording, and distributing that recording to 63 people. (Maybe the number 63 is significant because my mother died at 63. Whatever.) Copyright law assures me the right to perform this work exactly as described. When I sell one of my 63 CDs to you, you own that recording. You own only that recording. You own no rights to distribute.
Copyright law says that you may copy that CD, for yourself. You can burn two copies, if you like, so you can listen at work and in your car. This violates neither the law nor my performance artwork, because you still count as only one of 63 people. Copyright law also says that you may sell that CD. (Legally, you may not retain any copies for yourself, once you have sold the original.) And if you do this, you still have violated neither the law nor my performance; you have altered the makeup of the 63 people, but not the number.
Let's address an often-misunderstood corollary: CD burners. CD burners are legal because, on their own, they do not change anything. You have the right to sit in your house and burn 20,000 copies of the new Britney Spears album, if you choose. You do not have the right to walk outside and distribute those copies, however. Whether or not you accept money is irrelevant. You cannot sell those copies, and you cannot give them away. If you do either, you are violating the rights of the artist, to whom belongs the sole right to control distribution. (...Until those rights are contractually signed away to a record company, obviously, which then becomes "sole possessor," depending on the contract's language, et cetera.)
I am driven absolutely nuts by people who brag, "I understand that I'm breaking the law," but who continue to rant and rave about greedy record companies who don't deserve money. Granted, Sony, WEA, EMI, etc. are gravely concerned about money. But most artists -- remember, the folks y'all claim to respect? -- care more about the underlying issue of control. If you continue to file-trade, fine...but at least understand the issues that are under debate. It's the difference between a decision, and an educated decision.
Slashdot Mirror
This book is filled with great tips and advice on finding the "right" job. Moreover, apart from specific suggestions, its approach will get you thinking outside the box, so to speak, and you'll come up with your own ideas.
I've had some great ideas, over the years. Some have proven successful, and others had led to spectacular failure. But I've never regretted being creative in search of a good job, because it's always landed me someplace worth being.
Keep your resume and correspondence brief and sharp. You're almost always in competition for a prospective employer's attention, so you have to stand out from the pack. A four-page resume with solid blocks of text is a bad idea. Plan your resume visually, just like an advertisement -- because that's exactly what it is.
Do whatever you can to bypass the wall of "human resources," and get to the people who are empowered to recognize skill and talent. The primary purpose of an HR department is not to hire, but rather to screen. The first thing an HR employee looks for, when picking up someone's resume, is a reason why this person can't be right for the job.
Remind yourself of some basic marketing tips and techniques. I recommend all three of Harry Beckwith's books, starting with Selling the Invisible. Everything, from your cover letter to your interview, is about selling yourself. Mention your skills, but focus on yourself. At the end of the day, in most cases, an employer isn't hiring a resume or a set of skills: He's hiring a person. You. The first three seconds of the interview are the most important, so smile and offer a firm handshake. Dress just a little bit better than is appropriate for the job; don't wear jeans, and don't wear a tux. Carry a "Thank You" card with you to the interview, and drop it into a mailbox as you leave.
Instead of trying to prove that you're the best choice, convince the employer that you're a good choice.
My two cents.
cribSome years ago, I noticed that I was doing almost none of my writing in Microsoft Word. I used Word to save and to print, but I was writing most text in AOL documents. When I realized this, I started using Apple's Stickies software, and I've found that to be the best solution. I don't have to look at even one foolish toolbar, and I can easily open, re-size, re-color, and re-arrange multiple windows -- allowing me to essentially write on digital 'notecards,' which is particularly useful in speechwriting.
My two cents.
crib
Does anyone remember this story?
cribI drove a Ford Explorer in high school. In my senior year, I flipped it over. I was driving on the highway late at night, and made the mistake of using cruise control during icy conditions. I hit a patch of black ice, and the cruise control tried to accelerate. The Explorer bounced off the guardrail, which tore a chunk from the front driver's wheel, and the truck flipped five times.
I was with two friends. One friend was unharmed, and the other just had to have his eyes flushed as a precaution. I was pretty banged up, and have glass "shrapnel" in my elbow and knee to this day...but none of us suffered any major injuries. We were all able to climb from the wreck on our own. Frankly, aside from my concussion, the worst part was waiting in the cold for help to arrive. (And the fright of looking out the windshield and seeing the world start to tilt. That's a sight I'll never forget.)
Now, take that anecdotal evidence for what it's worth. Today, I drive a sedan, and I don't think I would buy another SUV. But I really don't have any safety concerns about them, and my experience proved (to me) they can be as safe as a Volvo. I wrecked one about as bad as possible, and I barely missed a day of school. I certainly don't consider it "common knowledge" that bigger isn't better. And while I wouldn't have flipped in the first place in a lower car, I doubt I'd have survived a similar accident in certain automobiles.
My two cents.
cribWhy you choose to stress "white," I wonder. Your implication is that you shouldn't care what any white folks think about you. I find that an odd remark to make on a website which is visited by overwhelmingly white males. But that aside, you should care what anyone thinks about you, generally speaking. You shouldn't obsess, of course, but as a member of a cooperative society (a redundant phrase if ever there were) you should allow some weight to the opinions of your peers. Otherwise you end up an overweight, bald, unshaven, single guy living alone in your parents' basement, surrounded by pizza crusts and empty cans of Mountain Dew while playing EverQuest and...um...refreshing...Slashdot...
And for the record, the quote wasn't actually uttered by Sorkin himself. He wrote the line for a character played by notable African-American actor Robert Guillame, in Sorkin's television series "Sports Night." The first season of that show included Guillame's most remarkable episode, titled "The Six Southern Gentlemen of Tennessee," which featured some of the most poignant writing about race relations in modern television.
FYI.
cribBut your line, above, following that reference, goes too far. To quote Aaron Sorkin, "No rich young white guy ever got anywhere with me comparing himself to Rosa Parks." There will never be a point at which middle-class children downloading unauthorized files over broadband access will be comparable to Dr. King's crusade. I can see both sides of this debate, and there's reason on each. But there's nothing reasonable about drawing lines between copyright law, however 'oppressive' it may seem, and 'separate but equal,' Jim Crow, and the plight of blacks in this country during decades past.
For the edification of anyone interested in learning more, I always recommend Milton Viorst's classic, "Fire in the Streets: America in the 1960s." It's one of my all-time favorite books on American history, and it's the best portrayal of the civil rights movement that I've encountered. Lamentably, it's out-of-print...but you can buy a copy used, online, for about a buck-fifty. READ IT.
cribSee Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 38(b): "Any party may demand a trial by jury..."
cribHowever, everyone deserves a fair day in court. And more to the point, since most of us have read a hundred similar debates on the P2P subject, I thought I'd take an opportunity to steer the discussion in a different course, which I thought might prove interesting or helpful to some folks.
cribEveryone, including myself, has already sounded off their opinions about every facet of this issue. Even this story isn't really "news"; it's simply an official statement of something we knew was inevitable. Rather than revisit old arguments, then, let's try to offer some new thoughts. And in that spirit: If any defendants are reading this, now, here are a few tips, should you go to trial. (I have studied law, and I have served on a jury. If that qualifies this advice, so be it.)
The first thing you learn in law school is that nothing is ever clear-cut. First, most things simply aren't; they're too complicated. But even for situations which should, in theory, be clear-cut (like a traffic violation, which carry "strict liability")...they're about marketing, to judges and to juries. There's always an exception to be made, and there's always a new interpretation to be heard. Old decisions are subject to review.
Trial law is very much like the profession portrayed in "Glengarry Glen Ross." When you're standing before a jury, "ABC" is a helpful mantra to keep in mind: Always be closing. The people sitting in that jury box are, ultimately, American consumers. If they want to buy it, they will.
This woman's story may seem foolish to you. But allow for the possibilities that (a) her story seems plausible to her lawyer, or that (b) regardless of merit, her lawyer believes he can sell this story to a jury.
cribStandards and practices are one thing; federal regulations are quite another. Yes, chess should remain as it is: to play properly, one must remember how the pieces move. However, if you and I choose to sit in Starbucks and tinker with a chess set, skipping our pieces randomly across the board, we don't worry about being fined by the FCC.
Now, true, chess is a game, rather than a communications tool; and our "tinkering" doesn't affect others, whereas a broadcast can be picked up by anyone. But we're not talking about someone's right to trample across the airwaves yelling, "LiMp BiZkiT RuLeZZ!!!" One operator's inability to use Morse Code won't significantly detract from someone else's ability to use the airwaves.
There's another element, as well: consistency. In 1999, the United States Coast Guard stopped monitoring the Morse maritime distress frequency, and the International Maritime Organization dropped a requirement that ships over 300 tons have telegraph capabilities." (Source.) If the government is taking steps to recognize the obsolescence of Morse Code, shouldn't FCC requirements for radio licenses be first on the trash list? It seems foolish, to me, to require that people learn a code which is so out-of-date that our own government has stopped listening for it.
Personally, I'd go the other way. I think Morse Code's advantages in a potential catastrophe warrant its being kept alive. Suggesting that students learn Morse Code in school migh sound foolish, at first...but it's more practical than the redundant (and required) "cursive" script, isn't it? And with the quality of public education in this country, oughn't we give due consideration to almost any suggestion, before laughing it off the table?
But in the meantime, if our government doesn't even bother monitoring Morse Code, the only reason I see for requiring it for FCC licenses is to maintain the "elite" nature of ham radio. And while I agree that there are benefits in erecting chickenwire to keep out the riffraff, I certainly don't think that's an appropriate job for federal legislation.
My two cents.
cribHe also misspelled "bitchmonkeys." What a fag...
I'm typing from 30 miles southwest of Boston. I've heard reports that Boston is affected; but here in the suburbs, we're not having any problems.
It's worth noting that, no matter what caused the initial problem: The results we're seeing are exactly what happens when the populace fails to concern itself with potential problems. We Americans, even today, suffer from a serious case of "It'll-never-happen-to-me." Experts have warned for years that our power grids had dangerous "pressure points," where small problems could cause massive failures.
Unfortunately, when we hear the phrase "potential problem," we hear the first word and never bother to listen to what follows. "If it's not a sure bet, why worry about it?" Well...here's why.
crib
One tactic among many: EVERY time you obtain or receive a Business Reply Mail
card or envelope: MAIL IT.Every issue of Scientific American comes with no less than six BRM subscription cards. Most magazines are just as bad. Oftentimes junk mail includes BRM envelopes, to facilitate your reply. What you need to understand is that the companies do not pay postage for Business Reply Mail, unless the cards and envelopes are actually mailed. Yes, they pay an annual fee for the license; but actual postage is only charged for each piece of mail actually processed.
In other words: When you throw these items in the trash, you achieve nothing. If you mail them, however, not only are you forcing the companies to pay postage (plus their costs in processing dead-end replies), but you're actually giving their money to the post office -- theoretically, helping to keep down the cost of our stamps. ;-)
crib
How do you figure? The kid settled for $12,000. That's what's being reported by the national media. Period. If you manage to help him recover the money, that might get reported on a few nerd websites; but I don't see it damaging the RIAA's "symbolic victory" one iota.
I doubt we're getting the whole story -- here, or with the other four students who settled last month. I'd like to see someone ask them one question: "Did you have any pirated music?" I've never used Napster/KaZaA/etc. in my life. (I'm a Mac user.) If the RIAA came after me for writing one of these programs, you can bet that would be the first thing out of my mouth to any reporter who'd listen: "I have never traded music."
The software may not be as devious as the RIAA is painting it; but if these kids did in fact have pirated MP3s, then it's going to be pretty tough to convince a jury that their hands were squeaky-clean.
And BTW, did anyone else notice the kid's father beaming with pride? "He has stood up to the schoolyard bullies that are pulling this," he says of his son. The kid forked over his life's savings, without a hint of protest. It's pretty hard to keep a straight face listening to the nerd tell you how he beat up the bully, while his nose is still bleeding and his lunch money's gone.
One final note: This kid was a college student at a polytech school, with $12,000 in his bank account. You know a lot of college students who are sitting on $12,000? If you want to donate your money to charitable use, that's commendable; but there are better fronts to fight in this battle, and I suspect there are more needy victims than little Jesse Jordan.
My two cents.
crib
I've never seen that site before. I have done a lot of business with Hamilton Audio/Video, however. They do great work.
Even if creating a good, noise-reduced digital recording from an LP were "easy," I still wouldn't do it myself. I don't currently own a record player. I'd have to spend a fair bit of money to get the quality equipment that Hamilton already owns. Besides which, the LPs I own that I want transferred are so old, rare, and valuable that I feel more comfortable having them played by someone who does it for a living. I wouldn't trust myself not to scratch something.
For about 50 bucks, I get a great-sounding CD, including cover art, from each LP. This is done by professionals, using high-grade equipment and software. I consider it worth my money.
crib
Yes -- but that's because eBay designed their system that way, and they continue to maintain it in that fashion. They can't really claim solace in a policy that is entirely under their own discretion.
Personally, I think Grace sounds like a slimebag. But his argument does have merit: eBay is not simply a conduit for information, like an ISP. eBay actively publishes content onto the web, and Grace is arguing that eBay should be held responsible when that content violates the law.
Without reading the judge's decision, it's difficult to speculate as to his reasoning. [I'm not very familiar with the CDA.] I wonder whether his decision applies only to libel. If someone posted an auction including child pornography images, for example, and that auction made its way onto the search pages...could the government prosecute eBay, as a publisher of that illegal content?
It's also worth noting that the entire case has not been dismissed. Grace sued both eBay and the "memorabilia dealer" who allegedly posted the "libelous feedback." The judge dismissed Grace's claim against eBay (Grace vows to appeal), but presumably the claim against the dealer still stands.
crib
Well, feel free to take my K5 suggestion as a starting point. We could also all bookmark each others journals, and watch for mention of good, independent music that we each discover.
BTW, Richard Cook and Brian Morton have just released the 6th edition of their popular Penguin Guide to Jazz on CD. At $17.50, for over 1700 pages of small-type reviews, it's a pretty fucking terrific deal. The 5th edition was invaluable to me -- and I already knew a ton about jazz. I imagine it'd be exponentially more valuable to a newcomer.
FYI.
crib
Maybe there's a joke, there, that I'm missing. But FYI, Charles Biddle is not only a spectacular and legendary jazz bassist; he's also the owner of Biddle's Jazz & Ribs in Montreal, one of the premier jazz clubs in the world.
crib
Well, IMO, people saying that are being asses, as well. Most of the people, I think, understand that since both products are software, IBPhoenix and the FireBird (DB) project have a legitimate complaint.
Let's find a litmus test. Ms. Harrison offers an analogy: Apple's trademark would not be infringed by a business called "Apple Cleaners." If common sense will prevent the everday consumer from being confused, then you're fine. However, if your best excuse is that consumers won't be confused because your product only appeals to an elite niche, then you're too close for comfort. Pick a new name.
I really don't understand how anyone could defend Mozilla's actions, here. Even if you don't understand the trademark argument, don't y'all have a grasp of "good manners"? What happened to being considerate of other people? Part of professionalism, in my book, is conducting business in good-faith. Using someone else's trademark simply because your lawyers tell you they can beat the case doesn't pass the "good faith" test by a mile.
The bottom line is simple: People are defending Mozilla, not their actions. Remember Uzi Nissan's website? Didn't we all jump to his defense, and condemn the big, bad corporation who was trying to wrestle away his trademark? If the "Firebird" browser belonged to Microsoft, or Apple, every Linux user in the world would be seeing red about this situation. But because we're talking about Mozilla, too many people are willing to excuse bad-faith acts.
That doesn't do the Open Source community any good, IMO.
crib
Yeah...because when a big corporation does something wrong, we should exact revenge upon all of its customers.
That's very mature. Particularly in the case of AOL, which services the vast majority of under-educated internet users. You'll fuck up all of their personal email communications, and they won't have the first clue why.
Brilliant solution.
crib
[Sigh.]
Apple revitalized its line several years back with a model they called the "iMac." They've since maintained and improved that line, and added a comparable tier to their laptop line -- which they call the "iBook."
So you're telling us that it's just one big, innocent coincidence that Fraser has decided to start manufacturing a computer which is, by his own words, aimed specifically at customers looking to buy a low-end, easily-customizable Mac computer...and called an "iBox"?
Yes, law is about technicalities. But it's not a mathematical system. It involves human beings, making sometimes-complicated arguments in front of human judges and/or juries. And although law offers few guarantees, there is one I can give you: If this kid gets dragged into court by Apple, and he stands up to say (as you suggest), "I can use a word beginning with 'i' without harming Apple!!"...then the judge, when he manages to compose himself after fits of roaring laughter, is going to slam down his gavel and find for the plaintiff. 20 minutes later, Fraser and his family will be living in a van, down by the river.
Pardon my blunt tone, sir, but your argument is fucking stupid.
crib
IMO, this is a point worth talking about. One side effect of technology has often been the erosion of jobs. In some cases, it's been as simple as machines reducing the need for laborers. This is a different case. The technology ("desktop video," for instance) seems to offer more options and flexibility to each reporter. The indirect effect, however, is that the overall product suffers. A reporter puts together his own piece of video. This is cheaper than paying a video producer, but the work is likely of lower quality. Untrained, the reporter cannot equally utilize the software; and more importantly, he lacks the seasoned wisdom of the experienced professional in making judgments -- which angle to use, which clips to cut, which order to sequence, etc. (Not being a professional myself, I don't know precisely how many variables there are. Anyone else want to weigh in?)
Ask any elder newspaperman, and he'll likely tell you his first complaint about today's journalists: "They can't fucking write." Last Wednesday, the New York Times website's front-page photo was captioned, "Ana Palacio, Spain's foreign minister, told reporters today that a draft resolution on Iraq that it supports along with the U.S. may not be put to a vote to avoid a French veto." No, it's not incomprehensible (contrasted with some examples), but how the hell did that dreck get onto the front page?
Spell-check software has replaced practicing editors, in many newsrooms. A month or so ago, MSNBC ran an article about Cardinal Law's decision to step down, and it mentioned some Boston politicians who had visited Rome to offer their support. One of the names in the article? FBI "Ten Most Wanted" fugitive Whitey Bulger. Obviously, the writer meant to name brother Billy Bulger, a former president of the Massachusetts Senate. That mistake never would have made it past an experienced, practicing editor. But a spell-checker is indifferent to glaring factual errors, and text entry into HTML is a simple task. So writers end up looking like buffoons.
"Specialization" was one of the first trends in industrial society. When technology becomes more accessible, "specialists" are no longer needed. And more often than not, this results in (1) more people able to produce the work, and (2) far fewer people able to produce the work at an expert level.
Pros vs. Cons: Is it better to have more voices in the mix, or for the expert voices not to be drowned out? Is it better to practice reporting and video-editing and HTML now, to be competent at all three later...or is it better to be the best damn reporter, later, who admittedly can't tell RealPlayer from Napster? I'd tell my reporters to leave the video to the engineers, and to concentrate on reporting. When you get untrained amateurs trying to compete with professionals, you end up with Ain't It Cool News.
crib
Let me say that again. CONTROL.
Starting from left field: The Russian mob makes millions of dollars from so-called "piracy." They produce illegal copies of CDs, DVDs, software, etc., and they sell them on the black market. Some of you may recall this concern being publicized when Nintendo was designing the GameCube; because it caused the design team to shift to a smaller-sized DVD, in order to make bootlegging more difficult.
Bootlegging is illegal for the same reasons as is "free" P2P. Everyone knows the first reason: Illegal distribution competes with legitimate distribution, and legitimate sales are lost to the black market. But that reason is simply a consequence of the underlying issue, which is often overlooked by those defending P2P: Control. By up- and downloading other artist's music, you are violating that artist's right to control distribution of his own work.
Y'all say, "Well, everyone knows that increased distribution helps the artist." And in many cases, you're right. But that fact notwithstanding, copyright law assures an artist an absolute right to control distribution. And that's as it should be. If an artist doesn't want to be "helped," he should have that right.
Any artist's reasons for limiting distribution are, of course, none of your damn business. But just for the sake of argument: An artist has the right to produce only 100 copies of a record, and feel assured that its distribution will not exceed that number. A young musician, in need of a demo, has the right to say, "I only own a cheap eight-track, and one microphone. So I'll dash something off, quickly, and give it to the club owners...but I won't have to worry about anyone else hearing it. I'll have a chance to put my best foot forward, when I decide the time is right." Likewise, an older musician, newly discovering success, has the right to feel assured that the shoddy recording he made in his basement in 1963 won't rear its head in stores and MP3 lists today, and potentially harm his new career.
J-Live is probably quite happy that his first album, The Best Part, was widely bootlegged and traded. His reputation grew underground, and led directly to his position today: He can tour profitably, he recorded a second album which gained wider distribution, and he even re-released The Best Part. But there's also the mirror image: A young local band sets up in a friend's garage, and walks out with a comically-bad cassette recording of themselves. They scrawl their names on the tape and give it to a friend, who laughs and copies it for a friend...who laughs, and copies it for a friend. Down the line, someone uploads it into KaZaA. Now people on the opposite coast are laughing at a bunch of teenagers who never intended their music for public distribution. Maybe everyone forgets them...or maybe the tape is remembered by a record exec who hears their demo five years later, and he turns them away because of it. Either way, they had the right to control distribution of their music, and that control was violated.
A third time: CONTROL. The issue is not simply distribution, but control of distribution. You might say, "Well, when an artist releases a recording, he has chosen to distribute it." You're right. But he maintains control over that distribution. If he wants to limit that distribution to 100, or 1,000, he has that right. When he sells a copy to you, he is not relinquishing that control -- he is exercising it.
You have the right to buy a copy of the new Britney Spears CD. You have the right to burn copies of that CD for your work and car, if you like. You even have the right to burn 20,000 copies of that CD, and stack them in your bedroom, if that happens to be your fetish. But as soon as you hand one of those copies to another person -- literally, or online -- you have become a "distributor." Whether or not you accept money is irrelevant. You have no right to distribute. And that is the issue.
crib
Most people, yourself included, fail to realize that profit is only part of the issue, here. And for independent artists who oppose Napster, etc., profit is a small part (pun intended). The larger issue is an artist's ability to control his own works. That control is assured by copyright law. When you up- or download a piece of music, you are exercising control over that music -- control to which you have no right. You are violating the artist's ability to control his own work.
Let's take a conceptual art work, as an example. I'm a musician. I decide that I want to create an artwork, consisting of two stages: producing a recording, and distributing that recording to 63 people. (Maybe the number 63 is significant because my mother died at 63. Whatever.) Copyright law assures me the right to perform this work exactly as described. When I sell one of my 63 CDs to you, you own that recording. You own only that recording. You own no rights to distribute.
Copyright law says that you may copy that CD, for yourself. You can burn two copies, if you like, so you can listen at work and in your car. This violates neither the law nor my performance artwork, because you still count as only one of 63 people. Copyright law also says that you may sell that CD. (Legally, you may not retain any copies for yourself, once you have sold the original.) And if you do this, you still have violated neither the law nor my performance; you have altered the makeup of the 63 people, but not the number.
Let's address an often-misunderstood corollary: CD burners. CD burners are legal because, on their own, they do not change anything. You have the right to sit in your house and burn 20,000 copies of the new Britney Spears album, if you choose. You do not have the right to walk outside and distribute those copies, however. Whether or not you accept money is irrelevant. You cannot sell those copies, and you cannot give them away. If you do either, you are violating the rights of the artist, to whom belongs the sole right to control distribution. (...Until those rights are contractually signed away to a record company, obviously, which then becomes "sole possessor," depending on the contract's language, et cetera.)
I am driven absolutely nuts by people who brag, "I understand that I'm breaking the law," but who continue to rant and rave about greedy record companies who don't deserve money. Granted, Sony, WEA, EMI, etc. are gravely concerned about money. But most artists -- remember, the folks y'all claim to respect? -- care more about the underlying issue of control. If you continue to file-trade, fine...but at least understand the issues that are under debate. It's the difference between a decision, and an educated decision.
crib