Not only are (many) consumers circumventing the record companies, the artists are also. It is an almost trivial matter now to self-publish your own material. If your stuff is good, you'll get the buzz, and that will take care of the marketing on it's own. What else does an artist need from a label that they can't do on their own?
Notice that more and more bands are stepping away from the big-name labels? Because they are becoming increasingly irrelevant, perhaps?
That may be part of the reason Jay-Z decided to bail out of executive suite at Def Jam.
But I have at least a few pieces of Commodore-related history: I still have the original copies of all the magazine articles I wrote for "Ahoy!", "Compute!" and "Compute!'s Gazette".
I was the author of "64+", "Disk Package", and a few other gems back during the late-80s heyday of Commodore.
What about if your job calls for you to take a laptop that you don't necessarily "want", but it's now part of your job (as a travelling salesman, a consultant, or whatever)? And what if the lunkheads who image that laptop don't bother to put any encryption or other data protection software on it? And you're not allowed to add any "unauthorized software" to help protect yourself?
Guess what? Your employer has made you the IT equivalent of a soft target.
Under the above scenario, it seems enormously unfair to become subject to criminal charges due to the negligence of your employer. Easy for all you critics to say "go get another job"... while that certainly would be the ultimate solution, that's hard to do in an economy where consolidation and right-sizing still rule the day.
I *DID* RTFA... While most of the discussion (and the intro) was about the *next* election, some of it also referred to the right to vote, period... including the very last sentence/comment: "anyone who'd sell his lifelong right to vote should be deported."
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This is a good thing. More and more organizations and people are starting to come around to the realization that the *AA's bullying is just that, basically the schoolyard thug taking the little guy's lunch money (and unfortunately here, much more) on a larger scale.
Hopefully the day comes (sooner rather than later) when RIAA, MPAA and all the other acronyms meet a new acronym: RICO.
I recall an explosion on Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillipines, in 1991. It was the single largest release of greenhouse gases in recorded history. It's generated more pollution by itself than the sum total of ALL man-made pollution, EVER.
Before that, 30 yrs ago, all the liberal media (Time, Newsweek, et al) were trying to spread doomsday drivel about the "pending ice age". Now it's the ice caps melting, and we need to tax (or otherwise regulate, if not outright outlaw) all "carbon emissions" out of existence. Based on junk science from so-called researchers, publishing postion papers funded by groups that "support" the "findings" based on their own agenda.
Tell me something... how are you going to outlaw volcanoes? Or a herd of cattle, making their own special "contribution" to the environment?
When I read about the fact that a single volcano eruption, A NATURAL PHENOMENA, did more damage than all of mankind ever did in it's entire history, and I see all you so-called "environmentalists" spreading B.S. about how we need to act now or the sky's going to fall, it makes my blood boil. It's all a ruse to try and gain the power, position and wealth to lord over others. It's moral equivalency disguised as moral authority.
I'll have none of it. Not one bit.
If this makes me "anti-environmentalist" by some definition that you have reinvented, fine. Whatever.
What I really am is anti-socialist. I don't need Nanny Government telling me what to drive, how much gas I can and cannot burn or to make any other decisions for me. And I don't care who thinks what about it.
You want me to recycle? Every time I sit on the pot, I recycle.
> >...it will be somehow, some way, spun as justification to increase everyone's taxes in the name of environmental protection, saving the earth, or what the hell ever.
> Yeah, never mind the science, it's all a librul conspiracy to steal your tax dollars.
Absolutely it is. Gas guzzler taxes, environmental and recycling fees... and this concept of buying so-called "carbon offsets"? Biggest scam of the young century thus far. Why is it that a hybrid vehicle costs more than it's conventional sibling, anyway? Shouldn't the former be cheaper to encourage thier use, and additional purchases?
And I don't know what "science" you seem to be citing, but there is no credible scientific PROOF that human beings are destroying this planet, nor it's environment.
> > That's what all this nonsense of "going green" has ever been about.
> Wow, man, you're even further in denial than the usual anti-environmentalist. Are you really claiming that no environmental problems have ever occurred and that no environmental measures have ever had a positive effect?
No, but I'm sure that's what you and your demagogue friends will claim anyway. Just the fact that I challenge the notion that "going green" is less than 100% altruism and garner the label of an "anti-environmentalist", when you don't even know the full extent of my position on the subject... it just goes to show that socialists like you have no interest in honest debate... or opposing viewpoints. You all would rather jam your agenda down other people's throats, no matter how wrong-headed it is.
God forbid you accept the well-known fact that animals, volcanoes and other natural-borne phenomena are responsible for far more of the greenhouse gases and the effects thereof than any human activity... you won't be able to push your liberal and socialist agendas that way.
...it will be somehow, some way, spun as justification to increase everyone's taxes in the name of environmental protection, saving the earth, or what the hell ever.
That's what all this nonsense of "going green" has ever been about.
The overriding point I have made all along here - including the one modded down to -1, is that engaging in acts of war is not the same as criminal behavior. Whether it be the coordinated flying of commercial aircraft into buildings, or setting off explosives at the side of a road... these are not criminal acts to be handled in courts.
Acts of war should be prosecuted only in one venue, and that is a theatre of war.
This is a war. In a war, you don't invite your enemies from other countries into your courthouses in our own country and ask them, pretty please, to make their own case as to why they have the "right" to destroy us.
You destroy them. All of them. On their own battlefield.
Yeah, destroying the Constitution in order to protect it makes so much more sense than using our existing Constitutional powers to prosecute and detain those who actually do wish to destroy it.
Look at what you are writing.
You have actually advocated destroying the Constitution... of your own country.
If they are out in the battlefield, actively working to destroy members of our military, the only "trial" that is warranted is the ordinance that is deployed in return.
Considering the last declaration of war by the U.S. Congress was World War II, we have no enemies currently. We are currently "at peace" since there is no formal declaration of war Surely you don't seriously believe that just because a war is not declared on an official document does not mean a war does not exist.
And "enemies" are enemies in practice... not by some legal definition. Al-Qaeda declared war on us, and attacked us several times... and in practice has been an enemy of the US for over a decade and a half now.
Whether you choose to accept it or not, or believe it or not, we are still at war with North Korea, and have been so for more than 57 years.
And again, using the cover of the Constitution, which defines it's own scope in the Preamble ("We the People of the United States of America" - i.e. CITIZENS) to somehow grant some kind of protection to those who actively seek to destroy our country and that very document... it defies common sense.
I have. And while IANAL, I have read other laws which supplement the Constitution.
Case in point:
The United States Congress granted all federal courts jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2241 to issue writs of habeas corpus to release prisoners held by any government entity within the country from custody in the following circumstances:
* Is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States or is committed for trial before some court thereof; or * Is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of an Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree of a court or judge of the United States; or * Is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States; or * Being a citizen of a foreign state and domiciled therein is in custody for an act done or omitted under any alleged right, title, authority, privilege, protection, or exemption claimed under the commission, order or sanction of any foreign state, or under color thereof, the validity and effect of which depend upon the law of nations; or * It is necessary to bring said persons into court to testify or for trial
As the OP indicated, there are situations to which Habeus Corpus does not apply... not even within the USA. This is not only a matter of law and constitutionality, but of common sense as well.
Further, your contention (in a previous post) that it, as well as the Bill of Rights applies to "all humans" is simply false.
And why there is even a debate regarding the conveyance of the rights enjoyed by US Citizens in peacetime towards enemies and enemy combatants of the US, outside of the US, in a time of war, is simply beyond me.
...beyond who's right, or whether either one is right. Vista already has had it's reputation sullied because of previously documented problems with multimedia... documented in blogs and by "traditional" journalism outlets.
It has problems both with and without DRM.
Either way, it's going to undermine Microsoft. With so few people willing to make the move from XP to Vista already, this won't help.
Why the hell would Joe Consumer lay down the coin to have a "multimedia computer", only to find out he has to pay again to be able to play Blu-Ray, or HD, or anything else?
And God Forbid if his... mo-vie... grinnnndddsss... to... a... ss-s-sssllooowww......crawwwllll.
Guess how irrelevant your toy code is. My "toy code" helps run the Michigan court system, Molly. It's relevant to, oh... about 10 million people, on a daily basis.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only are (many) consumers circumventing the record companies, the artists are also. It is an almost trivial matter now to self-publish your own material. If your stuff is good, you'll get the buzz, and that will take care of the marketing on it's own. What else does an artist need from a label that they can't do on their own?
Notice that more and more bands are stepping away from the big-name labels? Because they are becoming increasingly irrelevant, perhaps?
That may be part of the reason Jay-Z decided to bail out of executive suite at Def Jam.
I wish I still had my C-64 and VIC-20.
But I have at least a few pieces of Commodore-related history: I still have the original copies of all the magazine articles I wrote for "Ahoy!", "Compute!" and "Compute!'s Gazette".
I was the author of "64+", "Disk Package", and a few other gems back during the late-80s heyday of Commodore.
Some fond memories indeed.
Just have
At the very least, thier servers will get a good workout.
One other idea: make some addition contributions to any article they have regarding Censorship, Freedom of Speech, etc...
Ok... hypothetical (but realistic) situation:
What about if your job calls for you to take a laptop that you don't necessarily "want", but it's now part of your job (as a travelling salesman, a consultant, or whatever)? And what if the lunkheads who image that laptop don't bother to put any encryption or other data protection software on it? And you're not allowed to add any "unauthorized software" to help protect yourself?
Guess what? Your employer has made you the IT equivalent of a soft target.
Under the above scenario, it seems enormously unfair to become subject to criminal charges due to the negligence of your employer. Easy for all you critics to say "go get another job"... while that certainly would be the ultimate solution, that's hard to do in an economy where consolidation and right-sizing still rule the day.
I *DID* RTFA... While most of the discussion (and the intro) was about the *next* election, some of it also referred to the right to vote, period... including the very last sentence/comment: "anyone who'd sell his lifelong right to vote should be deported."
To which I say: A-freaking-men.
Not sure if people are missing the message. It's not about buying someone's vote, but someone's RIGHT to vote. Not just now, but for all time.
Oh, well... in the past, people have sold not just thier vote (or their right to vote), but their very soul... for much less.
Those weren't "random" parts, Coward... nor was that Amendment.
Nor, unfortunately, is the intent by some to undermine it.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This is a good thing. More and more organizations and people are starting to come around to the realization that the *AA's bullying is just that, basically the schoolyard thug taking the little guy's lunch money (and unfortunately here, much more) on a larger scale.
Hopefully the day comes (sooner rather than later) when RIAA, MPAA and all the other acronyms meet a new acronym: RICO.
Blah, blah, blah.
I recall an explosion on Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillipines, in 1991. It was the single largest release of greenhouse gases in recorded history. It's generated more pollution by itself than the sum total of ALL man-made pollution, EVER.
Before that, 30 yrs ago, all the liberal media (Time, Newsweek, et al) were trying to spread doomsday drivel about the "pending ice age". Now it's the ice caps melting, and we need to tax (or otherwise regulate, if not outright outlaw) all "carbon emissions" out of existence. Based on junk science from so-called researchers, publishing postion papers funded by groups that "support" the "findings" based on their own agenda.
Tell me something... how are you going to outlaw volcanoes? Or a herd of cattle, making their own special "contribution" to the environment?
When I read about the fact that a single volcano eruption, A NATURAL PHENOMENA, did more damage than all of mankind ever did in it's entire history, and I see all you so-called "environmentalists" spreading B.S. about how we need to act now or the sky's going to fall, it makes my blood boil. It's all a ruse to try and gain the power, position and wealth to lord over others. It's moral equivalency disguised as moral authority.
I'll have none of it. Not one bit.
If this makes me "anti-environmentalist" by some definition that you have reinvented, fine. Whatever.
What I really am is anti-socialist. I don't need Nanny Government telling me what to drive, how much gas I can and cannot burn or to make any other decisions for me. And I don't care who thinks what about it.
You want me to recycle? Every time I sit on the pot, I recycle.
I'm done with this conversation. Have a nice day.
> > ...it will be somehow, some way, spun as justification to increase everyone's taxes in the name of environmental protection, saving the earth, or what the hell ever.
> Yeah, never mind the science, it's all a librul conspiracy to steal your tax dollars.
Absolutely it is. Gas guzzler taxes, environmental and recycling fees... and this concept of buying so-called "carbon offsets"? Biggest scam of the young century thus far. Why is it that a hybrid vehicle costs more than it's conventional sibling, anyway? Shouldn't the former be cheaper to encourage thier use, and additional purchases?
And I don't know what "science" you seem to be citing, but there is no credible scientific PROOF that human beings are destroying this planet, nor it's environment.
> > That's what all this nonsense of "going green" has ever been about.
> Wow, man, you're even further in denial than the usual anti-environmentalist. Are you really claiming that no environmental problems have ever occurred and that no environmental measures have ever had a positive effect?
No, but I'm sure that's what you and your demagogue friends will claim anyway. Just the fact that I challenge the notion that "going green" is less than 100% altruism and garner the label of an "anti-environmentalist", when you don't even know the full extent of my position on the subject... it just goes to show that socialists like you have no interest in honest debate... or opposing viewpoints. You all would rather jam your agenda down other people's throats, no matter how wrong-headed it is.
God forbid you accept the well-known fact that animals, volcanoes and other natural-borne phenomena are responsible for far more of the greenhouse gases and the effects thereof than any human activity... you won't be able to push your liberal and socialist agendas that way.
Pathetic.
Actually, I would have said "Let the CHAIR Throwing Begin!"
That's what all this nonsense of "going green" has ever been about.
Being able to play Halo 3 on it.
Sorry for not detecting your sarcasm.
The overriding point I have made all along here - including the one modded down to -1, is that engaging in acts of war is not the same as criminal behavior. Whether it be the coordinated flying of commercial aircraft into buildings, or setting off explosives at the side of a road... these are not criminal acts to be handled in courts.
Acts of war should be prosecuted only in one venue, and that is a theatre of war.
No, we don't.
This is a war. In a war, you don't invite your enemies from other countries into your courthouses in our own country and ask them, pretty please, to make their own case as to why they have the "right" to destroy us.
You destroy them. All of them. On their own battlefield.
End of story.
Yeah, destroying the Constitution in order to protect it makes so much more sense than using our existing Constitutional powers to prosecute and detain those who actually do wish to destroy it.
Look at what you are writing.
You have actually advocated destroying the Constitution... of your own country.
Seditious.
Shameful.
If they are out in the battlefield, actively working to destroy members of our military, the only "trial" that is warranted is the ordinance that is deployed in return.
And "enemies" are enemies in practice... not by some legal definition. Al-Qaeda declared war on us, and attacked us several times... and in practice has been an enemy of the US for over a decade and a half now.
Whether you choose to accept it or not, or believe it or not, we are still at war with North Korea, and have been so for more than 57 years.
And again, using the cover of the Constitution, which defines it's own scope in the Preamble ("We the People of the United States of America" - i.e. CITIZENS) to somehow grant some kind of protection to those who actively seek to destroy our country and that very document... it defies common sense.
Why in the hell is there even a DEBATE about granting CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to those would seek to have our Constitution DESTROYED?
I have. And while IANAL, I have read other laws which supplement the Constitution.
Case in point:
The United States Congress granted all federal courts jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2241 to issue writs of habeas corpus to release prisoners held by any government entity within the country from custody in the following circumstances:
* Is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States or is committed for trial before some court thereof; or
* Is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of an Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree of a court or judge of the United States; or
* Is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States; or
* Being a citizen of a foreign state and domiciled therein is in custody for an act done or omitted under any alleged right, title, authority, privilege, protection, or exemption claimed under the commission, order or sanction of any foreign state, or under color thereof, the validity and effect of which depend upon the law of nations; or
* It is necessary to bring said persons into court to testify or for trial
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus (scroll down to "Scope").
As the OP indicated, there are situations to which Habeus Corpus does not apply... not even within the USA. This is not only a matter of law and constitutionality, but of common sense as well.
Further, your contention (in a previous post) that it, as well as the Bill of Rights applies to "all humans" is simply false.
And why there is even a debate regarding the conveyance of the rights enjoyed by US Citizens in peacetime towards enemies and enemy combatants of the US, outside of the US, in a time of war, is simply beyond me.
It has problems both with and without DRM.
Either way, it's going to undermine Microsoft. With so few people willing to make the move from XP to Vista already, this won't help.
Why the hell would Joe Consumer lay down the coin to have a "multimedia computer", only to find out he has to pay again to be able to play Blu-Ray, or HD, or anything else?
And God Forbid if his... mo-vie... grinnnndddsss... to... a... ss-s-sssllooowww...