let me get your post straight. You reason that because something is represented by a numerical format, that it can't be copyrighted? Um that dosen't make sense.
We all know that a book is copyrighted. would anyone care to argue that fact or tell me why a book shouldn't be copyrighted? that pretty well established and we all know that photocopying an entire book is, in fact, illegal. But by your reasoning, it wouldn't be, because afterall, a book is just the cells from a tree, and some ink made of dirt from the groud (possibly some chemicals in this day and age), and to think you could copyright plant cells and dirt is absurd.
Its not because its the idea that your copyrighting. And whether that idea is represented by plants and dirt, or by 0's and 1's, or by electrons, or by smoke signals, or...., its still the original idea, and you still can't copy it.
And besides this is not what the disscusion is about. Yes the MPAA is being very absurd. but it has nothing to do with copyrighting numbers.
well I'll respond because you have a point, and i don't nessicairly agree with you.
I do agree that napster can be used legale. refering to my gun annalogy, it is possible. but no where near as possible as you seem to imply. the live concerts which you download are also copyrighted material. when you go to a concert, do they let you bring a tape recorder in? no. how about a camera? again no. if the live recording is produced by a company, then you'll have to pay for it. so you see, even you (and I know that you do mean well, as evidenced by the fact your father is a musician) are using it illegaly.
i'm also a musician (mind you not very talented, but don't tell my parents, cause they'll be pissed for paying for 10 years of clasical guitar lessons). and in response to a previous post, i've never tried to distribute an album or any music for that matter. so, well no, I don't know what its like. the internet being the distribution methode of the future? well maybe (no deffinitly, even if I don't think it should be like that), but if it is, there's going to have to be a major paradigum shift in the way we view fair compensation. See the MAJOR point of trying to distribute music as an artist is to MAKE MONEY! no its true. do you think that people would spend their life making music and giving it away? no because they'd be poor, ie no money. the world works on money. I enjoy making music, but I know I couldn't make a living on it. Some people (maybe your father) enjoy making music and are good enough to be able to make a living doing it. Good for them, they have that right, and they should. The world does not work on recognition. I and millions of others, could view your father (i don't mean to pick on him btw) as the greatest musician in the world, but if we don't give him any money, then it won't matter, he'll quit and start a software firm. Public domain musicians, from metallica to Hole to lesser know bands like joydrop do it for the money. I work for the money, don't you?
the point is, that things like napster do indeed present a good distribution channel and do increase the recognition of smaller artits, but it doesen't pay them. idealy (as i'm sure both you and i probably hope) napster would compensate the artits for their works, but its not likely to happen. this is why. Napster was developed to steal, that's what it was originaly used for, and by and large (by everyone who uses it) it sill is used to steal. and the product? a who new community, and dare I say, genneration of people who view it as okay to get music for free. if you keep letting these things happen, then everyone will loose. the small artits are winning right now, because their music is being heard, but come 2 years down the road, when they haven't gotten a dime from it (cause face it, not very many people are like you and i and would buy the album anyways, and people like you and i are going to be fewer and fewer) they'll pack up and leave. and then you'll have none.
is napster a bad thing? yes, but internet distribution is not. an even worse thing is the society and attitudes that the internet is breeding amongs the youger generation. evidently the majority of people here on slashdot, and elsewhere too seem to think its okay to get something for nothing. the internet is great that way isn't it? cause here, you can be anyone you wanna be, and nobody needs to know who you are or what you do. and your very far removed from the people you harm on the internet. its much easier to commit a crime and not feel bad about it when you don't know who your hurting isn't it?
are corporations such a bad thing? well I don't know, but i certainly don't see the harm in someone making a buck off of someone else. that's called freedom, and its what the free world is built on. napster dosen't work in the free world (i think it would in a communist society, but that'l be for another disscusion, reply if your interested).
and as one last note, please, in the future, do not comment on my posting style, my tone, or my use of words, I may sound immature, but I have that right, and maybe that's the way i want to come off. your final remark just makes you look like a pompus knowitall, and well, you don't know it all, neither do i, and your not better than me, just as i'm not better than u.
you must have lots of money. i for one would much perfer adds and a free website, to something i've got to pay for. at least you can ignor adds, but you can't ignor the bills.
Yes toshiba would, it is in their best interests. point, if toshiba has invested in transmeta than they wish transmeta the best, and for sucsesss. if, say, toshiba finds a flaw in transmeta's product before its released, then they should bring it to light, and thus have the problem investigated and possibly fixed, or clarified. tosiba'd be pretty pissed if the curso was release and did not live up to its hype, cause then toshiba would lose millions in laptop sales right? now the problem will be scrutinized, and definitly resolved, hence re-establishing confidence in the publics eyes, which is good for everyone involved. at least i hope that is what happens. how bout you?
oye, thats probably not a good attitude if you think about it. i for one want these claims out in the open as soon as they surface, so that they can be cleared up, clarified or proved as utter garbage.
imagin how pissed you'd be if you droped 3000$ on a laptop with a transmeta chip only to find out that its powere consumption and throughput were nowhere near in line with others?
in short i would only buy a product that has proven itself before i buy it. therefore, wherever toshiba's interestes lie, its a good thing this is being investigated now, as opposed to when they're all being sold.
please post some early mac screenshots. that would be interesting, because i seem to remember the early mac looked similar to the early windows. afterall microsoft did write both of them didn't they?
See to begin with, windows 3.11 was written to run in dos and dos was only written to run on a 32 bit processor. It was never ported to a 64 bit processor (that I've every heard of). Since a 32 bit processor can ony address 4 GB of ram, i hightly doubt that the machine in question either a) was running windows 3.11 and dos b) actually had 10 GB of ram.
as the previous comment to mine says, could have been winNT 3.5? Can anybody clarrify this situation? I know WinNT 4 has been ported to 64 bit machines, but was WinNT 3.5 ever ported? probably, but i'm not certain, so I won't say
yeah, kay so that would be cool for my lap top, but still. you know that this will be avaliable on cellphones too. when i bought mine, i opted not to buy the "web enabled" model, reasoning that i'd never ever use it, even when that became avaliable in my area. Qualcomm annouces cellular download speeds of twice a 56K modem, and you know damn well that when we get cell web access here, we'll proably be downloading our tiny text files at that speed. and wow, is evey one excited about it! what's the point?
kay, i've never surfed the internet on a cell phone, so could someone please enlighten me as to why this is such a good thing? even if i could, i can't see myself downloading mp3's or midi files on my cell phone. so really why is it such a big deal that you can surf at twice the speed of a 56K modem? cause you really wouldn't want to. when they can sell me a cell phone with a 15' monitor for 30$ (the price of my last cell phone), and not weight more than a typicial phone now, and being able to fit in my pocket, then maybe this would be cool. till then...
but like i said, i've never surfed on a cell before
"Silly RIAA, you can't get away with that! We have a constitutional right to free speech, and Napster has a legal right...
Hum, and again, how does "Free Speech" allow you to steal from others?
See if you and I all used Napster to share our ideas, then you'd have a point. But instead we're all using it to share other peoples ideas, and then not compensating them fairly for developing thoes ideas. and btw, yes the RIAA does have the right to make a profit (fair or otherwise, it is a free country) off of the people who hired them! (which would be the musicians, right, no wait, they've all been forced into signing record contracts, whatever)
I'm sick of you stupid people using your constitutional rights for such silly things. back in the 60's people used free speach to speak out againts the war in Vietnam and the killing of US troups for no apparent reason (yeah well it wasn't a good reason anyways). now we use it to steal music. a far less nobel cause, and a disgussting comment on our society.
fuck napster. people use guns to break laws, but there are responsible people who use them for law abiding activites. people who use napster only use it for the task for which it was designed, to break laws and steal music. deal with it, your all criminals.
btw, i've never used napster, i don't listen to mp3's and i'm damn proud of that fact!
I agree, I think it would be invaluable to teach kids basic networking skills in High School. I would have loved some schooling in thoes areas when I was in High School. This is an excellent suggestion.
And be sure to pound into their little brains the importance of planning *before* you start programming, including psudo-coding. My CS teachers were very lenient on this asspect, and they shouldn't have been.
Then I guess you've never heard of intellectual property? The idea IS property, and it belongs to the person who though of it.
I don't know what your area of interest is, but if your interested, Intellectual Property law is a very very profitable business to be in. And I don't think any of those lawyers would think that an idea as property is such an absurd concept.
Hum, then I wonder why it is so many artist sign with such evil record labels. Do you think it might possibly be because the artits excptects to profit in some form from the services provided under thier contract with the label? Sure, the Recording industry makes lots of money off of its artits, but I doubt they make very much off of the struggling, poor artits they've signed. If the artist has no money, where does the labels cut come from? Think about it.
The reason an artist signs a contract with such an evil entity is because that artist wishes to sucseed, and utlimitly make lots of money (because we are talking about america here). The Record company is supposed to help them do that. Then it turns all bad. So back to the original comment, none of this would be an issue if the artists didn't have a desire to make lots of money.
Slashdot Mirror
let me get your post straight. You reason that because something is represented by a numerical format, that it can't be copyrighted? Um that dosen't make sense.
We all know that a book is copyrighted. would anyone care to argue that fact or tell me why a book shouldn't be copyrighted? that pretty well established and we all know that photocopying an entire book is, in fact, illegal. But by your reasoning, it wouldn't be, because afterall, a book is just the cells from a tree, and some ink made of dirt from the groud (possibly some chemicals in this day and age), and to think you could copyright plant cells and dirt is absurd.
Its not because its the idea that your copyrighting. And whether that idea is represented by plants and dirt, or by 0's and 1's, or by electrons, or by smoke signals, or...., its still the original idea, and you still can't copy it.
And besides this is not what the disscusion is about. Yes the MPAA is being very absurd. but it has nothing to do with copyrighting numbers.
well I'll respond because you have a point, and i don't nessicairly agree with you.
I do agree that napster can be used legale. refering to my gun annalogy, it is possible. but no where near as possible as you seem to imply. the live concerts which you download are also copyrighted material. when you go to a concert, do they let you bring a tape recorder in? no. how about a camera? again no. if the live recording is produced by a company, then you'll have to pay for it. so you see, even you (and I know that you do mean well, as evidenced by the fact your father is a musician) are using it illegaly.
i'm also a musician (mind you not very talented, but don't tell my parents, cause they'll be pissed for paying for 10 years of clasical guitar lessons). and in response to a previous post, i've never tried to distribute an album or any music for that matter. so, well no, I don't know what its like. the internet being the distribution methode of the future? well maybe (no deffinitly, even if I don't think it should be like that), but if it is, there's going to have to be a major paradigum shift in the way we view fair compensation. See the MAJOR point of trying to distribute music as an artist is to MAKE MONEY! no its true. do you think that people would spend their life making music and giving it away? no because they'd be poor, ie no money. the world works on money. I enjoy making music, but I know I couldn't make a living on it. Some people (maybe your father) enjoy making music and are good enough to be able to make a living doing it. Good for them, they have that right, and they should. The world does not work on recognition. I and millions of others, could view your father (i don't mean to pick on him btw) as the greatest musician in the world, but if we don't give him any money, then it won't matter, he'll quit and start a software firm. Public domain musicians, from metallica to Hole to lesser know bands like joydrop do it for the money. I work for the money, don't you?
the point is, that things like napster do indeed present a good distribution channel and do increase the recognition of smaller artits, but it doesen't pay them. idealy (as i'm sure both you and i probably hope) napster would compensate the artits for their works, but its not likely to happen. this is why. Napster was developed to steal, that's what it was originaly used for, and by and large (by everyone who uses it) it sill is used to steal. and the product? a who new community, and dare I say, genneration of people who view it as okay to get music for free. if you keep letting these things happen, then everyone will loose. the small artits are winning right now, because their music is being heard, but come 2 years down the road, when they haven't gotten a dime from it (cause face it, not very many people are like you and i and would buy the album anyways, and people like you and i are going to be fewer and fewer) they'll pack up and leave. and then you'll have none.
is napster a bad thing? yes, but internet distribution is not. an even worse thing is the society and attitudes that the internet is breeding amongs the youger generation. evidently the majority of people here on slashdot, and elsewhere too seem to think its okay to get something for nothing. the internet is great that way isn't it? cause here, you can be anyone you wanna be, and nobody needs to know who you are or what you do. and your very far removed from the people you harm on the internet. its much easier to commit a crime and not feel bad about it when you don't know who your hurting isn't it?
are corporations such a bad thing? well I don't know, but i certainly don't see the harm in someone making a buck off of someone else. that's called freedom, and its what the free world is built on. napster dosen't work in the free world (i think it would in a communist society, but that'l be for another disscusion, reply if your interested).
and as one last note, please, in the future, do not comment on my posting style, my tone, or my use of words, I may sound immature, but I have that right, and maybe that's the way i want to come off. your final remark just makes you look like a pompus knowitall, and well, you don't know it all, neither do i, and your not better than me, just as i'm not better than u.
you must have lots of money. i for one would much perfer adds and a free website, to something i've got to pay for. at least you can ignor adds, but you can't ignor the bills.
Yes toshiba would, it is in their best interests. point, if toshiba has invested in transmeta than they wish transmeta the best, and for sucsesss. if, say, toshiba finds a flaw in transmeta's product before its released, then they should bring it to light, and thus have the problem investigated and possibly fixed, or clarified. tosiba'd be pretty pissed if the curso was release and did not live up to its hype, cause then toshiba would lose millions in laptop sales right? now the problem will be scrutinized, and definitly resolved, hence re-establishing confidence in the publics eyes, which is good for everyone involved. at least i hope that is what happens. how bout you?
oye, thats probably not a good attitude if you think about it. i for one want these claims out in the open as soon as they surface, so that they can be cleared up, clarified or proved as utter garbage.
imagin how pissed you'd be if you droped 3000$ on a laptop with a transmeta chip only to find out that its powere consumption and throughput were nowhere near in line with others?
in short i would only buy a product that has proven itself before i buy it. therefore, wherever toshiba's interestes lie, its a good thing this is being investigated now, as opposed to when they're all being sold.
please post some early mac screenshots. that would be interesting, because i seem to remember the early mac looked similar to the early windows. afterall microsoft did write both of them didn't they?
Hum, your not entierly correct...
See to begin with, windows 3.11 was written to run in dos and dos was only written to run on a 32 bit processor. It was never ported to a 64 bit processor (that I've every heard of). Since a 32 bit processor can ony address 4 GB of ram, i hightly doubt that the machine in question either a) was running windows 3.11 and dos b) actually had 10 GB of ram.
as the previous comment to mine says, could have been winNT 3.5? Can anybody clarrify this situation? I know WinNT 4 has been ported to 64 bit machines, but was WinNT 3.5 ever ported? probably, but i'm not certain, so I won't say
yeah, kay so that would be cool for my lap top, but still. you know that this will be avaliable on cellphones too. when i bought mine, i opted not to buy the "web enabled" model, reasoning that i'd never ever use it, even when that became avaliable in my area. Qualcomm annouces cellular download speeds of twice a 56K modem, and you know damn well that when we get cell web access here, we'll proably be downloading our tiny text files at that speed. and wow, is evey one excited about it! what's the point?
p.s. if you had a point, you didn't make it
kay, i've never surfed the internet on a cell phone, so could someone please enlighten me as to why this is such a good thing? even if i could, i can't see myself downloading mp3's or midi files on my cell phone. so really why is it such a big deal that you can surf at twice the speed of a 56K modem? cause you really wouldn't want to. when they can sell me a cell phone with a 15' monitor for 30$ (the price of my last cell phone), and not weight more than a typicial phone now, and being able to fit in my pocket, then maybe this would be cool. till then...
but like i said, i've never surfed on a cell before
"Silly RIAA, you can't get away with that! We have a constitutional right to free speech, and Napster has a legal right...
Hum, and again, how does "Free Speech" allow you to steal from others?
See if you and I all used Napster to share our ideas, then you'd have a point. But instead we're all using it to share other peoples ideas, and then not compensating them fairly for developing thoes ideas. and btw, yes the RIAA does have the right to make a profit (fair or otherwise, it is a free country) off of the people who hired them! (which would be the musicians, right, no wait, they've all been forced into signing record contracts, whatever)
I'm sick of you stupid people using your constitutional rights for such silly things. back in the 60's people used free speach to speak out againts the war in Vietnam and the killing of US troups for no apparent reason (yeah well it wasn't a good reason anyways). now we use it to steal music. a far less nobel cause, and a disgussting comment on our society.
fuck napster. people use guns to break laws, but there are responsible people who use them for law abiding activites. people who use napster only use it for the task for which it was designed, to break laws and steal music. deal with it, your all criminals.
btw, i've never used napster, i don't listen to mp3's and i'm damn proud of that fact!
I agree, I think it would be invaluable to teach kids basic networking skills in High School. I would have loved some schooling in thoes areas when I was in High School. This is an excellent suggestion.
And be sure to pound into their little brains the importance of planning *before* you start programming, including psudo-coding. My CS teachers were very lenient on this asspect, and they shouldn't have been.
OUT
Then I guess you've never heard of intellectual property? The idea IS property, and it belongs to the person who though of it.
I don't know what your area of interest is, but if your interested, Intellectual Property law is a very very profitable business to be in. And I don't think any of those lawyers would think that an idea as property is such an absurd concept.
Hum, then I wonder why it is so many artist sign with such evil record labels. Do you think it might possibly be because the artits excptects to profit in some form from the services provided under thier contract with the label? Sure, the Recording industry makes lots of money off of its artits, but I doubt they make very much off of the struggling, poor artits they've signed. If the artist has no money, where does the labels cut come from? Think about it.
The reason an artist signs a contract with such an evil entity is because that artist wishes to sucseed, and utlimitly make lots of money (because we are talking about america here). The Record company is supposed to help them do that. Then it turns all bad. So back to the original comment, none of this would be an issue if the artists didn't have a desire to make lots of money.