Here's a good one with MSN
on
Disconnecting
·
· Score: 1
A buddy of mine with none so good credit had MSN. For about a year the credit card that he had his account on was over the limit. Not surprisingly MSN turned off his service. When he did get the credit card out of OTL hell he started getting the regular monthly charge for his MSN service. How weird is that? I think he had a similar experience chatting with the customer service rep about removing the charge and cancelling the service.
That is such a horsesh** argument. I fail to understand how a computer being programmed to optimally defeat a given opponent, based on the weaknesses and tendencies of his previous games, is any different than a human player studying, and adjusting his strategy for, the same weaknesses and tendencies of an upcoming opponent.
Regarding the other GM comment: it is hard to say how a computer programmed to beat Kasparov would fare. But in all fairness to the computer it should be allowed to be optimized for an opponent, regardless of whether the codebase is modified.
When I used to play, I'd change my strategies for my opponents known weaknesses, it is only fair that a computer opponent be allowed to do the same.
We're diverging from the original point. My argument is that reason behind this case is because the control over what music is played is taken away from the normal channels.
This lawsuit is about power and control. I am not arguing the morality of Napster, it is irrelevant to me. If this lawsuit were about that all of the maker's of recordable media would have been sued six ways to sunday and so caught up in legislation that they would have gone under by now. This isn't about stealing.
The reason that the RIAA is so vengeful is because they have lost control over what listeners have access to at no cost to the listener. The means that that music arrives to the listener is irrelevant.
The artists have nothing to do with this case at all. Consider them tools of the RIAA. Their rights and their compensation have nothing to do with this case regardless of what is said.
The RIAA is about one thing and that is making money. The way that they make the most money is by selling music to consumers via the discrete packages we know as cds. The way that they get people to buy these cds is to have this music played on the radio and other media. Royalties, federal regulations, and whatever else goes between the RIAA and the media doesn't matter. The RIAA has the ultimate say in what gets played.
This mechanism keeps the companies that are in power in power and new players out of the game. The big threat of Napster is that it provides a new medium of music distribution that circumvents the traditional channels. It also gives smaller labels a chance at a much larger market.
Napster users buy cds. They will continue to buy what they can get for free. It doesn't make any sense, but these are people we are talking about. The threat that Napster imposes is that Napster users can make a far more informed and uninfluenced by the RIAA hype decision as to what cd's they will buy.
That is what this trial is about. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.
I am saying that the rates are irrelevant. It doesn't matter how much or why they are in place. What I am saying is that those rates prevent smaller media to get into the game. That money isn't a big deal.
Let's leave the artist out of the argument. He's getting screwed out of his work regardless. I'd be in favor of paying for the MP3's that I download from Napster if I knew that it was actually going to the artist, but it isn't, not much of it anyway.
My analogy to radio is in regards to people taping music from the airwaves. Which I am saying is ripping off artist as much, if not more, than downloading MP3s off of Napster.
I agree that artists should be compensated for their work. What you are either unaware of, or omitting, is that the artistic work(music) under recording contracts doesn't belong to the artist. It belongs to the record companies.
It isn't the pirates who are screwing the artists. Ask any musician what they think about their record company and they will tell you that they are getting raped.
Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but it sounds like you think that those royalties go straight to the musicians. It doesn't. A recording contract is a work for hire that is the artist records the music and it becomes the sole property of the record company. The royalties are paid to the record company and if it is included in the contract, a fraction of that amount is paid to the artist.
Whatever, sure the media throws out some change to get the rights, but who do you think is selling this crap. The record companys could give a rip about that they're going for the big fish the CD sale.
I apologize if I did not make my point clear. This case is about one thing Power. Let me repeat that POWER. The power to control what is played. The power to control what is released. The power to control what is bought.
The point that you made about radio paying royalties and federal regulations are just lip service. That's just in place to keep the little guys out of the game.
People have listened to radio for the duration of the recorded music sales market.
People will continue to buy what they can get for free.
The real issue that I see in the Napster case is that the big record companies have lost control over what listeners hear for free. It used to be that these record companies could control the content of free music outlets(Radio, MTV, VH1, etc.) that's why crappy songs are hyped so much. Since people are cattle/lemming like in nature they buy what the media tells them is cool regardless of the artistic work's actual merit. Listeners are told music is good and are so insecure on their own tastes that they decide to conform to the corporate image of coolness/sophistication.
Napster came along and essentially allowed the individual to make his/her own programming decisions. They can listen to inferior to CD quality music and make a decision as to whether they want to buy it. Napster is essentially a listener programmed radio station without the adds.
What the record corporations are losing is the power to promote specific songs. This is why people buy CDs with only one good song for $16.95. That's also the reason why singles cost $7.95 or so. With Napster people are able to preview entire albums before they buy and that's going to ruin that nice little scam that record companies have been playing.
Don't think that this is about piracy. If that were the case they would have gone after radio stations a long time ago. If these guys win I could see them creating their own Napster with inferior MP3s of only the songs that they want to promote, geared solely to get you to buy those one-hit-wonder CDs.
Slashdot Mirror
kekekekeke^
A buddy of mine with none so good credit had MSN. For about a year the credit card that he had his account on was over the limit. Not surprisingly MSN turned off his service. When he did get the credit card out of OTL hell he started getting the regular monthly charge for his MSN service. How weird is that?
I think he had a similar experience chatting with the customer service rep about removing the charge and cancelling the service.
That is such a horsesh** argument. I fail to understand how a computer being programmed to optimally defeat a given opponent, based on the weaknesses and tendencies of his previous games, is any different than a human player studying, and adjusting his strategy for, the same weaknesses and tendencies of an upcoming opponent. Regarding the other GM comment: it is hard to say how a computer programmed to beat Kasparov would fare. But in all fairness to the computer it should be allowed to be optimized for an opponent, regardless of whether the codebase is modified. When I used to play, I'd change my strategies for my opponents known weaknesses, it is only fair that a computer opponent be allowed to do the same.
This lawsuit is about power and control. I am not arguing the morality of Napster, it is irrelevant to me. If this lawsuit were about that all of the maker's of recordable media would have been sued six ways to sunday and so caught up in legislation that they would have gone under by now. This isn't about stealing.
The reason that the RIAA is so vengeful is because they have lost control over what listeners have access to at no cost to the listener. The means that that music arrives to the listener is irrelevant.
The artists have nothing to do with this case at all. Consider them tools of the RIAA. Their rights and their compensation have nothing to do with this case regardless of what is said.
The RIAA is about one thing and that is making money. The way that they make the most money is by selling music to consumers via the discrete packages we know as cds. The way that they get people to buy these cds is to have this music played on the radio and other media. Royalties, federal regulations, and whatever else goes between the RIAA and the media doesn't matter. The RIAA has the ultimate say in what gets played.
This mechanism keeps the companies that are in power in power and new players out of the game. The big threat of Napster is that it provides a new medium of music distribution that circumvents the traditional channels. It also gives smaller labels a chance at a much larger market.
Napster users buy cds. They will continue to buy what they can get for free. It doesn't make any sense, but these are people we are talking about. The threat that Napster imposes is that Napster users can make a far more informed and uninfluenced by the RIAA hype decision as to what cd's they will buy.
That is what this trial is about. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.
Let's leave the artist out of the argument. He's getting screwed out of his work regardless. I'd be in favor of paying for the MP3's that I download from Napster if I knew that it was actually going to the artist, but it isn't, not much of it anyway.
My analogy to radio is in regards to people taping music from the airwaves. Which I am saying is ripping off artist as much, if not more, than downloading MP3s off of Napster.
I agree that artists should be compensated for their work. What you are either unaware of, or omitting, is that the artistic work(music) under recording contracts doesn't belong to the artist. It belongs to the record companies.
It isn't the pirates who are screwing the artists. Ask any musician what they think about their record company and they will tell you that they are getting raped.
Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding what you are saying, but it sounds like you think that those royalties go straight to the musicians. It doesn't. A recording contract is a work for hire that is the artist records the music and it becomes the sole property of the record company. The royalties are paid to the record company and if it is included in the contract, a fraction of that amount is paid to the artist.
It isn't napster who is screwing the artists!!!
I apologize if I did not make my point clear. This case is about one thing Power. Let me repeat that POWER. The power to control what is played. The power to control what is released. The power to control what is bought.
The point that you made about radio paying royalties and federal regulations are just lip service. That's just in place to keep the little guys out of the game.
An MP3 has a playback quality that rivals radio.
Radio stations play music for free.
People have listened to radio for the duration of the recorded music sales market.
People will continue to buy what they can get for free.
The real issue that I see in the Napster case is that the big record companies have lost control over what listeners hear for free. It used to be that these record companies could control the content of free music outlets(Radio, MTV, VH1, etc.) that's why crappy songs are hyped so much. Since people are cattle/lemming like in nature they buy what the media tells them is cool regardless of the artistic work's actual merit. Listeners are told music is good and are so insecure on their own tastes that they decide to conform to the corporate image of coolness/sophistication.
Napster came along and essentially allowed the individual to make his/her own programming decisions. They can listen to inferior to CD quality music and make a decision as to whether they want to buy it. Napster is essentially a listener programmed radio station without the adds.
What the record corporations are losing is the power to promote specific songs. This is why people buy CDs with only one good song for $16.95. That's also the reason why singles cost $7.95 or so. With Napster people are able to preview entire albums before they buy and that's going to ruin that nice little scam that record companies have been playing.
Don't think that this is about piracy. If that were the case they would have gone after radio stations a long time ago. If these guys win I could see them creating their own Napster with inferior MP3s of only the songs that they want to promote, geared solely to get you to buy those one-hit-wonder CDs.