Guns are legal, but you can use them to kill people, and some do. Alcohol is legal, but you can use it to kill people, and some have. Napster is a FILE SHARING PROTOCOL. It is not their responsibility to make sure everyone uses it properly any more than it is the responsibility of the gas station you buy beer from to follow you around and make sure you don't drink and drive. Napster can serve to distribute music for those with no other good means, or it can be used to break the law. Just like my tire iron can help me in a break down, or it can be used to break down someone's skull. Tire irons seem to still be legal.
You don't think the RIAA has been essentially stealing our money for years? Or the artists? They take something like 90-95% of record sales profits, for doing nothing more than providing a distribution channel (one that is arguably WORSE than the internet in terms of efficiency). Unless the artist has one ASS-KICKING record deal, the only way they can make cash after the advance is by touring. If 1,000,000 people download a new album, none pay for it, but 20% like it enough to go see a show, that is 200,000 * (price of ticket, let's say 25 bucks) = 5,000,000 dollars (minus venue charges) the artists have made from using the internet as a distribution channel. Compare that with 500,000 people buying the album at Sam Goody (*shiver*), with 5% royalties from the record company, we end up with 425,000 (assuming 17 dollar cd price). Some of wich has to still pay back the advance the record company has given them. So again 20% go to see a 25 dollar show. Total is 2.1 million. However the record company ends up with 500,000 * 17 - 425,000, roughly 8 MILLION. Who loses? The artists, and the consumers.
Don't bitch about how the poor artists are getting the shaft, they in general stand to gain a lot more buy using the free distribution channel. If you love music, you should be ABSOLUTELY PISSED OFF at the RIAA and be happy they are finally getting shown for what they really are, money grubbing exploitive fuckheads.
I don't think it is right that people can download artists work for free, but the arguement that the artists are losing cash on the deal holds no water.
Read this link before you flame me: http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic. html
I downloaded a milestone for freebsd, ran it. According to top it ate up 60 seconds of cpu time before even displaying anything. Then I clicked on the left sidebar thing and it core dumped.
Why is this a 5? Sounds more like a troll to me, I think this is a great idea and I'm planning on getting one. Besides you aren't supposed to listen to it with speakers, you're supposed to use headphones. And why the hell are you listening to rap?
I e-mailed him and he responded very quickly. Basically he said that he wrote that article for compuworld or whatever, and was upset to see CNN edit it and release it to the mainstream because he knew it would be taken wrong by audiences other than IT departments.
He claims it was mostly to make fun of the main stream press and hype, but after re-reading his article, I still have a hard time believing that.
Slashdot Mirror
good thinking fuckwit.
first post
whatever, faggot.
Like in Hackers? If so I better go buy some rollerblades.
whatever faggot.
whatever faggot.
score 5, funny?
must be moderator crack smoking day.
Her ass size is even bigger than signal11's karma
haha
fag0t = you
Guns are legal, but you can use them to kill people, and some do. Alcohol is legal, but you can use it to kill people, and some have. Napster is a FILE SHARING PROTOCOL. It is not their responsibility to make sure everyone uses it properly any more than it is the responsibility of the gas station you buy beer from to follow you around and make sure you don't drink and drive. Napster can serve to distribute music for those with no other good means, or it can be used to break the law. Just like my tire iron can help me in a break down, or it can be used to break down someone's skull. Tire irons seem to still be legal.
. html
You don't think the RIAA has been essentially stealing our money for years? Or the artists? They take something like 90-95% of record sales profits, for doing nothing more than providing a distribution channel (one that is arguably WORSE than the internet in terms of efficiency). Unless the artist has one ASS-KICKING record deal, the only way they can make cash after the advance is by touring. If 1,000,000 people download a new album, none pay for it, but 20% like it enough to go see a show, that is 200,000 * (price of ticket, let's say 25 bucks) = 5,000,000 dollars (minus venue charges) the artists have made from using the internet as a distribution channel. Compare that with 500,000 people buying the album at Sam Goody (*shiver*), with 5% royalties from the record company, we end up with 425,000 (assuming 17 dollar cd price). Some of wich has to still pay back the advance the record company has given them. So again 20% go to see a 25 dollar show. Total is 2.1 million. However the record company ends up with 500,000 * 17 - 425,000, roughly 8 MILLION. Who loses? The artists, and the consumers.
Don't bitch about how the poor artists are getting the shaft, they in general stand to gain a lot more buy using the free distribution channel. If you love music, you should be ABSOLUTELY PISSED OFF at the RIAA and be happy they are finally getting shown for what they really are, money grubbing exploitive fuckheads.
I don't think it is right that people can download artists work for free, but the arguement that the artists are losing cash on the deal holds no water.
Read this link before you flame me:
http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic
I think all routers should just stop routing. That would stop ddos too. Routing is just a legacy protocol anyways.
I downloaded a milestone for freebsd, ran it. According to top it ate up 60 seconds of cpu time before even displaying anything. Then I clicked on the left sidebar thing and it core dumped.
Sweet piece of k0d3.
I'm so tired of dereferencing my own pointer.
I can't take it any more. Stop with the "rice weapons" and "frag the bride" comments.
Why is this a 5? Sounds more like a troll to me, I think this is a great idea and I'm planning on getting one. Besides you aren't supposed to listen to it with speakers, you're supposed to use headphones. And why the hell are you listening to rap?
yer dumb.
I e-mailed him and he responded very quickly.
Basically he said that he wrote that article
for compuworld or whatever, and was upset to
see CNN edit it and release it to the mainstream
because he knew it would be taken wrong by
audiences other than IT departments.
He claims it was mostly to make fun of the main
stream press and hype, but after re-reading his
article, I still have a hard time believing that.