Rush Limbaugh has always stated that he doesn't stream audio because he wants his listeners to listen to the radio stations that carry his broadcasts. The stations need listeners so they can sell advertising so they have the money to pay Rush for the content. A free stream means stations won't have listeners and won't pay Rush.
However, he has recently changed his mind. For $39.95 you can join Rush 24/7 and get the last two weeks of his broadcasts.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com
I am not endorsing Rush Limbaugh, but pointing out that other content providers do not want to give away for free what they currently sell to radio stations.
The opinions on/. seem to be divided between those who see napster as a phone company that is required to carry all transmissions between two private parties and those who see napster as a television channel free to carry only those transmissions that it feels meet its own criteria.
I don't see that free speech or censorship has anything to do with the issue. The issue is whether Napster should be viewed legally as a common carrier. My opinion is that it shouldn't have to carry what it doesn't want to carry.
If you want to provide a service for distributing nazi music, go ahead and do it on your own time with your own money. That is freedom.
In LA, the real objection was to overlaying one area code on top of another. People didn't want to give up the 310 area code, so the PUC and the phone companies agreed to use another area code on top of 310. If you asked for a new phone line in your house, it might have been with a different area code than your present line. As a result, there was 11 digit dialing required to call next door.
One of the costs of switching was changing the dialing machines used by many apartments as a replacement for a door bell. For several months it was impossible to visit my son's apartment, because the door "bell" dialer only dialed the seven digits and never reached his apartment two floors up!
Parents are often told to set only those rules they intend to enforce and then enforce them. If you set a rule and then don't enforce it, the child gets confused about which rules are rules and which aren't. Why have an NC-17 rating and an R rating if there is no intention to enforce either one?
If a film maker voluntarily submits a film for review and is unwilling to modify her film to get a different rating than the one assigned, then she accepts that with an NC-17 rating no one under 17 will be admitted to her film. The theater that advertises the film as NC-17 has an obligation to see that no one under 17 is admitted. For either the film maker to expect or the theater to do otherwise is to be hypocritical. Likewise for an R rating. If you say that children under the age of 17 will be admitted only when accompanied by an adult, then only admit children under 17 when accompanied by an adult. I have been bothered for a long time that theaters have posted the R rating definition and then routinely ignored it.
If you think we would be better off without a rating system, fight the rating system. I agree that giving films full of violence a PG while films with a little sex get an R is ridiculous. Parents, film makers, and theater owners should all pressure the ratings system to either improve or disappear.
Slashdot Mirror
Rush Limbaugh has always stated that he doesn't stream audio because he wants his listeners to listen to the radio stations that carry his broadcasts. The stations need listeners so they can sell advertising so they have the money to pay Rush for the content. A free stream means stations won't have listeners and won't pay Rush.
However, he has recently changed his mind. For $39.95 you can join Rush 24/7 and get the last two weeks of his broadcasts.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com
I am not endorsing Rush Limbaugh, but pointing out that other content providers do not want to give away for free what they currently sell to radio stations.
The opinions on /. seem to be divided between those who see napster as a phone company that is required to carry all transmissions between two private parties and those who see napster as a television channel free to carry only those transmissions that it feels meet its own criteria.
I don't see that free speech or censorship has anything to do with the issue. The issue is whether Napster should be viewed legally as a common carrier. My opinion is that it shouldn't have to carry what it doesn't want to carry.
If you want to provide a service for distributing nazi music, go ahead and do it on your own time with your own money. That is freedom.
In LA, the real objection was to overlaying one area code on top of another. People didn't want to give up the 310 area code, so the PUC and the phone companies agreed to use another area code on top of 310. If you asked for a new phone line in your house, it might have been with a different area code than your present line. As a result, there was 11 digit dialing required to call next door.
One of the costs of switching was changing the dialing machines used by many apartments as a replacement for a door bell. For several months it was impossible to visit my son's apartment, because the door "bell" dialer only dialed the seven digits and never reached his apartment two floors up!
are listed at
m otions/pay.html
http://www.sun.com/products-n-solutions/edu/pro
Parents are often told to set only those rules they intend to enforce and then enforce them. If you set a rule and then don't enforce it, the child gets confused about which rules are rules and which aren't. Why have an NC-17 rating and an R rating if there is no intention to enforce either one?
If a film maker voluntarily submits a film for review and is unwilling to modify her film to get a different rating than the one assigned, then she accepts that with an NC-17 rating no one under 17 will be admitted to her film. The theater that advertises the film as NC-17 has an obligation to see that no one under 17 is admitted. For either the film maker to expect or the theater to do otherwise is to be hypocritical. Likewise for an R rating. If you say that children under the age of 17 will be admitted only when accompanied by an adult, then only admit children under 17 when accompanied by an adult. I have been bothered for a long time that theaters have posted the R rating definition and then routinely ignored it.
If you think we would be better off without a rating system, fight the rating system. I agree that giving films full of violence a PG while films with a little sex get an R is ridiculous. Parents, film makers, and theater owners should all pressure the ratings system to either improve or disappear.