What other people do isn't my problem. If someone deletes the message then the RIAA can persue that person.
I don't want their IP anyway. I want to listen to people who have something to say, not something to sell. Getting their IP'd crap out of my way so I can find the real speech is fine with me. What isn't fine with me is putting any sort of encumberance upon free speech for the benefit of commercial speech. Let the copyright owners fend for themselves, and leave us normal people alone. Copyright is commercial speech, and ought only be of concern to commercial entities.
I have no intention of being reasonable. Free speech is a right. Copyright is an obscure federal statute. Copyright is purely a commercial issue, and normal people ought to be completely unconcerned with the subject. I want their IP out of my face, and I want my free speech back.
"I have the suspicion that those who object to this would think it would be the coolest thing if RedHat decided to help a school become a pure Linux organization, with a Zarus PDA for every child."
Hey! Sounds like a great idea! Teach the kids about Freedom, and the First Amendment.
Your made up statistics are totally off the wall. In fact, the *only* music I know of personally on the P2P networks was put there by the people who wrote and performed the work.
It's true that I don't use Kazaa et. al., so I can only rely on the fact that I know a few artists for my information. Unlike you, I'll not invent bogus statistics.
They're going to have a little problem with their stratagy then, seeing that Japan, China, and I think S.Korea are getting together to make their own Linux distro, IBM seems to have come completely online with Linux, and Linux seems to be beating out Microsoft in sale after sale around the world.
There's no way Linux can be made compliant with DRM. It's licencing requires that source be available. A machine which cannot run Linux will be unsellable throughout most of the world.
Here in the U.S. there is only the minor problem of the 1st Amendment to consider, but manufacterors have to worry about the world market.
How would IBM push Linux into an anything-only direction? I'm sitting at a Debian machine with KDE. IBM could buy-up Red Hat and I wouldn't even notice.
At this time, the jury is still out on whether it is legal or not.
So far, one judge has made a ruling which in passing seemed to possibly say that there was infringement going on in the filesharing. There has been no case tried which would give any indication whether filesharing is fair use or infringement. The question was carefully avoided by the judge in the Napster case; where the judgement turned upon other issues.
I haven't been begging for lower prices. I've been begging for their death. I don't like the society they're creating. I want a society where people can be heard -- not greedy corporations.
It isn't unethical. There are lots of people out there who want you to download their music, and lots of other people who don't care if you download their music. The problem is that there are also people out there who don't want you to download their music -- and there isn't any way to tell which music is which.
Who do you think ought to have to make it clear whether or not you may download their music; the people who are using their fundamental free speech right to be heard, or the people who are asserting their federal statutory copyright?
The independents are having a banner year. Only RIAA members are hurting.
If the RIAA members don't want people downloading their songs then they ought to start each song with a notice so we can tell which songs not to download. I think that everyone has the right to assume the artist is using their fundamental free speech right to be heard unless they tell us they are asserting their federal statutory copyright. Why should our basic right to free speech and freedom of association be compromized just because the evil RIAA monopolies have a problem?
Exactly what are they going to monopolize? Linux is a commodity. It's as cheap as a $.25 disk, and anyone can sell it.
IBM can make a lot of money off Linux, to be sure. They can do exactly what they've always been good at. If something goes wrong at a big customer site IBM has always been able to plop 50 CEs into the computer room at the drop of a hat.
As far as I can tell, IBM has seen the writing on the wall. They seem to have decided that GPL is the new landscape and that they'd better learn how to walk upon it.
They do, however, have their own opensource initiative and licencing scheme........
"IBM is most likely in this for themselves, granted."
Of course IBM is in it for themselves, but what has actually turned my head were some coments buried in the anti-SCO blast that went out a few days ago walking through SCO's complaint step-by-step refuting it. They talked about how IBM simply swallowed its pride when told by Linus their software wasn't chosen to go into the kernel for some feature. At least for now, IBM is being a "good member of the community."
We just need to make sure they have sufficient reason to always remain a good memeber.
Slashdot Mirror
"slowly"? I've been expecting Microsoft to fade, but it's looking more and more like they are going to fall instead.
What other people do isn't my problem. If someone deletes the message then the RIAA can persue that person.
I don't want their IP anyway. I want to listen to people who have something to say, not something to sell. Getting their IP'd crap out of my way so I can find the real speech is fine with me. What isn't fine with me is putting any sort of encumberance upon free speech for the benefit of commercial speech. Let the copyright owners fend for themselves, and leave us normal people alone.
Copyright is commercial speech, and ought only be of concern to commercial entities.
"Let's be at least a LITTLE reasonable here..."
I have no intention of being reasonable. Free speech is a right. Copyright is an obscure federal statute. Copyright is purely a commercial issue, and normal people ought to be completely unconcerned with the subject. I want their IP out of my face, and I want my free speech back.
Read the article, bozo.
It's a dirty book.
You mean sort of like using ln?
"When Apple did this, it was praised and lauded as good move..."
I remember praising it as a good move for getting market share, however, I was wrong.
Everyone knows you can't enforce a contract against a kid. They'll make the parents sign.
Command: please run current microsoft worm.
>
"I have the suspicion that those who object to this would think it would be the coolest thing if RedHat decided to help a school become a pure Linux organization, with a Zarus PDA for every child."
Hey! Sounds like a great idea! Teach the kids about Freedom, and the First Amendment.
Your made up statistics are totally off the wall. In fact, the *only* music I know of personally on the P2P networks was put there by the people who wrote and performed the work.
It's true that I don't use Kazaa et. al., so I can only rely on the fact that I know a few artists for my information. Unlike you, I'll not invent bogus statistics.
Interesting way to see it. I was mulling the matter over in a slightly different way which leads to a similar conclusion.
The whole thing is an RIAA scam designed to take away unsigned artists freedom of speech.
So, it seems that the RIAA is both engaging in anti-competitive behavour and a hate crime (deprivation of constitutional rights).
Only if the customer knows about it; which I think is the reason we're busy talking about it.
They're going to have a little problem with their stratagy then, seeing that Japan, China, and I think S.Korea are getting together to make their own Linux distro, IBM seems to have come completely online with Linux, and Linux seems to be beating out Microsoft in sale after sale around the world.
There's no way Linux can be made compliant with DRM. It's licencing requires that source be available. A machine which cannot run Linux will be unsellable throughout most of the world.
Here in the U.S. there is only the minor problem of the 1st Amendment to consider, but manufacterors have to worry about the world market.
How would IBM push Linux into an anything-only direction? I'm sitting at a Debian machine with KDE. IBM could buy-up Red Hat and I wouldn't even notice.
At this time, the jury is still out on whether it is legal or not.
So far, one judge has made a ruling which in passing seemed to possibly say that there was infringement going on in the filesharing. There has been no case tried which would give any indication whether filesharing is fair use or infringement. The question was carefully avoided by the judge in the Napster case; where the judgement turned upon other issues.
I haven't been begging for lower prices. I've been begging for their death. I don't like the society they're creating. I want a society where people can be heard -- not greedy corporations.
Who's this Britney?
It isn't unethical. There are lots of people out there who want you to download their music, and lots of other people who don't care if you download their music. The problem is that there are also people out there who don't want you to download their music -- and there isn't any way to tell which music is which.
Who do you think ought to have to make it clear whether or not you may download their music; the people who are using their fundamental free speech right to be heard, or the people who are asserting their federal statutory copyright?
The independents are having a banner year. Only RIAA members are hurting.
If the RIAA members don't want people downloading their songs then they ought to start each song with a notice so we can tell which songs not to download. I think that everyone has the right to assume the artist is using their fundamental free speech right to be heard unless they tell us they are asserting their federal statutory copyright. Why should our basic right to free speech and freedom of association be compromized just because the evil RIAA monopolies have a problem?
Exactly what are they going to monopolize? Linux is a commodity. It's as cheap as a $.25 disk, and anyone can sell it.
IBM can make a lot of money off Linux, to be sure. They can do exactly what they've always been good at. If something goes wrong at a big customer site IBM has always been able to plop 50 CEs into the computer room at the drop of a hat.
It's not going to get them a monopoly though.
I can see it now...
Admin: You must apply all the patches before you can connect your machine.
Student: I run Linux.
Admin: You must apply all the patches before you can connect your machine.
Student: But I run Linux.
Admin: You must apply all the patches before you can connect your machine.
Student: Whatever. Give me the disk.
When I dropped my daughter off at school they were handing out disks to everyone warning about the worm and telling them to fix their computer.
Of course, I had to explain to the person handing them out that my daughter's machine was a Mac...
As far as I can tell, IBM has seen the writing on the wall. They seem to have decided that GPL is the new landscape and that they'd better learn how to walk upon it.
They do, however, have their own opensource initiative and licencing scheme........
"IBM is most likely in this for themselves, granted."
Of course IBM is in it for themselves, but what has actually turned my head were some coments buried in the anti-SCO blast that went out a few days ago walking through SCO's complaint step-by-step refuting it. They talked about how IBM simply swallowed its pride when told by Linus their software wasn't chosen to go into the kernel for some feature. At least for now, IBM is being a "good member of the community."
We just need to make sure they have sufficient reason to always remain a good memeber.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. (But I think I'll watch my back.)