I notice that the statistics are from the RIAA. Do these statistics include CDs sold by independent artists and small labels not associated with the RIAA? I heard a report on NPR about a month ago that while RIAA sales are down, the independents are having a banner year. Sales are way up and they are taking a significant market share away from RIAA members.
Maybe if the users had the impression they were getting some value for their efforts they'd be more inclined to apply the patches. As it is, all they see is more headaches and less improvements.
I randomly chosed [sic] Debian. Once a week I run apt-get (actually dselect -- I'm strange). I don't pay attention to whether I'm adding new bells and whistles or adding bug fixes / security patches. I'm happy -- although I am beginning to wonder why I installed two versions of LISP...
Point is: With one action I'm getting everything. New releases of apps, bug fixes for every app and utility, and security patches for everything but the kernel -- and I don't even have to shut down anything while I'm doing it. There's no way I can even get close to doing this in the MS world.
The correct terms of art are bubble gum and string. These are what you hold a kludge together with.
You use bubble gum to plug a hole, and string to hold together pieces which are falling apart. Eventually, you get an OS like Windows; which is nothing but buble gum and string.
"...but you certainly don't have a justifiable reason to place it on a P2P network."
How would I know whether I had a justifiable reason or not? If the artists are looking to express themselves and get heard by a larger audiance then I am doing them a favor by sharing it. If the artists are looking to sell CDs then I am doing them a disservice. But in either case there is no way for me to tell which it is. You cannot require of someone who is expressing their free speech right to be heard that they give notice, as this would be an unjustifiable intrusion upon their fundamental rights. Congress has seen fit to do away with copyright notices, so there is no notice of any kind that the music is intended only for sale.
I would be perfectly pleased if the only music being shared was at the artists' pleasure. Aside from clearing up this legal quandary, I suspect more of the music would be things I'd want to hear. Unfortunately, the music being shared is a mixture of IP and free speech.
I demand my free speech rights to be heard and to hear what others have to say. If copyright gets screwed in the process it isn't my problem. The copyright holders are not asserting any fundamental rights, and I guess they'll just have to find some way of solving their problem which doesn't interfere with my fundamental rights.
Every CD I've bought in the last five years has been purchased at the table in (or just outside of) the hall where the artists were playing. I kind of doubt that any of the CDs were produced by an RIAA member.
I'm really happy with these CDs. Aside from being well produced and having good songs, they bring back good memories.
Eventually Microsloth will be screwed and we can just forget about their stupid file formats completely. Until then we have to make nice while we look for loose rocks to pull out of the wall.
Wrong. It clearly must be the copyright holder's responsibility. Otherwise it is government interferance with the right to free speech and free association (with the potential of petitioning the government for redress of grievances).
I guess the only choice is for the copyright holder to start every song with a copyright notice telling us we weren't supposed to download it. Anything else would be an unacceptable interferance with the right to speak and to be heard.
It is not the public's responsibility to even care about copyright. This is completely a commercial speech issue with which we ought to be completely uninvolved.
If Joe Filesharer needs a lawyer then the words "no law" have become meaningless.
First off, everything written is copyrighted, so this message I am writing now will be copyrighted as soon as I submit it. Given the confusion many people have about what a "copyrighted piece" is, I'm not sure I understand your question -- even in its direct form.
Second, we have the fundamental right to get together and discuss amongst ourselves that which might lead to petitioning our government for redress of grievances. There might be something within music freely found in the public sphere which will induce us to get together for the purpose of petitioning our government.
Third, and most important, since we have the right to get together any law which interfers with that right for any reason is at best highly suspect. With P2P we have found a new way to organize, and I demand my right to use that way to organize. If there is some silly problem with copyrighted material also being available via that route then my answer is: tough. Mark your monoplist crap clearly such that I can avoid it and then I shall avoid it. What I will not accept is any sort of constraint upon my right to use this medium to speak freely and organize in free association. The copyright monopolies just have to find some other way to solve their problem.
"Unfortunantly, the responsibility falls to you, the consumer, to make sure everythings ligit. If some gives you a free car and it turns out to be stolen, you don't get to keep the car."
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
"Article I. Section 8. [some paragraph]
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
Sorry, but speech is a right. Copyright isn't even property.
I'm stating my concerns entirely in terms of the author's fundamental rights verses a strictly statutory congressional grant to the author. It is not my responsibility as a comsumer to protect the author's fundamental right to speak, nor his statutory copyright. Forget me in terms of determining what is legally/morally right, and consider only the author. I am merely a hapless bystander who is caught in the middle and cannot determine what to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Well...Hell has declared war on the Nazi's, so I'll find something nice to say about Satan.
Go IBM!!!
I might climb into bed with the big blue elephant, but I'm going to keep one foot firmly on the floor.
Yeah I know.
What really worries me about this though...in 20 years am I going to be cheering Microsoft?
Big Blue was the bad guy.
It feels kind of creepy to be cheering IBM on...
Go IBM!!!!
"Also, congratulations to all who have not purchased CD's in protest. Keep up the good work."
I bought a CD at the table outside the hall where the 'band' (Arlo Guthrie and family) were playing last month. I don't think I did a bad thing.
I notice that the statistics are from the RIAA. Do these statistics include CDs sold by independent artists and small labels not associated with the RIAA? I heard a report on NPR about a month ago that while RIAA sales are down, the independents are having a banner year. Sales are way up and they are taking a significant market share away from RIAA members.
Maybe if the users had the impression they were getting some value for their efforts they'd be more inclined to apply the patches. As it is, all they see is more headaches and less improvements.
I randomly chosed [sic] Debian. Once a week I run apt-get (actually dselect -- I'm strange). I don't pay attention to whether I'm adding new bells and whistles or adding bug fixes / security patches. I'm happy -- although I am beginning to wonder why I installed two versions of LISP...
Point is: With one action I'm getting everything. New releases of apps, bug fixes for every app and utility, and security patches for everything but the kernel -- and I don't even have to shut down anything while I'm doing it. There's no way I can even get close to doing this in the MS world.
The correct terms of art are bubble gum and string. These are what you hold a kludge together with.
You use bubble gum to plug a hole, and string to hold together pieces which are falling apart. Eventually, you get an OS like Windows; which is nothing but buble gum and string.
"...but you certainly don't have a justifiable reason to place it on a P2P network."
How would I know whether I had a justifiable reason or not? If the artists are looking to express themselves and get heard by a larger audiance then I am doing them a favor by sharing it. If the artists are looking to sell CDs then I am doing them a disservice. But in either case there is no way for me to tell which it is. You cannot require of someone who is expressing their free speech right to be heard that they give notice, as this would be an unjustifiable intrusion upon their fundamental rights. Congress has seen fit to do away with copyright notices, so there is no notice of any kind that the music is intended only for sale.
I would be perfectly pleased if the only music being shared was at the artists' pleasure. Aside from clearing up this legal quandary, I suspect more of the music would be things I'd want to hear. Unfortunately, the music being shared is a mixture of IP and free speech.
I demand my free speech rights to be heard and to hear what others have to say. If copyright gets screwed in the process it isn't my problem. The copyright holders are not asserting any fundamental rights, and I guess they'll just have to find some way of solving their problem which doesn't interfere with my fundamental rights.
Every CD I've bought in the last five years has been purchased at the table in (or just outside of) the hall where the artists were playing. I kind of doubt that any of the CDs were produced by an RIAA member.
I'm really happy with these CDs. Aside from being well produced and having good songs, they bring back good memories.
They're still a large evil media monopoly.
I'm sure glad I don't have any interest in the crack they're pushing.
You get enough blue screens of death and email worms and you don't have to be a newbie to find fewer problems with Linux.
Try not to run while learning to walk.
Eventually Microsloth will be screwed and we can just forget about their stupid file formats completely. Until then we have to make nice while we look for loose rocks to pull out of the wall.
So I guess they'll have to kick him off their system.
The real question is copyright law.
Then again, it's being a peeping tom. The laws out there didn't just go away.
Wrong. It clearly must be the copyright holder's responsibility. Otherwise it is government interferance with the right to free speech and free association (with the potential of petitioning the government for redress of grievances).
I guess the only choice is for the copyright holder to start every song with a copyright notice telling us we weren't supposed to download it. Anything else would be an unacceptable interferance with the right to speak and to be heard.
It is not the public's responsibility to even care about copyright. This is completely a commercial speech issue with which we ought to be completely uninvolved.
If Joe Filesharer needs a lawyer then the words "no law" have become meaningless.
First off, everything written is copyrighted, so this message I am writing now will be copyrighted as soon as I submit it. Given the confusion many people have about what a "copyrighted piece" is, I'm not sure I understand your question -- even in its direct form.
Second, we have the fundamental right to get together and discuss amongst ourselves that which might lead to petitioning our government for redress of grievances. There might be something within music freely found in the public sphere which will induce us to get together for the purpose of petitioning our government.
Third, and most important, since we have the right to get together any law which interfers with that right for any reason is at best highly suspect. With P2P we have found a new way to organize, and I demand my right to use that way to organize. If there is some silly problem with copyrighted material also being available via that route then my answer is: tough. Mark your monoplist crap clearly such that I can avoid it and then I shall avoid it. What I will not accept is any sort of constraint upon my right to use this medium to speak freely and organize in free association. The copyright monopolies just have to find some other way to solve their problem.
I'd hope that he's started making contact with EFF by now. This is certainly something they'll want to be a part of.
He'll need that money for legal fees. Keep bidding it up.
They won't get any takers, and in the mean time the original offer will keep going up. This is buying into the war, not buying into a stupid song.
We need a copy of the TOS. Best I know so far is that there is no attempt to prohibit alienation.
"It just wouldn't work."
Perfectly legal. What's your problem, troll?
I love you. Just thought you'd like to know.
"Unfortunantly, the responsibility falls to you, the consumer, to make sure everythings ligit. If some gives you a free car and it turns out to be stolen, you don't get to keep the car."
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
"Article I. Section 8. [some paragraph]
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
Sorry, but speech is a right. Copyright isn't even property.
I'm stating my concerns entirely in terms of the author's fundamental rights verses a strictly statutory congressional grant to the author. It is not my responsibility as a comsumer to protect the author's fundamental right to speak, nor his statutory copyright. Forget me in terms of determining what is legally/morally right, and consider only the author. I am merely a hapless bystander who is caught in the middle and cannot determine what to do.