please keep sending crunchy satellites [STOP] the last two headed for mars were delish [STOP] your schedule coincides nicely with our mating season [STOP] failure to comply would be bad [STOP]
"The reason (most) of these species are extinct is a loss of habitat caused by "civilization" moving in and changing it, whether to take resources or to build houses or businesses."
Since 99% of anything extinct became extinct long before humans showed up, can you please back this statement up with your source?
The question isn't if swapping music is illegal, it's already established that it isn't. You can make a copy of your Boston 8-track and give it to me in full view of the law without fear of retribution, as long as it is non-commercial.
The question is if Napster is making a profit.
I use Napster so I can spam-download music and I tend to discard 90% of it before it finishes playing once. As a result, there are artists that I'd never have listened to because they don't get airplay. Mary Lou Lord. Moby. BT. Boa. And with those I'm more than happy to send a few bucks to fairtunes.com (and I really need to get off my *** and actually do that).
And that is the crux. I will support the artist. Which to me is far more equitable than the thug-like, drug-pusher-like cartel of the RIAA. Now look, I know this sounds to you like a big knee-jerk reaction but I have serious issues with the RIAA that I've come to on my own without the every-present nudging of Slashdot. Yes, I know that there are people looking to freeload, but you can't simply lump me with them wholesale.
"Whoever put together this plan has got to be sitting in his chair rocking back and forth laughing his butt off at how we fell for it hook, line and sinker!"
Yes, I'm sure their PR people are pissing themselves, especially since many orders of magnitude more people know about their security breach thanks to their being nits to the Slashdot set.
And hoo boy, did they get us good, with all our free barcode readers. My ass is still sore.
Again, you repeat the claim that it just is. And to cover it up you equate having an open mind with agreeing with you.
You keep saying it's not my right, it's not MP3.com's right, but you have not yet supported why that should be so. Worse, you've tried to pass of "just because" as an argument.
You can have the last word on this, I'll reply if you substantiate anything seriously.
You say it's illegal, I ask you to defend the logic. You reply with "it's trivial... there is a big legal difference".
I'll give you one more chance and even repeat myself verbatim:
It is simple to say "that's the way the law is worded", but can you explain why this is logical? Don't worry, nobody is reading this, I just want to see if you can explain why I shouldn't be able to prove to MP3.com that I own Bjork's "Post" then listen to their copy of the same album. Please.
"MP3.com got in trouble because it was they, and not the consumer, that stored music on the net and downstreamed it."
What a bunch of symantical horseshit.
Even a computer can't tell the difference between my CD and theirs, it is - bit for bit - identical. If I prove I own a copy of Moby's Play and MP3.com mounts a copy for me to listen to and then they get sued, this is a demonstration of legislature that is behind the technological curve and people suffer for it.
You'd be better of explaining to us how this physical discrepancy is at all relevant.
To : jmoakley@mail.house.gov
Cc :
Attchmnt:
Subject : Music Owners Listening Rights Act of 2000
----- Message Text -----
Dear Honorable John Joseph Moakley,
I am writing to you in support of the proposed Music Owners Listening
Rights Act of 2000.
You have have heard about MP3.com recently losing a lawsuit to the RIAA.
The practice in question was MP3.com members scanning in their
legally-purchased discs (to prove ownership) and MP3.com would then allow
that particular member to listen to their songs wherevery they wish.
I would like to emphasize that MP3.com required that you prove you owned
the original. Unfortunately, MP3.com lost because MP3.com's copy is not
the same physical copy as the customer's copy and is therefore illegal.
If this is difficult to fathom it is because it doesn't really make any
sense.
The Music Owners Listening Rights Act of 2000 would allow a company to
legally create a musical database:
""Simply stated, a consumer who lawfully owns a work of music, such as a
CD, will be able to store it on the Internet and then downstream it for
personal use at a time and place of his choosing," Boucher said in his
floor statement introducing the new legislation." - Wired.com
I encourage you to support this bill and bring legislation up to speed
with the technical capabilities of the internet.
Malc writes:
"And please don't tell me that this was only possible because H1's get paid less either (many people assert this incorrectly.)"
Washting Post, Septmeber 12th 2000:
"Several university studies have shown that the H-1Bs tend to earn less
than their U.S. citizen/permanent resident counterparts, with the gap
being 20 percent or worse. The law requiring that H-1Bs be paid
"prevailing wage" is riddled with loopholes."
Slashdot Mirror
please keep sending crunchy satellites [STOP] the last two headed for mars were delish [STOP] your schedule coincides nicely with our mating season [STOP] failure to comply would be bad [STOP]
My .02,
Yeah, like anyone would pay for something if a free, better thing wasn't available.
Uh, wait...
My .02,
My .02,
Since 99% of anything extinct became extinct long before humans showed up, can you please back this statement up with your source?
My .02,
The question is if Napster is making a profit.
I use Napster so I can spam-download music and I tend to discard 90% of it before it finishes playing once. As a result, there are artists that I'd never have listened to because they don't get airplay. Mary Lou Lord. Moby. BT. Boa. And with those I'm more than happy to send a few bucks to fairtunes.com (and I really need to get off my *** and actually do that).
And that is the crux. I will support the artist. Which to me is far more equitable than the thug-like, drug-pusher-like cartel of the RIAA. Now look, I know this sounds to you like a big knee-jerk reaction but I have serious issues with the RIAA that I've come to on my own without the every-present nudging of Slashdot. Yes, I know that there are people looking to freeload, but you can't simply lump me with them wholesale.
My .02,
My .02,
Yes, I'm sure their PR people are pissing themselves, especially since many orders of magnitude more people know about their security breach thanks to their being nits to the Slashdot set.
And hoo boy, did they get us good, with all our free barcode readers. My ass is still sore.
My .02,
You keep saying it's not my right, it's not MP3.com's right, but you have not yet supported why that should be so. Worse, you've tried to pass of "just because" as an argument.
You can have the last word on this, I'll reply if you substantiate anything seriously.
My .02,
I'll give you one more chance and even repeat myself verbatim:
It is simple to say "that's the way the law is worded", but can you explain why this is logical? Don't worry, nobody is reading this, I just want to see if you can explain why I shouldn't be able to prove to MP3.com that I own Bjork's "Post" then listen to their copy of the same album. Please.
My .02,
"MP3.com got in trouble because it was they, and not the consumer, that stored music on the net and downstreamed it. Looks like a stupid law. "
My question to you is so what? It is simple to say "that's the way the law is worded", but can you explain why this is logical?
My .02,
What a bunch of symantical horseshit.
Even a computer can't tell the difference between my CD and theirs, it is - bit for bit - identical. If I prove I own a copy of Moby's Play and MP3.com mounts a copy for me to listen to and then they get sued, this is a demonstration of legislature that is behind the technological curve and people suffer for it.
You'd be better of explaining to us how this physical discrepancy is at all relevant.
My .02,
----[%snip]----
To : jmoakley@mail.house.gov
Cc :
Attchmnt:
Subject : Music Owners Listening Rights Act of 2000
----- Message Text -----
Dear Honorable John Joseph Moakley,
I am writing to you in support of the proposed Music Owners Listening Rights Act of 2000.
You have have heard about MP3.com recently losing a lawsuit to the RIAA. The practice in question was MP3.com members scanning in their legally-purchased discs (to prove ownership) and MP3.com would then allow that particular member to listen to their songs wherevery they wish. I would like to emphasize that MP3.com required that you prove you owned the original. Unfortunately, MP3.com lost because MP3.com's copy is not the same physical copy as the customer's copy and is therefore illegal.
If this is difficult to fathom it is because it doesn't really make any sense.
The Music Owners Listening Rights Act of 2000 would allow a company to legally create a musical database:
""Simply stated, a consumer who lawfully owns a work of music, such as a CD, will be able to store it on the Internet and then downstream it for personal use at a time and place of his choosing," Boucher said in his floor statement introducing the new legislation." - Wired.com
I encourage you to support this bill and bring legislation up to speed with the technical capabilities of the internet.
Thank you,
Jason Desjardins
----[%snip]----
My .02,
My .02,
"And please don't tell me that this was only possible because H1's get paid less either (many people assert this incorrectly.)"
Washting Post, Septmeber 12th 2000:
"Several university studies have shown that the H-1Bs tend to earn less than their U.S. citizen/permanent resident counterparts, with the gap being 20 percent or worse. The law requiring that H-1Bs be paid "prevailing wage" is riddled with loopholes."
The full text can be found here.
My .02,
H1-B's are all forced back.
A few hundred Indians look around and say "this sucks".
Venture capital becomes the fund du decade on the resulting startups.
New Delhi becomes Silicon Valley, 2004.
Already a nuclear power, India becomes an economic one as well.
Pakistan is not amused.
Can you say "Israel II: Electric Boogaloo"? I knew that you could.
My .02,