Then again, I still don't see where the RIAA is "losing" money.
Neither do I, afterall, they're not selling MP3, so how can they lose money on something they don't sell?
I don't see any huge problem with the RIAA asking for money from certain ISPs for "losing" money.....I say services such as @home could invoke a small fee to allow connections to Napster...
I would have a big problem with this; as I just stated, noone of the RIAA is selling MP3s, and it is relying on other industries to subsidize its continued existance simply because they're incapable of adapting their business model to changes in technology. That's why I don't use services like MP3.com or MyPlay.com (because I know their use generates revenue for the RIAA), and why I feel justified of copying songs to CDR by the tax I have to pay on every last one of them.
RIAA needs to grow up and get with the program; it won't survive by forcing other companys to provide for it; nor by ignoring changes in the new economy.
I don't know how the RIAA could be so naive as to stick with old outdated business practices (I'm just sure IBM is still in business because they still only sell balances and typewriters, right?)
If you release you code to open source GPL, I don't see how you can yourself benefit financially from doing that; sure, it's nice for everyone else to have access to the code, but the person that programmed it does need food and shelter, you know.
I don't see open sourcing something because you feel forced to as any different that what this company is doing to this guy...unless someone can explain to me how someone can benefit financially from open sourcing their own software...
Quite frankly, this '1 click shopping' has always made me wonder:
If it's so simple to buy something with just 1 click of your mouse, just how easy would it be to so fraudulently?
Suppose some cracker somehow gets some Amazon's customer's cookie (which apparently can be done through Gnutella and such if you're naively share your whole drive), and installs it on their browser, couldn't they just do '1 click frauds'.
If the server sends you that price, then no, it's their fault, and it shouldn't be an illegal action to 'purchase' at that price. Like in the airline ticket example in the story, there was no fraud.
If you cause a change in the price that the server sends you, then yes, it is illegal. But I feel that the retailer also has a responsibility, as blindly accepting any data from the client without checking its own internal database is just plain stupid!
You just need to apply some common sense when forwarding things (consider whether or not the author would have wanted them forwarded) which is a good practice anyway, copyright laws or no.
Ok, I can see the reasoning behind this, and it's quite insightful.
However, do we really need a law that requires people to get explicit consent to forward an email, instead of just having the copyright holder sue whoever forwarded an email when appropriate.
As you said, people need to use common sense, but this law is just rediculous
Not back when MS had its tax on everything. This is when 'The OS battle' was going on, and MS imposed its tax on every computer sold (for resellers that sold MS stuff, which means everyone). So even if you wanted OS/2, the reseller still had to charge the MS tax, even if you bought no MS software.
So people didn't bother trying to get an 'alternative', or even learn about them, because it cost more since they paid this 'tax' regardless.
This is probably one of the many reasons why 'consumers were ignorant' about the options they had. MS manipulated the market to make their products standard.
My original reply stressed that is is Microsoft's fault that consumers were ignorant about their choices because of MS's actions.
And thats Microsofts fault? No, its the fault of the ignorant consumer.
Hmmm, let see: MS forces computer OEM/Resellers/etc to apply its 'Microsoft tax' to any computer sold, regardless if that computer includes any Microsoft software. Customers, not wanting to pay more when they purchase the system, decide to purchase the system with the MS crap^H^H^H^Hsoftware, and doesn't consider any other possible choices because of its implied higher cost.
MyPlay has already cut a deal with the RIAA. They're covered.
That's good info, didn't know that.
Also proves my point; RIAA relies on others to make money - ultimately will be their downfall.
Oh well, another service I won't use on the principal that I don't want to do anything that will generate revenue for Rich Imbecile Assholes of America
RIAA sues MP3.com even though MP3.com provided a legitimate way to access music you already have. Net result: MP3.com (among others) subsidizes the RIAA because RIAA has a flawed business model and is unwilling (read: incapable) to adapt to changes in technology (I'm sure IBM is still in business because the still only sell balances and typewriters)
RIAA doesn't touch MyPlay.com, which allows ANY MP3 to be stored on its servers, without even checking if it's legit.
Like we need another 'centralized server providing on-demand content of various formats to clients across a network consisting of wired or unwired (wireless) computers using a communications method in which the data in encoded and sent in binary digits (bits) of 0 or 1'
( P.S. I think that should answer your question about prior art:) )
Basically, whoever does the censoring is telling you:
"You're too stupid to make an informed decision about what you want to see/discuss, so we'll make that decision for you."
This incident is exactly that; some 'authority' decides what is/is not appropriate for the general public (article doesn't mention if this was a school-only or public fair, but I think that's irrelevant anyways).
Some form of censorship is fine to protect some people (insert you really-gross-and-demeaning-example here), but broad censoring is too limiting; there should always be some option to have access to the uncensored form of the subject. How many times have I cursed when watching a TV comedy special where the language is censored, when they have SAP audio available on that channel and don't make use of it!
The way I see it is that you are paying for a service, not a product; here's my reasoning:
Normal (voice) phone line: I consider this a product; you can get a second outlet for no additional montly cost, this makes sense because you can't get any additional benefit out of it, since you can't have 2 people making 2 different calls on the same line. The second outlet is only a convienience.
When you get a second line and have to pay and additional monthly fee, that's fair since you do get extra benefits from that additional service (can now make 2 simultaneous calls, and you get an additional phone#). Any additonal service on each line will cost more per line, again fair since it's two different products
Cable TV: I consider this a service just like sharing IP on cable - Why pay and additional montly fee when by spending a little money once ($15 for a slipper / a bit more for IP sharing sw) you can already get additional use out of it (watching 2 programs on 2 different TVs / multiple computers on same IP).
It's not fair to have to pay a additional montly fee for basically no added benefit - I don't get any extra channels by paying more, and I my bandwidth is still not maxed out.
Basically, if I can take a service and 'extend' it on my own, I don't see why I should have to pay more without them giving me more (which they don't)
well, whatever way it is, javascript is NOT the way to go; js implementation is probably the single worst thing which is different in all browser implementations.
Slashdot Mirror
" I'm going to kill 'em all, Sir " - Todd in ' Soldier '
Mr. Volk has obviously been hidding under a rock for the past 20 years....
Neither do I, afterall, they're not selling MP3, so how can they lose money on something they don't sell?
I would have a big problem with this; as I just stated, noone of the RIAA is selling MP3s, and it is relying on other industries to subsidize its continued existance simply because they're incapable of adapting their business model to changes in technology. That's why I don't use services like MP3.com or MyPlay.com (because I know their use generates revenue for the RIAA), and why I feel justified of copying songs to CDR by the tax I have to pay on every last one of them.
RIAA needs to grow up and get with the program; it won't survive by forcing other companys to provide for it; nor by ignoring changes in the new economy.
I don't know how the RIAA could be so naive as to stick with old outdated business practices (I'm just sure IBM is still in business because they still only sell balances and typewriters, right?)
If you release you code to open source GPL, I don't see how you can yourself benefit financially from doing that; sure, it's nice for everyone else to have access to the code, but the person that programmed it does need food and shelter, you know.
I don't see open sourcing something because you feel forced to as any different that what this company is doing to this guy...unless someone can explain to me how someone can benefit financially from open sourcing their own software...
If it's so simple to buy something with just 1 click of your mouse, just how easy would it be to so fraudulently?
Suppose some cracker somehow gets some Amazon's customer's cookie (which apparently can be done through Gnutella and such if you're naively share your whole drive), and installs it on their browser, couldn't they just do '1 click frauds'.
I wonder if it's happened already...
If you cause a change in the price that the server sends you, then yes, it is illegal. But I feel that the retailer also has a responsibility, as blindly accepting any data from the client without checking its own internal database is just plain stupid!
Enjoy
Let's make all this irrelevant
Ok, I can see the reasoning behind this, and it's quite insightful.
However, do we really need a law that requires people to get explicit consent to forward an email, instead of just having the copyright holder sue whoever forwarded an email when appropriate.
As you said, people need to use common sense, but this law is just rediculous
Well, this just show how much little research (none) you AC's do.
Now I'm ROFL
So people didn't bother trying to get an 'alternative', or even learn about them, because it cost more since they paid this 'tax' regardless.
This is probably one of the many reasons why 'consumers were ignorant' about the options they had. MS manipulated the market to make their products standard.
My original reply stressed that is is Microsoft's fault that consumers were ignorant about their choices because of MS's actions.
And thats Microsofts fault? No, its the fault of the ignorant consumer.
Hmmm, let see: MS forces computer OEM/Resellers/etc to apply its 'Microsoft tax' to any computer sold, regardless if that computer includes any Microsoft software. Customers, not wanting to pay more when they purchase the system, decide to purchase the system with the MS crap^H^H^H^Hsoftware, and doesn't consider any other possible choices because of its implied higher cost.
And this isn't Microsoft's fault?
Also proves my point; RIAA relies on others to make money - ultimately will be their downfall.
Oh well, another service I won't use on the principal that I don't want to do anything that will generate revenue for Rich Imbecile Assholes of America
RIAA doesn't touch MyPlay.com, which allows ANY MP3 to be stored on its servers, without even checking if it's legit.
Here's my math:
Yep, RIAA is clueless.
( P.S. I think that should answer your question about prior art :) )
guess I was wrong
If you don't like it because it's different than a 'standard' license, then don't use the code; nobody's forcing you.
Let's stay on focus people.
People's arguments should be about the censorship issue, not racism (or sexism if you were to replace black/white with men/women in the article)
"You're too stupid to make an informed decision about what you want to see/discuss, so we'll make that decision for you."
This incident is exactly that; some 'authority' decides what is/is not appropriate for the general public (article doesn't mention if this was a school-only or public fair, but I think that's irrelevant anyways).
Some form of censorship is fine to protect some people (insert you really-gross-and-demeaning-example here), but broad censoring is too limiting; there should always be some option to have access to the uncensored form of the subject. How many times have I cursed when watching a TV comedy special where the language is censored, when they have SAP audio available on that channel and don't make use of it!
Normal (voice) phone line: I consider this a product; you can get a second outlet for no additional montly cost, this makes sense because you can't get any additional benefit out of it, since you can't have 2 people making 2 different calls on the same line. The second outlet is only a convienience.
When you get a second line and have to pay and additional monthly fee, that's fair since you do get extra benefits from that additional service (can now make 2 simultaneous calls, and you get an additional phone#). Any additonal service on each line will cost more per line, again fair since it's two different products
Cable TV: I consider this a service just like sharing IP on cable - Why pay and additional montly fee when by spending a little money once ($15 for a slipper / a bit more for IP sharing sw) you can already get additional use out of it (watching 2 programs on 2 different TVs / multiple computers on same IP).
It's not fair to have to pay a additional montly fee for basically no added benefit - I don't get any extra channels by paying more, and I my bandwidth is still not maxed out.
Basically, if I can take a service and 'extend' it on my own, I don't see why I should have to pay more without them giving me more (which they don't)
well, whatever way it is, javascript is NOT the way to go; js implementation is probably the single worst thing which is different in all browser implementations.
It's apparently the most standards compliant than any other browser, should it just simply be left behind, and users be told to use Mozilla?