"I seriously doubt it. IANAL, but there's a fundamental flaw in his logic. He likens "Snapster" to a mutual fund, but he somehow concludes that *every shareholder* is entitled to the full value of the fund. In what universe is this true?"
No thats not what I said. When you buy credits/shares or however you want to word it, this represents money, YOUR money. Credits can be refilled via purchasing them, or via distribution(work).
Lets say a song is 50 credits, lets say you earn 20 credits each time you distribute a song, when you distribute 2 songs, you now have earned enough credits(money) to buy a new song, and then you have 0 credits again, and when someone downloads from you enough times eventually you get your credits back but if you want to be a hog then you pay up.
This is fair, whats wrong with this logic?
I'd guess that each shareholder would be entitled to have about 1.5 albums worth of music downloaded to their hard drive at a time
Well I dont know, my post wasnt about the snapster model, my post was about my model which I think is better than the snapster model.
And while that persion holds a given set of songs, nobody else can have them. When the songs are "returned," the next person can get them.
I addressed this issue, allow the musicians to sign away their distributing rights to us, and in exchange we get to decide along with the musicians how to license the music to the consumer.
Why? Because the musician needs us to actually distribute their music for free, and we wont distribute music for free unless we get something in return, if this means free music, well then we get free music, this means we work for the musician and in exchange the musician works for us.
Or we get money, and in this case we work for the musicians and make money.
Why would people need to spam? Its the musicians job to advertise. Also P2P programs which connect to this network will produce automatic advertising.
Napster never once needed an ad, people looking for mp3s on napster never needed ads, Its simple. The musician advertises their music on their website, the person clicks the magnet URI or whatever and in bit torrent style it downloads the song while charging the downloader in credits.
The advertising is done by the musician via websites, and the P2P services which people use, like Napster2 or whatever is out during this time.
There is no need for banner ads unless people try to get greedy and actually make lots of money doing this, but if thats the case, thats capitalism.
The solution for musicians and music fans is for us to become the distributors of music legally.
The solution for musicians and music fans is for us to become the distributors of music legally.
How?
We replace the RIAA and distribute music via P2P systems.
The solution is a P2P system which intergrates into the web, there also needs to be a payment mechanism, (maybe paypal?)
Users buy credits in this system, credits represent dollars and cents. So how do you get into the system? You buy in by buying music from fans who are already in the system.
Say you are an indie musician, you make a bunch of music and you create a website, you then intergrate this system onto your website, allowing people to download off a certain P2P network via your site, almost like magnet links. The person who downloads from your site pays.50 cent per mp3 download, however the mp3 isnt downloaded from the musicians site, the mp3 is downloaded from the distrinbutor which happens to be a person who previously paid their way into the system by buying an mp3.
So the fans take the place of the RIAA as distributor and take 25 cent of the 50 cent, so the musician gets 25 cent and the fan gets 25cent or 25 credits. When the fan gets 50 credits they can then go buy another song, so its a system which allows you the filesharer to get unlimited access to music (Free Music) because you become distributor, you legally pay the musician for the music so the musician is happy.You may even make a bit of money. Everyone Wins.
Consumer/Downloader --> $ = $ --> Distributor&Creator , Consumers = Distributors & Downloaders. A closed system where we are the distributors, the creators, the owners of the intellectual property, and we get paid while having access to unlimited free music.
You get free music as long as you share. Musicians get paid. New people have to pay their way into the system but once they do, they get free music or money, whichever they choose.
If we can put the RIAA out of business, alot of the famous musicians which everyone likes would agree to such a setup.
Let them sue 60 million people, and when people decide to stop buying CDs and start buying indie music, the RIAA can then attempt to pass new laws forcing us to buy CDs each month else we go to jail.
What happens when the RIAA sues Laura Bush and its on national TV? Or will they try to cover it up and keep it quite while applogizing and begging for forgiveness?
I'm just waiting for them to sue that wrong person, or that wrong kid and find out they sued Bill Gates daughter or something.
I thought it was kinda strange for republicans to have all these easy landslide victories suddenly.
Interesting.
Re:Republicans give entitlements too
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 1
Now you are spinning.
The top five percent earners STILL PAY 50% of the tax burden, while nearly 50% of income earners pay NO income tax. Tell me how this does NOT favor the poor in an overwhelming way?
The top five percent of earners pay 50 percent, how much does the top 1% of earners pay compared to that top 5%? Go look up the statistics on that one.
while nearly 50% of income earners pay NO income tax.
This means alot of Americans are living in poverty.
When you calculate taxes you dont calculate it in big lumps, you calculate the percentage of each persons income goes to taxes.
The top 1% does not pay an equal percentage of their income in taxes as the bottom 99%. Bill Gates should be paying billions of dollars in taxes but hes not, the taxes are capped at around $80,000. This means the middle class pays the highest percentage of their income in taxes. Lower class usually pays no taxes but they are homeless and cant even pay rent, middle class usually pays over 30% of their income in taxes, and upper middle class can pay up to 50% of their income in taxes.
This percentage however goes down after a certain point because of a cap, so millionaires dont pay 30% of their income in taxes. I however think they should pay 30% of their income in taxes because everyone else does.
Dont give me "Well the rich pay a greater amount of money in taxes". Thats illogical because the rich also make most of the money so of course they will pay the highest number value in taxes, turn that number into PERCENTAGES and things change.
Now, tell me about this $80k cap... I've never heard of it. Income taxes are a percentage, not a fixed dollar amount.
Warren Buffet pays only 3% in federal taxes!! 3%, this comes directly from the mouth of Warren Buffet the second richest man on planet earth.
You and I pay 30%, Warren Buffet pays 3%!!!
Heres a quote from Mr. Buffet Let me, as a member of that non-endangered species, give you an example of how the scales are currently balanced. The taxes I pay to the federal government,including the payroll tax that is paid for me by my employer, Berkshire Hathaway, are roughly the same proportion of my income -- about 30 percent -- as that paid by the receptionist in our office. My case is not atypical -- my earnings, like those of many rich people, are a mix of capital gains and ordinary income -- nor is it affected by tax shelters (I've never used any). As it works out, I pay a somewhat higher rate for my combination of salary, investment and capital gain income than our receptionist does. But she pays a far higher portion of her income in payroll taxes than I do.
Did you read that?
Now the Senate says that dividends should be tax-free to recipients. Suppose this measure goes through and the directors of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and seemy tax rate plunge to 3 percent.
Have you heard of the social security tax? Its CAPPED!
The OASI program is currently funded by a payroll tax of 10.6 percent on labor income (wages, salaries, and self-employment income), with a cap on earnings subject to the OASI tax. In 2001, the maximum taxable amount (the cap) is $80,400. This amount is indexed to change annually by the rate of growth in the average wage. http://www.heritage.org/R
Just because I could in theory go on welfare now, because I'm poor, doesnt mean its easier to live on welfare.
The government makes you work while on welfare, you have absolutely no privacy while on welfare, you lose freedom, you must sign tons of paper work, and the check really isnt even that big, maybe enough money to buy food.
Instead of being on welfare, I myself just get free food when its offered. I mean thats all welfare pays for, FOOD, unless you have kids.
I'd think Universal healthcare does benefit the middle class, thats a democrat idea,
You are right democrats use money to provide a safety net, and Republicans want you to have no safety net.
But please do not assume Republicans dont waste money, Republicans waste more of your money than the Democrats.
Who is giving 15 billion to Africa? 20 billion to Turkey, billions to Afganastan, Billions to isreal, HUNDREDS of billions rebuilding Iraq.
All of these countries are essentially on welfare thanks to the Republicans, the same Republicans dont want you to have welfare.
Iraq will have Universal Healthcare, Africa will have Universal Healthcare, both countries get free food, Isreal is getting economic support, Schools are being built in these countries, guess what, ALL WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS!
Republicans give welfare to the third world, Democrats give welfare domestically.
NEITHER ARE CONSERVATIVE. Both want to make government bigger, Republicans just want to pretend like they are conservative by cutting taxes while they spend a fortune and grow government.
I think the Democrats cater to the middle class moreso than the Republicans, Welfare was reformed under president Clinton, Under Clinton your salary rose greater than it did in 30 years, you had middle class people finally starting to buy stock!
The Democrats were responsible for creating a BIGGER middle class, they create a bigger middle class by helping the lower class rise up to middle class, once you get to middle class theres not so much help, but by having a safety net, and having a way out of the middle class, it helps with class mobility.
In a Republican world, based on their ideology, there is no way to move up in class, its impossible.
How can you get a better job if theres no public schools ? How can you move up in class without financial aid to help you pay for college? How can you move up in class if you dont live long enough to do so, because theres no universal healthcare?
Republicans want to limit competition by keeping the classes seperate, its divide and conquer, while the middle class and lower middle class fight over stuff like welfare and entitlements, they continue to take more of Americans resources from you while you do all the work to create it.
So yeah Republicans are smarter than Democrats, because they have you doing all the work like a bunch of slaves while they take all the credit, money, and reap all the benefits.
You cant have healthcare even though you are the nurse in the hospital, but the CEO who does nothing but go to meetings and give speeches for a living, he has healthcare.
You kids dont get to go to school because you dont have the money to afford a private school, forget the fact that your kids may be smarter or work harder, but a richer yet dumber kid can go to a private school and get a free ride to Yale.
Is this fair? You work hard all your life and have nothing to show for it, but these lazy Republicans who happen to have been born rich, get to give themselves entitlements, tax cuts, etc?
Lets not forget Republicans have their welfare too, its called corperate welfare, when the rich CEO's company is about to go out of business, all they have to do is make a call to the Republican government and get a nice bailout, hell they might even get subsidies.
One phonecall to the FCC and they can take over the media. The Republicans control all the money, therefore they control America. The only way to g
Republicans give entitlements too
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 1
Farm subsidies,Steel subsidies, Money to Africa, Money to Iraq, Money to Afganastan, Money to Isreal, billions and billions of dollars of special interest tax breaks to the rich, why is there a cap on taxes? The $80,000 cap, why does it exist? What about giving the rich bigger tax cuts than the middle class? Isnt that an entitlement?
Yeah saving money for the rich
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 1
I dont save any money, I dont see republicans giving tax cuts to the poor, the ones who really need them.
Bush needs to make up his mind,
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 1
Either hes a conservative or hes a socialist, you cannot be in between because these two are polar opposites.
Its not the fact that hes religious, because I dont think anyone who believes in the death penalty is truely religious.
I just dont understand his logic because he doesnt follow any. You cant be conservative at home but a liberal internationally, giving countries welfare, and providing universal healthcare for Iraqis while not doing anything at home. Giving medicine, and money to fix AIDS in Africa but not spending any money to prevent SARs at home.
Bush is illogical and a hypocrite, hes spent more than Clinton yet says Democrats want big government? Government is bigger now than its ever been, thats not conservative.
If you download porn, the spyware programmed into Freenet will foward your IP to the RIAA, FBI, NSA, and then post it to a few hacking/warez newsgroups and forums.
Slashdot Mirror
Open source advocates?! What Open source advocates?
"I seriously doubt it. IANAL, but there's a fundamental flaw in his logic. He likens "Snapster" to a mutual fund, but he somehow concludes that *every shareholder* is entitled to the full value of the fund. In what universe is this true?"
No thats not what I said. When you buy credits/shares or however you want to word it, this represents money, YOUR money. Credits can be refilled via purchasing them, or via distribution(work).
Lets say a song is 50 credits, lets say you earn 20 credits each time you distribute a song, when you distribute 2 songs, you now have earned enough credits(money) to buy a new song, and then you have 0 credits again, and when someone downloads from you enough times eventually you get your credits back but if you want to be a hog then you pay up.
This is fair, whats wrong with this logic?
I'd guess that each shareholder would be entitled to have about 1.5 albums worth of music downloaded to their hard drive at a time
Well I dont know, my post wasnt about the snapster model, my post was about my model which I think is better than the snapster model.
And while that persion holds a given set of songs, nobody else can have them. When the songs are "returned," the next person can get them.
I addressed this issue, allow the musicians to sign away their distributing rights to us, and in exchange we get to decide along with the musicians how to license the music to the consumer.
Why? Because the musician needs us to actually distribute their music for free, and we wont distribute music for free unless we get something in return, if this means free music, well then we get free music, this means we work for the musician and in exchange the musician works for us.
Or we get money, and in this case we work for the musicians and make money.
Either way its fair.
Why would people need to spam? Its the musicians job to advertise. Also P2P programs which connect to this network will produce automatic advertising.
Napster never once needed an ad, people looking for mp3s on napster never needed ads, Its simple. The musician advertises their music on their website, the person clicks the magnet URI or whatever and in bit torrent style it downloads the song while charging the downloader in credits.
The advertising is done by the musician via websites, and the P2P services which people use, like Napster2 or whatever is out during this time.
There is no need for banner ads unless people try to get greedy and actually make lots of money doing this, but if thats the case, thats capitalism.
Its the same pyramid scheme that the RIAA uses!
So why not have us replace the RIAA in the current scheme?
If I'm Joe Indie, why would I want to let someone else take half the profit for "distributing" my music
Because this is better than letting the RIAA take 90% of the profit for distributing your music. I think 50/50 is a better deal than the current deal.
Its deliberate. Common sense, if I couldnt spell suicide I'd look in the online dictionary before posting here.
Ill dress up like a pirate instead
The solution for musicians and music fans is for us to become the distributors of music legally.
.50 cent per mp3 download, however the mp3 isnt downloaded from the musicians site, the mp3 is downloaded from the distrinbutor which happens to be a person who previously paid their way into the system by buying an mp3.
The solution for musicians and music fans is for us to become the distributors of music legally.
How?
We replace the RIAA and distribute music via P2P systems.
The solution is a P2P system which intergrates into the web, there also needs to be a payment mechanism, (maybe paypal?)
Users buy credits in this system, credits represent dollars and cents. So how do you get into the system? You buy in by buying music from fans who are already in the system.
Say you are an indie musician, you make a bunch of music and you create a website, you then intergrate this system onto your website, allowing people to download off a certain P2P network via your site, almost like magnet links. The person who downloads from your site pays
So the fans take the place of the RIAA as distributor and take 25 cent of the 50 cent, so the musician gets 25 cent and the fan gets 25cent or 25 credits. When the fan gets 50 credits they can then go buy another song, so its a system which allows you the filesharer to get unlimited access to music (Free Music) because you become distributor, you legally pay the musician for the music so the musician is happy.You may even make a bit of money. Everyone Wins.
Consumer/Downloader --> $ = $ --> Distributor&Creator , Consumers = Distributors & Downloaders. A closed system where we are the distributors, the creators, the owners of the intellectual property, and we get paid while having access to unlimited free music.
You get free music as long as you share. Musicians get paid. New people have to pay their way into the system but once they do, they get free music or money, whichever they choose.
If we can put the RIAA out of business, alot of the famous musicians which everyone likes would agree to such a setup.
What do you think?
Let them sue 60 million people, and when people decide to stop buying CDs and start buying indie music, the RIAA can then attempt to pass new laws forcing us to buy CDs each month else we go to jail.
We can throw our CDs into the habor!
What happens when the RIAA sues Laura Bush and its on national TV? Or will they try to cover it up and keep it quite while applogizing and begging for forgiveness?
I'm just waiting for them to sue that wrong person, or that wrong kid and find out they sued Bill Gates daughter or something.
I thought it was kinda strange for republicans to have all these easy landslide victories suddenly.
Interesting.
Now you are spinning.
.
The top five percent earners STILL PAY 50% of the tax burden, while nearly 50% of income earners pay NO income tax. Tell me how this does NOT favor the poor in an overwhelming way?
The top five percent of earners pay 50 percent, how much does the top 1% of earners pay compared to that top 5%? Go look up the statistics on that one.
while nearly 50% of income earners pay NO income tax.
This means alot of Americans are living in poverty
When you calculate taxes you dont calculate it in big lumps, you calculate the percentage of each persons income goes to taxes.
The top 1% does not pay an equal percentage of their income in taxes as the bottom 99%. Bill Gates should be paying billions of dollars in taxes but hes not, the taxes are capped at around $80,000. This means the middle class pays the highest percentage of their income in taxes. Lower class usually pays no taxes but they are homeless and cant even pay rent, middle class usually pays over 30% of their income in taxes, and upper middle class can pay up to 50% of their income in taxes.
This percentage however goes down after a certain point because of a cap, so millionaires dont pay 30% of their income in taxes. I however think they should pay 30% of their income in taxes because everyone else does.
Dont give me "Well the rich pay a greater amount of money in taxes". Thats illogical because the rich also make most of the money so of course they will pay the highest number value in taxes, turn that number into PERCENTAGES and things change.
Now, tell me about this $80k cap... I've never heard of it. Income taxes are a percentage, not a fixed dollar amount.
Read what Warren Buffet said http://www.ftlcomm.com/ensign/desantisArticles/200 2_700/desantis795/voodooEc.pdf
http://www.ftlcomm.com/ensign/desantisArticles/2 00 2_700/desantis795/voodooEc.pdf
Warren Buffet pays only 3% in federal taxes!! 3%, this comes directly from the mouth of Warren Buffet the second richest man on planet earth.
You and I pay 30%, Warren Buffet pays 3%!!!
Heres a quote from Mr. Buffet Let me, as a member of that non-endangered species, give you an example of how the scales are currently balanced. The taxes I pay to the federal government,including the payroll tax that is paid for me by my employer, Berkshire Hathaway, are roughly the same proportion of my income -- about 30 percent -- as that paid by the receptionist in our office. My case is not atypical -- my earnings, like those of many rich people, are a mix of capital gains and ordinary income -- nor is it affected by tax shelters (I've never used any). As it works out, I pay a somewhat higher rate for my combination of salary, investment and capital gain income than our receptionist does. But she pays a far higher portion of her income in payroll taxes than I do.
Did you read that?
Now the Senate says that dividends should be tax-free to recipients. Suppose this measure goes through and the directors of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and seemy tax rate plunge to 3 percent.
Have you heard of the social security tax? Its CAPPED!
The OASI program is currently funded by a payroll tax of 10.6 percent on labor income (wages, salaries, and self-employment income), with a cap on earnings subject to the OASI tax. In 2001, the maximum taxable amount (the cap) is $80,400. This amount is indexed to change annually by the rate of growth in the average wage.
http://www.heritage.org/R
If you had a job that matters to you this wouldnt be a problem
If theres no WiFi, what good is a PDA? I want to be able to get online, for free.
What about during the Reagan years? Your party always has been giving out money.
Republicans are not conservative.
Why should we give money to these countries? Why should we be protecting Isreal? I mean conservatives believe the poor should help themselves right?
So Bush is no conservative.
Why give 15 Billion to Africa? Let them solve the Aids problem themselves, and let Iraq rebuild their own damn country.
It doesnt matter how many votes you get, it matters what states you win.
The democrats dont NEED more votes, they need more states.
The big corperations will take Bush's tax cut money and use that to hire workers over seas.
So Bush is just giving more jobs to India.
Just because I could in theory go on welfare now, because I'm poor, doesnt mean its easier to live on welfare.
The government makes you work while on welfare, you have absolutely no privacy while on welfare, you lose freedom, you must sign tons of paper work, and the check really isnt even that big, maybe enough money to buy food.
Instead of being on welfare, I myself just get free food when its offered. I mean thats all welfare pays for, FOOD, unless you have kids.
I'd think Universal healthcare does benefit the middle class, thats a democrat idea,
You are right democrats use money to provide a safety net, and Republicans want you to have no safety net.
But please do not assume Republicans dont waste money, Republicans waste more of your money than the Democrats.
Who is giving 15 billion to Africa? 20 billion to Turkey, billions to Afganastan, Billions to isreal, HUNDREDS of billions rebuilding Iraq.
All of these countries are essentially on welfare thanks to the Republicans, the same Republicans dont want you to have welfare.
Iraq will have Universal Healthcare, Africa will have Universal Healthcare, both countries get free food, Isreal is getting economic support, Schools are being built in these countries, guess what, ALL WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS!
Republicans give welfare to the third world, Democrats give welfare domestically.
NEITHER ARE CONSERVATIVE. Both want to make government bigger, Republicans just want to pretend like they are conservative by cutting taxes while they spend a fortune and grow government.
I think the Democrats cater to the middle class moreso than the Republicans, Welfare was reformed under president Clinton, Under Clinton your salary rose greater than it did in 30 years, you had middle class people finally starting to buy stock!
The Democrats were responsible for creating a BIGGER middle class, they create a bigger middle class by helping the lower class rise up to middle class, once you get to middle class theres not so much help, but by having a safety net, and having a way out of the middle class, it helps with class mobility.
In a Republican world, based on their ideology, there is no way to move up in class, its impossible.
How can you get a better job if theres no public schools ? How can you move up in class without financial aid to help you pay for college? How can you move up in class if you dont live long enough to do so, because theres no universal healthcare?
Republicans want to limit competition by keeping the classes seperate, its divide and conquer, while the middle class and lower middle class fight over stuff like welfare and entitlements, they continue to take more of Americans resources from you while you do all the work to create it.
So yeah Republicans are smarter than Democrats, because they have you doing all the work like a bunch of slaves while they take all the credit, money, and reap all the benefits.
You cant have healthcare even though you are the nurse in the hospital, but the CEO who does nothing but go to meetings and give speeches for a living, he has healthcare.
You kids dont get to go to school because you dont have the money to afford a private school, forget the fact that your kids may be smarter or work harder, but a richer yet dumber kid can go to a private school and get a free ride to Yale.
Is this fair? You work hard all your life and have nothing to show for it, but these lazy Republicans who happen to have been born rich, get to give themselves entitlements, tax cuts, etc?
Lets not forget Republicans have their welfare too, its called corperate welfare, when the rich CEO's company is about to go out of business, all they have to do is make a call to the Republican government and get a nice bailout, hell they might even get subsidies.
One phonecall to the FCC and they can take over the media. The Republicans control all the money, therefore they control America. The only way to g
Farm subsidies,Steel subsidies, Money to Africa, Money to Iraq, Money to Afganastan, Money to Isreal, billions and billions of dollars of special interest tax breaks to the rich, why is there a cap on taxes? The $80,000 cap, why does it exist? What about giving the rich bigger tax cuts than the middle class? Isnt that an entitlement?
I dont save any money, I dont see republicans giving tax cuts to the poor, the ones who really need them.
Either hes a conservative or hes a socialist, you cannot be in between because these two are polar opposites.
Its not the fact that hes religious, because I dont think anyone who believes in the death penalty is truely religious.
I just dont understand his logic because he doesnt follow any. You cant be conservative at home but a liberal internationally, giving countries welfare, and providing universal healthcare for Iraqis while not doing anything at home. Giving medicine, and money to fix AIDS in Africa but not spending any money to prevent SARs at home.
Bush is illogical and a hypocrite, hes spent more than Clinton yet says Democrats want big government? Government is bigger now than its ever been, thats not conservative.
Not all Democrats are Liberal or Progressive.
Dean is a moderate, not a liberal, just like Bush isnt a real conservative, hes a moderate.
Meaning not everything they do follows their ideology.
The potential he has to revolutionize politics is worth voting for.
I dont agree with everything he says, but hes the only politician who actually cares what we think.
If you download porn, the spyware programmed into Freenet will foward your IP to the RIAA, FBI, NSA, and then post it to a few hacking/warez newsgroups and forums.
Freenet is NOT a pornster program.