So in reality what's going to happen is that companies will not compensate volunteers at all. So now they'll either get totally free labor or things that were nice to have someone to do won't get done. If forced to pay "market rate" for these services, the companies will simply drop most of them. Either way, the communities are hurt more than the companies. Another instance of our wonderful government, which is just doing this to "protect us", you know, sticking their nose where it don't belong.
Be sure to let Al "Inventor of the internet" Gore know just how you feel about this (and demand fair compensation for the work you've put in adding value to his invention).
From reading, the NYU FAQ, I'd have, say that while, advocating that all DDS, students learn computer skills, they don't, feel the same skill, level is necessary, in terms of grammar, and punctuation.
"As a culture, it mistakes mechanical skills -- like programming an operating system -- with technological knowledge and power."
Look no further than the dreaded MP3 format. Pure Power. Enough to kill an entire industry.
The beauty of tech knowledge is that when applied properly it ends the argument. In fact, it usually simply obsoletes the entire argument. The genie cannot be returned to the bottle. The music industry as it exists today is dead. No amount of legislation can change that. None.
Postage paid on the return card, my dear boy. So it will cost them something, even if they never send out more snail mail pamphlets. And they can spam my hotmail email all they want.
And give congressmen some credit, they know all about the "grassroots" numbers games. Who do you think invented it?
Swell their ranks. It'll cost 'em something to send out snail mails. Check the box that sasy you're willing to attend "town hall meetings" and then show up and help support the "freedom to innovate" in your own little ways. It doesn't matter how many people they sign up, it won't impress anyone, but maybe we can dilute their resources a bit.
Man, that's a slap and a half. If it works out. In any case, it's a huge gun to pull out and should help redefine exactly where everyone stands on the ol' power meter.
I'm glad the law exists, really. When you think about it, copyright should never be used the way the RIAA is using it. They aren't trying to protect the rights of the artists, they're trying to protect their market share, and that's just not what the law is for.
Re:Genetic design is still a *long* way off...
on
Frankenstein Time
·
· Score: 1
While I agree Monday's annoucement was just the start, it seems people never take into account that progress is not just advancing, it's accelerating. Sure, we've got a long way to go, but the basics are there and we'll be moving along much faster now.
How long were people saying it would take to reach this point when they started the project?
I don't think it will take anywhere near the entire next century to gain a reasonably full understanding of the genome and how to use it.
I stopped reading when I got to the part about it being hard to imagine a society more poorly eqipped blah blah blah. It's amazingly easy to imagine such a society, and if the author can't, I find it hard to believe he's got anything else to say that's worth listening to. While I suspect he's trying to get attention, all he did was *completely* blow credibility. Therefore this is a miserably falied article. One of the least successful ever posted. Someone engineer it out of existence, please.
Really poorly equipped imagination
on
Frankenstein Time
·
· Score: 1
Nazi Germany. There. A society more poorly equipped to deal with the HGP than the modern US. That wasn't hard at all Jon. You really need to put a bit more effort into it.
(ps- imperial rome, the mongols, oog the caveman tribe, pretty much any society that thought they were better than than neighbors and were willing to kill to prove it. Geez, just two seconds thought Jon)
Searching for a file name is not a copyright violation. Downloading copyrighted material would be, but the users wouldn't be doing that. they'd be downloading a "boobie trap". Even if that file is copyrighted, it's misrepresenting what it is , so downloading that can hardly be illegal.
Sounds like he's breaking laws by sneaking unauthorized software onto users' machines. Isn't there an anti-hacking law abotu trojan horses?
Since noone else has said it... If it's at all feasible, please open the source to all Looking Glass games. If it belongs to someone else, I understand, but don't let it go to waste if noone else's interests are at stake. Make it a last act of goodwill to the fans.
Can I pay per song anywhere on the net? For anything, I don't care, doesnt have to be a band I've heard of. I want to see the "pay per song" model in action. If it's not, why not? Micropayments an obstacle? Attention all VC- here's a killer app waiting for someone to get rich off of.
Would only accelerate the move to gnutella. Counting on it not having a usable interface is a bad business plan. Instead of trying to fight this losing battle (right or wrong, there's no way to win it), they'd be better off figuring out how to profit from the new model. I have to say, I'm constantly amazed at how poorly people understand the implications of the internet. I'm clearly underpaid.
If U2 wants to use this channel as a promotional tool, why should they not be able to? Would you take that choice away from them Do they not have the right to distribute their art as they choose? And then there are the regionally or locally known bands that could use this tool to gain wider recognition. A savvy marketer really should have no trouble seeing how to use Napster as a method of making a band bigger (assuming the music doesn't suck, of course, and even then...)
"The ONLY use for napster is illegal trading". It's not- you're wrong. Just modify your statement to "The MAIN use for napster is illegal trading" and we're fine. Hyperbole does your argument no good.
Where did I say artists should not have the right to choose? They can choose not to, but I think they're going to have a tough time of it. Business environments change, people who change with the times thrive more than those who don't. I know it frightening to think about, but it's the way the world has worked since day 2 (which was of course a change from day 1).
You quite clearly said it existed for one reason only- to illegaly copy copyrighted material. You've been shown you're wrong. Just admit it and move on like a rational person.
"Napster exists for only one reason: To create an illegal market for copyrighted material. "
You're simply wrong, and there's no getting around it. You assume that all copyrighted material in unavailable for legal trading, and that's just not true. Some artists do in fact want to give their work away, for promotional reason or just cause they're great people. Not all file trading is illegal, nor will that ever be the case. In fact, the successful artists of the future will be those that embrace the new model.
I see where DMCA is mentioned in the letter, but I don't trade secrecy mentioned in the DMCA itself. MS is saying their doc is copyrighted and that's why DMCA applies. Is the argument that this doc could not be copyrighted if it were not a trade secret? If so, any pointers to where this is spelled out? I'm just trying to get a handle on this...
Slashdot Mirror
So in reality what's going to happen is that companies will not compensate volunteers at all. So now they'll either get totally free labor or things that were nice to have someone to do won't get done. If forced to pay "market rate" for these services, the companies will simply drop most of them. Either way, the communities are hurt more than the companies. Another instance of our wonderful government, which is just doing this to "protect us", you know, sticking their nose where it don't belong.
Be sure to let Al "Inventor of the internet" Gore know just how you feel about this (and demand fair compensation for the work you've put in adding value to his invention).
From reading, the NYU FAQ, I'd have, say that while, advocating that all DDS, students learn computer skills, they don't, feel the same skill, level is necessary, in terms of grammar, and punctuation.
"As a culture, it mistakes mechanical skills -- like programming an operating system -- with technological knowledge and power."
Look no further than the dreaded MP3 format. Pure Power. Enough to kill an entire industry.
The beauty of tech knowledge is that when applied properly it ends the argument. In fact, it usually simply obsoletes the entire argument. The genie cannot be returned to the bottle. The music industry as it exists today is dead. No amount of legislation can change that. None.
Who was it that had the power again?
According to the people who founded the US, anyway.
Postage paid on the return card, my dear boy. So it will cost them something, even if they never send out more snail mail pamphlets. And they can spam my hotmail email all they want.
And give congressmen some credit, they know all about the "grassroots" numbers games. Who do you think invented it?
Swell their ranks. It'll cost 'em something to send out snail mails. Check the box that sasy you're willing to attend "town hall meetings" and then show up and help support the "freedom to innovate" in your own little ways.
It doesn't matter how many people they sign up, it won't impress anyone, but maybe we can dilute their resources a bit.
Man, that's a slap and a half. If it works out. In any case, it's a huge gun to pull out and should help redefine exactly where everyone stands on the ol' power meter.
I'm glad the law exists, really. When you think about it, copyright should never be used the way the RIAA is using it. They aren't trying to protect the rights of the artists, they're trying to protect their market share, and that's just not what the law is for.
While I agree Monday's annoucement was just the start, it seems people never take into account that progress is not just advancing, it's accelerating. Sure, we've got a long way to go, but the basics are there and we'll be moving along much faster now.
How long were people saying it would take to reach this point when they started the project?
I don't think it will take anywhere near the entire next century to gain a reasonably full understanding of the genome and how to use it.
A society controlled by corporations that places no value on individualism.
There, that's also worse than the current US society. Again, two seconds of imagination.
Admit it, Katz made a stupid statement.
I stopped reading when I got to the part about it being hard to imagine a society more poorly eqipped blah blah blah. It's amazingly easy to imagine such a society, and if the author can't, I find it hard to believe he's got anything else to say that's worth listening to. While I suspect he's trying to get attention, all he did was *completely* blow credibility. Therefore this is a miserably falied article. One of the least successful ever posted. Someone engineer it out of existence, please.
Nazi Germany.
There. A society more poorly equipped to deal with the HGP than the modern US. That wasn't hard at all Jon. You really need to put a bit more effort into it.
(ps- imperial rome, the mongols, oog the caveman tribe, pretty much any society that thought they were better than than neighbors and were willing to kill to prove it. Geez, just two seconds thought Jon)
So why are we surprised that 50 year old information is leaking>?
Searching for a file name is not a copyright violation. Downloading copyrighted material would be, but the users wouldn't be doing that. they'd be downloading a "boobie trap". Even if that file is copyrighted, it's misrepresenting what it is , so downloading that can hardly be illegal.
Sounds like he's breaking laws by sneaking unauthorized software onto users' machines. Isn't there an anti-hacking law abotu trojan horses?
Then the government might make of an effort to protect them. Seems to work for the RIAA.
It's Microsoft after all.
I'm willing to pay per song for music downloads, but noone offers this service. does noone want my money?
Since noone else has said it... If it's at all feasible, please open the source to all Looking Glass games. If it belongs to someone else, I understand, but don't let it go to waste if noone else's interests are at stake. Make it a last act of goodwill to the fans.
Can I pay per song anywhere on the net? For anything, I don't care, doesnt have to be a band I've heard of. I want to see the "pay per song" model in action. If it's not, why not? Micropayments an obstacle? Attention all VC- here's a killer app waiting for someone to get rich off of.
Would only accelerate the move to gnutella. Counting on it not having a usable interface is a bad business plan. Instead of trying to fight this losing battle (right or wrong, there's no way to win it), they'd be better off figuring out how to profit from the new model. I have to say, I'm constantly amazed at how poorly people understand the implications of the internet. I'm clearly underpaid.
If U2 wants to use this channel as a promotional tool, why should they not be able to? Would you take that choice away from them Do they not have the right to distribute their art as they choose? And then there are the regionally or locally known bands that could use this tool to gain wider recognition. A savvy marketer really should have no trouble seeing how to use Napster as a method of making a band bigger (assuming the music doesn't suck, of course, and even then...)
"The ONLY use for napster is illegal trading". It's not- you're wrong. Just modify your statement to "The MAIN use for napster is illegal trading" and we're fine. Hyperbole does your argument no good.
Where did I say artists should not have the right to choose? They can choose not to, but I think they're going to have a tough time of it. Business environments change, people who change with the times thrive more than those who don't. I know it frightening to think about, but it's the way the world has worked since day 2 (which was of course a change from day 1).
You quite clearly said it existed for one reason only- to illegaly copy copyrighted material. You've been shown you're wrong. Just admit it and move on like a rational person.
"Napster exists for only one reason: To create an illegal market for copyrighted material. "
You're simply wrong, and there's no getting around it. You assume that all copyrighted material in unavailable for legal trading, and that's just not true. Some artists do in fact want to give their work away, for promotional reason or just cause they're great people. Not all file trading is illegal, nor will that ever be the case. In fact, the successful artists of the future will be those that embrace the new model.
I see where DMCA is mentioned in the letter, but I don't trade secrecy mentioned in the DMCA itself. MS is saying their doc is copyrighted and that's why DMCA applies. Is the argument that this doc could not be copyrighted if it were not a trade secret? If so, any pointers to where this is spelled out? I'm just trying to get a handle on this...