ok, are there ANY numbers that back this up? I keep hearing AGAIN and AGAIN about how people are migrating to OS X in droves or something, but I never hear numbers to back it up - it's just gushing from Mac fanatics. Also, are these people moving from Wintel, Linux, et al, or from older versions of Mac OS? I don't doubt that there are numbers on this somewhere, but I have yet to see them.
Anyone?
(finally, yes, I realize the irony of asking for statistics from a post that has a subject line like that.;-)
Well, at least you're honest... I wish more people could at least admit that if they could download full quality, complete albums, with a good selection and good speeds, that they'd never pay for music again, because in a lot of cases, it's the truth. I only wish people would at least 'fess up and stop making fucking excuses and laying the blame on someone else.
On the other hand, fuck you for being a cheap sod and making it hard for music lovers who actually want to give something back, and giving the RIAA an excuse to DRM the fuck out of everything.
Actually I figured I'd get modded up at least once - it was flamebait, but I figured it was satirical enough to get +1, Funny... but not +1, Insightful. THAT'S comedy.;-)
Well of course it's flamebait. Duh. It was trolling satire of the sadly frequent attitude of "Fuck the man! I want Free Beer! The world owes me, dammit!", seen here on/. that oversimplifies just as badly as my *intentional* oversimplification. It was meant partly as thought provocation and partly as my own entertainment. >;-)
Big Business not getting their fair profits? Boo-fucking-hoo...
Agreed completely, but...
I'm not saying it's ok to download copyrighted music because the music biz sucks, but until sanity is restored, my rights as a consumer are protected, and the artists get their fair shake, I say fuck 'em.
And by "fuck 'em", I assume you mean, "I'll download their shit anyhow and not give the sods a red cent!" I wish I could go along with this, but I can't. Even though they rip the artists off, it's still breaking the law, and instead of getting a meager proportion of that sale, when people just *take* it without paying for it, that GUARANTEES the artist gets NOTHING instead. This just turns bad into worse! I'm not for putting up with it, either, but my point is: two wrongs don't make a right. It's wrong ethically, and it's wrong practically too. When you pit a (somewhat justified) law breaking public againt moneyed scumbags that ARE in the scope of the law, guess who wins? It's not us...
I think you missed my point, too. That comment wasn't aimed at you, obviously. My point was that the people that bitch endlessly about the RIAA, but then go and DOWNLOAD RIAA music anyhow, are hypocrites and are ruining the potential of p2p for legit uses by invoking the unholy wrath of the RIAA/MPAA on *everyone*.
What Napster did was "filesharing", in the traditional and well-known networking sense: A given file was placed on a network and made accessible to others on the network. Or are you morally opposed to MS Windows "share folder" mechanism, too?
No, because it wasn't explicitly designed to capitalize on others ripping off artists (though also, by happy coincidence, ripping off crap corporate entities like the **AAs)
As I said in another post, you're right, it's NOT stealing or piracy, just as much as it's not really *sharing* either. It's copyright violation, which is something related to theft, but not the same, as it doesn't deprive the original author of the property itself. What's needed is a concise term for that sort of thing, as "copyright violation" is a mouthful, and covers too broad a range - some copyrights are bullshit, like Disney's proposals to extend copyright to infinity, ie: no Public Domain-ing of works, ever. Unfortunately, I don't think such a term is forthcoming... people are generally too polarized on the issue to agree on a non-polarized term for the kind of copyright violations that occur on p2p networks.
If someone took GPL code but violated the license, well, that would breach-of-contract and also copyright infringement -- both well-defined crimes but neither "stealing".
I know that, but some people think of it that way, and I was trying to provoke thought rhetorically, and at the same time, amuse myself with a little flamebait.;)
My questions were rhetorical, and not aimed at someone with a clue, which you appear to have.
However, if you won't respect copyright "in its current form", how do you make the distinction between what is and isn't acceptable? (note: that *wasn't* rhetorical;) Do you believe the GPL, or any other Free/OSS licenses are valid? They rely on the very same assumptions about IP...
wuh? that was called "beam-it", and it wasn't about sharing. It was about availablity of your music digitally at any location. Where exactly did "sharing" come into play with this service?
No, it's blocked because Napster set up a service specifically designed to allow people to "share" their MP3's. You can't honestly tell me they were trying to capitalize on legal trading. There isn't (yet) much of a market for that. Same thing with AG. If Napster, AG, et al were really into legal trading, they'd make a Napster-like frontend to MP3.com.
Yes, that's it! It's ALL the RIAA's fault! They MADE you download the software, and held a gun to your head to click that "Install" button. Then they theatened to asault your families if you didn't "share"* as many MP3s as you could!
* what a laughable term for what Napster was about. Yeah, it wasn't "stealing" in the traditional dictionary definition, but what would you have said if someone were "sharing" binary-only modified copies of GPL'd software? Would that still be sharing? Or would it now be stealing?
For that matter, if the music the RIAA put out was SOOOO bad, why are all you jerkoffs so desperate to get your hands on it via Napster, Gnutella, et al? You're as shitty as the **AA fuckers you're supposedly against.
Finally, for the record, I am a GPL-phile. This doesn't mean I'm for "Everything should be Free Beer!", but rather that I feel I must have a degree of respect for ALL intellectual property rights, even the ones that I think suck, excepting, of course, anything that skirts honest Fair Use.
That said, dare to challenge your views! And feel free to mod me down, bitches! I have no fear of/. hypocricy!
And while this isn't a court ruling, I think one would have a hard time finding a programmer worth his/her salt that would say that the evidence doesn't look incredibly incriminating.
Re:I can just see it now...
on
Linuxworld Fun
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Unfortunately, that probably won't happen. Outfitted with a video card and mobo with QUALITY drivers, Windows XP, which is no doubt what they'll be pimping with, is pretty damn stable. It's got plenty of OTHER issues, but stability isn't really one of them.
I think what we can all laugh about is their absurd new licensing program, or their ridiculous notion that they could acheive the critical mass necessary to put Palladium into effect, or that stupid "Tablet PC" crap.
Incidently, who the fuck wants a tablet PC? Seems like a neutered laptop to me, but for 85% of the price. No thanks. At $200, they'd be a great toy, nothing more.
America Online plans to stick with Internet Explorer for their Windows client
Where does it say this? The linked article just says "no major changes", but that could be taken any number of ways, like "no major user-visible changes". I'm guessing he average AOL user won't be able to tell the difference between an IE based AOL and a Gecko one.
I really don't think we'll know which way AOL is going until 8.0 is actually released.
This is the way it should be. I don't mind paying extra for my service, but what I can't stand is being told "Sorry, even though you're willing to pay a hell of a premium over our Joe Sixpack service, we just don't feel like serving you." Yeah, I realize that economies of scale dictate that the connoisseurs among us can't always be catered to, but good lord am I tired of having to put up with the market's Lowest Common Denominator fetish.
Now they just need to allow for serving in their ToS - allow ANY type of server, so long as you're not slinging spam or distributing pr0n or w4r3z. (well, the pr0n might be ok, but since it's assuredly someone else's copyrighted works, that eighty-sixes the idea of running a porn site on your cable modem.)
Now if only they could write some decent drivers for once in their lives.
This is true, but their latest drivers, what they're branding "Catalyst" are supposedly very very solid. Time will tell, naturally, but most of the tech sites have had nice things to say about them. (incidently, better quality or not, I still can't fscking believe they're branding their drivers... oh, well.)
secondly, about your sig: the "Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing" quote is NOT anonymous. It's from jwz, a rather famous (among geeks) Linux user.;)
Actually, you may have hit it on the head. While the method of decoding Vorbis is frozen, so any file encoded as Vorbis will decode with files from future Vorbis encoders, the encoder is not frozen. Given that iTunes is supposed to be a "total solution" for music, 'rip, mix, burn', as they put it, perhaps they're waiting for when they can make a total solution out of Vorbis, encoding and decoding. Before that happens, they'll surely wait for 1.0 to come out in its final form.
While I have to disagree with this strategy, it's better than the grim possibility that they don't EVER plan to support it.:(
Slashdot Mirror
ok, are there ANY numbers that back this up? I keep hearing AGAIN and AGAIN about how people are migrating to OS X in droves or something, but I never hear numbers to back it up - it's just gushing from Mac fanatics. Also, are these people moving from Wintel, Linux, et al, or from older versions of Mac OS? I don't doubt that there are numbers on this somewhere, but I have yet to see them.
;-)
Anyone?
(finally, yes, I realize the irony of asking for statistics from a post that has a subject line like that.
yeah! Kickass PWEI reference! :)
Well, at least you're honest... I wish more people could at least admit that if they could download full quality, complete albums, with a good selection and good speeds, that they'd never pay for music again, because in a lot of cases, it's the truth. I only wish people would at least 'fess up and stop making fucking excuses and laying the blame on someone else.
On the other hand, fuck you for being a cheap sod and making it hard for music lovers who actually want to give something back, and giving the RIAA an excuse to DRM the fuck out of everything.
Why, thank you!
;-)
Actually I figured I'd get modded up at least once - it was flamebait, but I figured it was satirical enough to get +1, Funny... but not +1, Insightful. THAT'S comedy.
Well of course it's flamebait. Duh. It was trolling satire of the sadly frequent attitude of "Fuck the man! I want Free Beer! The world owes me, dammit!", seen here on /. that oversimplifies just as badly as my *intentional* oversimplification. It was meant partly as thought provocation and partly as my own entertainment. >;-)
Big Business not getting their fair profits? Boo-fucking-hoo...
Agreed completely, but...
I'm not saying it's ok to download copyrighted music because the music biz sucks, but until sanity is restored, my rights as a consumer are protected, and the artists get their fair shake, I say fuck 'em.
And by "fuck 'em", I assume you mean, "I'll download their shit anyhow and not give the sods a red cent!" I wish I could go along with this, but I can't. Even though they rip the artists off, it's still breaking the law, and instead of getting a meager proportion of that sale, when people just *take* it without paying for it, that GUARANTEES the artist gets NOTHING instead. This just turns bad into worse! I'm not for putting up with it, either, but my point is: two wrongs don't make a right. It's wrong ethically, and it's wrong practically too. When you pit a (somewhat justified) law breaking public againt moneyed scumbags that ARE in the scope of the law, guess who wins? It's not us...
I think you missed my point, too. That comment wasn't aimed at you, obviously. My point was that the people that bitch endlessly about the RIAA, but then go and DOWNLOAD RIAA music anyhow, are hypocrites and are ruining the potential of p2p for legit uses by invoking the unholy wrath of the RIAA/MPAA on *everyone*.
What Napster did was "filesharing", in the traditional and well-known networking sense: A given file was placed on a network and made accessible to others on the network. Or are you morally opposed to MS Windows "share folder" mechanism, too?
;)
No, because it wasn't explicitly designed to capitalize on others ripping off artists (though also, by happy coincidence, ripping off crap corporate entities like the **AAs)
As I said in another post, you're right, it's NOT stealing or piracy, just as much as it's not really *sharing* either. It's copyright violation, which is something related to theft, but not the same, as it doesn't deprive the original author of the property itself. What's needed is a concise term for that sort of thing, as "copyright violation" is a mouthful, and covers too broad a range - some copyrights are bullshit, like Disney's proposals to extend copyright to infinity, ie: no Public Domain-ing of works, ever. Unfortunately, I don't think such a term is forthcoming... people are generally too polarized on the issue to agree on a non-polarized term for the kind of copyright violations that occur on p2p networks.
If someone took GPL code but violated the license, well, that would breach-of-contract and also copyright infringement -- both well-defined crimes but neither "stealing".
I know that, but some people think of it that way, and I was trying to provoke thought rhetorically, and at the same time, amuse myself with a little flamebait.
My questions were rhetorical, and not aimed at someone with a clue, which you appear to have.
;) Do you believe the GPL, or any other Free/OSS licenses are valid? They rely on the very same assumptions about IP...
However, if you won't respect copyright "in its current form", how do you make the distinction between what is and isn't acceptable? (note: that *wasn't* rhetorical
wuh? that was called "beam-it", and it wasn't about sharing. It was about availablity of your music digitally at any location. Where exactly did "sharing" come into play with this service?
...is now blocked because of the RIAA.
No, it's blocked because Napster set up a service specifically designed to allow people to "share" their MP3's. You can't honestly tell me they were trying to capitalize on legal trading. There isn't (yet) much of a market for that. Same thing with AG. If Napster, AG, et al were really into legal trading, they'd make a Napster-like frontend to MP3.com.
Yes, that's it! It's ALL the RIAA's fault! They MADE you download the software, and held a gun to your head to click that "Install" button. Then they theatened to asault your families if you didn't "share"* as many MP3s as you could!
/. hypocricy!
* what a laughable term for what Napster was about. Yeah, it wasn't "stealing" in the traditional dictionary definition, but what would you have said if someone were "sharing" binary-only modified copies of GPL'd software? Would that still be sharing? Or would it now be stealing?
For that matter, if the music the RIAA put out was SOOOO bad, why are all you jerkoffs so desperate to get your hands on it via Napster, Gnutella, et al? You're as shitty as the **AA fuckers you're supposedly against.
Finally, for the record, I am a GPL-phile. This doesn't mean I'm for "Everything should be Free Beer!", but rather that I feel I must have a degree of respect for ALL intellectual property rights, even the ones that I think suck, excepting, of course, anything that skirts honest Fair Use.
That said, dare to challenge your views! And feel free to mod me down, bitches! I have no fear of
And you, instead, should get "-1, RTFA"
the proof is RIGHT ON THE FRONT PAGE
And while this isn't a court ruling, I think one would have a hard time finding a programmer worth his/her salt that would say that the evidence doesn't look incredibly incriminating.
I think what we can all laugh about is their absurd new licensing program, or their ridiculous notion that they could acheive the critical mass necessary to put Palladium into effect, or that stupid "Tablet PC" crap.
Incidently, who the fuck wants a tablet PC? Seems like a neutered laptop to me, but for 85% of the price. No thanks. At $200, they'd be a great toy, nothing more.
Probably an ASIC - some hardware dedicated to doing just MP3 encoding. It's also probably CBR MP3s, which are much easier to encode quickly than VBR.
;)
So to answer your question, no, I wouldn't say it's all THAT impressive.
Where does it say this? The linked article just says "no major changes", but that could be taken any number of ways, like "no major user-visible changes". I'm guessing he average AOL user won't be able to tell the difference between an IE based AOL and a Gecko one.
I really don't think we'll know which way AOL is going until 8.0 is actually released.
...multipurposity...
;-)
Oh my god! Dubya posts to slashdot!
(sorry, couldn't help it...
Not to sound stupid, but why is this special? Who are Bitboys and why should I know them? Anyone care to fill me in?
This is the way it should be. I don't mind paying extra for my service, but what I can't stand is being told "Sorry, even though you're willing to pay a hell of a premium over our Joe Sixpack service, we just don't feel like serving you." Yeah, I realize that economies of scale dictate that the connoisseurs among us can't always be catered to, but good lord am I tired of having to put up with the market's Lowest Common Denominator fetish.
Now they just need to allow for serving in their ToS - allow ANY type of server, so long as you're not slinging spam or distributing pr0n or w4r3z. (well, the pr0n might be ok, but since it's assuredly someone else's copyrighted works, that eighty-sixes the idea of running a porn site on your cable modem.)
Somebody mod that up. ;)
Somehow I doubt the Real Linus(TM) reads Slashdot.
For the most part, you're sadly correct on much of what you said.
On the bright side, though, Linux actually has working tuner and capture drivers for a lot of ATI hardware here at the gatos project.
secondly, about your sig: the "Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing" quote is NOT anonymous. It's from jwz, a rather famous (among geeks) Linux user.
same thing here...
Actually, you may have hit it on the head. While the method of decoding Vorbis is frozen, so any file encoded as Vorbis will decode with files from future Vorbis encoders, the encoder is not frozen. Given that iTunes is supposed to be a "total solution" for music, 'rip, mix, burn', as they put it, perhaps they're waiting for when they can make a total solution out of Vorbis, encoding and decoding. Before that happens, they'll surely wait for 1.0 to come out in its final form.
:(
While I have to disagree with this strategy, it's better than the grim possibility that they don't EVER plan to support it.