So form your own music organization with all the superior qualities you're always bitching about. Undersell the existing record companies.
I'd bet you'd go under though, because I doubt very much you have any idea how the record industry works- probably not even where the MAJORITY of the money, time, and effort goes. Hint: it aint in making music or pressing Cds. But if you tried to run a comapny based on sell an album based only on those two costs, as you zealots are always claiming you'll do, you'd die almost immediately.
Even if your argument made sense, which it hardly does, why do YOU have the right to decide that you deserve that single? Even if it did "cost them nothing" what right do you have to determine those are the terms over which you can have what you want? If you break into a clothing store afterhours and steal promotional hats that they'd be giving away the next day- it's still stealing.
All people like you want is a simple easy moral justification for getting what you want. And it's always nonsense.
And anyways, you don't "create more value" at all. That you wanted that song, and thus WOULD have been willing to pay at least something for it, is the very proof that someone could have sold it to you. Maybe no one realizes this, but that HARDLY justifies you taking it on your own terms. Geezus- why not just go out and play Purple Haze in your garage you lazy slashdotter.
A war the music industry started years ago? I don't remember any declaration of war. Look, if you don't like the terms that the Cd is sold under DON'T BUY IT. If you don't like the little legal disclaimer that says that your purchase price does NOT cover the right of making copies for distribution, then DON'T BUY IT. If the record companies really are doing something wrong, then why don't you form a company and show them how it's really done?
Fact is: record companies COULD sell their Cds with the price of the right to copy and distribute the data included. But I'd bet they charge lots more for it than a regular Cd, because that's a very valuable right.
That they don't choose to do this is their choice. Either buy it or reject it, but don't try to tell me that you're striking some moral blow against evil execs by stealing it.
I don't know what the heck your holy "war" is all about, but I suspect it DOES just all boil down to: you're just as greedy as the record execs.
Bullshit. The central problem here, which this article makes perfectly clear, is that someone who owns and creates something has every right to sell it under any terms they want. If those terms suck, no one will buy it. Just because people want something does not mean they deserve to have it- especially not on terms THEY choose.
Piddling about what file format the music comes in is just plain cheap. It's like saying that just because a car doesn't come in red, you have the right to steal a car and paint it red. Now obviously Intellectual Property is a whole different ballgame. But the issue there is that it's very hard to regulate and define- NOT that people have any moral right to what they want.
Metalica wants to sell their music in Cd format only? You think that bussiness model sucks? Fine- drive them out of bussiness with your own wussy rock band and its leet online distribution. But you don't have the right to change the terms of their sale just because you don't like it, or because you think they're behind the times.
And seriously, it's maddening how little anyone knows about the real costs of the music industry anyway. People go on and on about Cd pressing as if that was even a drop in the bucket of what it takes to make, market, and promote a hit band (plus lots of bands that never get a hit).
Now I hate the way the commercial music biz works and degrades musical spirit, but the fact is, musicians trade their song rights and autonomy for that chance that the record comapny can make them famous and rich. You may think that's sickening, but it's a choice they make, and the legal terms they agree to. If you don't like it, well, no one is forcing you to buy their music. Downloading it off the internet for free and claiming you're "freeing" it is a thin lie to conceal that you DO want the music produced in that way- huge promotional charges, slick studios- it proves that you want that, and like anyone else, you just want it for free.
So: here's your high horse, and here's "off." I'd suggest "off."
They great hting about the way the CN does these shows is that they play the end narration "Will Gku defeat Freeza?!!!!" and then, two seconds later, they display the title of tommorow's episode, which is entitled "Freeza Defeated!"
My absolute favorite was the chilled narration about "Did Goku survive the destruction of Planet Namek?" and then: tommorow's ep title: "Goku's ALIVE!"
According to doctrine free market theory- contracts are indeed inherently anti-competative. I.E.- in a true free market, one should be able to sell what they have at any time without loss.
BUT!!!! That theory was developed with a very strict idea of what one could buy- namely physical products. As usual, intellectual property is a big problem. Because instead of buying an actual book, one can also buy "5 minutes with book A." Now obviously the logistics of the latter are problematic. But one might say that the binding contract is not so much a market restriction as it is a device to allow an physical object called "5 minutes with book A" to exist in the world. It is an artifical way to sell something that isn't normally available in such a discreetly divided way.
Ok, let me be a little more clear: the Simpsons writing has gone downhill. Don't get me wrong- I've always LOVED the wackiness- I love humor that's totally random and out there. But the Simpsons used to be very politically savvy and incisive and intelligent. It's just not anymore. Don't get me wrong- there has been some great stuff in there this last season, but way too many of the episodes were just awful- they didn't feel like anything but regular Fox drivel.
The Simpsons have gotten really uneven- Futurama is definately where all the real Groening focus is now. And it's great.
Dini would impress me more if he hadn't gotteb sucked into the whole teenybopper market with Batman Beyond. That show's had some AWFUL episodes (like the Rat boy one, or "Terry's friend dates a Robot") which Batman and even Superman never had. He's hoping to retool it so- great stuff in the pipes like the Justice League and returning to Batman stories of the past. The straight to video Beyond movie might be good too.
As for the best of Dini though- did anyone catch Superman: Legacy? Fox aired it really early in the morning after delaying it for an entire year- it wasn't quite as brutal and controversial as everyone expected, but it was an amazing two parter, with a titanic Superman/Darksied battle at the end.
One of the most interesting paradoxes in the free market is that many firms, which are larger than entire economies, are NOT run in a free market manner. I mean, they might as well be old-style communism internally, in the sense that production is organized centrally. So why are they the inevitable form taken in free-market capitalism? Several reasons- the advantages to scale in the sorts of markets we find in modern world, the effect of corporate legal status, and the phenomenon of moral diversification (it's complex, but basically, corporations are beholden to stock holders- but there are so many stock holders, and so many of these holders hold shares in so many companies that they don't care about anything but profit. This is not to say the stock holders dont care about any social goods- but rather that their interest in every individual company they own is so small that profit is the only motive that effectively survives in toto)
I kind of like the sort of world where the incentive is to make the best product, thanks.
If Microsoft attained their standing and wide-spread domination via anti-competative means, fine, but you can't blame consumers for using what they like best. That's them creating the most important incentive for the future of all: the incentive to try to actually produce something superior to everything else. Sorry, but that's what counts in the end, and that's where things will end up when all is said and done.
Regardless, no one has made any sort of convincing argument as to why these users deserve free music. The arguments here all biol down to "you can't stop us- neener neener!" and "you're stupid and misinformed." Guess what- it doesn't matter if Lars is a complete fool (and despite his relative net innocence, I think this interview showed to me that he's not)- he has a right to say what can be done with his stuff. You're welcome to hate him for it. You're even welcome to point out that such efforts don't hurt the industry or bands (which I'm still not sure about, and I don't think anyone else has a legitimate ability to be sure about either) or even that its benefical via free advertising. It's still his stuff, which was released under his terms. Maybe he's behind the times. Maybe it's counterproductive. But that's HIS decision to make. If it kills Metalica's future, maybe he'll learn. But it in no way justifies stealing. It is entirely hypocritical to claim to hate the state of the music industry and then to take their music all the same.
This just in- some guy from Romulus has opinion! He wont tell anyone what it is though, because no one can measure up to his standards. But damn- he sure thought the interview was stupid!
According to current law, sorry - you have to repurchase in ALL those cases. Isn't it nice how legislation works when industries get to write their own regulations?:(
What most people forget to factor in is that these companies include a lot of other costs into an "artist." Namely, they spend millions of dollars to make their talent famous in the first place- those promotional costs far outweigh the cost of CD production. The way the recording industry sees it- they built these artists into global and unique phenomenons, and they should be definately be able to profit from this temporary monopoly. (or else why risk it? Plenty of artists they bank often fail to break even with the promotional costs they spend on them) This certainly doesn't absolve music companies of price inflation, but it's a much more realistic picture than simply looking at the cost of making Cds.
Amen to that brother. People don't always have to be a part of some holy war. At the very least, it's just a cool thing to do. Whether it actually plays any role in the OS world at large is antoher issue, but it's not like this dude is forcing anyone to start using it.
Re:Netscape won't show the .png screenshots! :-(
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 2
I'm not sure this is the standard png (but then again, I dont know much about png)- when i look at those shots in IE5, a quicktime logo briefly appears, and then the screenshot fills the window. It resizes with the window as well- pretty neat, but that quicktime logo bodes for bad things... is IE not displaying png natively?
Sorry, taking the ENTIRE original work and then modifying it is not a fair use parody. You are certainly welcome to emulate the parodied conent, but using it wholesale generally loses, like those "Dilhole" cartoons. You can draw your own cartoons that roughly look like Dilbert and say they are a parody, but you can't take Dilbert comic itself and change the text bubbles and call it fair use. The ringworks guy takes a much smarter approach- he claims that this is akin to simply looking at the original content through "dialect" goggles. Essentially that his program is a filter, not a work or art in itself. This is a much more useful argument.
What the heck are you talking about "incorrect"- you basically just repeated what I said. I just put the word ISAPI beofre "module." Let me say that again- it has to be run as a module for persistent connections to work. It cannot do them when run as a CGI, as many windows users have to.
Hi. Please bother to READ the comments you are responding to- they didn't have Outlook, but they did have Win9x. VBS scripts will run regardless of whether or not you have outlook.
The Wall Street Journal is probably not going to criticize a big company, even in an unbiased news report. And the editorial staff, all arch-corporate conservative as it is, would NEVER print something even slightly suggested that the free market activity of a company would be wrong.
Moderation is not JUST doen by users (and even watched over by users)- it is also totally optional. You can view the moderation as simply a "display" layer placed over the comments- you can freely view them with or without the logic of this display layer in place.
Slashdot Mirror
So form your own music organization with all the superior qualities you're always bitching about. Undersell the existing record companies. I'd bet you'd go under though, because I doubt very much you have any idea how the record industry works- probably not even where the MAJORITY of the money, time, and effort goes. Hint: it aint in making music or pressing Cds. But if you tried to run a comapny based on sell an album based only on those two costs, as you zealots are always claiming you'll do, you'd die almost immediately.
Even if your argument made sense, which it hardly does, why do YOU have the right to decide that you deserve that single? Even if it did "cost them nothing" what right do you have to determine those are the terms over which you can have what you want? If you break into a clothing store afterhours and steal promotional hats that they'd be giving away the next day- it's still stealing. All people like you want is a simple easy moral justification for getting what you want. And it's always nonsense. And anyways, you don't "create more value" at all. That you wanted that song, and thus WOULD have been willing to pay at least something for it, is the very proof that someone could have sold it to you. Maybe no one realizes this, but that HARDLY justifies you taking it on your own terms. Geezus- why not just go out and play Purple Haze in your garage you lazy slashdotter.
A war the music industry started years ago? I don't remember any declaration of war. Look, if you don't like the terms that the Cd is sold under DON'T BUY IT. If you don't like the little legal disclaimer that says that your purchase price does NOT cover the right of making copies for distribution, then DON'T BUY IT. If the record companies really are doing something wrong, then why don't you form a company and show them how it's really done? Fact is: record companies COULD sell their Cds with the price of the right to copy and distribute the data included. But I'd bet they charge lots more for it than a regular Cd, because that's a very valuable right. That they don't choose to do this is their choice. Either buy it or reject it, but don't try to tell me that you're striking some moral blow against evil execs by stealing it. I don't know what the heck your holy "war" is all about, but I suspect it DOES just all boil down to: you're just as greedy as the record execs.
Bullshit. The central problem here, which this article makes perfectly clear, is that someone who owns and creates something has every right to sell it under any terms they want. If those terms suck, no one will buy it. Just because people want something does not mean they deserve to have it- especially not on terms THEY choose. Piddling about what file format the music comes in is just plain cheap. It's like saying that just because a car doesn't come in red, you have the right to steal a car and paint it red. Now obviously Intellectual Property is a whole different ballgame. But the issue there is that it's very hard to regulate and define- NOT that people have any moral right to what they want. Metalica wants to sell their music in Cd format only? You think that bussiness model sucks? Fine- drive them out of bussiness with your own wussy rock band and its leet online distribution. But you don't have the right to change the terms of their sale just because you don't like it, or because you think they're behind the times. And seriously, it's maddening how little anyone knows about the real costs of the music industry anyway. People go on and on about Cd pressing as if that was even a drop in the bucket of what it takes to make, market, and promote a hit band (plus lots of bands that never get a hit). Now I hate the way the commercial music biz works and degrades musical spirit, but the fact is, musicians trade their song rights and autonomy for that chance that the record comapny can make them famous and rich. You may think that's sickening, but it's a choice they make, and the legal terms they agree to. If you don't like it, well, no one is forcing you to buy their music. Downloading it off the internet for free and claiming you're "freeing" it is a thin lie to conceal that you DO want the music produced in that way- huge promotional charges, slick studios- it proves that you want that, and like anyone else, you just want it for free. So: here's your high horse, and here's "off." I'd suggest "off."
Uh, it is- under manual as "error," as well as being prominetly featured in the php config file.
They great hting about the way the CN does these shows is that they play the end narration "Will Gku defeat Freeza?!!!!" and then, two seconds later, they display the title of tommorow's episode, which is entitled "Freeza Defeated!" My absolute favorite was the chilled narration about "Did Goku survive the destruction of Planet Namek?" and then: tommorow's ep title: "Goku's ALIVE!"
According to doctrine free market theory- contracts are indeed inherently anti-competative. I.E.- in a true free market, one should be able to sell what they have at any time without loss. BUT!!!! That theory was developed with a very strict idea of what one could buy- namely physical products. As usual, intellectual property is a big problem. Because instead of buying an actual book, one can also buy "5 minutes with book A." Now obviously the logistics of the latter are problematic. But one might say that the binding contract is not so much a market restriction as it is a device to allow an physical object called "5 minutes with book A" to exist in the world. It is an artifical way to sell something that isn't normally available in such a discreetly divided way.
Ok, let me be a little more clear: the Simpsons writing has gone downhill. Don't get me wrong- I've always LOVED the wackiness- I love humor that's totally random and out there. But the Simpsons used to be very politically savvy and incisive and intelligent. It's just not anymore. Don't get me wrong- there has been some great stuff in there this last season, but way too many of the episodes were just awful- they didn't feel like anything but regular Fox drivel.
The Simpsons have gotten really uneven- Futurama is definately where all the real Groening focus is now. And it's great. Dini would impress me more if he hadn't gotteb sucked into the whole teenybopper market with Batman Beyond. That show's had some AWFUL episodes (like the Rat boy one, or "Terry's friend dates a Robot") which Batman and even Superman never had. He's hoping to retool it so- great stuff in the pipes like the Justice League and returning to Batman stories of the past. The straight to video Beyond movie might be good too. As for the best of Dini though- did anyone catch Superman: Legacy? Fox aired it really early in the morning after delaying it for an entire year- it wasn't quite as brutal and controversial as everyone expected, but it was an amazing two parter, with a titanic Superman/Darksied battle at the end.
One of the most interesting paradoxes in the free market is that many firms, which are larger than entire economies, are NOT run in a free market manner. I mean, they might as well be old-style communism internally, in the sense that production is organized centrally. So why are they the inevitable form taken in free-market capitalism? Several reasons- the advantages to scale in the sorts of markets we find in modern world, the effect of corporate legal status, and the phenomenon of moral diversification (it's complex, but basically, corporations are beholden to stock holders- but there are so many stock holders, and so many of these holders hold shares in so many companies that they don't care about anything but profit. This is not to say the stock holders dont care about any social goods- but rather that their interest in every individual company they own is so small that profit is the only motive that effectively survives in toto)
I kind of like the sort of world where the incentive is to make the best product, thanks.
If Microsoft attained their standing and wide-spread domination via anti-competative means, fine, but you can't blame consumers for using what they like best. That's them creating the most important incentive for the future of all: the incentive to try to actually produce something superior to everything else. Sorry, but that's what counts in the end, and that's where things will end up when all is said and done.
Regardless, no one has made any sort of convincing argument as to why these users deserve free music. The arguments here all biol down to "you can't stop us- neener neener!" and "you're stupid and misinformed." Guess what- it doesn't matter if Lars is a complete fool (and despite his relative net innocence, I think this interview showed to me that he's not)- he has a right to say what can be done with his stuff. You're welcome to hate him for it. You're even welcome to point out that such efforts don't hurt the industry or bands (which I'm still not sure about, and I don't think anyone else has a legitimate ability to be sure about either) or even that its benefical via free advertising. It's still his stuff, which was released under his terms. Maybe he's behind the times. Maybe it's counterproductive. But that's HIS decision to make. If it kills Metalica's future, maybe he'll learn. But it in no way justifies stealing. It is entirely hypocritical to claim to hate the state of the music industry and then to take their music all the same.
This just in- some guy from Romulus has opinion! He wont tell anyone what it is though, because no one can measure up to his standards. But damn- he sure thought the interview was stupid!
According to current law, sorry - you have to repurchase in ALL those cases. Isn't it nice how legislation works when industries get to write their own regulations? :(
What most people forget to factor in is that these companies include a lot of other costs into an "artist." Namely, they spend millions of dollars to make their talent famous in the first place- those promotional costs far outweigh the cost of CD production. The way the recording industry sees it- they built these artists into global and unique phenomenons, and they should be definately be able to profit from this temporary monopoly. (or else why risk it? Plenty of artists they bank often fail to break even with the promotional costs they spend on them)
This certainly doesn't absolve music companies of price inflation, but it's a much more realistic picture than simply looking at the cost of making Cds.
Amen to that brother. People don't always have to be a part of some holy war. At the very least, it's just a cool thing to do. Whether it actually plays any role in the OS world at large is antoher issue, but it's not like this dude is forcing anyone to start using it.
I'm not sure this is the standard png (but then again, I dont know much about png)- when i look at those shots in IE5, a quicktime logo briefly appears, and then the screenshot fills the window. It resizes with the window as well- pretty neat, but that quicktime logo bodes for bad things... is IE not displaying png natively?
Sorry, taking the ENTIRE original work and then modifying it is not a fair use parody. You are certainly welcome to emulate the parodied conent, but using it wholesale generally loses, like those "Dilhole" cartoons. You can draw your own cartoons that roughly look like Dilbert and say they are a parody, but you can't take Dilbert comic itself and change the text bubbles and call it fair use. The ringworks guy takes a much smarter approach- he claims that this is akin to simply looking at the original content through "dialect" goggles. Essentially that his program is a filter, not a work or art in itself. This is a much more useful argument.
I more meant the editorial page. The bussiness news in WSJ is second to none.
What the heck are you talking about "incorrect"- you basically just repeated what I said. I just put the word ISAPI beofre "module." Let me say that again- it has to be run as a module for persistent connections to work. It cannot do them when run as a CGI, as many windows users have to.
Hi. Please bother to READ the comments you are responding to- they didn't have Outlook, but they did have Win9x. VBS scripts will run regardless of whether or not you have outlook.
Slashdot stripped the funny part of my joke out!
The Wall Street Journal is probably not going to criticize a big company, even in an unbiased news report. And the editorial staff, all arch-corporate conservative as it is, would NEVER print something even slightly suggested that the free market activity of a company would be wrong.
This is a _damn_ funny solution, but probably a pain in the neck.
Moderation is not JUST doen by users (and even watched over by users)- it is also totally optional. You can view the moderation as simply a "display" layer placed over the comments- you can freely view them with or without the logic of this display layer in place.