Maybe we should look on the bright side. eBay is preventing one more person from using a god-forsaken, POS OS. Maybe they should get a nice card or something. </SARCASM>
Um. Just wondering... Has anyone patented the process of auctioning something online. Hey, if POST and GET can be covered, I don't see why this can't? Why not get the patent and charge eBay a nice, juicy fee?
I'm listening to the mp3 of this debate, and while O'Reilly isn't coming across nearly as smoothly as Todd Dickson, the Patent Office Director is rude, condescending, interruptive and fairly often either twisting O'Reilly's arguments, answering what he never asked, or ignoring them outright.
For example, O'Reilly is trying to bring up the point that the system heavily favors corporations, Dickson is just talking right over him and saying the small guy has recourse - utterly ignoring the point that he's trying to make.
There was one point where O'Reilly asked if a legal argument should be patentable (an excelent question), Dickson evaded the real point of the question by saying it should if it fell under all the rules. That's not what he was asking - he wanted to know if it was reasonable, not legal.
Lars spake: But record companies will never be completely extinct, for one reason and one reason only, that there will always be a need to develop younger artists, and record companies will always be able to play a big part of that, because this whole thing about "I'm a young band, I'm an upstart band, I'm going to put my music on Napster, and then I'm going to become successful?" Fantasy. The only way you you will become successful is by having a publicity and promotion campaign behind you that elevates what you're doing above what your competition is doing.
While I've gained much respect for Lars with this interview (much of it lost with the infamous "commodity" statement), I have to wonder if he's lost sight of what music should be. If labels want to mitigate their exposure to bands that never go anywhere, let them look at tools like mp3.com, Napster or Gnutella, see who is being traded heavily (how many people come back to get more from the same artist might be a good barometer) and then sign that band.
At least Lars is being a man about this, sticking up for a cause he believes in and admits when he's wrong (again, the commodity comment). But I'm not sure he realizes what he's up against. The road isn't steep, it's untraversable. I don't much like his genre, but they're legendary. Let him take the lead in where this debate is going. He certaintly has the floor.
The PPI's first point is simply that if a company or service wants to claim innocence as a common carrier then it should be ready to cough up user info if the users participate in criminal endeavors through their service.
I don't see anyone asking Yahoo to provide their name and address, despite the fact that they can post copyright infringing material there as well. How is Napster any different?
I'm not so much worried about losing my ability to raid MP3's from other people, I'm worried about free speech. I know this is viewed with considerable skepticism, but...
I like to compare it to the ACLU defending the KKK in court. They understand that if you don't defend everyone's right to free speech, if you allow inroads to occur, then everyone is in jeapordy. Understanding this fundamental truth is critical. To abandon Napster is to denounce this premise outright.
No, what I have is a probability of free speech. I used to be afraid of my government. Now I'm afraid of a multinational with my government as a lackey.
To make an analogy, the separatists who formed this country didn't have freedom until they won.
I have to wonder how many dry/unusable offshore drilling rigs there are. Sounds like something that major oil would like to turn around to make some profit from. Just use satelites for your link. Yeah, the ping would suck but this isn't exactly for Q3 enthusiasts. And as for pirates, just hire some serious security.
I think the market would be considerable, to say the least. I know I'd pay gladly for freedom of speech. Lord knows we don't have it here.
Do you realize that you basically regurgitated the article? I read the comments to maybe get some alternate opinions or insight, not the Readers Digest version posing as.
Who rated this funny? His first point is a very non-trivial issue and his second is insightful (if a bit ahead of ourselves). I guess I missed the funny part.
Probably not a good question to ask Metallica, but I can understand this line of logic. One of the first things I did was download every Bran Van 3000 song I could find (I own a copy of their only release). I haven't a clue as to where that CD is now...hmmm. I wonder if I can get in trouble now.
A road is seen as property. NSI is claiming that your domain is more akin to a phone number. They are claiming - and the courts are backing them up - that you can't lose something that you don't own. This means that any losses aren't their responsibility.
This isn't a hypothetical, this is occuring as I type this. Which part of this do you disagree with??
I don't mind if they have that language in there to cover themselves just as I don't mind Amazon applying for a patent to cover their butts.
What I do mind is when Amazon sues Barnes & Noble. This is offensive rather than defensive. In the same light, I take umbrage when NSI uses such tactics to screw the original owner of Sex.com and positions themselves to do it in the future.
I can't imagine NSI doing anything to muck it up as wouldn't that make them libel for business losses?
Are you entirely missing the point here?? NSI cannot be responsible for your losses because they're saying the domain isn't yours in the first place. They can - and are - doing damage to people's businesses and the courts are backing them (read: Sex.com).
I had to pause before posting this (because it looks like flamebait at first glance), but the community should be figuring out how to cram a spinning lawnmower up the financial tailpipe of NSI, not how to organize damage control. I mean, pardon the knee-jerk reaction, but this positively rivals the audacity of any FUD that MS has thrown our way.
I'd say this calls for a Stallman-esque boycot of NSI. Find out about places like dotster.com or processing innovations (I have a domain registered with each). This is absolute bull****, and I'm sorry to see the community diving for shelter. How many/. readers sit in a position to select which registrars their company uses? Just a few, I'd guess...
I'm certaintly no defender of these laws, but you're still in violation. You're not allowed to download something, even if you own a copy of it legally. It's only "legal" if you make the copy yourself.
MP3.com was offering a service whereby you put your own disk into the tray, it "beams" the music up (actually just notes that you own a valid copy) and then you can play it from anywhere (they have a copy of the same disk at their location). As you know, they lost.
Irrespective of whose 'side' you support, you have to admire the 'street smart' fighting of Metallica.
I'm not sure how you can call it clever when all anyone has to do is (a) get a new account or (b) move to another (better?) method (gnutella?). What they've done is alienate a segment of their fanbase - or at least get a good chuckle out of them. They've also managed to spend a lot of money on bottom-feeders (ie, lawyers) to stop exactly zero transmissions of their...[ahem], art.
Times are a-changin', fellow/. reader. This cat isn't getting back in the bag. Moxy Fruvous? Macy Grey? G Love & Special Sauce? Wamdue Project? All artists that I certaintly wouldn't have bought a CD from...until I heard the whole thing via Napster. Now I'll buy a few of them, only to toss in my closet - just to be fair, really. I'm going out and buying a Limp Bizkit CD or two. He was dead-on-balls accurate when he said that only people with large bank accounts tend to get their panties in a bind from Napster.
So no, I'm not even remotely impressed with Metallica's streetwise accumen. This is the hacker community, and we flow around lawyers like Jolt around geek tonsils. Oh, and someone might want to tell Lars that he shouldn't bring a knife to a gunfight.
If I recall correctly, Napster said that they would ban users if the violated artists would attest under pains of perjury that certain people were trading in the copyrighted material.
My question is, is having a song called "Metallica - One.mp3" on my machine proof enough? I mean, a name is an arbitrary thing. I can legally name every file on my computer microsoft.txt without violating any laws!
So when they (Metallica, et al) submit these names, did they just list whoever had something with the word "Metallica" in their index or do they have to prove (again, under pains of perjury) that this was an actual Metallica song?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe we should look on the bright side. eBay is preventing one more person from using a god-forsaken, POS OS. Maybe they should get a nice card or something.
</SARCASM>
My
Quux26
Um. Just wondering... Has anyone patented the process of auctioning something online. Hey, if POST and GET can be covered, I don't see why this can't? Why not get the patent and charge eBay a nice, juicy fee?
.02
My
Quux26
I hate lawyers because they have a vested interest in making people fight. A lot.
.02
My
Quux26
For example, O'Reilly is trying to bring up the point that the system heavily favors corporations, Dickson is just talking right over him and saying the small guy has recourse - utterly ignoring the point that he's trying to make.
There was one point where O'Reilly asked if a legal argument should be patentable (an excelent question), Dickson evaded the real point of the question by saying it should if it fell under all the rules. That's not what he was asking - he wanted to know if it was reasonable, not legal.
This guy is such a lawyer.
.02
My
Quux26
But record companies will never be completely extinct, for one reason and one reason only, that there will always be a need to develop younger artists, and record companies will always be able to play a big part of that, because this whole thing about "I'm a young band, I'm an upstart band, I'm going to put my music on Napster, and then I'm going to become successful?" Fantasy. The only way you you will become successful is by having a publicity and promotion campaign behind you that elevates what you're doing above what your competition is doing.
While I've gained much respect for Lars with this interview (much of it lost with the infamous "commodity" statement), I have to wonder if he's lost sight of what music should be. If labels want to mitigate their exposure to bands that never go anywhere, let them look at tools like mp3.com, Napster or Gnutella, see who is being traded heavily (how many people come back to get more from the same artist might be a good barometer) and then sign that band.
At least Lars is being a man about this, sticking up for a cause he believes in and admits when he's wrong (again, the commodity comment). But I'm not sure he realizes what he's up against. The road isn't steep, it's untraversable. I don't much like his genre, but they're legendary. Let him take the lead in where this debate is going. He certaintly has the floor.
.02
My
Quux26
So what is Richard Stallman doing about open-sourcing the act of getting laid?
.02
My
Quux26
I don't see anyone asking Yahoo to provide their name and address, despite the fact that they can post copyright infringing material there as well. How is Napster any different?
I'm not so much worried about losing my ability to raid MP3's from other people, I'm worried about free speech. I know this is viewed with considerable skepticism, but...
I like to compare it to the ACLU defending the KKK in court. They understand that if you don't defend everyone's right to free speech, if you allow inroads to occur, then everyone is in jeapordy. Understanding this fundamental truth is critical. To abandon Napster is to denounce this premise outright.
.02
My
Quux26
To make an analogy, the separatists who formed this country didn't have freedom until they won.
.02
My
Quux26
I think the market would be considerable, to say the least. I know I'd pay gladly for freedom of speech. Lord knows we don't have it here.
.02
My
Quux26
Do you realize that you basically regurgitated the article? I read the comments to maybe get some alternate opinions or insight, not the Readers Digest version posing as.
.02
My
Quux26
Now THAT is funny as hell.
.02
My
Quux26
Who rated this funny? His first point is a very non-trivial issue and his second is insightful (if a bit ahead of ourselves). I guess I missed the funny part.
.02
My
Quux26
Probably not a good question to ask Metallica, but I can understand this line of logic. One of the first things I did was download every Bran Van 3000 song I could find (I own a copy of their only release). I haven't a clue as to where that CD is now ...hmmm. I wonder if I can get in trouble now.
.02
My
Quux26
"What's an internet?"
[Thanks, Bill]
.02
My
Quux26
A road is seen as property. NSI is claiming that your domain is more akin to a phone number. They are claiming - and the courts are backing them up - that you can't lose something that you don't own. This means that any losses aren't their responsibility.
This isn't a hypothetical, this is occuring as I type this. Which part of this do you disagree with??
Yeesh.
.02
My
Quux26
What I do mind is when Amazon sues Barnes & Noble. This is offensive rather than defensive. In the same light, I take umbrage when NSI uses such tactics to screw the original owner of Sex.com and positions themselves to do it in the future.
Subtle, but quite different.
.02
My
Quux26
Are you entirely missing the point here?? NSI cannot be responsible for your losses because they're saying the domain isn't yours in the first place. They can - and are - doing damage to people's businesses and the courts are backing them (read: Sex.com).
Yeesh.
.02
My
Quux26
This action should have dispelled any notion you had that NSI will avoid an action because it makes them look like doddering morons. Really.
.02
My
Quux26
I'd say this calls for a Stallman-esque boycot of NSI. Find out about places like dotster.com or processing innovations (I have a domain registered with each). This is absolute bull****, and I'm sorry to see the community diving for shelter. How many /. readers sit in a position to select which registrars their company uses? Just a few, I'd guess...
.02
My
Quux26
Lawyer Rule #1: Don't sue poor people.
.02
My
Quux26
Note that MP3.com was just hammered for this very act this week. I can make my own copy, but MP3.com can't make one for me.
.02
My
Quux26
MP3.com was offering a service whereby you put your own disk into the tray, it "beams" the music up (actually just notes that you own a valid copy) and then you can play it from anywhere (they have a copy of the same disk at their location). As you know, they lost.
.02
My
Quux26
I'm not sure how you can call it clever when all anyone has to do is (a) get a new account or (b) move to another (better?) method (gnutella?). What they've done is alienate a segment of their fanbase - or at least get a good chuckle out of them. They've also managed to spend a lot of money on bottom-feeders (ie, lawyers) to stop exactly zero transmissions of their ...[ahem], art.
Times are a-changin', fellow /. reader. This cat isn't getting back in the bag. Moxy Fruvous? Macy Grey? G Love & Special Sauce? Wamdue Project? All artists that I certaintly wouldn't have bought a CD from ...until I heard the whole thing via Napster. Now I'll buy a few of them, only to toss in my closet - just to be fair, really. I'm going out and buying a Limp Bizkit CD or two. He was dead-on-balls accurate when he said that only people with large bank accounts tend to get their panties in a bind from Napster.
So no, I'm not even remotely impressed with Metallica's streetwise accumen. This is the hacker community, and we flow around lawyers like Jolt around geek tonsils. Oh, and someone might want to tell Lars that he shouldn't bring a knife to a gunfight.
.02
My
Quux26
That happened right about the time they released "Load".
.02
My
Quux26
If I recall correctly, Napster said that they would ban users if the violated artists would attest under pains of perjury that certain people were trading in the copyrighted material.
.02
My question is, is having a song called "Metallica - One.mp3" on my machine proof enough? I mean, a name is an arbitrary thing. I can legally name every file on my computer microsoft.txt without violating any laws!
So when they (Metallica, et al) submit these names, did they just list whoever had something with the word "Metallica" in their index or do they have to prove (again, under pains of perjury) that this was an actual Metallica song?
My
Quux26