a quick review of who said what should clear this up for you, I jumped in after your first reply.
Seeing how you like the "community" concept I doubt you would accept my law. So in response to *you* my point stands valid.
Hmm, you think so? Your point, IIRC, was "Generally, pathetic companies like DC are not allowed to grab people off the street and empty their wallets. They have to persuade people to make a voluntary exchange: goods or services for money." But my point was leaning towards the DeCSS situation rather than Cue::Cat. These companies are selling one thing under the guise of another, because you used the have the ability to access legally things you buy. Of course you still have that right, but the excercising of it become illegal (circumvention and what not). So yes, I do think most consumers are idiotic enough to be duped by such legislation. Mainly because it just isn't that big a deal to most people (as a side note, it is often those that don't care which are called idiots by those that do).
Hm... Market is not an entity, it's a mechanism by which certain things happen.
quoting you again.."You know, there is such a thing as "market". " The word has tons of meanings especially in this context. You can market something, or you can bring something to market. What I am referring to is the collective market that makes up our economy. A market being where you buy, sell, and trade things.
I don't really understand what do you mean by conflict in this context. It's true that governments (claiming to act as proxies for communities) often tried to restrict the market to further their own aim, usually to gain more power.
The government in this sense is restricting the community to the benefit and at the behest of the "market". Specifically the copyrightable artistic artifacts "market" (or at least its largest players).
To cut it short, I think we can use the Internet as a public broadcasting system on steroids. This can be done by the community as each member donates their own processing power and bandwidth. I think this would be a good thing, so stuff that makes it more difficult or illegal are therefore bad things. (just to clarify my stance and goal)
Seen any officially-approved Russian or Chinese movies recently?
Nope, so I have no way to judge their merit, and especially since I would be so unfamiliar with their respective cultures, my opinion on such things would be skewed dramatically. Unless you judge all things on production value, in that case, they would probably fall short of their American counterparts.
I personally don't think it's economical for my government to protect against the transmission of all digital artifacts to the sole benefit of their owners. If they can just keep assholes from selling it, I have no problems. But the real world cost of controlling such things will be astronomical, especially if you look at the human rights exchange rate (distribute a couple pieces of no cost electricity, go to jail). --
Do you think that any profit greater than X% (X determined by you) is amoral and should be confiscated by the government -- that is, "not allowed"?
Only if that profit was gained by curtailing my rights as a citizen. *EXACTLY* like they are in this situation.
Personally I think it's funny that you declare an exception to your own law when it would invalidate your own comments. It was a nice catch, but just because you catch yourself falling, doesn't mean you haven't just tripped.
There is such a thing as a "market", there is also such a thing as "community". These are two different entities, often in conflict. I think it is quite obvious which path the U.S. Congress has taken in this conflict. Personally, I look at the culture this has left us with and am sickened. Maybe we should veer the other direction for a little while. You might like it. Variety is the spice, baby. --
Poster enjoys alcohol, but has never gotten a DWI because he does not drink and drive (duh!). Sleep in your car!
If you follow this advice, follow this little bit also. Hide your keys before you pass out. If a cop taps on the window, you wake up (and will undoubtedly smell of alcohol), have your keys on you and you officially have a DWI. It's not fair or right, IMHO, but that's what MADD and others have left us with. (note: this may only be true in Colorado, check with local authorities)
On another note, I've been in a hottub with 17 naked people (of various sexes) in the middle of the afternoon, and I have alcohol to thank for it. (I've had good times sober too, but not quite as extreme nor as often) --
As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather have research done with tax dollars than private investments.
First, ownership of ideas. If my government makes the discovery it's mine too. While I might have limited access to it's benefits, I can almost guarantee they would come to me at a cheaper price than from the free market. One area I think this argument holds is for drug companies. With the social security argument ongoing, I've noticed that a large percentage of the costs come from prescription drugs. By the time I'm old (25 now) every single drug on the market should be available cheaply from the government, not the drug companies. There's a certain look a corporation gets in its eye when it has something you need to live. And it makes a sound, chi-ching.
Second, motivation. This is always a rallying cry for privatization of services. "People will work harder when they have a carrot." But what we're talking about here is pure research. Given some of the technologies that will be developed over the next 50 years, and the profound effects they might have on our living environment, I would rather the people discovering them not be on a deadline. Rushed to pass research so they can bring whatever to market, and get the patent to eliminate competition.
There were also a couple of contradiction in Browne's platform (no big gov't, just big gov't projects), and his answer "umm, yeah those 30 day deals should solve software/entertainment copyright issues." And considering what would have to be a very business friendly vs. citizen friendly platform, I don't like what that would mean in this industry.
I'm sure you are closer to these actualities than I am, but there's my pennies for the day.
If an artist says, "Hey, I don't want my songs distributed through you because you're making money off of it, not me," Napster should respect that.
And Napster says, hey, we can't watch every file that we index. But what we can do is set aside a certain percentage of revenue to contribute to artists groups (kinda like how radio is now). I think a lot of people who condemn the p2p phenom do so for this reason, "Who's making money off it?". With this arrangement it would still be the artists, or at least as much as they might get from radio airplay.
Like a number of the artists in the article said, it's free promotion. If they don't want to be promoted, well, that's a tough one. Personally I'd say stop making music if you don't want people to hear it. If you really want people to buy CDs give them more reasons to, like Limp Bizkit did.
One other note on the "who's making money off me" bent, I seriously doubt that Napster will *EVER* make much money. The value that is gained from their network comes directly from its users, alienate them in any way, and they'll be gone. It's been shown fairly convincingly that the programming isn't the hard part. Any advantage that a company wishes to leverage could very well piss off enough customers that their leverage evaporates. Of course, people still use AOL, so there ya go. --
I don't feel any incentive to vote this election. Furthermore, I don't want to take part of the blame for putting either of the two frontrunning bozos into office.
You can have one of these, but not both. It's o.k. no one will blame you. The only thing you do by not voting is make everyone else's vote more powerful. From what you said (everyone else goes from evil to dangerously insane), you are a complete fool if you don't vote. And you can still be blamed. --
Re:If you thought this was cool, check out the ROP
on
Illusionary LED clock
·
· Score: 1
The coolest thing about the ROPOD is that it's this huge, whirling, rickety contraption that makes bystanders fear for their lives...
that's why they had the contest. When the other part of the DMCA kicks in (the 28th?) they can simply arrest everyone who submitted an entry. viola! mp3's disappear!
I think it will do the same to the movie industry as it will do to the music industry, make it much more competitive. And I'm pretty dang sure as "consumers" that's what we want and totally sure that it's exactly what the consortiums don't. --
but that makes it too complicated. Napster's biggest asset is how simple the whole process is (and all that music). I think the simplest thing to do is have the judge rule that individuals sharing music with other individuals without any monetary exchange whatsoever is perfectly legal, just like it is now. The market will adjust, and the whole point of record companies (telling people what to buy, i.e. the largest part of the cost of CDs) will be reduced back to what it was originally, making good recordings. --
I love it. I have hours long conversations with family and friends all over the country. It takes about three clicks and you're good to go. The QoS is ok, I think I'm at about 90% no problems. There is a constant delay of about 1/2 sec. but it just takes a few minutes to adjust. Again, you simply can't beat the price.
I really don't think it will be too long until ICQ, etc, have voice capability. Finally some real competition in the long distance market. If only, if only, somehow, this could lead to the death of "1-800"REMEMBER commercials pounding in my head. That alone would be worth all the other spam I receive. --
it might be a server-class OS, but no one running a production server is going to rely on an "auto-update" daemon to do their work, at least no one who is worthwhile as an admin.
This is a feature for the DESKTOP, to compete with MS's same named feature, and will be most used by people who think a three week uptime is spectacular regardless.
Besides that, the lesson to be learned again is that X.0 software (esp. OSes) is buggy./.'s editors take cheap shots wherever they can get 'em, that's what's called "editorial independance," and I like it.
Sonique is pretty nice. The interface is very tight, smooth, and much more "artsy" (stuff slides and fades). The skins and vis are also dumb easy to install (with the player running) and full screen dancing shit is only a click away. There's also a cleary marked "save to disk" toggle, and you can switch between three different views to maximize screen use. It also has auto restart if you lose your stream cache.
A couple caveats. I haven't found the "bookmark streams" button, and it doesn't seem to be connected to the cddb. I use it more often on my winbox now that winamp likes to report to aol whenever I fire it up.
so you're excusing theft until payment can be afforded?
You'll have to define "theft" for me better. I am more than willing to excuse copyright infringement, however. So if that's how you define theft, then you have my answer.
If copyright were defined correctly, it wouldn't be infringement either, IMHO.
not sure what VC money has to do with anything. Yes, they do plan on making a profit, and yes, they should compensate the folks whose material is being traded, BUT, we're not to that point yet.
Robin Hood has nothing to do with my love of Napster. We are in a golden age of music. Never before has so much music been so available to so many people, at such a low cost to every one.
It never has been or should be illegal to give my friend a cd, nor should it be if I wish to do so with a digital file.
wait until Napster actually has an income, before you dismiss their business model (making music sharing VERY easy). There are already large musician groups that get paid for large scale free distrubution (radio), so wait until Napster has record profits before you crucify them for not sharing.
Slashdot Mirror
wow, you can regurgitate content.
fo llow this link for cross-postational goodness, evidence, and a reply.
I'm not sure why you think Gore is a champion of the people, afterall Bush says "unity" just as often.
Nader doesn't have a chance not because of two party monopoly, but because his platform is one that few Americans support.
So it's not because people haven't heard his platform, it's because they don't support it. riiiight.
--
You are trying to weasel out. You said...
a quick review of who said what should clear this up for you, I jumped in after your first reply.
Seeing how you like the "community" concept I doubt you would accept my law. So in response to *you* my point stands valid.
Hmm, you think so? Your point, IIRC, was "Generally, pathetic companies like DC are not allowed to grab people off the street and empty their wallets. They have to persuade people to make a voluntary exchange: goods or services for money." But my point was leaning towards the DeCSS situation rather than Cue::Cat. These companies are selling one thing under the guise of another, because you used the have the ability to access legally things you buy. Of course you still have that right, but the excercising of it become illegal (circumvention and what not). So yes, I do think most consumers are idiotic enough to be duped by such legislation. Mainly because it just isn't that big a deal to most people (as a side note, it is often those that don't care which are called idiots by those that do).
Hm... Market is not an entity, it's a mechanism by which certain things happen.
quoting you again.."You know, there is such a thing as "market". " The word has tons of meanings especially in this context. You can market something, or you can bring something to market. What I am referring to is the collective market that makes up our economy. A market being where you buy, sell, and trade things.
I don't really understand what do you mean by conflict in this context. It's true that governments (claiming to act as proxies for communities) often tried to restrict the market to further their own aim, usually to gain more power.
The government in this sense is restricting the community to the benefit and at the behest of the "market". Specifically the copyrightable artistic artifacts "market" (or at least its largest players).
To cut it short, I think we can use the Internet as a public broadcasting system on steroids. This can be done by the community as each member donates their own processing power and bandwidth. I think this would be a good thing, so stuff that makes it more difficult or illegal are therefore bad things. (just to clarify my stance and goal)
Seen any officially-approved Russian or Chinese movies recently?
Nope, so I have no way to judge their merit, and especially since I would be so unfamiliar with their respective cultures, my opinion on such things would be skewed dramatically. Unless you judge all things on production value, in that case, they would probably fall short of their American counterparts.
I personally don't think it's economical for my government to protect against the transmission of all digital artifacts to the sole benefit of their owners. If they can just keep assholes from selling it, I have no problems. But the real world cost of controlling such things will be astronomical, especially if you look at the human rights exchange rate (distribute a couple pieces of no cost electricity, go to jail).
--
Do you think that any profit greater than X% (X determined by you) is amoral and should be confiscated by the government -- that is, "not allowed"?
Only if that profit was gained by curtailing my rights as a citizen. *EXACTLY* like they are in this situation.
Personally I think it's funny that you declare an exception to your own law when it would invalidate your own comments. It was a nice catch, but just because you catch yourself falling, doesn't mean you haven't just tripped.
There is such a thing as a "market", there is also such a thing as "community". These are two different entities, often in conflict. I think it is quite obvious which path the U.S. Congress has taken in this conflict. Personally, I look at the culture this has left us with and am sickened. Maybe we should veer the other direction for a little while. You might like it. Variety is the spice, baby.
--
do the words "limited Times" mean anything to you? They don't mean anything to Congress either.
--
Poster enjoys alcohol, but has never gotten a DWI because he does not drink and drive (duh!). Sleep in your car!
If you follow this advice, follow this little bit also. Hide your keys before you pass out. If a cop taps on the window, you wake up (and will undoubtedly smell of alcohol), have your keys on you and you officially have a DWI. It's not fair or right, IMHO, but that's what MADD and others have left us with. (note: this may only be true in Colorado, check with local authorities)
On another note, I've been in a hottub with 17 naked people (of various sexes) in the middle of the afternoon, and I have alcohol to thank for it. (I've had good times sober too, but not quite as extreme nor as often)
--
Mrs. Clear Plastic meet Deda
--
As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather have research done with tax dollars than private investments.
First, ownership of ideas. If my government makes the discovery it's mine too. While I might have limited access to it's benefits, I can almost guarantee they would come to me at a cheaper price than from the free market. One area I think this argument holds is for drug companies. With the social security argument ongoing, I've noticed that a large percentage of the costs come from prescription drugs. By the time I'm old (25 now) every single drug on the market should be available cheaply from the government, not the drug companies. There's a certain look a corporation gets in its eye when it has something you need to live. And it makes a sound, chi-ching.
Second, motivation. This is always a rallying cry for privatization of services. "People will work harder when they have a carrot." But what we're talking about here is pure research. Given some of the technologies that will be developed over the next 50 years, and the profound effects they might have on our living environment, I would rather the people discovering them not be on a deadline. Rushed to pass research so they can bring whatever to market, and get the patent to eliminate competition.
There were also a couple of contradiction in Browne's platform (no big gov't, just big gov't projects), and his answer "umm, yeah those 30 day deals should solve software/entertainment copyright issues." And considering what would have to be a very business friendly vs. citizen friendly platform, I don't like what that would mean in this industry.
I'm sure you are closer to these actualities than I am, but there's my pennies for the day.
--
If an artist says, "Hey, I don't want my songs distributed through you because you're making money off of it, not me," Napster should respect that.
And Napster says, hey, we can't watch every file that we index. But what we can do is set aside a certain percentage of revenue to contribute to artists groups (kinda like how radio is now). I think a lot of people who condemn the p2p phenom do so for this reason, "Who's making money off it?". With this arrangement it would still be the artists, or at least as much as they might get from radio airplay.
Like a number of the artists in the article said, it's free promotion. If they don't want to be promoted, well, that's a tough one. Personally I'd say stop making music if you don't want people to hear it. If you really want people to buy CDs give them more reasons to, like Limp Bizkit did.
One other note on the "who's making money off me" bent, I seriously doubt that Napster will *EVER* make much money. The value that is gained from their network comes directly from its users, alienate them in any way, and they'll be gone. It's been shown fairly convincingly that the programming isn't the hard part. Any advantage that a company wishes to leverage could very well piss off enough customers that their leverage evaporates. Of course, people still use AOL, so there ya go.
--
it pretty defines their my.mp3.com service.
Just a quick side curiousity, who has the patent on this?
This seems pretty sparse to be enacted, are many other bills this succinct?
--
but at least the American people one the whole can keep to a budget. Didn't the annual savings rate just pass -1.5% ?
--
and remember, Bush is your best bet for a smaller, more efficient government. HA!
--
I don't feel any incentive to vote this election. Furthermore, I don't want to take part of the blame for putting either of the two frontrunning bozos into office.
You can have one of these, but not both. It's o.k. no one will blame you. The only thing you do by not voting is make everyone else's vote more powerful. From what you said (everyone else goes from evil to dangerously insane), you are a complete fool if you don't vote. And you can still be blamed.
--
The coolest thing about the ROPOD is that it's this huge, whirling, rickety contraption that makes bystanders fear for their lives...
Great, it's the Neon Deion of Battle Bots.
--
that's why they had the contest. When the other part of the DMCA kicks in (the 28th?) they can simply arrest everyone who submitted an entry. viola! mp3's disappear!
--
I think it will do the same to the movie industry as it will do to the music industry, make it much more competitive. And I'm pretty dang sure as "consumers" that's what we want and totally sure that it's exactly what the consortiums don't.
--
but that makes it too complicated. Napster's biggest asset is how simple the whole process is (and all that music). I think the simplest thing to do is have the judge rule that individuals sharing music with other individuals without any monetary exchange whatsoever is perfectly legal, just like it is now. The market will adjust, and the whole point of record companies (telling people what to buy, i.e. the largest part of the cost of CDs) will be reduced back to what it was originally, making good recordings.
--
it's a shame we don't hear much about any other than the two big candidates here in the U.S.
--
I love it. I have hours long conversations with family and friends all over the country. It takes about three clicks and you're good to go. The QoS is ok, I think I'm at about 90% no problems. There is a constant delay of about 1/2 sec. but it just takes a few minutes to adjust. Again, you simply can't beat the price.
I really don't think it will be too long until ICQ, etc, have voice capability. Finally some real competition in the long distance market. If only, if only, somehow, this could lead to the death of "1-800"REMEMBER commercials pounding in my head. That alone would be worth all the other spam I receive.
--
it might be a server-class OS, but no one running a production server is going to rely on an "auto-update" daemon to do their work, at least no one who is worthwhile as an admin.
/.'s editors take cheap shots wherever they can get 'em, that's what's called "editorial independance," and I like it.
This is a feature for the DESKTOP, to compete with MS's same named feature, and will be most used by people who think a three week uptime is spectacular regardless.
Besides that, the lesson to be learned again is that X.0 software (esp. OSes) is buggy.
--
this would be a violation of that doctrine, but you'd never be able to prove it.
unless you found the back door in Carnivore.
--
that'd mess things up, seriously. Kickers might even start to get some respect.
--
Sonique is pretty nice. The interface is very tight, smooth, and much more "artsy" (stuff slides and fades). The skins and vis are also dumb easy to install (with the player running) and full screen dancing shit is only a click away. There's also a cleary marked "save to disk" toggle, and you can switch between three different views to maximize screen use. It also has auto restart if you lose your stream cache.
A couple caveats. I haven't found the "bookmark streams" button, and it doesn't seem to be connected to the cddb. I use it more often on my winbox now that winamp likes to report to aol whenever I fire it up.
--
I saw Nader's speech last night on C-Span. He ranted like some of the crazy posts I've seen here. That being said, he's got my vote!
--
so you're excusing theft until payment can be afforded?
You'll have to define "theft" for me better. I am more than willing to excuse copyright infringement, however. So if that's how you define theft, then you have my answer.
If copyright were defined correctly, it wouldn't be infringement either, IMHO.
not sure what VC money has to do with anything. Yes, they do plan on making a profit, and yes, they should compensate the folks whose material is being traded, BUT, we're not to that point yet.
Robin Hood has nothing to do with my love of Napster. We are in a golden age of music. Never before has so much music been so available to so many people, at such a low cost to every one.
It never has been or should be illegal to give my friend a cd, nor should it be if I wish to do so with a digital file.
--
wait until Napster actually has an income, before you dismiss their business model (making music sharing VERY easy). There are already large musician groups that get paid for large scale free distrubution (radio), so wait until Napster has record profits before you crucify them for not sharing.
--