Therefore, Apple demands that you cease and desist from disseminating the material posted at the referenced web site immediately, including any hyperlinks to other locations where the information may be available from all web sites and servers under your control
Hey Apple, I demand a new G4 AND you should stop selling them to other people. Immediately.
Now, if you want to discuss the futility of a measure like this, I'm on board. I don't see this changing anything in terms of what kids play. Not significantly. I went to R movies long before I was 18, and I fully expect Indianapolis kids to skirt this with impunity. And I do feel for the arcade owners who have to deal with this stuff. It's a hassle for them, and they can't win either way. Either the customers will get pissed at them, or the law will be all over them.
People like to talk about stupid laws and the ideas that lead to them here. That's the fun part.
It's like our Congress passing laws that they know are unconstitutional, patronizing TV cameras while annoying the populace.
The problem also comes from stuff like setting limits and then actions on those limits. If it is illegal for a kid to play a violent videogame, all you have to do is change the definition of violent, and you can shut down most arcades. I like arcades (although honestly I've never been to Cinci, so take my opinion for what it's worth, i.e. nada) and have since early adolescence, there was less blood back then, but then it also seemed like you could get in a real world fistfight and not end up in court. Anybody wanna join a Fight Club?
"The importance of it is that it's an effort to begin to attack the culture of violence that I believe surrounds our young people these days virtually from the day they're born," the mayor said.
So I take it this guy is planning on going after TV next? All those cop shows and what not? Heck, he should watch some old cartoons. Maybe he'll go after our government and the "culture of violence" they practice that helps keep gas prices low.
Sorry, but I just can't help but laugh at people who say things like "We must attack the culture of violence." Shouldn't you be making peace with it?
This attitude (Which also comes into play with the drug war, Kill the Drugs, liquor and cigarettes) of trying to hide the bad things and act like they are not there, only adds to the "cool" factor of accessing them. The motivation for a teenager can be quite simple. q:"Why'd you do it?" a:"You told me not too." and attitudes like this play directly into it. These types of laws also help to marginalize certain individuals, and in this case, it is those individuals that perhaps shouldn't be marginalized any more than they already are.
The network admins actually found that those features that "required" IE were easy enough to implement in a browser-neutral way.
I don't think this is always too difficult, but remember you have hoards of lazy folks. Hoards of lazy folks in the MSDN who will get marketed this stuff like mad, probably get a few working web apps so they can cut and paste. Then they fire up IE5.5 and go "wow, that's cool." (because it is) and then they are finished. Microsoft makes it real easy to get sucked in, and just when you thought you were out..... --
Yes, and it's called text. If you need further proof, try rephrasing this article in the form of icons.
You write or read much Japan/Chin-ease?
Or, you can think of a word as an icon. The bitmap pattern that forms the following icon between the brackets [courage] is a better graphical representation for the concept of courage than a lion or some such nonsense.
But if you have an icon for courage (like the one a good friend of mine has tatooed on his arm) then taking the time to put together the individual letters in a word like courage, then associating the meaning and seperating the concepts of age, rage (which also exist in the word), seems like a lot of work.
What letters do allow is an easier combination of ideas into new one (amoung various other things linguists would love to tell you about). Supercalifragilisticespialidocious. Draw that in a symbol.:)
is that the web gives a platform for every angst ridden, lonely and confused teenager to stand up and tell the world where to stick it in their own way.
And it allows every angst ridden, lonely and confused teenager a place to go find others like them. That's the power. I don't have to wait for MTV to do their next angst ridden, lonely teenager show, I can go find a real one, who answers e-mail. (hypothetically)
...if you think Open Media is the next big thing, you're sadly mistaken because for the "New Media" to get recognized, it has to conform to "Old Media" rules and become part of the mainstream media.
I disagree with this. I think all the New Media has to do is hang on long enough for that critical mass of folks to find it, and then discover some way to propogate itself. New Media can't conform to the old rules, they just don't work here. The power has shifted to the consumers of media, not the purveyors. That's what defines it as New Media, IMHO.
That being said, the young and old generations must get along to make it successful. Young folks might have ideas, but they call it "old money" for a reason. (I'm 25, for the record)
This is another idea that will most likely take off. What this will do is lower the overall quality of music available, which raises the demand for higher quality recordings, and the demand for a trused source. All of which *should* drive surfers to a band's homepage or other outlet that they can capitalize on (and reinforces the idea that buying CD's is still a smart choice to obtain good vibrations). After you find a good artist you like, it would behoove one to visit their homepage and get "trusted" MP3's from there, rather than braving the waters of unrestrained cyberspace. --
I actually ran into this problem and it pissed me off. I installed my copy at home and at work and got denied access to online gaming at a time when blowing shit up that respawns automatically would have been a stimulating activity (leading to better work, etc.). Yea, I know that's probably against the EULA (like I read it), but there's only one wetware user at time, I just have multiple hardware avatars. Ah well, maybe q4 will have some type of DNA scanner built in and all my problems will be solved.
What's A Pirate? Pirates (not just a song anymore) are local String Cheese Incident representatives that have been strategically placed around the country in order for our ship to achieve maximum infiltration into familiar, as well as uncharted waters throughout the country. Before docking in any place that the band may go, much work has to be done in order to anticipate the band's arrival. Representatives make sure that posters are put up around town, help inform us of what's going on in town while we're there, and spread a general good vibe about an upcoming show. In return for helping out, many Pirates get to see the show for free.
These guys started in small clubs 7 years ago. I saw them at Red Rocks a couple weeks ago.
Pointing to them as some sort of example for artists to follow is stupid.
Why? Because Jerry died? Or because that have attained massive wealth and personal freedom by catering to their fans, making good music for multiple decades, and allowing their fans to share? It can happen, it has happened, following good example of others who made it happen is a good idea. --
The reason that radio stations, VH1, MTV, etc can play songs for us to listen that "we don't own" is that the stations pay royalties to the record companies. These royalties are paid for the right to broadcast the songs. When you download a song you don't own from the net, nobody has paid royalties. You are getting the music, and the record companies aren't getting paid for what is theirs.
When you download a song off Napster, no one is getting advertising money for bringing it to you (yet, an important point). Some other kind soul has donating his cycles and bandwidth to share something with you. There is also no cost to the artist. There is, however, a benefit. Free advertising. You think that is insignificant, but THAT's why people sell out to the RIAA, for the promotion. The only artists whining are those like Metallica, who have made it, sold 40+ million records, got paid for every one, and don't have a clue what is really goin' on with the Net. Spake Lars "I mean, I can just barely... I know how to get onto AOL, and I will say that I have used AOL a couple of times to check some hockey scores.
I don't like the business practices of BMW, that doesn't make it right to go start stealing cars from their dealers.
That is a poor analogy. Here's a better one. (linking vs. cut'n pasting, always a toughie) --
I'm just not sure that the public is served by the hoarding of works and extracting of royalties forever and ever, amen
The public isn't served, they are raped. Unless you really think that you shouldn't be able to listen to Elvis's music without paying his owners. I mean, if he doesn't have those copyright protections, he'll never make another record. And then the public would be deprived of a great artist. "Promote the arts and sciences" that's why they got protections, it wasn't "see how much you can make off of human love of art." --
The ONLY way online music purchases will be welcomed is if it doesn't require a credit card EVERY time for that minisucle fee (.20 - $5).
There is also the spam problem that accompanies registering for anything, and the general hassle. It really needs to be as easy as it is to throw a quarter in a guitar box on the street. I haven't followed that tech for a bit, but is anyone working on/using a <$1 quick pay for the Internet? Virtual tip jars for a virtual audience? I know there are some ideas but are there any good implementations? --
They are selectively choosing the copyright holders and corporate web entities for their discussions.
when we have political leaders who spend more on their tan then some of their constituents make in a year. It IS all about the Benjamin Franklins. Not to mention the slight political bonus of having friends in the media.
...who, like them, bought the CD. Neither of them bought the rights to the music to redistribute it. Neither of them are giving royalties to the band.
And neither of them are making any money off the deal, yet both of them are paying with effort and bandwidth.
And since currently their primary/only business is in enabling people to share/swap/copy music, one can presume that's how they intend to make their money.
That would make sense. They are providing the service of allowing music fans to listen to and share music. To make a somewhat real world analogy (keeping the same product and action) : Napster is a warehouse where millions of people can come and trade or borrow music from others. To keep the analogy real world, Napster also provides Personal Transporter Devices, which can instantly teleport you to the warehouse from any computer terminal. ALSO, Napster has created an amazing paging system (the Googo Searchamatic 5280) within the warehouse, where you can just shout out an artists name or a song title, (wait a bit) and you get a set of buttons you can press to jump immediately to the location of the music within the warehouse. You then take a few moments to fire up your Really Neat-o Replicator and make an exact copy of their music, while leaving their supply alone. You can do this as often as you like. Later, you can leave the Napster warehouse, and do anything you like. Including breaking other pre-existing laws or not, depending on your personal preferences. This is the service Napster offers.
Whether or not they should be allowed to profit from offering such a totally amazing out of this world service, is now left up to the courts. Personally, as a consumer, this is the type of service I expect from a company (because as a consumer I have a right to unrealistic expectations). I think they should be able to, for the reasons listed above.
And Napster devised the system that allowed this to happen. That's why Napster's bad.
Napster (or at least their real world equivalent) is damn cool. Whether or not that is "good" or "bad" is up to a California(?) judge. But I seriously doubt, either way, that this will be the end of it. (and Gnutella gets to totally avoid the "company, VC, profit" thing.)
If you think music should be free, why don't you go out and make some for us and share it with the world??
You might have heard about this a few days ago, but my submission got rejected.
This one didn't.:-)
from the link
The Recording Industry Association of America is a special interest group that claims from time to time to lobby on behalf of musicians, but it is funded by, and represents the interests of, the major record companies - the same corporations traditionally known to be the primary exploiters of the musicians that the RIAA claims to represent. The RIAA simply cannot be trusted to serve two distinct masters - the record companies and the artists. An important example is the "work for hire" issue: the RIAA pushed legislation that gives major labels the right to own musicians' master tapes in perpetuity, changing an existing law that allowed some artists to regain the rights to their masters after 35 years. --
Slashdot Mirror
what vote was that?
IIRC, there isn't an "official" language here.
some reading on those that want to change that.
--
yea, in that split second after my jerking knee hit the submit button I saw "under your control".
:)
I still want the G4 tho.
--
*unfortunate proof that Microsoft does occasionally steal ideas from a competitor
like you didn't already know that...
--
the worst part of that letter (and the silliest)
Therefore, Apple demands that you cease and desist from disseminating the material posted at the referenced web site immediately, including any hyperlinks to other locations where the information may be available from all web sites and servers under your control
Hey Apple, I demand a new G4 AND you should stop selling them to other people. Immediately.
--
hehe
And the problem is???
then you said
Now, if you want to discuss the futility of a measure like this, I'm on board. I don't see this changing anything in terms of what kids play. Not significantly. I went to R movies long before I was 18, and I fully expect Indianapolis kids to skirt this with impunity. And I do feel for the arcade owners who have to deal with this stuff. It's a hassle for them, and they can't win either way. Either the customers will get pissed at them, or the law will be all over them.
People like to talk about stupid laws and the ideas that lead to them here. That's the fun part.
It's like our Congress passing laws that they know are unconstitutional, patronizing TV cameras while annoying the populace.
The problem also comes from stuff like setting limits and then actions on those limits. If it is illegal for a kid to play a violent videogame, all you have to do is change the definition of violent, and you can shut down most arcades. I like arcades (although honestly I've never been to Cinci, so take my opinion for what it's worth, i.e. nada) and have since early adolescence, there was less blood back then, but then it also seemed like you could get in a real world fistfight and not end up in court. Anybody wanna join a Fight Club?
--
"The importance of it is that it's an effort to begin to attack the culture of violence that I believe surrounds our young people these days virtually from the day they're born," the mayor said.
So I take it this guy is planning on going after TV next? All those cop shows and what not? Heck, he should watch some old cartoons. Maybe he'll go after our government and the "culture of violence" they practice that helps keep gas prices low.
Sorry, but I just can't help but laugh at people who say things like "We must attack the culture of violence." Shouldn't you be making peace with it?
This attitude (Which also comes into play with the drug war, Kill the Drugs, liquor and cigarettes) of trying to hide the bad things and act like they are not there, only adds to the "cool" factor of accessing them. The motivation for a teenager can be quite simple. q:"Why'd you do it?" a:"You told me not too." and attitudes like this play directly into it. These types of laws also help to marginalize certain individuals, and in this case, it is those individuals that perhaps shouldn't be marginalized any more than they already are.
--
We are sorry. The database is currently overloaded. Please try again later.
You still can't sign up for at large membership. I've been trying all week.
--
They already are married (if not the same person) They are trolls, and a big reason why /. sucks pretty bad from time to time.
Remember, if you can't believe how big an idiot someone is, usually it's cause they are trying to be the biggest idiot they can.
--
check the user info for this whole thread. It is a troll scuffle. Nothing to see hear.
--
The network admins actually found that those features that "required" IE were easy enough to implement in a browser-neutral way.
I don't think this is always too difficult, but remember you have hoards of lazy folks. Hoards of lazy folks in the MSDN who will get marketed this stuff like mad, probably get a few working web apps so they can cut and paste. Then they fire up IE5.5 and go "wow, that's cool." (because it is) and then they are finished. Microsoft makes it real easy to get sucked in, and just when you thought you were out.....
--
Yes, and it's called text. If you need further proof, try rephrasing this article in the form of icons.
:)
You write or read much Japan/Chin-ease?
Or, you can think of a word as an icon. The bitmap pattern that forms the following icon between the brackets [courage] is a better graphical representation for the concept of courage than a lion or some such nonsense.
But if you have an icon for courage (like the one a good friend of mine has tatooed on his arm) then taking the time to put together the individual letters in a word like courage, then associating the meaning and seperating the concepts of age, rage (which also exist in the word), seems like a lot of work.
What letters do allow is an easier combination of ideas into new one (amoung various other things linguists would love to tell you about). Supercalifragilisticespialidocious. Draw that in a symbol.
--
is that the web gives a platform for every angst ridden, lonely and confused teenager to stand up and tell the world where to stick it in their own way.
...if you think Open Media is the next big thing, you're sadly mistaken because for the "New Media" to get recognized, it has to conform to "Old Media" rules and become part of the mainstream media.
And it allows every angst ridden, lonely and confused teenager a place to go find others like them. That's the power. I don't have to wait for MTV to do their next angst ridden, lonely teenager show, I can go find a real one, who answers e-mail. (hypothetically)
I disagree with this. I think all the New Media has to do is hang on long enough for that critical mass of folks to find it, and then discover some way to propogate itself. New Media can't conform to the old rules, they just don't work here. The power has shifted to the consumers of media, not the purveyors. That's what defines it as New Media, IMHO.
That being said, the young and old generations must get along to make it successful. Young folks might have ideas, but they call it "old money" for a reason. (I'm 25, for the record)
--
This is another idea that will most likely take off. What this will do is lower the overall quality of music available, which raises the demand for higher quality recordings, and the demand for a trused source. All of which *should* drive surfers to a band's homepage or other outlet that they can capitalize on (and reinforces the idea that buying CD's is still a smart choice to obtain good vibrations). After you find a good artist you like, it would behoove one to visit their homepage and get "trusted" MP3's from there, rather than braving the waters of unrestrained cyberspace.
--
thanks for the trollbait or at least a good response to them :)
--
hmm, sounds like someone was reading Snow Crash (like I am right now) or someone was use ZOC(?)
meme virus indeed.
--
Please
k
and what the AC said.
--
I actually ran into this problem and it pissed me off. I installed my copy at home and at work and got denied access to online gaming at a time when blowing shit up that respawns automatically would have been a stimulating activity (leading to better work, etc.). Yea, I know that's probably against the EULA (like I read it), but there's only one wetware user at time, I just have multiple hardware avatars. Ah well, maybe q4 will have some type of DNA scanner built in and all my problems will be solved.
--
Phish is unique.
Here's a couple more unique bands in the same genre, with a slightly less rabid following.
Widespread Panic
String Cheese Incident
from SCI's page...
What's A Pirate? Pirates (not just a song anymore) are local String Cheese Incident representatives that have been strategically placed around the country in order for our ship to achieve maximum infiltration into familiar, as well as uncharted waters throughout the country. Before docking in any place that the
band may go, much work has to be done in order to anticipate the band's arrival. Representatives make sure that posters are put up around town, help inform us of what's going on in town while we're there, and spread a general good vibe about an upcoming show. In return for helping out, many Pirates get to see the show for free.
These guys started in small clubs 7 years ago. I saw them at Red Rocks a couple weeks ago.
Pointing to them as some sort of example for artists to follow is stupid.
Why? Because Jerry died? Or because that have attained massive wealth and personal freedom by catering to their fans, making good music for multiple decades, and allowing their fans to share? It can happen, it has happened, following good example of others who made it happen is a good idea.
--
The reason that radio stations, VH1, MTV, etc can play songs for us to listen that "we don't own" is that the stations pay royalties to the record companies. These royalties are paid for the right to broadcast the songs. When you download a song you don't own from the net, nobody has paid royalties. You are getting the music, and the record companies aren't getting paid for what is theirs.
... I know how to get onto AOL, and I will say that I have used AOL a couple of times to check some hockey scores.
When you download a song off Napster, no one is getting advertising money for bringing it to you (yet, an important point). Some other kind soul has donating his cycles and bandwidth to share something with you. There is also no cost to the artist. There is, however, a benefit. Free advertising. You think that is insignificant, but THAT's why people sell out to the RIAA, for the promotion. The only artists whining are those like Metallica, who have made it, sold 40+ million records, got paid for every one, and don't have a clue what is really goin' on with the Net. Spake Lars "I mean, I can just barely
I don't like the business practices of BMW, that doesn't make it right to go start stealing cars from their dealers.
That is a poor analogy. Here's a better one. (linking vs. cut'n pasting, always a toughie)
--
I'm just not sure that the public is served by the hoarding of works and extracting of royalties forever and ever, amen
The public isn't served, they are raped. Unless you really think that you shouldn't be able to listen to Elvis's music without paying his owners. I mean, if he doesn't have those copyright protections, he'll never make another record. And then the public would be deprived of a great artist. "Promote the arts and sciences" that's why they got protections, it wasn't "see how much you can make off of human love of art."
--
The ONLY way online music purchases will be welcomed is if it doesn't require a credit card EVERY time for that minisucle fee (.20 - $5).
There is also the spam problem that accompanies registering for anything, and the general hassle. It really needs to be as easy as it is to throw a quarter in a guitar box on the street. I haven't followed that tech for a bit, but is anyone working on/using a <$1 quick pay for the Internet? Virtual tip jars for a virtual audience? I know there are some ideas but are there any good implementations?
--
That's why you backmask it. Subliminal advertising. The wave of the future.
--
They are selectively choosing the copyright holders and corporate web entities for their discussions.
when we have political leaders who spend more on their tan then some of their constituents make in a year. It IS all about the Benjamin Franklins. Not to mention the slight political bonus of having friends in the media.
(cynicism is just msicinyc spelled backwards)
--
good luck against the moderators on this one :(
...who, like them, bought the CD. Neither of them bought the rights to the music to redistribute it. Neither of them are giving royalties to the band.
A couple of ntpks
And neither of them are making any money off the deal, yet both of them are paying with effort and bandwidth.
And since currently their primary/only business is in enabling people to share/swap/copy music, one can presume that's how they intend to make their money.
That would make sense. They are providing the service of allowing music fans to listen to and share music. To make a somewhat real world analogy (keeping the same product and action) : Napster is a warehouse where millions of people can come and trade or borrow music from others. To keep the analogy real world, Napster also provides Personal Transporter Devices, which can instantly teleport you to the warehouse from any computer terminal. ALSO, Napster has created an amazing paging system (the Googo Searchamatic 5280) within the warehouse, where you can just shout out an artists name or a song title, (wait a bit) and you get a set of buttons you can press to jump immediately to the location of the music within the warehouse. You then take a few moments to fire up your Really Neat-o Replicator and make an exact copy of their music, while leaving their supply alone. You can do this as often as you like. Later, you can leave the Napster warehouse, and do anything you like. Including breaking other pre-existing laws or not, depending on your personal preferences. This is the service Napster offers.
Whether or not they should be allowed to profit from offering such a totally amazing out of this world service, is now left up to the courts. Personally, as a consumer, this is the type of service I expect from a company (because as a consumer I have a right to unrealistic expectations). I think they should be able to, for the reasons listed above.
And Napster devised the system that allowed this to happen. That's why Napster's bad.
Napster (or at least their real world equivalent) is damn cool. Whether or not that is "good" or "bad" is up to a California(?) judge. But I seriously doubt, either way, that this will be the end of it. (and Gnutella gets to totally avoid the "company, VC, profit" thing.)
If you think music should be free, why don't you go out and make some for us and share it with the world??
You can divide these tasks. Some can make, some can share. That makes it easier for everyone.
--
Speaking of artists and lobbying groups
:-)
You might have heard about this a few days ago, but my submission got rejected.
This one didn't.
from the link
The Recording Industry Association of America is a special interest group that claims from time to time to lobby on behalf of musicians, but it is funded by, and represents the interests of, the major record companies - the same corporations traditionally known to be the primary exploiters of the musicians that the RIAA claims to represent. The RIAA simply cannot be trusted to serve two distinct masters - the record companies and the artists. An important example is the "work for hire" issue: the RIAA pushed legislation that gives major labels the right to own musicians' master tapes in perpetuity, changing an existing law that allowed some artists to regain the rights to their masters after 35 years.
--