yes, it was a silly suggestion. I think that was my point, but I'm not so sure now. Testing idealism is a good way to get hurt, IMHO. When things don't bend, they break. --
I really think it's important to work on winning them over to free distribution.
I think it might be pretty easy. To get the RIAA to promote them, the artists must give up any and all rights to their art FOREVER. To get the people to promote them, all they have to do is say it's o.k. The Law needs to reflect this arrangement and protect the right to sell, or it will be too difficult to enforce as very powerful cartels will try to hijack both the Law and the art in order to sell another's work for profit. If we give the art back to the artists, create good laws, and teach respect for sound laws (pun!), I think the transition might go fairly easy. Altough the more time it takes, the gentler the road will be.
Note: this will also increase competition by a HUGE amount, but who here is against a little friendly competition. Besides these guys, of course. --
That's an interesting angle. Not only do we get to call upon the Freedom Of Speech, but also the Freedom of the Press, and the, aw hell, just let me quote the thing.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The poster obviously failed to follow the provided links regarding the DMCA
The poster obviously feels that certain parts of the DMCA are a pile of shit.
The DMCA _makes_ content the service provider's responsibility.
Hmm (i.e. look at this scenario), M$ wants to shut down/.(or AOL wants to shutdown kuro5hin, or the CoS wants to shut down...) M$ pays a couple AC's to post unimportant yet highly actionable content on the site. Forces them to remove it. M$ does it again (follow shampoo instructions). M$ says to judge "This is getting rediculous, can we just shut the whole site down?"
Check numb's hack for another possible scenario.
Yes, the sites do share responsibility for what's on there, but some people do want to burn flags in public protest. It shouldn't be a public website's responsiblity to stop them.
Does anyone else think it's funny that Kerberos shows up again as we approach the Gates of Hell? --
IIRC, wasn't there just a case that said that source code is considered protected speech, if you are talking about it and you need to "quote" it, just like what happened in the story they are trying to censor.
Couldn't find the link in under a minute, someone else will have too...
Comments are owned by the poster. Their content is the owner's responsibility. Microsoft should be sending letters to those people, who should then ask/. to remove the comments..if they want to be censored. This is part of the continuing trend to jump over the responsibility of individuals and make their actions the responsibiility of someone else (i.e. their ISP (Internet Service (i.e.News) Provider). The Internet makes control of digital media impossible, deal with it.
If I posted a list of 100 stolen credit card numbers to Slashdot, would they remove that?
No, but they (gov't) should put yo' ass in jail. If they could find you... You do know that the FBI reads/., right?
--
Re:On the Washington Post Article - /. Power?
on
Hump Day Quickies
·
· Score: 2
I thought it was good article. At least it put Katz in the right light. "It's a throwback kind of thing." Yea, a throwback to the campfires of old, where 100,000 hackers and hangers on from around the world, would sit back, relax, and bullshit about the hunt^H^H^H^Hworld.;-)
They try and downplay the whole phenom at the end, but that's cause they still don't get it. Heck, they wouldn't even let me contribute my own content. Don't they know that Rob and Jeff got those millions two cents at a time.
Anyway, there's two more. Congrats guys, the new servers rock......although I have seen a couple things today that kinda scare me....G27.org got the hack
They don't even address the issue of why most cds cost exactly the same across stores and record companies. This smacks of price fixing to me.
Ask and ye shall receive. Somebody else found this, I tried searching MSNBC for it, but their search sucks...it's linked from this thread somewhere else too, but it's worthy of the extra attention. Big Bidness sure is ugly when you can see behind the curtain.
I think it would be the price. I still think they should be $20. Most PC games are too scary (seriously) for the wider market. Add in that $50 price tag, and you've totally obliterated any but the hard core market. It's an interesting industry to watch though. Didn't total sales for video games just pass motion picture revenues this last year?
It can affect Windows users without Outlook. All they have to do is run it (like that fine lady in Reseach did here,"Oooh, what does this button do?"). Without Outlook, though, I don't think it propogates as madly. Or at least it hasn't here...
it's important IMHO for the FCC to prohibit a single entity from owning more than one tv station and more than one radio station.
The current laws... (they were just changed, which led to the Viacom/CBS merger, who want to change more laws since the current ones say that none of the Major networks could buy a small one like UPN)...state that an entity cannot own more than 8 media outlets in a market with a maximum of 2 TV stations. --
...For example, the most significant cost of a CD today is the marketing and promotion of that music. To learn more about why CDs are a great value -- check out Cost of a CD.
I, for one, am tired of paying for marketing. Why am I paying for someone to tell me what I like?
Oh, BTW, their closing argument for this defense.
By all measures, when you consider how long people have the music and how often they can go back and get "re-entertained" CDs truly are an incredible value for the money.
Thanks for your opinion, RIAA, now I'll go form my own.
Or if you've ever heard of a band called Phish, as an example. There are a number of others, but you won't hear about them on CNN or the Radio...yet... --
The law only makes is possible for record companies to sign their artists on a work for hire basis.
Hey, didja visit their website...hmmm. it changes,...more material. Anyway, check some of my old posts on this. Their old site (it has changed over the last week) had a link to a quick description of "Works for Hire" it was the first link of press releases. A quick search on their new side didn't turn it up, but I'm sure it's around.
PAC contributions are an unfortunate consequence of our existing government, but the RIAA would be remiss to not make them.
Yes, and if you think $5,000 is the actual donation, you're still smoking $3 crack.
Hey, I found this on thier new site.
As with most new technologies, the Internet doesn't just draw outside the lines of the conventional music industry - it offers the opportunity for truly revolutionary changes. But even in this new digital world, artists and record companies still have - and deserve - the right to protect their music. Many of the same laws apply in cyberspace such as copyright, and several new measures were enacted in the last few years to address issues that could not previously have been identified. This section reviews the legal issues surrounding the downloading and webcasting of music.
"WE deserve the right to innovate." Where have I heard that argument before..."Many of the same laws apply in cyberspace (here's a quick example, for ya') such as copyright." This page looks like it should be run by the FCC or Congress not the RIAA, who's running music anyway? (BTW, I want to applaud Kennard for his struggle. That guys taking a lot of shit everytime he want to share the airwaves or do anything much at all. Read up on LPFM for the details of the most recent struggle.)
Anyway, I'm still working on my rebuttal, keep an Eye on the Free Media Headling for details.
However, if you start paying people $2 million (Napster to Limp Bisket), you might start making believers out of just about anyone.
This makes me think you are a troll, or not reading your own posts.
If you're above accepting credit for promoting art you love, then a solution may be harder to find, IMO..
Credit, kickbacks, whatever. The promoters will get paid (I think CDNow has a good plan, but I haven't tried it). It's the same deal as we have now, but currently the RIAA wants to control the whole ball of wax, but it's melting, and their lawsuit-cooling plan is doomed to failure.
IP/Copyright laws need a serious workingthrough (word?) before they will have a chance of meaning much now. The DMCA was an attempt, but it got hijacked by the greedy. I think we need to go straight to the Constitution. (to keep this U.S. focused for the moment) --
but it used to be when you owned something and it broke, if you had no warranty you are responsible for buying another one.
This raises an interesting issue about MP3s (and why I'll most likely never BUY them) that came up last week when the RIAA said ILOVEYOU to everyone (read the link below if you didn't hear that side of the story). Digital files are incredibly fragile. A whacked disk, a crazy magnet, a disgruntled 20-something in Singapore, or some interstellar EMP can make them all disappear in the blink of a virtual eye. They won't ever be a replacement for CDs, or any other phyiscal medium for that matter.
(btw - yes, artists are getting royally screwed between corporations and "pirates".. it is a very bad thing.. stopping this abuse is up to us individuals.. currently i don't rip (no time) but when i start, i'll definately pay lars (it's the ethical thing to do.)
I pay musicians with the time, effort, and bandwidth it takes to promote their music, just like the record companies. But I don't and won't SELL it. That's for them to do. If we can establish the idea that it is o.k. to share, but that selling is the stealing, we'll be fine. By creating a social contract where you agree to only buy from the copyright holder we can stop any real pirates dead, and let those of us that want to share be happy. That's what being GNUML is all about.
oh, and about Paylars. I think it's a joke. Regardless, I've already learned that whining children should NOT get what they want as a general rule. Judge me accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
That said, I think you have the weight of US copyright law against you, and I don't think anything is going to change that law.
tee-hee. Anything is a lot of stuff. Anything can change Everything. Particle Man beats Universe Man.
Particle man could fight Universe man, but he'd get his ass kicked. With no help of joining forces, there's really no hope for Particle man. Pity him.
E-mail me to join forces.
--
hehe. What happened to you .sig?
:-)
(just a gentle jab
--
yes, it was a silly suggestion. I think that was my point, but I'm not so sure now. Testing idealism is a good way to get hurt, IMHO. When things don't bend, they break.
--
I really think it's important to work on winning them over to free distribution.
I think it might be pretty easy. To get the RIAA to promote them, the artists must give up any and all rights to their art FOREVER. To get the people to promote them, all they have to do is say it's o.k. The Law needs to reflect this arrangement and protect the right to sell, or it will be too difficult to enforce as very powerful cartels will try to hijack both the Law and the art in order to sell another's work for profit. If we give the art back to the artists, create good laws, and teach respect for sound laws (pun!), I think the transition might go fairly easy. Altough the more time it takes, the gentler the road will be.
Note: this will also increase competition by a HUGE amount, but who here is against a little friendly competition. Besides these guys, of course.
--
That's an interesting angle. Not only do we get to call upon the Freedom Of Speech, but also the Freedom of the Press, and the, aw hell, just let me quote the thing.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Those are delineated here.
--
The poster obviously failed to follow the provided links regarding the DMCA
/.(or AOL wants to shutdown kuro5hin, or the CoS wants to shut down...) M$ pays a couple AC's to post unimportant yet highly actionable content on the site. Forces them to remove it. M$ does it again (follow shampoo instructions). M$ says to judge "This is getting rediculous, can we just shut the whole site down?"
The poster obviously feels that certain parts of the DMCA are a pile of shit.
The DMCA _makes_ content the service provider's responsibility.
Hmm (i.e. look at this scenario), M$ wants to shut down
Check numb's hack for another possible scenario.
Yes, the sites do share responsibility for what's on there, but some people do want to burn flags in public protest. It shouldn't be a public website's responsiblity to stop them.
Does anyone else think it's funny that Kerberos shows up again as we approach the Gates of Hell?
--
Do you really believe that slashdot wouldn't censor a list of credit card numbers? I think you're being a bit too idealistic here.
that depends on what you mean by censor. I would censor them myself, since I browse at 1 and would thus miss the spamming by the law-breaking AC.
hmm, the best was to test idealism is to test it.
Let's find out, anybody got a list of CC#s? (just curious, a simple yes or no will do....)
There's also this other little problem.... Big props to numb for pointing this out.
--
IIRC, wasn't there just a case that said that source code is considered protected speech, if you are talking about it and you need to "quote" it, just like what happened in the story they are trying to censor.
Couldn't find the link in under a minute, someone else will have too...
--
Comments are owned by the poster. Their content is the owner's responsibility. Microsoft should be sending letters to those people, who should then ask /. to remove the comments..if they want to be censored. This is part of the continuing trend to jump over the responsibility of individuals and make their actions the responsibiility of someone else (i.e. their ISP (Internet Service (i.e.News) Provider). The Internet makes control of digital media impossible, deal with it.
/., right?
If I posted a list of 100 stolen credit card numbers to Slashdot, would they remove that?
No, but they (gov't) should put yo' ass in jail. If they could find you... You do know that the FBI reads
--
I thought it was good article. At least it put Katz in the right light. "It's a throwback kind of thing." Yea, a throwback to the campfires of old, where 100,000 hackers and hangers on from around the world, would sit back, relax, and bullshit about the hunt^H^H^H^Hworld. ;-)
They try and downplay the whole phenom at the end, but that's cause they still don't get it. Heck, they wouldn't even let me contribute my own content. Don't they know that Rob and Jeff got those millions two cents at a time.
Anyway, there's two more. Congrats guys, the new servers rock......although I have seen a couple things today that kinda scare me....G27.org got the hack
--
This kind of news-by-discussion has emerged before online. But never before with the robust yeastiness of Slashdot.
mmmm, robust yeastiness. Hey, I smell beer, have some of you been drinking?
--
They don't even address the issue of why most cds cost exactly the same across stores and record companies. This smacks of price fixing to me.
Ask and ye shall receive. Somebody else found this, I tried searching MSNBC for it, but their search sucks...it's linked from this thread somewhere else too, but it's worthy of the extra attention. Big Bidness sure is ugly when you can see behind the curtain.
--
I think it would be the price. I still think they should be $20. Most PC games are too scary (seriously) for the wider market. Add in that $50 price tag, and you've totally obliterated any but the hard core market. It's an interesting industry to watch though. Didn't total sales for video games just pass motion picture revenues this last year?
--
'cause he's a troll with a full belly. I think it was the Beatle comment that got 'em. Nice one, SL.
--
It can affect Windows users without Outlook. All they have to do is run it (like that fine lady in Reseach did here,"Oooh, what does this button do?"). Without Outlook, though, I don't think it propogates as madly. Or at least it hasn't here...
--
it's important IMHO for the FCC to prohibit a single entity from owning more than one tv station and more than one radio station.
...state that an entity cannot own more than 8 media outlets in a market with a maximum of 2 TV stations.
The current laws... (they were just changed, which led to the Viacom/CBS merger, who want to change more laws since the current ones say that none of the Major networks could buy a small one like UPN)
--
Cool, my retort got published on kuro5hin....and slammed rightly. The next version is better....
--
Under the section. "Why do CD's cost so much?"
...For example, the most significant cost of a CD today is the marketing and promotion of that music. To learn more about why CDs are a great value -- check out Cost of a CD.
I, for one, am tired of paying for marketing. Why am I paying for someone to tell me what I like?
Oh, BTW, their closing argument for this defense.
By all measures, when you consider how long people have the music and how often they can go back and get "re-entertained" CDs truly are an incredible value for the money.
Thanks for your opinion, RIAA, now I'll go form my own.
--
Get a mixer.
--
Anti-copright? Alright. Support free music? Okay. Explain how you're doing people a *favor* by stealing their work against their wishes? Hah.
Read some of my comments, or the upcoming Rebuttal part duex for answers to some of these questions.
?No kidding - especially when they're all crying for free beer.
No kidding, Who do you mean by "they"?
If a band becomes popular from a purely free music background, that may actually cause large waves.
Which brings us to my next point (and what I was doing last night)
BIG HOLLOW endorses Free Music! Surprising nobody.
hehe
Or if you've ever heard of a band called Phish, as an example. There are a number of others, but you won't hear about them on CNN or the Radio...yet...
--
The law only makes is possible for record companies to sign their artists on a work for hire basis.
Hey, didja visit their website...hmmm. it changes,...more material. Anyway, check some of my old posts on this. Their old site (it has changed over the last week) had a link to a quick description of "Works for Hire" it was the first link of press releases. A quick search on their new side didn't turn it up, but I'm sure it's around.
PAC contributions are an unfortunate consequence of our existing government, but the RIAA would be remiss to not make them.
Yes, and if you think $5,000 is the actual donation, you're still smoking $3 crack.
Hey, I found this on thier new site.
As with most new technologies, the Internet doesn't just draw outside the lines of the conventional music industry - it offers the opportunity for truly revolutionary changes. But even in this new digital world, artists and record companies still have - and deserve - the right to protect their music. Many of the same laws apply in cyberspace such as copyright, and several new measures were enacted in the last few years to address issues that could not previously have been identified. This section reviews the legal issues surrounding the downloading and webcasting of music.
"WE deserve the right to innovate." Where have I heard that argument before..."Many of the same laws apply in cyberspace (here's a quick example, for ya') such as copyright." This page looks like it should be run by the FCC or Congress not the RIAA, who's running music anyway? (BTW, I want to applaud Kennard for his struggle. That guys taking a lot of shit everytime he want to share the airwaves or do anything much at all. Read up on LPFM for the details of the most recent struggle.)
Anyway, I'm still working on my rebuttal, keep an Eye on the Free Media Headling for details.
However, if you start paying people $2 million (Napster to Limp Bisket), you might start making believers out of just about anyone.
This makes me think you are a troll, or not reading your own posts.
--
If you're above accepting credit for promoting art you love, then a solution may be harder to find, IMO..
Credit, kickbacks, whatever. The promoters will get paid (I think CDNow has a good plan, but I haven't tried it). It's the same deal as we have now, but currently the RIAA wants to control the whole ball of wax, but it's melting, and their lawsuit-cooling plan is doomed to failure.
IP/Copyright laws need a serious workingthrough (word?) before they will have a chance of meaning much now. The DMCA was an attempt, but it got hijacked by the greedy. I think we need to go straight to the Constitution. (to keep this U.S. focused for the moment)
--
but it used to be when you owned something and it broke, if you had no warranty you are responsible for buying another one.
This raises an interesting issue about MP3s (and why I'll most likely never BUY them) that came up last week when the RIAA said ILOVEYOU to everyone (read the link below if you didn't hear that side of the story). Digital files are incredibly fragile. A whacked disk, a crazy magnet, a disgruntled 20-something in Singapore, or some interstellar EMP can make them all disappear in the blink of a virtual eye. They won't ever be a replacement for CDs, or any other phyiscal medium for that matter.
--
good thing that little irony flew right over my head, those things are sharp. :-)
--
(btw - yes, artists are getting royally screwed between corporations and "pirates".. it is a very bad thing .. stopping this abuse is up to us individuals.. currently i don't rip (no time) but when i start, i'll definately pay lars (it's the ethical thing to do.)
I pay musicians with the time, effort, and bandwidth it takes to promote their music, just like the record companies. But I don't and won't SELL it. That's for them to do. If we can establish the idea that it is o.k. to share, but that selling is the stealing, we'll be fine. By creating a social contract where you agree to only buy from the copyright holder we can stop any real pirates dead, and let those of us that want to share be happy. That's what being GNUML is all about.
oh, and about Paylars. I think it's a joke. Regardless, I've already learned that whining children should NOT get what they want as a general rule. Judge me accordingly.
--