You can do this pretty easily. The ratio between the effective and fatal dosages for LSD is quite large, something in the area of 1 to 250,000. If you've ever taken it, imagine taking 250,000 hits at once, silly putty for brains indeed. The difference in effective and fatal dosages for alchohol, OTOH, is about 1 to 4. Which is why so many more people die of alchohol poisoning.
tell me how much, per listener. Given the nature of radio, and the repition, they are (given a decent metro acrea) playing one song 6 times a day for 1,000,000 people. That's six million downloads a day. Calculate the per person per song cost and you'll see how much they pay.
Oh, and you might want to do a bit of research on how radio stations decide to play what they play. It's something that the Federal government had to make illegal because it happened so much. And as Microsoft (hell, even/.) has illustrated, no one ever breaks laws. (the hint word is "payola") --
Napster is one of the more clear cut examples of hypocricy to come out. Here is a company that hopes to make it rich by making it easier for people to steal the work of others.
Kind of like the Radio, eh? All that music just floating there waiting for people to hear it, err "steal" it. And wouldn't it be more accurate to say "here's a company that hopes to make it rich by providing a useful service (music distrubution) only made possible by massive advances in technology."
It seems very unlikely to me that Napster has a legitimate use, which is why I don't bother to defend it. to which I'll add, under our current system. And even that's straining. Does anyone believe in supply and demand anymore?
Here's a legitimate use. You have a band, the radio won't play your song, but you still play live shows. You release a couple songs on Napster. You want someone to hear your song (be they a possible gig, producer, promoter, fan, whatever). You say, "Start napster. Type in the band name, hit search. Tell me what you think."
And of course the canned response is "But that's not how people are using it."
And my response would be, "Not yet."
Unfortunately people don't (haven't been conditioned to) look for thier own music, or anything else, but only take what's placed before them (over and over and over). Those that do the placing (and get paid right well for it) think they should be the only ones allowed to do it, and our current laws (after 40+ years of lobbying efforts) reflect that.
Capitalism, digital media, and the Internet don't mix too well, at least not yet, and won't under the current environment.
Oh, and some folks come to/. for that "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters" part, Linux and Free Software are just a bonus.
The argument is invalid because you are trying to correlate listening to music with killing 12 million people. And did you read the Law, there are no exceptions. We all know the Nazis did very bad things, that's why you(or whoever) should try and come up with some decent metaphors.
it's stealing, according to the law, and we shouldn't talk about changing that law until we're ready to deal with the full ramifications.
You mean a place where artists are rewarded for skill rather than a hot bod?
Yes the artist gets $0 physical dollars when I listen to an MP3, that's the same as when I listen to them at a friends house or at a party. But after I like them, and decide to give them money for something of value, I do it. Get over it, centralized control of media is for dinosaurs. Those that don't adapt die.
/., like any other media outlet, picks story that they think people want to talk about. Notice how they skipped my "Sky is Still Blue" submissions every day for the past year.
I did see a nice blurb a while back, when M$ realized that lobbying might be a good idea. It was basically a list of who they had donated too, correlated with the list of names on a "Dear Colleague" letter about how the DOJ was unfairly targeting an innovator. It read like, and was probably based upon, a Microsoft Press Release (v8.2) --
Salon had article based on the RIAA's Napster "FAQs" page. Go read both, remove the direct quotes, and read it again. Then remove all the agents and managers comments, and read it again.
Playing music for money ain't easy, anyone throughout history would tell you that. Unfortunately we've progessed into an industrial corporate based nation where people only "make it" if they are millionaires at 20. The really sick thing is looking at all those people who "made it" at 20, and are dead broke by 30. Not only dead broke but unable to play thier own songs (because they would kill for some major label support. , giving up their live's work is less than killing)
The musicians DO get paid for their work, right when they sell it as works for hire to the record companies, it's the new owners who get pissed that people are bypassing their billion dollar (and a bit o'profit) distrubution and promotion schemes. Artists also get paid royalties, but at a much lesser rate than the companies, not to mention the companies are now *legally entitled* to their works for life +75.
Does any of this smell fishy to you? I think it sucks, sucks for musicians, sucks for fans, and sucks for pretty much everyone except the people who are sueing.
So along comes technology that instantly replaces 50 years of infrastructure, and you're going to tell me it's "stealing", if it wasn't for the fact that music has been so expensive for such a long time, most people would call it "sharing".
(sorry, not a flame, but I have to go off on this subject at least once a (G)Napsterstory, call it a moral imperative)
.and here's clue #2, change that little box under the post comments box from Extrans to Plain Old Text, you'll look like less of a clueless idiot. (that's a flame) OHMYGOD, I just realized I'm replying to an AOLer and trying to help, I feel dirty.
Most people have that view because it is in their best interest, in this case, listening to music outside the mainstream, and when they want to. Outside the sphere of corporate influence, which is why the sphere of corporate influence is soo pissed.
first off, the Katz flame. Jon, women like to talk, the Net makes talking real easy and fun. 2+2=?. It was just a matter of time until a generation could grow up with tech they aren't scared of. Get over it. -- second, I met a girl through/., or at least she met me. I posted something that some idiot thought was insightful or funny, her friend (with the same nick, Hi Wah!) found my page, they talked like girls do, she sent me an e-mail, I sent one back, and I got to meet a good person. We met at a Linux show and had a good time. We should be going out again this weekend, barring excessive professional duties, (luckily she only lives about an hour away) and things look promising.
So to all you other/.addicts in the crowd, keep posting, you'll meet someone.;-) (LOL)
I mean proper Unix, not some lame-ass slowed down version like Java. I'm a bit out of my depth here, tech-wise.
You need the ungraded Linux, it's up to 7.2 in some place, or 6.2 depending on your local government's level of interference. If you still can't figure it out, get the new emacs, my favourite is the red one.
We need to treat corporations like people. If they treat you like an asshole, treat them like one. Get the marketplace talking, build hate sites, build love sites, whatever. And for god's sake, encourage your friends to ditch AOL. --
Think about what you know for a minute: how long ago did you become acquainted with the place name "Kosovo"? and who where and how did "Kosovo" come to your attention? and what "facts" do you know - the more accurate word is believe about the last three years's events in Kosovo?
I have clipping I found funny on this. It was on the front page of USAToday a while back. Right after the "war in Kosovo" was "over".
Quality content like CNN's 24-hour Elian Watch. I heard today they were going to talk to a panel of experts on how *best* to give Elian back to his father. What a joke.
So by breaking a so-called "unjust" law you are just assuming that your opinion is better than the people which Americans elect to make these laws, which I would call arrogance of the worst kind. Your opinion is no more valid than any others,
When I talked to my Congressman the other day, he didn't know what the DMCA was. He barely understood the term reverse-engineer. He didn't know you could patent sotware, or why that might *possible* cause a problem. He does have a killer website though. My point, although our leaders are trying to do their jobs the best they can (...) often there is just too much to keep track of. The Internet brings this to light even quicker because of it's incredibly liquid and fast changing nature. It has becoming obvious, IMHO, that many of our IP laws were built for a differnt time. With a different set of rules. It's as if the laws of physics for media have been changed, now the laws of the the land need to adapt. They have become so stale and brittle from years of selfish interfence, that the most logical way to change them, is to break them. Repeatedly and casually.
Working together, I think that paying to buy movies online (maybe even before they're out in theatres) or buy songs will be the first step in preserving this threatened industry.
Who wants to preserve this threatened industry? I thought we had a free market, you don't set up industrial preserves in a free market. Serious question here, and I'd like to see reasons.
I was hoping to create something I like to think of as the GNU Media License. The basic idea is to both protect the right of the original creator to profit from their work, and to encourage free and widespread distrubution of creative works.
This is what I've got so far translated from a scribbled barroom napkin.
--
Protecting the right to profit. This is accomplished by explicitly prohibiting anyone from selling the artifact. Also, it must be set-up (somewhat like an EULA) that by using the artifact you are agreeing to the agreement under which it is released.
There must also be some provision to both enforce the spirit of the agreement (widespread free (beer/gratis) distrubuition) and lessen the value of the artifact in absolute (supply/demand) terms. This is accomplished by requiring each "mirror" of the artifact to include a link to another "working mirror" (mirror defined as another Internet address where the file can be downloaded with less than 2 "clicks" (or redirects) working mirror is any Internet address with 90%(?) uptime, aggregated per week(?)) Including a working mirror helps to increase total distrubution as well as creating an open environment for exchange. This also makes it much more difficult to illegally control access to artifacts released under this license, as well as helping to ferret out abuses.
Also, each mirror would also be required to produce "source" upon any request within 48 hours of receipt of request. This "source" is of course the original source (i.e. Internet address, most likely a URL) of the artifact. A bit of a problem here, as abuses could develop as someone uses this license to benefit from the distrubution and later remove the source. Perhaps some legalese is needed here, any lawmakers in the audience today?
I just put this together last night, but there will most likely be few tracks released under it tommorrow (got a mini-disc and a mic today:) My friend's band, with their permission.
I don't have much cash for lawyers, and I will be submitting for some help from the FSF, but I figured I'd post it for the phreaks here first, and I know they're pretty busy right now;).
Oh, and the original creator is allowed to profit by releasing the artifact under a different license (i.e. regular copyright) as the original author of the work, CDs, DVDS, Mini-Discs, Memory Sticks, whatever. Not to mention any other way they can from free global distrubution of their artifacts.
Comments, flames, suggestions? (oh, and this is the "dealing with it" part..) --
I'll let you know if I come up with a solution for this, but don't hold your breath. Where's my idealism? I know I left it around here somewhere?
Build you own paper. It's quite simple. IP address + server + domain. Spend a couple grand and few weeks, and report whatever the hell you want. It's a soapbox derby, get in on it.
As my Mom always told me "Remember who you are and what you stand for."
Yea, I've got my tape recorder ready for sat the 8th. I'm ready for some new episodes, if only TW didn't own Cartoon Network, I wouldn't have to ignore all the AOL commercials, get's annoying with 3 or 4 an hour.
Your analogy is flawed. It would be more like after you program for your employer, and he owns your work, you are no longer allowed to build that program again, or one similar to it. Programmers get paid for their present and future potential, artists get paid for the work they've already created. Do you see the difference? If I'm Britney Spears and I write a song for hire, after they kick by 19(?) year old ass back on the street, I can't even sing my own songs without permission. If I'm Roy Taylor (and I am) and I write programs for hire (and I do) then after they kick my 25 year old ass on the street, I can do (basically) the exact same thing for someone else, I don't have to "forget" everything I've done (minus non-competes, IP agreements)
This is the difference between creating Art and Building stuff. This fundamental difference is why your agreement with the RIAA's lobbying efforts is misplaced, IMHO.
Yea, I think that ananogy fit, but only if you look at Michael Jordan in the same light. Like that year he "retired" to play baseball. Retired for about a year, the length of something like say a "suspension". You ARE familar with his gambling habit right? You do know that sports figures shouldn't be gambling on certain things, and you do know that the baseball team he played for was owned by the owner of the Bulls. And one of my favorite Jordan quotes, walking back down the court after a hard foul, "You foul me like that again, I'll have you killed."
I mean the guy (Jordan) brings in roughly $10 billion to the U.S. economy, who is going to slam dunk him in the mass media?
Slashdot Mirror
You can do this pretty easily. The ratio between the effective and fatal dosages for LSD is quite large, something in the area of 1 to 250,000. If you've ever taken it, imagine taking 250,000 hits at once, silly putty for brains indeed. The difference in effective and fatal dosages for alchohol, OTOH, is about 1 to 4. Which is why so many more people die of alchohol poisoning.
--
tell me how much, per listener. Given the nature of radio, and the repition, they are (given a decent metro acrea) playing one song 6 times a day for 1,000,000 people. That's six million downloads a day. Calculate the per person per song cost and you'll see how much they pay.
/.) has illustrated, no one ever breaks laws. (the hint word is "payola")
Oh, and you might want to do a bit of research on how radio stations decide to play what they play. It's something that the Federal government had to make illegal because it happened so much. And as Microsoft (hell, even
--
maybe that's because we're all different individuals.
well, I'm not, but the rest are.
--
good cd rippers and a good extension. Please tell me these files a "musicfile".OGG
--
Napster is one of the more clear cut examples of hypocricy to come out. Here is a company that hopes to make it rich by making it easier for people to steal the work of others.
Kind of like the Radio, eh? All that music just floating there waiting for people to hear it, err "steal" it. And wouldn't it be more accurate to say "here's a company that hopes to make it rich by providing a useful service (music distrubution) only made possible by massive advances in technology."
--
It seems very unlikely to me that Napster has a legitimate use, which is why I don't bother to defend it. to which I'll add, under our current system. And even that's straining. Does anyone believe in supply and demand anymore?
/. for that "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters" part, Linux and Free Software are just a bonus.
Here's a legitimate use. You have a band, the radio won't play your song, but you still play live shows. You release a couple songs on Napster. You want someone to hear your song (be they a possible gig, producer, promoter, fan, whatever). You say, "Start napster. Type in the band name, hit search. Tell me what you think."
And of course the canned response is "But that's not how people are using it."
And my response would be, "Not yet."
Unfortunately people don't (haven't been conditioned to) look for thier own music, or anything else, but only take what's placed before them (over and over and over). Those that do the placing (and get paid right well for it) think they should be the only ones allowed to do it, and our current laws (after 40+ years of lobbying efforts) reflect that.
Capitalism, digital media, and the Internet don't mix too well, at least not yet, and won't under the current environment.
Oh, and some folks come to
--
The argument is invalid because you are trying to correlate listening to music with killing 12 million people. And did you read the Law, there are no exceptions. We all know the Nazis did very bad things, that's why you(or whoever) should try and come up with some decent metaphors.
it's stealing, according to the law, and we shouldn't talk about changing that law until we're ready to deal with the full ramifications.
You mean a place where artists are rewarded for skill rather than a hot bod?
Yes the artist gets $0 physical dollars when I listen to an MP3, that's the same as when I listen to them at a friends house or at a party. But after I like them, and decide to give them money for something of value, I do it. Get over it, centralized control of media is for dinosaurs. Those that don't adapt die.
--
/., like any other media outlet, picks story that they think people want to talk about. Notice how they skipped my "Sky is Still Blue" submissions every day for the past year.
I did see a nice blurb a while back, when M$ realized that lobbying might be a good idea. It was basically a list of who they had donated too, correlated with the list of names on a "Dear Colleague" letter about how the DOJ was unfairly targeting an innovator. It read like, and was probably based upon, a Microsoft Press Release (v8.2)
--
Salon had article based on the RIAA's Napster "FAQs" page. Go read both, remove the direct quotes, and read it again. Then remove all the agents and managers comments, and read it again.
Playing music for money ain't easy, anyone throughout history would tell you that. Unfortunately we've progessed into an industrial corporate based nation where people only "make it" if they are millionaires at 20. The really sick thing is looking at all those people who "made it" at 20, and are dead broke by 30. Not only dead broke but unable to play thier own songs (because they would kill for some major label support. , giving up their live's work is less than killing)
The musicians DO get paid for their work, right when they sell it as works for hire to the record companies, it's the new owners who get pissed that people are bypassing their billion dollar (and a bit o'profit) distrubution and promotion schemes. Artists also get paid royalties, but at a much lesser rate than the companies, not to mention the companies are now *legally entitled* to their works for life +75.
Does any of this smell fishy to you? I think it sucks, sucks for musicians, sucks for fans, and sucks for pretty much everyone except the people who are sueing.
So along comes technology that instantly replaces 50 years of infrastructure, and you're going to tell me it's "stealing", if it wasn't for the fact that music has been so expensive for such a long time, most people would call it "sharing".
(sorry, not a flame, but I have to go off on this subject at least once a (G)Napsterstory, call it a moral imperative)
.and here's clue #2, change that little box under the post comments box from Extrans to Plain Old Text, you'll look like less of a clueless idiot. (that's a flame) OHMYGOD, I just realized I'm replying to an AOLer and trying to help, I feel dirty.
--
hint: 90% of all germans thought it ok to kill off all the jews.
You lose, now come up with some real arguments.
Most people have that view because it is in their best interest, in this case, listening to music outside the mainstream, and when they want to. Outside the sphere of corporate influence, which is why the sphere of corporate influence is soo pissed.
--
first off, the Katz flame. Jon, women like to talk, the Net makes talking real easy and fun. 2+2=?. It was just a matter of time until a generation could grow up with tech they aren't scared of. Get over it. /., or at least she met me. I posted something that some idiot thought was insightful or funny, her friend (with the same nick, Hi Wah!) found my page, they talked like girls do, she sent me an e-mail, I sent one back, and I got to meet a good person. We met at a Linux show and had a good time. We should be going out again this weekend, barring excessive professional duties, (luckily she only lives about an hour away) and things look promising.
/.addicts in the crowd, keep posting, you'll meet someone.;-) (LOL)
--
second, I met a girl through
So to all you other
--
I mean proper Unix, not some lame-ass slowed down version like Java. I'm a bit out of my depth here, tech-wise.
You need the ungraded Linux, it's up to 7.2 in some place, or 6.2 depending on your local government's level of interference. If you still can't figure it out, get the new emacs, my favourite is the red one.
--
We need to treat corporations like people. If they treat you like an asshole, treat them like one. Get the marketplace talking, build hate sites, build love sites, whatever. And for god's sake, encourage your friends to ditch AOL.
--
Think about what you know for a minute: how long ago did you become acquainted with the place name "Kosovo"? and who where and how did "Kosovo" come to your attention? and what "facts" do you know - the more accurate word is believe about the last three years's events in Kosovo?
I have clipping I found funny on this. It was on the front page of USAToday a while back. Right after the "war in Kosovo" was "over".
Here it is
--
Quality content like CNN's 24-hour Elian Watch. I heard today they were going to talk to a panel of experts on how *best* to give Elian back to his father. What a joke.
--
Keep thinking a little while before you post. Check my user info for some answers to you objections.
--
So by breaking a so-called "unjust" law you are just assuming that your opinion is better than the people which Americans elect to make these laws, which I would call arrogance of the worst kind. Your opinion is no more valid than any others,
When I talked to my Congressman the other day, he didn't know what the DMCA was. He barely understood the term reverse-engineer. He didn't know you could patent sotware, or why that might *possible* cause a problem. He does have a killer website though. My point, although our leaders are trying to do their jobs the best they can (...) often there is just too much to keep track of. The Internet brings this to light even quicker because of it's incredibly liquid and fast changing nature. It has becoming obvious, IMHO, that many of our IP laws were built for a differnt time. With a different set of rules. It's as if the laws of physics for media have been changed, now the laws of the the land need to adapt. They have become so stale and brittle from years of selfish interfence, that the most logical way to change them, is to break them. Repeatedly and casually.
--
So.. shall we find a bunch of social outcasts again and start a revolution? That seems to be how these things work...
/.?
Yea, you ever hear of this site called
--
Working together, I think that paying to buy movies online (maybe even before they're out in theatres) or buy songs will be the first step in preserving this threatened industry.
Who wants to preserve this threatened industry? I thought we had a free market, you don't set up industrial preserves in a free market. Serious question here, and I'd like to see reasons.
--
to carry things to their logical conclusion. :-)
:) My friend's band, with their permission.
;).
I was hoping to create something I like to think of as the GNU Media License. The basic idea is to both protect the right of the original creator to profit from their work, and to encourage free and widespread distrubution of creative works.
This is what I've got so far translated from a scribbled barroom napkin.
--
Protecting the right to profit. This is accomplished by explicitly prohibiting anyone from selling the artifact. Also, it must be set-up (somewhat like an EULA) that by using the artifact you are agreeing to the agreement under which it is released.
There must also be some provision to both enforce the spirit of the agreement (widespread free (beer/gratis) distrubuition) and lessen the value of the artifact in absolute (supply/demand) terms. This is accomplished by requiring each "mirror" of the artifact to include a link to another "working mirror" (mirror defined as another Internet address where the file can be downloaded with less than 2 "clicks" (or redirects) working mirror is any Internet address with 90%(?) uptime, aggregated per week(?)) Including a working mirror helps to increase total distrubution as well as creating an open environment for exchange. This also makes it much more difficult to illegally control access to artifacts released under this license, as well as helping to ferret out abuses.
Also, each mirror would also be required to produce "source" upon any request within 48 hours of receipt of request. This "source" is of course the original source (i.e. Internet address, most likely a URL) of the artifact. A bit of a problem here, as abuses could develop as someone uses this license to benefit from the distrubution and later remove the source. Perhaps some legalese is needed here, any lawmakers in the audience today?
I just put this together last night, but there will most likely be few tracks released under it tommorrow (got a mini-disc and a mic today
I don't have much cash for lawyers, and I will be submitting for some help from the FSF, but I figured I'd post it for the phreaks here first, and I know they're pretty busy right now
Oh, and the original creator is allowed to profit by releasing the artifact under a different license (i.e. regular copyright) as the original author of the work, CDs, DVDS, Mini-Discs, Memory Sticks, whatever. Not to mention any other way they can from free global distrubution of their artifacts.
Comments, flames, suggestions? (oh, and this is the "dealing with it" part..)
--
I'll let you know if I come up with a solution for this, but don't hold your breath.
Where's my idealism? I know I left it around here somewhere?
Build you own paper. It's quite simple. IP address + server + domain. Spend a couple grand and few weeks, and report whatever the hell you want. It's a soapbox derby, get in on it.
As my Mom always told me "Remember who you are and what you stand for."
--
(and then everyone dies, I love it)
Yea, I've got my tape recorder ready for sat the 8th. I'm ready for some new episodes, if only TW didn't own Cartoon Network, I wouldn't have to ignore all the AOL commercials, get's annoying with 3 or 4 an hour.
--
Your analogy is flawed. It would be more like after you program for your employer, and he owns your work, you are no longer allowed to build that program again, or one similar to it. Programmers get paid for their present and future potential, artists get paid for the work they've already created. Do you see the difference? If I'm Britney Spears and I write a song for hire, after they kick by 19(?) year old ass back on the street, I can't even sing my own songs without permission. If I'm Roy Taylor (and I am) and I write programs for hire (and I do) then after they kick my 25 year old ass on the street, I can do (basically) the exact same thing for someone else, I don't have to "forget" everything I've done (minus non-competes, IP agreements)
This is the difference between creating Art and Building stuff. This fundamental difference is why your agreement with the RIAA's lobbying efforts is misplaced, IMHO.
--
...deep linking DoubleClick ads?
/.^H^HAnd^H^H^HVALinux.
Practice what you preach
--
Yea, I think that ananogy fit, but only if you look at Michael Jordan in the same light. Like that year he "retired" to play baseball. Retired for about a year, the length of something like say a "suspension". You ARE familar with his gambling habit right? You do know that sports figures shouldn't be gambling on certain things, and you do know that the baseball team he played for was owned by the owner of the Bulls. And one of my favorite Jordan quotes, walking back down the court after a hard foul, "You foul me like that again, I'll have you killed."
I mean the guy (Jordan) brings in roughly $10 billion to the U.S. economy, who is going to slam dunk him in the mass media?
--