maybe it's time for you to stop running from problems and face them; serve for jury duty when you are called.
Oooh, ooh, root of the problem.
A while back in a meeting the CEO of our company rationalized paying off a previous employee rather than going to court saying (paraphrased) "I'm not gonna trust some dumbass jury to do the right thing."
Cut to about a month later. Offhand comment about an employee taking off to go to jury duty- "Jury duty is for people too stupid to get out of it."
DeCSS (etc.) + Gnutella = The REAL Internet. Centralized control of media is for dinosaurs.
We're just getting this thing started! Organic chips that you spray on stuff. Ethernet cards with a maximun bandwidth of 100/mb/sec, oh, um...wait a sec..
(yes I know about gigabit ethernet, I've also seen the *actual* throughput)
No, I think he meant using its overwhelming power to subjucate and expoloit those weaker than it. At least, as an American and M$ hater, that's how I see it.
I'm well familiar with it. I know, I know, I've flamed people before for bitching about moderation. But like a few people have said, for the questionable stuff, why not just respond instead of modding?
And this is also a lament about the PC'ness of/. (that's political correctness) that has become very apparent after the IPO, VA takeover, etc. i.e. after the major media coverage and bunch of people flooded the place. It's like Usenet all over again. Hopefully some of them will find a clue along the way, but from many of their posts, clue-finding isn't real high on the priority list. But that's okay really, just more people to argue about MP3s with.:-)
Now when I say/. has become PC, that's relative to what it used to be. Maybe it just got too big, whatever. I should stop posting and do some modding, but I like arg^H^H^Hdiscussion, so here I am.
Just because its "difficult" to thwart digital media problems doesn't mean its right.
So you see the lack of control as a problem, I see it as a feature. Deal with it, means in the market sense, not the "fuck off" snese.
-insert ridiculous claims by an AC how personal promotion does nothing to increase demand (Hey, look it's a RADIO!)
-inset additional claims how it's wrong to share the beauty we find in life, because someone else has "rights" to it. (rights set up for the sole purpose of propogating arts and science)
Half-baked arguments only get better with flames. Thanks again, AC.
I get your point, just going through the motions doesn't help anybody. Let me try and make my point again ('cause if you didn't get it, I'm sure someone else missed it too)
By reading some person's own personal political agenda about the internet you aren't forming your own opinions, you're just sucking up someone else's.
In this case, "sucking up to someone else's" == "forming your own" BECAUSE that's what their agenda is. If I say "Think for yourself", and you say "No", I say "Thanks"
When people stop trying to control the thoughts of net users then things might change, but until then communist ideals of everyone being alike (or "getting it") will hold these changes back.
You are in need of the platitude. When the message people are trying to get across is "Think for yourself, dammit!", how exactly does "getting it" become some type of conformity to a behavioural pattern?
what people seem to forget here is that we all have our own views of life, and that these views are all valid in their own ways
Then you DO get it, now try and pass it on.
I, for one, am looking forward to purchasing the book, not to read, but to pass along and spread the meme. Think for youself, dammit! --
the country has become more prosperous, which seems to be the bottom line for most Singaporeans.
It's the same in the U.S. How else do you get the DMCA passed? UCITA? And even though it's not really effecting the Internet, take a look at the whole LPFM (Low Power FM) b.s., that's currently getting slammed by the NAB, it's lobbyists, and their congressmen. When things are rosy, nobody spends the time to watch or care about the politicos, and by the time it's not, laws have already been written and precedents have been set. Pay attention now, or pay for it later.
maybe you had the special "commercials" (notice the s) version before I did, but I didn't ever notice an ad downloading a file, until AFTER AOL bought Netscape, the very next version to be precise.
From the Urban Legends File - I heard M$ IE transmits all kinds of sys info if you log on to one of their web sites. Stuff like OS, apps, etc. Any truth to this?
If you're using IE 4+, check your Internet Options, Advanced.
Uncheck "Enable Page Hit Counting" which allows sites to store your surfing information on your computer and query it as necessary.
Uncheck "Enable Profile assistant" which transmits all kinds of sys info if you log on to one of their web sites.
I would think it would more mean that talking about it, using the code, is legal. The program itself is still questionable, not for me, but under the Law.
Somebody, please, either put the final crushing blow to my silly thought that slashdot isn't just full of arrogant posturing fools, or tell me what it is about unsolicited and totally uninformed legal advice that gives everybody here such a stiffy.
Wow, I thought this was just a conversation about a legal ruling. I didn't realize people came to/. for legal advice.
Welcome to BenchDot:
News for Lawyers, Stuff that Sues
(arrogant posturing fool #30840, reporting for duty, SIR!) --
Joe's friends come over to his house. They all listen to his music.
Friend1: "Joe, that's a cool band, where'd you find 'em" Joe: "Napster, then I (outlines the hour(s) long process of making his own CD)" Friend2: "Hey, Friend1, I'll save you the trouble, go to their site and order it for $5. Saves time , frustration. Plus you get real CD quality music, cover art, and a cute jewel case" Friend1:"Thanks guys, I can't wait to see them live. When are they coming to town?"
No hardware companies, no deep infrastructure, just stuff to keep people busy and happy.
Perhaps you remember the third member of the triad: Bill, Steve, and Paul. You DO remember what Paul Allen has been buying for the last 5 years or so, right? (hint: it's called cable)
Freedom and personal liberty, things I'm a fan of, have this notion built in - self-interest is put above that of community interest.
The problem I've noticed is when we equate self with billion dollar companies, like the laws say we should. This creates a massive imbalance in personal power and eventually erodes the Freedom and Personal Liberty we both hold so dear.
Anyway, it's been fun, I'll leave you to get muddled down with the likes of "Emerson", who seems to have some well-thought through points without having mentioned the Nazi party.
It has, I'll see you around. And Emerson seems to be coming around. I'm quite a different person than I think most people see when they read my posts. Usually it takes too much time to sound civilized and since I do most of this at work (shhh), sometimes it's easier to blast than to cajole. This discussion would have been quite a bit more civilized over a couple of beers.
Thanks again, and keep an eye out for those Nazis.;-)
And what makes you think there won't be a grillion folks out there saying "some rules NEED to be smashed" and breaking your license right and left for their own profit, just like you're doing to the existing schemes?
Maybe you could explain how they could? Given freely distributable music, where is the profit for pirates? Who, since they know the artists are making a leap of faith, would knowingly go through some other source, pay some other source, when they know they can buy it straight from an artist? And if we keep the insanely high prices of CDs standard, 1 sale from the artist whould give them as much revenue as roughly 20 sold under the yoke of an RIAA member company.
If what we're on about is getting paid from the end user directly to the artist in some strange math, what startup do we need?
Remember they are getting paid with the same value they get from radio play, free exposure to create rabid fans. What startup do we need? Why can't you be doing this already out of wahcentral.net? Glad you asked. And I am. It's a section called "Digital Caffeine" and hopes to use the/. style submission and comment method to generate content. It's not doing much right now, that's where the VC comes in. (Oh and if you "steal" my idea, let me know, and you can hire me to tell you how to do it right). Here's another one that's come to my attention from these discussions. Someone DOING something. Try here if you want to help with a cool project. ('sup numb:-) Locally is the best way to start revolutions.
if this is such a "GREAT" model for revenue, then why are all the artists against it?????
first off, it's not all, second off, because the artists don't own the copyrights, third off, most people are scared of what they don't understand, the vast majority of music artists I know are barely familar with the Internet, half of them even have AOL accounts....
again, it's not the money, but the value. The same value that you are trading to the record companies in exchange for distrubution and promotion.
Given free promotion, while retaining the rights to your music (which VERY few artists have under our current system), $9 of that $15 CD would now go to the artists. And I don't think it'd be a couple extra tickets at gigs, but a couple extra gigs per city. This is given a good band, with rabid fans, and free distribution.
It's not like I can open-source my music and then go make money doing consulting on my songs?
Actually it is, if you replace "doing consulting" with "playing in front of a live audience". And that's a live audience who are all familar with your music. And it would have to be different than a regular OSS licence, you have to protect the right to sell.
Now, I like your scenario of everyone doing music for the love of it, and popular artists somehow getting paid just for being popular (although the math is kind of vague in there).
See also, Phish. The value comes from the effort put forth by the fans to spread the music. The artists don't have to pay promoters, and neither do we. I understand the math is vague, but the whole picture is cloudy at this point.
The reason most record companies can't and won't go with this model, is that it takes much longer to build up an act. Without millions of dollars of focused advertising and *questionable* (to say the least) tactics used to get on radio, it becomes quite difficult for records companies to make the kinds of profits that keep shareholders happy. Without the ability to strictly control access to music, the industry has no business model. That control used to be inherent in the system. Now it isn't. The business model needs to change.
You want this scheme to work, make it work: set up a record label that gives the music away free. Go on, do it. Get artists to sign up, come up with a business plan that gets people paid somehow for this, and I'll be the first one, really, the VERY FIRST ONE to sign up and help out.
Why do you think I spend so much time talking about this?;) If you've got the VC I'm ready to go. The most important thing is creating the license. For it to work I think we need to change copyright law to reflect the fact that sharing digital music is not a crime. However, profiting directly from another's work, without permission should be. There do need to be protections, but not the strangling ones of today. So I need a license that says "you are free to distrubute this content unchanged for non-commercial use" while withholding both ultimate ownership and right to profit for the copyright holder (I'd say artist, but that's not the reality). Which is where copyright law comes in.
And scrambling to justify it with a lot of what-ifs and if-only's
I don't recall scrambling, or what if's and if only's. I'm quite confortable with my opinion, and the logic behind it. I see a problem that is causing other problems, and I see a solution to the original disease. I'm working toward that solution.
Slashdot Mirror
maybe it's time for you to stop running from problems and face them; serve for jury duty when you are called.
Oooh, ooh, root of the problem.
A while back in a meeting the CEO of our company rationalized paying off a previous employee rather than going to court saying (paraphrased) "I'm not gonna trust some dumbass jury to do the right thing."
Cut to about a month later. Offhand comment about an employee taking off to go to jury duty- "Jury duty is for people too stupid to get out of it."
!!!
--
DeCSS (etc.) + Gnutella = The REAL Internet. Centralized control of media is for dinosaurs.
We're just getting this thing started! Organic chips that you spray on stuff. Ethernet cards with a maximun bandwidth of 100/mb/sec, oh, um...wait a sec..
(yes I know about gigabit ethernet, I've also seen the *actual* throughput)
--
No, I think he meant using its overwhelming power to subjucate and expoloit those weaker than it. At least, as an American and M$ hater, that's how I see it.
--
I'm well familiar with it. I know, I know, I've flamed people before for bitching about moderation. But like a few people have said, for the questionable stuff, why not just respond instead of modding?
/. (that's political correctness) that has become very apparent after the IPO, VA takeover, etc. i.e. after the major media coverage and bunch of people flooded the place. It's like Usenet all over again. Hopefully some of them will find a clue along the way, but from many of their posts, clue-finding isn't real high on the priority list. But that's okay really, just more people to argue about MP3s with. :-)
/. has become PC, that's relative to what it used to be. Maybe it just got too big, whatever. I should stop posting and do some modding, but I like arg^H^H^Hdiscussion, so here I am.
And this is also a lament about the PC'ness of
Now when I say
--
Just because its "difficult" to thwart digital media problems doesn't mean its right.
So you see the lack of control as a problem, I see it as a feature. Deal with it, means in the market sense, not the "fuck off" snese.
-insert ridiculous claims by an AC how personal promotion does nothing to increase demand (Hey, look it's a RADIO!)
-inset additional claims how it's wrong to share the beauty we find in life, because someone else has "rights" to it. (rights set up for the sole purpose of propogating arts and science)
Half-baked arguments only get better with flames. Thanks again, AC.
--
wow, I didn't realize questioning the ultimate power of money was flamebait. Welcome to the post IPO /.
--
Stimulus != response
I get your point, just going through the motions doesn't help anybody. Let me try and make my point again ('cause if you didn't get it, I'm sure someone else missed it too)
By reading some person's own personal political agenda about the internet you aren't forming your own opinions, you're just sucking up someone else's.
In this case, "sucking up to someone else's" == "forming your own" BECAUSE that's what their agenda is. If I say "Think for yourself", and you say "No", I say "Thanks"
--
the truth is that the Internet is making people aware that there ARE chains on their backs.
Not only that, but it is giving them the tools to break those chains.
--
When people stop trying to control the thoughts of net users then things might change, but until then communist ideals of everyone being alike (or "getting it") will hold these changes back.
You are in need of the platitude. When the message people are trying to get across is "Think for yourself, dammit!", how exactly does "getting it" become some type of conformity to a behavioural pattern?
what people seem to forget here is that we all have our own views of life, and that these views are all valid in their own ways
Then you DO get it, now try and pass it on.
I, for one, am looking forward to purchasing the book, not to read, but to pass along and spread the meme. Think for youself, dammit!
--
the country has become more prosperous, which seems to be the bottom line for most Singaporeans.
It's the same in the U.S. How else do you get the DMCA passed? UCITA? And even though it's not really effecting the Internet, take a look at the whole LPFM (Low Power FM) b.s., that's currently getting slammed by the NAB, it's lobbyists, and their congressmen. When things are rosy, nobody spends the time to watch or care about the politicos, and by the time it's not, laws have already been written and precedents have been set. Pay attention now, or pay for it later.
--
somehow I don't see how protecting a copyright for 75 years after the death of the original creator does much to stimulate new discoveries.
--
"How about this example?
Seems to fit a little better, and is already in reprodcutive mode.
--
maybe you had the special "commercials" (notice the s) version before I did, but I didn't ever notice an ad downloading a file, until AFTER AOL bought Netscape, the very next version to be precise.
--
From the Urban Legends File - I heard M$ IE transmits all kinds of sys info if you log on to
one of their web sites. Stuff like OS, apps, etc. Any truth to this?
If you're using IE 4+, check your Internet Options, Advanced.
Uncheck "Enable Page Hit Counting" which allows sites to store your surfing information on your computer and query it as necessary.
Uncheck "Enable Profile assistant" which transmits all kinds of sys info if you log on to one of their web sites.
--
PS While they're at it, can we do something about that annoying SmartDownload program that shows banners?
Welcome to the wonderful world of AOL.
--
Remember, we are not in the business of selling the same application every two years, but in the business of solving the problem.
Thanks. Keep up the good work!
--
I would think it would more mean that talking about it, using the code, is legal. The program itself is still questionable, not for me, but under the Law.
--
Somebody, please, either put the final crushing blow to my silly thought that slashdot isn't just full of arrogant posturing fools, or tell me what it is about unsolicited and totally uninformed legal advice that gives everybody here such a stiffy.
/. for legal advice.
Wow, I thought this was just a conversation about a legal ruling. I didn't realize people came to
Welcome to BenchDot:
News for Lawyers, Stuff that Sues
(arrogant posturing fool #30840, reporting for duty, SIR!)
--
Joe's friends come over to his house. They all listen to his music.
Friend1: "Joe, that's a cool band, where'd you find 'em"
Joe: "Napster, then I (outlines the hour(s) long process of making his own CD)"
Friend2: "Hey, Friend1, I'll save you the trouble, go to their site and order it for $5. Saves time , frustration. Plus you get real CD quality music, cover art, and a cute jewel case"
Friend1:"Thanks guys, I can't wait to see them live. When are they coming to town?"
'cause the world ain't full of geeks.
--
No hardware companies, no deep infrastructure, just stuff to keep people busy and happy.
Perhaps you remember the third member of the triad: Bill, Steve, and Paul. You DO remember what Paul Allen has been buying for the last 5 years or so, right? (hint: it's called cable)
--
Freedom and personal liberty, things I'm a fan of, have this notion built in - self-interest is put above that of community interest.
;-)
The problem I've noticed is when we equate self with billion dollar companies, like the laws say we should. This creates a massive imbalance in personal power and eventually erodes the Freedom and Personal Liberty we both hold so dear.
Anyway, it's been fun, I'll leave you to get muddled down with the likes of "Emerson", who seems to have some well-thought through points
without having mentioned the Nazi party.
It has, I'll see you around. And Emerson seems to be coming around. I'm quite a different person than I think most people see when they read my posts. Usually it takes too much time to sound civilized and since I do most of this at work (shhh), sometimes it's easier to blast than to cajole. This discussion would have been quite a bit more civilized over a couple of beers.
Thanks again, and keep an eye out for those Nazis.
--
And what makes you think there won't be a grillion folks out there saying "some rules NEED to be smashed" and breaking your license right and left for their own profit, just like you're doing to the existing schemes?
/. style submission and comment method to generate content. It's not doing much right now, that's where the VC comes in. (Oh and if you "steal" my idea, let me know, and you can hire me to tell you how to do it right). Here's another one that's come to my attention from these discussions. Someone DOING something. Try here if you want to help with a cool project. ('sup numb :-) Locally is the best way to start revolutions.
Maybe you could explain how they could? Given freely distributable music, where is the profit for pirates? Who, since they know the artists are making a leap of faith, would knowingly go through some other source, pay some other source, when they know they can buy it straight from an artist? And if we keep the insanely high prices of CDs standard, 1 sale from the artist whould give them as much revenue as roughly 20 sold under the yoke of an RIAA member company.
If what we're on about is getting paid from the end user directly to the artist in some strange math, what startup do we need?
Remember they are getting paid with the same value they get from radio play, free exposure to create rabid fans. What startup do we need? Why can't you be doing this already out of wahcentral.net? Glad you asked. And I am. It's a section called "Digital Caffeine" and hopes to use the
--
if this is such a "GREAT" model for revenue, then why are all the artists against it?????
first off, it's not all, second off, because the artists don't own the copyrights, third off, most people are scared of what they don't understand, the vast majority of music artists I know are barely familar with the Internet, half of them even have AOL accounts....
Did you read this?.
--
again, it's not the money, but the value. The same value that you are trading to the record companies in exchange for distrubution and promotion.
Given free promotion, while retaining the rights to your music (which VERY few artists have under our current system), $9 of that $15 CD would now go to the artists. And I don't think it'd be a couple extra tickets at gigs, but a couple extra gigs per city. This is given a good band, with rabid fans, and free distribution.
It's not like I can open-source my music and then go make money doing consulting on my songs?
Actually it is, if you replace "doing consulting" with "playing in front of a live audience". And that's a live audience who are all familar with your music. And it would have to be different than a regular OSS licence, you have to protect the right to sell.
I've posted way too much to this thread, g'night.
--
Now, I like your scenario of everyone doing music for the love of it, and popular artists somehow getting paid just for being popular (although the math is kind of vague in there).
;) If you've got the VC I'm ready to go. The most important thing is creating the license. For it to work I think we need to change copyright law to reflect the fact that sharing digital music is not a crime. However, profiting directly from another's work, without permission should be. There do need to be protections, but not the strangling ones of today. So I need a license that says "you are free to distrubute this content unchanged for non-commercial use" while withholding both ultimate ownership and right to profit for the copyright holder (I'd say artist, but that's not the reality). Which is where copyright law comes in.
See also, Phish. The value comes from the effort put forth by the fans to spread the music. The artists don't have to pay promoters, and neither do we. I understand the math is vague, but the whole picture is cloudy at this point.
The reason most record companies can't and won't go with this model, is that it takes much longer to build up an act. Without millions of dollars of focused advertising and *questionable* (to say the least) tactics used to get on radio, it becomes quite difficult for records companies to make the kinds of profits that keep shareholders happy. Without the ability to strictly control access to music, the industry has no business model. That control used to be inherent in the system. Now it isn't. The business model needs to change.
You want this scheme to work, make it work: set up a record label that gives the music away free. Go on, do it. Get artists to sign up, come up with a business plan that gets people paid somehow for this, and I'll be the first one, really, the VERY FIRST ONE to sign up and help out.
Why do you think I spend so much time talking about this?
And scrambling to justify it with a lot of what-ifs and if-only's
I don't recall scrambling, or what if's and if only's. I'm quite confortable with my opinion, and the logic behind it. I see a problem that is causing other problems, and I see a solution to the original disease. I'm working toward that solution.
--