This is again where your personal notion of theft gets confusing again.
That's exactly what I wanted to address first. This word you keep using, "stealing". Everywhere you put that I would probably use sharing. I am not stealing songs from Napster, I'm sharing them. This is a big part of my argument. Not stealing, sharing. (to steal is not only to take, but also to deprive, IMO)
Contributing my personal resources, I become the equivalent of a radio station. Except my listeners get to pick their own music and listen to it on their own time. Like right now, there are 609,193 pieces of music that I could be listening to in less than 5 minutes. Many of them are duplicates, but that's why the RIAA has to go after Napster and not the individuals. That, of course, is a moot point already, as folks have taken the idea of distributed file storage networks, and run with it. THAT is the reality of the situation. Our laws need to reflect that reality rather than try and dictate a different one.
NOW, given that, you still need to be able to "promote the progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
This Right is what needs better defining. The wrong people are writing the laws.
But what scares the RIAA (and their (tense) clueless friends in Radio(the *worst* industry at moving to the Net, worse than newspapers.)) is those 609,084 songs. The Choice destroys their control. The availability destroys their marketing. And the digital transfer and reproduction destroys their usefulness.
You've admitted a couple of times that you don't like our current establishment, yet you defend the tactics they have used the establish that position. I understand the need to profit as an incentive to work, I hope somewhere you can see how some of the things I have mentioned would work, if not, be patient, wait until eveyone in your neighborhood has brodband and a home website (~10 years). Where / (v3.2), Shoutcast, and G27, are plug and play. Nanomedia, it's coming.
If you think overthrowing corporate popular culture is simply a matter of throwing out copyright laws (for certain things - anyway) alright!
Eh? Copyright is the only relevant major change needed to fix everything?! Whew
Yep, and they know it. Wouldn't that make you nervous and hostile? But it's not even throwing out copyright laws, we just need to bring them back to reality (which I outlined above for you, so argue that). I think we need them to stick with the Constitution, but I don't think they are even close now.
The RIAA has an easy time laughing someone like you off because you make such ridiculous statements.
The RIAA has an easy time laughing off someone like me, since they've been laughing off the COnstitution for over 20 years. Laughing all the way to the bank, as it were.
I want you to read this before replying. And then tell me which side of this battle you want to be one.
Read that story, read that part of the Constitution, and then tell me what that Right should be, given the Internet. We'll go from there.
--
With such insanely prolific commenting on slashdot (I originally tried to track your old replies via your user info -- so many comments they scrolled off the last 50 list in less than a week!) you'd think by now you'd gotten over the joy of weak personal attacks.
Two things about this. In less that two weeks of "insanely prolific posting", I have had over 600 individuals in 42 different countries visit my website (no other promotional effort on my part). The "weak personal attacks", are exactly that, jabs, just to see who I'm talking to. I've argued with fools on/. before and it usually comes out with a bit of prodding. That being said, this has been a fun debate, you are no fool.
I merely said that I should have the right to control how they are shared, and to control who derives economic benefits from them being shared.
How exactly should you enforce that "right"? Under what you've just said, it should be your "right" and the governements job to make sure that none 'o them damn niggers hear your music, becuase you have a "right" to control how they are shared, and you, being a greedy racist bastard, don't want those people to hear it.
The only right you need protected is your right to "derive economic benefits." Use is not something you should have the least big of control of, as I hope my inflammatory example illustrates. Notice how there IS a difference between the two rights. (use vs. profit)
Could it be that they feel that they are ripping us off, and are afraid of the treatment they deserve? IMHO, the cost to price ratio of the audio CD compared to that of the audio cassette tape certainly supports this view.
The situation they are looking for is the one where they have a product that has fixed production cost and no reproduction or distrubution costs to be treated like a normail (i.e. scarce) product and have (nearly) infinite value protected by federal law. --
"In one of the single biggest giveaways in U.S. corporate welfare history, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on April 7, 1997 donated broadcast licenses for digital television to existing broadcasters. Under the terms of the giveaway, the broadcasters will pay nothing for the exclusive right to use the public airwaves, even though the FCC itself estimated the value of the digital licenses to be worth $11 billion to $70 billion."
In a discussion of copyright violation, value is irrelevant.
Sorry, I thought this was a discussion on how much a web site should be worth and why.
Copying the content does nothing to copy where it gets its value from (the attention). This is the same reason why copying MP3's adds value to the artist, rather than taking it away. (if you accept the no-cost to increase supply infinitely argument, which many don't)
If you don't believe me, try putting a value on a human life (your own, for instance).
O.k. since you didn't catch it all last time, I'll repeat it, again. (oh, and you might want to re-read the thread again, you've already lost context on a number of my arguments)
However, we already have defintions for these things.
We didn't until the DMCA of 1998. And do you think that is a good law?
What happens when someone takes that mp3 as begins sampling it or putting it as the background to their adbertosement (IE - Using it to create new content)?
Most likely they'd get sued, stealing the work for personal gain, not personal use. If you'll reread the whole argument, I AM TOTALLY FOR PROTECTING AN ARTIST'S RIGHT TO PROFIT. But not for draconian control of media. There is a line to walk between control and chaos.
>I don't pay to go see Tim (or any of his authors) read thier books live?
And your point is?
I DO pay to go see bands play. Quite often as a matter of fact. This was to illustrate the difference between playing music for a living and writing for a living.
I don't know if you've seen a modern photocopying machine lately, but it's a very simple, automated process to copy hundreds of pages at a time -- and certainly far cheaper than say, a O'Reilly book would cost new.
Hullo, go take that book, photocopy it 1,000 times and tell me how much time and effort it takes. Put an MP3 on the Net, let 1000 people DL and tell me how much time and effort it takes. Are these things similar, NO! That's my point.
Examples of? Fitting "what"?
Analogies, metaphors. Like your O'Reilly Books, or Photoshop, or (as many people have tried to argue) Cars. None of these "examples" can be used to argue that you shouldn't freely exchange music files. They don't "fit" the same model.
This is a stupid analogy. Uhh -- murders cause people to die, but so does heart disease! Guess it's the same thing.
Yep, and both of them could be argued to decrease music sales in the same way as MP3s, they attack "potential" sales. This loss of potential is one of the RIAA's cornerstones on why they want to make the everyday and convenient tasks of listening to music, illegal.
Supply has nothing to do with anything.
This is where I realized you were an idiot. Go check up on some fundamental economics and tell me how supply has nothing to do with price or value.
>Nope, just the idea that art should appeal to *you* and not someone you've been taught to think is better than you
This is great, but it has nothing to do with the issue.
again, this IS the issue.
I'd go into much greater detail on this for you, but this post is long enough.
Then just use that as the reply.
Right - you have no plan other than vague allusion to a micropayment scheme
That and every other revenue stream that already exists. Do you even read posts before you reply, seriously?
I do propose copyright law stays intact. I'd like nothing more than to see the music industry as we know it disappear,
So you'd like to see major changes....without making major changes, riiiight.
It's doing zippo to expand culture.
This is where you're dead-on wrong. I've been exposed to many, many bands in only the last year because of their availability on MP3. If they had been on the radio I would have heard them there, but they weren't. If you think the media companies in this country are doing a good job and have a positive effect, fine, stick with them. I don't and I see it as the single biggest threat to the future of a free country. You control what people are exposed to and you can control, to some degree, what they think, but you can control, to a great degree, what they think about. "I like girls who wear Abercrombie and Fitch"!!!!!!!!!!!!
You mean as silly as blacks celebrating their cultural heritage?
Or some other group that has been repressed as being anti-social/socially inept (which the top of this thread illustrates nicely), creating a SOCIAL event for themselves. In meat-space, no less.
this comes across as nothing better than a frat-house beer party
Which, BTW, are great places to get laid, meet people, have a good time. If none of these appeal to you, crawl back into your hole and lament about what assholes everyone ELSE is.
Yes, last time I checked, I thought ShoutCast and Spinner.com et all were doing a great job. Minus the lag. Minus the packet dropping and switching. Minus the advertisements.
hmm, you might want to work on your bandwidth. I listen to streaming audio all the time, and yes, there are some weaker signals, but finding a strong one isn't too tough. The one that I've been on lately (TagsTrance) has been flawless, and that's been tested with over 12 hours of coninuous listening. And I've YET to hear an ad. Live365 is another good place to find quality streams.
And a VERY good ruling for/. and the various other (cringe) weblogs out there.
Glad to see this isn't going to be another problem lawsuit. If a site doesn't want people deep linking there are plenty of technological ways to prohibit it, legislation is not necessary.
Of course, that's another reason why it sucks so bad. Not only does it make it illegal to fairly use the media you buy, it incorporates new rules on digital media. That's why they put in the Digital Millenium Copyright act, so they could set up special copyrights for digital media. What you fear, you try to destroy.
It's about control (because control gets you $$$), Lobbying is an investment.
Here's a good link that outlines some its special provisions, (sarcasm) note how many of them are there to protect consumers (/s> --
Slashdot Mirror
Totally, I can't miss it now. Give me my adult anime (and that's mature not pr0n). I just built my own Gundam from one of those kits. TOONAMI Uncut!
--
This is again where your personal notion of theft gets confusing again.
/. before and it usually comes out with a bit of prodding. That being said, this has been a fun debate, you are no fool.
That's exactly what I wanted to address first. This word you keep using, "stealing". Everywhere you put that I would probably use sharing. I am not stealing songs from Napster, I'm sharing them. This is a big part of my argument. Not stealing, sharing. (to steal is not only to take, but also to deprive, IMO)
Contributing my personal resources, I become the equivalent of a radio station. Except my listeners get to pick their own music and listen to it on their own time. Like right now, there are 609,193 pieces of music that I could be listening to in less than 5 minutes. Many of them are duplicates, but that's why the RIAA has to go after Napster and not the individuals. That, of course, is a moot point already, as folks have taken the idea of distributed file storage networks, and run with it. THAT is the reality of the situation. Our laws need to reflect that reality rather than try and dictate a different one.
NOW, given that, you still need to be able to "promote the progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
This Right is what needs better defining. The wrong people are writing the laws.
But what scares the RIAA (and their (tense) clueless friends in Radio(the *worst* industry at moving to the Net, worse than newspapers.)) is those 609,084 songs. The Choice destroys their control. The availability destroys their marketing. And the digital transfer and reproduction destroys their usefulness.
You've admitted a couple of times that you don't like our current establishment, yet you defend the tactics they have used the establish that position. I understand the need to profit as an incentive to work, I hope somewhere you can see how some of the things I have mentioned would work, if not, be patient, wait until eveyone in your neighborhood has brodband and a home website (~10 years). Where / (v3.2), Shoutcast, and G27, are plug and play. Nanomedia, it's coming.
If you think overthrowing corporate popular culture is simply a matter of throwing out copyright laws (for certain things - anyway) alright!
Eh? Copyright is the only relevant major change needed to fix everything?! Whew
Yep, and they know it. Wouldn't that make you nervous and hostile? But it's not even throwing out copyright laws, we just need to bring them back to reality (which I outlined above for you, so argue that). I think we need them to stick with the Constitution, but I don't think they are even close now.
The RIAA has an easy time laughing someone like you off because you make such ridiculous statements.
The RIAA has an easy time laughing off someone like me, since they've been laughing off the COnstitution for over 20 years. Laughing all the way to the bank, as it were.
I want you to read this before replying. And then tell me which side of this battle you want to be one.
Read that story, read that part of the Constitution, and then tell me what that Right should be, given the Internet. We'll go from there.
--
With such insanely prolific commenting on slashdot (I originally tried to track your old replies via your user info -- so many comments they scrolled off the last 50 list in less than a week!) you'd think by now you'd gotten over the joy of weak personal attacks.
Two things about this. In less that two weeks of "insanely prolific posting", I have had over 600 individuals in 42 different countries visit my website (no other promotional effort on my part). The "weak personal attacks", are exactly that, jabs, just to see who I'm talking to. I've argued with fools on
--
I merely said that I should have the right to control how they are shared, and to control who derives economic benefits from them being shared.
How exactly should you enforce that "right"? Under what you've just said, it should be your "right" and the governements job to make sure that none 'o them damn niggers hear your music, becuase you have a "right" to control how they are shared, and you, being a greedy racist bastard, don't want those people to hear it.
The only right you need protected is your right to "derive economic benefits." Use is not something you should have the least big of control of, as I hope my inflammatory example illustrates. Notice how there IS a difference between the two rights. (use vs. profit)
--
Could it be that they feel that they are ripping us off, and are afraid of the treatment they deserve? IMHO, the cost to price ratio of the audio CD compared to that of the audio cassette tape certainly supports this view.
The situation they are looking for is the one where they have a product that has fixed production cost and no reproduction or distrubution costs to be treated like a normail (i.e. scarce) product and have (nearly) infinite value protected by federal law.
--
for an investment commercial. Bunch of scrrenshots of Ultima IX, running on a quad Xeon from the looks of it.
--
DVD Copy Protection costs Sony $5billion (Monday's Headline)
--
from my perspective they seem about the same size, so, no.
--
Does the government need to subsudize TV?
LOL
from here
"In one of the single biggest giveaways in U.S. corporate welfare history, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on April 7, 1997 donated broadcast licenses for digital television to existing broadcasters. Under the terms of the giveaway, the broadcasters will pay nothing for the exclusive right to use the public airwaves, even though the FCC itself estimated the value of the digital licenses to be worth $11 billion to $70 billion."
--
In a discussion of copyright violation, value is irrelevant.
Sorry, I thought this was a discussion on how much a web site should be worth and why.
Copying the content does nothing to copy where it gets its value from (the attention). This is the same reason why copying MP3's adds value to the artist, rather than taking it away. (if you accept the no-cost to increase supply infinitely argument, which many don't)
If you don't believe me, try putting a value on a human life (your own, for instance).
Hehe. MHO
--
O.k. since you didn't catch it all last time, I'll repeat it, again. (oh, and you might want to re-read the thread again, you've already lost context on a number of my arguments)
However, we already have defintions for these things.
We didn't until the DMCA of 1998. And do you think that is a good law?
What happens when someone takes that mp3 as begins sampling it or putting it as the background to their adbertosement (IE - Using it to create new content)?
Most likely they'd get sued, stealing the work for personal gain, not personal use. If you'll reread the whole argument, I AM TOTALLY FOR PROTECTING AN ARTIST'S RIGHT TO PROFIT. But not for draconian control of media. There is a line to walk between control and chaos.
>I don't pay to go see Tim (or any of his authors) read thier books live?
And your point is?
I DO pay to go see bands play. Quite often as a matter of fact. This was to illustrate the difference between playing music for a living and writing for a living.
I don't know if you've seen a modern photocopying machine lately, but it's a very simple, automated process to copy hundreds of pages at a time -- and certainly far cheaper than say, a O'Reilly book would cost new.
Hullo, go take that book, photocopy it 1,000 times and tell me how much time and effort it takes. Put an MP3 on the Net, let 1000 people DL and tell me how much time and effort it takes. Are these things similar, NO! That's my point.
Examples of? Fitting "what"?
Analogies, metaphors. Like your O'Reilly Books, or Photoshop, or (as many people have tried to argue) Cars. None of these "examples" can be used to argue that you shouldn't freely exchange music files. They don't "fit" the same model.
This is a stupid analogy. Uhh -- murders cause people to die, but so does heart disease! Guess it's the same thing.
Yep, and both of them could be argued to decrease music sales in the same way as MP3s, they attack "potential" sales. This loss of potential is one of the RIAA's cornerstones on why they want to make the everyday and convenient tasks of listening to music, illegal.
Supply has nothing to do with anything.
This is where I realized you were an idiot. Go check up on some fundamental economics and tell me how supply has nothing to do with price or value.
>Nope, just the idea that art should appeal to *you* and not someone you've been taught to think is better than you
This is great, but it has nothing to do with the issue.
again, this IS the issue.
I'd go into much greater detail on this for you, but this post is long enough.
Then just use that as the reply.
Right - you have no plan other than vague allusion to a micropayment scheme
That and every other revenue stream that already exists. Do you even read posts before you reply, seriously?
I do propose copyright law stays intact. I'd like nothing more than to see the music industry as we know it disappear,
So you'd like to see major changes....without making major changes, riiiight.
It's doing zippo to expand culture.
This is where you're dead-on wrong. I've been exposed to many, many bands in only the last year because of their availability on MP3. If they had been on the radio I would have heard them there, but they weren't. If you think the media companies in this country are doing a good job and have a positive effect, fine, stick with them. I don't and I see it as the single biggest threat to the future of a free country. You control what people are exposed to and you can control, to some degree, what they think, but you can control, to a great degree, what they think about. "I like girls who wear Abercrombie and Fitch"!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
Have you even read this story yet?!
/. already.
Yep, try comment #262 moderated +5, Insightful.
Just read the article and shut the fuck up.
Thanks, Jack, but I'd rather form my own opinions.
There's a lot of stuff in there most geeks (and even a lot of amateur musicians) don't really understand that this sheds some light on.
And there's a lot of stuff in there straight (and I mean word for word) from here.
I'll spare you my opinions on the whole copyright/MP3 thing for now, because doing so would probably confuse you.
Thanks, I have to deal with enough ignorant opinions on
--
Imagine for $10 getting a variety pack that included compressed VMWare images of the *BSDs, Solaris 8, several distributions of Linux, EROS, and BeOS?
And for just $210 you could get *BSDs, Solaris 8, several distros of Linux, EROS, BeOS, AND Windows. (monopo-what? price-gouga-who?)
--
The Unbearable Arrogance of Slashbots. You people make me sick.
The Unbearable Ignorance of ACs who just drop by. Fuck off and go away, or Login so it'll be easier to ignore you.
They know that you learn more by asking than by telling,
Like the guy who "asked Slashdot"?
--
Illegally copying a copyrighted MP3 file (which I don't condone, BTW) might cost the artist or studio a few bucks.
Or, and I know this is a tough one for some folks, it might make them a few bucks. Free promotion and all that.
--
hmm, nice idiotic response.
The value is not in the media itself, but in the attention given to it. You should really do a bit of learning before you make ridiculous claims.
How much is 30 seconds of "Friends" worth? (Nothing)
How much is it worth if 14 million people are watching? (~$250,000).
Does this clue help you?
--
you mean they don't have spoofed DL's where you come from?
--
is that gays asserted "gay pride" at a time when they were defined as criminals just for living their lives
DeCSS, Napster, VCDs, cphack, DDoS, software patents..need I go on?
You do have an appropriate alias, however.
--
You mean as silly as blacks celebrating their cultural heritage?
Or some other group that has been repressed as being anti-social/socially inept (which the top of this thread illustrates nicely), creating a SOCIAL event for themselves. In meat-space, no less.
Does community only exist in cyberspace?
--
this comes across as nothing better than a frat-house beer party
Which, BTW, are great places to get laid, meet people, have a good time. If none of these appeal to you, crawl back into your hole and lament about what assholes everyone ELSE is.
--
Religion is for idiots, and you're a fucking fag dude.
1 for 2 ain't bad. Shithead. LOL
--
hey, no prob, Dave. See ya 'round. hehe.
--
The politicians have pulled this notion of perfect copies out of legal thin air.
;)
Don't you mean lobbyist's hot air? (which is thin, if you really want to nitpick
--
Yes, last time I checked, I thought ShoutCast and Spinner.com et all were doing a great job. Minus the lag. Minus the packet dropping and switching. Minus the advertisements.
hmm, you might want to work on your bandwidth. I listen to streaming audio all the time, and yes, there are some weaker signals, but finding a strong one isn't too tough. The one that I've been on lately (TagsTrance) has been flawless, and that's been tested with over 12 hours of coninuous listening. And I've YET to hear an ad. Live365 is another good place to find quality streams.
--
Very good ruling for the health of the Web.
/. and the various other (cringe) weblogs out there.
And a VERY good ruling for
Glad to see this isn't going to be another problem lawsuit. If a site doesn't want people deep linking there are plenty of technological ways to prohibit it, legislation is not necessary.
--
Of course, that's another reason why it sucks so bad. Not only does it make it illegal to fairly use the media you buy, it incorporates new rules on digital media. That's why they put in the Digital Millenium Copyright act, so they could set up special copyrights for digital media. What you fear, you try to destroy.
It's about control (because control gets you $$$), Lobbying is an investment.
Here's a good link that outlines some its special provisions, (sarcasm) note how many of them are there to protect consumers (/s>
--