You're right on every count, but these arguments sound a lot like a hopeless drunk trying to justify the addiction to alchohol with a lot of pointless excuses...
...and that's what p2p has become for a lot of people, an addiction. You get stuff that makes you feel good (i.e. music) for free. Of course, the new stuff you just downloaded is always better, so you want more, more, more...
Next thing you know, we got 12 step programs for p2p'ers and Dr Phil is talking real serious to the parents of the young teen who has a serious 'problem.'
They simply don't have the talent to take on Pixar. It's a "B" movie house. The place is run by a guy named Larry Kassanoff (sp?) who made his fortune with movies such as Mortal Kombat. He has no love for cartoons or animation like the Pixar staff does.
I saw what the projects Threshold had in the development pipeline last year. While I can't give specifics, nothing they had was worth making into an animated feature.
In my opinion, the only two studios that can even attempt to take on Pixar are Dreamworks and Sony.
Not quite... you own only own ONE copy - the CD. You have the right to a backup, but owning the CD does not give you the right to copy and redistribute to many. Even if it's a corporation.
If you want further clarification read copyright law. I think someone actually posted the fair use section somewhere in this thread.
The law is pretty much the same on software as well, but companies issue EULAs not only to double insure copyrights but to also add additional types of protections... such as support terms, resale conditions, etc.. etc.. and why not - ink is cheap.
I'm surprised record companies dosn't start putting EULAs on CDs... cheap and easy way to get consumers to agree to even more draconian terms...
If I own part of a corporation, and that corporation owns a recording, do I not have rights to that recording?
The best way to look at it is that music is similar to software. If you own a copy, you have a right to make a backup. I own a CD, I can back it up to my computer or mp3 player.
Fair use dictates that the copy is for personal use only. I can listen to my stereo, my computer, or my mp3 player, but I only listen to them one at a time. If I copy it to someone else's device so they can listen simultaneously, it goes beyond "fair use."
If I have a copy of Photoshop, I can only use it on one computer at a time. Same for a corporation. Even if all your emplyees were shareholders, you couldn't buy just one copy of Photoshop and copy it to ALL their computers -- even if they all technically "own" it. It's simply NOT legal.
Starches tend to trap fat and sugars in your stomach and prevent them from being properly digested.
Starch doesn't trap sugar, it basically IS sugar. This is why low-carb diets tend to work, they control insulin spikes. Insulin aids in the creation of fat.
He interfaced it using the printer port. Instead of running the stepper motors directly through custom electronics, let the printer's own electronics do it. All you'd need to send is print commands.
Don't forget, California has a $30-40 billion dollar shortfall this year. They're stuggling to find any source of cash they can... I'm sure they settled because they need an infusion of cash NOW...
Remember... when you can't walk away from the deal, there's no negotiation.
Since AOL/Time Warner is part of the RIAA, do they even need to get a subpoena? They already have the user information a subpoena would provide.
I thought the only reason they went after Verizon in court was that Verizon wasn't coughing up the names after being 'politely' asked by the RIAA thugs.
early michael jackson (ie. off the wall, thriller, bad and dangerous) are hardly crap. yes, invincible has left something to be desired, but you can't automatically label and lump someone in w/ 'crap' because a few recent misteps.
The RIAA's subpoenas are so prolific that the U.S. District Court in Washington, already suffering staff shortages, has been forced to reassign employees from elsewhere in the clerk's office to help process paperwork, said Angela Caesar-Mobley, the clerk's operations manager.
So, I guess this means that the court is so busy that they can't go after other types of criminals, such as Enron executives and terrorists...
By that I mean, what songs do they search for in order to prepare the lawsuits?
My guess is that they will veer towards their most popular artists -- the ones currently on the Top 40 plus all the "superstar" acts of the past 20-30 years. People who download more obscure acts might not be so vulnerable.
Just curious... obviously if the plane exploded in a ball of fire because of your transgression, you would not be able to report back.
But for those who survived. Did the cell phone actually work? I'd imagine it would be hard to get reception. Either you're over the Grand Canyon and there's no towers, or you're over a huge city and there's way too many in line of sight. The phone would have problems deciding which one to use.
This is what scares me more than anything. Did the company who makes the writers give up their customer list or something, or does DirectTV have the sales records of every electronics store in North America?
Next thing you know, they'll be searching all the grocery store "Saver's Clubs" membership lists for people who buy vodka and throw them in the slammer for drunk-driving. Pre-emptively, of course...
Let's see, right here is a digital copy of a song that costs, say, a dollar to legally download from Apple.
Over there is the same digital copy of the same song on Kazaa. Free for the taking.
Let's say I don't want to buy the one from Apple. Does the fact that "I would not have bought it" entitle me to the free one? Using your logic, wanting to buy it means I should pay for it, but NOT wanting it means I can still get it for free.
So, that means I should not express the desire to buy ANY music in any form whatsoever. That would give me the right to take all the music I want for free.
Thinking about it, I really don't want that new car I was looking at...
Slashdot Mirror
That Bill Gates will get charged $1000 for a pack of gum?
If so, I'm all for it.
You're right on every count, but these arguments sound a lot like a hopeless drunk trying to justify the addiction to alchohol with a lot of pointless excuses...
...and that's what p2p has become for a lot of people, an addiction. You get stuff that makes you feel good (i.e. music) for free. Of course, the new stuff you just downloaded is always better, so you want more, more, more...
Next thing you know, we got 12 step programs for p2p'ers and Dr Phil is talking real serious to the parents of the young teen who has a serious 'problem.'
Well said...
They simply don't have the talent to take on Pixar. It's a "B" movie house. The place is run by a guy named Larry Kassanoff (sp?) who made his fortune with movies such as Mortal Kombat. He has no love for cartoons or animation like the Pixar staff does.
I saw what the projects Threshold had in the development pipeline last year. While I can't give specifics, nothing they had was worth making into an animated feature.
In my opinion, the only two studios that can even attempt to take on Pixar are Dreamworks and Sony.
...but your examples are either excerpting parts of the material or parodying it. It is not the entire un-altered work. Big difference.
It's a clear transfer of ownership."
Not quite... you own only own ONE copy - the CD. You have the right to a backup, but owning the CD does not give you the right to copy and redistribute to many. Even if it's a corporation.
If you want further clarification read copyright law. I think someone actually posted the fair use section somewhere in this thread.
The law is pretty much the same on software as well, but companies issue EULAs not only to double insure copyrights but to also add additional types of protections... such as support terms, resale conditions, etc.. etc.. and why not - ink is cheap.
I'm surprised record companies dosn't start putting EULAs on CDs... cheap and easy way to get consumers to agree to even more draconian terms...
If I own part of a corporation, and that corporation owns a recording, do I not have rights to that recording?
The best way to look at it is that music is similar to software. If you own a copy, you have a right to make a backup. I own a CD, I can back it up to my computer or mp3 player.
Fair use dictates that the copy is for personal use only. I can listen to my stereo, my computer, or my mp3 player, but I only listen to them one at a time. If I copy it to someone else's device so they can listen simultaneously, it goes beyond "fair use."
If I have a copy of Photoshop, I can only use it on one computer at a time. Same for a corporation. Even if all your emplyees were shareholders, you couldn't buy just one copy of Photoshop and copy it to ALL their computers -- even if they all technically "own" it. It's simply NOT legal.
Cringely's scheme is quite lamebrained...
Actually, 48 out of a print run of approximately 200, to be exact.
Not a bad survival ratio, actually.
One more thing - I did like this quote:
I am speechless about the idea of putting music fans in jail for downloading music.
I say put them in jail if it will shut Michael up!
But strange how the RIAA's list of songs they searched for included several by Michael Jackson...
Probably trying to protect himself and salvage those last 3 fans.
Dang... I was just about to pull the Timex out from under the door it was holding open.
Starches tend to trap fat and sugars in your stomach and prevent them from being properly digested.
Starch doesn't trap sugar, it basically IS sugar. This is why low-carb diets tend to work, they control insulin spikes. Insulin aids in the creation of fat.
Starches are simply empty calories.
He interfaced it using the printer port. Instead of running the stepper motors directly through custom electronics, let the printer's own electronics do it. All you'd need to send is print commands.
Don't forget, California has a $30-40 billion dollar shortfall this year. They're stuggling to find any source of cash they can... I'm sure they settled because they need an infusion of cash NOW...
Remember... when you can't walk away from the deal, there's no negotiation.
Just a thought...
Since AOL/Time Warner is part of the RIAA, do they even need to get a subpoena? They already have the user information a subpoena would provide.
I thought the only reason they went after Verizon in court was that Verizon wasn't coughing up the names after being 'politely' asked by the RIAA thugs.
early michael jackson (ie. off the wall, thriller, bad and dangerous) are hardly crap. yes, invincible has left something to be desired, but you can't automatically label and lump someone in w/ 'crap' because a few recent misteps.
A few?
They will find some way to charge you for the privilege of using your own cel phone.
From the article :
The RIAA's subpoenas are so prolific that the U.S. District Court in Washington, already suffering staff shortages, has been forced to reassign employees from elsewhere in the clerk's office to help process paperwork, said Angela Caesar-Mobley, the clerk's operations manager.
So, I guess this means that the court is so busy that they can't go after other types of criminals, such as Enron executives and terrorists...
By that I mean, what songs do they search for in order to prepare the lawsuits?
My guess is that they will veer towards their most popular artists -- the ones currently on the Top 40 plus all the "superstar" acts of the past 20-30 years. People who download more obscure acts might not be so vulnerable.
But if the bowl is full of Barbra Streisand records and someone copies one record, it's still as full of Barbra Streisand records as before.
That's just wrong. There needs to be fewer Barbara Streisand records... and not just in the bowl.
Does it detect when people or animals are in the way?
My guess is that it mows them down as well.
Better keep old' Elsie locked up in the barn when this things going, or else you'll have some nice hamburger to go with your tomatoes...
Great. Now every password will have something to do with sex.
Just curious... obviously if the plane exploded in a ball of fire because of your transgression, you would not be able to report back.
But for those who survived. Did the cell phone actually work? I'd imagine it would be hard to get reception. Either you're over the Grand Canyon and there's no towers, or you're over a huge city and there's way too many in line of sight. The phone would have problems deciding which one to use.
Any real world experience?
...exactly WHO purchased smart card writers?
This is what scares me more than anything. Did the company who makes the writers give up their customer list or something, or does DirectTV have the sales records of every electronics store in North America?
Next thing you know, they'll be searching all the grocery store "Saver's Clubs" membership lists for people who buy vodka and throw them in the slammer for drunk-driving. Pre-emptively, of course...
But buying it is what entitles you to own a copy.
Let's see, right here is a digital copy of a song that costs, say, a dollar to legally download from Apple.
Over there is the same digital copy of the same song on Kazaa. Free for the taking.
Let's say I don't want to buy the one from Apple. Does the fact that "I would not have bought it" entitle me to the free one? Using your logic, wanting to buy it means I should pay for it, but NOT wanting it means I can still get it for free.
So, that means I should not express the desire to buy ANY music in any form whatsoever. That would give me the right to take all the music I want for free.
Thinking about it, I really don't want that new car I was looking at...