It doesn't seem to matter how much band width we have, what matters is how much data we can fit. For example, Color TV doesn't use anymore bandwidth then B&W TV, and Stereo TV is the same. The reason Color TV works is because of great Engineers making due with what the FCC would allow them to use. A lot of RF engineers will bad mouth the FCC, but they make good engineers, great engineers.
I like the three way spilt idea, but does that really release the dominance of one company with one OS? I would rather see some compation in the home OS market. Some here will argue that Linux is that compition, but it doesn't carry the support that Windows does. People want to scan images, surf the web and play games on computers and Linux doesn't have the vast library of dummy proof apps and installation that Windows does. So why not split the OS in half, giving two companys the source and spilting it down the middle. The rest of the company would make up the third, developing applications, running MSN, building hardware, ect. I think X-box is really going to suffer if Microsoft gets split, just cause it won't have the money behind it like other Microsoft failures turned success by the allmighty dollar.
So.. 2 OSes.. This give Linux some room to grow.. and one more company for Microsofts other crap.. called Crapsoft..
Let me first start off as saying the only reason I'm writting this is to play devil's advicate. This issue isn't as black and white as others think. Hobbex has made an excellent agrument about why Napster has to win. Let me also state that my spelling sucks.
I quote Hobbex: "Those of us who are endeavouring to build the networks of tomorrow have no malicious intent against you"
From what I gathered from the Yahoo chat was that Metallica is not about to allow a company, who's main draw is the ease of pirating music, to make money off of thier creation/art without thier permission. Looking at Napster from this position, wouldn't you say that it does in fact, have a malicious intent?
If I advertised that you can get free music by talking to me, and then I would send you to someone with the music that your looking for I would be very popular. With this popularity, I could do 1 of 2 things: (1) I agree to wear an "Eat at Joe's" sign and nike shoes for a couple bucks. Next thing I do, is sell someone the secret of my popularity, say for 1 BILLION dollars (Right after I send the boys from Limp Bizkit on a free tour). I did not make any money directly from the music, so I have no guilt, I just gave information, selling it off later. (2) I don't do anything, I just give away the information, share the secret of my popularity, eat Mac 'n' Cheese everyday for the rest of my life, and occasionally sing on the street for free, cause I can't affort Limp Bizkit.
This is were the difference between Napster (making a quick buck) and gnutella (lovin' mac 'n' cheese) is apperent. Who's making money with gnutella? Though both might be stealing from the band/RIAA/Label, Napster is trying to make a profit, gnutella just "is".
I also don't belive that Metallica is going after individul fans with the 330,00 IP addresses they have (though, you can ask them yourself). From what I've read from the chat transcript was that they went to Napster, said "stop trading our music" and Napster said, "Well, if we could find pirates somehow, with magic or something, we would stop them. People know Napster isn't for trading illegal material, and we operate on the honor system here. But if you find a pirate, let us know, k? bye-bye:)" Basically saying "You wouldn't dare suffer the bad press, your gonna look like your two facing your fans, your gonna look like you hate technology." And when they actually did say "Here, this is what you asked for, 330,000 times over", I (and many others here) read it exactly as Napster said we would. After reading the Yahoo transcript, I have a better understanding of thier position, and think they had a lot of balls naming names. I don't think it's right, and I'm not happy about it, but Metallica was pushed and they did what they thought was right. Whatever your opinion of the matter is, it is important that you whole story is told and both sides of the argument are weighed equally before you jump down the throats of Metallica for taking away privacy. Don't you think Napster would have done the same thing if they could prove that there are 330,000 people using thier service who allready own the Metallica CD's in question, and there are no illegal activtes happening on thier servers?
I quote from Hobbex:"...your efforts to trying to build a tomorrow that promotes both innovation and freedom, creation and integrity?"
Does Napster really promote any of theses things? MAYBE innovation, freedom could be argued. Integrity is a definate NO, and creation.. humm.. well, it could fall in with innovation, but the goods of thier service is not of thier own creativy. Again, in the Yahoo transcipt, someone asked if Metallica belives that the future of music will be digital [in the forms of mp3s] and without missing a step, the answer was "yes". It's not the idea of technology changing the way music is distributed, or copied or bootleged or whatever, its the fact that someone is going to make a buck off of thier hard work. The last thing they want to do is step on freedom, creation, innovation. What they would like to change is the integrity of tomarrow. Napster is treating Metallica's music like a comodity, just as thier label does/has (there was a prior spat on this if you remeber Metallica vs. Sony). Even though we, as a user of Napster, don't see the comodity aspect initally, it does exsist.
Final note: Jon Katz complained about corporations, and also told us to ban Metallica. Can John tell me theirs a correct answer to this problem? Seems like conflicting views to me..
I quote From the Yahoo chat: "metallica_lars_live: This is not a service that they're offering for the good of man kind, to spread love and music. They're doing it for potential IPO's for alignment with a big company where there will be a major cash transfer to the investors"
Statements like this seems that your fighting Napster because it has potential to make money off of your work. So, say that you win, Napster doesn't exist and the code for napster servers are no longer propritery. (I belive someone has allready figured out how Napster works, but Napster put the kybosh on it, so this is a stong possiblity) I start napster.org, with no intention of making money (cause some of us will do work without being paid) but I want to spread love and music. All those former napster users can now filter through mine and others servers to get potentially pirated music. Do you now change your modivation to sue, and go after me?
>Computers and general-purpose computer peripheral devices are not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act. This means they do not pay royalties and they do >not incorporate technology to prevent serial copying. As a result, this also means that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted. It is copyright >infringement, and a violation of federal law. This is true whether the source being copied is analog or digital; whether you are copying an entire album or just one song >or even part of a song; or whether you are making a compilation of songs from albums you already own.
I see.. Thanks.. But now, this raises other questions in my mind, like how do devices like the Rio operate within the law? Do they pay a royalities to the RIAA?
Does that make the software for ripping CD's legal only if the ripped song is then downloaded to a MP3 device within X amount of time? If I rip my entire CD collection in order to download 3 or 4 songs at a time to my Rio, am I in violation of the law? I currently don't own a device like that, but if anyone out there could tell me if there is agreement with the Rio that says something like "you have 1 day to download a ripped mp3 to your Rio, otherwise your in violation of Federal law, blah blah BLaH!"
A CD to CD copy is legal, as long as a computer is not used, according to the definition given by the RIAA, but the copy has to fall within fair use right? So, If I'm a teacher, and I want my class to listen to "whoever" to understand the historical impact of their music, I can give each and every student of mine a complete, perfect copy of the CD, as long as the CD-R I use is stand-alone and not hooked up to a harddrive. This seems like something the RIAA would not like. Any Jamacian history teachers want to do this with a Bob Marley CD? I'll help raise funds to pay for the blank disks.
Also, I quote: >...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of >copyright.
I do not see in this law where I can legal have a copy in my car, or tape my favorite episode of the Simpsons. Potentially, I could get pulled over tonight for running a redlight, and end up in federal prision for my tape copy of Nirvana and Pearl Jam (I own the CDs, BTW), and the copy of Sundays Simpsons under the seat. I enjoy the music/show, but I'm not a teacher, critic, scholar, researcher, news reporter or do commentaries. Is this actually the case? The law seems restrictive to the point where VCRs and Tape decks shouldn't be able to record without a special license and a represenitive from the MPAA/RIAA in the room at all times.
Humm.. It looks like I have some research to do....
I know they are making money off thier music, and being a "big name" they're making more then the average musician. Even being a big name, they aren't making as much as this label/distributor. Dr. Dre on the other hand, owns the label, so he's losing twice.
Also, How do you ban these people? Is it impossible for 335,000 users to own metallica albums? Rember, they usta be good. I have Nine Inch Nails on my hard drive, and own all the CD's. Is there some part of "fair use" I don't understand when it comes to mp3s?
Why go after Napster though? I'm sure the geeks at Yale said "oh, we can't use napster? Oh well" and started up an IRC channel "#BannedFromTheNap" and continued trading and discussing music, and the discussion was not about a comodity, but an art, and how much they liked or hated certain music.
Metallica got a big boost when them started out by the boot legging industry with "No Life...Leather". Now they have the money and public eye, they turn like snakes? What kind of meassage does that send to fans?
What about the 15-16 yr olds that aren't making much money, but want to hear the orignal "Garage Days" CD and cannot pay the large marked up price? "Sorry kid, you can't hear our 'art' if you don't have the cash" Does this seem like somthing an artist would say?
Will Picasso sue me next for having my wallpaper set to one of his paintings downloaded from the net?
I also enjoy hearing live stuff, and there aren't many metallica albums live. Would they rather not have thier music heard unless it means turning a dollar for every song?
I'm disenchanted... They owe allmost everything to there fans... Oh well... I still have Nine Inch Nails. They might have an internet-only album out in 4-5 months.
There are some pretty impressive MP3 hardware options coming out, so, I'm not sure if adding voice control would be worth the extra money (IMHO, no it wouldn't).
One complaint I do have though is everything out is limited to Flash memory or a Hard drive in the device. Why can't I just have a CD player that plays MP3s like my apex? One I can take in the car, or walk around with?
A nice strongARM, a cd player, headphone jack and car adapter/batteries.. Thats all I need. And this thermos.. Thats all I need. Maybe an nice display as an accesory.. thats all I need
What I don't understand is why Napster is the only company being sued? Is it because it's eaiser to use then an FTP client, or then searching the web for "mp3?
I'd really like to see someone sue AOL, or Micro$oft since they write programs that can be used to download copyrighted material, but I guess they're too big and would probally win, unlike Napster who's a start up and are allready being sued.
I'm waiting for WASP and Green Jell(y/o) to join the fight
So, I admit that I've downloaded a couple of Dr. Dre's mp3s. Since the artist gets about 1 dollar for each album sold, and theres on average 12 songs an album, does he want my 16.6 cents for the two songs I've downloaded? What else could he sue me for?
There are Quad PII boards.. Check out www.pricewatch.com. They have two listed, one by Intel and the other by American Megatrends. Also, Isn't the SGI 540 a quad board? The only problem is that if you plan to run a NT server (I don't know why you would, but..) you need a special build of NT. Mucho Denero.
Slashdot Mirror
All Disney needs to do is to buy out Apple.
Err.. Is it too early in the year to start this rumor? It is March..
Can you lend me Diablo 2? Since you beat it and all..
Must be that time of the year.
Lets see.. Wow! my watch lost almost 4 minutes, I'll have to get a new battery soon.
Rember last year when Disney was going to buy apple, or the year before that? This time apple is going to buy Disney?
Did anyone hear that Dell was going to buy Universal?
It doesn't seem to matter how much band width we have, what matters is how much data we can fit. For example, Color TV doesn't use anymore bandwidth then B&W TV, and Stereo TV is the same. The reason Color TV works is because of great Engineers making due with what the FCC would allow them to use. A lot of RF engineers will bad mouth the FCC, but they make good engineers, great engineers.
I like the three way spilt idea, but does that really release the dominance of one company with one OS? I would rather see some compation in the home OS market. Some here will argue that Linux is that compition, but it doesn't carry the support that Windows does. People want to scan images, surf the web and play games on computers and Linux doesn't have the vast library of dummy proof apps and installation that Windows does. So why not split the OS in half, giving two companys the source and spilting it down the middle. The rest of the company would make up the third, developing applications, running MSN, building hardware, ect. I think X-box is really going to suffer if Microsoft gets split, just cause it won't have the money behind it like other Microsoft failures turned success by the allmighty dollar.
So.. 2 OSes.. This give Linux some room to grow.. and one more company for Microsofts other crap.. called Crapsoft..
Let me first start off as saying the only reason I'm writting this is to play devil's advicate. This issue isn't as black and white as others think. Hobbex has made an excellent agrument about why Napster has to win. Let me also state that my spelling sucks.
:)" Basically saying "You wouldn't dare suffer the bad press, your gonna look like your two facing your fans, your gonna look like you hate technology." And when they actually did say "Here, this is what you asked for, 330,000 times over", I (and many others here) read it exactly as Napster said we would. After reading the Yahoo transcript, I have a better understanding of thier position, and think they had a lot of balls naming names. I don't think it's right, and I'm not happy about it, but Metallica was pushed and they did what they thought was right. Whatever your opinion of the matter is, it is important that you whole story is told and both sides of the argument are weighed equally before you jump down the throats of Metallica for taking away privacy. Don't you think Napster would have done the same thing if they could prove that there are 330,000 people using thier service who allready own the Metallica CD's in question, and there are no illegal activtes happening on thier servers?
I quote Hobbex: "Those of us who are endeavouring to build the networks of tomorrow have no malicious intent against you"
From what I gathered from the Yahoo chat was that Metallica is not about to allow a company, who's main draw is the ease of pirating music, to make money off of thier creation/art without thier permission. Looking at Napster from this position, wouldn't you say that it does in fact, have a malicious intent?
If I advertised that you can get free music by talking to me, and then I would send you to someone with the music that your looking for I would be very popular. With this popularity, I could do 1 of 2 things: (1) I agree to wear an "Eat at Joe's" sign and nike shoes for a couple bucks. Next thing I do, is sell someone the secret of my popularity, say for 1 BILLION dollars (Right after I send the boys from Limp Bizkit on a free tour). I did not make any money directly from the music, so I have no guilt, I just gave information, selling it off later. (2) I don't do anything, I just give away the information, share the secret of my popularity, eat Mac 'n' Cheese everyday for the rest of my life, and occasionally sing on the street for free, cause I can't affort Limp Bizkit.
This is were the difference between Napster (making a quick buck) and gnutella (lovin' mac 'n' cheese) is apperent. Who's making money with gnutella? Though both might be stealing from the band/RIAA/Label, Napster is trying to make a profit, gnutella just "is".
I also don't belive that Metallica is going after individul fans with the 330,00 IP addresses they have (though, you can ask them yourself). From what I've read from the chat transcript was that they went to Napster, said "stop trading our music" and Napster said, "Well, if we could find pirates somehow, with magic or something, we would stop them. People know Napster isn't for trading illegal material, and we operate on the honor system here. But if you find a pirate, let us know, k? bye-bye
I quote from Hobbex:"...your efforts to trying to build a tomorrow that promotes both innovation and freedom, creation and integrity?"
Does Napster really promote any of theses things? MAYBE innovation, freedom could be argued. Integrity is a definate NO, and creation.. humm.. well, it could fall in with innovation, but the goods of thier service is not of thier own creativy. Again, in the Yahoo transcipt, someone asked if Metallica belives that the future of music will be digital [in the forms of mp3s] and without missing a step, the answer was "yes". It's not the idea of technology changing the way music is distributed, or copied or bootleged or whatever, its the fact that someone is going to make a buck off of thier hard work. The last thing they want to do is step on freedom, creation, innovation. What they would like to change is the integrity of tomarrow. Napster is treating Metallica's music like a comodity, just as thier label does/has (there was a prior spat on this if you remeber Metallica vs. Sony). Even though we, as a user of Napster, don't see the comodity aspect initally, it does exsist.
Final note: Jon Katz complained about corporations, and also told us to ban Metallica. Can John tell me theirs a correct answer to this problem? Seems like conflicting views to me..
fprintfsez:Was it your decision, your manager, your lawyers or record company that made the call to go after the Napster users?
They addressed this in the Yahoo chat. Thier reply was something like "We pay (management and such) good money to advise us"
Are you avoiding the question?
Can I handle the truth?
I quote From the Yahoo chat:
"metallica_lars_live: This is not a service that they're offering for the good of man kind, to spread love and music. They're doing it for potential IPO's for alignment with a big company where there will be a major cash transfer to the investors"
Statements like this seems that your fighting Napster because it has potential to make money off of your work. So, say that you win, Napster doesn't exist and the code for napster servers are no longer propritery. (I belive someone has allready figured out how Napster works, but Napster put the kybosh on it, so this is a stong possiblity) I start napster.org, with no intention of making money (cause some of us will do work without being paid) but I want to spread love and music. All those former napster users can now filter through mine and others servers to get potentially pirated music. Do you now change your modivation to sue, and go after me?
>Computers and general-purpose computer peripheral devices are not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act. This means they do not pay royalties and they do >not incorporate technology to prevent serial copying. As a result, this also means that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted. It is copyright >infringement, and a violation of federal law. This is true whether the source being copied is analog or digital; whether you are copying an entire album or just one song >or even part of a song; or whether you are making a compilation of songs from albums you already own.
I see.. Thanks..
But now, this raises other questions in my mind, like how do devices like the Rio operate within the law? Do they pay a royalities to the RIAA?
Does that make the software for ripping CD's legal only if the ripped song is then downloaded to a MP3 device within X amount of time? If I rip my entire CD collection in order to download 3 or 4 songs at a time to my Rio, am I in violation of the law? I currently don't own a device like that, but if anyone out there could tell me if there is agreement with the Rio that says something like "you have 1 day to download a ripped mp3 to your Rio, otherwise your in violation of Federal law, blah blah BLaH!"
A CD to CD copy is legal, as long as a computer is not used, according to the definition given by the RIAA, but the copy has to fall within fair use right? So, If I'm a teacher, and I want my class to listen to "whoever" to understand the historical impact of their music, I can give each and every student of mine a complete, perfect copy of the CD, as long as the CD-R I use is stand-alone and not hooked up to a harddrive. This seems like something the RIAA would not like. Any Jamacian history teachers want to do this with a Bob Marley CD? I'll help raise funds to pay for the blank disks.
Also, I quote:
>...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of >copyright.
I do not see in this law where I can legal have a copy in my car, or tape my favorite episode of the Simpsons. Potentially, I could get pulled over tonight for running a redlight, and end up in federal prision for my tape copy of Nirvana and Pearl Jam (I own the CDs, BTW), and the copy of Sundays Simpsons under the seat. I enjoy the music/show, but I'm not a teacher, critic, scholar, researcher, news reporter or do commentaries. Is this actually the case? The law seems restrictive to the point where VCRs and Tape decks shouldn't be able to record without a special license and a represenitive from the MPAA/RIAA in the room at all times.
Humm.. It looks like I have some research to do....
Snoop
I know they are making money off thier music, and being a "big name" they're making more then the average musician. Even being a big name, they aren't making as much as this label/distributor. Dr. Dre on the other hand, owns the label, so he's losing twice.
Also, How do you ban these people? Is it impossible for 335,000 users to own metallica albums? Rember, they usta be good. I have Nine Inch Nails on my hard drive, and own all the CD's. Is there some part of "fair use" I don't understand when it comes to mp3s?
Snoop
Why go after Napster though? I'm sure the geeks at Yale said "oh, we can't use napster? Oh well" and started up an IRC channel "#BannedFromTheNap" and continued trading and discussing music, and the discussion was not about a comodity, but an art, and how much they liked or hated certain music.
Metallica got a big boost when them started out by the boot legging industry with "No Life...Leather". Now they have the money and public eye, they turn like snakes? What kind of meassage does that send to fans?
What about the 15-16 yr olds that aren't making much money, but want to hear the orignal "Garage Days" CD and cannot pay the large marked up price? "Sorry kid, you can't hear our 'art' if you don't have the cash" Does this seem like somthing an artist would say?
Will Picasso sue me next for having my wallpaper set to one of his paintings downloaded from the net?
I also enjoy hearing live stuff, and there aren't many metallica albums live. Would they rather not have thier music heard unless it means turning a dollar for every song?
I'm disenchanted... They owe allmost everything to there fans... Oh well... I still have Nine Inch Nails. They might have an internet-only album out in 4-5 months.
"Justice has been raped..."
Snoop
There are some pretty impressive MP3 hardware options coming out, so, I'm not sure if adding voice control would be worth the extra money (IMHO, no it wouldn't).
One complaint I do have though is everything out is limited to Flash memory or a Hard drive in the device. Why can't I just have a CD player that plays MP3s like my apex? One I can take in the car, or walk around with?
A nice strongARM, a cd player, headphone jack and car adapter/batteries.. Thats all I need. And this thermos.. Thats all I need. Maybe an nice display as an accesory.. thats all I need
It would seem to me that this comes out just in time for the new Sims add-on "Quarintine".
"Lucas is suing him for using the THX sound effect on his album. He apparently *asked* to use it, but was denied (and used it anyway)."
After Lucas told him no, did he go and download it off of Napster?
I completely agree with your agrument.
What I don't understand is why Napster is the only company being sued? Is it because it's eaiser to use then an FTP client, or then searching the web for "mp3?
I'd really like to see someone sue AOL, or Micro$oft since they write programs that can be used to download copyrighted material, but I guess they're too big and would probally win, unlike Napster who's a start up and are allready being sued.
I'm waiting for WASP and Green Jell(y/o) to join the fight
So, I admit that I've downloaded a couple of Dr. Dre's mp3s. Since the artist gets about 1 dollar for each album sold, and theres on average 12 songs an album, does he want my 16.6 cents for the two songs I've downloaded? What else could he sue me for?
There are Quad PII boards.. Check out www.pricewatch.com. They have two listed, one by Intel and the other by American Megatrends. Also, Isn't the SGI 540 a quad board? The only problem is that if you plan to run a NT server (I don't know why you would, but..) you need a special build of NT. Mucho Denero.
Snoop