...to cut down on the bandwidth costs. That would mean only using the same or less bandwidth than with direct downloads.
They could even convert the upload given by their fans into credits (money saved on bandwidth), that could be used buying merchandise in their shop (upload a terabyte and get a free t-shirt!).
Why should I pay for something, if I have no idea whatsoever if it's worth the money? They should make a simple donation button as well on their site so I could return and donate if I liked their music *after* having listened to it. Maybe include an html file in the download with CD information and a donate link embedded.
(And yeah, I know, I could just pay & re-download, but a donation button would be simpler and clarify this option to people.)
Seems what is needed is some kind of expendable micro-bot that launches from a bigger bot. Why all the bots? I say, just send humans already! (and launch them from a large bot if you must).
Exactly! $1 a watt panels are darn expensive if they only last 5 years. Not in Denmark. Here they will have paid for themselves in less than 6 months. We pay ~2.5 USD/W/year.
When I see these reports I'm glad I live in Denmark where all providers (I know of) give you actual unlimited traffic. You can get the capped stuff as well if you want (in the sense that you pay for every Mb above a certain limit) for a lower monthly price.
You never see Jack Bauer go to the bathroom. That's because nothing escapes Jack Bauer. That's a funny sig! But seriously, we all know he goes to the loo during the commercial breaks (if he's not being tortured or something) --- just like the rest of us:-) [the loo thing, not the torture thing, though sometimes they're the same]
What good would DRM (if it worked) do against people getting music for free? If you don't want to pay, you go to The Pirate Bay or similar places and get it (in CD quality). Why would you bother ripping a stream?!? I guess this would just make the casual "streamripper" searching for another way to avoid paying for music discover the plethora of the p2p universe.
Human military personnel can look at illegal orders, recognize them, and either refuse to act or directly contravene them. And that shall be their undoing! Robots: "Execute order 66!" (q Evil Grin)
Remember, we could be sending robots everywhere for the price of this. Science is not what NASA cares about. NASA cares about their budget. Going to Mars sells well. Going to Mars in skin-tight suits sells better. I know what you're saying, and you're so wrong!
Robots have their uses but don't think that they can substitute humans in space. If you take Mars, we've learned a lot using robots in the last few years. But if we send a handful of geologists and other relevant scientists up there and let them loose we'll learn a hell of a lot more and a lot faster than just using robots. Don't underestimate the trained eyes and skilled hands of humans.
Robots and humans complement each other, but one can not replace the other.
I won't comment on your remarks on what NASA "cares" about, other than it sounds way too generalizing to be taken seriously.
AFAIK, having copyrighted content on your computer is not illegal in most countries. It's the distribution of said content that's a no-no.
Of course if they do checksums of files identifiable as files distributed by pirate sites, they get an idea whether they can find something on your computer if they can get hold of it by some legal means. You could perhaps argue that the checksums are the same because you used the same medium, program & settings to transfer the work from its medium to your harddisk...
Question: Is it illegal to *download* copyrighted work in *your* country, or is it just *uploading* it that's forbidden?
By your logic, were I to acquire your credit card and purchase items, I am not committing theft because i never actually took anything from you and never intended to permanently deprive you of the use of any property. Wrong. If you take my credit card, I nolonger have it, which means you stole it. If you used it to buy stuff, money's been taken from my account and I nolonger have, which means you stole them. If you *copy* my credit card, you *haven't* stolen it. But if you use it to withdraw money from my account, you will have stolen that money because I don't have it anymore. (Oh yeah, and I agree with the other guy saying that the technical term is 'fraud')
Not buying something can't be stealing. The whole confusion comes from that fact that the product we're talking about isn't a physical object but we try to act like it is, and then it gets weird and we start messing around with definitions of 'products' and 'theft' to make some sense of it.
Being a physicist I tend to think that it's better if the way something is priced reflect the work that was done creating it. In the case of a CD, you have a large starting cost (artist composing it + artist recording it) and small distribution costs (CD's are cheap to make, and distributing over the internet is virtually costless). So, how you pay the artist should reflect that somehow. The artist, or its sponsor, could also call it a start-up investment, spread the music for free over the internet to promote the concerts where the money's made. Or they could sell merchandise from their website (George Lucas made more than three times the money from the first Star Wars trilogy *merchandising* than they grossed at the box office).
In the end, for me, it's all about the value of the product or service. When I buy a CD, I get a nice cover and good quality physical medium. When I buy on-line, I don't get any of that - *and* I have to use my own internet connection *and* store it on my own harddrive (and sometimes it may be encumbered by DRM in which case I won't touch it!). To me, buying a song over the net is like taping it from the radio more than it is buying a CD, so I feel the price should be the same (I know there's the blanket license, but that's independent of how many songs I, personally, tape).
The HiFi brigade will naturally be less than enthused about MP3 as a primary format but that will no doubt be replaced with some sort of lossless DRM free format by then. Probably redundant to say in this forum but the Free Lossless Audio Codec (FLAC) would do nicely in this context, I think.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason ordinary people hate hippies.
...to cut down on the bandwidth costs. That would mean only using the same or less bandwidth than with direct downloads.
They could even convert the upload given by their fans into credits (money saved on bandwidth), that could be used buying merchandise in their shop (upload a terabyte and get a free t-shirt!).
Simple: it's the same people that buy spam advertised products ;-)
Which torrents are you running so that I might help you?
Why should I pay for something, if I have no idea whatsoever if it's worth the money? They should make a simple donation button as well on their site so I could return and donate if I liked their music *after* having listened to it. Maybe include an html file in the download with CD information and a donate link embedded.
(And yeah, I know, I could just pay & re-download, but a donation button would be simpler and clarify this option to people.)
That's because it's a serious topic, and I for one think we can all learn something from Mr. Hands.
How's this TV Torrents: When 'piracy' is easier than legal purchase for "not exactly easy or convinient"?
And isn't that just how it's supposed to be?
Seems what is needed is some kind of expendable micro-bot that launches from a bigger bot. Why all the bots? I say, just send humans already! (and launch them from a large bot if you must).
Yes, and it's 0.35 USD/kWh all the time.
Exactly! $1 a watt panels are darn expensive if they only last 5 years. Not in Denmark. Here they will have paid for themselves in less than 6 months. We pay ~2.5 USD/W/year.
They don't have the same momentum, so they wouldn't be in the same state and could therefore occupy the same space.
When I see these reports I'm glad I live in Denmark where all providers (I know of) give you actual unlimited traffic. You can get the capped stuff as well if you want (in the sense that you pay for every Mb above a certain limit) for a lower monthly price.
And if they're scared their heart rate won't be elevated as well? You'll get an elevated heart rate from many things that aren't sinister.
You never see Jack Bauer go to the bathroom. That's because nothing escapes Jack Bauer. :-) [the loo thing, not the torture thing, though sometimes they're the same]
That's a funny sig! But seriously, we all know he goes to the loo during the commercial breaks (if he's not being tortured or something) --- just like the rest of us
Oh, the butter will probably be considered a liquid so (for you safety, of course) restrict yourself to less than a liter divided into 100 ml containers if you travel in the EU.
What good would DRM (if it worked) do against people getting music for free? If you don't want to pay, you go to The Pirate Bay or similar places and get it (in CD quality). Why would you bother ripping a stream?!? I guess this would just make the casual "streamripper" searching for another way to avoid paying for music discover the plethora of the p2p universe.
(q Evil Grin)
Robots have their uses but don't think that they can substitute humans in space. If you take Mars, we've learned a lot using robots in the last few years. But if we send a handful of geologists and other relevant scientists up there and let them loose we'll learn a hell of a lot more and a lot faster than just using robots. Don't underestimate the trained eyes and skilled hands of humans.
Robots and humans complement each other, but one can not replace the other.
I won't comment on your remarks on what NASA "cares" about, other than it sounds way too generalizing to be taken seriously.
I personally prefer 'wget' or aptitude for my acquisition of the fox!
Interesting how we went from discussing the proliferation of Firefox vs. IE ... to genocide. /. :-)
One sure does get around here on
I couldn't help but see yet another erosion in the freedoms that made the US an example to the world.
;-) - and I also agree with you)
Does "that" refer to "erosion in the freedoms" or just "the freedoms" ?
(sorry, just couldn't help myself
AFAIK, having copyrighted content on your computer is not illegal in most countries. It's the distribution of said content that's a no-no.
Of course if they do checksums of files identifiable as files distributed by pirate sites, they get an idea whether they can find something on your computer if they can get hold of it by some legal means. You could perhaps argue that the checksums are the same because you used the same medium, program & settings to transfer the work from its medium to your harddisk...
Question: Is it illegal to *download* copyrighted work in *your* country, or is it just *uploading* it that's forbidden?
took anything from you and never intended to permanently deprive you of the use of any property. Wrong. If you take my credit card, I nolonger have it, which means you stole it. If you used it to buy stuff, money's been taken from my account and I nolonger have, which means you stole them.
If you *copy* my credit card, you *haven't* stolen it. But if you use it to withdraw money from my account, you will have stolen that money because I don't have it anymore. (Oh yeah, and I agree with the other guy saying that the technical term is 'fraud')
Not buying something can't be stealing. The whole confusion comes from that fact that the product we're talking about isn't a physical object but we try to act like it is, and then it gets weird and we start messing around with definitions of 'products' and 'theft' to make some sense of it.
Being a physicist I tend to think that it's better if the way something is priced reflect the work that was done creating it. In the case of a CD, you have a large starting cost (artist composing it + artist recording it) and small distribution costs (CD's are cheap to make, and distributing over the internet is virtually costless). So, how you pay the artist should reflect that somehow. The artist, or its sponsor, could also call it a start-up investment, spread the music for free over the internet to promote the concerts where the money's made. Or they could sell merchandise from their website (George Lucas made more than three times the money from the first Star Wars trilogy *merchandising* than they grossed at the box office).
In the end, for me, it's all about the value of the product or service. When I buy a CD, I get a nice cover and good quality physical medium. When I buy on-line, I don't get any of that - *and* I have to use my own internet connection *and* store it on my own harddrive (and sometimes it may be encumbered by DRM in which case I won't touch it!). To me, buying a song over the net is like taping it from the radio more than it is buying a CD, so I feel the price should be the same (I know there's the blanket license, but that's independent of how many songs I, personally, tape).