Aww, c'mon, can't a guy have a little fun on a defacto Monday morning?
Anyway, whoever said you should believe everything you read in/. comments? Hey, waitaminnit, you renounced my comment in another comment. Why should we believe what you say?!
I won't claim to speak for everyone but my experience with eps. I-II has mostly to do with how I have changed since the first ones came out. I was 4, 7 and 10 for eps. IV-VI. I expected less then than I demand now. So while I've had 20+ years to view Star Wars with nostalgia and enjoy the memory of how it changed my perspective of what sci-fi/action movies should be like now that's not an option for me. George faces several challenges:
1) Just being a Star Wars movie is not enough to be exciting, whereas with the first 3 (released, not chrono) just being Star Wars was enough. It was new and exciting. Even kids who did not get to see the first 3 have grown up in a world where Star Wars has been lauded as the model for sci-fi/action. (This is starting to change.) Culturally, the bar has been raised and I think today's children demand more from a movie than children did 20 years ago.
2) I'm an adult now. (Or at least, I masquerade as one.) I need more from a movie now than I did then. When I was 4 I didn't care if the dialogue or acting wasn't that great. It was fun and that's what was important.
3) Back-story? One of the things I realized after watching AOTC is that part of what made the first 3 feel complete was the presence of the back-story. The effect, while subtle, is important because it helps make the universe-of-the-movie more fully realized. You don't exactly notice it when it's there, but it's glaring when absent. Eps. I-III are the back-story, but there's no back-back-story and I think this makes everything feel a little flat and less-realized.
4) Related to 3, I already know the frickin' ending. It's hard to feel the suspense for Amidala, Obi-wan, Anakin or any other major character when I know they have to survive. (If only through ep. III) Which is not to say that their escape was boring, there's just less of an edge-of-my-seat factor when I never really believe they are in any danger.
And I agree that a Han Solo type character is a shortcoming of I-III, I'm just not sure that such a character would make up for everything else.
In general the song "Countdown" is pretty appropriate too.
Random Rush fact (that I honestly just discovered): in 1973 Neil P. was given a government grant to build a self-powered flying machine. He shelved the project (I'm guessing because he joined the band) and returned the grant a year later.
Prohibition and digital copying are not really the same thing. But, I appreciate and agree entirely with the point that if enough people raise their voices in a way that the establishment is willing to hear (or cannot refuse to ignore) then we can change things.
But here is where the prohibition parties analogy breaks down for me:
Farmer Joe makes beer/moonshine/whiskey/other illegal at the time alcoholic drinks is his barn. He throws a party. It's likely that the surrounding community who attend chip in somehow to help Farmer Joe keep making the alcohol or to help him have a dinner to eat. After all, they're appreciative of what he's done for them. Or, Farmer Joe willingly gives his alcohol away and that was his choice.
Now, if you can prove that all copyrighted songs on file-sharing systems were put there deliberately by the artists who recorded them, or, that money gets back to the artist every single time a song they recorded is downloaded, you'll have a good point.
but for the most part, we have a corupt, inept, retarded set of leaders...
Corrupt, inept and retarded describes the constituents pretty well too. You might toss in inconsiderate, self-centered jackasses too. (As an American who votes I am allowed to be critical.)
Just look at the U.S. population and tell me you are surprised by the politicians we have.
We made this bed. Now we have to lie in it.
-r
Re:How far do you want to extend this argument?
on
KaZaA Collapses
·
· Score: 1
Current US copyright law says that the owner of copyright has exclusive reproduction and distribution rights. We have fair use, yes, but fair use and distribution are not one and the same. That's why you don't have a priori rights to reproduce and distribute something you have a copy of. The law doesn't grant that.
Even if the law can be superceded by technology that does not mean the law no longer exists. It doesn't change that if you do something held to be against the law then people can say what you are doing is illegal. And they can try to stop you from doing it. This has nothing to do with right or wrong, moral or immoral. (Moral, and immoral are hard to call, which set of morals is the Absolute Standard?) Technology or no, this is the system as it exists.
That's the short answer.
The more interesting issue is where do we go now. Technology is forcing a change in the system. But change to what? Why should anyone believe that the consumers have the artists' best interest in mind? As the RIAA has their own interests in mind (which are different from the creator's interests) so the consumers also have their own interests in mind.
"I happen to hold to the traditional view of copyright: It is a bargain between the creator and the public, that the public safeguards a creative work because the natural tendency will be for it to spread."
I think it has been shown that a significant portion of the population is not interested in safeguarding a creative work. They are interested in getting it for free. (One only has to read comments here and some other places to pick up this notion.) This is a bargain? It is if you are a consumer. You get to have it both ways. You give up nothing and get to enjoy creative works. But if you are on the other side of the fence it doesn't look so much like a bargain. It looks like you work hard to create something but the people give you nothing back.
Where we do agree is that distribution via RIAA and labels is outdated, clunky and not in the best interests of either the artists or consumers. Unfortunately, they have a lot going for them. (See above regarding copyright law.) It is unfair that we have to play with them on their terms. But when was business ever about fair? Come on, this is America, land of the "I'll do for me and damn the rest." Besides, downloading songs for free and not rewarding the creator is fair? Maybe it hurts the corporations, but it also hurts the artists. (Yes, I know you said you don't do that, but plenty of people do so it becomes an important part of the discussion.)
I happen to feel that giving distribution over to the consumers is also not in the best interest of the artists. And ultimately, don't we need them (the creators) too?
With power comes responsibility. Now that we have the power, will we act responsibly?
If Google actually provided you direct links to the files of the songs, or, if Google housed the files on their machines, this would be a strong argument.
But Google's servers don't actually facilitate the sharing of files, do they? No, they lead you to other machines that help you with file-sharing.
It's a subtle difference, but probably enough to shade Google for the time being. Besides, Google's main purpose is not to file-sharing. This also offers it some protection.
And be careful what you wish for. We don't know that the **AA are not planning an attack on Google, do we?
It would be a dark day indeed if they did.
-r
Re:How far do you want to extend this argument?
on
KaZaA Collapses
·
· Score: 1
Nice. And pointing this out helps you to dodge the larger question I raised.
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how getting a copy of a song (whether it is downloaded or a CD is purchased) suddenly means that the consumer gets to decide what should be done with what someone else created.
In the credit card example I was pointing out that having a copy of something is not black-and-white. It's not always good and it's not always bad. It can be either one. To say that having a copy of a song that was not paid for never hurts anyone is shortsighted. Which is also why I said the act of copying something does not exist in a vacuum.
Perhaps a credit card number et al is worthless until you use it to spend someone else's money. I would argue the point that the enjoyment of a song is not a key to anything else. It might not be a key to money but good music rewards the listener by making life better for them, even if it is just for the duration of the song. If music isn't doing that for you, I'm sorry. It does it for me and that's why I feel if I want a copy of a song around I ought to reward its creator. And I don't think free publicity by deciding how they should distribute their music is enough. I could do that if I wanted to. However, I think some money in their pocket is worthwhile.
-r
Re:How far do you want to extend this argument?
on
KaZaA Collapses
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Questions/points of interest:
1) If you buy a CD when did you get the right to distribute copies of the contents?
2) Granted, making a copy of a song for yourself or even a friend is one thing. But is it not something else to make the entire contents of a CD available for who knows how many people to download? The scale on which this happens changes the perspective. It may be a simple act to copy a song but that act does not exist in a vacuum.
3) Perhaps someone should copy your credit card number, SSN, name, birthday etc etc. After all, it's just a copy and you've lost nothing. So it doesn't hurt anyone if other people use that information too. Yes, this is an extreme example and not exactly the same thing. My point is that just having a copy of something is not always harmless. When you say no one loses anything when a song is copied it seems as though you forget what's lost is the artist's power to decide how their music should be distributed. If they don't want to give it away for free why do you get to decide that they should? (Keep in mind that format/space-shifting or a copy for a friend is not the same thing as en masse file-sharing.)
4) Copying a song and not watching TV ads aren't exactly the same thing either. The tv networks sell spots to advertisers. The advertisers only make their money back if the product is good and people buy it. I feel this has little to do with whether or not I see an ad on TV. It has more to do with the quality of the product. If it turns out to be something I need I'll buy it but it won't be due to some stupid ad. Conversely, I see lots of ads on TV for things I'll never buy. Am I still stealing the TV broadcast? Nope. The difference here is doing without. If I don't buy something adverstised on TV (whether I see the ad or not) I'm doing without the product. When someone copies a song and doesn't pay for it they get to enjoy the song without rewarding the creator.
5) What is so strange about this: Product exists. See/hear product. Pay money for product. Have product. That's been the basis of our economy for how long now?
6) It's worth repeating the radio stations pay by the bucketful to get to air songs for us to hear. That's how the RIAA justifies your ability to tape songs off the air. As well, blank cassettes cost what they do because some of that money goes back to the labels to make up for supposed lost sales due to copying. Your cassette recorder has a charge like this buried in its cost too. And, the quality of taping a song of the radio is nothing like buying a CD or even a cassette. Sound quality is low for radio broadcasts anyway, plus you have to listen to dumbass DJs talk over the songs.
7) How many people would use P2P file-sharing systems if they had always been on a few-cents-per-song-downloaded fee system?
Of course, I'll get ripped to shreds for "being on their side" even though I am not. I just think this is a sensitive issue. And because some people want to just download songs and not reward the artists the rest of us have to make up for it. The more people engage in what the RIAA feels is illegal behavior the less they will feel we have anything valid to say.
You might also view this as your last chance to prove you are right.
Before I get started I just want to say that I have enjoyed the debate on this topic for the sake of the discussion itself. Thanks to everyone involved - even if I don't know your nicknames.
In the threads underneath my first post, I have asked a few questions I feel were either not answered at all, or not answered adequately. They are repeated here.
1) How is the utilization of file-sharing systems protesting the current copyright law? Easy to do? Yes. Lazy? Yes. Ineffective? Yes. Sadly this method is not going to make any sort of point to the people you are trying to reach. At least, it's not going to make the point you want it to. What it will do is convince the RIAA etc etc even further that all music fans are thieves and must be punished by further stripping us of our rights as consumers (through legal channels) and further limiting our ability to enjoy music (through technological channels).
Where are all the real protesters?
2) It's a given that record contacts generally favor the rich execs and screw over the artists. But I ask this, between options a) buying a cd and giving the artist very little, and b) downloading the songs for free and giving the artists nothing, how is 'b' better for the artists than 'a'?
Yes, perhaps there is free promotion involved in that people who might never hear of said artist will find them via file-sharing and become fans. But, without being able to point to revenue earned the musicians will have very little clout with the label to negotiate a better contract. This is bad for the musicians. In most cases the labels are releasing music based on the chance it will make them lots of money and not because of any artistic merit. Yes, there are exceptions, but the main idea here is still valid.
Further, without donating any money straight to the artist you're not putting anything in their pocket. They are trying to make a living at this, you know. And, if you enjoy their music enough to keep it around shouldn't you reward them a little too? Or are they suppose to make this music you like for you out of the goodness of their heart?
3) How does purchasing a CD transfer ownership of copyright for the contents to the purchaser? If it did then you could make and distribute all the copies you want and no one could question it. Since it does not, all of your copies must fall under the area of Fair Use. Which brings me to my final question:
4) How is it that all cases of space-shifting are Fair Use and therefore authorized? Courts have found in the Napster case that file-sharing (at least some of the time) is not a form of space-shifting that is in the spirit of Fair Use. This seems to mean that sometimes when a song is space-shifted it's not Fair Use. If it's not Fair Use it's unauthorized and that is a violation of Federal law.
I'm not a very good slashdotter and I don't know when comments will be turned off. So, mail me here if you have answers. Like I said, I've really enjoyed the debate for the sake of the debate itself. No reason we should let/. tell us when to stop.
(Unfortunately, my free webhost is temporarily down so I can't upload the form you'll use to mail me. Once DR get their act together the page will be there.)
Facts are tricky things. You might say that a fact is a fact is . ..
. . . not a fact.
The facts are that space-shifting (a form of "unauthorized" reproduction) is not prohibited by Federal law and is not subject to prosecution.
I suggest that the fact is this matter is still being decided. Even the EFF states that the legal basis has not been settled yet. They go on to say that some lawyers believe space-shifting is Fair Use.
This hinges on how one wants to interpret "unauthorized." If you look strictly at the US Federal code it does not say that space-shifting is protected as Fair Use. What was found, in the RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia case, is that space-shifting a song to a portable mp3 player (the Rio specifically but for discussion let's open that up to "most portable mp3 players") is in the spirit of Fair Use.
It was found, conversely, in the Napster case, that space-shifting a copyrighted song to Napster's file sharing system (again, for discussion, let's open that up to "most file-sharing systems") was not Fair Use.
This is an example of why the matter remains unsettled. There is the camp that can argue space-shifting is not authorized because the law does not authorize it. The law does state, however, that copyright owners have exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute said copyrighted work. Of course, this ignores that there is a spirit to Fair Use that extends beyond the actual words in the US Code. My opinion is that this camp has a pretty narrow view of things that I cannot agree with.
And, there the camp that says space-shifting is always authorized because the law does not expressly forbid it. As such, it is therefore Fair Use. This viewpoint I also find to be rather narrow in scope and I can't quite agree with it either.
Both sides are trying to pin down space-shifting as either never Fair Use, or, always Fair Use. And that's why I think both sides are a little narrow-minded.
The US Code does not declare one way or another if space-shifting is authorized or unauthorized. So it is a little misleading to say that space-shifting is not prohibited. Maybe it isn't, but it's not exactly endorsed as Fair Use by the law either.
It's not always OK and it's not always bad. That's my personal interpretation. Sometimes space-shifting is Fair Use and sometimes it is not.
Strangely enough, that's how the court cases are turning out.
So, isn't it fair to say that if you space-shift a song in manner found not to be in the spirit of Fair Use, you are making an unauthorized copy and that is prohibited by Federal law?
I will get to my feelings about space-shifting in just a moment. First, I feel it is important to say that the current US copyright law (apologies to non US-ians, I am being horribly ethnocentric right now) states clearly that the owner of copyright has exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute whatever material we are talking about. Please enlighten me as to how one becomes the owner of copyright simply by purchasing a CD.
Now to get to space-shifting. Perhaps I wasn't clear so I will say bluntly that space-shifting for personal use is not a crime and I never said it was. Example: if I make a CD of my favorite songs by BAND X I've not done anything wrong. I already bought the CDs so they got my money. Even if BAND X has a greatest hits CD it's not likely to be one that I would buy anyway. Again, no money lost.
However, p2p file sharing is not the same thing as what I just described. It's not the same thing as taking my whole CD collection, making mp3s of them and listening to those instead of the discs.
You could argue that the act, on a file-by-file basis, is just simply space-shifting. But that ignores the scale - which is a pretty important factor. The scale (both in volume of files and the distance the files are shifted) on which p2p file sharing operates, is, in my opinion, grand enough to call distribution. As before, please enlighten me as to how buying a CD gives you authorization to distribute its contents?
That is why I said personal use space-shifting is not what's gotten the RIAA in a tizzy. P2P file sharing is not personal use, nor is it Fair Use, and that's why they want to shut it down.
And ultimately, the point I have tried to make, which has most been lost is this: p2p file sharing is not the most effective method we, the music consuming public, have to let the Big Music Business know that we are fed up with them. It's probably the least effective. They see it as a crime. Even if it is not, we have send them a message they can hear. Continued file-sharing will only convince them further that we are all thieves. They're dumb that way. If you turn your back to a deaf person, and then talk to them, have you really communicated?
Yes, the burden is on us. Yes, it's not entirely fair. But when was business ever about fair?
To close I will say this. I don't have the slightest concern regarding whether the record labels and everyone else stay in business or not. It's pretty clear that their general aim is to screw over both the musicians and the public. My feeling is that if a musician (or a group of them) makes music that I enjoy I ought to pay them for enriching my life. I'd just as soon send them a check directly than send it through the label system. That's where my concern lies, with the people making the music.
How many bands have you donated monies to based on songs heard through file sharing?
I suspect we will have to disagree on this issue as our viewpoints come from different angles of this issue.
My experience is generally that the crappy dial-up connection I have to use dies during the windows update process. Something of an endless cycle:
start downloading connection dies start downloading again connection dies start downloading again connection dies
Yeah, maybe I could go find each update individually. But geez, is a resume feature so hard to implement? I mean really, MS claim they have the best programmers in the world and this is the best they can do? Perhaps that explains a lot.
Sorry Bill, add this to the list of reasons I'll choose OS X over XP.
Ok. End rant now.
And do not get me started on why neither cable modem or DSL is available to me.
I'll not argue that civil disobedience is a duty. That's not what I was trying to say. My point was that p2p file sharing is not a good or effective form of protest.
Where are the sit-ins? Where are the marches? Where are the all-out (that is, no purchases or downloads) boycotts? Who's willing to go to jail over this issue to raise public awareness? That is the stuff of protesting.
It seems to me that a part of civil disobedience is a willingness to sacrifice something. What are you willing to sacrifice to protest the unfair copyright laws?
This is not a flame or a troll, I really want to know.
What part of "don't believe everything that monopolists tell you" is not clear?
Where did you get the idea that I believe everything monopolists tell me? Because I read the back of a CD? Believing one thing some person or group says does not mean I believe everything they say.
Maybe the RIAA hates space-shifting. But it's been happening for years and they've never really tried to crack down on it. But we're not talking about space-shifting anymore because P2P file sharing is not the same thing as space-shifting for personal use. It's re-distribution. And that is what's gotten them in a tizzy.
You can argue that the law doesn't specifically cover p2p file sharing. But don't you think that making songs available for large numbers of people to download is in the spirit of distributing music? Acquiring a copy of a song (be it by purchase of a cd or download or however) does not automatically transfer distribution rights to the person getting the copy of the song.
One of the tests for Fair Use is: the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Maybe the effect of putting a song out there will be good for the artist and more people will want to pick up the cd or see them in concert.
But it could go the other way around and people will decide that they don't need the cd because they have the mp3s. Even if you like the songs, no one will know because you haven't voted with your $$. And maybe the label will decide that this artist doesn't make them enough money and drop them.
It could go either direction, or more likely, somewhere in the middle. I don't think any of this has been proven absolutely one way or the other. But I think we have an uphill battle ahead to prove that the former is more prevalent.
Other thoughts: if you want to write a book/song/program/whatever and give it away for free that is your decision. It's my opinion that the person creating the work should be the one who decides how it gets out to the world. Even if they choose to go through the Evil Empire. "Sharing" a song with thousands of people supercedes this and I don't believe music fans have that right. We will probably just have to disagree on this point.
Now, to be clear about my stance: I'm not concerned if the RIAA or the record labels go out of business. I just feel that if a musician (or group of them) make music that I like to hear then I should pay them for it. After all, they've just made my life better.
A question: how many people out there download all the songs from a cd by BAND X follow that up by sending a monetary donation (say $10.00) directly to the band?
Borrowing and ripping a friend's CD, that's abusing it.
From some points of view, borrowing and ripping a friend's cd is not really that different from downloading an mp3 made by a stranger. I'm not saying that's my opinion, I'm just saying it's one that some people might hold.
As music fans we're in a bad spot. Buying CDs hardly helps the artist (unless they are a true indie artist), and yet, downloading songs ensures that they get nothing. Unless, of course, one is sending donations directly to the artist after downloading their songs.
So, do we re-inforce the machine just to give the artist a little, or, do we give the artist nothing in the hope that destroying the machine will ultimately empower the musicians?
I do agree that copyright law (and the changes Big Business are trying to buy) is quickly becoming about the companies instead of the creators. It's a sham.
I also think that we can protest this and possibly make a difference. I just don't think p2p file sharing is the best way to go about it.
What about a peaceful march on the RIAA headquarters? Or the record label headquarters? If nothing else, the news industry would almost have to cover the story.
What about not buying CDs and not downloading any songs?
Oh. Wait. That would take effort and mean giving something up.
Perhaps that was a cheap shot. Most definitely it was not directed at you specifically. After all, I know little of your politics. I can be a smart-ass , but I am serious when I say this is not an attack.
It's just that in general I think p2p file sharing as a form of protest is a pretty lazy and ineffective way to make a statement.
In this particular instance, breaking the law will not convince them you are right.
The RIAA etc have already demonstrated repeatedly that they don't get it. Us shouting at them (read: illegal copying) is not going to get our message across. They've shoved their fingers in their ears. And possibly other places . ..
What I am trying to convey is that the means of communicating needs to match the recipient. Otherwise, the message is lost and nothing is gained.
Besides, you're not actually trying to equate these stupid laws with something like this are you?
What part of "Unauthorized reproduction of this recording is prohibited by Federal law and subject to prosecution" is not clear?
You might want to make mp3s of all your albums, but that doesn't mean you authorized to. Now, honestly, the RIAA probably does not care if we space-shift music. I mean, once you buy the CD, does it really matter to them if you listen to the CD, or the mp3s you made? They already got their money.
But, there is a rather large difference between making mp3s for personal use and making said mp3s available for thousands of people to download. Or grabbing up mp3s for songs you don't have on cd.
I'd love to believe that the p2p users really are only doing it to find new music. Or because that is easier than making the mp3s yourself. And I know some of you are. But I also know that some people use it as a way to not buy CDs. This is what's gotten them all riled up. The continued abuse of the "fair use" concept. It's not like fair use isn't defined or anything. It's pretty damn clearly defined.
P2P file sharing is not fair use. It never has been.
Now, that I've gotten you all upset, I'll say that I am basically on your side. I want to be able to make mix cds. I'd use mp3s if that was practical for me. The over-reaching "solution" they have come up with is an abomination and I can only hope it blows up in their faces. And yet, it's not a-typical for how Americans think. Nor is entirely against the grains of our US-ian culture.
To boil it down: breaking the law will not convince them you are right.
Some responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in must be placed on people abusing fair use.
Sorta like how Suse is a distro only an AC could love?;)
Kidding aside, your experience with Suse sounds a lot like my experience with Red Hat 7.1 / 7.2. Easy install, minimal fuss, things just work and it doesn't crash. And that's all I really need.
I tried Suse in between RH 6.1 and RH 7.1 and was looking forward trying it out. It came recommended by a co-worker and I had read positive reviews/comments. Plus, they were first out of the gate with some stuff I was looking for.
Things went downhill immediately. The install was messy, Sawfish never compiled, and like I said, any thoughts about using the modem would result in a hard-reboot. And for the love of God, will somebody please tell developers that not everyone in the world has a screen resolution over 1280x1024?! The "start this service, don't start that one" configuration tool in Suse is horrid at 800x600. (People hate horizontal scrolling.)
Now, I am a newbie and I'll admit it, and I'm not hear to say "woe is me, Linux is so hard, please feel sorry for me." I just came to the conclusion that Suse wasn't worth the fight. I want to do things with my PC, not fight with it. That's the decision I made because that's where I am. Yes, I could have gone through every error message in the./configure portion of the Sawfish install and made the necessary corrections. I just didn't want to. (The word you are looking for is 'lazy.')
Recap: Suse took weeks to work with and never did everything I wanted. RH 7.1 took hours to install and configure.
I probably sound like I am just whining. I'm not really - I just had a bad time with Suse.
And I guess this is why both Suse and RH exist. They both work for different people.
Late in the game to be posting a reply, but hey, I actually do non-computer things too. And what the hell, it's not like/. karma defines me or anything.
Funny how times change. It used to be said that widescreen movies were unwatchable on any TV 20" or smaller. Now it's up to 40"?!
Hardly. My 27" does quite fine thank you very much. Is it perfect or just like a theater? Of course not. But unless you build a theater to scale in your house, nothing will be like a theater. Even the 61" screens are still smaller than a movie theater.
My so-called too-small TV works as well as it does because of the room it is in. That's an important factor here, room size. Or, more precisely, how far away from the TV you are sitting. If you can't get very far away then a 40" is, in my experience, worse than something smaller.
It's all about perspective and environment. Screen size is a factor, but it's not the only factor.
As plenty of other people have pointed out - yes you can set up cameras in your house if you want to. (And it probably would be a good idea to let visitors know about them.)
But that's not the issue here.
It's about whether or not you would like someone else to set up cameras in your house that you did not know about. They'd tape you and put it on the internet.
Other people have already made it quite clear how important the browser is in today's OS wars so I won't rehash that.
Wanna talk Office Suites? Here's my take (and no offense intended). Most of the $0 office suites are already worth their price tag. Realistically they are all probably worth more than their price.
What we need (and what people are working on) is an office suite that is worth $$$ but still has a $0 price tag.
While the intent of downloading music for free might be to tell the RIAA and record companies that they are charging too much for music that's not the message they will pick up on. They'll see that people want the music (it's being downloaded after all) so all they have to do is shut down the ways people get it for free. Then people will start paying again.
They are too dumb to get it. So we have to spell it out for them. Stop buying and stop downloading and they just might pick up on this simple idea: the music they are producing is not worth what they charge. It's not even worth taking for free.
That'll at least tell them the product is flawed. It won't help them fix their methods of distribution but it will send them a loud message that they need to change what they are doing.
Having said that I'll point out that I think most people take music for free due to a willingness to participate in that great American Dream(tm) where you do for yourself regardless of the impact on anyone else.
I mean, it's not a very good form of protest, is it?
Slashdot Mirror
(I shouldn't bother, but here goes)
/. comments? Hey, waitaminnit, you renounced my comment in another comment. Why should we believe what you say?!
Aww, c'mon, can't a guy have a little fun on a defacto Monday morning?
Anyway, whoever said you should believe everything you read in
Is this obviously humorous enough for ya?
I won't claim to speak for everyone but my experience with eps. I-II has mostly to do with how I have changed since the first ones came out. I was 4, 7 and 10 for eps. IV-VI. I expected less then than I demand now. So while I've had 20+ years to view Star Wars with nostalgia and enjoy the memory of how it changed my perspective of what sci-fi/action movies should be like now that's not an option for me. George faces several challenges:
1) Just being a Star Wars movie is not enough to be exciting, whereas with the first 3 (released, not chrono) just being Star Wars was enough. It was new and exciting. Even kids who did not get to see the first 3 have grown up in a world where Star Wars has been lauded as the model for sci-fi/action. (This is starting to change.) Culturally, the bar has been raised and I think today's children demand more from a movie than children did 20 years ago.
2) I'm an adult now. (Or at least, I masquerade as one.) I need more from a movie now than I did then. When I was 4 I didn't care if the dialogue or acting wasn't that great. It was fun and that's what was important.
3) Back-story? One of the things I realized after watching AOTC is that part of what made the first 3 feel complete was the presence of the back-story. The effect, while subtle, is important because it helps make the universe-of-the-movie more fully realized. You don't exactly notice it when it's there, but it's glaring when absent. Eps. I-III are the back-story, but there's no back-back-story and I think this makes everything feel a little flat and less-realized.
4) Related to 3, I already know the frickin' ending. It's hard to feel the suspense for Amidala, Obi-wan, Anakin or any other major character when I know they have to survive. (If only through ep. III) Which is not to say that their escape was boring, there's just less of an edge-of-my-seat factor when I never really believe they are in any danger.
And I agree that a Han Solo type character is a shortcoming of I-III, I'm just not sure that such a character would make up for everything else.
-r
In general the song "Countdown" is pretty appropriate too.
Random Rush fact (that I honestly just discovered): in 1973 Neil P. was given a government grant to build a self-powered flying machine. He shelved the project (I'm guessing because he joined the band) and returned the grant a year later.
-r
Prohibition and digital copying are not really the same thing. But, I appreciate and agree entirely with the point that if enough people raise their voices in a way that the establishment is willing to hear (or cannot refuse to ignore) then we can change things.
But here is where the prohibition parties analogy breaks down for me:
Farmer Joe makes beer/moonshine/whiskey/other illegal at the time alcoholic drinks is his barn. He throws a party. It's likely that the surrounding community who attend chip in somehow to help Farmer Joe keep making the alcohol or to help him have a dinner to eat. After all, they're appreciative of what he's done for them. Or, Farmer Joe willingly gives his alcohol away and that was his choice.
Now, if you can prove that all copyrighted songs on file-sharing systems were put there deliberately by the artists who recorded them, or, that money gets back to the artist every single time a song they recorded is downloaded, you'll have a good point.
-r
but for the most part, we have a corupt, inept, retarded set of leaders...
Corrupt, inept and retarded describes the constituents pretty well too. You might toss in inconsiderate, self-centered jackasses too. (As an American who votes I am allowed to be critical.)
Just look at the U.S. population and tell me you are surprised by the politicians we have.
We made this bed. Now we have to lie in it.
-r
Current US copyright law says that the owner of copyright has exclusive reproduction and distribution rights. We have fair use, yes, but fair use and distribution are not one and the same. That's why you don't have a priori rights to reproduce and distribute something you have a copy of. The law doesn't grant that.
Even if the law can be superceded by technology that does not mean the law no longer exists. It doesn't change that if you do something held to be against the law then people can say what you are doing is illegal. And they can try to stop you from doing it. This has nothing to do with right or wrong, moral or immoral. (Moral, and immoral are hard to call, which set of morals is the Absolute Standard?) Technology or no, this is the system as it exists.
That's the short answer.
The more interesting issue is where do we go now. Technology is forcing a change in the system. But change to what? Why should anyone believe that the consumers have the artists' best interest in mind? As the RIAA has their own interests in mind (which are different from the creator's interests) so the consumers also have their own interests in mind.
"I happen to hold to the traditional view of copyright: It is a bargain between the creator and the public, that the public safeguards a creative work because the natural tendency will be for it to spread."
I think it has been shown that a significant portion of the population is not interested in safeguarding a creative work. They are interested in getting it for free. (One only has to read comments here and some other places to pick up this notion.) This is a bargain? It is if you are a consumer. You get to have it both ways. You give up nothing and get to enjoy creative works. But if you are on the other side of the fence it doesn't look so much like a bargain. It looks like you work hard to create something but the people give you nothing back.
Where we do agree is that distribution via RIAA and labels is outdated, clunky and not in the best interests of either the artists or consumers. Unfortunately, they have a lot going for them. (See above regarding copyright law.) It is unfair that we have to play with them on their terms. But when was business ever about fair? Come on, this is America, land of the "I'll do for me and damn the rest." Besides, downloading songs for free and not rewarding the creator is fair? Maybe it hurts the corporations, but it also hurts the artists. (Yes, I know you said you don't do that, but plenty of people do so it becomes an important part of the discussion.)
I happen to feel that giving distribution over to the consumers is also not in the best interest of the artists. And ultimately, don't we need them (the creators) too?
With power comes responsibility. Now that we have the power, will we act responsibly?
-r
If Google actually provided you direct links to the files of the songs, or, if Google housed the files on their machines, this would be a strong argument.
But Google's servers don't actually facilitate the sharing of files, do they? No, they lead you to other machines that help you with file-sharing.
It's a subtle difference, but probably enough to shade Google for the time being. Besides, Google's main purpose is not to file-sharing. This also offers it some protection.
And be careful what you wish for. We don't know that the **AA are not planning an attack on Google, do we?
It would be a dark day indeed if they did.
-r
Nice. And pointing this out helps you to dodge the larger question I raised.
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how getting a copy of a song (whether it is downloaded or a CD is purchased) suddenly means that the consumer gets to decide what should be done with what someone else created.
In the credit card example I was pointing out that having a copy of something is not black-and-white. It's not always good and it's not always bad. It can be either one. To say that having a copy of a song that was not paid for never hurts anyone is shortsighted. Which is also why I said the act of copying something does not exist in a vacuum.
Perhaps a credit card number et al is worthless until you use it to spend someone else's money. I would argue the point that the enjoyment of a song is not a key to anything else. It might not be a key to money but good music rewards the listener by making life better for them, even if it is just for the duration of the song. If music isn't doing that for you, I'm sorry. It does it for me and that's why I feel if I want a copy of a song around I ought to reward its creator. And I don't think free publicity by deciding how they should distribute their music is enough. I could do that if I wanted to. However, I think some money in their pocket is worthwhile.
-r
Questions/points of interest:
1) If you buy a CD when did you get the right to distribute copies of the contents?
2) Granted, making a copy of a song for yourself or even a friend is one thing. But is it not something else to make the entire contents of a CD available for who knows how many people to download? The scale on which this happens changes the perspective. It may be a simple act to copy a song but that act does not exist in a vacuum.
3) Perhaps someone should copy your credit card number, SSN, name, birthday etc etc. After all, it's just a copy and you've lost nothing. So it doesn't hurt anyone if other people use that information too. Yes, this is an extreme example and not exactly the same thing. My point is that just having a copy of something is not always harmless. When you say no one loses anything when a song is copied it seems as though you forget what's lost is the artist's power to decide how their music should be distributed. If they don't want to give it away for free why do you get to decide that they should? (Keep in mind that format/space-shifting or a copy for a friend is not the same thing as en masse file-sharing.)
4) Copying a song and not watching TV ads aren't exactly the same thing either. The tv networks sell spots to advertisers. The advertisers only make their money back if the product is good and people buy it. I feel this has little to do with whether or not I see an ad on TV. It has more to do with the quality of the product. If it turns out to be something I need I'll buy it but it won't be due to some stupid ad. Conversely, I see lots of ads on TV for things I'll never buy. Am I still stealing the TV broadcast? Nope. The difference here is doing without. If I don't buy something adverstised on TV (whether I see the ad or not) I'm doing without the product. When someone copies a song and doesn't pay for it they get to enjoy the song without rewarding the creator.
5) What is so strange about this: Product exists. See/hear product. Pay money for product. Have product. That's been the basis of our economy for how long now?
6) It's worth repeating the radio stations pay by the bucketful to get to air songs for us to hear. That's how the RIAA justifies your ability to tape songs off the air. As well, blank cassettes cost what they do because some of that money goes back to the labels to make up for supposed lost sales due to copying. Your cassette recorder has a charge like this buried in its cost too. And, the quality of taping a song of the radio is nothing like buying a CD or even a cassette. Sound quality is low for radio broadcasts anyway, plus you have to listen to dumbass DJs talk over the songs.
7) How many people would use P2P file-sharing systems if they had always been on a few-cents-per-song-downloaded fee system?
Of course, I'll get ripped to shreds for "being on their side" even though I am not. I just think this is a sensitive issue. And because some people want to just download songs and not reward the artists the rest of us have to make up for it. The more people engage in what the RIAA feels is illegal behavior the less they will feel we have anything valid to say.
-r
You might also view this as your last chance to prove you are right.
Before I get started I just want to say that I have enjoyed the debate on this topic for the sake of the discussion itself. Thanks to everyone involved - even if I don't know your nicknames.
In the threads underneath my first post, I have asked a few questions I feel were either not answered at all, or not answered adequately. They are repeated here.
1) How is the utilization of file-sharing systems protesting the current copyright law? Easy to do? Yes. Lazy? Yes. Ineffective? Yes. Sadly this method is not going to make any sort of point to the people you are trying to reach. At least, it's not going to make the point you want it to. What it will do is convince the RIAA etc etc even further that all music fans are thieves and must be punished by further stripping us of our rights as consumers (through legal channels) and further limiting our ability to enjoy music (through technological channels).
Where are all the real protesters?
2) It's a given that record contacts generally favor the rich execs and screw over the artists. But I ask this, between options a) buying a cd and giving the artist very little, and b) downloading the songs for free and giving the artists nothing, how is 'b' better for the artists than 'a'?
Yes, perhaps there is free promotion involved in that people who might never hear of said artist will find them via file-sharing and become fans. But, without being able to point to revenue earned the musicians will have very little clout with the label to negotiate a better contract. This is bad for the musicians. In most cases the labels are releasing music based on the chance it will make them lots of money and not because of any artistic merit. Yes, there are exceptions, but the main idea here is still valid.
Further, without donating any money straight to the artist you're not putting anything in their pocket. They are trying to make a living at this, you know. And, if you enjoy their music enough to keep it around shouldn't you reward them a little too? Or are they suppose to make this music you like for you out of the goodness of their heart?
3) How does purchasing a CD transfer ownership of copyright for the contents to the purchaser? If it did then you could make and distribute all the copies you want and no one could question it. Since it does not, all of your copies must fall under the area of Fair Use. Which brings me to my final question:
4) How is it that all cases of space-shifting are Fair Use and therefore authorized? Courts have found in the Napster case that file-sharing (at least some of the time) is not a form of space-shifting that is in the spirit of Fair Use. This seems to mean that sometimes when a song is space-shifted it's not Fair Use. If it's not Fair Use it's unauthorized and that is a violation of Federal law.
I'm not a very good slashdotter and I don't know when comments will be turned off. So, mail me here if you have answers. Like I said, I've really enjoyed the debate for the sake of the debate itself. No reason we should let
(Unfortunately, my free webhost is temporarily down so I can't upload the form you'll use to mail me. Once DR get their act together the page will be there.)
-r
Facts are tricky things. You might say that a fact is a fact is . .
. . . not a fact.
The facts are that space-shifting (a form of "unauthorized" reproduction) is not prohibited by Federal law and is not subject to prosecution.
I suggest that the fact is this matter is still being decided. Even the EFF states that the legal basis has not been settled yet . They go on to say that some lawyers believe space-shifting is Fair Use.
This hinges on how one wants to interpret "unauthorized." If you look strictly at the US Federal code it does not say that space-shifting is protected as Fair Use. What was found, in the RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia case, is that space-shifting a song to a portable mp3 player (the Rio specifically but for discussion let's open that up to "most portable mp3 players") is in the spirit of Fair Use.
It was found, conversely, in the Napster case, that space-shifting a copyrighted song to Napster's file sharing system (again, for discussion, let's open that up to "most file-sharing systems") was not Fair Use.
This is an example of why the matter remains unsettled. There is the camp that can argue space-shifting is not authorized because the law does not authorize it. The law does state, however, that copyright owners have exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute said copyrighted work. Of course, this ignores that there is a spirit to Fair Use that extends beyond the actual words in the US Code. My opinion is that this camp has a pretty narrow view of things that I cannot agree with.
And, there the camp that says space-shifting is always authorized because the law does not expressly forbid it. As such, it is therefore Fair Use. This viewpoint I also find to be rather narrow in scope and I can't quite agree with it either.
Both sides are trying to pin down space-shifting as either never Fair Use, or, always Fair Use. And that's why I think both sides are a little narrow-minded.
The US Code does not declare one way or another if space-shifting is authorized or unauthorized. So it is a little misleading to say that space-shifting is not prohibited. Maybe it isn't, but it's not exactly endorsed as Fair Use by the law either.
It's not always OK and it's not always bad. That's my personal interpretation. Sometimes space-shifting is Fair Use and sometimes it is not.
Strangely enough, that's how the court cases are turning out.
So, isn't it fair to say that if you space-shift a song in manner found not to be in the spirit of Fair Use, you are making an unauthorized copy and that is prohibited by Federal law?
-r
I will get to my feelings about space-shifting in just a moment. First, I feel it is important to say that the current US copyright law (apologies to non US-ians, I am being horribly ethnocentric right now) states clearly that the owner of copyright has exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute whatever material we are talking about. Please enlighten me as to how one becomes the owner of copyright simply by purchasing a CD.
Now to get to space-shifting. Perhaps I wasn't clear so I will say bluntly that space-shifting for personal use is not a crime and I never said it was. Example: if I make a CD of my favorite songs by BAND X I've not done anything wrong. I already bought the CDs so they got my money. Even if BAND X has a greatest hits CD it's not likely to be one that I would buy anyway. Again, no money lost.
However, p2p file sharing is not the same thing as what I just described. It's not the same thing as taking my whole CD collection, making mp3s of them and listening to those instead of the discs.
You could argue that the act, on a file-by-file basis, is just simply space-shifting. But that ignores the scale - which is a pretty important factor. The scale (both in volume of files and the distance the files are shifted) on which p2p file sharing operates, is, in my opinion, grand enough to call distribution. As before, please enlighten me as to how buying a CD gives you authorization to distribute its contents?
That is why I said personal use space-shifting is not what's gotten the RIAA in a tizzy. P2P file sharing is not personal use, nor is it Fair Use, and that's why they want to shut it down.
And ultimately, the point I have tried to make, which has most been lost is this: p2p file sharing is not the most effective method we, the music consuming public, have to let the Big Music Business know that we are fed up with them. It's probably the least effective. They see it as a crime. Even if it is not, we have send them a message they can hear. Continued file-sharing will only convince them further that we are all thieves. They're dumb that way. If you turn your back to a deaf person, and then talk to them, have you really communicated?
Yes, the burden is on us. Yes, it's not entirely fair. But when was business ever about fair?
To close I will say this. I don't have the slightest concern regarding whether the record labels and everyone else stay in business or not. It's pretty clear that their general aim is to screw over both the musicians and the public. My feeling is that if a musician (or a group of them) makes music that I enjoy I ought to pay them for enriching my life. I'd just as soon send them a check directly than send it through the label system. That's where my concern lies, with the people making the music.
How many bands have you donated monies to based on songs heard through file sharing?
I suspect we will have to disagree on this issue as our viewpoints come from different angles of this issue.
-r
My experience is generally that the crappy dial-up connection I have to use dies during the windows update process. Something of an endless cycle:
start downloading
connection dies
start downloading again
connection dies
start downloading again
connection dies
Yeah, maybe I could go find each update individually. But geez, is a resume feature so hard to implement? I mean really, MS claim they have the best programmers in the world and this is the best they can do? Perhaps that explains a lot.
Sorry Bill, add this to the list of reasons I'll choose OS X over XP.
Ok. End rant now.
And do not get me started on why neither cable modem or DSL is available to me.
-r
The point of all these MS stories is simply to get hits on pages with ads.
Money money money . .
-r
I'll not argue that civil disobedience is a duty. That's not what I was trying to say. My point was that p2p file sharing is not a good or effective form of protest.
Where are the sit-ins? Where are the marches? Where are the all-out (that is, no purchases or downloads) boycotts? Who's willing to go to jail over this issue to raise public awareness? That is the stuff of protesting.
It seems to me that a part of civil disobedience is a willingness to sacrifice something. What are you willing to sacrifice to protest the unfair copyright laws?
This is not a flame or a troll, I really want to know.
-r
What part of "don't believe everything that monopolists tell you" is not clear?
Where did you get the idea that I believe everything monopolists tell me? Because I read the back of a CD? Believing one thing some person or group says does not mean I believe everything they say.
Maybe the RIAA hates space-shifting. But it's been happening for years and they've never really tried to crack down on it. But we're not talking about space-shifting anymore because P2P file sharing is not the same thing as space-shifting for personal use. It's re-distribution. And that is what's gotten them in a tizzy.
You can argue that the law doesn't specifically cover p2p file sharing. But don't you think that making songs available for large numbers of people to download is in the spirit of distributing music? Acquiring a copy of a song (be it by purchase of a cd or download or however) does not automatically transfer distribution rights to the person getting the copy of the song.
One of the tests for Fair Use is: the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Maybe the effect of putting a song out there will be good for the artist and more people will want to pick up the cd or see them in concert.
But it could go the other way around and people will decide that they don't need the cd because they have the mp3s. Even if you like the songs, no one will know because you haven't voted with your $$. And maybe the label will decide that this artist doesn't make them enough money and drop them.
It could go either direction, or more likely, somewhere in the middle. I don't think any of this has been proven absolutely one way or the other. But I think we have an uphill battle ahead to prove that the former is more prevalent.
Other thoughts: if you want to write a book/song/program/whatever and give it away for free that is your decision. It's my opinion that the person creating the work should be the one who decides how it gets out to the world. Even if they choose to go through the Evil Empire. "Sharing" a song with thousands of people supercedes this and I don't believe music fans have that right. We will probably just have to disagree on this point.
Now, to be clear about my stance: I'm not concerned if the RIAA or the record labels go out of business. I just feel that if a musician (or group of them) make music that I like to hear then I should pay them for it. After all, they've just made my life better.
A question: how many people out there download all the songs from a cd by BAND X follow that up by sending a monetary donation (say $10.00) directly to the band?
-r
Borrowing and ripping a friend's CD, that's abusing it.
From some points of view, borrowing and ripping a friend's cd is not really that different from downloading an mp3 made by a stranger. I'm not saying that's my opinion, I'm just saying it's one that some people might hold.
As music fans we're in a bad spot. Buying CDs hardly helps the artist (unless they are a true indie artist), and yet, downloading songs ensures that they get nothing. Unless, of course, one is sending donations directly to the artist after downloading their songs.
So, do we re-inforce the machine just to give the artist a little, or, do we give the artist nothing in the hope that destroying the machine will ultimately empower the musicians?
I do agree that copyright law (and the changes Big Business are trying to buy) is quickly becoming about the companies instead of the creators. It's a sham.
I also think that we can protest this and possibly make a difference. I just don't think p2p file sharing is the best way to go about it.
What about a peaceful march on the RIAA headquarters? Or the record label headquarters? If nothing else, the news industry would almost have to cover the story.
What about not buying CDs and not downloading any songs?
Oh. Wait. That would take effort and mean giving something up.
Perhaps that was a cheap shot. Most definitely it was not directed at you specifically. After all, I know little of your politics. I can be a smart-ass , but I am serious when I say this is not an attack.
It's just that in general I think p2p file sharing as a form of protest is a pretty lazy and ineffective way to make a statement.
-r
OK, I'll be more precise.
.
In this particular instance, breaking the law will not convince them you are right.
The RIAA etc have already demonstrated repeatedly that they don't get it. Us shouting at them (read: illegal copying) is not going to get our message across. They've shoved their fingers in their ears. And possibly other places . .
What I am trying to convey is that the means of communicating needs to match the recipient. Otherwise, the message is lost and nothing is gained.
Besides, you're not actually trying to equate these stupid laws with something like this are you?
-r
What part of "Unauthorized reproduction of this recording is prohibited by Federal law and subject to prosecution" is not clear?
You might want to make mp3s of all your albums, but that doesn't mean you authorized to. Now, honestly, the RIAA probably does not care if we space-shift music. I mean, once you buy the CD, does it really matter to them if you listen to the CD, or the mp3s you made? They already got their money.
But, there is a rather large difference between making mp3s for personal use and making said mp3s available for thousands of people to download. Or grabbing up mp3s for songs you don't have on cd.
I'd love to believe that the p2p users really are only doing it to find new music. Or because that is easier than making the mp3s yourself. And I know some of you are. But I also know that some people use it as a way to not buy CDs. This is what's gotten them all riled up. The continued abuse of the "fair use" concept. It's not like fair use isn't defined or anything. It's pretty damn clearly defined.
P2P file sharing is not fair use. It never has been.
Now, that I've gotten you all upset, I'll say that I am basically on your side. I want to be able to make mix cds. I'd use mp3s if that was practical for me. The over-reaching "solution" they have come up with is an abomination and I can only hope it blows up in their faces. And yet, it's not a-typical for how Americans think. Nor is entirely against the grains of our US-ian culture.
To boil it down: breaking the law will not convince them you are right.
Some responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in must be placed on people abusing fair use.
-r
Sorta like how Suse is a distro only an AC could love? ;)
./configure portion of the Sawfish install and made the necessary corrections. I just didn't want to. (The word you are looking for is 'lazy.')
/. karma defines me or anything.
Kidding aside, your experience with Suse sounds a lot like my experience with Red Hat 7.1 / 7.2. Easy install, minimal fuss, things just work and it doesn't crash. And that's all I really need.
I tried Suse in between RH 6.1 and RH 7.1 and was looking forward trying it out. It came recommended by a co-worker and I had read positive reviews/comments. Plus, they were first out of the gate with some stuff I was looking for.
Things went downhill immediately. The install was messy, Sawfish never compiled, and like I said, any thoughts about using the modem would result in a hard-reboot. And for the love of God, will somebody please tell developers that not everyone in the world has a screen resolution over 1280x1024?! The "start this service, don't start that one" configuration tool in Suse is horrid at 800x600. (People hate horizontal scrolling.)
Now, I am a newbie and I'll admit it, and I'm not hear to say "woe is me, Linux is so hard, please feel sorry for me." I just came to the conclusion that Suse wasn't worth the fight. I want to do things with my PC, not fight with it. That's the decision I made because that's where I am. Yes, I could have gone through every error message in the
Recap: Suse took weeks to work with and never did everything I wanted. RH 7.1 took hours to install and configure.
I probably sound like I am just whining. I'm not really - I just had a bad time with Suse.
And I guess this is why both Suse and RH exist. They both work for different people.
Late in the game to be posting a reply, but hey, I actually do non-computer things too. And what the hell, it's not like
-r
Funny how times change. It used to be said that widescreen movies were unwatchable on any TV 20" or smaller. Now it's up to 40"?!
Hardly. My 27" does quite fine thank you very much. Is it perfect or just like a theater? Of course not. But unless you build a theater to scale in your house, nothing will be like a theater. Even the 61" screens are still smaller than a movie theater.
My so-called too-small TV works as well as it does because of the room it is in. That's an important factor here, room size. Or, more precisely, how far away from the TV you are sitting. If you can't get very far away then a 40" is, in my experience, worse than something smaller.
It's all about perspective and environment. Screen size is a factor, but it's not the only factor.
-r
Except for the part where my entire Suse system would freeze any time it even tried to talk with my modem. I'm talking reset-button freeze.
Yes, it is a hardware modem and Red Hat (barring an odd, non-fatal quirk) has worked with it since 6.1.
Bottom line (often overlooked): different people, different needs, different distros.
The one that is best is the one that does what you need it to.
-r
(apparently I previewed this comment last night at 8:00pm: 'by r_barchetta on Thursday May 09, @08:00PM')
As plenty of other people have pointed out - yes you can set up cameras in your house if you want to. (And it probably would be a good idea to let visitors know about them.)
But that's not the issue here.
It's about whether or not you would like someone else to set up cameras in your house that you did not know about. They'd tape you and put it on the internet.
Now, how're those apples?
-r
Other people have already made it quite clear how important the browser is in today's OS wars so I won't rehash that.
Wanna talk Office Suites? Here's my take (and no offense intended). Most of the $0 office suites are already worth their price tag. Realistically they are all probably worth more than their price.
What we need (and what people are working on) is an office suite that is worth $$$ but still has a $0 price tag.
-r
While the intent of downloading music for free might be to tell the RIAA and record companies that they are charging too much for music that's not the message they will pick up on. They'll see that people want the music (it's being downloaded after all) so all they have to do is shut down the ways people get it for free. Then people will start paying again.
They are too dumb to get it. So we have to spell it out for them. Stop buying and stop downloading and they just might pick up on this simple idea: the music they are producing is not worth what they charge. It's not even worth taking for free.
That'll at least tell them the product is flawed. It won't help them fix their methods of distribution but it will send them a loud message that they need to change what they are doing.
Having said that I'll point out that I think most people take music for free due to a willingness to participate in that great American Dream(tm) where you do for yourself regardless of the impact on anyone else.
I mean, it's not a very good form of protest, is it?
-r