now that... reminds me why I don't eat at KFC.
Of course, that doesn't stop me from eating at other disgusting places.
Hey, did you know that I chopped off over 100 chicken heads in one day? Maybe a weekend. I was in 8th grade. We had chicken every godddam night of the week. You know the movie Forrest Gump where it's Shrimp Gumbo, shrimp catamaran, shrimp soup, shrimp this, shrimp that....
Well it was the same damn thing with me, but with chicken. Took me about 4 years after I left home to get a craving for chicken again. (too bad 4 years after high school didn't mean a college degree...but hey...what's 7 or 8 years? It finally happened.)
I was never a scour user, but I did check it out when it came back, "ligit".
Curious how crippled it was to back legal, I checked it out, and about 200 pop up windows attacked me. For a second I thought I stumbled into a porn site.
Of course, it's just used to propogate itself. Not really an expense, more like an investment. I mean can you believe it...music copyrights don't even revert to the family AFTER death of the artist? I mean, how did they pull that one over everyone last year?
And instead of Lars Ulrich / Metallica giving a bitter taste in our mouth, it'll end up being Tom Cruise and his wacky Scientology bunch beating up 14 year olds for downloading movies. (See www.romp.com for flash-references)
Oh, they will though! They've already got DECSS and now MPEG4, and bandwidth going up... newsgroups with bootleg movies out there already. VCD tools, etc.
MP3's hit supernova just when compression was at the magic point with bandwidth. It'll only be time before trading movies is the same as mp3's.
Maybe true. But slashdot caters to a croud that obviously has a huge interest in free music. Or just music in general. There are also other issues at work here.
We are possibly watching the breakup of a major cartel. My parents had VietNam. I've got the dawning of the digital age. A digital world impacting huge corporations that spend 200 million dollars a year just in legal expenses. Why does Napster get more bad publicity than the PROOF of the Big-5 collaborating and setting illegal prices in stores?? Proof that Bo Didley has no money to his name, yet created Rock & Roll??
Maybe I'm the guy who ran to Canada instead of going to VietNam, and you're the ROTC punk who thinks it's your duty to go to war. Whichever was right or wrong, it's still a controversy today, much like this issue could possibly be.
Does anyone have any ideas what development tools could be used to help cross platform development? Of course, I'm not suggesting some Java applet blazing at 1 mph, but with Borland's recent release of Kylix, there seems to be some higher-level tools available. What about the low level code written for speed. What about engines? How are the engines rewritten anyways for multiple platforms?
In that perspective, he made many statements claiming his own company's future financial demise. However, I'm sure he figures he's sipping from an ocean, with a seemingly unlimited supply. He could move from audio utilities to professional graphics, plus the many references to the big-5's 40 BILLLION dollar industry.
The tactics he's using to strongarm pirates in submission (Pay $5000 or I take you to court, and then and only then we find out if you're guilty) reminds me of the beginning of all the mob movies I've seen. Remember Good Fellas, where the school was mailing home absentee letters? Beat up the mail man! Problem solved. Sounds familiar. I think he could turn into the BIG BROTHER we've all thought the government would become. Pay us $200 or we tell your employer you downloaded alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bestiality from home. Or, we parsed your email to your mom about how the boss sucked.
Both are being abused. The record companies hold the copyrights of almost all their artists. Not only that, but they have SUCCESFULLY ammended their rights to allow them to keep the copyright, even after the artist dies. Thus, family members have nothing to call their own. No inheritence, no credit, nothing. Just another 'golden oldies/best of' cd to publish to squeeze some more $$ out of the masses.
Very interesting read. Thanks for pointing it out. However, the punishment breakdowns were for violators of Section 506 relating to criminal offenses. Inferring that it is possible to violate Section 506 without it being criminal. Whooops, you did mention it: "with the exception of infringement that doesn't provide financial gain that totals less than $1000".
Now, I know it takes a lawyer (or 10 kegs of beer) to correctly blur the statements into the correct interpretations, but it looks like what people around here might be interested in is the correct definition of a simple infringment. Also, although I would like to agree that the $1000 was in relation to FINANCIAL GAIN, when I read that site, all I saw was "RETAIL VALUE" of $1000. Which you know the RIAA would definately charge up to $19 per CD....even though a person only has an Mp3 copy of it, and wasn't selling it.
Can the lawyers blur the meaning of "financial gain" even if people are giving the mp3's away? --I'm not exactly talking about what the case from slashdot's article, but in general with people trading large amounts of mp3's....
Amen, I agree.
But I think they're leaning on the "racketeering" angle. (I hope that's the word I'm looking for) For instance...it is illegal to host a get-together for criminals to trade/sell drugs and illegal weapons, for instance. You probably wouldn't get busted for the same crime they did (for selling/buying) but you would get busted for "racketeering".
And "illegal bazaar" as the RIAA has been quoted in calling Napster.
If only Napster would have hid behind an all-file-type illusion to begin with. For instance, have a few default filters to share with....one *.DOC filter, one *.JPG "family pictures" filter, oh...and look, there happens to be a *.MP3 filter. Let's check that one....BAM!
I mean look at google, god bless them. The RIAA isn't shutting them done for compiling a list of searchable content (mp3 sites to boot!). The RIAA has been going after the sites listed on the search engine, not the search engine itself. It should do the same with Napster. But...Napster left a hole open...And it's always hard to fight against a cartel.
Only in the la-la land of courts can you "post a loss" of money when no money was going to you in the first place.
If I have 6,400 mp3 albums that I've traded for (hey, guess what, i do) then that doesn't mean that I've taken away 6400 x $15 = $96,000 out of the artist's pockets! There is no way I could afford that, and never would have bought them to begin with.
So the same can be said with Napster. The only argument you have a leg to stand on is that my mp3 collecting (and others) has kept us from buying CD's. And there has been no proof of that. In fact, the record companies have gained 2 billion dollars that they expected to increase last year (what was...from 15 to 17 billion now?) and they'll increase another 2 billion by next year...
Also, how do you explain Eminem's world record breaking first-week sales, even though it was floating all over Napster up to a full month before it was officially released?
I agree I don't think the solution is that musicians should get $0 for their work. But I am saying that Napster usage isn't/wasn't causing that in the first place! The RIAA was doing a hell of a better job at it than all the "free" music in the world. And they've been doing it for quite some time---lots of practice.
Hey...as soon as the creator of Rock and Roll (Bo Didley) gets what he deserves from the record companies, then I'll start paying too!
I dont' think we're talking about the same thing, but hey, if it isn't a flame, it's still a good topic.
Let's take your example...of searching only what you need. Or if it's rare, and you need to slowly search everyone.
I'm just saying that a T3 guy who can handle everyone is still offlimits to the modem guy that can only handle 300 people, and he's maxed out with the 300 nodes already 'picked'.
Slashdot Mirror
Napster locks up and crashes whenever I try to get on. There must be some kind limit or something.
Rader
Of course, that doesn't stop me from eating at other disgusting places.
Hey, did you know that I chopped off over 100 chicken heads in one day? Maybe a weekend. I was in 8th grade. We had chicken every godddam night of the week. You know the movie Forrest Gump where it's Shrimp Gumbo, shrimp catamaran, shrimp soup, shrimp this, shrimp that....
Well it was the same damn thing with me, but with chicken. Took me about 4 years after I left home to get a craving for chicken again. (too bad 4 years after high school didn't mean a college degree...but hey...what's 7 or 8 years? It finally happened.)
Rader
Rader
My girlfriend wouldn't let me buy the 1/2 ton VAX for $105 though :(
Rader
"Wasn't it true that in 2001, you made a joke about goats.ex?"
Rader
Rader
Curious how crippled it was to back legal, I checked it out, and about 200 pop up windows attacked me. For a second I thought I stumbled into a porn site.
Rader
Rader
Of course, it's just used to propogate itself. Not really an expense, more like an investment. I mean can you believe it...music copyrights don't even revert to the family AFTER death of the artist? I mean, how did they pull that one over everyone last year?
Rader
Rader
And instead of Lars Ulrich / Metallica giving a bitter taste in our mouth, it'll end up being Tom Cruise and his wacky Scientology bunch beating up 14 year olds for downloading movies. (See www.romp.com for flash-references)
MP3's hit supernova just when compression was at the magic point with bandwidth. It'll only be time before trading movies is the same as mp3's.
Rader
We are possibly watching the breakup of a major cartel. My parents had VietNam. I've got the dawning of the digital age. A digital world impacting huge corporations that spend 200 million dollars a year just in legal expenses. Why does Napster get more bad publicity than the PROOF of the Big-5 collaborating and setting illegal prices in stores?? Proof that Bo Didley has no money to his name, yet created Rock & Roll??
Maybe I'm the guy who ran to Canada instead of going to VietNam, and you're the ROTC punk who thinks it's your duty to go to war. Whichever was right or wrong, it's still a controversy today, much like this issue could possibly be.
Rader
All it would take though is for WinAmp to not support it, to crush its chances.
Rader
Rader
In that perspective, he made many statements claiming his own company's future financial demise. However, I'm sure he figures he's sipping from an ocean, with a seemingly unlimited supply. He could move from audio utilities to professional graphics, plus the many references to the big-5's 40 BILLLION dollar industry.
The tactics he's using to strongarm pirates in submission (Pay $5000 or I take you to court, and then and only then we find out if you're guilty) reminds me of the beginning of all the mob movies I've seen. Remember Good Fellas, where the school was mailing home absentee letters? Beat up the mail man! Problem solved. Sounds familiar. I think he could turn into the BIG BROTHER we've all thought the government would become. Pay us $200 or we tell your employer you downloaded alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.bestiality from home. Or, we parsed your email to your mom about how the boss sucked.
Rader
The problem is...AOL's has a huge head (ego) and an even larger ass.
Rader
Rader
And so are Patents.
Both are being abused. The record companies hold the copyrights of almost all their artists. Not only that, but they have SUCCESFULLY ammended their rights to allow them to keep the copyright, even after the artist dies. Thus, family members have nothing to call their own. No inheritence, no credit, nothing. Just another 'golden oldies/best of' cd to publish to squeeze some more $$ out of the masses.
Rader
Now, I know it takes a lawyer (or 10 kegs of beer) to correctly blur the statements into the correct interpretations, but it looks like what people around here might be interested in is the correct definition of a simple infringment. Also, although I would like to agree that the $1000 was in relation to FINANCIAL GAIN, when I read that site, all I saw was "RETAIL VALUE" of $1000. Which you know the RIAA would definately charge up to $19 per CD....even though a person only has an Mp3 copy of it, and wasn't selling it.
Can the lawyers blur the meaning of "financial gain" even if people are giving the mp3's away? --I'm not exactly talking about what the case from slashdot's article, but in general with people trading large amounts of mp3's....
Rader
(I'm not laughing at you)
The RIAA *IS* their "union"!
Talk about screwed, huh?
Rader
But I think they're leaning on the "racketeering" angle. (I hope that's the word I'm looking for) For instance...it is illegal to host a get-together for criminals to trade/sell drugs and illegal weapons, for instance. You probably wouldn't get busted for the same crime they did (for selling/buying) but you would get busted for "racketeering".
And "illegal bazaar" as the RIAA has been quoted in calling Napster.
If only Napster would have hid behind an all-file-type illusion to begin with. For instance, have a few default filters to share with....one *.DOC filter, one *.JPG "family pictures" filter, oh...and look, there happens to be a *.MP3 filter. Let's check that one....BAM!
I mean look at google, god bless them. The RIAA isn't shutting them done for compiling a list of searchable content (mp3 sites to boot!). The RIAA has been going after the sites listed on the search engine, not the search engine itself. It should do the same with Napster. But...Napster left a hole open...And it's always hard to fight against a cartel.
Rader
This is extreme though, and these types of punishments have only been dealt with professional pirates that bootleg and make millions off of the sales.
Heh. Drugs and listening to music...pretty close, alright.
Rader
If I have 6,400 mp3 albums that I've traded for (hey, guess what, i do) then that doesn't mean that I've taken away 6400 x $15 = $96,000 out of the artist's pockets! There is no way I could afford that, and never would have bought them to begin with.
So the same can be said with Napster. The only argument you have a leg to stand on is that my mp3 collecting (and others) has kept us from buying CD's. And there has been no proof of that. In fact, the record companies have gained 2 billion dollars that they expected to increase last year (what was...from 15 to 17 billion now?) and they'll increase another 2 billion by next year...
Also, how do you explain Eminem's world record breaking first-week sales, even though it was floating all over Napster up to a full month before it was officially released?
I agree I don't think the solution is that musicians should get $0 for their work. But I am saying that Napster usage isn't/wasn't causing that in the first place! The RIAA was doing a hell of a better job at it than all the "free" music in the world. And they've been doing it for quite some time---lots of practice.
Hey...as soon as the creator of Rock and Roll (Bo Didley) gets what he deserves from the record companies, then I'll start paying too!
Rader
Let's take your example...of searching only what you need. Or if it's rare, and you need to slowly search everyone. I'm just saying that a T3 guy who can handle everyone is still offlimits to the modem guy that can only handle 300 people, and he's maxed out with the 300 nodes already 'picked'.
Rader