Does anyone actually read the articles? The guy was trying to leave the country with said technology and the intent of delivering it. That's not a possibility, it's an attempt. This guy gave every indication that he would do anything he could get away with, even as early as 2000 (when he was arrested for something similar). This isn't a judge overstepping his bounds; the guy tried pretty hard to break the law, repeatedly.
In all fairness to the editors, it'd be pretty hard to follow Star Wars in the slightest and not hear something this major from somewhere well before the movie is finished. You can uncheck the appropriate boxes or just stay away from this place but most people are bound to find out sooner or later... Slashdot's just doing its best to tell you first, and then repeat it a few times in case you forget....
Greedy whores like Bikini Kill won't leave home without a guaranteed $10k payout, but bands like Armchair Martians or Scared of Chaka will roll out for a few hundred bucks TOTAL. Sometimes things get fucked up and they have to play to a small crowd and get paid with beer and food, but that goes with the territory.
You're describing two extremes here. Bikini Kill is taking things a little too far (in your example), but a band that hopes to make a living so they don't eventually have to borrow a vehicle will need a little more out of a gig than food and beer. Finding the happy medium is tricky - many are broke and unknown, and ew are actually rich enough to quit their day jobs. Maybe bands are being born corporate because it's the way to survive.
I'd have to agree about how this could apply to computers. Just recently, one of my friends was busted; some of his friends were using his computer to put stolen musical equipment up for sale on eBay. He was promptly charged with "masterminding" the scam they'd been running. Even though they've since managed to disprove those charges, he's still being held accountable and, last I heard, barely escaped doing a bit of time. Can the record cartels' victims feign ignorance? They might still be out of luck.
I'm slowly veering off on a tangent, but I think I'm actually impressed with the music industry - haven't decided yet whether or not that's a good thing. Now that technology can make music free (and available), why not make it omnipresent as well? Commercially, music is already tied to fashion and social identity. What about a signature song that uniquely identifies you? Sure, you can put it on your cell phone...or better still, what if *your* song played every time you called someone else? (Throw this onto other suitable appliances as you will.) For me, someone who wants to be accompanied by a walking bass line at all times, this would be a perk. If you had the money, you could even pay someone to write you that special, identifying song. Maybe the musicians and techno geeks out there should get a piece of this - I'd love to write my own ringtone and put it on my phone, and I doubt I'm the only one. Offer the wireless companies this customization at a less exorbitant rate than the RIAA would, and you'd have a pretty nice offer.
I'm curious as to the snide remark about Americans with phones...they're much more ubiquitous in other (Asian|European) nations than they are here, aren't they? I wouldn't say the US is showcasing any kind of advanecd technology....
I have met a few musicians, I have had music lessons from professional musicians. I paid for those lessons. I agree that musicians are entitled to earn a living, like any other worker. However, I have never met a published musician who was poor.
You make an excellent point about the comfortable lifestyle many professional musicians enjoy, but don't forget the challenges one faces at becoming a successful musician. The "rich" ones you're referring to are the ones who took the RIAA pill and faced, initially, maybe a 3% success rate (can't find the link right now). There's a lot of talent that a single exec might have deemed "too risky" that never saw the light of day. While we're on execs....they get the ca$h anyways.
And the richest artists, who sell more records, are exactly those whose work is most pirated.
It's not about wealth, but rather popularity. Yeah, these guys keep a chokehold on their money. But knowing talented guys on either side of the fence, the whole survival instinct seems to make a lot of sense.
Just my two cents.
But if I download a song on a P2P, the copyright holders have done absolutely nothing for me personally. They didn't write the music for me. They didn't perform it for me. And they didn't even have to make the copy for me. They did jack shit. Why should they get paid?
Let me get this straight - rather than the musicians providing you a service, you stole their material; therefore, you don't have to pay for it because they didn't serve it up? I might pay less money per gallon when I pump my own gas, but I'm still paying for the fuel itself. I wouldn't blame musicians for not "providing a service" if you aren't going to pay for it anyways.
If you work hard, you can make good money as a live performer. Especially if you don't let the record labels steal it all.
Unless you allow the labels to do what they will, who's going to book the shows? Many groups tour precisely because that's the only way they can make money; but they can't get lucrative tour deals or promote the shows without a media titan (a la Clear Channel) pushing them through. The Internet has done some incredible things for indie artists, but I think it'll be a while yet before we see P2P technology booking summer concert tours to play sold-out arenas.
On the same note, programmers should get paid to write software. Not to just sit around and sell the same software over and over again.
So, let's say I write a piece of software and decide to sell it in the hope of making a profit. Everyone who pays me money is doing so to obtain the benefits of my product - regardless of how long ago I made it, how much money it's made me, or who else has bought it. I don't know how it would make sense to charge some people for a product but not others simply because "they did it once." It is a service, it was a one-time creative act; but if you want it, you have to pay like everyone else (ideally for copyright holders).
I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but there are scores of artists/programmers out there who are have to stick to predetermined distribution methods, just because there's no other way. They don't wanna starve for justice, or fairness - they just want to make a living. If you want to assign blame, pin it on the realities of capitalism.
No good can come of this...not for a while, anyways. Cloning certainly isn't stable enough to try on humanity, even though it probably is being attempted as we speak. A couple of weeks ago I read something on MSN.com about a couple doctors who were going to give it a shot despite the expected rate of failure. It's only a matter of time...months, even...before reports of grotesquely malformed human clones hit the news, and all hell breaks loose. If you thought the school shooting news coverage was bad...just wait.
It seems like every time a technological hurdle pops up, an inevitable response is that broadband access will soon spread to the masses and solve all our problems. While raw speed and brute force certainly do a reasonable job of smoothing over potholes on the digital boulevards, perhaps we should give technical consideration to those who need it most....I personally don't think that broadband will proliferate for quite a while, and that for the next 5-10 years we must continue to cater heavily to the 56K generation.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone actually read the articles? The guy was trying to leave the country with said technology and the intent of delivering it. That's not a possibility, it's an attempt. This guy gave every indication that he would do anything he could get away with, even as early as 2000 (when he was arrested for something similar). This isn't a judge overstepping his bounds; the guy tried pretty hard to break the law, repeatedly.
In all fairness to the editors, it'd be pretty hard to follow Star Wars in the slightest and not hear something this major from somewhere well before the movie is finished. You can uncheck the appropriate boxes or just stay away from this place but most people are bound to find out sooner or later... Slashdot's just doing its best to tell you first, and then repeat it a few times in case you forget....
I'd have to agree about how this could apply to computers. Just recently, one of my friends was busted; some of his friends were using his computer to put stolen musical equipment up for sale on eBay. He was promptly charged with "masterminding" the scam they'd been running. Even though they've since managed to disprove those charges, he's still being held accountable and, last I heard, barely escaped doing a bit of time. Can the record cartels' victims feign ignorance? They might still be out of luck.
I'm slowly veering off on a tangent, but I think I'm actually impressed with the music industry - haven't decided yet whether or not that's a good thing. Now that technology can make music free (and available), why not make it omnipresent as well? Commercially, music is already tied to fashion and social identity. What about a signature song that uniquely identifies you? Sure, you can put it on your cell phone...or better still, what if *your* song played every time you called someone else? (Throw this onto other suitable appliances as you will.) For me, someone who wants to be accompanied by a walking bass line at all times, this would be a perk. If you had the money, you could even pay someone to write you that special, identifying song. Maybe the musicians and techno geeks out there should get a piece of this - I'd love to write my own ringtone and put it on my phone, and I doubt I'm the only one. Offer the wireless companies this customization at a less exorbitant rate than the RIAA would, and you'd have a pretty nice offer.
I'm curious as to the snide remark about Americans with phones...they're much more ubiquitous in other (Asian|European) nations than they are here, aren't they? I wouldn't say the US is showcasing any kind of advanecd technology....
You make an excellent point about the comfortable lifestyle many professional musicians enjoy, but don't forget the challenges one faces at becoming a successful musician. The "rich" ones you're referring to are the ones who took the RIAA pill and faced, initially, maybe a 3% success rate (can't find the link right now). There's a lot of talent that a single exec might have deemed "too risky" that never saw the light of day. While we're on execs....they get the ca$h anyways.
It's not about wealth, but rather popularity. Yeah, these guys keep a chokehold on their money. But knowing talented guys on either side of the fence, the whole survival instinct seems to make a lot of sense.
Just my two cents.
Sure would, but they'd nail us with the DMCA or whatever they can find on copyright infringement ;-)
Let me get this straight - rather than the musicians providing you a service, you stole their material; therefore, you don't have to pay for it because they didn't serve it up? I might pay less money per gallon when I pump my own gas, but I'm still paying for the fuel itself. I wouldn't blame musicians for not "providing a service" if you aren't going to pay for it anyways.
If you work hard, you can make good money as a live performer. Especially if you don't let the record labels steal it all.
Unless you allow the labels to do what they will, who's going to book the shows? Many groups tour precisely because that's the only way they can make money; but they can't get lucrative tour deals or promote the shows without a media titan (a la Clear Channel) pushing them through. The Internet has done some incredible things for indie artists, but I think it'll be a while yet before we see P2P technology booking summer concert tours to play sold-out arenas.
On the same note, programmers should get paid to write software. Not to just sit around and sell the same software over and over again.
So, let's say I write a piece of software and decide to sell it in the hope of making a profit. Everyone who pays me money is doing so to obtain the benefits of my product - regardless of how long ago I made it, how much money it's made me, or who else has bought it. I don't know how it would make sense to charge some people for a product but not others simply because "they did it once." It is a service, it was a one-time creative act; but if you want it, you have to pay like everyone else (ideally for copyright holders).
I'm not trying to start a flamewar, but there are scores of artists/programmers out there who are have to stick to predetermined distribution methods, just because there's no other way. They don't wanna starve for justice, or fairness - they just want to make a living. If you want to assign blame, pin it on the realities of capitalism.
ahhh, but i was up here at 9:58 while the credits ran, and slashdot had nothing!! slackers ;-)
Maybe he's worried someone else will make a movie with Jar Jar in it...
No good can come of this...not for a while, anyways. Cloning certainly isn't stable enough to try on humanity, even though it probably is being attempted as we speak. A couple of weeks ago I read something on MSN.com about a couple doctors who were going to give it a shot despite the expected rate of failure. It's only a matter of time...months, even...before reports of grotesquely malformed human clones hit the news, and all hell breaks loose. If you thought the school shooting news coverage was bad...just wait.
It seems like every time a technological hurdle pops up, an inevitable response is that broadband access will soon spread to the masses and solve all our problems. While raw speed and brute force certainly do a reasonable job of smoothing over potholes on the digital boulevards, perhaps we should give technical consideration to those who need it most....I personally don't think that broadband will proliferate for quite a while, and that for the next 5-10 years we must continue to cater heavily to the 56K generation.