I'm not sure this analogy holds. BMWs can access the same roads that other cars can, so the fact that it has a lower market share doesn't really affect anything. On the other hand, there's plenty of software that doesn't come out for the Mac.
Sure, it's true that a lot of that software isn't worth running. And the iApps are pretty good. But diversity is good and there isn't as much in the Mac market. Case in point: I'm pretty fond of iPhoto. It's performance is a bit sluggish however. When I tried Picasa on my work PC I was blown away by the speed compared to iPhoto. But I haven't found any viable competitors for iPhoto on the Mac. And the chance of a software company writing one is pretty low. Let's face it, 4 or even 8 percent of the PC market doesn't attract developers like 90% percent does. If only Windows wasn't such a pain to use, I would have traded in my Mac for a thinkpad ages ago.
I agree. My 15" powerbook gets about 2.5 hours on a charge. No DVDs playing, but with wireless turned on. My previous computer, which weighed the same, received about 5 hours with wireless on. Unfortunately, it only ran windows.
not to be nitpicky, but they didn't exactly buy Spyglass. They licensed the code for IE for a percentage of sales revenue from it, plus a quarterly fee. Since they didn't sell IE seperately from Windows, that revnue stream ended up pretty dry for Spyglass. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass
A Verizon manager last night told me that they (Verizon) don't cripple any functionality, that it was the Phone manufacturers who crippled it.
But what incentive would the phone makers have to build a phone with abilities only to cripple them? From their perspective, the more a phone does, the better it sells. I do believe that it is them who cripple the phones, but only because the carriers ask them to.
It is illegal in holland at least to make reproductions of money so if you print a note you make it an absurd size. No one is gonna mistake a poster for a real a banknote.
In Holland perhaps, but you've obviously never lived in the US.
Yep. Reminds me of all those people who pay money into the lottery, only to be given a poster-size check. Just try and find a bank to cash it...
Derivative works in general are a grey area, but in your specific example I would have to say that you are in fact wrong. Not wrong according to the original U.S. copyright law, but definitely wrong according to what we have now. You say, "If I wrote a story that was derived from the LOTR...". That's it. You wrote a story derived, it's a deritave work. That simple. For example, let's say you would like to re-write Gone with the Wind from a slave's perspective. Completely different story (as you can imagine), but characters, plot, etc. derived from the original. If you did this, you would wind up in court, much like the person that did.
"So WHAT if your cellphone has a camera? Unless you're USING YOUR CELLPHONE TO RECORD THE MOVIE, there is no problem. "
True. For now. But that's the danger of this and all slippery slopes. When they start banning all cell phones in theatres, and losing them mysteriously when you check them in, you might be as pissed off about this as this person is now.
If your phone line stops working is it ok to start using your neighbors just because your cordless phones happen to be the same model and your receiver will work with his base station? If you even tried doing that you'd be in some serious hot water. I don't see why it should be any different for Internet connections.
That's not a very fair anology. By using my neighbors phone I'd be preventing them from use of that phone. Not true with wireless, outside of very extreme circumstances.
Wouldn't it be easier for them to just handle their email through webforms? Now, I may be completely wrong here, but I rarely get Spam at addresses that aren't posted somewhere on the Web/Usenet. Using a webform to email alleviates this problem.
Well, at least wall street doesn't feel that this helps SCO: This is the first time that I've seen a/. story on them and their stock price actually is down 10% for the day.
"that by being owned by Viacom, they also share common ownership with Columbia Records, an RIAA member company."
I agree that there are few in this business with clean hands, and Viacom does own MTV, VH1, Infinity (number 2 in the radio landscape), but they do not share ownership with Columbia Records. Columbia Records is owned by Sony, Viacom by General Electric.
It's easy to be cynical and think that the RIAA's offer was just a trap, but what if it were genuine ?
I don't think it's being cynical to think it was a trap. What has the RIAA done, either for its customers, or for its artists, that would earn them the benefit of the doubt?
You've made some valid, interesting points. However, when you say: "It seems to me, many artists could simply sign a one or two record deal, take the pittance in exchange for some exposure and then set up shop for themselves, independently"
It's not really realistic. Almost all new artist deals are for five albums, with the option to extend to at least two more. How many artists' careers do you know that last that long? Sure they sometime re-negotiaite after the first big one or two, but fact is they're locked in. And short of declaring bankruptcy, they pretty much can't leave the label.
Well, there's at least one artist whose done filesharing. In the April 26, 2001 issue of Rolling Stone Joe Perry (guitarist for Aerosmith) says something along the lines of: I really hope they don't shut Napster down. I've been using it to introduct my kids to rare old stuff that you can't find anywhere else. I looked up the story online (http://www.rollingstone.com/features/cs867main.as p?cf=18) but they only give you an excerpt, not the full story.
While I can see where they're coming from, there's still part of me that longs for those days when education was about learning. Not churning out worker bees.
to short SCOX. Can anyone believe they're still at over $10? They just seem to be going crazy releasing PR newswires to crows out the other news on their stock...
Forgive me if I'm off-topic. I'm glad the EFF has decided to fight this. I remember a while back there was some talk of donating money to the 4 kids involved in legal fights with the RIAA over enhancing the Windows sharing available on their campuses. While donating money to them to recoup their settlements was a novel idea, how about setting up a sort of legal defense fund for similarly accused students for the future. That way some of these cases may actually go to trial, and the absurdity of the DMCA can be tested. Think of it, 60 million ppl use peer to peer. We support artists, just not the cartels that house them now. (Hell, I haven't even used these networks in years, considering all the shit that's put out by the majors, I rely on CDbaby.com to find new music.)It's time to fix the broken state of the law to be more in line with serving the people it was created for.
Cd Rental stores in the US were tried a while ago, but the laws got changed and they were deemed illegal. (Or was it LP rentals? The principal's the same.) If I remember correctly, there are CD Rental stores in Japan, and you have to pay a special "tax" on blank media.
" Of course, they will attribute this decline in sales to piracy and push for the uber-dmca to send music pirates to a death camp in cuba."
And they can do so all they want. They can cry foul while I listen to independent artists. Sure, they'll be able to get some lobbying done, but _without my money._ If enoough of us start doing this, the big 5 will crumble rather quickly, and look even sillier as Indies that respect artists, or better yet, artists themselves rise. As Ani DiFranco used to state in the back of her CDs: "Unauthorized duplication, while sometimes necessary, is never as good as the real thing."
Some unauthorized copying is actually good for artists, and most of us are probably honest given the right music/price point.
"the prevailing topics of discussion on Slashdot still center around that same list of drivel: the RIAA, Microsoft, and stories about "chilling effects" that are just barely more than "we hate the government but we don't know why" flamefests.""
Probably gonna get flamed for this, but: The chilling effects people on/. are talking about are not drivel. They are rights that are in the process of being taken away. Sure right now it centers on the **AA's, but they are setting dangerous precedents. And on the whole hate the government thing, I don't think anyone is saying they hate the government. More like, they love the democratic government we have/had in the US, and don't want to see it stripped away for some short term gains.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure this analogy holds. BMWs can access the same roads that other cars can, so the fact that it has a lower market share doesn't really affect anything. On the other hand, there's plenty of software that doesn't come out for the Mac.
Sure, it's true that a lot of that software isn't worth running. And the iApps are pretty good. But diversity is good and there isn't as much in the Mac market. Case in point:
I'm pretty fond of iPhoto. It's performance is a bit sluggish however. When I tried Picasa on my work PC I was blown away by the speed compared to iPhoto. But I haven't found any viable competitors for iPhoto on the Mac. And the chance of a software company writing one is pretty low. Let's face it, 4 or even 8 percent of the PC market doesn't attract developers like 90% percent does. If only Windows wasn't such a pain to use, I would have traded in my Mac for a thinkpad ages ago.
I agree. My 15" powerbook gets about 2.5 hours on a charge. No DVDs playing, but with wireless turned on. My previous computer, which weighed the same, received about 5 hours with wireless on. Unfortunately, it only ran windows.
not to be nitpicky, but they didn't exactly buy Spyglass. They licensed the code for IE for a percentage of sales revenue from it, plus a quarterly fee. Since they didn't sell IE seperately from Windows, that revnue stream ended up pretty dry for Spyglass. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass
A Verizon manager last night told me that they (Verizon) don't cripple any functionality, that it was the Phone manufacturers who crippled it.
But what incentive would the phone makers have to build a phone with abilities only to cripple them? From their perspective, the more a phone does, the better it sells. I do believe that it is them who cripple the phones, but only because the carriers ask them to.
Am I the first?
junk@gmail.com
Yep. Reminds me of all those people who pay money into the lottery, only to be given a poster-size check. Just try and find a bank to cash it...
Derivative works in general are a grey area, but in your specific example I would have to say that you are in fact wrong. Not wrong according to the original U.S. copyright law, but definitely wrong according to what we have now. You say, "If I wrote a story that was derived from the LOTR...". That's it. You wrote a story derived, it's a deritave work. That simple. For example, let's say you would like to re-write Gone with the Wind from a slave's perspective. Completely different story (as you can imagine), but characters, plot, etc. derived from the original. If you did this, you would wind up in court, much like the person that did.
True. For now. But that's the danger of this and all slippery slopes. When they start banning all cell phones in theatres, and losing them mysteriously when you check them in, you might be as pissed off about this as this person is now.
That's not a very fair anology. By using my neighbors phone I'd be preventing them from use of that phone. Not true with wireless, outside of very extreme circumstances.
Wouldn't it be easier for them to just handle their email through webforms? Now, I may be completely wrong here, but I rarely get Spam at addresses that aren't posted somewhere on the Web/Usenet. Using a webform to email alleviates this problem.
Well, at least wall street doesn't feel that this helps SCO: This is the first time that I've seen a /. story on them and their stock price actually is down 10% for the day.
A Comcast spokeswoman, Sarah Eder, would not comment, citing customer privacy concerns.
"that by being owned by Viacom, they also share common ownership with Columbia Records, an RIAA member company."
I agree that there are few in this business with clean hands, and Viacom does own MTV, VH1, Infinity (number 2 in the radio landscape), but they do not share ownership with Columbia Records. Columbia Records is owned by Sony, Viacom by General Electric.
It's easy to be cynical and think that the RIAA's offer was just a trap, but what if it were genuine ?
I don't think it's being cynical to think it was a trap. What has the RIAA done, either for its customers, or for its artists, that would earn them the benefit of the doubt?
You've made some valid, interesting points. However, when you say:
"It seems to me, many artists could simply sign a one or two record deal, take the pittance in exchange for some exposure and then set up shop for themselves, independently"
It's not really realistic. Almost all new artist deals are for five albums, with the option to extend to at least two more. How many artists' careers do you know that last that long? Sure they sometime re-negotiaite after the first big one or two, but fact is they're locked in. And short of declaring bankruptcy, they pretty much can't leave the label.
Well, there's at least one artist whose done filesharing. In the April 26, 2001 issue of Rolling Stone Joe Perry (guitarist for Aerosmith) says something along the lines of:s p?cf=18) but they only give you an excerpt, not the full story.
I really hope they don't shut Napster down. I've been using it to introduct my kids to rare old stuff that you can't find anywhere else.
I looked up the story online (http://www.rollingstone.com/features/cs867main.a
Yep, it's redundant. AC's post wasn't on the static page when I posted. Oh well.
While I can see where they're coming from, there's still part of me that longs for those days when education was about learning. Not churning out worker bees.
Well that's good to know. Thanks.
to short SCOX. Can anyone believe they're still at over $10? They just seem to be going crazy releasing PR newswires to crows out the other news on their stock...
Forgive me if I'm off-topic. I'm glad the EFF has decided to fight this. I remember a while back there was some talk of donating money to the 4 kids involved in legal fights with the RIAA over enhancing the Windows sharing available on their campuses. While donating money to them to recoup their settlements was a novel idea, how about setting up a sort of legal defense fund for similarly accused students for the future. That way some of these cases may actually go to trial, and the absurdity of the DMCA can be tested. Think of it, 60 million ppl use peer to peer. We support artists, just not the cartels that house them now. (Hell, I haven't even used these networks in years, considering all the shit that's put out by the majors, I rely on CDbaby.com to find new music.)It's time to fix the broken state of the law to be more in line with serving the people it was created for.
Cd Rental stores in the US were tried a while ago, but the laws got changed and they were deemed illegal. (Or was it LP rentals? The principal's the same.) If I remember correctly, there are CD Rental stores in Japan, and you have to pay a special "tax" on blank media.
" Of course, they will attribute this decline in sales to piracy and push for the uber-dmca to send music pirates to a death camp in cuba."
And they can do so all they want. They can cry foul while I listen to independent artists. Sure, they'll be able to get some lobbying done, but _without my money._ If enoough of us start doing this, the big 5 will crumble rather quickly, and look even sillier as Indies that respect artists, or better yet, artists themselves rise. As Ani DiFranco used to state in the back of her CDs: "Unauthorized duplication, while sometimes necessary, is never as good as the real thing."
Some unauthorized copying is actually good for artists, and most of us are probably honest given the right music/price point.
a beawolf cluster of these!
*ducks*
"the prevailing topics of discussion on Slashdot still center around that same list of drivel: the RIAA, Microsoft, and stories about "chilling effects" that are just barely more than "we hate the government but we don't know why" flamefests.""
/. are talking about are not drivel. They are rights that are in the process of being taken away. Sure right now it centers on the **AA's, but they are setting dangerous precedents. And on the whole hate the government thing, I don't think anyone is saying they hate the government. More like, they love the democratic government we have/had in the US, and don't want to see it stripped away for some short term gains.
Probably gonna get flamed for this, but:
The chilling effects people on