They're afraid because the quality of the recording doesn't degrade even if you copy it a million times and share it with a million friends. Traditional recording off of the radio means degradation in quality over time and over number of copies made.
But digital radio isn't currently that much better quality than FM, so one could technically make decent recordings off of FM with a digital recording device (a computer, for example). The fact that it's a digital broadcast doesn't mean that much except perhaps the plug one uses in the back of the machine.
The solution? Just do what they do on normal broadcast radio: have different radio versions or just get the DJ to talk over the first or last few seconds. These dumb bastards want to regulate everything to death. That only pisses of the consumer and wastes tons of money.
You'll let one child perform motorcycle stunts and show off to his friends but you won't let your other child buy pot? Am I missing something here? I'd rather my kid smoke a joint than eat through a tube for the rest of his life. Not that I'd like my kids to do drugs, but you get my point.
You make the gigantic assumption that the US has a comparable system. It does not. Pretty much anywhere in the states outside of Boston, New York, and DC have almost NO public transport options. And those scant few options are usually depressingly difficult to figure out, let alone plan around.
I think once Google makes this nation(US)-wide, we'll all realise how much we're dependent on cars and how lacking our PT system actually is. This can only be a good thing.
Now, if only trains weren't more expensive than planes...
You want to a create a network of machines that are vulnerable to viruses/worms/other baddies, provide a full index of these computers and their addresses on a huge number of central servers, and then you want to deliberately expose those central servers to malacious code?
Is that what I'm reading? If that's so, then count me out. I can't take care of my own, thankyouverymuch.
Maybe I'm just being stupid, but can anyone give me a link to the damn site? I can't find one anywhere, not even on Amazon's main site, or in the startlingly pathetic "help" page/. links to.
I have my IPv4 address. Why should I worry? Perhaps I can even sell mine to the highest bidder when the shite hits the fan.
Hell, maybe the address shortage will create this crazy new "Road Warrior" world where IP addresses are a rare commodity and people have to fight each other with mad overclocked computers just to get some packets routed. And then Mel Gibson can play an ex-help-desk-guy-turned-hero whose Mac was killed by software pirates in the movie version.
All I know is, I'm training my kids how to catch sharp boomerangs.
That's close to the meaning of my tangent, but not exactly what I meant to say. I believe the RIAA knows their current business model (CDs sold in stores) is dying, but before they commit to any kind of online distribution system, they want ot make sure they are the only ones on the market. Essentially, they are ensuring they have a monopoly before they enter the market.
Paranoia? Probably. But if I know the music industry, they'll never submit to partnering with an already-existing P2P company. They'd rather make anyone but the content producer (i.e. themselves) illegal (or too expensive to operate) whilst slowly entering the market themselves. It's sick, I tell ya, and the only way to avoid it is to stop buying the shit they produce, and pirate the good stuff.
There, I said it. Now, go! And break the law! Do it! You can sue me later. I'll be out of the country by then.
I think most every poster has missed the point here. The eDonkey people are making this claim in front of Congress to show them how the new court ruling/laws stifle the free market* in a certain area sector. If you are unable to start a business because you can't afford the legal costs to prove that what your business does is not illegal, then something is seriously broken. eDonkey is using this opportunity to say exactly that.
Innocent until proven what?
*Tangent: Does it not seem obvious that the RIAA is trying to pass blanket laws to kill "unauthorised" content providers, even if they are legit, in order to continue their monopoly? Aside from iTunes, they are the only ones who can afford to prove that yet-nonexistant music service is legit.
Couldn't this be caused by people blinking in response to the images?
I guess the only way to test is to tell someone his mother died, flash an image, and then ask him to fill out a survey. I suppose tell him he was part of an elaborate test, as well.
Seriously you guys, get off your damn asses and find a government that will work for the voters instead of working for the people who bribe them the most.
At the risk of sounding trollish, can you please explain exactly how we should do this? Doing so would require first educating a vast majority of Americans on what the specific issues are. Second, these people would need to be convinced that _our_ side is right. Third would be targeting specific politicians who are promoting this kind of action. These three things appear insurmountable to those who actually see the problem, especially in a nation where a gigantic majority just don't give a damn.
As much as I'd like to see corporate whores get ousted, the chances of it happening are nil. Remember, these people make a career out of getting re-elected and are very good at it.
Ah, but the secretary won't just take power any old time. You have to wait for another "terrorist" attack, say, the bombing of the Reichstag, er, Capitol.
Speaking as someone whose had his SSN stolen and misused, this could be beneficial in preventing identity theft. However, I don't think that's what the had in mind when they voted for it.
Yeah, yeah, I know "Homeland Security." But can somebody explain to me how the hell is this going to stop terrorists? A hijacker with an ID card is just as dangerous as one without. And don't give me any crap about being able to track them down more easily. As we've seen, any system can and will be circumvented. Once an act of terroism has been commited, that card won't have changed a damn thing.
Slashdot Mirror
They're afraid because the quality of the recording doesn't degrade even if you copy it a million times and share it with a million friends. Traditional recording off of the radio means degradation in quality over time and over number of copies made.
But digital radio isn't currently that much better quality than FM, so one could technically make decent recordings off of FM with a digital recording device (a computer, for example). The fact that it's a digital broadcast doesn't mean that much except perhaps the plug one uses in the back of the machine.
The solution? Just do what they do on normal broadcast radio: have different radio versions or just get the DJ to talk over the first or last few seconds. These dumb bastards want to regulate everything to death. That only pisses of the consumer and wastes tons of money.
Idiots.
You'll let one child perform motorcycle stunts and show off to his friends but you won't let your other child buy pot? Am I missing something here? I'd rather my kid smoke a joint than eat through a tube for the rest of his life. Not that I'd like my kids to do drugs, but you get my point.
Comment content.
You make the gigantic assumption that the US has a comparable system. It does not. Pretty much anywhere in the states outside of Boston, New York, and DC have almost NO public transport options. And those scant few options are usually depressingly difficult to figure out, let alone plan around.
I think once Google makes this nation(US)-wide, we'll all realise how much we're dependent on cars and how lacking our PT system actually is. This can only be a good thing.
Now, if only trains weren't more expensive than planes...
You want to a create a network of machines that are vulnerable to viruses/worms/other baddies, provide a full index of these computers and their addresses on a huge number of central servers, and then you want to deliberately expose those central servers to malacious code?
Is that what I'm reading? If that's so, then count me out. I can't take care of my own, thankyouverymuch.
Maybe I'm just being stupid, but can anyone give me a link to the damn site? I can't find one anywhere, not even on Amazon's main site, or in the startlingly pathetic "help" page /. links to.
If everyone is an ISP, who will be the subscribers?
-10 points. See me after class.
Does anybody else notice how silly it is to suggest true competition between the two should take place in a communist country?
It doesn't compare with the world's highest bus.
Be my guest. I want 10% of the gross, though.
I have my IPv4 address. Why should I worry? Perhaps I can even sell mine to the highest bidder when the shite hits the fan.
Hell, maybe the address shortage will create this crazy new "Road Warrior" world where IP addresses are a rare commodity and people have to fight each other with mad overclocked computers just to get some packets routed. And then Mel Gibson can play an ex-help-desk-guy-turned-hero whose Mac was killed by software pirates in the movie version.
All I know is, I'm training my kids how to catch sharp boomerangs.
we were never at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.
I violated the DMCA a number of months ago. That's ok, though. It's violated me for a number of years.
What do I tell my future wife?
That's close to the meaning of my tangent, but not exactly what I meant to say. I believe the RIAA knows their current business model (CDs sold in stores) is dying, but before they commit to any kind of online distribution system, they want ot make sure they are the only ones on the market. Essentially, they are ensuring they have a monopoly before they enter the market.
Paranoia? Probably. But if I know the music industry, they'll never submit to partnering with an already-existing P2P company. They'd rather make anyone but the content producer (i.e. themselves) illegal (or too expensive to operate) whilst slowly entering the market themselves. It's sick, I tell ya, and the only way to avoid it is to stop buying the shit they produce, and pirate the good stuff.
There, I said it. Now, go! And break the law! Do it! You can sue me later. I'll be out of the country by then.
I think most every poster has missed the point here. The eDonkey people are making this claim in front of Congress to show them how the new court ruling/laws stifle the free market* in a certain area sector. If you are unable to start a business because you can't afford the legal costs to prove that what your business does is not illegal, then something is seriously broken. eDonkey is using this opportunity to say exactly that.
Innocent until proven what?
*Tangent: Does it not seem obvious that the RIAA is trying to pass blanket laws to kill "unauthorised" content providers, even if they are legit, in order to continue their monopoly? Aside from iTunes, they are the only ones who can afford to prove that yet-nonexistant music service is legit.
we're covering our asses against China.
Couldn't this be caused by people blinking in response to the images?
I guess the only way to test is to tell someone his mother died, flash an image, and then ask him to fill out a survey. I suppose tell him he was part of an elaborate test, as well.
It's because there's no output.
AHHHHHHH! RECALL IT! Won't someone think of the children!!!
/Not for the war
//Not for attributing everything negative in the political system to one person, either.
I seem to recall it was Senator Clinton leading that charge, and not Bush. And what does that have to do with the war in Iraq, anyway?
... keeping up with the Jones's.
Just conveniently forget your encryption keys when your arrested. How can they prove that you remember them?
Seriously you guys, get off your damn asses and find a government that will work for the voters instead of working for the people who bribe them the most.
At the risk of sounding trollish, can you please explain exactly how we should do this? Doing so would require first educating a vast majority of Americans on what the specific issues are. Second, these people would need to be convinced that _our_ side is right. Third would be targeting specific politicians who are promoting this kind of action. These three things appear insurmountable to those who actually see the problem, especially in a nation where a gigantic majority just don't give a damn.
As much as I'd like to see corporate whores get ousted, the chances of it happening are nil. Remember, these people make a career out of getting re-elected and are very good at it.
Ah, but the secretary won't just take power any old time. You have to wait for another "terrorist" attack, say, the bombing of the Reichstag, er, Capitol.
Speaking as someone whose had his SSN stolen and misused, this could be beneficial in preventing identity theft. However, I don't think that's what the had in mind when they voted for it.
Yeah, yeah, I know "Homeland Security." But can somebody explain to me how the hell is this going to stop terrorists? A hijacker with an ID card is just as dangerous as one without. And don't give me any crap about being able to track them down more easily. As we've seen, any system can and will be circumvented. Once an act of terroism has been commited, that card won't have changed a damn thing.