I know quite a few who use the Internet only slightly (and thus find dial-up access to be more than good enough). They have cited one and only one reason why they don't get into it more extensively. Hint: its/. icon was recently changed from a corporate trademark to a representation of an animal.
If 99% of the user base is unable to rip a song, but 1% can, ripped copies will become available, and passing from machine to machine they will multiply.
A large number of the 1% who can, but currently don't bother, will start doing so as an act of protest. This will have the side effect of increasing the average quality of illegal rips, since the only people doing them will also be the ones who have a clue about which MP3 coders to use and how to configure them.
That's a good question. In my experience, people who write "it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL" (in ALL-CAPS) are generally advancing some argument along the lines of "the income tax is illegal because Ohio was not properly admitted to the Union until 1953". (Really -- people actually say this.)
I am attempting to deal with spammers. Unfortunately, justice is thwarted by the law, so I cannot deal with spammers the way George Bush is dealing with al-Qaeda, but I get as close to that idea as I can.
Enron did no damage -- everybody they approached for special favors turned them down. Cash-and-carry Hollings, on the other hand, is a political prostitute willing to sell his vote.
You should be able to place ANY CD Disk in ANY CD player and have it work.
Sales of products in general are subject to a doctrine of "implied suitability," meaning that the product is expected to perform the function that a reasonable consumer would expect of it. For instance, it is generally understood that a hammer is suitable for pounding nails into wood, so if you bought a hammer and it broke when you tried to use it for that purpose, you would have recourse against the merchant for selling you a defective product.
Given the huge installed base of computer CD units and software for playing music CDs inserted thereinto, it's clear that this doctrine applies here.
I've considered this angle, but it's probably not as important as the fact that DVD region coding isn't about protecting the theatrical market but instead about the inability of studios to secure worldwide rights to some works because of different copyright laws in different countries.
That's irrelevant -- inability to secure rights in Country X merely prevents the studio from selling through outlets in Country X. It doesn't create an affirmative duty to prevent someone from buying a copy in Country Y and bringing it to Country X in his luggage (if it did, the system would require one region for each country).
Gee, I wonder how anyone could possibily associate illegal activity with the idea of ripping cds.
Recording Industry Executive realizes that people who code CDs won't need to buy a second copy of the same CD for the office, won't need to buy a second copy of the same album when the CD format becomes obsolete, etc. RIE thinks "There Oughta Be A Law" and resolves to purchase one ASAP. QED.
According to his FAQ page Weird Al's policy is to get permission. There was one case where somebody dropped the ball ("Amish Paradise"), but Al was acting in the good-faith belief that Coolio had given permission.
Re:Movie Companies should subsidize protections
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
Look, if the Movie Cartel is really serious about protecting their property, they should research the encryption and other technology.
The solution is already known -- encrypt the file and sign it to the purchaser so that the purchaser has to use his key to access it in usable form. If the original file shows up in illegal distribution, the signature leads straight to the source. If it shows up in some reduced-quality version -- well, nothing can be done to prevent that anyway, because nothing can stop people from pointing cameras and microphones at the final output.
Of course, this requires publishers to run server farms with enough power to do an industrial strength encryption for each purchase. Boo frickin' hoo.
They do not want hundreds of incompatable copy protection methods in place, they want a unified standard of protection that will be used by all.
No, what they want is the ability to unilaterally dictate the nature of the standard, rather than accepting the standard which arises spontaneously out of the give-and-take of all interested parties (consumers, manufacturers, and publishers).
Hollyweird can put its stuff online tomorrow in a form which can only be accessed by jumping through any hoops it cares to require. However, if their hoops are unacceptable to their customers (too expensive, too annoying, too hard to implement on their computer and OS of choice), they won't make money. The only legitimate response to this is: "Too bad -- so sad". Hollyweird's response is to get Cash-and-Carry Hollings to make the hoops mandatory so that customers won't have the option of rejecting them.
IOW, the lesser of the two evils: still the possibility of all kinds of stupid draconian controls, but at least chosen by the industry, and not legally mandated.
Well, the industry has every right to decide "we'll put our stuff online, but you have to obtain and enable X to download and/or play it". If that requirement keeps too much of the market away, well that's too damn bad for the industry -- which is what they are trying to avoid by socializing their costs with the SS SCA.
he didn't deny its existance. He denied that it was being introduced at that time, which is true. It's hardly a "blatant lie
Didn't Clinton do something like that during his deposition, carefully choosing his words so that he could give a denial that was truthful because Monica wasn't under the desk servicing him at that moment?
"Just because clever bookkeeping makes most of your movies "losers" doesn't mean that you aren't swimming in cash from the few successful ones." I think they are swiming in cash from the unsuccesful ones as well.
Remember the Coming to America scam? The Enronized numbers that show "losses" for most movies have no relationship to economic reality, and Valenti's use of them shows him to be a lying weasel.
I want freely-downloadable media for pennies a copy as much as anyone, but I can't get it because the owners won't put it out without copy protection.
The fact is that if the owners were legitimately interested in exploring Net-based business models, they could have simply done it without new laws or new technological constraints. Just apply a digitally-signed watermark to each download, and if it shows up in illegal circulation trace it and invoke traditional copyright laws.
Nope, this isn't really the issue for the xxAA, any more than failure to present the evidence of Osama's guilt was really the issue for the Taliban.
Slashdot Mirror
I know quite a few who use the Internet only slightly (and thus find dial-up access to be more than good enough). They have cited one and only one reason why they don't get into it more extensively. Hint: its /. icon was recently changed from a corporate trademark to a representation of an animal.
A large number of the 1% who can, but currently don't bother, will start doing so as an act of protest. This will have the side effect of increasing the average quality of illegal rips, since the only people doing them will also be the ones who have a clue about which MP3 coders to use and how to configure them.
I don't see anything that can't be done for half that on a dedicated PC.
Er, what makes you think that these abuses aren't precisely what the government wants to emulate?
Didn't your momma teach you not to eat junk food?
CREDITS: Based on a story by H.G. Wells
CROW: Yeah, 'based on' in that they're both in English.
--MST3K treatment of "Village of the Giants"
That's a good question. In my experience, people who write "it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL" (in ALL-CAPS) are generally advancing some argument along the lines of "the income tax is illegal because Ohio was not properly admitted to the Union until 1953". (Really -- people actually say this.)
I am attempting to deal with spammers. Unfortunately, justice is thwarted by the law, so I cannot deal with spammers the way George Bush is dealing with al-Qaeda, but I get as close to that idea as I can.
Enron did no damage -- everybody they approached for special favors turned them down. Cash-and-carry Hollings, on the other hand, is a political prostitute willing to sell his vote.
Wake me when FAIR effectively brings the issues of the SSSCA or Cash-and-Carry Hollings' agenda to the attention of Joe Sixpack.
Sales of products in general are subject to a doctrine of "implied suitability," meaning that the product is expected to perform the function that a reasonable consumer would expect of it. For instance, it is generally understood that a hammer is suitable for pounding nails into wood, so if you bought a hammer and it broke when you tried to use it for that purpose, you would have recourse against the merchant for selling you a defective product.
Given the huge installed base of computer CD units and software for playing music CDs inserted thereinto, it's clear that this doctrine applies here.
That's irrelevant -- inability to secure rights in Country X merely prevents the studio from selling through outlets in Country X. It doesn't create an affirmative duty to prevent someone from buying a copy in Country Y and bringing it to Country X in his luggage (if it did, the system would require one region for each country).
Ain't no "if" about it, unless his ISP has a magic money machine to pay its bandwidth costs.
Recording Industry Executive realizes that people who code CDs won't need to buy a second copy of the same CD for the office, won't need to buy a second copy of the same album when the CD format becomes obsolete, etc. RIE thinks "There Oughta Be A Law" and resolves to purchase one ASAP. QED.
According to his FAQ page Weird Al's policy is to get permission. There was one case where somebody dropped the ball ("Amish Paradise"), but Al was acting in the good-faith belief that Coolio had given permission.
The solution is already known -- encrypt the file and sign it to the purchaser so that the purchaser has to use his key to access it in usable form. If the original file shows up in illegal distribution, the signature leads straight to the source. If it shows up in some reduced-quality version -- well, nothing can be done to prevent that anyway, because nothing can stop people from pointing cameras and microphones at the final output.
Of course, this requires publishers to run server farms with enough power to do an industrial strength encryption for each purchase. Boo frickin' hoo.
Future iPods will bear two stickers: the "Don't Steal Music" one and a blank one covering up the word "Music".
Of course, any real geek would known that there's no such thing.
No, what they want is the ability to unilaterally dictate the nature of the standard, rather than accepting the standard which arises spontaneously out of the give-and-take of all interested parties (consumers, manufacturers, and publishers).
Hollyweird can put its stuff online tomorrow in a form which can only be accessed by jumping through any hoops it cares to require. However, if their hoops are unacceptable to their customers (too expensive, too annoying, too hard to implement on their computer and OS of choice), they won't make money. The only legitimate response to this is: "Too bad -- so sad". Hollyweird's response is to get Cash-and-Carry Hollings to make the hoops mandatory so that customers won't have the option of rejecting them.
Well, the industry has every right to decide "we'll put our stuff online, but you have to obtain and enable X to download and/or play it". If that requirement keeps too much of the market away, well that's too damn bad for the industry -- which is what they are trying to avoid by socializing their costs with the SS SCA.
Didn't Clinton do something like that during his deposition, carefully choosing his words so that he could give a denial that was truthful because Monica wasn't under the desk servicing him at that moment?
This doctrine applies to trademarks, not copyrights.
Remember the Coming to America scam? The Enronized numbers that show "losses" for most movies have no relationship to economic reality, and Valenti's use of them shows him to be a lying weasel.
But we already knew that.
So, you can make unlimited copies no matter what if you're willing to give up some quality. We already knew that.
The fact is that if the owners were legitimately interested in exploring Net-based business models, they could have simply done it without new laws or new technological constraints. Just apply a digitally-signed watermark to each download, and if it shows up in illegal circulation trace it and invoke traditional copyright laws.
Nope, this isn't really the issue for the xxAA, any more than failure to present the evidence of Osama's guilt was really the issue for the Taliban.