"The usually coldest season of the year, occurring between autumn and spring, extending in the Northern Hemisphere from the winter solstice to the vernal equinox, and popularly considered to be constituted by December, January, and February. "
Generally, its understood that winter (in the northern hemisphere at least) is the time when the earth tilts on its axis and the northern hemisphere is furtherst from the sun.
If someone breaks my car window, I can't subpoena everyone who owned a camera in the area to show me all the photos they took that day, then why on earth can I go to an ISP and say, check your logs for a user at this IP and give me their name/address.
This is entirely different. Those people who owned a camera in the area weren't *providers* for you. They weren't giving you a service.
If you were parked in a pay lot that had camera & someone broke into your car, you *could* subpoena the video to find out who did it.
Now, if the ISPs all purged their records on a regular basis the RIAA wouldn't have any way of getting any information. Sure, the courts could compel them at some point to keep track, but by then everyone would know and find other means of downloading.
before they start getting subpoenas for those people who are downloading MP3s? I mean, it can't be that hard to set up a honeypot with 'modified' (read:damaged) MP3s and just log the IP addresses.
On another note: If I own the music on casette, where can I *legally* download a digital copy of the songs? Seriously.
You can't fry ants in the winter, cause a) there are no ants to be seen, and b) the sunligth is not strong enough.
You've obviously never lived in my area of Texas.
Summers (with the exception of this one) usually have 30+ consecutive days over 100 degrees F. I'm not sure how many days we've had in the 100s this year. Three years ago we hit 117F.
We've had 'winters' where temps were in the 80s and not a single cloud in the sky.
We can literally wear shorts outdoors on Christmas.
Sure, the ants would usually be dormant, but not when that warm.
In all likelihood, they're not going to break down your door and rush in for your PCs. Simply remove the USB key and stash it somewhere difficult for someone else to find. If the cops show up with a search warrent, let 'em have the computer. Then destroy the key.
So, somehow it makes sense to inconvienence everyone who calls you, just so you can avoid a few telemarketing calls.
Nope. Not everyone. Just those people hiding behind a phone system that hides their number.
And those people who do but we want to talk to anyway are given an access code. This shows up on CallerID as 'Access Code nnn-nnnn' so we instantly know who they are.
Honestly, its not that hard to use. I worked at Dell, their phone system hides the outbound number. I've used it from the 'outside view' and it hardly adds 2 minutes to a 1 minute call.
A better option would be having telemarketers press and option, and then have this call a randomly-picked number for another telemarketing company.
Or playing Perry Como or some other equally-annoying dribble.
The Autoattendent you describe sounds a lot like Privacy Manager, with the exception of blocking anyone whose attempting to hide their identity. I mean, whats to stop a telemarketer from pressing 1 and harassing you anyway?
I feel downloading music is just like listening to the radio, except the radio is commercialy primitive and plays only a few songs they want me to buy one at a time; sometimes over and over-then I get sick of it, and I won't buy the CD, because it's on the radio every hour.
I couldn't agree more. Except I'd add that if you happen to hear a song you like & rush out to buy the album, you run the risk of buying a CD full of crap minus the one good song.
But the point is that we shouldn't HAVE to fork out an extra $80/month to not receive this harassment. It shouldn't be so difficult and expensive (in terms of time AND money) to get the calls to stop.
I agree, 100%. However, until the telemarketers decide to 'play nice' and actually honor the DNCs, this is what we've decided. In all likelihood, we're going to be dropping either the entire service or the land line altogether.
And I have to pay for this because telemarketers think it's their right to harrass me? The telemarketers are probably collecting your $80/month from the system they sold you to offset what they are losing when you don't buy anything from them. I don't understand how you find the situation acceptable enough to blow so much of your own money. It's that permissive attitude that lets them get away with it in the first place.
Let me have your street address -- I need to know where to send the black helicopters.
Seriously, you honestly believe the telemarketers are getting my $80? Wow, talk about a stretch. And it wasn't some telemarketer who sold us the service. Our phone company doesn't call us looking to make a sale - its the scumbags at the phone companies we're *not* using that call.
Regardless, whose money is paying for the service? Is it yours?
All the backlash about my using this service, and a majority of the people go to futher extremes when it comes to SPAM, which is less-intrusive.
No, you don't have to pay for the service. If you don't like getting calls, disconnect your telephone.
Regardless, the wife's talking about dropping the LAN line altogether. She'd rather get cellphones (moreso now that she's 5 months pregnant with our 2nd son) and we've got her business line at the house if we *really* need a LAN line (as of yet, no telemarketer calls on that one).
We've got it at home. All calls coming from anyplace that doesn't display the originating phone number are dumped to a VRU. The VRU asks for a passcode. If no passcode is entered, the VRU prompts for the name. The VRU then calls us and gives us the option of 1)taking the call, 2)hanging up, 3)dumping to CallNotes.
Combine this with CallerID, CallWaiting CallerID, CallNotes, CallBlocker and Anonymous CallBlocker and very few calls get through.
The only calls that do publish their phone number to CallerID. Asking for a manager, getting their info and then informing them to remove us from their list or face a $500 fine next time they call is all it takes.
Sure, the entire package costs $80/mo but its worth it.
Don't you think that when the RIAA is cruising around P2P networks, if they find someone sharing what looks like a copyrighted mp3, they download it and check it out? I know there was the incident with the Professor in Pennsylvania named Usher but I would imagine that if they were going to go to the point of a subpeona, they'd at least listen to the mp3.
You'd think so, right? The Penn professor is prime example of when they don't.
Hopefully the RIAA would have enough smarts to check the 'infringing' content prior to the lawsuit. But with the number of people they're targeting, I doubt they're even downloading the songs. Likely, they're just dinging people who are sharing files that appear to be in violation.
This is all speculation. We'll see once some of the lawsuits actually appear in court.
Which makes me wonder: Is CourtTV going to cover any of them?
I downloaded a bunch of instrumental jazz - a totally different direction from my normal music taste (which ranges anywhere from KISS to Mudvayne, CCR to Techno, etc). I like the tunes I downloaded, so I bought some Jazz CDs.
Had I not been able to listen before I bought, I likely would've never purchased them as I, like most people, don't blindly purchase something without having first been exposed to it.
Unfortunately, the RIAA doesn't see people like me as a consumer. They see me as a pirate, despite the fact that the eventual outcome was that I purchased the music I 'stole'.
I don't listen to the radio, with the exception of twolocal stations, and even then some of what they air is utter crap. I only purchase music I've heard via the rare times I do listen to the radio or via exposure to music through a friend (like with Insane Clown Possee).
I've suggested before that someone do the following:
1. Record yourself dropping some friends off at the pool. 2. Find out the track length for the latest Madonna album 3. Make copies of your recording, all with the name, track info, etc. like it was ripped using CDex. 4. Share them. 5. Wait for the RIAA to subpoena your records 6. Wait for your courtdate. 7. Ask the RIAA lawyer to play the tracks in open court 8. Bring your copy for comparison 9. Sue the RIAA for malicious prosecution and have them labeled as a vexatious litigant (I'm sure I misspelled that..)
Of course, there's nothing saying they couldn't simply supply the legit version to the court.
I don't think they have figured out that they can blame it on P2P yet.
Give it time. Someone somewhere is going to point the finger at P2P. Nevermind the fact that it would be foolish to either transcribe an entire novel or scan all the pages with a 100% accurate OCR program then slap all the pages together in a PDF.
But they're suing those that are sharing not those downloading. So buying CDs for music you're sharing won't protect you.
So, you get a subpoena. Whats to stop a user from simply low-level formatting their drives, writing zeros to the drive, re-formatting and reinstalling their OS? Sure, the RIAA can show that you were sharing, but what is the court going to do if you no longer posess the 'pirated' works?
I think the only viable business model is subscription based access to a music catalog. For something like $10 or $20/mo., subscribers will have access to the entire catalog - and maybe special features like "webcasts", web radio, etc. But the current distribution system is done.
I'd buy that, but only if it were a conglomorate site (eg. has more than one label's catalog) and didn't require a contract.
If consumers had to pay separate fees to each lable's site in order to get music that they want, this would cut out some of their potential clientel.
...perhaps the whole (mainstream) music industry could try putting out some decent music that people might actually be willing to pay for instead of the music-to-a-recipe crap that they produce by the barrel full at the moment?
Not possible. The crap that exists on the airwaves now is due to the fact that it has an audience.
Slashdot Mirror
AFAIK, winter = cold season.
Wrong. Winter is defined as (from dictionary.com)
"The usually coldest season of the year, occurring between autumn and spring, extending in the Northern Hemisphere from the winter solstice to the vernal equinox, and popularly considered to be constituted by December, January, and February. "
Generally, its understood that winter (in the northern hemisphere at least) is the time when the earth tilts on its axis and the northern hemisphere is furtherst from the sun.
If someone breaks my car window, I can't subpoena everyone who owned a camera in the area to show me all the photos they took that day, then why on earth can I go to an ISP and say, check your logs for a user at this IP and give me their name/address.
This is entirely different. Those people who owned a camera in the area weren't *providers* for you. They weren't giving you a service.
If you were parked in a pay lot that had camera & someone broke into your car, you *could* subpoena the video to find out who did it.
Now, if the ISPs all purged their records on a regular basis the RIAA wouldn't have any way of getting any information. Sure, the courts could compel them at some point to keep track, but by then everyone would know and find other means of downloading.
before they start getting subpoenas for those people who are downloading MP3s? I mean, it can't be that hard to set up a honeypot with 'modified' (read:damaged) MP3s and just log the IP addresses.
On another note: If I own the music on casette, where can I *legally* download a digital copy of the songs? Seriously.
You can't fry ants in the winter, cause a) there are no ants to be seen, and b) the sunligth is not strong enough.
You've obviously never lived in my area of Texas.
Summers (with the exception of this one) usually have 30+ consecutive days over 100 degrees F. I'm not sure how many days we've had in the 100s this year. Three years ago we hit 117F.
We've had 'winters' where temps were in the 80s and not a single cloud in the sky.
We can literally wear shorts outdoors on Christmas.
Sure, the ants would usually be dormant, but not when that warm.
Not if you no longer have it.
In all likelihood, they're not going to break down your door and rush in for your PCs. Simply remove the USB key and stash it somewhere difficult for someone else to find. If the cops show up with a search warrent, let 'em have the computer. Then destroy the key.
Suxor 0n i7, sux0rs!
So, somehow it makes sense to inconvienence everyone who calls you, just so you can avoid a few telemarketing calls.
Nope. Not everyone. Just those people hiding behind a phone system that hides their number.
And those people who do but we want to talk to anyway are given an access code. This shows up on CallerID as 'Access Code nnn-nnnn' so we instantly know who they are.
Honestly, its not that hard to use. I worked at Dell, their phone system hides the outbound number. I've used it from the 'outside view' and it hardly adds 2 minutes to a 1 minute call.
A better option would be having telemarketers press and option, and then have this call a randomly-picked number for another telemarketing company.
Or playing Perry Como or some other equally-annoying dribble.
The Autoattendent you describe sounds a lot like Privacy Manager, with the exception of blocking anyone whose attempting to hide their identity. I mean, whats to stop a telemarketer from pressing 1 and harassing you anyway?
I feel downloading music is just like listening to the radio, except the radio is commercialy primitive and plays only a few songs they want me to buy one at a time; sometimes over and over-then I get sick of it, and I won't buy the CD, because it's on the radio every hour.
I couldn't agree more. Except I'd add that if you happen to hear a song you like & rush out to buy the album, you run the risk of buying a CD full of crap minus the one good song.
But the point is that we shouldn't HAVE to fork out an extra $80/month to not receive this harassment. It shouldn't be so difficult and expensive (in terms of time AND money) to get the calls to stop.
I agree, 100%. However, until the telemarketers decide to 'play nice' and actually honor the DNCs, this is what we've decided. In all likelihood, we're going to be dropping either the entire service or the land line altogether.
And I have to pay for this because telemarketers think it's their right to harrass me? The telemarketers are probably collecting your $80/month from the system they sold you to offset what they are losing when you don't buy anything from them. I don't understand how you find the situation acceptable enough to blow so much of your own money. It's that permissive attitude that lets them get away with it in the first place.
Let me have your street address -- I need to know where to send the black helicopters.
Seriously, you honestly believe the telemarketers are getting my $80? Wow, talk about a stretch. And it wasn't some telemarketer who sold us the service. Our phone company doesn't call us looking to make a sale - its the scumbags at the phone companies we're *not* using that call.
Regardless, whose money is paying for the service? Is it yours?
All the backlash about my using this service, and a majority of the people go to futher extremes when it comes to SPAM, which is less-intrusive.
No, you don't have to pay for the service. If you don't like getting calls, disconnect your telephone.
Of course, it's the norm to post wrong information on slashdot. You're not the only one.
At no point did I say that there weren't books on the P2P networks.
Nice attempt at trolling though.
Doh!
Sorry. Stuck in geek-speak again!
There are only three options.
Nice attempt at trolling though.
What's 'auto-attendant'? Is that like TeleZapper?
Regardless, the wife's talking about dropping the LAN line altogether. She'd rather get cellphones (moreso now that she's 5 months pregnant with our 2nd son) and we've got her business line at the house if we *really* need a LAN line (as of yet, no telemarketer calls on that one).
Two words:
Privacy Manager
We've got it at home. All calls coming from anyplace that doesn't display the originating phone number are dumped to a VRU. The VRU asks for a passcode. If no passcode is entered, the VRU prompts for the name. The VRU then calls us and gives us the option of 1)taking the call, 2)hanging up, 3)dumping to CallNotes.
Combine this with CallerID, CallWaiting CallerID, CallNotes, CallBlocker and Anonymous CallBlocker and very few calls get through.
The only calls that do publish their phone number to CallerID. Asking for a manager, getting their info and then informing them to remove us from their list or face a $500 fine next time they call is all it takes.
Sure, the entire package costs $80/mo but its worth it.
...rate as scum-sucking bottom feeders in the food chain of life.
..right above the RIAA.
Doing this would frustrate users, yes. But it would also throw a wrench in the RIAA's ability to get accurate info.
The P2P networks are already crap-flooded anyway.
Don't you think that when the RIAA is cruising around P2P networks, if they find someone sharing what looks like a copyrighted mp3, they download it and check it out? I know there was the incident with the Professor in Pennsylvania named Usher but I would imagine that if they were going to go to the point of a subpeona, they'd at least listen to the mp3.
You'd think so, right? The Penn professor is prime example of when they don't.
Hopefully the RIAA would have enough smarts to check the 'infringing' content prior to the lawsuit. But with the number of people they're targeting, I doubt they're even downloading the songs. Likely, they're just dinging people who are sharing files that appear to be in violation.
This is all speculation. We'll see once some of the lawsuits actually appear in court.
Which makes me wonder: Is CourtTV going to cover any of them?
This argument has been said before.
I downloaded a bunch of instrumental jazz - a totally different direction from my normal music taste (which ranges anywhere from KISS to Mudvayne, CCR to Techno, etc). I like the tunes I downloaded, so I bought some Jazz CDs.
Had I not been able to listen before I bought, I likely would've never purchased them as I, like most people, don't blindly purchase something without having first been exposed to it.
Unfortunately, the RIAA doesn't see people like me as a consumer. They see me as a pirate, despite the fact that the eventual outcome was that I purchased the music I 'stole'.
I don't listen to the radio, with the exception of two local stations, and even then some of what they air is utter crap. I only purchase music I've heard via the rare times I do listen to the radio or via exposure to music through a friend (like with Insane Clown Possee).
I've suggested before that someone do the following:
1. Record yourself dropping some friends off at the pool.
2. Find out the track length for the latest Madonna album
3. Make copies of your recording, all with the name, track info, etc. like it was ripped using CDex.
4. Share them.
5. Wait for the RIAA to subpoena your records
6. Wait for your courtdate.
7. Ask the RIAA lawyer to play the tracks in open court
8. Bring your copy for comparison
9. Sue the RIAA for malicious prosecution and have them labeled as a vexatious litigant (I'm sure I misspelled that..)
Of course, there's nothing saying they couldn't simply supply the legit version to the court.
I don't think they have figured out that they can blame it on P2P yet.
Give it time. Someone somewhere is going to point the finger at P2P. Nevermind the fact that it would be foolish to either transcribe an entire novel or scan all the pages with a 100% accurate OCR program then slap all the pages together in a PDF.
But they're suing those that are sharing not those downloading. So buying CDs for music you're sharing won't protect you.
So, you get a subpoena. Whats to stop a user from simply low-level formatting their drives, writing zeros to the drive, re-formatting and reinstalling their OS? Sure, the RIAA can show that you were sharing, but what is the court going to do if you no longer posess the 'pirated' works?
I think the only viable business model is subscription based access to a music catalog. For something like $10 or $20/mo., subscribers will have access to the entire catalog - and maybe special features like "webcasts", web radio, etc. But the current distribution system is done.
I'd buy that, but only if it were a conglomorate site (eg. has more than one label's catalog) and didn't require a contract.
If consumers had to pay separate fees to each lable's site in order to get music that they want, this would cut out some of their potential clientel.
...perhaps the whole (mainstream) music industry could try putting out some decent music that people might actually be willing to pay for instead of the music-to-a-recipe crap that they produce by the barrel full at the moment?
Not possible. The crap that exists on the airwaves now is due to the fact that it has an audience.