It's not a matter of whether or not they have plans that allow you to do those things. It's a matter of why they sell you no-restrictions service, and then send you threatening notices when you use that service the way you want.
They need to stop advertising "unlimited" internet access, because if you can't run a server (albeit a limited-traffic one) or use your allotment of bandwidth any way you like, it sure as hell ain't unlimited.
On a more positive note, I think I saw a recent article about Time Warner saying they would not be limiting or regulating use of RoadRunner. Let's hope.
Doesn't their TOS forbid you to run your own server?... isn't that limiting and regulating use?
Last year, my brother-in-law (who lives in Round Rock, near Austin) got a phone call for eating up too much bandwidth when his wife/my sister was playing too much on Napster.
Either they're being subjective about it, or else the poster's claim is just BS. (But I hope it's the former.)
The CBDTPA is something that the government should not be involved in. The bill should be dropped immediately. The measure is not about copyright protection, but the protection of a stagnant industry unwilling to adapt its business model to new technology.
The technology industry is, to quote a widely circulated figure, a $600 billion behemoth. It arguably funds more jobs in two years than the $35 billion per annum entertainment industry does in twenty. However, the entertainment industry has an erroneous belief that it is entitled to legal protection from future challengers, and this bill is proof that fair use is nothing to be considered when profits are at stake.
Mainly, the crux of the issue is the purpose of computing devices. Computers have three main purposes: to read, write, and copy data. The entertainment industry is proposing nothing less than complete destruction of one of those three purposes, and for what? To protect their monopoly on an image of an animated character for a few more years? The idea strains--no, breaks--the limits of rational thought.
Contrary to the statements of Hollywood, computers are far more than expensive media devices. Their uses range far beyond playing audio or video clips; they are also instruments for content creation, for creativity and development. One wonders that if such "solutions" to copyright infringement were in place a few years ago, whether some recent movies (i.e. Shrek) could have even been developed. Given the heavy use of parody in that film, the answer is no.
Under this proposed bill, creating anything will become prohibitively expensive for the common person. Disregarding other obvious problems regarding the feasibility of such solutions (and the lack of appropriate technology to create them), this bill places inordinate constraints on technology with numerous legitimate uses to allay the fears of a small industry.
The entertainment industry seeks to exercise complete control over its content, trampling on the fair use rights of consumers and users everywhere. The CBDTPA is a product of monopolistic practices by a group of companies unwilling to submit to market forces. It should not be debated nor even considered; it is not viable, it is inefficient, and it is wholly irresponsible.
Let industries solve their own problems. Congress has no right, and no responsibility, to ensure the continued profitability of any company or monopoly.
Most of the time people think of these as two extremes of web design. On one hand, you have sites like DiK, which are all about miniscule pixel fonts, strange contrasting colors, and total "coolness." On the other hand, you have government web sites that look about as appealing as a military barracks; it's blocky, ugly, has bad contrast, and while it's functional, it's got the aesthetic beauty of a cinder block.
The problem is, these things really aren't exclusive. Take Google for instance... it's got a little bit of eye candy with their oft-customized logo, but it gets the job done and doesn't waste much time loading a snazzy interface. (Think MSN, eBay, CNN...) A List Apart is another excellent example of combining form with function; it's got more images, but it's still dang fast.
So what's the secret? Nothing really mysterious, really.
1. Provide quality content. If you've got a monopoly on your content, people will come no matter what your page looks like; they need the information that you and only you can give them. So: Use good grammar, syntax, and organization when your deliverable is primarily text. When it's multimedia, make the media the nicest choice available from anywhere.
2. Just the facts, ma'am. The corollary to #1 is that you provide ONLY what your visitors want. Keep your site organized, keep it very easy to navigate, and for god's sake, leave out things they don't want. So: Minimize advertising. Keep your structure logical and keep a search function a click away at the most.
3. Make things accessible. XHTML has been a standard for three years now. HTML 4 has been a standard for nearly six. Screw Nutscrape 4.7 users, write compliant code. The content can still be visible, but hey -- they're the ones who choose to use a two-year old browser, so don't sweat it if you get complaints about your site not working for people who are too lazy to upgrade. Just point them to mozilla.org or windows.com/ie, and if they don't like that, well, that's their problem.
Don't just write XHTML, either... write VALID XHTML. Know and use the W3C's Accessibility Guidelines so that people with disabilities can visit and get what they need. There are reasons for standards compliance, and it's stupid to throw away the benefits.
4. Keep 'em small and beautiful. Graphics, that is. Eschew GIF for the newer and better PNG, and make sure that you use antialiasing where it's appropriate. Nothing is more annoying than jagged, improperly sized images that look like they were drawn in MS Paint. Optimize the hell out of them with fireworks -- you can usually cut JPEGs down to about 1/5 of their normal size with that program, and PNGs are similar -- and let users cache the stuff so that they're not constantly downloading.
5. Design for everyone. 800x600 might be the standard, but what about your users with higher resolutions? Graphic designers are all well and good, but make sure the one you choose realizes that this isn't a fixed presentation medium you're working with. Users like resizing their browser windows, they like control, and they hate it when they can't do things that they normally can -- using the Back button, closing a window and making it STAY closed, et cetera. You're not God, and you can't force everyone to view your site as it looks on your monitor. Deal with it.
There's more, but it'd take pages to write all this out. Read Apple's UI guidelines. Read ALA (the link at the beginning of the post.) And of course, read the W3C specs.
False. That's precisely the point of the article. The record companies DO own the right to publish and promote the music, but only in traditional formats. They do NOT have the right to publish those songs online, which is what gives a lot of the artists the ability to send out cease-and-desist letters (and, as some will, hopefully, start lawsuits.)
A lot of established artists are doing precisely those things, because the record labels legally don't have the right to prevent the distribution. There have been a lot of slashdot articles on this subject, and it's part of Napster's defense, to which a coalition of artists signed on.
I'd never purchase a subscription to the record labels' services, for multiple reasons beyond principle. Now, if only someone would start negotiating a system where the artists could sign on for 70% profits on song downloads and allowed you to do whatever you wanted with the music... I'd be more than happy to pay for that!
Problem is, most companies are too scared to get into that mess, because the record labels will do everything in their power to prevent the loss of that market--even though their case is nearly indefensible, since it's not supported by contract.
Being a designer... I've got a vested interest in seeing a few non-programming books dumped on those library shelves.
1. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, by Edmund Burke.
It's almost more math than design, but so many of the principles within apply to more than charts and graphs.
2. Graphic Design for the Electronic Age (author forgotten.)
I know there's an author for this book out there, and it's nearly out of print, but it's one of the best books I've seen about paper design. Most, if not all, of the methods and theories that it presents apply equally to web design.
3. The Non-Designer's Design Book, by Robin Williams.
No, it's not the actor (thank your deities for that. Her discussion on fonts should be required reading... in that perfect world where WYSIWYG editors are banned, of course, along with fonts like Comic Sans.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a matter of whether or not they have plans that allow you to do those things. It's a matter of why they sell you no-restrictions service, and then send you threatening notices when you use that service the way you want.
They need to stop advertising "unlimited" internet access, because if you can't run a server (albeit a limited-traffic one) or use your allotment of bandwidth any way you like, it sure as hell ain't unlimited.
On a more positive note, I think I saw a recent article about Time Warner saying they would not be limiting or regulating use of RoadRunner. Let's hope. Doesn't their TOS forbid you to run your own server? ... isn't that limiting and regulating use?
Last year, my brother-in-law (who lives in Round Rock, near Austin) got a phone call for eating up too much bandwidth when his wife/my sister was playing too much on Napster.
Either they're being subjective about it, or else the poster's claim is just BS. (But I hope it's the former.)
Here's the comment I submitted:
The CBDTPA is something that the government should not be involved in. The bill should be dropped immediately. The measure is not about copyright protection, but the protection of a stagnant industry unwilling to adapt its business model to new technology.
The technology industry is, to quote a widely circulated figure, a $600 billion behemoth. It arguably funds more jobs in two years than the $35 billion per annum entertainment industry does in twenty. However, the entertainment industry has an erroneous belief that it is entitled to legal protection from future challengers, and this bill is proof that fair use is nothing to be considered when profits are at stake.
Mainly, the crux of the issue is the purpose of computing devices. Computers have three main purposes: to read, write, and copy data. The entertainment industry is proposing nothing less than complete destruction of one of those three purposes, and for what? To protect their monopoly on an image of an animated character for a few more years? The idea strains--no, breaks--the limits of rational thought.
Contrary to the statements of Hollywood, computers are far more than expensive media devices. Their uses range far beyond playing audio or video clips; they are also instruments for content creation, for creativity and development. One wonders that if such "solutions" to copyright infringement were in place a few years ago, whether some recent movies (i.e. Shrek) could have even been developed. Given the heavy use of parody in that film, the answer is no.
Under this proposed bill, creating anything will become prohibitively expensive for the common person. Disregarding other obvious problems regarding the feasibility of such solutions (and the lack of appropriate technology to create them), this bill places inordinate constraints on technology with numerous legitimate uses to allay the fears of a small industry.
The entertainment industry seeks to exercise complete control over its content, trampling on the fair use rights of consumers and users everywhere. The CBDTPA is a product of monopolistic practices by a group of companies unwilling to submit to market forces. It should not be debated nor even considered; it is not viable, it is inefficient, and it is wholly irresponsible.
Let industries solve their own problems. Congress has no right, and no responsibility, to ensure the continued profitability of any company or monopoly.
Most of the time people think of these as two extremes of web design. On one hand, you have sites like DiK, which are all about miniscule pixel fonts, strange contrasting colors, and total "coolness." On the other hand, you have government web sites that look about as appealing as a military barracks; it's blocky, ugly, has bad contrast, and while it's functional, it's got the aesthetic beauty of a cinder block.
... it's got a little bit of eye candy with their oft-customized logo, but it gets the job done and doesn't waste much time loading a snazzy interface. (Think MSN, eBay, CNN ...) A List Apart is another excellent example of combining form with function; it's got more images, but it's still dang fast.
... write VALID XHTML. Know and use the W3C's Accessibility Guidelines so that people with disabilities can visit and get what they need. There are reasons for standards compliance, and it's stupid to throw away the benefits.
The problem is, these things really aren't exclusive. Take Google for instance
So what's the secret? Nothing really mysterious, really.
1. Provide quality content. If you've got a monopoly on your content, people will come no matter what your page looks like; they need the information that you and only you can give them. So: Use good grammar, syntax, and organization when your deliverable is primarily text. When it's multimedia, make the media the nicest choice available from anywhere.
2. Just the facts, ma'am. The corollary to #1 is that you provide ONLY what your visitors want. Keep your site organized, keep it very easy to navigate, and for god's sake, leave out things they don't want. So: Minimize advertising. Keep your structure logical and keep a search function a click away at the most.
3. Make things accessible. XHTML has been a standard for three years now. HTML 4 has been a standard for nearly six. Screw Nutscrape 4.7 users, write compliant code. The content can still be visible, but hey -- they're the ones who choose to use a two-year old browser, so don't sweat it if you get complaints about your site not working for people who are too lazy to upgrade. Just point them to mozilla.org or windows.com/ie, and if they don't like that, well, that's their problem.
Don't just write XHTML, either
4. Keep 'em small and beautiful. Graphics, that is. Eschew GIF for the newer and better PNG, and make sure that you use antialiasing where it's appropriate. Nothing is more annoying than jagged, improperly sized images that look like they were drawn in MS Paint. Optimize the hell out of them with fireworks -- you can usually cut JPEGs down to about 1/5 of their normal size with that program, and PNGs are similar -- and let users cache the stuff so that they're not constantly downloading.
5. Design for everyone. 800x600 might be the standard, but what about your users with higher resolutions? Graphic designers are all well and good, but make sure the one you choose realizes that this isn't a fixed presentation medium you're working with. Users like resizing their browser windows, they like control, and they hate it when they can't do things that they normally can -- using the Back button, closing a window and making it STAY closed, et cetera. You're not God, and you can't force everyone to view your site as it looks on your monitor. Deal with it.
There's more, but it'd take pages to write all this out. Read Apple's UI guidelines. Read ALA (the link at the beginning of the post.) And of course, read the W3C specs.
False. That's precisely the point of the article. The record companies DO own the right to publish and promote the music, but only in traditional formats. They do NOT have the right to publish those songs online, which is what gives a lot of the artists the ability to send out cease-and-desist letters (and, as some will, hopefully, start lawsuits.)
... I'd be more than happy to pay for that!
A lot of established artists are doing precisely those things, because the record labels legally don't have the right to prevent the distribution. There have been a lot of slashdot articles on this subject, and it's part of Napster's defense, to which a coalition of artists signed on.
I'd never purchase a subscription to the record labels' services, for multiple reasons beyond principle. Now, if only someone would start negotiating a system where the artists could sign on for 70% profits on song downloads and allowed you to do whatever you wanted with the music
Problem is, most companies are too scared to get into that mess, because the record labels will do everything in their power to prevent the loss of that market--even though their case is nearly indefensible, since it's not supported by contract.
... they're all carrying it.
. html
:)
ZDNet: http://zdnet.com.com/2110-11-837844.html
Wired: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,50428,00
C|Net: http://news.com.com/2100-1023-837794.html
Keep the comments coming, people, this story's almost made the top ten.
Being a designer ... I've got a vested interest in seeing a few non-programming books dumped on those library shelves.
1. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, by Edmund Burke.
It's almost more math than design, but so many of the principles within apply to more than charts and graphs.
2. Graphic Design for the Electronic Age (author forgotten.)
I know there's an author for this book out there, and it's nearly out of print, but it's one of the best books I've seen about paper design. Most, if not all, of the methods and theories that it presents apply equally to web design.
3. The Non-Designer's Design Book, by Robin Williams.
No, it's not the actor (thank your deities for that. Her discussion on fonts should be required reading ... in that perfect world where WYSIWYG editors are banned, of course, along with fonts like Comic Sans.
That's all I can think of for now.