Unfortunately I agree. Ok, maybe I'm not as K-l33t as hardcore linux advocates, but I don't think Linux is ready for my desktop, for a few simple reasons. One, which is not Linux's fault at all, is games. The second, though, is the most important: give me standards or give me death! I'm a Unix _user_. I'm also a programmer. I don't think I'm dumb. But what annoys me to *hell* is the apparent (perception, if you want) disorganization, and non-standardization of Linux. Ok, this is probably a flamebait rant...
Sure, this isn't the kernel...the kernel is a breeze to recompile and modify...it's a joy. But the file system, the programs, are like somebody just dumped their totally messy desk overflowing with papers into your computer. How many damn formats and names of configuration files that need to be hand-edited are there? Where are they? How many damn binaries whose purpose are completely undecipherable are hiding in wierd places symbolically linked from some other strange place. How many different packaging mechanisms are there? Administration utilities? Things that can only be done by bizarre scripts that break when you install something new?
Maybe I'm just anal, and maybe I just don't have enough experience with it yet, but there is just too much damn stuff to try to cram into your head just to use the system. I mean, DOS and Windows suck ass, but at least I *understand* how they suck...it fits completely within my head - I know what each system file does and where it is and how they interact, and how brain-dead certain things are. Given any random Linux system and it's a Sherlock novel to try to figure out what the hell is going on. I mean, sure, the system works pretty well, whether or not you understand the arcane steps you are undertaking...but I'm just one of those people who *requires* themselves to understand what's going on. And I can't stand using a system that I don't comprehend.
Sure, this is probably not such an indictment of Linux as a whole...probably I just need to give it more time and everything will magically fall into place. But an ideal system would make sense from the start, and wouldn't give you hundreds of redundant and/or conflicting options or ways to do the same mundane thing.
Hopefully I put a non-luddite perspective on this. I'm not the elitest hacker, but I can recompile the kernel and applications, and administer servers etc. I'm just totally jaded at the apparent (whether it's real or not, that is the perception a new user gets) lack of standardization and clear ways to do things.
Or maybe I'm just overly disgruntled by wasting a week putting Linux on this Thinkpad (finally succeeded).
Somebody please tell me they work nine to five. I feel *guilty* when I do. I almost wish I could be paid on some sort of contractual basis, because 90% of my work is done in sporadic 20% of my time, and the rest of my time is spent lazing about reading slashdot and feeling guilty.
Right now I don't even think the issue is the right of music fans to music. I'm sure every artists on earth is *gladly* trying to get people to listen to their music. The issue is control and power. Right now Napster is just acting as a digital surrogate of the record company middlemen controlling distribution. It's just a horizontal shift in power - the artists haven't gained anything. Digital media should be empowering artists. Before record companies had all the power. Now Napster, and the fans have a lot of power. My point is that we should realize that while this free ride is great, that it is our *responsibility* to give some of that power back to the artists to which it belongs. Sure, fans have some sort of say, I think, and at least some conceptual level of "ownership", but right now where hogging all the power because free stuff is cool. Give the power back to the artists, not Napster, not the record companies.
If Napster is not currently doing anything illegal, it is at the very least doing something very morally questionable and shady, and if anything at least shouldn't be supported as vocally as a lot of us do. If anything it is standing idly by while it figures out how it can make money of this (but not currently making money from it doesn't make it good). See my other posts, including:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/08/18/13512 21&cid=215
I think we all have a libertarian streak through us, but I for one don't oppose (sensible) gun control. Libertarianism is fine and good but taken to extremes it is just plain irresponsible.
No matter how much you think it is, society doesn't exist to be "fair". People *are* liable for the effects of products they create even if it is not strictly their fault. Software is a loaded example because that goes straight to the free speech issue. Remember, society is a shared host that *grants* people privelages. It's not a free ride for people to abandon all conscience. That's why we have laws on the porno industry. Is *that* "fair"? Free speech right? We have laws on tobacco. Is *that* "fair"? Is it their fault if idiots smoke and then are surprised they have cancer (well, besides the fact that someone might believe them when they lie and say it is safe)? There are laws regarding safe toys. Is *that* fair? After all, people should not buy products that are unsafe, right?
The answer is that "fairness" is the wrong question. The question is not whether it is fair, but whether it has a bad or good effect on society. We have all sorts of "unfair" sin taxes, but that's the price of the privelages the society grants you.
That said, YES I think a lot of the control on things like software is just downright stupid and brainless. But there is a reason we have such tendencies to "unfairness".
IANAEconomist, but there are essentially two types of value: physical value of an object, which consists of the value of the items it is composed of, and the effort put into creating it; use value of the object, which is how useful the object is, or how much people want to use it.
With the internet, everything is infinately copyable, so the "physical value" goes approaches zero. You have the initial cost of creation, but that is divided infinately as people copy it.
The record industry is in the business of selling you physical value. A CD is a physical thing. They want you to think you are buying music, but you are really buying a plastic disc that they want you to think is worth ~$17. This is why they are very afraid of having to cut out entirely the physical value of music - that would cut ~90% of their profit.
And about supply and demand...it almost works in the opposite way in an economy of plenty (or infinity as digital media is). The more you copy a resource, often the *more* demand there is for it, due to the network effect.
Well, they'll "do fine" when they realize they *provide a service to artists* and not that artists provide a service to *them*. I think the recording industry can still make money with recording studies, equipment, promotion, etc. They know how to do that. But they shouldn't exploit artists as if they were strawberry pickers.
You can. Your cd player is a physical object that only one person can have in their possession at any time. So are your CDs. So you *can* share your CDs in exactly the same sense you share your cd player. Just lend them.
My point was that Metallica gave up almost all control over what I do with my copy of the CD once I've bought it.
Yes, short of copyright law, Metallica doesn't and shouldn't have control over what you do with the music you buy after you buy it. However, not only does Metallica give up that control, but, unless Lars handed you the CD himself, Metallica has *already* given up control by allowing record companies to distribute their music. That CD has filtered through a lot of middlemen before it ended up on the shelves for $17.49. This control, control of what happens *before* it leaves their hands, should not have to be given up. And Napster is no better. It undermines control of how Metallica represents and distributes its music before it reaches your hands. At best, power is shifting slightly from the record companies to Napster...and now they are in talks for joint efforts. So no real power is being granted to the artist by Napster. That should be on our conscience, and we should do the right thing by giving artists that control back.
I would like to see a world in which artists have the freedom to decide how to create, distribute (up to the point it leaves their hands), and promote their music. I would like to see a world in which artists use the *services* of the recording industry (equipment, advertising), but are still in control. And I would like to see a world in which there are mechanisms for honest people to compensate artists for the work they create. Where artists put music on their *own* servers and attract people themselves.
I don't see Napster promoting this world. As far as I know Napster has no compensation mechanisms, or even promotes it. At best Napster is standing idly by, playing off the all to easily supported image of being a saint, while it figures out how it can make money of this.
Just because Napster uses nifty technology we like doesn't mean it's the Right Thing. In a world where information is infinately copyable, one must rely on fostering the goodwill of consumers and fans towards the content providers, and providing convenient mechanism for compensation. I don't think Napster does this. Napster just seems to me a feeding frenzy for people who want a free ride. It takes control away from artists who want to participate and have control over the way they give or sell their music.
To copy a line from Nader who copied it from Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power". Napster undermines artists' power. And while we consumers looking for free rides love the "power" we are given, it is our *responsibility* to give a fair share back to the creators of the content.
I think some people do use Napster to space-shift music, certainly since my.mp3.com got its CD-uploading shut down.
For the record, I think space-shifting and my.mp3.com is totally valid and fair use.
Some people also use it to obtain copies of music that they would otherwise have bought on CD.
And it is my contention that how they obtain this music should be determined by the artist. For instance the artist could set up a website with that new street corner performer service where people chuck some money in their pot.
I can even burn a copy and give it to a friend, despite what Hilary Rosen would like you to think.
I'm not sure if that is legal. Orrin Hatch asked if it would be legal to burn a copy for his wife in the Future of Digital Music hearing. Lending is different from copying because only one person has it. When you copy it then it's up to the copyright hold to determine whether or not you should be able to. If artists were in control they could simply say something like "Yeah, you can let a maximum of 5 friends copy it". That would solve the whole Napster problem without making artists look like assholes. I mean, really, if you are giving it to more than @5 people I think that's sort of crossing the line.
No, actually I haven't listened to any of their new albums. Yeah, I *guess* they could have sold out during that time. But it seems to me every band gets a little repetitive and rerun as time goes by (look at Aerosmith, my god).
Right...by explicitly and vocally supporting Napster, which is at least a shady operation itself, we are implicitly making artists the "enemy". Instead of protesting for-Napster, protest against-record-companies. Metallica is one case - but if they get bitten hard by this new "internet thang" what effect will that have on other artists? Perhaps they'll sign up with vampirous record companies instead of attempting to use the internet.
Napster may have some legal ground by completely disbanding conscience and not caring what goes through it's system...but that behavoir is far different than the ground breaking saint people make it out to be. Napster is not pro-artists. If anything it is neutral for the time being while it figures out how to make money of this.
I would like artists to throw off the shackles of the record industry. I think if they charged even a tiny fraction of what a CD costs, they could make money. Another side effect of this is that they could support each other by saying "Hey, if you like us, go check out these bands that influenced us". Since people would have a whole bunch of change in their pocket left over, they'd be more prone to buy new music. Behind every popular band are a dozen other little-known ones that don't make a cent.
yes yes yes...I don't mean their constitutionally granted free speech...just as I don't mean Napster is selling beer. You're right, control is the crux of the issue. Napster, legally or illegally is taking control from Metallica. But that is not enough: they are entering into illicit deals with record companies. My only point is that Metallica should be able to have control of what *gets out*. Once it's out, it's a matter of copyright law, but as it is, Napster is degrading their control over what's getting out. If Napster is short of illegal, it is still far from the saint people make it out to be. If you're going to protest, protest against the record companies, not against artists or for-Napster.
I don't see Napster as fair use. Fair use is not having a gigantic global swap meet to indiscriminantly infringe on copyright. Who the hell uses Napster for archival purposes? Or to play elsewhere? It's ludicrous. Napster is for sharing music. That in itself is not a bad thing. But when people systemically use the system to infringe on copyright, then I think Napster has *some* responsibility. Which is why they put up that disclaimer. If they were good samaritans they'd attempt to do a better job of policing people when infringements are brought to their attention. If it's not illegal itself it sure isn't playing nice.
Nothey prevents radio companies playing music they purchase. But nothing should prevent Metallica from deciding what *it* wants to release. Um, for instance, a draft of "I Disappear", maybe.
Buchanan opposes free trade for purely isolationist reasons. Nader opposes free trade because it sells out our own workers at the same time it is exploiting those in third world countries.
I'm not an isolationist. I think it is impossible and impractical to be an isolationist in such a global economy. However, I do oppose trade agreements that simply give free passes to global multinational corporations, with no regard to the responsibility to a nation's citizens.
Well, only insofar as "speech" is an action. Sure, you have to move your lips or press the "print" button. Buf it is not the action itself that has relevance. Free speech is more than moving of lips. On the other hand, murdering somebody is not much more than commiting a violent physical act on them.
IANAL. I stand corrected (wish I could mod my own post down). I'm surprised he didn't question the constitutionality of this law, because he seemed to be rather "with it" in the transcripts I read.
The problem is, nowadays *everybody* is (or thinks they are) ridden with existential post-modern teenage angst. There is something wrong, but they can't quite figure it out. So the easiest thing is to "protest". Protest what? Anything. Everything. Who cares? It gives meaning. Like the idiots who threw rocks over the fence at the police at the DNC, inciting them to rampage over the majority of *peaceful* *innocent* protesters there. Like anarchists dressed in black just to incite trouble (if it isn't *just* to incite trouble, it is at least an obvious and deliberate effect).
I get angry when the mindless bleating of wannabees overpowers the real issues that real protesters are attempting to make. For instance, like Lars here. I'm sick of hearing every johnny come lately ripping Metallica because it's the cool thing to do. Metallica has a point that some don't have the attention span to consider. Metallica is not anti-fan. Metallica is not pro-corporation. Metallica is not a sellout and corporate whore. Metallica wants one thing that we would otherwise be championing here on Slashdot: *artist control of their own music*. Metallica's point is not that Napster is inherently wrong, or that technology should be banned. Their point is that *they* should be able to decide what they want to do with their music. Not big record companies. Not Napster. And this isn't even about copyright infringement or "lost revenue". Metallica freely allows bootlegging. The problem is that with all our shouting about how Napster is the David to the record industries goliath, we have forgotten that the *artists* are the David to *everybody*. Napster is a great service. Gnutella is a great technology. Metallica's contention is that they, as the artist, should choose how they want to interact with their fans. And they only sued Napster to raise this issue. Just like Metallica should be able to decide what songs of theirs radio stations play, and what image they portray, they should be able to self-determine how they want to interact with their fans. Don't lump artists in with the record companies and Napster as the lone hero. It's the other way around. Napster is entering in exclusive deals with the record companies to jointly exploit artists.
Stop and think about what you're shouting about. Think about *who* you really support (I'm guessing you are pro-[your favorite band] not pro-[free music, gimme!]). While it tastes great, Naptster's free beer (music for free) is blocking Metallica's free speech (self-determination on what and how they express themselves to fans). I think the artists know just a little bit what they're talking about. Get behind them.
*yawn* ok let me address this on a political level (because that's where free speech resides). We only gain rights by restriction. I have the right to pursue happiness because others are restricted from infringing on that, and I am restricted upon infringing on others. I have the right to liberty, until I commit a crime at which point I am jailed. More appropriately, I have the right to use, and modify GPLed code, because others are restricted from withholding it from me (and vice versa). So we gain rights by restrictions. What does this mean as far as technical standards? Well when a (good) standard is enforced, it "frees" everybody to do whatever they want *under* that standard. A window manager spec frees implementors to do whatever they *want* as long as they comply. I think the reason that an decent X desktop has been stagnant for so long is that without standards (laws) people were free to step all over each other, duplicate work, waste time, etc. A "single, unified desktop layer" *would* allow people to more freely do what they want without tediously rewriting and duplicating code and writing tons of glue to interface with everybody else's wacky project. Free speech is not equivalent to fragmentation. We can have unity *and* free speech. Mindless fragmentation under the banner of "free speech" is just going to drive this to irrelevancy.
There is also the sub-category of squad-leader type turn-based games, like XCOM and Jagged Alliance. I wouldn't mind seeing more of those. Jagged Alliance 2 would have been excellent if they got the artist from XCOM, and fixed all those *damn bugs* that keep the game hanged for 15 minutes while the enemy "thinks" about what he's going to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately I agree. Ok, maybe I'm not as K-l33t as hardcore linux advocates, but I don't think Linux is ready for my desktop, for a few simple reasons. One, which is not Linux's fault at all, is games. The second, though, is the most important: give me standards or give me death! I'm a Unix _user_. I'm also a programmer. I don't think I'm dumb. But what annoys me to *hell* is the apparent (perception, if you want) disorganization, and non-standardization of Linux. Ok, this is probably a flamebait rant...
Sure, this isn't the kernel...the kernel is a breeze to recompile and modify...it's a joy. But the file system, the programs, are like somebody just dumped their totally messy desk overflowing with papers into your computer. How many damn formats and names of configuration files that need to be hand-edited are there? Where are they? How many damn binaries whose purpose are completely undecipherable are hiding in wierd places symbolically linked from some other strange place. How many different packaging mechanisms are there? Administration utilities? Things that can only be done by bizarre scripts that break when you install something new?
Maybe I'm just anal, and maybe I just don't have enough experience with it yet, but there is just too much damn stuff to try to cram into your head just to use the system. I mean, DOS and Windows suck ass, but at least I *understand* how they suck...it fits completely within my head - I know what each system file does and where it is and how they interact, and how brain-dead certain things are. Given any random Linux system and it's a Sherlock novel to try to figure out what the hell is going on. I mean, sure, the system works pretty well, whether or not you understand the arcane steps you are undertaking...but I'm just one of those people who *requires* themselves to understand what's going on. And I can't stand using a system that I don't comprehend.
Sure, this is probably not such an indictment of Linux as a whole...probably I just need to give it more time and everything will magically fall into place. But an ideal system would make sense from the start, and wouldn't give you hundreds of redundant and/or conflicting options or ways to do the same mundane thing.
Hopefully I put a non-luddite perspective on this. I'm not the elitest hacker, but I can recompile the kernel and applications, and administer servers etc. I'm just totally jaded at the apparent (whether it's real or not, that is the perception a new user gets) lack of standardization and clear ways to do things.
Or maybe I'm just overly disgruntled by wasting a week putting Linux on this Thinkpad (finally succeeded).
Somebody please tell me they work nine to five. I feel *guilty* when I do. I almost wish I could be paid on some sort of contractual basis, because 90% of my work is done in sporadic 20% of my time, and the rest of my time is spent lazing about reading slashdot and feeling guilty.
Right now I don't even think the issue is the right of music fans to music. I'm sure every artists on earth is *gladly* trying to get people to listen to their music. The issue is control and power. Right now Napster is just acting as a digital surrogate of the record company middlemen controlling distribution. It's just a horizontal shift in power - the artists haven't gained anything. Digital media should be empowering artists. Before record companies had all the power. Now Napster, and the fans have a lot of power. My point is that we should realize that while this free ride is great, that it is our *responsibility* to give some of that power back to the artists to which it belongs. Sure, fans have some sort of say, I think, and at least some conceptual level of "ownership", but right now where hogging all the power because free stuff is cool. Give the power back to the artists, not Napster, not the record companies.
(see my other posts)
If Napster is not currently doing anything illegal, it is at the very least doing something very morally questionable and shady, and if anything at least shouldn't be supported as vocally as a lot of us do. If anything it is standing idly by while it figures out how it can make money of this (but not currently making money from it doesn't make it good). See my other posts, including:2 21&cid=215
5 1221&cid=44
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/08/18/1351
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/08/18/13
I think we all have a libertarian streak through us, but I for one don't oppose (sensible) gun control. Libertarianism is fine and good but taken to extremes it is just plain irresponsible.
No matter how much you think it is, society doesn't exist to be "fair". People *are* liable for the effects of products they create even if it is not strictly their fault. Software is a loaded example because that goes straight to the free speech issue. Remember, society is a shared host that *grants* people privelages. It's not a free ride for people to abandon all conscience. That's why we have laws on the porno industry. Is *that* "fair"? Free speech right? We have laws on tobacco. Is *that* "fair"? Is it their fault if idiots smoke and then are surprised they have cancer (well, besides the fact that someone might believe them when they lie and say it is safe)? There are laws regarding safe toys. Is *that* fair? After all, people should not buy products that are unsafe, right?
The answer is that "fairness" is the wrong question. The question is not whether it is fair, but whether it has a bad or good effect on society. We have all sorts of "unfair" sin taxes, but that's the price of the privelages the society grants you.
That said, YES I think a lot of the control on things like software is just downright stupid and brainless. But there is a reason we have such tendencies to "unfairness".
IANAEconomist, but there are essentially two types of value: physical value of an object, which consists of the value of the items it is composed of, and the effort put into creating it; use value of the object, which is how useful the object is, or how much people want to use it.
With the internet, everything is infinately copyable, so the "physical value" goes approaches zero. You have the initial cost of creation, but that is divided infinately as people copy it.
The record industry is in the business of selling you physical value. A CD is a physical thing. They want you to think you are buying music, but you are really buying a plastic disc that they want you to think is worth ~$17. This is why they are very afraid of having to cut out entirely the physical value of music - that would cut ~90% of their profit.
And about supply and demand...it almost works in the opposite way in an economy of plenty (or infinity as digital media is). The more you copy a resource, often the *more* demand there is for it, due to the network effect.
Well, they'll "do fine" when they realize they *provide a service to artists* and not that artists provide a service to *them*. I think the recording industry can still make money with recording studies, equipment, promotion, etc. They know how to do that. But they shouldn't exploit artists as if they were strawberry pickers.
You can. Your cd player is a physical object that only one person can have in their possession at any time. So are your CDs. So you *can* share your CDs in exactly the same sense you share your cd player. Just lend them.
I'd bet that when "infringements are brought to their attention" the phone company does a lot more than Napster in aiding the removal of those people.
Yeah, everybody who makes it big is a "sellout". Which puts a stigma on really decent artists that hit big but are afraid of being called sell outs.
Yes, short of copyright law, Metallica doesn't and shouldn't have control over what you do with the music you buy after you buy it. However, not only does Metallica give up that control, but, unless Lars handed you the CD himself, Metallica has *already* given up control by allowing record companies to distribute their music. That CD has filtered through a lot of middlemen before it ended up on the shelves for $17.49. This control, control of what happens *before* it leaves their hands, should not have to be given up. And Napster is no better. It undermines control of how Metallica represents and distributes its music before it reaches your hands. At best, power is shifting slightly from the record companies to Napster...and now they are in talks for joint efforts. So no real power is being granted to the artist by Napster. That should be on our conscience, and we should do the right thing by giving artists that control back.
I would like to see a world in which artists have the freedom to decide how to create, distribute (up to the point it leaves their hands), and promote their music. I would like to see a world in which artists use the *services* of the recording industry (equipment, advertising), but are still in control. And I would like to see a world in which there are mechanisms for honest people to compensate artists for the work they create. Where artists put music on their *own* servers and attract people themselves.
I don't see Napster promoting this world. As far as I know Napster has no compensation mechanisms, or even promotes it. At best Napster is standing idly by, playing off the all to easily supported image of being a saint, while it figures out how it can make money of this.
Just because Napster uses nifty technology we like doesn't mean it's the Right Thing. In a world where information is infinately copyable, one must rely on fostering the goodwill of consumers and fans towards the content providers, and providing convenient mechanism for compensation. I don't think Napster does this. Napster just seems to me a feeding frenzy for people who want a free ride. It takes control away from artists who want to participate and have control over the way they give or sell their music.
To copy a line from Nader who copied it from Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power". Napster undermines artists' power. And while we consumers looking for free rides love the "power" we are given, it is our *responsibility* to give a fair share back to the creators of the content.
For the record, I think space-shifting and my.mp3.com is totally valid and fair use.
Some people also use it to obtain copies of music that they would otherwise have bought on CD.
And it is my contention that how they obtain this music should be determined by the artist. For instance the artist could set up a website with that new street corner performer service where people chuck some money in their pot.
I'm not sure if that is legal. Orrin Hatch asked if it would be legal to burn a copy for his wife in the Future of Digital Music hearing. Lending is different from copying because only one person has it. When you copy it then it's up to the copyright hold to determine whether or not you should be able to. If artists were in control they could simply say something like "Yeah, you can let a maximum of 5 friends copy it". That would solve the whole Napster problem without making artists look like assholes. I mean, really, if you are giving it to more than @5 people I think that's sort of crossing the line.
No, actually I haven't listened to any of their new albums. Yeah, I *guess* they could have sold out during that time. But it seems to me every band gets a little repetitive and rerun as time goes by (look at Aerosmith, my god).
Right...by explicitly and vocally supporting Napster, which is at least a shady operation itself, we are implicitly making artists the "enemy". Instead of protesting for-Napster, protest against-record-companies. Metallica is one case - but if they get bitten hard by this new "internet thang" what effect will that have on other artists? Perhaps they'll sign up with vampirous record companies instead of attempting to use the internet.
Napster may have some legal ground by completely disbanding conscience and not caring what goes through it's system...but that behavoir is far different than the ground breaking saint people make it out to be. Napster is not pro-artists. If anything it is neutral for the time being while it figures out how to make money of this.
I would like artists to throw off the shackles of the record industry. I think if they charged even a tiny fraction of what a CD costs, they could make money. Another side effect of this is that they could support each other by saying "Hey, if you like us, go check out these bands that influenced us". Since people would have a whole bunch of change in their pocket left over, they'd be more prone to buy new music. Behind every popular band are a dozen other little-known ones that don't make a cent.
yes yes yes...I don't mean their constitutionally granted free speech...just as I don't mean Napster is selling beer. You're right, control is the crux of the issue. Napster, legally or illegally is taking control from Metallica. But that is not enough: they are entering into illicit deals with record companies. My only point is that Metallica should be able to have control of what *gets out*. Once it's out, it's a matter of copyright law, but as it is, Napster is degrading their control over what's getting out. If Napster is short of illegal, it is still far from the saint people make it out to be. If you're going to protest, protest against the record companies, not against artists or for-Napster.
I don't see Napster as fair use. Fair use is not having a gigantic global swap meet to indiscriminantly infringe on copyright. Who the hell uses Napster for archival purposes? Or to play elsewhere? It's ludicrous. Napster is for sharing music. That in itself is not a bad thing. But when people systemically use the system to infringe on copyright, then I think Napster has *some* responsibility. Which is why they put up that disclaimer. If they were good samaritans they'd attempt to do a better job of policing people when infringements are brought to their attention. If it's not illegal itself it sure isn't playing nice.
Nothey prevents radio companies playing music they purchase. But nothing should prevent Metallica from deciding what *it* wants to release. Um, for instance, a draft of "I Disappear", maybe.
Buchanan opposes free trade for purely isolationist reasons. Nader opposes free trade because it sells out our own workers at the same time it is exploiting those in third world countries.
I'm not an isolationist. I think it is impossible and impractical to be an isolationist in such a global economy. However, I do oppose trade agreements that simply give free passes to global multinational corporations, with no regard to the responsibility to a nation's citizens.
Well, only insofar as "speech" is an action. Sure, you have to move your lips or press the "print" button. Buf it is not the action itself that has relevance. Free speech is more than moving of lips. On the other hand, murdering somebody is not much more than commiting a violent physical act on them.
dumbass, finish sarcasm school before you post next time
IANAL. I stand corrected (wish I could mod my own post down). I'm surprised he didn't question the constitutionality of this law, because he seemed to be rather "with it" in the transcripts I read.
The problem is, nowadays *everybody* is (or thinks they are) ridden with existential post-modern teenage angst. There is something wrong, but they can't quite figure it out. So the easiest thing is to "protest". Protest what? Anything. Everything. Who cares? It gives meaning. Like the idiots who threw rocks over the fence at the police at the DNC, inciting them to rampage over the majority of *peaceful* *innocent* protesters there. Like anarchists dressed in black just to incite trouble (if it isn't *just* to incite trouble, it is at least an obvious and deliberate effect).
I get angry when the mindless bleating of wannabees overpowers the real issues that real protesters are attempting to make. For instance, like Lars here. I'm sick of hearing every johnny come lately ripping Metallica because it's the cool thing to do. Metallica has a point that some don't have the attention span to consider. Metallica is not anti-fan. Metallica is not pro-corporation. Metallica is not a sellout and corporate whore. Metallica wants one thing that we would otherwise be championing here on Slashdot: *artist control of their own music*. Metallica's point is not that Napster is inherently wrong, or that technology should be banned. Their point is that *they* should be able to decide what they want to do with their music. Not big record companies. Not Napster. And this isn't even about copyright infringement or "lost revenue". Metallica freely allows bootlegging. The problem is that with all our shouting about how Napster is the David to the record industries goliath, we have forgotten that the *artists* are the David to *everybody*. Napster is a great service. Gnutella is a great technology. Metallica's contention is that they, as the artist, should choose how they want to interact with their fans. And they only sued Napster to raise this issue. Just like Metallica should be able to decide what songs of theirs radio stations play, and what image they portray, they should be able to self-determine how they want to interact with their fans. Don't lump artists in with the record companies and Napster as the lone hero. It's the other way around. Napster is entering in exclusive deals with the record companies to jointly exploit artists.
Stop and think about what you're shouting about. Think about *who* you really support (I'm guessing you are pro-[your favorite band] not pro-[free music, gimme!]). While it tastes great, Naptster's free beer (music for free) is blocking Metallica's free speech (self-determination on what and how they express themselves to fans). I think the artists know just a little bit what they're talking about. Get behind them.
*yawn* ok let me address this on a political level (because that's where free speech resides). We only gain rights by restriction. I have the right to pursue happiness because others are restricted from infringing on that, and I am restricted upon infringing on others. I have the right to liberty, until I commit a crime at which point I am jailed. More appropriately, I have the right to use, and modify GPLed code, because others are restricted from withholding it from me (and vice versa). So we gain rights by restrictions. What does this mean as far as technical standards? Well when a (good) standard is enforced, it "frees" everybody to do whatever they want *under* that standard. A window manager spec frees implementors to do whatever they *want* as long as they comply. I think the reason that an decent X desktop has been stagnant for so long is that without standards (laws) people were free to step all over each other, duplicate work, waste time, etc. A "single, unified desktop layer" *would* allow people to more freely do what they want without tediously rewriting and duplicating code and writing tons of glue to interface with everybody else's wacky project. Free speech is not equivalent to fragmentation. We can have unity *and* free speech. Mindless fragmentation under the banner of "free speech" is just going to drive this to irrelevancy.
There is also the sub-category of squad-leader type turn-based games, like XCOM and Jagged Alliance. I wouldn't mind seeing more of those. Jagged Alliance 2 would have been excellent if they got the artist from XCOM, and fixed all those *damn bugs* that keep the game hanged for 15 minutes while the enemy "thinks" about what he's going to do.