The bug certainly doesn't affect my OS8.6 Mac running IE5, but (obviously) it works in IE5 in Virtual PC 3.
God, I hate Microsoft. They have feature sets I find really useful that other apps can only dream of (Office 98 vs Appleworks 6...), and then they screw it all up with these bugs... Aaarrgghhhhh!!!
Look, can we stop hiding behind the smokescreen of "well, it *could* be used legally"? We all know what Napster is for. I know I'm quoting others here, but:
1. If you use Napster, it is extremely likely (>99.99%) that you are trading in illegal MP3s.
2. How the hell are you supposed to search for unknown music with a title search? Come on: if you're reading this, name me 5 unsigned bands whose music is on Napster, and whose music you can't get perfectly easily (probably more easily) from mp3.com, or other providers of that nature.
The amount of legal use Napster gets is vanishingly small - I think we can all accept that. As such, we should stop all this crap about it technically being legal, and start condemning it for being what it is: a tool specifically designed for illegal copying.
It's illegal for anyone except a bonafide locksmith to own certain lockpicking tools, even though you might want to own those tools to get into your own house if you've forgotten your key. Why should Napster be any different?
Re:Don't worry about it, Napster's a different iss
on
MP3.com Loses In Court
·
· Score: 1
That's a great shame. I think that Napster is an awful program and some way should be found to stop it, whereas mymp3.com was actually useful and (at least in spirit) legal.
Just think of Napster for a minute: tens of thousands of people are copying illegal MP3s with a program designed for the purpose. How can anyone actually use this program and still feel morally in the right (I don't mean morally in a religious sense here, just in a life philosophy way)? OK, some artists/record companies make too much money out of us. But that still isn't really an excuse.
Can we *please* have some sensible discussion on Napster. It's *not* about free speech guys, it's about people saving money on CDs and thus cheating artists out of the money they deserve for writing the stuff in the first place.
This post isn't meant to be inflammatory, just trying to bring some realism back into the/. world...
Personally I don't want to lash out the readies on a new hand-held. Nor do I want to spend a couple of hours waiting for it to recharge before taking it anywhere. Nor do I want to peer at a nasty low-res LCD screen.
Nor, of course, do I want my manual to be tied to my normal desktop computer.
WTF's wrong with printed manuals anyway? Sure, they save the manufacturer a bit of money, but the recycled paper boom (etc) is making it basically environmentally sound to print. And even text on a 96dpi screen (or 72dpi on my Mac) pales in comparison to a decent 300dpi printed volume. Sure, provide electronics for searching, but not as a replacement...
Yeah, it's probably the fairest, although you could (if you *were* mean) probably get a higher price by gazumping a couple of companies off against each other privately.
Slashdot Mirror
The bug certainly doesn't affect my OS8.6 Mac running IE5, but (obviously) it works in IE5 in Virtual PC 3.
God, I hate Microsoft. They have feature sets I find really useful that other apps can only dream of (Office 98 vs Appleworks 6...), and then they screw it all up with these bugs... Aaarrgghhhhh!!!
Look, can we stop hiding behind the smokescreen of "well, it *could* be used legally"? We all know what Napster is for. I know I'm quoting others here, but:
1. If you use Napster, it is extremely likely (>99.99%) that you are trading in illegal MP3s.
2. How the hell are you supposed to search for unknown music with a title search? Come on: if you're reading this, name me 5 unsigned bands whose music is on Napster, and whose music you can't get perfectly easily (probably more easily) from mp3.com, or other providers of that nature.
The amount of legal use Napster gets is vanishingly small - I think we can all accept that. As such, we should stop all this crap about it technically being legal, and start condemning it for being what it is: a tool specifically designed for illegal copying.
It's illegal for anyone except a bonafide locksmith to own certain lockpicking tools, even though you might want to own those tools to get into your own house if you've forgotten your key. Why should Napster be any different?
That's a great shame. I think that Napster is an awful program and some way should be found to stop it, whereas mymp3.com was actually useful and (at least in spirit) legal.
/. world...
Just think of Napster for a minute: tens of thousands of people are copying illegal MP3s with a program designed for the purpose. How can anyone actually use this program and still feel morally in the right (I don't mean morally in a religious sense here, just in a life philosophy way)? OK, some artists/record companies make too much money out of us. But that still isn't really an excuse.
Can we *please* have some sensible discussion on Napster. It's *not* about free speech guys, it's about people saving money on CDs and thus cheating artists out of the money they deserve for writing the stuff in the first place.
This post isn't meant to be inflammatory, just trying to bring some realism back into the
Personally I don't want to lash out the readies on a new hand-held. Nor do I want to spend a couple of hours waiting for it to recharge before taking it anywhere. Nor do I want to peer at a nasty low-res LCD screen.
Nor, of course, do I want my manual to be tied to my normal desktop computer.
WTF's wrong with printed manuals anyway? Sure, they save the manufacturer a bit of money, but the recycled paper boom (etc) is making it basically environmentally sound to print. And even text on a 96dpi screen (or 72dpi on my Mac) pales in comparison to a decent 300dpi printed volume. Sure, provide electronics for searching, but not as a replacement...
Although this is the company who's ex director recovered from parkinsons after being let out of gaol early on grounds of ill health...
I think it was Alzheimers, wasn't it? Anyway, not that important.
Personally I think the artist should have won.
Yeah, it's probably the fairest, although you could (if you *were* mean) probably get a higher price by gazumping a couple of companies off against each other privately.
Auctioning sounds good, though.