Recording a song from the radio would not have had as high a quality transmission, and so it is not the same object. Strike one.
Recording it from the TV has the same drawback. Strike two.
Um, have you actually listened to mp3 as 128k?(which is what 90% of the stuff on the net is) It also sucks.
With the advent of Digital TV and Radio, quality is set to improve. Counter Strike 1+2:)
Also, don't patronize me about understanding when I create stuff. I write shareware software in my spare time. And I don't care when people rip it off, they weren't going to buy it anyway. I have plenty of legitimate customers who pay for much more than the software. (Support, printed manuals etc...) Same goes for CDs. People buy them because they sound better than mp3s, because they like to have a nice case with all the artwork and shit to stack on their collection... And in a new story on slashdot right now Bon Jovi is offering prioriy ticket sales to legitimate customers!
Is there any other legal way for you to have acquired that object?
Yes, he could have recorded it from the radio, tv, copied his friends CD... all of which are legal.
Downloading an mp3 should be no different, if people want to sample music before committing to spend $10+ on an album that could be full of crap, why should it be illegal?
They do sound A LOT better. If you don't believe me just talk to the people in alt.audio.dts
The problem is, as many people have pointed out the market is small because you need a decoder.
My point was though that we as consumers don't actually need any Super Audio CD Crap. The capacity on a regular CD is more than enough for high quality, multi-channel sound. Because of the excellent compression we have now compared to the 70s when the CD Audio standard was made.
Why doesn't someone NOT in the USA set up an AG like service? Then the RIAA, DMCA and all the corrupt politicians can't so much as touch it... Different country - different legislation.
I wonder how many customers will try the "Click and run" apps (Many popular opensource packages there) and decide that they are extremely happy with them, minimizing the need to install Winblows software.
But doesn't that defeat the point of using Lindows in the first place? I definitely think they should wait until it works and is stable before releasing it to the masses.
Making fun of the retarted kid down the block is wrong, but it is *not* illegal. If it was that would violate free speech.
In the same way I think child porn, virtual or otherwise is very wrong, and anyone who gets off on it should seek help. But it should not be illegal, because that would violate free speech also!
A nice simplified way to illustrate this is, to suppose my message is the number 5, binary 101.
I use a key of the same length, say, 6, or 111.
I then XOR these numbers together, and get, 010.
Given just the encrypted bits, to the cracker the original could be any combination of three bits.
Any number from 0 to 6 is just as likely as any other. Which leaves the cracker simply guessing random numbers, he might as well not have the encrypted bits, they are useless.
When we scale this model up, say with a plaintext of one megabyte, we have 2^(8388608) possible combinations, an massive number!
However in practise, it's not useful, if we have a way of transfering a key that size between the sender and the recipitent (securely), why bother encrypting the data in the first place?
Europe is not a country. It does not have citizens in the same way as the USA.
It will be up to the individual countries whether or not they cut themselves off from the rest of the world. But that won't happen.
If this law was passed, then the european court of human rights would no longer protect free speech. And like I said it just will never, ever happen, there would be far too much opposition...
The analogy between 'copyright violation' and speeding does not hold up either.
Speeding kills people, 'copyright violation' does not. If anything it is more like free advertising. MS is just greedy if they expect every home user to shell out hundreds of dollars for the latest office suite. I totally agree that people using software for commercial purposes should pay, and if they don't and get caught they are fined. That's fine. But personal users are another matter entirely.
As for music, the artists don't care, it's the recording industry that's pissed because they are loosing their monopoly.
The solution I believe is that people should pay a sum, say $5 to the artist directly, if they download their mp3s. That way they make way more than they would from CD sales, which is what the record labels get paid for. (Distributing the music).
So to sum up:
Most people are honest. Therefore most people would do this, the artist would still get paid for their creation, the listener is happy and saves money and the RIAA can go fuck themselves over and accept that they have lost their monopoly!
Slashdot Mirror
It was modded down because he's not dead, its a persistent and obvious hoax.
Some ISPs have Windows 95 or Mac OS as part of their 'minimum requirements'.
It's legal to sell guns in the US. If you want to sell them with price tag of $0, [with popups;)] that's your business!
The PS2 can output DTS 5.1 in some games. (The decoder uses about 2% of the cpu, so not all games implement it.
The ones I am aware of are: SSX Tricky, NHL Ice Hockey and the soon to be released GTA4! There are probably many more.
"DVD, 5.1 Dolby Digital"
Actually, the PS2 can play DVD and supports Dolby and DTS.
It also supports DTS Interactive 5.1 surround sound. Which many audiophiles agree is much superior to dulby!
Recording a song from the radio would not have had as high a quality transmission, and so it is not the same object. Strike one.
Recording it from the TV has the same drawback. Strike two.
Um, have you actually listened to mp3 as 128k?(which is what 90% of the stuff on the net is) It also sucks.
With the advent of Digital TV and Radio, quality is set to improve.
Counter Strike 1+2
Also, don't patronize me about understanding when I create stuff. I write shareware software in my spare time. And I don't care when people rip it off, they weren't going to buy it anyway. I have plenty of legitimate customers who pay for much more than the software. (Support, printed manuals etc...) Same goes for CDs. People buy them because they sound better than mp3s, because they like to have a nice case with all the artwork and shit to stack on their collection... And in a new story on slashdot right now Bon Jovi is offering prioriy ticket sales to legitimate customers!
Yes, he could have recorded it from the radio, tv, copied his friends CD... all of which are legal.
Downloading an mp3 should be no different, if people want to sample music before committing to spend $10+ on an album that could be full of crap, why should it be illegal?
HMV is based in the UK.
Yeah, I've got most of them.
They do sound A LOT better. If you don't believe me just talk to the people in alt.audio.dts
The problem is, as many people have pointed out the market is small because you need a decoder.
My point was though that we as consumers don't actually need any Super Audio CD Crap. The capacity on a regular CD is more than enough for high quality, multi-channel sound. Because of the excellent compression we have now compared to the 70s when the CD Audio standard was made.
But you can already get 5.1 surround sound on regular CDs!
http://www.dtsonline.com/home/51music.pdf
This is obviously just an unnessesary upgrade to attempt to further restrict our fair use rights.
Why doesn't someone NOT in the USA set up an AG like service? Then the RIAA, DMCA and all the corrupt politicians can't so much as touch it... Different country - different legislation.
But doesn't that defeat the point of using Lindows in the first place? I definitely think they should wait until it works and is stable before releasing it to the masses.
It is possible to swap non copyrighted Mp3s!
That's what AG is technically for.
Last I checked, Gore was elected, but Bush is president.
Sound's more like a dictatorship to me.
I bet netmar would censor you hosted copyrighted material...
I disagree,
Making fun of the retarted kid down the block is wrong, but it is *not* illegal. If it was that would violate free speech.
In the same way I think child porn, virtual or otherwise is very wrong, and anyone who gets off on it should seek help. But it should not be illegal, because that would violate free speech also!
A nice simplified way to illustrate this is, to suppose my message is the number 5, binary 101.
I use a key of the same length, say, 6, or 111.
I then XOR these numbers together, and get, 010.
Given just the encrypted bits, to the cracker the original could be any combination of three bits.
Any number from 0 to 6 is just as likely as any other. Which leaves the cracker simply guessing random numbers, he might as well not have the encrypted bits, they are useless.
When we scale this model up, say with a plaintext of one megabyte, we have 2^(8388608) possible combinations, an massive number!
However in practise, it's not useful, if we have a way of transfering a key that size between the sender and the recipitent (securely), why bother encrypting the data in the first place?
What you are saying will never happen.
Europe is not a country. It does not have citizens in the same way as the USA.
It will be up to the individual countries whether or not they cut themselves off from the rest of the world. But that won't happen.
If this law was passed, then the european court of human rights would no longer protect free speech. And like I said it just will never, ever happen, there would be far too much opposition...
Good point, although some content is a bit too 'specialised' to make money off just the commercials. ;)
"What makes Mandrake popular?"
Its piss easy to install
I write shareware software, but I don't really care that assholes like yourself rip me off, because it's not a lost sale.
I can understand pirating it for 'evaluation'. Hell I would never buy something without knowing exactly what I am getting.
You would never pay for software, even when you find it useful. Low lives like you would steal from defenseless old ladies given the opportunity.
The analogy between 'copyright violation' and speeding does not hold up either.
Speeding kills people, 'copyright violation' does not. If anything it is more like free advertising. MS is just greedy if they expect every home user to shell out hundreds of dollars for the latest office suite. I totally agree that people using software for commercial purposes should pay, and if they don't and get caught they are fined. That's fine. But personal users are another matter entirely.
As for music, the artists don't care, it's the recording industry that's pissed because they are loosing their monopoly.
The solution I believe is that people should pay a sum, say $5 to the artist directly, if they download their mp3s. That way they make way more than they would from CD sales, which is what the record labels get paid for. (Distributing the music).
So to sum up:
Most people are honest. Therefore most people would do this, the artist would still get paid for their creation, the listener is happy and saves money and the RIAA can go fuck themselves over and accept that they have lost their monopoly!
Idealism? Maybe...
If you turn off flash then tha page won't display at all. (I'm using Opera 6.0).
This is bad, does anybody know how to make the page display without the add appearing?
Star Office converts tables fine into text documents and spreadsheets (Only from IE though, Opera and Netscape only copy the text info).
But anyway, Star Office is definitley not all that far behind MS Office, and I haven't ran into compatability issues yet. Plus it's free.