How do you know xnu will remain closed? Other than the fact there hasn't been a xnu release *yet* on Intel in the 10.4.x Intel tree, this is what Apple has officially said on the topic. I'll agree wholeheartedly that xnu on Intel is closed *now*, but every other traditionally open source Darwin component is still open on PowerPC and Intel, including xnu on PowerPC. Since Leopard will be Universal (i.e., won't have two trees like 10.4.x does), might we not wait for the huge developer conference that's happening in less than two weeks time to see what's going on?
OpenDarwin has nothing to do with Darwin. OpenDarwin was not run or hosted by Apple. It was a completely separate, third-party project (though some folks from Apple participated).
Apple's open source code sharing happens here, on Apple's own site. Everything in Darwin source that's ever been open still is open, on PowerPC *and* Intel, with *one* exception: the kernel (xnu) on the Intel platform. And here's the facts on xnu on Intel.
Might there not be, oh, I don't know, a huge Apple developer conference coming up in less than two weeks where we might find out more information on this?
Madison, WI, for one thing (and that's not even a big city): Alliant Energy and MG&E. Also, we can get multiple feeds from different plants from the same supplier.
I can't speak for other people, but I guarantee you these people didn't "buy the software"...because there's no way to buy a standalone copy of Mac OS X (Intel). And I don't buy for a second the contrived sophistry of saying "what if I bought an Intel-based Mac, formatted the drive, use only Linux on it, and wanted to use that copy of Mac OS X (Intel) on my Gateway". Puh-lease. Yeah, "what if?" Except the person didn't asking didn't do that; they pirated Mac OS X. The answer also isn't "well, Apple doesn't sell it standalone, so I have no choice but to pirate it." Give me a break. Also, some people might more reasonably claim they bought (or have) a standalone copy of Mac OS X (PowerPC), and then are pirating Mac OS X (Intel) but feel they're entitled because they bought (or have) a copy of Mac OS X somewhere. Again, bullshit argument: it's not the same product, and if Apple even sold Mac OS X (Intel), it might be for considerably more than what Apple sells the PowerPC standalone version for. The point is, no matter what arguments people make, they're still pirating Mac OS X, EULA or no.
As for the PS 2 argument, if you somehow got a PS 2 emulator to work using NO Sony information whatsoever, I can't imagine that Sony would have any leg to stand on. In fact, exactly that was done with a Playstation emulator, and the maker of the emulator won. Well, "won" in that the courts decided in their favor, and Sony bought the product from them. This is not the same thing: someone is pirating Mac OS X and coming up with all kinds of reasoning processes to justify it to themselves, all of which are bullshit. It's pretty simple.
I'll grant this will get murkier when Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) comes, because it will be universal for PowerPC and Intel in one retail box, and if people buy it, I guess I don't have any fundamental problems with the "I bought it so I should be able to do whatever I want to it" crowd, though there's certainly the element of at least recognizing that, at that price point, Apple doesn't *intend* for it to be used that way, and further, will be used in a hacked state that, rightly or wrongly, may ultimately reflect poorly on Apple. Also, any arguments that it might win converts to the Mac are bogus, however correct they may be - Apple must have SOME standing as the creators of the product to determine its distribution and use, no?
How do you feel about pirating Mac OS X in order to do this? Or do you justify it by saying that you *would* buy it if Apple sold it, but they don't, so you have no choice? (And what if Apple's pricepoint for selling it on NON-Apple hardware was, say, $399? Would that be "too high", so you'd still have to pirate it?)
What about Apple's Mac OS X license agreement, which specifically says it is only to be installed on Apple hardware? Appropriate that you should say "10.4.6". What, the Russian hackers that hack OS X for non-Apple hardware haven't gotten around to doing 10.4.7 yet? Are you comfortable running Mac OS X in an unsupported and un-updateable state with a modified kernel? Do you think Apple deserves any remuneration for the billions of dollars and countless manhours it's put into developing Mac OS X as a product?
So how have you reconciled running Mac OS X on your Gateway laptop considering that:
- It's against Apple's license agreement for Mac OS X to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hadrware (I know some people don't care about the license agreement at all), - There is no way to purchase a standalone copy of Mac OS X (Intel), meaning it must be pirated (and no, I don't believe people are buying Intel-based Macs and then "retiring" the Mac OS X license from it completely and using only Linux on their Intel-based Macs, and Mac OS X on their non-Apple hardware), - Running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware requires running it in a terribly hacked and un-updateable (at least via Software Update under most circumstances) state, with a kernel modified in an unknown fashion, - Apple has invested billions of dollars and tens of thousands of manhours into the development and support of Mac OS X, which is designed to promote the sale of Apple products, and pirating it and using it on non-Apple hardware kind of flies in the face of that?
Hopefully at least ONE of the above causes a moment of thought in at least some people here...
1) There are many file formats, including some lossless.
2) Um, yes, I have "evidence" of this. They don't own that content, period. And please, please, please, for the love of God, stop using the tiresome deprivation and "not really theft/taking/stealing" arguments. Whatever euphemism you want to use to justify it, they're still something-ing (where "something" is whatever variant of "taking", "copying", or whatever, that you wish to use) content that doesn't belong to them, and selling it. If you think that's perfectly fine and think that we should have an environment where anything that CAN be copied SHOULD be copied, ad infinitum, with no repercussions and that no one who creates original content, whether it be words, music, movies, video, or anything else, should be able to control that content if it can be effortlessly duplicated, we're probably not going to see eye to eye here. Believe it or not, there is a balance with copyright.
I put "stealing" in quotes in my post for a reason. Christ, the way you fuckers insist it be called "copyright infringement" or "nonauthorized duplication" stinks of PC in the vein of "undocumented migrants" and "differently abled" to high heavens.
I fully understand the deprivation argument, thanks. And you ARE depriving them of something: the ability to sell and control their product, their creation, as they see fit. You act is if just because something can be copied nearly effortlessly, it should be, and indeed, MUST be, for the good of all humanity.
AllOfMP3.com "sells" pristine digital lossless copies of pretty much anything you want for prices like $1.40 for a full album.
That's the "business model" people think is so great, to which I was mockingly referring. It's not a "business model"; it's a bunch of people with no costs taking things that aren't theirs, and "selling" them. Yeah, great "business model".
I'm not saying that things like peer-to-peer networking or file sharing mechanisms should be outlawed, and never did. I don't care about those tools.
But what about people who use those, or any other, tools en masse to distribute something to which they don't have rights? This isn't about BitTorrent being made illegal or The Pirate Bay being shut down.
How should copyright owners be able to assert that right of distribution, as you note they should have? What if they (perhaps "they" here is a complicated network of record labels, trade groups, distribution companies, and so on) decide to use "DRM" to attempt to protect their work? What if the government, for whatever reason, recognizes the value of such protections, and makes circumventing such protections illegal? HOW, precisely, do the content owners maintain distribution rights and control over their own content if they have no teeth to do so?
And speaking of The Pirate Bay, any legal use is incidental. Its main purpose is to act as a hub for the dissemination of information that results in people being able to obtain copyrighted works. I could really care less if the act of "file sharing" or whatever euphemism people want to use is legal in its host country; if it is, then it should only be able to be used there. But oops, people all over the world can easily and quickly use it. How is that okay or allowable, in a model where you say that copyright holders should have distribution rights to their own work, which includes how much they'd like people to pay for it and how and via what mechanisms they can obtain it?
I love how there's always someone who will bring useless arguments like, "it's against the law", into a discussion about what the law should be.
I love how supposedly-intelligent people can't realize that at some level, at some point in time, members of a civilized society must have some acceptance of a system of laws and order, instead of just arbitrarily and indiscriminately breaking ones they personally disagree with, if there is to be any value to a legal system at all.
So, since all you could do was pick one thing I said (a reference to some infringement possibly breaking the law in some jurisdictions/nations), what's your solution? No copyright, and anything that can be copied digitally should always be free?
Misappropriating and/or "stealing" things that don't belong to you, or just flat out breaking the law (in some jurisdictions), is okay if in someone else's estimation it's actually "helping" them?
Brilliant!
Here's the problem: the new "business model" they talk about is that free music sometimes promotes something else (concerts, merchandise, or something new entirely). Ok, great. What if it's my music, and I don't want you to have it for free, regardless of how else it might "help" me? What if I've voluntarily signed on with a record label because I think that it's in my best interests (and no, I haven't been "brainwashed"), and that record label has a trade group that represents it, and what if the laws of my country support the protections of my creations?
I love how in the AllOfMP3.com story here recently, people talked about it as a new "business model" that the record labels and trade groups just hated. Um, huh? The Russian mob taking things that don't belong to them under the guise of a very weak argument that they can do it under radio license rules (which are designed, ironically, to get people to BUY the content, not as the mechanism for people to permanently obtain pristine digital copies) and selling them for 1/10 or 1/20 of what they sell for via legitimate channels is a "business model"? I guess if you don't believe that anyone should be able to "own" content like that, ever, and that the "legitimate" distribution channels are nothing more than a state-sponsored and -backed mob, ok.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that the the content owners might need to sell the content for 2 or 5 or 10 times more than AllOfMP3.com does to actually support the industry? If your answer is "no, they don't need all these ungodly rich Britney Spears types" etc., and should be able to sell it for just the costs of bandwidth, who the hell are YOU to decide that? Chances are, some of their promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing, and production is what made a particular artist - the popular ones people often pirate - desirable in the first place. And how is it even an argument that, essentially, you can "steal"/copy something on your own and get it for cheaper, and if it's more expensive than some arbitrary value you've set in your head, it's okay to just take?
But why is the anti-copyright argument always the one touted here?
And for those in the "copyright is bad on works that can be effortlessly copied in the digital realm", consider that "art for art's sake" isn't the end-all be-all argument, either. Have you ever considered that since economics isn't a zero-sum game, that there are millions of people who have indirectly benefited economically from the industries that have sprung up around, support, and are supported by, music, television, books, and movies?
I'm not saying the trade groups aren't out for control, and maybe even aren't greedy baby-eating bastards. But this isn't binary opposition: it's not RIAA-like "thuggery", or no ownership rights at all. Where's the middle ground? And no, I'm not saying copyright should be perpetual and infinite, either. But can we ignore A.A. Milne's shit that's 75 years old for a minute as an arguing point, and talk about what's really at issue, which is brand new, current, and popular music and movies?
Ah...there are quite many references to Qualye and "tomatoe" when I searched, so I assumed that must have been the one. But, indeed, there are more references to the actual "potatoe" incident.
There are still problems with that line of reasoning: the artist entered an agreement in good faith with their own record company. Part of that good faith agreement is that the record company will have a series of agreements that allow for distribution internationally, and management by partners, subsidiaries, and/or other trade groups in other countries. If you disagree with that system, that's fine. I guess you can "revolt" against it. But wouldn't revolting against it compromise something more than buying music you personally like from a web site run by the Russian mob?
And to your last point, yes, of course they don't have the right to obtain what they ask for. But then you don't get to just take it, or buy it from someone who took it from them. I'm really not trying to be an ass, here, but do you even remotely see where I'm coming from?
Please note that I don't particularly like the big trade groups either. Many things they do are all about control (then again, that's their job). But there are gray areas here. It's not as if the artists are helpless, they get nothing, and everything any record label does above some arbitrary size is "wrong".
When effortless digital reproduction came along, it wasn't that anyone's "business model" failed. It's not that simplistic. The digital world represented new technologies that made certain things easier, but easy doesn't always equal right. In a world where content that someone's invested millions in can be appropriated for nothing by teenagers, why don't you think they'd try to protect it? If the answer is that trying to protect it is wrong, then should they just close up shop?
I wouldn't have nearly as many problems with these arguments if it weren't for the fact that all of the ultra-popular US artists and bands are up on AllOfMP3.com...the very artists who wouldn't exist, in that form, if it weren't for the business model of the system that people apparently think "failed". If you want them to close up shop and everyone should just be independent, fine. But those arists still should have control. And those artists might have agents who act on their behalf. And companies. And maybe even companies that have agreements with other companies in other nations. At what point does it become "okay" for a third party to take their product and sell it for ten times less? Why can't anyone in that camp see anything wrong with that? It's almost as if it's a binary opposition, where someone things what the RIAA does is universally "wrong", and AllofMP3.com is "right", and there's no in-bewteen.
Sure, you can "argue" that. But the radio licensing and laws were set up as they were, and agreed to by trade groups representing content owners, because people can't hear what they want on-demand, know exactly what songs are coming up, keep the songs permanently in pristine digital format that is identical to the source content when it was created in the mastering suite, and so on. If that's what the radio license meant, no content owner ever would have agreed with it. And one nation or entity operating within a nation (I don't really care if it's Russia, or whomever) shouldn't be able to make value judgments on content they don't own for the rest of the world. If they want to make it for their own society, fine. To make an extremely crude example, suppose murder is legal (or ignored) in a nation-state called Pluckistan in the world of Foo. Suppose Yuckistan is next door to Pluckistan, but has laws that prohibit murder. Should someone in Pluckistan be able to murder someone across the border in Yuckistan with no repercussions? Sure, you might say "yes...what can they do?". Sooner or later, pressure from Yuckistan - maybe in the form of not letting them buy some of Pluckistan's good Ales - might change the situation. Or, if Pluckistan's actions hurt to many people, there might be greater consequences, especially if many others in the world agree. What you see happening in the UK now is essentially the same.
None of that $200 would have gone to the artists anyways, it all goes to the RIAA mafia.
Wrong. The RIAA is a trade group that represents record labels. Record labels have legitimate contracts with artists who produce the product. Even if you refuse to acknowledge any legal frameworks that govern this, let's just say there's a "good faith agreement" between an artist and an entity that promises to advertise, promote, distribute, and manage a product. No guns, imagined or otherwise, were held to anyone's heads.
The Russian mob is providing better product, at a better price, than RIAA, who are merely the the government-approved mob in charge of the US music racket.
Wrong. They're not providing any product at all, save encoding CDs and running a web site. Their product doesn't belong to them by any definition I can think of, and even their feigned legality under the guise of radio licensing isn't convincing. Forget about the RIAA and the "mobs with bigger guns" for a moment: do the creators of a product, or their agents, have ANY rights to control how their product is sold, or for how much? Any at all?
I love how closed minded supposedly "open minded" people are.
...is how much they're charging. You say you'd still go with AllOfMP3 even if it cost 20 or 40 cents per track. Well, what if it cost 99 cents? What if the content owners felt that the losses they've internally calculated - no matter how right or wrong they actually are, or you think they are - means that they'd only sell DRMless music for $1.50 or $2 a track? Would you still go to it then?
That's the problem: AllOfMP3 is arbitrarily deciding prices so that it's profitable TO THEM, and using the questionable legality of a radio broadcasting model to do it. Whether that is a loophole or not beside the point, they're not the ones who get to decide what prices are. Their only costs are that of buying CDs, and running a web site. What about all of the costs involved on the production side of the music? What about the artist's rights? The label's rights? What about the basic right to ask for the compensation you choose for a service or product you provide? What about the massive costs associated with some of the "popular" artists on AllOfMP3.com. Whether you AGREE with those costs or not is irrelevant: they're there, and that artist is popular. Call it brainwashing the public if you will, but still, someone else doesn't have the right to decide that album should be sold for $1.42.
This isn't about "failing business models". I mean, you're talking about it like someone has found a way to "appropriate" (I won't say steal because of the implications for something that can be duplicated with no effort) new automobiles, and sells them for 1/10 or 1/20 of what the automaker sells them for, and then talking about it how it's such a great "business model". Have you ever considered that even with electronic sales at $1.40/album, it may not be enough to sustain their "business model"? You might then say, good riddance - new artists will come, etc etc etc. Except for the fact that people have made agreements in good faith, protected by longstanding societal frameworks that allow for the protections of these entities' (whether they may be artists, artists' agents, record labels, etc.) rights.
Further, and again, I realize this is complicated by the fact you can duplicate it with essentially no effort, why should the owner of said content not be able to sell it when, how, and for how much, they choose? Why is it up to a web site in Russia? Or to you? What, if ANY, rights do the owners have? Imagine the "owner" being able to be anything from Time Warner to an individual independent artist. Is people "stealing" your stuff just the cost of doing business? Maybe even a good thing for publicity?
This entire discussion is jaded and poisoned by the hatred of corporations, governments, copyright, and so on. I discussed some of the other issues here. But one thing's consistent: no one wants to acknowledge the owner's rights, because in their mind, the rights are illegitimate. They can't seem to piece together that from an individual artist, there might be a lot more people involved as they grow. Perhaps a group of people that provides a service or product, known as a "company". In this context, maybe a "record company". There might be a "contract" between said artist and company. There might be "advertising". It might be too big for him to burn CDs in his basement. There might be "production" and "distribution". Some of these companies may even have agreements with other companies that sell things. There might even be legal frameworks that protect all of these agreements and the ownership of original work.
The problem is, no one sees any gray areas. They just think that the big trade groups and labels are wrong morally, trumpet about things like "making shareholders richer", and then go to a Russian web site to download the CD of that very artist for one fifteenth of what it's sold for in the US, with zero (or extremely minute amounts designed for radio licensing, which, ironically, is designed to get people to BUY the content, not to be th
Most full albums are selling for less than $2. And it's the content owners that get to set prices, not a web site. That's the problem. And complex international legality and copyright issues aside, they don't really own the content - they're treating themselves as if they're a radio station that lets people download whatever they want, whenever they want, and keep it. This isn't really about "failing business models" or anything of the kind.
The real question is this, and try to answer it without muddying the waters with talk of copyrights and the thuggery of trade groups: when, how, and under what circumstances are the people who CREATE and/or OWN content allowed to set pricing on their own materials? Remember that record labels, however good or evil you think them, have legitimate ownership of the content within the bounds of society's frameworks on such matters. Other countries and jurisdictions may view the issue differently, but ultimately, there can't be entities that decide it's up to them to undercut others' rights.
Try to think of yourself as, say, and author, and a new Russian site called AllOfBook.com opens, and sells your book without your permission or that of your publisher for about 1/10 or 1/20 of what it sells for elsewhere. (Yes, I realize that AllOfMP3.com believes it has a license to do this legally, but that is arguably AT MOST valid only in Russia, besides which, let's just forget about that for a moment.) Is what they're doing right? Is that just part of the cost of doing business? "Oh well"? What if they also sold pre-printed hard copies of your book (the essentially equivalent of selling lossless DRMless audio content)? What inherent rights do you think you, or the people who help print, distribute, publicize, and sell your work, have to that work product? Can someone else take it because a legal interpretation in their country allows them to make that decision for you not only in their jurisdiction, but the entire world over?
Your point that you've spend money on music when you never have before is valid. But would you have spent as much if the full albums were $4? $8? $10? What if $2 isn't enough to sustain the current production models for music? I realize that there's this desire to say "change your business model, then!" or "they'll make up for it in volume, since this is electronic distribution!" But what if they DON'T WANT to sell it for $2? Isn't that their choice, and your choice to not buy it? Do you think AllOfMP3.com, aside from your PERSONAL opinions on the RIAA, BPI, etc., could exist in the US or EU legally? If not, why should people in those places be able to buy from it?
I suppose at some level you can always argue that you personall disagree with copyright, or with the big record labels and trade groups, or that artists are abused in the current system, or that politicians' hands are in the pockets of the industry, and so on and so on and so on.
But it still continues to ignore basic thing: even if you erase all that, do you still believe that the creator of a work should have some rights to that work, including the choice of how much to ask in return for that work?
If you say yes, then we're getting somewhere. If you say no, I don't think this discussion would prove fruitful.
But if you've said yes, consider:
- That a society's legal framework may offer protections for such work, and punishments for not following those guidelines.
- That an artist may elect to involve others in the distribution, sale, promotion, packaging, and so on, of his work, and that those entities may be entitled to protections and remuneration as well.
- That there may be agreements between nations that attempt to insure that such work isn't sold for orders of magnitude less than what the creator and/or their agents intends to sell it for.
I could, of course, continue. So I guess the ultimate question is this, and forget about all the trade groups, labels, posturing, "information wants to be free", and all the other crap that always swirls around this debate: does a creator have the right to ask what he or she so desires for compensation?
(And the followons: If so, what if a site like AllOfMP3.com is too low? Etc.)
1. Have you considered going into a T-Mobile store so they can't "hang up on you"?
2. I don't understand why they *would* "hang up on you", since you seem to have fairly reasonable records that you're receiving calls you didn't receive, and indeed, overlapping onto calls that you've made. Why would they think you're running a scam when you're asking questions about calls you didn't place on your bill?
3. Are you SURE your partner isn't really receiving these calls? I.e., have you been with him at known times when these alleged calls have come in?
...there's a printer friendly version with the entire article on one page, so you don't have to click through 458 different pages, each with its own half-sentence of the article on it.
1. Sounds like you have an axe to grind. Are you the "grungy 23 year old" in question?
2. Many people who aren't cops have friends who are cops. Or in the military. Or in other parts of government. And no, they're not all fat cats or co-conspirators. I know this may be hard for you to believe.
3. Police don't "hate" civilians. (WTF?)
4. "THEIR JESUS, THEIR POWER"? Uh, dude, I think you'd better hit your water bong again. Your paranoia is running a bit low.
Um, are you shitting me? Like, are you really serious?
We hear about this ALL THE FUCKING TIME, especially on the internet (e.g., blogs).
Constantly.
More than we ever have before, and more every day. And it's not because there are "more abuses"; there's more people hunting for and collecting evidence about said abuses. Some of these people do it out of genuine concern. Most of these people do it because their political leanings are crystal clear.
And you know what? There aren't really any more or less "abuses" than there ever have been; there are just much easier ways to spread the word. That's what makes people believe we're heading down the primrose path to a fascist state and all this other crap.
Technology cuts both ways: it makes it easier for the government to abuse rights and freedoms, and it makes it easier for everyone else to find out and call them on it.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know xnu will remain closed? Other than the fact there hasn't been a xnu release *yet* on Intel in the 10.4.x Intel tree, this is what Apple has officially said on the topic. I'll agree wholeheartedly that xnu on Intel is closed *now*, but every other traditionally open source Darwin component is still open on PowerPC and Intel, including xnu on PowerPC. Since Leopard will be Universal (i.e., won't have two trees like 10.4.x does), might we not wait for the huge developer conference that's happening in less than two weeks time to see what's going on?
OpenDarwin has nothing to do with Darwin. OpenDarwin was not run or hosted by Apple. It was a completely separate, third-party project (though some folks from Apple participated).
Apple's open source code sharing happens here, on Apple's own site. Everything in Darwin source that's ever been open still is open, on PowerPC *and* Intel, with *one* exception: the kernel (xnu) on the Intel platform. And here's the facts on xnu on Intel.
Might there not be, oh, I don't know, a huge Apple developer conference coming up in less than two weeks where we might find out more information on this?
Madison, WI, for one thing (and that's not even a big city): Alliant Energy and MG&E. Also, we can get multiple feeds from different plants from the same supplier.
I can't speak for other people, but I guarantee you these people didn't "buy the software"...because there's no way to buy a standalone copy of Mac OS X (Intel). And I don't buy for a second the contrived sophistry of saying "what if I bought an Intel-based Mac, formatted the drive, use only Linux on it, and wanted to use that copy of Mac OS X (Intel) on my Gateway". Puh-lease. Yeah, "what if?" Except the person didn't asking didn't do that; they pirated Mac OS X. The answer also isn't "well, Apple doesn't sell it standalone, so I have no choice but to pirate it." Give me a break. Also, some people might more reasonably claim they bought (or have) a standalone copy of Mac OS X (PowerPC), and then are pirating Mac OS X (Intel) but feel they're entitled because they bought (or have) a copy of Mac OS X somewhere. Again, bullshit argument: it's not the same product, and if Apple even sold Mac OS X (Intel), it might be for considerably more than what Apple sells the PowerPC standalone version for. The point is, no matter what arguments people make, they're still pirating Mac OS X, EULA or no.
As for the PS 2 argument, if you somehow got a PS 2 emulator to work using NO Sony information whatsoever, I can't imagine that Sony would have any leg to stand on. In fact, exactly that was done with a Playstation emulator, and the maker of the emulator won. Well, "won" in that the courts decided in their favor, and Sony bought the product from them. This is not the same thing: someone is pirating Mac OS X and coming up with all kinds of reasoning processes to justify it to themselves, all of which are bullshit. It's pretty simple.
I'll grant this will get murkier when Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) comes, because it will be universal for PowerPC and Intel in one retail box, and if people buy it, I guess I don't have any fundamental problems with the "I bought it so I should be able to do whatever I want to it" crowd, though there's certainly the element of at least recognizing that, at that price point, Apple doesn't *intend* for it to be used that way, and further, will be used in a hacked state that, rightly or wrongly, may ultimately reflect poorly on Apple. Also, any arguments that it might win converts to the Mac are bogus, however correct they may be - Apple must have SOME standing as the creators of the product to determine its distribution and use, no?
How do you feel about pirating Mac OS X in order to do this? Or do you justify it by saying that you *would* buy it if Apple sold it, but they don't, so you have no choice? (And what if Apple's pricepoint for selling it on NON-Apple hardware was, say, $399? Would that be "too high", so you'd still have to pirate it?)
What about Apple's Mac OS X license agreement, which specifically says it is only to be installed on Apple hardware? Appropriate that you should say "10.4.6". What, the Russian hackers that hack OS X for non-Apple hardware haven't gotten around to doing 10.4.7 yet? Are you comfortable running Mac OS X in an unsupported and un-updateable state with a modified kernel? Do you think Apple deserves any remuneration for the billions of dollars and countless manhours it's put into developing Mac OS X as a product?
So how have you reconciled running Mac OS X on your Gateway laptop considering that:
- It's against Apple's license agreement for Mac OS X to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hadrware (I know some people don't care about the license agreement at all),
- There is no way to purchase a standalone copy of Mac OS X (Intel), meaning it must be pirated (and no, I don't believe people are buying Intel-based Macs and then "retiring" the Mac OS X license from it completely and using only Linux on their Intel-based Macs, and Mac OS X on their non-Apple hardware),
- Running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware requires running it in a terribly hacked and un-updateable (at least via Software Update under most circumstances) state, with a kernel modified in an unknown fashion,
- Apple has invested billions of dollars and tens of thousands of manhours into the development and support of Mac OS X, which is designed to promote the sale of Apple products, and pirating it and using it on non-Apple hardware kind of flies in the face of that?
Hopefully at least ONE of the above causes a moment of thought in at least some people here...
Here it is!
1) There are many file formats, including some lossless.
2) Um, yes, I have "evidence" of this. They don't own that content, period. And please, please, please, for the love of God, stop using the tiresome deprivation and "not really theft/taking/stealing" arguments. Whatever euphemism you want to use to justify it, they're still something-ing (where "something" is whatever variant of "taking", "copying", or whatever, that you wish to use) content that doesn't belong to them, and selling it. If you think that's perfectly fine and think that we should have an environment where anything that CAN be copied SHOULD be copied, ad infinitum, with no repercussions and that no one who creates original content, whether it be words, music, movies, video, or anything else, should be able to control that content if it can be effortlessly duplicated, we're probably not going to see eye to eye here. Believe it or not, there is a balance with copyright.
I put "stealing" in quotes in my post for a reason. Christ, the way you fuckers insist it be called "copyright infringement" or "nonauthorized duplication" stinks of PC in the vein of "undocumented migrants" and "differently abled" to high heavens.
I fully understand the deprivation argument, thanks. And you ARE depriving them of something: the ability to sell and control their product, their creation, as they see fit. You act is if just because something can be copied nearly effortlessly, it should be, and indeed, MUST be, for the good of all humanity.
AllOfMP3.com "sells" pristine digital lossless copies of pretty much anything you want for prices like $1.40 for a full album.
That's the "business model" people think is so great, to which I was mockingly referring. It's not a "business model"; it's a bunch of people with no costs taking things that aren't theirs, and "selling" them. Yeah, great "business model".
I'm not saying that things like peer-to-peer networking or file sharing mechanisms should be outlawed, and never did. I don't care about those tools.
But what about people who use those, or any other, tools en masse to distribute something to which they don't have rights? This isn't about BitTorrent being made illegal or The Pirate Bay being shut down.
How should copyright owners be able to assert that right of distribution, as you note they should have? What if they (perhaps "they" here is a complicated network of record labels, trade groups, distribution companies, and so on) decide to use "DRM" to attempt to protect their work? What if the government, for whatever reason, recognizes the value of such protections, and makes circumventing such protections illegal? HOW, precisely, do the content owners maintain distribution rights and control over their own content if they have no teeth to do so?
And speaking of The Pirate Bay, any legal use is incidental. Its main purpose is to act as a hub for the dissemination of information that results in people being able to obtain copyrighted works. I could really care less if the act of "file sharing" or whatever euphemism people want to use is legal in its host country; if it is, then it should only be able to be used there. But oops, people all over the world can easily and quickly use it. How is that okay or allowable, in a model where you say that copyright holders should have distribution rights to their own work, which includes how much they'd like people to pay for it and how and via what mechanisms they can obtain it?
I love how there's always someone who will bring useless arguments like, "it's against the law", into a discussion about what the law should be.
I love how supposedly-intelligent people can't realize that at some level, at some point in time, members of a civilized society must have some acceptance of a system of laws and order, instead of just arbitrarily and indiscriminately breaking ones they personally disagree with, if there is to be any value to a legal system at all.
So, since all you could do was pick one thing I said (a reference to some infringement possibly breaking the law in some jurisdictions/nations), what's your solution? No copyright, and anything that can be copied digitally should always be free?
Misappropriating and/or "stealing" things that don't belong to you, or just flat out breaking the law (in some jurisdictions), is okay if in someone else's estimation it's actually "helping" them?
Brilliant!
Here's the problem: the new "business model" they talk about is that free music sometimes promotes something else (concerts, merchandise, or something new entirely). Ok, great. What if it's my music, and I don't want you to have it for free, regardless of how else it might "help" me? What if I've voluntarily signed on with a record label because I think that it's in my best interests (and no, I haven't been "brainwashed"), and that record label has a trade group that represents it, and what if the laws of my country support the protections of my creations?
I love how in the AllOfMP3.com story here recently, people talked about it as a new "business model" that the record labels and trade groups just hated. Um, huh? The Russian mob taking things that don't belong to them under the guise of a very weak argument that they can do it under radio license rules (which are designed, ironically, to get people to BUY the content, not as the mechanism for people to permanently obtain pristine digital copies) and selling them for 1/10 or 1/20 of what they sell for via legitimate channels is a "business model"? I guess if you don't believe that anyone should be able to "own" content like that, ever, and that the "legitimate" distribution channels are nothing more than a state-sponsored and -backed mob, ok.
Has it ever occurred to anyone that the the content owners might need to sell the content for 2 or 5 or 10 times more than AllOfMP3.com does to actually support the industry? If your answer is "no, they don't need all these ungodly rich Britney Spears types" etc., and should be able to sell it for just the costs of bandwidth, who the hell are YOU to decide that? Chances are, some of their promotion, advertising, distribution, marketing, and production is what made a particular artist - the popular ones people often pirate - desirable in the first place. And how is it even an argument that, essentially, you can "steal"/copy something on your own and get it for cheaper, and if it's more expensive than some arbitrary value you've set in your head, it's okay to just take?
But why is the anti-copyright argument always the one touted here?
And for those in the "copyright is bad on works that can be effortlessly copied in the digital realm", consider that "art for art's sake" isn't the end-all be-all argument, either. Have you ever considered that since economics isn't a zero-sum game, that there are millions of people who have indirectly benefited economically from the industries that have sprung up around, support, and are supported by, music, television, books, and movies?
I'm not saying the trade groups aren't out for control, and maybe even aren't greedy baby-eating bastards. But this isn't binary opposition: it's not RIAA-like "thuggery", or no ownership rights at all. Where's the middle ground? And no, I'm not saying copyright should be perpetual and infinite, either. But can we ignore A.A. Milne's shit that's 75 years old for a minute as an arguing point, and talk about what's really at issue, which is brand new, current, and popular music and movies?
Ah...there are quite many references to Qualye and "tomatoe" when I searched, so I assumed that must have been the one. But, indeed, there are more references to the actual "potatoe" incident.
As much as I would like to make fun of Quayle, mosquitoe is the British spelling much like colour is the British spelling of color.
Indeed. So Quayle must have been using the British spelling of "tomato" as well.
Did Dan Quayle write this summary?
The super insects have color vision and detect humans from 25-30 meters, which is about 50% farther than the ordinary mosquitoe.
There are still problems with that line of reasoning: the artist entered an agreement in good faith with their own record company. Part of that good faith agreement is that the record company will have a series of agreements that allow for distribution internationally, and management by partners, subsidiaries, and/or other trade groups in other countries. If you disagree with that system, that's fine. I guess you can "revolt" against it. But wouldn't revolting against it compromise something more than buying music you personally like from a web site run by the Russian mob?
And to your last point, yes, of course they don't have the right to obtain what they ask for. But then you don't get to just take it, or buy it from someone who took it from them. I'm really not trying to be an ass, here, but do you even remotely see where I'm coming from?
Please note that I don't particularly like the big trade groups either. Many things they do are all about control (then again, that's their job). But there are gray areas here. It's not as if the artists are helpless, they get nothing, and everything any record label does above some arbitrary size is "wrong".
When effortless digital reproduction came along, it wasn't that anyone's "business model" failed. It's not that simplistic. The digital world represented new technologies that made certain things easier, but easy doesn't always equal right. In a world where content that someone's invested millions in can be appropriated for nothing by teenagers, why don't you think they'd try to protect it? If the answer is that trying to protect it is wrong, then should they just close up shop?
I wouldn't have nearly as many problems with these arguments if it weren't for the fact that all of the ultra-popular US artists and bands are up on AllOfMP3.com...the very artists who wouldn't exist, in that form, if it weren't for the business model of the system that people apparently think "failed". If you want them to close up shop and everyone should just be independent, fine. But those arists still should have control. And those artists might have agents who act on their behalf. And companies. And maybe even companies that have agreements with other companies in other nations. At what point does it become "okay" for a third party to take their product and sell it for ten times less? Why can't anyone in that camp see anything wrong with that? It's almost as if it's a binary opposition, where someone things what the RIAA does is universally "wrong", and AllofMP3.com is "right", and there's no in-bewteen.
Sure, you can "argue" that. But the radio licensing and laws were set up as they were, and agreed to by trade groups representing content owners, because people can't hear what they want on-demand, know exactly what songs are coming up, keep the songs permanently in pristine digital format that is identical to the source content when it was created in the mastering suite, and so on. If that's what the radio license meant, no content owner ever would have agreed with it. And one nation or entity operating within a nation (I don't really care if it's Russia, or whomever) shouldn't be able to make value judgments on content they don't own for the rest of the world. If they want to make it for their own society, fine. To make an extremely crude example, suppose murder is legal (or ignored) in a nation-state called Pluckistan in the world of Foo. Suppose Yuckistan is next door to Pluckistan, but has laws that prohibit murder. Should someone in Pluckistan be able to murder someone across the border in Yuckistan with no repercussions? Sure, you might say "yes...what can they do?". Sooner or later, pressure from Yuckistan - maybe in the form of not letting them buy some of Pluckistan's good Ales - might change the situation. Or, if Pluckistan's actions hurt to many people, there might be greater consequences, especially if many others in the world agree. What you see happening in the UK now is essentially the same.
None of that $200 would have gone to the artists anyways, it all goes to the RIAA mafia.
Wrong. The RIAA is a trade group that represents record labels. Record labels have legitimate contracts with artists who produce the product. Even if you refuse to acknowledge any legal frameworks that govern this, let's just say there's a "good faith agreement" between an artist and an entity that promises to advertise, promote, distribute, and manage a product. No guns, imagined or otherwise, were held to anyone's heads.
The Russian mob is providing better product, at a better price, than RIAA, who are merely the the government-approved mob in charge of the US music racket.
Wrong. They're not providing any product at all, save encoding CDs and running a web site. Their product doesn't belong to them by any definition I can think of, and even their feigned legality under the guise of radio licensing isn't convincing. Forget about the RIAA and the "mobs with bigger guns" for a moment: do the creators of a product, or their agents, have ANY rights to control how their product is sold, or for how much? Any at all?
I love how closed minded supposedly "open minded" people are.
...is how much they're charging. You say you'd still go with AllOfMP3 even if it cost 20 or 40 cents per track. Well, what if it cost 99 cents? What if the content owners felt that the losses they've internally calculated - no matter how right or wrong they actually are, or you think they are - means that they'd only sell DRMless music for $1.50 or $2 a track? Would you still go to it then?
That's the problem: AllOfMP3 is arbitrarily deciding prices so that it's profitable TO THEM, and using the questionable legality of a radio broadcasting model to do it. Whether that is a loophole or not beside the point, they're not the ones who get to decide what prices are. Their only costs are that of buying CDs, and running a web site. What about all of the costs involved on the production side of the music? What about the artist's rights? The label's rights? What about the basic right to ask for the compensation you choose for a service or product you provide? What about the massive costs associated with some of the "popular" artists on AllOfMP3.com. Whether you AGREE with those costs or not is irrelevant: they're there, and that artist is popular. Call it brainwashing the public if you will, but still, someone else doesn't have the right to decide that album should be sold for $1.42.
This isn't about "failing business models". I mean, you're talking about it like someone has found a way to "appropriate" (I won't say steal because of the implications for something that can be duplicated with no effort) new automobiles, and sells them for 1/10 or 1/20 of what the automaker sells them for, and then talking about it how it's such a great "business model". Have you ever considered that even with electronic sales at $1.40/album, it may not be enough to sustain their "business model"? You might then say, good riddance - new artists will come, etc etc etc. Except for the fact that people have made agreements in good faith, protected by longstanding societal frameworks that allow for the protections of these entities' (whether they may be artists, artists' agents, record labels, etc.) rights.
Further, and again, I realize this is complicated by the fact you can duplicate it with essentially no effort, why should the owner of said content not be able to sell it when, how, and for how much, they choose? Why is it up to a web site in Russia? Or to you? What, if ANY, rights do the owners have? Imagine the "owner" being able to be anything from Time Warner to an individual independent artist. Is people "stealing" your stuff just the cost of doing business? Maybe even a good thing for publicity?
This entire discussion is jaded and poisoned by the hatred of corporations, governments, copyright, and so on. I discussed some of the other issues here. But one thing's consistent: no one wants to acknowledge the owner's rights, because in their mind, the rights are illegitimate. They can't seem to piece together that from an individual artist, there might be a lot more people involved as they grow. Perhaps a group of people that provides a service or product, known as a "company". In this context, maybe a "record company". There might be a "contract" between said artist and company. There might be "advertising". It might be too big for him to burn CDs in his basement. There might be "production" and "distribution". Some of these companies may even have agreements with other companies that sell things. There might even be legal frameworks that protect all of these agreements and the ownership of original work.
The problem is, no one sees any gray areas. They just think that the big trade groups and labels are wrong morally, trumpet about things like "making shareholders richer", and then go to a Russian web site to download the CD of that very artist for one fifteenth of what it's sold for in the US, with zero (or extremely minute amounts designed for radio licensing, which, ironically, is designed to get people to BUY the content, not to be th
But what's the right price point?
Most full albums are selling for less than $2. And it's the content owners that get to set prices, not a web site. That's the problem. And complex international legality and copyright issues aside, they don't really own the content - they're treating themselves as if they're a radio station that lets people download whatever they want, whenever they want, and keep it. This isn't really about "failing business models" or anything of the kind.
The real question is this, and try to answer it without muddying the waters with talk of copyrights and the thuggery of trade groups: when, how, and under what circumstances are the people who CREATE and/or OWN content allowed to set pricing on their own materials? Remember that record labels, however good or evil you think them, have legitimate ownership of the content within the bounds of society's frameworks on such matters. Other countries and jurisdictions may view the issue differently, but ultimately, there can't be entities that decide it's up to them to undercut others' rights.
Try to think of yourself as, say, and author, and a new Russian site called AllOfBook.com opens, and sells your book without your permission or that of your publisher for about 1/10 or 1/20 of what it sells for elsewhere. (Yes, I realize that AllOfMP3.com believes it has a license to do this legally, but that is arguably AT MOST valid only in Russia, besides which, let's just forget about that for a moment.) Is what they're doing right? Is that just part of the cost of doing business? "Oh well"? What if they also sold pre-printed hard copies of your book (the essentially equivalent of selling lossless DRMless audio content)? What inherent rights do you think you, or the people who help print, distribute, publicize, and sell your work, have to that work product? Can someone else take it because a legal interpretation in their country allows them to make that decision for you not only in their jurisdiction, but the entire world over?
Your point that you've spend money on music when you never have before is valid. But would you have spent as much if the full albums were $4? $8? $10? What if $2 isn't enough to sustain the current production models for music? I realize that there's this desire to say "change your business model, then!" or "they'll make up for it in volume, since this is electronic distribution!" But what if they DON'T WANT to sell it for $2? Isn't that their choice, and your choice to not buy it? Do you think AllOfMP3.com, aside from your PERSONAL opinions on the RIAA, BPI, etc., could exist in the US or EU legally? If not, why should people in those places be able to buy from it?
I suppose at some level you can always argue that you personall disagree with copyright, or with the big record labels and trade groups, or that artists are abused in the current system, or that politicians' hands are in the pockets of the industry, and so on and so on and so on.
But it still continues to ignore basic thing: even if you erase all that, do you still believe that the creator of a work should have some rights to that work, including the choice of how much to ask in return for that work?
If you say yes, then we're getting somewhere. If you say no, I don't think this discussion would prove fruitful.
But if you've said yes, consider:
- That a society's legal framework may offer protections for such work, and punishments for not following those guidelines.
- That an artist may elect to involve others in the distribution, sale, promotion, packaging, and so on, of his work, and that those entities may be entitled to protections and remuneration as well.
- That there may be agreements between nations that attempt to insure that such work isn't sold for orders of magnitude less than what the creator and/or their agents intends to sell it for.
I could, of course, continue. So I guess the ultimate question is this, and forget about all the trade groups, labels, posturing, "information wants to be free", and all the other crap that always swirls around this debate: does a creator have the right to ask what he or she so desires for compensation?
(And the followons: If so, what if a site like AllOfMP3.com is too low? Etc.)
1. Have you considered going into a T-Mobile store so they can't "hang up on you"?
2. I don't understand why they *would* "hang up on you", since you seem to have fairly reasonable records that you're receiving calls you didn't receive, and indeed, overlapping onto calls that you've made. Why would they think you're running a scam when you're asking questions about calls you didn't place on your bill?
3. Are you SURE your partner isn't really receiving these calls? I.e., have you been with him at known times when these alleged calls have come in?
...there's a printer friendly version with the entire article on one page, so you don't have to click through 458 different pages, each with its own half-sentence of the article on it.
.Mac service is missing. It provides AFP, WebDAV, and web-based access for Mac (and Windows) users, as well as online file storage, online file, calendar, mail, and preference syncing, online backup, and the normal collection of web and email services.
I'd also note that Apple's
1. Sounds like you have an axe to grind. Are you the "grungy 23 year old" in question?
2. Many people who aren't cops have friends who are cops. Or in the military. Or in other parts of government. And no, they're not all fat cats or co-conspirators. I know this may be hard for you to believe.
3. Police don't "hate" civilians. (WTF?)
4. "THEIR JESUS, THEIR POWER"? Uh, dude, I think you'd better hit your water bong again. Your paranoia is running a bit low.
How come we never really hear much about it?
Um, are you shitting me? Like, are you really serious?
We hear about this ALL THE FUCKING TIME, especially on the internet (e.g., blogs).
Constantly.
More than we ever have before, and more every day. And it's not because there are "more abuses"; there's more people hunting for and collecting evidence about said abuses. Some of these people do it out of genuine concern. Most of these people do it because their political leanings are crystal clear.
And you know what? There aren't really any more or less "abuses" than there ever have been; there are just much easier ways to spread the word. That's what makes people believe we're heading down the primrose path to a fascist state and all this other crap.
Technology cuts both ways: it makes it easier for the government to abuse rights and freedoms, and it makes it easier for everyone else to find out and call them on it.