Piracy is not a private offense, it hurts everyone by diminishing the incentive to invest in the creation of music.
When will she realize that there's more to creating music than money? Artists create because they enjoy doing so. It's one of the profession, IMHO that have a lot of job satisfaction.
Sometimes she'd further her cause by staying quiet.
Economic incentives could be provided through discounts on insurance policies for MNT development organizations that certify Guidelines compliance. Willingness to provide self-regulation should be one condition for access to advanced forms of the technology.
This struck me as one of the better ideas; a sort of "ISO standard" for nanotech research could be created, not only on the national level, but hopefully on the international level, where an independent body can inspect and certify (and re-certify; complying only once is not enough).
My question is: Can an independent body be more trustworthy than the government?
It's one thing to add programs and fill your disk up with junk. But to actually remove a properly functioning, legal program like Ad-Aware almost seems like a targeted virus.
And why can't you uninstall parts of their program? What happened to custom installation?
They are the first to predict 18 inches of snow for a storm that produces only six. News sources love reporting gloom, doom and disaster, for it increases viewership/readership.
No one cares to hear "Nothing to see here, movealong".
but also giving appropriate weight to their limited nature.
The limited nature of copyright is already in our Constitution (Article I, Section 8). Why can't the United States follow their original rules, while Canada ensures such fairness "on the fly". Is it because their lawmakers are less likely to be bought?
Sometimes I don't understand why we bash Canada at all.
And letting others have distribution rights to your own work. The creator has no say anymore!
And as for Hilary Rosen's analogy:
Let's say that "getting an A" is like getting paid for your work. This is analogous to others selling the work as their own and getting paid. Music sharing is more like your friend copying your paper and giving it to others in your class and saying "Look what good work my friend's capable of. Go read it." What Rosen describes are two different phenomena.
P-T: what is your stance on making open source software illegal?
Vivendi Rep: If the open source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then it is illegal under the DMCA.
How can this be possible? Under open source, credit need only be given to the orignal creator. What happened to creator control over what gets distributed? If the creator grants permission, so be it.
The Vivendi rep has no clue about open source at all.
Sounds like you still purchase a number of pages, but after your daily allotment of pages, you still view those annoying ads. It's only a partial block this way.
I feel that this is a half-hearted solution to the "number of pages" problem, and still refuse to subscribe until a true time-based subscription scheme is implemented.
The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) said it continues to support industry self-regulation on privacy.
As much as I dislike legislation over industry participation, I'd have to agree with this type of legislation. The DMA has done far too little for too long to keep going with "industry regulation".
And the telephone companies wonder why they are losing customers. They cannot compete against Internet telephony with regard to price. Why the telcos still charge those kind of rates always puzzled me, especially since calls are no routed by computers, at little cost.
This is good for a lot of these countries, since families often have relatives scatteered around the globe, and can use a low cost method to stay in touch (besides written communication, of course).
While at Yahoo, Mr. Godin published "Permission Marketing" (Simon & Schuster, 1999), which argued that marketing messages should be sent only to people who ask to see them.
Finally, a marketing person sees the light. If people don't want to be bothered by random solication, don't do it to them. you will not gain customers by doing something they perceive as a nuisance!
But, who would opt-in to spam/telemarketers/direct mail? I'd think that most people wouldn't.
I wouldn't switch just yet. Remember, country artist CharleyPride was the first artist to switch to those crappy "Copy-protected" CD's which degrade playback quality.
Maybe they've seen all the security flaws and bugfixes required, but I hardly think even with all of Microsoft's power, they could not outstrip the entire OSS community in just two months.
There's still a lot more manpower in OSS. It's just more fractious.
It's a much more palatable approach to amking a few bucks on the software, by offering enhanced features. One seems to get a fully functioal OS without ever joining the Club.
And it offers different levels, for most any budget. And if you mo longer find it useful, you can quit.
It's a lot better than charging hundreds up front for the OS.
By owning it, Bertlesmann can easily enforce the licenses on any BMG artist. With a label owning Napster, it lens it some legitimacy, and other labels may follow suit and sell licenses for their artists as well.
It's a complete disaster, waiting for applications to forcibly download when you're trying to surf. It has to be the most invasive form of advertising yet.
Is it actually legal to put something on a user's machine without permission? Sounds almost virus-like.
I was diagnosed with myopia years ago and have recently started Atkins which eschews white bread, flour and other refined carbohydrates. Though the article doesn't say, I wonder if the effects of myopia are reversible.
Slashdot Mirror
Get a dead one, like me.
You don't have to feed me, water me, or even clean my cage.
And I'll always listen to you when you talk. Or at least look like it. Just put me you-know-where, and we'll be fine.
Piracy is not a private offense, it hurts everyone by diminishing the incentive to invest in the creation of music.
When will she realize that there's more to creating music than money? Artists create because they enjoy doing so. It's one of the profession, IMHO that have a lot of job satisfaction.
Sometimes she'd further her cause by staying quiet.
Economic incentives could be provided through discounts on insurance policies for MNT development organizations that certify Guidelines compliance. Willingness to provide self-regulation should be one condition for access to advanced forms of the technology.
This struck me as one of the better ideas; a sort of "ISO standard" for nanotech research could be created, not only on the national level, but hopefully on the international level, where an independent body can inspect and certify (and re-certify; complying only once is not enough).
My question is: Can an independent body be more trustworthy than the government?
It's one thing to add programs and fill your disk up with junk. But to actually remove a properly functioning, legal program like Ad-Aware almost seems like a targeted virus.
And why can't you uninstall parts of their program? What happened to custom installation?
This seems illegal to me.
It's just like the local weatherman.
They are the first to predict 18 inches of snow for a storm that produces only six. News sources love reporting gloom, doom and disaster, for it increases viewership/readership.
No one cares to hear "Nothing to see here, movealong".
Torque.net develops their own drivers, usually with the help of reverse-engineering.
but also giving appropriate weight to their limited nature.
The limited nature of copyright is already in our Constitution (Article I, Section 8). Why can't the United States follow their original rules, while Canada ensures such fairness "on the fly". Is it because their lawmakers are less likely to be bought?
Sometimes I don't understand why we bash Canada at all.
And letting others have distribution rights to your own work. The creator has no say anymore!
And as for Hilary Rosen's analogy:
Let's say that "getting an A" is like getting paid for your work. This is analogous to others selling the work as their own and getting paid. Music sharing is more like your friend copying your paper and giving it to others in your class and saying "Look what good work my friend's capable of. Go read it." What Rosen describes are two different phenomena.
And I'd be very proud of my work, indeed.
Access Analyzers (Uppsala University)
Log Analyzers (reallybig.com)
Web Log Analyzers (2K Communications)
P-T: what is your stance on making open source software illegal?
Vivendi Rep: If the open source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then it is illegal under the DMCA.
How can this be possible? Under open source, credit need only be given to the orignal creator. What happened to creator control over what gets distributed? If the creator grants permission, so be it.
The Vivendi rep has no clue about open source at all.
Sounds like you still purchase a number of pages, but after your daily allotment of pages, you still view those annoying ads. It's only a partial block this way.
I feel that this is a half-hearted solution to the "number of pages" problem, and still refuse to subscribe until a true time-based subscription scheme is implemented.
The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) said it continues to support industry self-regulation on privacy.
As much as I dislike legislation over industry participation, I'd have to agree with this type of legislation. The DMA has done far too little for too long to keep going with "industry regulation".
Sorry, DMA, you've run out of chances.
And the telephone companies wonder why they are losing customers. They cannot compete against Internet telephony with regard to price. Why the telcos still charge those kind of rates always puzzled me, especially since calls are no routed by computers, at little cost.
This is good for a lot of these countries, since families often have relatives scatteered around the globe, and can use a low cost method to stay in touch (besides written communication, of course).
What entrapment?
No one but me and anyone I invite belongs in my car. Anyone breaking in is obviously doing something wrong.
No entrapment here, just a good deterrent.
It catches car thieves, but only car thieves. This is one of the few uses of technology that has zero probability of catching "the wrong guy".
I wonder if this technology would be extended to the private consumer level?
While at Yahoo, Mr. Godin published "Permission Marketing" (Simon & Schuster, 1999), which argued that marketing messages should be sent only to people who ask to see them.
Finally, a marketing person sees the light. If people don't want to be bothered by random solication, don't do it to them. you will not gain customers by doing something they perceive as a nuisance!
But, who would opt-in to spam/telemarketers/direct mail? I'd think that most people wouldn't.
I wouldn't switch just yet. Remember, country artist Charley Pride was the first artist to switch to those crappy "Copy-protected" CD's which degrade playback quality.
It doesn't matter the source or inspiration for the Star Wars movies, just as long as they're enjoyable and worth the nine bucks' admission price.
Why overanalyze it? It just ruins it.
My CPU's always wanted a place to stop and chat while getting a cool drink.
Hopefully it will increase productivity.
Ohhh...water cooling for CPU's? My bad.
Maybe they've seen all the security flaws and bugfixes required, but I hardly think even with all of Microsoft's power, they could not outstrip the entire OSS community in just two months.
There's still a lot more manpower in OSS. It's just more fractious.
More info can be found in this earlier Slashdot story.
Bashing the idea of a club:
It's a much more palatable approach to amking a few bucks on the software, by offering enhanced features. One seems to get a fully functioal OS without ever joining the Club.
And it offers different levels, for most any budget. And if you mo longer find it useful, you can quit.
It's a lot better than charging hundreds up front for the OS.
By owning it, Bertlesmann can easily enforce the licenses on any BMG artist. With a label owning Napster, it lens it some legitimacy, and other labels may follow suit and sell licenses for their artists as well.
An interesting experiment, indeed.
It's a complete disaster, waiting for applications to forcibly download when you're trying to surf. It has to be the most invasive form of advertising yet.
Is it actually legal to put something on a user's machine without permission? Sounds almost virus-like.
I was diagnosed with myopia years ago and have recently started Atkins which eschews white bread, flour and other refined carbohydrates. Though the article doesn't say, I wonder if the effects of myopia are reversible.