But the question is what % of readers of slashdot can actually read morse code or even binary? The truth is very, very few nerds do (whether we'd like to admit it or not).:)
While we're at it, can we manufacture the shirts so that deoderant is somehow embedded in the fabric so that they'll take effect when being worn (by smelly, non-showering nerds)?
I agree with you personally but an interesting tidbit I read from an article indicated that a large portion of where sales are lost come from teens. I can definitely see this as being true since as a teenager, myself, I purchased a bunch of crappy CDs. I know that as a teen I would've simply download mp3s if I had the option because I didn't really have the funds to purchase CDs.
OTOH, when I really think about it, that wouldn't have made much of a difference. Since I had limited funds I never really purchased that many CDs so the dent in CD sales would've probably been insignificant. I don't know..maybe if you took me and multiplied it several million times over that would lead to the % decline that they are claiming.
Unfortunately this statistic alone can either support or contradict the RIAA's claim. It really depends on the change of % of failed albums since the decline in sales has occured. This is my logic:
1) If the % of failed albums has stayed constant or fallen, then the fall in CD purchases are more likely attributable to mp3 downloading.
2) If the % of failed albums has risen, then the fall in CD purchases are less likely attributable to mp3 downloading.
Actually, it doesn't really prove anything against file-sharing but, more importantly, we need to know the change in failed albums since the decline in CD sales (10 years ago??).
No, Britney Spears isn't the only one who has put out a CD but has the general quality of music gone "down"? I know it's pretty subjective but maybe this is a matter of percentages.
Personally, I realize that when I was younger I used to purchase more CDs. I wonder if there is a correlation with age and the purchasing of CDs. I think that if I were a teen and I had access to mp3s I probably would have not bought ANY CDs since the funds of the young is so limited.
That said, with age I realize that I'm a lot pickier when it comes to purchasing CDs. There are various reasons for this which include a refined taste in music, astronomical CD prices, few artist whose music I really enjoy. And, personally, ever since it's become more difficult to download mp3s I've noticed a decline in my CD purchasing. Like another person stated above, mp3s would allow me to sample a group's music and if I liked it I would purchase the CD because the quality just doens't compare.
The way they give parking tickets in San Francisco and Berkeley they might as well give you the death penalty. They ticket so hard I'm sure plenty of students have been put into the poor house (even further).
I know what a parody is. Obviously I haven't been living in a shell and I know who Weird Al is.
But it seems like your basic answer is that there is a legal definition as far as what qualifies as a parody. Yes, yes I know what a REAL parody is. You don't have to get into the strict definition. I think you keep on missing part of my point. But, if there is a legal definition of a parody, then that's that.
No, I know what a parody is. But how can one "legally define" a parody? That was my point. I mean yeah a GOOD parody would be a Weird Al song. A worse parody would be one where you just took a song's beat and you personally rapped over the lyrics. But my question was basically asking if you added something random and called it a parody, whether it would qualify as one (albeit a horribly bad one).
And, as i said before, my guess is that even parodies can run into legal trouble.
Why show who has which songs at all? Honestly, when I download an mp3 I don't bother checking who the source is, nor do I care. The only thing I care about is whether they have enough bandwidth to send me that mp3.
I like that idea, although I don't know how legal it is. I mean, I don't see the legality in excluding people from certain organizations from using your product.
OTOH, I can see it possible to say something like this in the terms of agreement:
I will not sue or make public the users the users on this system and will respect their privacy..etc etc.
Basically binding them, by agreement, to not have any control of the information gained while using Kazaa.
An interesting point was made on NPR by a caller the other day.
Why doesn't music get cheaper with time (like many other products)?
His basic complaint was that with file-sharing you can get music from 40 years ago. With iTunes/BuyMusic you can't because they have no selection. His gripe was with CDs with songs from the 70s and 60s still selling for $17. Why doesn't old music get cheaper since they've had so much time to reap a profit?
Anybody here know about the letter of the law when it comes to Copyright violation?
I was thinking about this the other day: At what point is it a violation? I'm pretty sure file-sharing of mp3s is, but is it really "stealing" if you're sharing/downloading a version of the song that is of lower quality (assuming at one point it was ripped from a CD) than the original? And what about the fact that you're not selling the music but giving it away?
The same question can be applied to movies. Sure, the movie ripped from DVD is off exceptional quality but what if you taped a movie on video camera? It is really crappy quality, but does it still quality as copyright infringement? If I make a poor quality parody of the WB icon is that copyright infringement?
IANAL, so if you are one I would appreciate if you could chime in, but isn't there a catch-22 going on here? Yes, people breaking the law have no right to illegal activity, but was it legal how the RIAA obtained this list of names? Even if they have proof of illegal activity, aren't there laws against how proof is obtained?
Maybe I've just watched too many movies so if someone knew the exact law clarity would be appreciated. I.e. is this analogous to the cops "tapping" your phones? If so, isn't a federal subpeona required?
Well your post seemed to hint that it IS a question of ideology. Maybe it is. But I think your questions are very much skewed.
The questions that I would've picked might have gone something like:
- Is it better to put a half working product out there and be quick to market or to put a full-working product out there slow to market? (MS: half working product out fast; UNIX: full-working product out slow)
- What should drive software? Business or innovation? (MS: business; UNIX: innovation)
- What's more important? Contributing to the tech community and advancing ideas or private business? (MS: private business; UNIX: advancing ideas)
Anwyay you get my drift. The questions you provided touched upon how servers should function and that's debatable whether you're Microsoft or not. I mean I don't really see how your questions translate into why Microsoft will fail as they've been pretty successful so far and for good reason.
But the difference in tone between my post and the post I responded to was that in my post I was trying to make a point that Windows is being adopted and not completely shunned. I agree in that most of Microsoft's business software is in small to midsize corporations. I don't think this makes it any less of a threat given that the market for small and midsize business is huge.
The other point I was trying to make is that Microsoft fills a certain niche in the business world and that this niche is no small role.
You say that Microsoft will forever be thought of as games and multimedia, but much of their "enterprise" level software aimed at small business seem to be quite successful. I have no official numbers myself but judging by the media as well as my own personal work experience, I see many people embracing Microsoft for their server software.
The truth is that Windows and *nix occupy similar computing spaces..but they also occupy different ones. *nix seems to be good for purposes requiring low cost, open development and/or flexibilty. Microsoft seems to be good for purposes requiring support, ease of use and quick development.
You can say that Windows has "failed to penetrate the UNIX market". You can also say that the Unix market has failed, and will never, penetrate the Windows market. Part of the Unix crowd deems Microsoft as a toy, but I think it's more out of FUD and personal, philosophical hatred than sheer merit.
It seems, though, that even though you can use MACs on different pieces of hardware you still have a MAC associated with yourself and that was my original point. It all comes down to whether there's a MAC associated with your name that you've registered (which, I believe, is the case at UCB).
Lastly, if your MAC/Username/Password is stolen and used for purposes like sharing music illegally I'm sure the courts will exempt you from any blame if it can be proven that your information was stolen and someone else was committing these crimes. It's simple as that.
Hmm. I'm not aware if you can spoof someone's MAC. Sure you could obtain it but I thought the deal with MACs were that they were unique per piece of hardware.
Anyway, besides that, yes it is possible that a student's password is stolen etc etc. It's also possible that I will be mugged walking down the street tomorrow. The fact is is that most students will probably not go to the extreme of stealing students information for the purpose of sharing music. The percentage of students willing to go to this extent is quite small. The percentage of students capable of doing this is quite smaller.
Well, like anything else claimed in court, you would have to provide proof that there was some sort of electronic sabotage of your computer. You simply can't claim it and think that it will stand up as reasonable doubt.
I'm no longer a student there but I believe that in order to use the wireless on the campus you need some sort of account. From what I hear, this involves identifying yourself as a student (with some login/pw info) as well as matching MAC address. So that's pretty much the easiest way you could identify students on that campus.
Back in the day, land lines were accessed by user/pw too which would identify the student with an IP.
Slashdot Mirror
Only with geek wearing Slashdot shirts does the issue of a well designed solution (embedded deoderant) go up against a hacked (duct tape) one. :P
But the question is what % of readers of slashdot can actually read morse code or even binary? The truth is very, very few nerds do (whether we'd like to admit it or not). :)
While we're at it, can we manufacture the shirts so that deoderant is somehow embedded in the fabric so that they'll take effect when being worn (by smelly, non-showering nerds)?
I agree with you personally but an interesting tidbit I read from an article indicated that a large portion of where sales are lost come from teens. I can definitely see this as being true since as a teenager, myself, I purchased a bunch of crappy CDs. I know that as a teen I would've simply download mp3s if I had the option because I didn't really have the funds to purchase CDs.
OTOH, when I really think about it, that wouldn't have made much of a difference. Since I had limited funds I never really purchased that many CDs so the dent in CD sales would've probably been insignificant. I don't know..maybe if you took me and multiplied it several million times over that would lead to the % decline that they are claiming.
I agree the majority of them DO suck.
Unfortunately this statistic alone can either support or contradict the RIAA's claim. It really depends on the change of % of failed albums since the decline in sales has occured. This is my logic:
1) If the % of failed albums has stayed constant or fallen, then the fall in CD purchases are more likely attributable to mp3 downloading.
2) If the % of failed albums has risen, then the fall in CD purchases are less likely attributable to mp3 downloading.
Actually, it doesn't really prove anything against file-sharing but, more importantly, we need to know the change in failed albums since the decline in CD sales (10 years ago??).
No, Britney Spears isn't the only one who has put out a CD but has the general quality of music gone "down"? I know it's pretty subjective but maybe this is a matter of percentages.
Personally, I realize that when I was younger I used to purchase more CDs. I wonder if there is a correlation with age and the purchasing of CDs. I think that if I were a teen and I had access to mp3s I probably would have not bought ANY CDs since the funds of the young is so limited.
That said, with age I realize that I'm a lot pickier when it comes to purchasing CDs. There are various reasons for this which include a refined taste in music, astronomical CD prices, few artist whose music I really enjoy. And, personally, ever since it's become more difficult to download mp3s I've noticed a decline in my CD purchasing. Like another person stated above, mp3s would allow me to sample a group's music and if I liked it I would purchase the CD because the quality just doens't compare.
The way they give parking tickets in San Francisco and Berkeley they might as well give you the death penalty. They ticket so hard I'm sure plenty of students have been put into the poor house (even further).
Dude, nevermind.
I know what a parody is. Obviously I haven't been living in a shell and I know who Weird Al is.
But it seems like your basic answer is that there is a legal definition as far as what qualifies as a parody. Yes, yes I know what a REAL parody is. You don't have to get into the strict definition. I think you keep on missing part of my point. But, if there is a legal definition of a parody, then that's that.
No, I know what a parody is. But how can one "legally define" a parody? That was my point. I mean yeah a GOOD parody would be a Weird Al song. A worse parody would be one where you just took a song's beat and you personally rapped over the lyrics. But my question was basically asking if you added something random and called it a parody, whether it would qualify as one (albeit a horribly bad one).
And, as i said before, my guess is that even parodies can run into legal trouble.
Why show who has which songs at all? Honestly, when I download an mp3 I don't bother checking who the source is, nor do I care. The only thing I care about is whether they have enough bandwidth to send me that mp3.
Interesting.
So what if at the beginning of every mp3 and/or mpeg rip I had an audio clip that said "THIS IS PARODY!! HEE HEE HAW HAW?"
My guess is that there are even copyright laws against parodies.
I like that idea, although I don't know how legal it is. I mean, I don't see the legality in excluding people from certain organizations from using your product.
OTOH, I can see it possible to say something like this in the terms of agreement: I will not sue or make public the users the users on this system and will respect their privacy..etc etc. Basically binding them, by agreement, to not have any control of the information gained while using Kazaa.
Someone set up us the subpoena!
An interesting point was made on NPR by a caller the other day.
Why doesn't music get cheaper with time (like many other products)?
His basic complaint was that with file-sharing you can get music from 40 years ago. With iTunes/BuyMusic you can't because they have no selection. His gripe was with CDs with songs from the 70s and 60s still selling for $17. Why doesn't old music get cheaper since they've had so much time to reap a profit?
Anybody here know about the letter of the law when it comes to Copyright violation?
I was thinking about this the other day: At what point is it a violation? I'm pretty sure file-sharing of mp3s is, but is it really "stealing" if you're sharing/downloading a version of the song that is of lower quality (assuming at one point it was ripped from a CD) than the original? And what about the fact that you're not selling the music but giving it away?
The same question can be applied to movies. Sure, the movie ripped from DVD is off exceptional quality but what if you taped a movie on video camera? It is really crappy quality, but does it still quality as copyright infringement? If I make a poor quality parody of the WB icon is that copyright infringement?
IANAL, so if you are one I would appreciate if you could chime in, but isn't there a catch-22 going on here? Yes, people breaking the law have no right to illegal activity, but was it legal how the RIAA obtained this list of names? Even if they have proof of illegal activity, aren't there laws against how proof is obtained?
Maybe I've just watched too many movies so if someone knew the exact law clarity would be appreciated. I.e. is this analogous to the cops "tapping" your phones? If so, isn't a federal subpeona required?
It's the new urban legend of the white-collar, dot-com age. Quite befitting I think.
Well your post seemed to hint that it IS a question of ideology. Maybe it is. But I think your questions are very much skewed.
The questions that I would've picked might have gone something like:
- Is it better to put a half working product out there and be quick to market or to put a full-working product out there slow to market? (MS: half working product out fast; UNIX: full-working product out slow)
- What should drive software? Business or innovation? (MS: business; UNIX: innovation)
- What's more important? Contributing to the tech community and advancing ideas or private business? (MS: private business; UNIX: advancing ideas)
Anwyay you get my drift. The questions you provided touched upon how servers should function and that's debatable whether you're Microsoft or not. I mean I don't really see how your questions translate into why Microsoft will fail as they've been pretty successful so far and for good reason.
Agreed.
But the difference in tone between my post and the post I responded to was that in my post I was trying to make a point that Windows is being adopted and not completely shunned. I agree in that most of Microsoft's business software is in small to midsize corporations. I don't think this makes it any less of a threat given that the market for small and midsize business is huge.
The other point I was trying to make is that Microsoft fills a certain niche in the business world and that this niche is no small role.
I'd like to see the numbers on this.
You say that Microsoft will forever be thought of as games and multimedia, but much of their "enterprise" level software aimed at small business seem to be quite successful. I have no official numbers myself but judging by the media as well as my own personal work experience, I see many people embracing Microsoft for their server software.
The truth is that Windows and *nix occupy similar computing spaces..but they also occupy different ones. *nix seems to be good for purposes requiring low cost, open development and/or flexibilty. Microsoft seems to be good for purposes requiring support, ease of use and quick development.
You can say that Windows has "failed to penetrate the UNIX market". You can also say that the Unix market has failed, and will never, penetrate the Windows market. Part of the Unix crowd deems Microsoft as a toy, but I think it's more out of FUD and personal, philosophical hatred than sheer merit.
I'm curious. What do you think of tablet pcs? That would seem to solve the problem of drawing diagrams.
Interesting.
It seems, though, that even though you can use MACs on different pieces of hardware you still have a MAC associated with yourself and that was my original point. It all comes down to whether there's a MAC associated with your name that you've registered (which, I believe, is the case at UCB).
Lastly, if your MAC/Username/Password is stolen and used for purposes like sharing music illegally I'm sure the courts will exempt you from any blame if it can be proven that your information was stolen and someone else was committing these crimes. It's simple as that.
Hmm. I'm not aware if you can spoof someone's MAC. Sure you could obtain it but I thought the deal with MACs were that they were unique per piece of hardware.
Anyway, besides that, yes it is possible that a student's password is stolen etc etc. It's also possible that I will be mugged walking down the street tomorrow. The fact is is that most students will probably not go to the extreme of stealing students information for the purpose of sharing music. The percentage of students willing to go to this extent is quite small. The percentage of students capable of doing this is quite smaller.
Well, like anything else claimed in court, you would have to provide proof that there was some sort of electronic sabotage of your computer. You simply can't claim it and think that it will stand up as reasonable doubt.
I'm no longer a student there but I believe that in order to use the wireless on the campus you need some sort of account. From what I hear, this involves identifying yourself as a student (with some login/pw info) as well as matching MAC address. So that's pretty much the easiest way you could identify students on that campus.
Back in the day, land lines were accessed by user/pw too which would identify the student with an IP.