If it stands on its own (or even if it doesn't), then who gives a damn who the delivery boy is?
The problem is not with people sincerely expressing unpopular views, but malicious trolls who look for ways to annoy as many people as possible. With unrestricted anonymous posts, they could, eg, automate posting thousands of garbage posts. If they do it now, hardly anyone notices, as they're not displayed by default, so few bother. Or spammers would set their robots to post stock market tips or fake Rolex ads. This is a very high traffic site, it's a high value target for defacement. In fact, one of the reasons editorial quality is so low is that much of their time is spent fending off such crap. Besides which, creating a pseudonym to post under doesn't compromise your anonymity.
Without support for Windows 98, what will users with limited-capability computers (e.g., computers equipped with 300-MHz processors) do?
Install a free firewall and continue using Win98. I don't see how you could have been going online without one anyway; with that and a non-IE browser, non-Outlook email, you're pretty safe.
I was running Win98 using the Net daily till a couple of months ago. I used a firewall, hardly ever used IE; never had any security problems. But it was getting flaky (after 3 years since a clean install) and newer software didn't run on it, so I upgraded to Win2000, which is rather more stable. However, with care Win98 is a quite serviceable system; especially if you tweak it, e.g. using 98Lite (now LitePC).
Victoria's Secret Fashion Show is on and Coldplay releases its latest song online? Well, what will happen is that Victoria's Secret and Capital Records are going to pay AT&T to prioritize THEIR content
What should happen is that the Coldplay downloads will be transparently cached throughout the Net; and Akamai or a similar service will do the same for the Victoria's Secret stream.
The data is encrypted before being sent to Google's servers.
So it's encrypted en-route. How about when Google gets it? Seeing as how they mine GMail for hooks to serve ads, it seems likely they'd similarly analyse your bookmarks.
the plural of a computer mouse is 'mouses'
the plural of the rodent is 'mice'
Cambridge Dictionary
mouse (DEVICE) noun [C] plural mice. a small device which you move across a surface in order to move a pointer on your computer screen
Some computer geeks like to distinguish themselves by their language, to exclude and denigrate the uninitiated. E.g, they use an irregular plural for box (boxen); and the opposite in this case. Carried to an extreme you get 133t sp33k.
The difference is that, when you download a file, you are copying it. If material is copyrighted then you need a licence to copy it.
AllofMP3 is the entity making the copy. They have a licence to do so, under Russian law. They can legally make a copy and transfer that file to the customer. I know that to do so the file is "copied" numerous times in transit. But if a licence was required for every such transient copy, no one could ever play a CD, watch TV or listen to the radio legally. We'd have to go back to clockwork record players.
The Russian rights organisation owns licensing and related rights in Russia and not elsewhere (this is how the various copyright licensing agencies work).
I know how licensing usually works; I've done it, buying and selling; it's a negotiation and territories are delineated. But this is a compulsory licence. The Russian agency unilaterally determines the terms. Very likely the US will pressure the Russians to change these terms so they only grant rights within Russia.
allofmp3 is purporting to grant UK copyright licences
No it isn't. It's selling MP3 downloads. I've got lots of books, DVDs, CDs, etc. I've never bought a "copyright licence". Publishers make deals to buy "copyright licences"; endusers don't. You may claim that there is an implicit grant of copyright licence, but that's an assumption that needs to be argued in a court.
Allofmp3 claims that it gets its rights from the Russian rights organisation - however those rights don't include the right to sell into the UK.
Are you sure about that? Perhaps the Russian rights organisation doesn't limit where Russian companies can sell. If they say nothing, they implicitly allow foreign sales. Generally, in matters of trade, governments are always in favour of exports. It's up to the importing country to police their citizens' imports. (If a download is legally an import, which I think is a stretch myself.)
The distinction between the two cases is because you need a licence from the copyright holder to make electronic copies of a track; you don't need a licence to buy or sell a CD.
This seems to be the core of your argument. AllofMP3 are making electronic copies under a statutory licence. Since thay have survived several legal challenges on this point, we must assume this is legal in Russia at least. If the files are legal in Russia, how is it illegal for a consumer to buy one from another country? Copyright law doesn't say anything about geographical limits on rights, that's a matter of contracts. But in their absence, these are trumped by statutory licences.
This books on your shelf? you own the physical media, not ANY of the copyrights
That's what I said. The original poster talked about "copyright material", as if ownership of that was the same as the copyright. Many people seem to believe that copyright owners have rights over the physical media expressing that; for instance having a veto on how you can resell it.
Actually, they are obliged to check your location before they sell you something. Ever try to buy something from the iTunes Germany store from the USA?
"They" being iTunes. Because Steve signed contracts agreeing to do so. Not as a matter of law.
Well, the short answer is that allofmp3 get their rights from a collection agency under Russian law, and that license isn't recognized anywhere but in Russia. That is unlike the "hundreds of other online dealers" which all sell copies authorized by the copyright holder, which is internationally recognized
First, if we assume Allofmp3 are legal in Russia (and considering the legal challenges they've already met, they probably are until the US pressures Russia to change the law) that's all they need. They're in Russia, the customer comes to them.
As for the "hundreds of other online dealers", they most certainly are not all authorised by the copyright holder to sell all over the world. I work in the book trade, and there is a constant war between distributors in one market selling to customers in other countries they have no right to ("rights" here meaning explicit agreement from the publisher). This has only gotten worse (for book dealers, if not the public) with the big American Internet companies ignoring any restrictions, even contractual ones they may have signed. In other industries, eg electrical appliances, these are called "grey market" sales. Only music merchants call it theft and piracy.
You may well be thinking of Apple iTunes, which does try to limit which countries it sells to. That's because there are only a handful of iTunes-style merchants (in the US at least) and the record companies have a much more united front than book companies, and wouldn't sign any agreements for online sales without severe restrictions in the contracts. In Russia, fortunately, existing copyright law and contracts (I think they have a compulsory licensing statute) already allowed digital sales.
Even if they're not legally required to check, that certainly reminds me of the perscription drug spam
Drug sales are a whole other ball game. There are health and safety issues in selling drugs, which do not arise in sale or consumption of MP3s [insert Britney Spears joke].
I'm not talking about the RIAA I'm talking about the artist. They produced a creative work, and licensed it under terms which require you to pay them (via their label) if you want a copy of it. Of course you're under no obligation to buy anything, but unless you adhere to the license terms you also have no right to keep a copy of said music.
Whatever licence was agreed between the artist and his publisher is of no consequence to the customer. That said; normal copyright applies and the customer usually has no right to make and sell copies of a work.
we have no right to simply ignore their decision - just as (say) Linksys have no right to ignore the GPL just because want to.
That's quite a different situation, because Linksys are making copies of GPL software. Therefore they must have an agreement (in this case, the GPL) with the copyright owner.
"Allofmp3 has signed agreements with the collecting society, Russian Organization for Multimedia & Digital Systems (ROMS).... Right holders have to sign an agreement with ROMS to be able to collect their royalties. Probably artists and labels from outside Russia refuse to sign an agreement or are advised by their lawyers to refrain from addressing ROMS because this could be deemed as an acknowledgment of ROMS' position as a collection society."
allofmp3 does plainly not have the right to licence copyright to the BPI's artists in the UK...
They don't claim to have rights in the UK. They don't have a presence in the UK. The credit cards are run through Holland. Are they obliged to check your location before completing a sale? It's the customer's obligation to ensure what he buys or imports (if this can be counted as an import, which is not clear) is legal where he lives.
allofmp3 is acting unlawfully...
If they're acting unlawfully, how is it that Amazon and hundreds of other online dealers who cheerfully sell across international borders, regardless of market segmentation, are not? Corporations are all in favour of globalisation when it cuts costs for them, but demonise it when it cuts their profits.
Remember you don't "buy" copyrighted material (and you never could). Instead, you license it from the copyright holder.
Rubbish. You've been able to "buy" copyrighted material for as long as the idea existed. I have thousands of items of "copyrighted material" that I most certainly have paid for and own. Note: I own the ITEM; not the copyright. If you want to publish copyrighted material, you need to make arrangements with the copyright owner. Not if you want to read, view or listen to it yourself; or even make exerpts from it in certain cases.
Because it makes Americans look like ignorant idiots
Insularism is the least problem Slashdot has in that regard. When Taco can write:
Here people might not properly capitalize a proper noun. They might transpose letters in 'thier'. They might use jargon that isn't in oxford. And all of that is OK with me.... It's almost as if some percentage of the population wants to complain. And they will find something to complain about no matter what. Perhaps by leaving a few typos on the site, I am making their day a little easier! http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/18/143218
And he never bothered to mention fact-checking, as it's just inconceivable that he'd bother. Thus the number of absurd hoaxes published; magic energy machines; and the dupes.
But as for bringing down disrepute on the whole nation; Slashdot illustrates that every time there is an article with the word "evolution" in it.
China belongs to the WTO. They use slave labor, actively kill and imprison union organizers. They allow massive pollution. They built the environmental holocaust the three gorges dam which now clogs itself with Yangtze river silt. They ban its citizens from owning firearms and use the military and as a police force. They use Yahoo and Google and Cisco technology, services and infrastructure to imprison and execute political dissidents. China executes over 10,000 people a year
WTO = World TRADE Organisation. Not the World Council of Churches. They don't make moral judgements, it's only about business. Actually, for China to join the WTO it had to make lots of concessions on subsidised industry and agriculture. Peasant farmers are starving because of some of these rules imposed by the WTO.
Our accounting system started to choke in 1999, when various functions that used dates 12 months in advance failed. Upgrading wasn't hard, but was expensive. I still wonder how code could have been written in the 1990s that would die in a few years: Conspiracy or incompetence?
In times like this, yes. The fact remains that you didn't sense any iota of humor (it was a smart-ass comment to start with) and proceeded to nitpick the "science" of my comment still shows that you simply cannot identify a joke when you see one.
You keep stating that I have no sense of humour because I didn't understand that you were pretending to be an idiot. I've spent many evenings at stand-up tryout nights, at revues and comedy festivals; I was weaned on Monty Python and the Goon Show. I appreciate humour; you have just failed to be funny.
I rather doubt spraying water into a vacuum would be effective.
So my taxes will be paying for astronauts making mud pies on the moon? What other summer-time activities should I be supporting, a Martian Slip-N-Slide?
Being studied; I recall various schemes to deal with it, such as electrostatic fields, or spraying a clumping agent around the base. It'll probably be the major health risk to colonists.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is not with people sincerely expressing unpopular views, but malicious trolls who look for ways to annoy as many people as possible. With unrestricted anonymous posts, they could, eg, automate posting thousands of garbage posts. If they do it now, hardly anyone notices, as they're not displayed by default, so few bother. Or spammers would set their robots to post stock market tips or fake Rolex ads. This is a very high traffic site, it's a high value target for defacement. In fact, one of the reasons editorial quality is so low is that much of their time is spent fending off such crap. Besides which, creating a pseudonym to post under doesn't compromise your anonymity.
Further reading: The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.
Install a free firewall and continue using Win98. I don't see how you could have been going online without one anyway; with that and a non-IE browser, non-Outlook email, you're pretty safe.
I was running Win98 using the Net daily till a couple of months ago. I used a firewall, hardly ever used IE; never had any security problems. But it was getting flaky (after 3 years since a clean install) and newer software didn't run on it, so I upgraded to Win2000, which is rather more stable. However, with care Win98 is a quite serviceable system; especially if you tweak it, e.g. using 98Lite (now LitePC).
What should happen is that the Coldplay downloads will be transparently cached throughout the Net; and Akamai or a similar service will do the same for the Victoria's Secret stream.
Meteor sizes are measured in the "Texa". This meteorite was approximately 5 microTexas, nothing to get excited about.
So it's encrypted en-route. How about when Google gets it? Seeing as how they mine GMail for hooks to serve ads, it seems likely they'd similarly analyse your bookmarks.
AllofMP3 is the entity making the copy. They have a licence to do so, under Russian law. They can legally make a copy and transfer that file to the customer. I know that to do so the file is "copied" numerous times in transit. But if a licence was required for every such transient copy, no one could ever play a CD, watch TV or listen to the radio legally. We'd have to go back to clockwork record players.
The Russian rights organisation owns licensing and related rights in Russia and not elsewhere (this is how the various copyright licensing agencies work).
I know how licensing usually works; I've done it, buying and selling; it's a negotiation and territories are delineated. But this is a compulsory licence. The Russian agency unilaterally determines the terms. Very likely the US will pressure the Russians to change these terms so they only grant rights within Russia.
No it isn't. It's selling MP3 downloads. I've got lots of books, DVDs, CDs, etc. I've never bought a "copyright licence". Publishers make deals to buy "copyright licences"; endusers don't. You may claim that there is an implicit grant of copyright licence, but that's an assumption that needs to be argued in a court.
Allofmp3 claims that it gets its rights from the Russian rights organisation - however those rights don't include the right to sell into the UK.
Are you sure about that? Perhaps the Russian rights organisation doesn't limit where Russian companies can sell. If they say nothing, they implicitly allow foreign sales. Generally, in matters of trade, governments are always in favour of exports. It's up to the importing country to police their citizens' imports. (If a download is legally an import, which I think is a stretch myself.)
The distinction between the two cases is because you need a licence from the copyright holder to make electronic copies of a track; you don't need a licence to buy or sell a CD.
This seems to be the core of your argument. AllofMP3 are making electronic copies under a statutory licence. Since thay have survived several legal challenges on this point, we must assume this is legal in Russia at least. If the files are legal in Russia, how is it illegal for a consumer to buy one from another country? Copyright law doesn't say anything about geographical limits on rights, that's a matter of contracts. But in their absence, these are trumped by statutory licences.
That's what I said. The original poster talked about "copyright material", as if ownership of that was the same as the copyright. Many people seem to believe that copyright owners have rights over the physical media expressing that; for instance having a veto on how you can resell it.
You are being intentionally obtuse,
You're just being obtuse.
"They" being iTunes. Because Steve signed contracts agreeing to do so. Not as a matter of law.
First, if we assume Allofmp3 are legal in Russia (and considering the legal challenges they've already met, they probably are until the US pressures Russia to change the law) that's all they need. They're in Russia, the customer comes to them.
As for the "hundreds of other online dealers", they most certainly are not all authorised by the copyright holder to sell all over the world. I work in the book trade, and there is a constant war between distributors in one market selling to customers in other countries they have no right to ("rights" here meaning explicit agreement from the publisher). This has only gotten worse (for book dealers, if not the public) with the big American Internet companies ignoring any restrictions, even contractual ones they may have signed. In other industries, eg electrical appliances, these are called "grey market" sales. Only music merchants call it theft and piracy.
You may well be thinking of Apple iTunes, which does try to limit which countries it sells to. That's because there are only a handful of iTunes-style merchants (in the US at least) and the record companies have a much more united front than book companies, and wouldn't sign any agreements for online sales without severe restrictions in the contracts. In Russia, fortunately, existing copyright law and contracts (I think they have a compulsory licensing statute) already allowed digital sales.
Even if they're not legally required to check, that certainly reminds me of the perscription drug spam
Drug sales are a whole other ball game. There are health and safety issues in selling drugs, which do not arise in sale or consumption of MP3s [insert Britney Spears joke].
Whatever licence was agreed between the artist and his publisher is of no consequence to the customer. That said; normal copyright applies and the customer usually has no right to make and sell copies of a work.
we have no right to simply ignore their decision - just as (say) Linksys have no right to ignore the GPL just because want to.
That's quite a different situation, because Linksys are making copies of GPL software. Therefore they must have an agreement (in this case, the GPL) with the copyright owner.
"Allofmp3 has signed agreements with the collecting society, Russian Organization for Multimedia & Digital Systems (ROMS).... Right holders have to sign an agreement with ROMS to be able to collect their royalties. Probably artists and labels from outside Russia refuse to sign an agreement or are advised by their lawyers to refrain from addressing ROMS because this could be deemed as an acknowledgment of ROMS' position as a collection society."
They don't claim to have rights in the UK. They don't have a presence in the UK. The credit cards are run through Holland. Are they obliged to check your location before completing a sale? It's the customer's obligation to ensure what he buys or imports (if this can be counted as an import, which is not clear) is legal where he lives. allofmp3 is acting unlawfully...
If they're acting unlawfully, how is it that Amazon and hundreds of other online dealers who cheerfully sell across international borders, regardless of market segmentation, are not? Corporations are all in favour of globalisation when it cuts costs for them, but demonise it when it cuts their profits.
Rubbish. You've been able to "buy" copyrighted material for as long as the idea existed. I have thousands of items of "copyrighted material" that I most certainly have paid for and own. Note: I own the ITEM; not the copyright. If you want to publish copyrighted material, you need to make arrangements with the copyright owner. Not if you want to read, view or listen to it yourself; or even make exerpts from it in certain cases.
Insularism is the least problem Slashdot has in that regard. When Taco can write:
And he never bothered to mention fact-checking, as it's just inconceivable that he'd bother. Thus the number of absurd hoaxes published; magic energy machines; and the dupes.But as for bringing down disrepute on the whole nation; Slashdot illustrates that every time there is an article with the word "evolution" in it.
WTO = World TRADE Organisation. Not the World Council of Churches. They don't make moral judgements, it's only about business. Actually, for China to join the WTO it had to make lots of concessions on subsidised industry and agriculture. Peasant farmers are starving because of some of these rules imposed by the WTO.
Our accounting system started to choke in 1999, when various functions that used dates 12 months in advance failed. Upgrading wasn't hard, but was expensive. I still wonder how code could have been written in the 1990s that would die in a few years: Conspiracy or incompetence?
You keep stating that I have no sense of humour because I didn't understand that you were pretending to be an idiot. I've spent many evenings at stand-up tryout nights, at revues and comedy festivals; I was weaned on Monty Python and the Goon Show. I appreciate humour; you have just failed to be funny.
No, just that you can't tell a joke as well as you imagine you can.
It's troubling that you think learning multiplication tables in kindergarten is exceptional. Literally anyone can and should have.
All I know about you is that you made two stupid statements. Raised eyebrows don't translate into ASCII.
I rather doubt spraying water into a vacuum would be effective.
So my taxes will be paying for astronauts making mud pies on the moon? What other summer-time activities should I be supporting, a Martian Slip-N-Slide?
Take it up with your congressman.
Being studied; I recall various schemes to deal with it, such as electrostatic fields, or spraying a clumping agent around the base. It'll probably be the major health risk to colonists.