I'm afraid that's because your post is utterly indistinguishable from the usual ill-informed and over exaggerated anti-RIAA rants; I've read similar posts made in all seriousness too many times to see any humour in a straight imitation. There is a difference between imitation and parody, and unless you top the hyperbole of "The way they tell it, the act of ripping a CD to an MP3 for my iPod would be an anti-American act of treason punishable by having my neck stretched at the gallows" your idea of parody pales in comparison to reality.
Don't worry, you're not alone in that.
Obviously, if comment moderations (or lack thereof) are any guide. If a joke is made and nobody laughs, is it really a joke at all?
Please keep in mind that we can't hear the sardonic tone in your voice when you type, so you might need to work on including other cues if your parodies don't succeed in being more absurd than the real thing. I'm suggesting this because from where I sit, it looks more like you were serious but didn't expect a cogent response and are now trying to back away from an untenable position with an implausible excuse (sorry, it just wasn't funny, but feel free to explain exactly what the intended joke was); if I didn't know your posting history I wouldn't even be prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt.
BTW, I moderate Freaks +1, so I'm now more likely to see and respond to your posts. Which, I might add, are usually very good, hence my disappointment at the departure from form.
You're assuming the RIAA would feel constrained by the copyright laws.... which it doesn't.
If it wishes to successfully prosecute, it does.
It might call singing in the shower a "distribution".
You know as well as I do that the legal definition of "distribution" hinges on the reproduction of "fixed" works (and I hope I don't have to explain what fixed means in this context); singing in the shower does not create fixed copies, so it cannot be called "distibution" by any stretch of the imagination. ASCAP might have something to say about the RIAA moving in on their territory, too.
Singing in the shower is as much a "distribution" as some of the other things which the RIAA has been going about calling "distributions".
Other things such as...? I ask because I can see a world of difference between making fixed recordings of works available through a publicly accessable file sharing network and singing in the shower (I'm not excusing the poorly targetted, extortionate approach the RIAA is using, but neither am I being disingenuous enough to pretend they can operate outside the law and still have it stand up in court).
Until I read your post, I'd considered you to be one of the better informed, less hysterical types; if you can't point out what's wrong with the system without making things up and inventing things that the RIAA might do, perhaps you should reconsider the value of your writings. I have.
How about everyone who's ever ripped a bunch of MP3s. Have you heard of DRM? That assumes we're all pirates and prevents us from putting the music where we want it.
More histrionics, and paranoid histrionics at that; extending that logic, the fact that we have laws and police to enforce them assumes we're all criminals (oh, wait, maybe only some people are criminals, and the rest of us just have to live with suspicious, overbearing police because of them). If that's the best you've got to support your view, then your brand of bullshit smells just as bad as the RIAA's. Please read the bold part of the next quote and see how that directly contradicts what you just wrote; how does "nobody" equate to "everybody", or is this some strange new definition of "sued" that only you understand?
Granted nobody has been sued for ripping a CD but we're all penalized for trying it.
No, we've been penalized because of people who go beyond "personal" or "fair use", by any stretch of the imagination (or the legal definition, FWIW), and advertise it to the world by putting the rips on publicly accessable file sharing networks. Refer to my previous post: if you're not putting files up on a sharing network how would the RIAA find out you're ripping CDs? There's the point: the record companies never had a problem with people making mix tapes (not even in Australia when it was illegal), because they were clearly for personal use; the Walkman is credited with increasing music sales in the early 80's. Both technically and legally speaking MP3 players are a modern equivalent of the mix tape/Walkman combo, so outright preventing their use is bad for music sales. This is why iTMS has strong industry support: it gets the music onto the most popular brand of MP3 player while offering protection from casual piracy, so as far as they're concerned its win-win, and it doesn't impede the average user at all judging by the sales figures (if you've got a better tangible metric I'm all ears).
Put simply, which came first, file sharing or DRM'd CDs? I know most people aren't that good at understanding cause and effect, but in this case it really isn't that hard to grasp. You just have to get over that corporate persecution complex.
And on top of that, the DMCA prevents us from bypassing DRM techniques to make MP3s for our portable music devices.
So the record companies are adding DRM in order to exploit a loophole created by a legislative attempt to prevent software cracking, because they keep seeing their wares on P2P networks...wow, nothing gets past you, Sherlock. Except the fact that Apple themselves describe one method of defeaing their own DRM...and by a strange coincidence, the method they describe is entirely within the perview of fair use. Odd that the major labels agreed to this, if killing fair use was the aim of DRM.
But in some ways DRM is actually a good thing. Don't want it? Easy, avoid the major labels and seek out independents who refuse to use it. Trust me, you aren't going to die because you can't buy a DRM-free CD of your favourite boy band.
I'd expect "alumni" (or "alumnae") myself, since I'd hope there'd be more than one graduate from the average university.
And there you have the reason Latin is a dead language: nobody likes a grammar nazi, but only the visigoths felt strongly enough to do something about it.
The way they tell it, the act of ripping a CD to an MP3 for my iPod would be an anti-American act of treason...
Funny you say that, because parity of copyright law under the recently signed Free Trade Agreement between the US and Australia means it is now legal for me to rip a CD to an MP3, when it wasn't before. The record companies here actually welcomed the change, contrary to what you might expect (and with two exceptions they're the same companies as in the US, BTW).
What kind of treacherous terrorist am I for using my music the way I want?
Name one, just one person who has been been sent a nastygram for ripping CDs for strictly personal use. Then I'll accept what you say as something other than tiresome, ignorant histrionics.
Of course, I could avoid this by caving in^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H settling for 6-10 weeks worth of paychecks.
Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but if you're not putting files up on a sharing network how would the RIAA find out you're ripping CDs? I suggest you look up the definition of "personal".
We could not go to the savannah. Maybe focus on... problems up in the trees? Just a thought...
I can't imagine wanting to be anywhere that has a seasonal variation, large predators, and no physical contact with other primates. But really... I have never been very likely to evolve.
Never forget that the comfortable life you enjoy is possible because of the risks others have taken in the past.
Don't feel too bad; I've got a horror of an animation job with a short deadline, so the only time I've left my house in the last two weeks was to buy cigarettes on Tuesday. Slashdot is more or less my social life at the moment.
So have I, and my prediction based on previous history it will just change it's name to a three letter acronym, fail to sue IBM and fizzle out leaving a smoking crater in Utah.
IF I am a public figure, I have no right or expectation to privacyy.
So explain why actors sign releases when they appear in films. Or how they can successfully sue paparazzi; surely there must be some legal basis for that, don't you think (This is logic calling long distance. Will you accept the call)?
Frankly, I do think public figures have a right to privacy, if only for the sake of their families: the last thing we need is more kids growing up famous and turning into multiple Paris Hiltons (seriously, why does the world even give a fuck about that vapid exhibitionist stick-insect?). In fact, I'd go so far as to demand privacy for some public figures! As much privacy as possible, as soon as possible, and preferrably the welded-inside-a-steel-box-weighted-with-anchors-an d-dropped-into-the-Mariana-Trench kind of privacy.
Should I not be a public figure, or person of note, Then I OWN MY IMAGE and you need a release to publish.
Wrong, and your opinion differs from both copyright legislation and case law. You own your face, but not any photographic reproductions of your face you didn't commission, so if I take a photo of you walking down the street and put it on an otherwise neutral web page there's no law you can invoke to stop me (nominate any you like, and if they aren't obviously ridiculous I'll explain why you're wrong and provide case law examples). On the other hand, if I add something libellous or misrepresent you in any way (by adding the caption "President of the American Copraphilia Association", for example*, or claiming you endorse a product) you have grounds for legal action.
The misconception you're subscribing to is that a release form is necessary because a person in a photo retains the rights to that photo. Wrong: as far as the law is concerned, a photo (like any other work) is owned by the person who caused it to be made, regardless of whether the subject is a tree, a rock, or another person. The difference is that you can't plausibly claim a tree has opinions, and a rock can't feel that its privacy has been invaded.
If I appear in public, that changes the outcome.
Indeed it does. The instant you set foot outside your door, you're appearing in public (the AC had it right, even if he thought he was joking); this applies to you the same as any celebrity you care to name.
The fact is you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place; that's what "public" means. If you need the concept explained further, I'd suggest walking down the street naked and asking the first police officer you see.
Slashdot Mirror
I have Eagles concert HD-DVD that doesn't play in xbox360 hd-dvd player either...
That's not a bug, it's a feature.
anyhow if your critism was not enough pink floyd then perhaps the fim was not for you to start with.
The only film that had enough Pink Floyd was "Live at Pompeii".
MS plans emergency update to fix blinking cursor bug.
Now all they need to do is fix the blinking Active X bugs, the blinking default open ports, the blinking UAC, and all the other blinking problems.
Pardon my language...
I guess you don't get my sense of humor.
I'm afraid that's because your post is utterly indistinguishable from the usual ill-informed and over exaggerated anti-RIAA rants; I've read similar posts made in all seriousness too many times to see any humour in a straight imitation. There is a difference between imitation and parody, and unless you top the hyperbole of "The way they tell it, the act of ripping a CD to an MP3 for my iPod would be an anti-American act of treason punishable by having my neck stretched at the gallows" your idea of parody pales in comparison to reality.
Don't worry, you're not alone in that.
Obviously, if comment moderations (or lack thereof) are any guide. If a joke is made and nobody laughs, is it really a joke at all?
Please keep in mind that we can't hear the sardonic tone in your voice when you type, so you might need to work on including other cues if your parodies don't succeed in being more absurd than the real thing. I'm suggesting this because from where I sit, it looks more like you were serious but didn't expect a cogent response and are now trying to back away from an untenable position with an implausible excuse (sorry, it just wasn't funny, but feel free to explain exactly what the intended joke was); if I didn't know your posting history I wouldn't even be prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt.
BTW, I moderate Freaks +1, so I'm now more likely to see and respond to your posts. Which, I might add, are usually very good, hence my disappointment at the departure from form.
How DO you grow your own spaghetti?
You plant some of these: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/BODY_MV141
Science is not done by consensus. If it were, the world would be flat with the sun revolving around it.
"
And Mythbusters would be really, really boring.
"Confirmed...confirmed...confirmed...confirmed...
No goatse links? *Whew*
You're assuming the RIAA would feel constrained by the copyright laws.... which it doesn't.
If it wishes to successfully prosecute, it does.
It might call singing in the shower a "distribution".
You know as well as I do that the legal definition of "distribution" hinges on the reproduction of "fixed" works (and I hope I don't have to explain what fixed means in this context); singing in the shower does not create fixed copies, so it cannot be called "distibution" by any stretch of the imagination. ASCAP might have something to say about the RIAA moving in on their territory, too.
Singing in the shower is as much a "distribution" as some of the other things which the RIAA has been going about calling "distributions".
Other things such as...? I ask because I can see a world of difference between making fixed recordings of works available through a publicly accessable file sharing network and singing in the shower (I'm not excusing the poorly targetted, extortionate approach the RIAA is using, but neither am I being disingenuous enough to pretend they can operate outside the law and still have it stand up in court).
Until I read your post, I'd considered you to be one of the better informed, less hysterical types; if you can't point out what's wrong with the system without making things up and inventing things that the RIAA might do, perhaps you should reconsider the value of your writings. I have.
How about everyone who's ever ripped a bunch of MP3s. Have you heard of DRM? That assumes we're all pirates and prevents us from putting the music where we want it.
More histrionics, and paranoid histrionics at that; extending that logic, the fact that we have laws and police to enforce them assumes we're all criminals (oh, wait, maybe only some people are criminals, and the rest of us just have to live with suspicious, overbearing police because of them). If that's the best you've got to support your view, then your brand of bullshit smells just as bad as the RIAA's. Please read the bold part of the next quote and see how that directly contradicts what you just wrote; how does "nobody" equate to "everybody", or is this some strange new definition of "sued" that only you understand?
Granted nobody has been sued for ripping a CD but we're all penalized for trying it.
No, we've been penalized because of people who go beyond "personal" or "fair use", by any stretch of the imagination (or the legal definition, FWIW), and advertise it to the world by putting the rips on publicly accessable file sharing networks. Refer to my previous post: if you're not putting files up on a sharing network how would the RIAA find out you're ripping CDs? There's the point: the record companies never had a problem with people making mix tapes (not even in Australia when it was illegal), because they were clearly for personal use; the Walkman is credited with increasing music sales in the early 80's. Both technically and legally speaking MP3 players are a modern equivalent of the mix tape/Walkman combo, so outright preventing their use is bad for music sales. This is why iTMS has strong industry support: it gets the music onto the most popular brand of MP3 player while offering protection from casual piracy, so as far as they're concerned its win-win, and it doesn't impede the average user at all judging by the sales figures (if you've got a better tangible metric I'm all ears).
Put simply, which came first, file sharing or DRM'd CDs? I know most people aren't that good at understanding cause and effect, but in this case it really isn't that hard to grasp. You just have to get over that corporate persecution complex.
And on top of that, the DMCA prevents us from bypassing DRM techniques to make MP3s for our portable music devices.
So the record companies are adding DRM in order to exploit a loophole created by a legislative attempt to prevent software cracking, because they keep seeing their wares on P2P networks...wow, nothing gets past you, Sherlock. Except the fact that Apple themselves describe one method of defeaing their own DRM...and by a strange coincidence, the method they describe is entirely within the perview of fair use. Odd that the major labels agreed to this, if killing fair use was the aim of DRM.
But in some ways DRM is actually a good thing. Don't want it? Easy, avoid the major labels and seek out independents who refuse to use it. Trust me, you aren't going to die because you can't buy a DRM-free CD of your favourite boy band.
I'd expect "alumni" (or "alumnae") myself, since I'd hope there'd be more than one graduate from the average university.
And there you have the reason Latin is a dead language: nobody likes a grammar nazi, but only the visigoths felt strongly enough to do something about it.
The way they tell it, the act of ripping a CD to an MP3 for my iPod would be an anti-American act of treason...
Funny you say that, because parity of copyright law under the recently signed Free Trade Agreement between the US and Australia means it is now legal for me to rip a CD to an MP3, when it wasn't before. The record companies here actually welcomed the change, contrary to what you might expect (and with two exceptions they're the same companies as in the US, BTW).
What kind of treacherous terrorist am I for using my music the way I want?
Name one, just one person who has been been sent a nastygram for ripping CDs for strictly personal use. Then I'll accept what you say as something other than tiresome, ignorant histrionics.
Of course, I could avoid this by caving in^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H settling for 6-10 weeks worth of paychecks.
Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but if you're not putting files up on a sharing network how would the RIAA find out you're ripping CDs? I suggest you look up the definition of "personal".
Shouldn't that be "alumnus" or "alumna"?
No, he means his chemical formula is M+2SO4M3+2(SO4)324H2O
I was singing in the shower the other morning and I was greeted by a lawyer with a letter...
You can only be prosecuted for a public peformance, which raises some interesting questions about your bathroom...
We could not go to the savannah. Maybe focus on... problems up in the trees? Just a thought...
I can't imagine wanting to be anywhere that has a seasonal variation, large predators, and no physical contact with other primates. But really... I have never been very likely to evolve.
Never forget that the comfortable life you enjoy is possible because of the risks others have taken in the past.
125 days? 25 weeks? for a box?
Some guys will do anything for a bit of box.
He'd be able to use that as evidence that video games do inspire violence in his next suit.
Better back over him a few times, just to be sure.
Don't feel too bad; I've got a horror of an animation job with a short deadline, so the only time I've left my house in the last two weeks was to buy cigarettes on Tuesday. Slashdot is more or less my social life at the moment.
Damn, that's pathetic...nothing personal.
Actually, he got it right the first time with the Telecaster....
He got it right with the Strat too, it's just a different kind of right.
But he definitely should have stopped before the Jaguar. Worst. Bridge. Ever.
This is where I explain to you there is more to life than computers.
Surely you jest.
if it takes out microsoft there is hope
Come on, we all know what happens when you throw a Sith into a volcano. That's just asking for trouble.
That would be a sub-optimal result.
Not if you're an evil super-villian, in which case it's called "a plan".
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!
Oprah has signed on to play the Supervolcano
Now there's an eruption I don't want to see.
I've read about the caldera previously.
So have I, and my prediction based on previous history it will just change it's name to a three letter acronym, fail to sue IBM and fizzle out leaving a smoking crater in Utah.
Oh, we're talking about geology...
the AC had it right, even if he thought he was joking
My apologies, Sobrique; I glanced at the wrong thread. But you are correct, even if I didn't credit you properly.
IF I am a public figure, I have no right or expectation to privacyy.
n d-dropped-into-the-Mariana-Trench kind of privacy.
So explain why actors sign releases when they appear in films. Or how they can successfully sue paparazzi; surely there must be some legal basis for that, don't you think (This is logic calling long distance. Will you accept the call)?
Frankly, I do think public figures have a right to privacy, if only for the sake of their families: the last thing we need is more kids growing up famous and turning into multiple Paris Hiltons (seriously, why does the world even give a fuck about that vapid exhibitionist stick-insect?). In fact, I'd go so far as to demand privacy for some public figures! As much privacy as possible, as soon as possible, and preferrably the welded-inside-a-steel-box-weighted-with-anchors-a
Should I not be a public figure, or person of note, Then I OWN MY IMAGE and you need a release to publish.
Wrong, and your opinion differs from both copyright legislation and case law. You own your face, but not any photographic reproductions of your face you didn't commission, so if I take a photo of you walking down the street and put it on an otherwise neutral web page there's no law you can invoke to stop me (nominate any you like, and if they aren't obviously ridiculous I'll explain why you're wrong and provide case law examples). On the other hand, if I add something libellous or misrepresent you in any way (by adding the caption "President of the American Copraphilia Association", for example*, or claiming you endorse a product) you have grounds for legal action.
The misconception you're subscribing to is that a release form is necessary because a person in a photo retains the rights to that photo. Wrong: as far as the law is concerned, a photo (like any other work) is owned by the person who caused it to be made, regardless of whether the subject is a tree, a rock, or another person. The difference is that you can't plausibly claim a tree has opinions, and a rock can't feel that its privacy has been invaded.
If I appear in public, that changes the outcome.
Indeed it does. The instant you set foot outside your door, you're appearing in public (the AC had it right, even if he thought he was joking); this applies to you the same as any celebrity you care to name.
The fact is you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place; that's what "public" means. If you need the concept explained further, I'd suggest walking down the street naked and asking the first police officer you see.
*Hoping like hell that isn't true!