Sorry to break this to you but fundementalism is not just in the South. I was brought up in a Baptist congregation in California. Thank goodness, I was still able to get a proper perspective on things. I am a committed agnostic. I live in the south now an d most of the people I know would not be described as fundementalists. Please watch your stereotypes.
Boy that is rich. You make light of one of the greatest events of human suffering in the history of man and I am the one that got you mod'ed down as a troll.
Until people rise up and fight with their wallets nothing is going to change. Support needs to be given those artists that do distribute themselves instead of relying on a label.
Exactly, don't listen to music that is not distributed in a way that you agree with and if enough people agree with you, the artists will follow.
I was not saying that the "law is the law is the law" I was saying that if you don't like the law then try to get it changed. You would probably not succeed since most people feel that artists and other IP creators deserve to be guranteed some compensation for thier work. If you can find a way for everyone to download thier music for free and still make the artists rich, please suggest it because that would fix the problem right away.
What is being stolen is the value of the downloaded music. If I am normally compensated $1 for each copy of a song that I sell, and you download 10 of my songs for free, you have stolen $10 from me. Now, if you make a copy of a song that you bought from me for your own personal use ( e.g. you create a mixed tape ) then I am not due another dollar and you have not stolen anything. If you take that mixed tape and give it to your brother, you have transfered something of value to your brother for which I would normally be compensated and that is essentially stealing. If you were only to loan the tape to your brother, that would not consitute a violation of my copyright. If you were to play the song, for a fee, for a group of people, then I would be entitled to all of your proceeds. This is the essense of our copyright laws. I know it is an oversimplification and there are issues that are not addressed but that is the gist of it. What is immoral about that?
Ahh, but in the case of most of the artists on the site
Yeah, most, what about the ones who don't?
the RIAA is threatening an ISP for hosting a web site
I don't remember anyone mentioning the RIAA. The web site just says that "Lawyers" contacted thier ISP. How do you know the lawyer was not representing someone with valid standing to bring a legal action?
Please explain to me how stopping people from trading the unreleased works of dead artists promotes the advancement of useful arts and sciences.
There is no indication that the person(s) the lawyer(s) are representing are dead artists or thier decendents. It could be that it is the live artists whose work was being ripped off that are complaining. The laws are designed to meet thier purpose by creating the promise of compensation which encourages people to continue to create useful arts and sciences.
Oh you mean the unconstitutional laws passed by bribed politicians who were bought by industry executives grant them the right to destroy our artistic heritage.
Firstly, the constitutionality of IP laws is a matter for much debate. Secondly, Maybe I missed something. Who is destroying our "artistic heritage"? RIAA certainly isn't. If by destroy you mean "continue to make available for a fee", I think you need to make use of a dictionary. If you can name one bit of our "artistic heritage" that has been destroyed, please point it out to me.
In what reality do you think this is funny? Somehow the slaughtering of millions of innocent people is comparable to the fact that you are not legally allowed to steal people's artistic creations?
That is the load of garbage. Our system of laws says that people can own information. Specificlly the copyright and patent laws. If you don't like that, get the laws changed. I can tell you that I will fight you tooth and nail on this issue. I make my living selling information in the form of software code and various other computer related IP.
If the site did not contain any copyrighted material that the clients of these lawyers owned then they would have no standing to bring a law suit. This is not "alternative" music it is popular music that is being distributed for free without due compensation to the copyright holders. If the site only contained music and live shows that were voluntarily posted by the artists/copyright holders, there would be no legal way for the RIAA, MPAA, or any other entitiy to shut down the site.
A site like this is fine...
on
EZTree Shuts Down
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
if the artists that performed the live show agree to having thier performance made available in this way. What people around here just don't seem to get is that it is the performer that owns the performance and it is thier consent that is required to allow the copies to be made. In most venues the unauthorized recording of a live show is grounds for removal from the premesis and is a violation of the agreement you entered into when you purchased and used the ticket to the event. If the event takes place in a public venue then there can be no restrictions on the use of a recording. However, my guess is that most of these bittorrents were "boot-leg" recordings obtained in a clandestine manner.
A great example of what I am talking about is the Greatful Dead. If my recollection of my GD days are clear they basiclly didn't care if you recorded a boot leg of thier concerts. If they were touring today, my guess is that they would be happy to allow this sort of distribution.
Those that don't choose to allow it, whether you like it or not, have the right to defend thier copyrights. If you don't like the fact that a performer decides to enforce thier copyright, don't listen to thier music. Just don't steal thier music and then justify it by saying they are *ssh*les for not giving it to you for free in the first place.
I thought it was so that those attending would learn and use what they had learned. I must be wrong.
Of course you are. That is why "evangelism" instead of rational argument are used to convince people of the merits of one technology over another. The rational argument that Linux and OSS are a viable alternative to closed source products just doesn't get people excited.
We should endeavor to learn everyday and Schools should just be a place where that process is intensified.
Empirical evidence has shown, time and time again, that low level languages like C and Forth produce more efficient, faster, and easier to maintain code than today's so called high level languages. Why is this important? Because they (the IT world, who simply wants to sell you a new compiler every year for $2,000) try to push stuff like encapsulation and polymorphism down your throat as the saving grace and you simply accept it as fact because you don't know any better. If you're not bit shifting hot registers at runtime then you're not programming. Plain and simple. You're just plugging different blocks together and hoping like hell it will work. How would you feel if they designed bridges like that? I wouldn't feel too secure driving across a bridge that was designed like today's non open source software programs are.
I have to disagree, the fact is, any language can produce inefficient and difficult to maintain code. The difference is not the language, it is the programmer. Donald Knuth does not spend too much time "swapping hot registers" in his books, "The Art of Computer Programming" and those books, more than any other, defined what programming is. At its finest, it is the pursuit of the most efficient algorithm. I think you and I agree on that. In C++, I can write a sorting algorithm that sorts objects that are not even the same concrete type. To do that in C I would have to add a similar level of overhead that C++ provides built in. Now, I am not saying that C++ is better than C. I am saying that we should use the tools that are best suited to the problem at hand. If your problem requires ploymophism then use a language that supports it. BTW, encapsulation is done in C all the time. Look at the fopen and friends API. Unless you are accessing the members of the FILE structure directly you are practicing "encapsulation".
Now, I think the problem really is that the "High Level Languages" make people think that they are programmers when they are not. People who have not developed the skill necessary to write good code in any language can jump in and produce results. Those results might be low par and hard to maintain but they have been produced, and that is what the folks with the money want. They don't care that the code is sloppy and poorly designed. They just see the program working. Later on down the road they might care when they have to spend double the money to maintain the beast. But that is for another day.
Maybe NASA could market them as Martian Sea Monkeys.
And allow them to complete thier plan of terran conquest by infecting your children with thier mind control microbes? I for one will welcome our new Martian Overlords.
Yeah, it's really awful that people can continue to benifit from thier creations for so long. IP should not go into the public domain untill the copyright holders chose for it to or the applicable law forces it to.
What right do you have to claim it as "your" culture? Did you create it? Did you exert a single creative impulse to make it come into being? No, it was the copyright holders. Sure many of them did not actually create the material either but the material's creator gave them the copyright in exchange for, what they considered, fair compensation. You have no right to stand there demanding free access to the IP that someone else created on the basis that it is "your culture". What arrogance!
I create plenty of IP as I am a software engineer and your attitude smells of slavery. You want to force the IP creators to give away thier creations so that you do not have to expend any effort in acquiring it your self. That amounts to the producers becomeing the slaves of the consumers and that is wrong.
I have said it before, and I will say it again, the Open Source movement has got this right. The Producers ( open source developers amoung which, I count myself ) have choosen to release thier software under a license that grants the consumers ( open source software's users ) the right to use it free of charge. When the artists/producers choose to do the same thing, then you can copy it around to your heart's content. But until then, you are a thief if you overstep the bounds of fair use. Fair use does not include making copies whole copies for others' to use with out paying.
The problem with the broadcast flag is that it impinges on fair use. Fair use allows me to make a copy of something for my own use and keep it indefinately but the broadcast flag requires that the recording be deleted after a proscribed interval. This is wrong and should be fought against.
My understanding is that QAM support will be added with a firmware upgrade. Was going to link to a post or faq entry on this subject but, probably due to my link above, the site is hosed.:-P
True, the choices I have made are not ones that novice Linux users should chose. However, the idea of posting an ISO of the completed system is really the antithisis of the Gentoo concept. The resulting system would probably not match your hardware configuration exactly and that is what Gentoo is really good at. Optimizing for your hardware and configuration.
There is a distribution that is being worked on that could help people along.
That is just plain stupid. The US is a Representative Democracy and there for the best route is to spend some time making your views known to your congressmen and senetors. Not move out of the country.
As for countries where your rights aren't going to be squished, I hope you don't mean any of the european countries. They are mostly Socialist run states and Socialism does not ever foster freedom.
I bought the pcHDTV card and am building a GentooMythTV box around it, heres a
HOW-TO. MythTV can record your programs to DVD if you like as well as many other things.
I am using an AMD 1700+ CPU with 1 GB memory, an nVidia GeForce FX 5700 128MB board. I only have 80+GB space on the system right now
(enough for around 5 hrs recording time ) but I will probably upgrade it later this year.
I bought this card because it does not have the broadcast bit and since it was made before July it will not be encumbered with all those
restrictions.
I do not, however, plan on abusing that flexibility by sharing my recordings and thus ripping off the content owners. It is the
thieves that feel it is thier right to steal from people just because they can that have brought this onerrous situation upon us.
These are much better examples of classic gadgets then the Powerbook 100. The Powerbook line should have been mentioned once not twice.
The IBM Thinkpad 701 was mentioned but I think it has clearly had more impact on the way people work and the laptop market in general then the powerbook.
I was gratified to see the Tivo mention and in light of the deathwatch , maybe this offers some hope.
A few days ago I posted in response to another reader's comments about the "Social Revolution" that is occurring due to P2P software.
This is precisely the way in which this "revolution" should happen. This artist has choosen to distribute her music only over the internet. Because of her choice many people are able to enjoy her music that might not otherwise. She also has cut out the RIAA member middlemen. We need more artists that are willing to do this.
Her choice, though, is the key issue here. An artist that does not make a similar choice should not have thier right to make that choice usurped by a bunch of thieves with bittorrent clients.
Like I said in my previous post. I think that you are right that P2P has a potential to create a "revolution" in the way art is distributed. The problem is, the artists have to be willing to channel thier art through those avenues. You seem to be saying that reguardless what the artists wishes are, you have a right to take thier art for free and benifit from it. You are the one who does not understand the basic human right to benifit from the fruits of our labors.
This is insightful! Give me a break. What "Social Revolution" is brought about by stealling from people?
I think P2P is a great technology and I think that it has the potential to actual facilitate a "Social Revolution" when it comes to the distribution of art. It is already being used by open source developers to distribute thier code. But the artists have to agree to that form of distribution. Just as the OSS developers do. In every case where artists have signed a contract with a record label they are saying that they want to give the record company the right to control distribution of thier music in return for monitary compensation. When a number one popular music group gets that way entirely through P2P distribution, then you will have your "Social Revolution". I actually hope that it happens, but until the artists voluntarily distribute their music that way, it is just stealing.
I write software for a large corperation. I have also contributed code to OSS projects. In each instance, it is I who decide how my code will be distributed. In one case I gave all the rights to my customer in exchange for money. In the other I gave it freely to the community for it's benifit and to improve a tool that I use. My code, my choice. Thier music, thier choice. It is as simple as that.
But you are forgetting that we are talking about sublight speed. The damage done by a photon torpedo can easily disrupt the fragile warp fields. Warp speeds are created by sucessive warp shells like those nesting dolls. To reach warp 9 you need 9 nested warp shells.
I guess I spend more time infront of the tube than you:P
Slashdot Mirror
On Mac OS every print dialog has an option to print to PDF instead of the printer. Very Handy!
Sorry to break this to you but fundementalism is not just in the South. I was brought up in a Baptist congregation in California. Thank goodness, I was still able to get a proper perspective on things. I am a committed agnostic. I live in the south now an d most of the people I know would not be described as fundementalists. Please watch your stereotypes.
Boy that is rich. You make light of one of the greatest events of human suffering in the history of man and I am the one that got you mod'ed down as a troll.
What is being stolen is the value of the downloaded music. If I am normally compensated $1 for each copy of a song that I sell, and you download 10 of my songs for free, you have stolen $10 from me. Now, if you make a copy of a song that you bought from me for your own personal use ( e.g. you create a mixed tape ) then I am not due another dollar and you have not stolen anything. If you take that mixed tape and give it to your brother, you have transfered something of value to your brother for which I would normally be compensated and that is essentially stealing. If you were only to loan the tape to your brother, that would not consitute a violation of my copyright. If you were to play the song, for a fee, for a group of people, then I would be entitled to all of your proceeds. This is the essense of our copyright laws. I know it is an oversimplification and there are issues that are not addressed but that is the gist of it. What is immoral about that?
what an idiot!
That is the load of garbage. Our system of laws says that people can own information. Specificlly the copyright and patent laws. If you don't like that, get the laws changed. I can tell you that I will fight you tooth and nail on this issue. I make my living selling information in the form of software code and various other computer related IP.
If the site did not contain any copyrighted material that the clients of these lawyers owned then they would have no standing to bring a law suit. This is not "alternative" music it is popular music that is being distributed for free without due compensation to the copyright holders. If the site only contained music and live shows that were voluntarily posted by the artists/copyright holders, there would be no legal way for the RIAA, MPAA, or any other entitiy to shut down the site.
A great example of what I am talking about is the Greatful Dead. If my recollection of my GD days are clear they basiclly didn't care if you recorded a boot leg of thier concerts. If they were touring today, my guess is that they would be happy to allow this sort of distribution.
Those that don't choose to allow it, whether you like it or not, have the right to defend thier copyrights. If you don't like the fact that a performer decides to enforce thier copyright, don't listen to thier music. Just don't steal thier music and then justify it by saying they are *ssh*les for not giving it to you for free in the first place.
I give you the geeky linux install back: here
We should endeavor to learn everyday and Schools should just be a place where that process is intensified.
Now, I think the problem really is that the "High Level Languages" make people think that they are programmers when they are not. People who have not developed the skill necessary to write good code in any language can jump in and produce results. Those results might be low par and hard to maintain but they have been produced, and that is what the folks with the money want. They don't care that the code is sloppy and poorly designed. They just see the program working. Later on down the road they might care when they have to spend double the money to maintain the beast. But that is for another day.
What right do you have to claim it as "your" culture? Did you create it? Did you exert a single creative impulse to make it come into being? No, it was the copyright holders. Sure many of them did not actually create the material either but the material's creator gave them the copyright in exchange for, what they considered, fair compensation. You have no right to stand there demanding free access to the IP that someone else created on the basis that it is "your culture". What arrogance!
I create plenty of IP as I am a software engineer and your attitude smells of slavery. You want to force the IP creators to give away thier creations so that you do not have to expend any effort in acquiring it your self. That amounts to the producers becomeing the slaves of the consumers and that is wrong.
I have said it before, and I will say it again, the Open Source movement has got this right. The Producers ( open source developers amoung which, I count myself ) have choosen to release thier software under a license that grants the consumers ( open source software's users ) the right to use it free of charge. When the artists/producers choose to do the same thing, then you can copy it around to your heart's content. But until then, you are a thief if you overstep the bounds of fair use. Fair use does not include making copies whole copies for others' to use with out paying.
The problem with the broadcast flag is that it impinges on fair use. Fair use allows me to make a copy of something for my own use and keep it indefinately but the broadcast flag requires that the recording be deleted after a proscribed interval. This is wrong and should be fought against.
My understanding is that QAM support will be added with a firmware upgrade. Was going to link to a post or faq entry on this subject but, probably due to my link above, the site is hosed. :-P
There is a distribution that is being worked on that could help people along.
As for countries where your rights aren't going to be squished, I hope you don't mean any of the european countries. They are mostly Socialist run states and Socialism does not ever foster freedom.
I am using an AMD 1700+ CPU with 1 GB memory, an nVidia GeForce FX 5700 128MB board. I only have 80+GB space on the system right now (enough for around 5 hrs recording time ) but I will probably upgrade it later this year.
I bought this card because it does not have the broadcast bit and since it was made before July it will not be encumbered with all those restrictions.
I do not, however, plan on abusing that flexibility by sharing my recordings and thus ripping off the content owners. It is the thieves that feel it is thier right to steal from people just because they can that have brought this onerrous situation upon us.
These are much better examples of classic gadgets then the Powerbook 100. The Powerbook line should have been mentioned once not twice.
The IBM Thinkpad 701 was mentioned but I think it has clearly had more impact on the way people work and the laptop market in general then the powerbook.
I was gratified to see the Tivo mention and in light of the deathwatch , maybe this offers some hope.
This is precisely the way in which this "revolution" should happen. This artist has choosen to distribute her music only over the internet. Because of her choice many people are able to enjoy her music that might not otherwise. She also has cut out the RIAA member middlemen. We need more artists that are willing to do this.
Her choice, though, is the key issue here. An artist that does not make a similar choice should not have thier right to make that choice usurped by a bunch of thieves with bittorrent clients.
Like I said in my previous post. I think that you are right that P2P has a potential to create a "revolution" in the way art is distributed. The problem is, the artists have to be willing to channel thier art through those avenues. You seem to be saying that reguardless what the artists wishes are, you have a right to take thier art for free and benifit from it. You are the one who does not understand the basic human right to benifit from the fruits of our labors.
I think P2P is a great technology and I think that it has the potential to actual facilitate a "Social Revolution" when it comes to the distribution of art. It is already being used by open source developers to distribute thier code. But the artists have to agree to that form of distribution. Just as the OSS developers do. In every case where artists have signed a contract with a record label they are saying that they want to give the record company the right to control distribution of thier music in return for monitary compensation. When a number one popular music group gets that way entirely through P2P distribution, then you will have your "Social Revolution". I actually hope that it happens, but until the artists voluntarily distribute their music that way, it is just stealing.
I write software for a large corperation. I have also contributed code to OSS projects. In each instance, it is I who decide how my code will be distributed. In one case I gave all the rights to my customer in exchange for money. In the other I gave it freely to the community for it's benifit and to improve a tool that I use. My code, my choice. Thier music, thier choice. It is as simple as that.
I guess I spend more time infront of the tube than you :P
LOL, thought you were approximating the speed due to rotation not orbit... Sorry.