I haven't bought a cd since 1994... and I have no plans to.. lol, so its not 'my' money.
Too many good independent artists out there sharing their music for free (the way music should be) for me to waste money on the overplayed used up lyrics and sounds we've been hearing over and over again... This seems to go in hand with why I run a Linux OS and play free games and use free office-suite's instead of spending hundreds of dollars...
Software/music/movies, should be free - hardware/concerts/theaters should be their moneymakers...
Alas, I get flamed for my opinions at times, but its obvious that hundreds of millions agree with my attitude...:)
This has to be the least popular/. story I've seen... You'd think with as many of us geek's reading this who are online 18-20 hours a day and snacking at their desks that we'd have a few cookie bingers that would post. Lol
At least my anti-nonfat cookie stance leaves me eating less broken cookies.;)
I like the price and I'll be game to use it 'on demand' but the monthly service fee has to go for the box - I'd rather just buy a box for $50-$100 and have a glorified dvd/vhs player.
Disney should take the next step though and for $20 bucks you should be able to 'own' a license to unlimited playbacks of a movie. Just press a few buttons on my controller and a pin number and wala we own the license and the kids are watching their movie.
It would be enough value for me, in 'unlimited' form that I'd be interested because that way there would be no 'wearing out' like vhs/dvd's have and my kids (who watch their favorite movies literally hundreds of times before moving on to the next 'favorite') would not be costing me $3/movie each time they wanted to see it on the 'current' plan.
Am I? "... interested in talking..." is a polite way of saying.. 'sure, we'll let them use our protocol.....for a price'....and if they really wanted others running on their protocol they'd have made some effort to post a 'change of protocol' information out so the alternative IM companies didn't have to run sniffers to figure out what changed... If they had, we would not have been in yahoo-limbo, now would we.
Yahoo just wants to be the exclusive program for their IM network... While they may have the right to do that, it's a huge mistake... I have no intention of installing 4 different IM clients on my pc - if they don't want me to use their services, then I wont....
It seems that we don't have any rights in the US either, so don't feel bad, lol.
The FBI could be going after pedophiles and rapists, or missing persons with the money we (US Citizens) have paid to have them around - this guy was doing companies HUGE favors by helping them patch holes in their systems as he discovered them.
They need to offer him a job and put him in the Defense Department - use his skill 'for' us, instead of putting him in jail.
Somehow I expect there to be a FREELAMO site up soon that the Gov't will ignore just like they did FREEKEVIN's site.. lol
I guess Companies would rather find out their expense reports and payroll are accessible through the internet when a 14 year old skiddie posts the exploit to haxor groups globally instead of telling the company - stupid move.... Companies need to consider what holes they have left open - heck pay to have your network tested against exploits and talk to one of the groups (including Mitnick's now that he's out) before they complain about a LOT more than a white-hat helping them...
The only reason they are not seeking money at this time is this:
1) They are nice and safe at home, watching the RIAA go after purported acts of piracy (aka fair use + us patriot act + dmca) and fail miserably. 2) They are still making money - and until profits drop below some invisible level they've set, I doubt they will do more than let the MPAA use their search bots/ip loggers to see what people are sharing. 3) Movie traders are not your average Kazaa user (no insult to Kazaa users, but its' still a noob's p2p), in most cases they are sharing files in private networks and hubs amongst friends. 4) They realize, to catch everyone sharing movies will cost them billions of dollars and so far they have been acting fairly obliviously to the reality of HOW many people are sharing the movies.
They will start attacking users when the RIAA finds a tactic that works and doesn't take 600 years to implement (like the RIAA's current plan would). If they want to start lowering the piracy levels, they will have to install metal detectors in ALL movie theaters worldwide, and have 'screeners' only watched by test groups in theaters - not handing out copies to thousands and expecting them not to use a vcd ripper and share the movies.
They could also digitally add a digital watermark to the entire screener, or even include 'extra' scenes, or a few extra seconds here and there to certain regions of screeners distributed and once a ripped release is released, they could see which region's version is releasing the screener - from that point they could focus on each that region and do the same thing, but make a variant for each user after they narrow it down - eventually they would know who exactly is sending out these screeners. With the advent of CG video, the movie companies could do a scene say with a table that has a white table cloth, and just put a different pattern, color on each version for each region - they would not have to modify the whole movie, just that pattern or color in one scene.
My point? They're not trying that hard, because they're not 'that' worried, yet. IMHO, if they really had a clue about the global sharing of movies/games/programs/music/literature, etc, they would be shocked, because guess what..... these people who download, still rent movies/goto drive-in's/goto walk-in's and all around still spend money because even dvd's or a proper rip, cannot compare to the big screen for a good movie.
There are hundreds of agencies looking for pirated material though, so people should not be 'too' comfortable sharing/downloading these movies (especially if they are located in the US or an area that obey's US law/has strong copyright laws). Programs like Peerguardian (search google and you'll find it for dl) are good for blocking tcp-only connections to you, when they try to download and verify the file is 'real' but if all they are looking for is a files-size and name, then it wont help either because that's not hard to get.
Considering how much profit the studio's make on a cd, they should be able to drop the prices like this and still give the artists more $.
The average cd costs less than $1 to make and distribute and the average artist makes $0.40 per cd. Give $1 to the stores selling them and that would leave $11.58 that goes straight to the studio.
It should be more like $4.95 per cd and the recording studio should be making the $0.40 per cd and the store could keep $0.50, leaving the artist $4.05 per cd.
Hell, I might even buy cd's for $4.95 but I agree its hard to compare to $0.00.
I hate it when my/. posts look like that 'a blob'..:(
Eventually I'll actually get used to using 'preview' first, before posting.
But to go back on topic - I'll still be surprised if ebay doesnt pull the auction for potential copyright infringement. They have pulled my auctions for less reasons than this, in the past.
The only reason I disagree with you is the fact that you're talking about physical media versus non-physical. They cant have two standards for law - either its legal to transfer license for media or it is not. If its not legal then they are WAY overpriced at 99 cents per song.
They are not going to tell you that you cannot release your purchased cd(license) to another if you wanted to release your ownership of it. If they were to tie the music into their itunes system and drm the copies it would make it harder to release your ownership of that license except through them - perhaps in the future, but that's not happening yet.
I almost expect itunes to offer the ability to transfer licenses 'through them' for a nominal fee - perhaps 10 cents per license. The only problem with that though is again, what if you left your music connection to your kids in a will - would they then have to pay $1,000 to get your 10,000 song collection transferred to them?
Well I hope the EFF appreciates his donation - because he's going to need their legal services assistance, lol.
That said though you bring up a good point. Part of the value inherent with purchasing music cd's etc is its transferability. It could be argued too, that without this 'value' being given to the license holder to transfer their rights to another that the value of the music(or other future media to be bought in this type of format, ie: movies) is substantially lower because you are not able to really 'own' the rights to the use of the license you purchase in the same way you could by purchasing a cd.
If they are going to have ridged licensing like that they need to bring the price down to a respective level with the depreciated value - perhaps a song with a non-transferable license would cost 15 cents per song and a song(license) with a flexible license without limitation of transfer as long as only one instance of the media were to exist, would cost the 99 cents per song(license)?
Pandora's box has been opened - I just hope this guy is ready for the RIAA attack on him. Heck these days it's probably even illegal to put the cover picture of the cd in his auction without buying a license, since its bigger than a thumbnail image.:(
"The Department has purchased a Microsoft enterprise licence via Dell"
Lovely! Another example of Gov't spending too much - they could get the license directly from MS and save alot... Its not like they're some small mom and pop company, I mean dang.
Great point that a member of Congress should be asked these kind of questions - Now if we can only find one that will reply without answering you with a question or just simply stating 'no comment' then we should get a Congress-Person to handle a similar thread, after the DOJ is done telling everyone how bad they are for following the fair use laws prior to the unconstitutional ones that are in effect as of late.
We're not entering the end of the RIAA's "Fair use exercising Consumers are Evil" budget killing plan and entering the "bankruptcy court" stage.
Another thread that would be interesting would be 'ask the Vice President of the US' or 'ask President Bush'... But really we know the answers the DOJ/Congress/President are going to be the same for one reason - Money. So really, the power of the people died a long time ago - the power of America is in the almighty dollar, which leaves Bill Gates, oil, tobacco, media moguls at the top of the power ladder below our 'elected (cough**elected means they were able to buy their positions like Bush did**cough) officials' and the interests of the 'average person' are not a consideration.
Ohh, so in other words they will be up to a total 9 people(if found guilty) that they have gone after to get money out of millions upon millions of p2pâ(TM)ers..
Something tells me I'll be getting my letter when I'm in my 90's.
â¦Dear Honest Man, 60 plus years ago you transferred âoemetallica â" enter sandman.mp3â and we want an interest compounded amount of $45,161.448.15 for that single act of infringementâ¦â¦
Honestly though - after legal costs and the hundreds of man-hours spent on trying to get information on these few individuals, by the RIAA's part, I have a feeling they lost money on the 4 previous cases so if they keep this up they'll put themselves out of business just with their legal/investigation costs alone....I guess they could still blame p2p for that too... lol They might as well send out 'warning' letters to everyone in America.
Yeah, maybe the Government will see that kind of speed this decade. Dont worry though, you can finally be impressed with the speeds around 2030 when its available to the average consumer for only 3 pints of blood a day.
DSL upgrades in my area? Yeah, nice dream.. lol
on
150 Mbit/s DSL.
·
· Score: 1
I'd love it if this kind of speed was anywhere near me; however, since my only Broadband provider option is SBC/Pacbell (which in my area is lousy as they drop connections on dsl about as bad a dialup line - crappy for a server of any kind) and with the lovely new laws permitting phone companies to 'not' have to share their lines for competitors to use, IF this were released in my area it would be of great benefit to SBC but the benefit would never hit the end user.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't bought a cd since 1994... and I have no plans to.. lol, so its not 'my' money.
:)
Too many good independent artists out there sharing their music for free (the way music should be) for me to waste money on the overplayed used up lyrics and sounds we've been hearing over and over again... This seems to go in hand with why I run a Linux OS and play free games and use free office-suite's instead of spending hundreds of dollars...
Software/music/movies, should be free - hardware/concerts/theaters should be their moneymakers...
Alas, I get flamed for my opinions at times, but its obvious that hundreds of millions agree with my attitude...
As long as I have an audio-in port on my sound card and an external player, drm is a waste of their time and money.
This has to be the least popular /. story I've seen... You'd think with as many of us geek's reading this who are online 18-20 hours a day and snacking at their desks that we'd have a few cookie bingers that would post. Lol
;)
At least my anti-nonfat cookie stance leaves me eating less broken cookies.
I like the price and I'll be game to use it 'on demand' but the monthly service fee has to go for the box - I'd rather just buy a box for $50-$100 and have a glorified dvd/vhs player.
Disney should take the next step though and for $20 bucks you should be able to 'own' a license to unlimited playbacks of a movie. Just press a few buttons on my controller and a pin number and wala we own the license and the kids are watching their movie.
It would be enough value for me, in 'unlimited' form that I'd be interested because that way there would be no 'wearing out' like vhs/dvd's have and my kids (who watch their favorite movies literally hundreds of times before moving on to the next 'favorite') would not be costing me $3/movie each time they wanted to see it on the 'current' plan.
Am I? "... interested in talking ..." is a polite way of saying.. 'sure, we'll let them use our protocol.....for a price'....and if they really wanted others running on their protocol they'd have made some effort to post a 'change of protocol' information out so the alternative IM companies didn't have to run sniffers to figure out what changed... If they had, we would not have been in yahoo-limbo, now would we.
Stop believing everything you read. Sheesh.
Yahoo just wants to be the exclusive program for their IM network... While they may have the right to do that, it's a huge mistake... I have no intention of installing 4 different IM clients on my pc - if they don't want me to use their services, then I wont....
It seems that we don't have any rights in the US either, so don't feel bad, lol.
The FBI could be going after pedophiles and rapists, or missing persons with the money we (US Citizens) have paid to have them around - this guy was doing companies HUGE favors by helping them patch holes in their systems as he discovered them.
They need to offer him a job and put him in the Defense Department - use his skill 'for' us, instead of putting him in jail.
Somehow I expect there to be a FREELAMO site up soon that the Gov't will ignore just like they did FREEKEVIN's site.. lol
I guess Companies would rather find out their expense reports and payroll are accessible through the internet when a 14 year old skiddie posts the exploit to haxor groups globally instead of telling the company - stupid move.... Companies need to consider what holes they have left open - heck pay to have your network tested against exploits and talk to one of the groups (including Mitnick's now that he's out) before they complain about a LOT more than a white-hat helping them...
Sad...sad...sad
This is where I say, "DOH!".
lol
lol - they already did.
"The page you're looking for has been moved or removed from the site."
I'm shocked, usually it takes MS months to do something.
"the biggest battle was over which Linux vendor to use - RedHat or SuSE"
Its been years, but I'm impressed with Ford for this move. Something tells me MS wont bee too pleased though.
Now I want to see new car prices drop, as this should save them tons of money on upgrades, etc.
Now if they would just fix the computers in their cars, so they would run better.. lol
Perhaps. Keep in mind though, if the one that would have nailed you was blocked, then it was worth having just the same. ;)
The only reason they are not seeking money at this time is this:
:)
1) They are nice and safe at home, watching the RIAA go after purported acts of piracy (aka fair use + us patriot act + dmca) and fail miserably.
2) They are still making money - and until profits drop below some invisible level they've set, I doubt they will do more than let the MPAA use their search bots/ip loggers to see what people are sharing.
3) Movie traders are not your average Kazaa user (no insult to Kazaa users, but its' still a noob's p2p), in most cases they are sharing files in private networks and hubs amongst friends.
4) They realize, to catch everyone sharing movies will cost them billions of dollars and so far they have been acting fairly obliviously to the reality of HOW many people are sharing the movies.
They will start attacking users when the RIAA finds a tactic that works and doesn't take 600 years to implement (like the RIAA's current plan would). If they want to start lowering the piracy levels, they will have to install metal detectors in ALL movie theaters worldwide, and have 'screeners' only watched by test groups in theaters - not handing out copies to thousands and expecting them not to use a vcd ripper and share the movies.
They could also digitally add a digital watermark to the entire screener, or even include 'extra' scenes, or a few extra seconds here and there to certain regions of screeners distributed and once a ripped release is released, they could see which region's version is releasing the screener - from that point they could focus on each that region and do the same thing, but make a variant for each user after they narrow it down - eventually they would know who exactly is sending out these screeners. With the advent of CG video, the movie companies could do a scene say with a table that has a white table cloth, and just put a different pattern, color on each version for each region - they would not have to modify the whole movie, just that pattern or color in one scene.
My point? They're not trying that hard, because they're not 'that' worried, yet. IMHO, if they really had a clue about the global sharing of movies/games/programs/music/literature, etc, they would be shocked, because guess what..... these people who download, still rent movies/goto drive-in's/goto walk-in's and all around still spend money because even dvd's or a proper rip, cannot compare to the big screen for a good movie.
There are hundreds of agencies looking for pirated material though, so people should not be 'too' comfortable sharing/downloading these movies (especially if they are located in the US or an area that obey's US law/has strong copyright laws). Programs like Peerguardian (search google and you'll find it for dl) are good for blocking tcp-only connections to you, when they try to download and verify the file is 'real' but if all they are looking for is a files-size and name, then it wont help either because that's not hard to get.
Be careful out there ya'll.
I'd mean't "on cd's" - alas, we all mess up. lol
I wanted to confess and free myself from this evil sin of mp3 trading... here take my 10,000 mp3's on cd and I agree to format my pc....
lmao, I hope the courts eat them alive.
Considering how much profit the studio's make on a cd, they should be able to drop the prices like this and still give the artists more $.
The average cd costs less than $1 to make and distribute and the average artist makes $0.40 per cd. Give $1 to the stores selling them and that would leave $11.58 that goes straight to the studio.
It should be more like $4.95 per cd and the recording studio should be making the $0.40 per cd and the store could keep $0.50, leaving the artist $4.05 per cd.
Hell, I might even buy cd's for $4.95 but I agree its hard to compare to $0.00.
*sighs* (side note)
/. posts look like that 'a blob'.. :(
I hate it when my
Eventually I'll actually get used to using 'preview' first, before posting.
But to go back on topic - I'll still be surprised if ebay doesnt pull the auction for potential copyright infringement. They have pulled my auctions for less reasons than this, in the past.
The only reason I disagree with you is the fact that you're talking about physical media versus non-physical. They cant have two standards for law - either its legal to transfer license for media or it is not. If its not legal then they are WAY overpriced at 99 cents per song. They are not going to tell you that you cannot release your purchased cd(license) to another if you wanted to release your ownership of it. If they were to tie the music into their itunes system and drm the copies it would make it harder to release your ownership of that license except through them - perhaps in the future, but that's not happening yet. I almost expect itunes to offer the ability to transfer licenses 'through them' for a nominal fee - perhaps 10 cents per license. The only problem with that though is again, what if you left your music connection to your kids in a will - would they then have to pay $1,000 to get your 10,000 song collection transferred to them?
Well I hope the EFF appreciates his donation - because he's going to need their legal services assistance, lol.
:(
That said though you bring up a good point. Part of the value inherent with purchasing music cd's etc is its transferability. It could be argued too, that without this 'value' being given to the license holder to transfer their rights to another that the value of the music(or other future media to be bought in this type of format, ie: movies) is substantially lower because you are not able to really 'own' the rights to the use of the license you purchase in the same way you could by purchasing a cd.
If they are going to have ridged licensing like that they need to bring the price down to a respective level with the depreciated value - perhaps a song with a non-transferable license would cost 15 cents per song and a song(license) with a flexible license without limitation of transfer as long as only one instance of the media were to exist, would cost the 99 cents per song(license)?
Pandora's box has been opened - I just hope this guy is ready for the RIAA attack on him. Heck these days it's probably even illegal to put the cover picture of the cd in his auction without buying a license, since its bigger than a thumbnail image.
"The Department has purchased a Microsoft enterprise licence via Dell"
Lovely! Another example of Gov't spending too much - they could get the license directly from MS and save alot... Its not like they're some small mom and pop company, I mean dang.
Great point that a member of Congress should be asked these kind of questions - Now if we can only find one that will reply without answering you with a question or just simply stating 'no comment' then we should get a Congress-Person to handle a similar thread, after the DOJ is done telling everyone how bad they are for following the fair use laws prior to the unconstitutional ones that are in effect as of late.
We're not entering the end of the RIAA's "Fair use exercising Consumers are Evil" budget killing plan and entering the "bankruptcy court" stage.
Another thread that would be interesting would be 'ask the Vice President of the US' or 'ask President Bush'... But really we know the answers the DOJ/Congress/President are going to be the same for one reason - Money. So really, the power of the people died a long time ago - the power of America is in the almighty dollar, which leaves Bill Gates, oil, tobacco, media moguls at the top of the power ladder below our 'elected (cough**elected means they were able to buy their positions like Bush did**cough) officials' and the interests of the 'average person' are not a consideration.
While I agree with you. Look how much more attention and publicity he's received this way.
wow, a (real) fair use ruling.
Amazing, yet another judge who understands the meaning of Fair Use...
*Hey judge, run for President - I'll vote for ya* (grin)
Ohh, so in other words they will be up to a total 9 people(if found guilty) that they have gone after to get money out of millions upon millions of p2pâ(TM)ers..
Something tells me I'll be getting my letter when I'm in my 90's.
â¦Dear Honest Man, 60 plus years ago you transferred âoemetallica â" enter sandman.mp3â and we want an interest compounded amount of $45,161.448.15 for that single act of infringementâ¦â¦
Honestly though - after legal costs and the hundreds of man-hours spent on trying to get information on these few individuals, by the RIAA's part, I have a feeling they lost money on the 4 previous cases so if they keep this up they'll put themselves out of business just with their legal/investigation costs alone....I guess they could still blame p2p for that too... lol They might as well send out 'warning' letters to everyone in America.
Yeah, maybe the Government will see that kind of speed this decade. Dont worry though, you can finally be impressed with the speeds around 2030 when its available to the average consumer for only 3 pints of blood a day.
I'd love it if this kind of speed was anywhere near me; however, since my only Broadband provider option is SBC/Pacbell (which in my area is lousy as they drop connections on dsl about as bad a dialup line - crappy for a server of any kind) and with the lovely new laws permitting phone companies to 'not' have to share their lines for competitors to use, IF this were released in my area it would be of great benefit to SBC but the benefit would never hit the end user.