Before the internet I used to tape songs off the radio and make mix tapes and trade them with friends. If thats not illegal how is this illegal?
It's not illegal because you've already paid the DAT tax on those blank tapes.
If you download from Kazaa straight to your Audio CD-R (which is subject to the DAT tax), it is perfectly legal, just like taping off the radio. However, if you record off the radio into an mp3 on your hard drive, that's illegal just like downloading from kazaa.
The difference is cost and volume. Having a few CDs of various genres, most of which were donated anyway, and which generate revenue in the form of late fees is one thing. Having multiple channels of streaming digital music 24 hours a day is another thing altogether.
It depends on the specifics, but I'd probably oppose this because the educational value is probably far outweighed by the cost.
You can try doing rate-shaping of just file-sharking connections - something we've experimented with - but future versions of the software may be encrypted
Actually P2P can't effectively be encrypted since there is no key signing authority so it can always be attacked by a man-in-the-middle.
The best solution is probably to make it a violation of the rules, take a $100 deposit, and then suspend the accounts of anyone caught breaking the rules, keeping their deposit.
They have a monopoly, sure, but not because anyone is forced to use their software. They have a monopoly because their software is better than their competitors. All the rest is related to the the fact that they have a monopoly.
Just look at Britney Spears... or VHS... or Michael Bay movies... or McDonalds... or Twinkies... or fossil fuels... I could go on...
Has just about everyone on slashdot used Britney Spears, Michael Bay movies, or Twinkies? As for the other three, I'd say yes, they're good. Better than their alternatives, even.
My point is, popularity and quality are not the same thing.
And my point is that popularity is an indicator of quality. It's not always true, because sometimes there are other factors (people are legally or physically forced into a certain choice). But all other things equal, the better product will be the more popular one.
Microsoft has the worlds best marketing machine...
Only because they have so many profits from creating such great products.
how do I know? because they routinely beat the competition, even when the competition offers a better product, at a lower price.
Others may have lower prices, but what product does someone make better than Microsoft which Microsoft is beating their competition at?
Personally I'd agree on the browser, perhaps. But most of my friends who I've shown mozilla to don't like it. So that's just my own personal taste, and frankly I weigh access to source code a lot heavier than most people.
The reason I answered wasn't because I thought you wanted an answer, though. It was more to point out the absurdity of suggesting that Windows isn't better. If it's not better, why do so many people use it?
Take for instance speeding. People break the speed limit all the time, because they're not likely to get caught, and the penalties are low if they do get caught.
Likewise with most copyright infringement. Your chances of getting caught are very small. Even if you do get caught, you have fair use defenses, and even if you lose, you don't lose all that much. If you can show the judge that you were not aware that you were committing copyright infringement, the court can lower damages to only $200.
Now once you get a cease and desist order, things change. You're going to be considered a willful infringer, and now you're liable for up to $150,000 in statutory damages, and even criminal sanctions if your works amount to more than $1000 or you're distributing them for commercial gain.
As for fair use, fair use is whatever the supreme court justices say it is. It's best not to rely on fair use once you've received a cease and desist, or if you're planning on profiting off copyright infringement. At least not without hiring a lawyer first.
Well, it was more like 44 radio commercials... Twelve of which were during peak afternoon driving times (@$250/apiece) on the #1-rated show during in this marker during that time period. Average listening audience is projected between 9,800 and 13,500 or so for those times.
Well, I don't know enough about radio marketing to comment on whether or not that's likely to get people to buy CDs. Could be that the commercial wasn't done well. Could be that 44 radio commercials just isn't a good advertising mechanism. I don't know.
As far as Janis Ian goes, perhaps she is an apologist, perhaps not. But I was approaching this from my own viewpoint - that I have downloaded many mp3's in my time, and never in my life did I buy more than when I was able to sample new music while Napster was alive. I spent more in a single month during that time period than I have in total since Napster shut down.
Well, if you're going to take purely the denotation of the word, and ignore the connotation, then Janis Ian is, most definately, an apologist.
As for anecdotes, I've never bought a CD from an RIAA-affiliated artist since Napster. A lot of my friends haven't either. Even my less technical friends tend to get burned CD-Rs from my more technical friends. So in my experience, Napster et. al. have hurt the recording industry.
I have bought CDs though. But I've always bought them from indy artists, after watching them perform live. That, in my opinion, is your best bet at making money. Get a fan base through live performances, and sell your CDs there.
Also, in my opinion having mp3s available online probably isn't going to hurt your CD sales at live performances. Buying someone's CD after watching a great performance is more like tipping a waitress after receiving excellent service. You don't really do it for the CD as much as to show your support.
So, as you say, the real question, the piece I haven't been able to figure out yet, is how much (if any) the free mp3s are hurting my business.
In your case, I don't think it really hurts. Probably doesn't help much either. The fact of the matter is there's too much competition for listen-at-home music for the little guys to really make money at it. Maybe a few lucky individuals can do it, but I'm talking about single digits a year.
Mp3's or not, I think this is going somewhere, even if it's not the overnight sucess I would have liked.
Best of luck to you. It's a tough business. I know quite a few musicians who are without a doubt better than the vast majority of RIAA affiliated artists, and still can't afford to quit their day job. Fortunately, you seem to enjoy or at least tolerate the business aspect of it, so you have an upper hand over many others.
I and I'm sure many others would love to hear a followup in a few months.
Hmm, and what about his paid advertising. That didn't seem to increase his sales either.
One radio commercial to 10,000 people is hardly likely to. I don't see how that's relevant though. The question is whether or not P2P hurts sales. It's not whether or not paid advertising helps sales.
And how, exactly does Janis Ian fit into your generalizations?
She's an apologist.
She's surely not a/.'er, perhaps you could point out how she's a "P2P apologist"?
"Free Internet downloads are good for the music industry and its artists," explains Ian. "Every act that can't get signed to a major, for whatever reason, can reach literally millions of new listeners, enticing them to buy the CD and come to the concerts."
Sounds to me like she's justifying copyright infringement. That makes her an apologist.
if nobody knows about you, how can they be expected to buy your stuff?
if your stuff is free, how can you expect to make any money off it? Sure, maybe you'll make an occasional sale, but nowhere near as much as you'll make if you're not giving your stuff away for free.
Janis argues that we pay for bottled water, when we can get it for free. And that's true, some people do. And some people will pay for CDs even though they can download mp3s for free. But that skirts the question. The question is whether or not P2P reduces sales, not whether or not it eliminates them. To use the bottled water analogy, would bottled water companies make more or less money if we couldn't get water from our faucets? It seems to me that the only answer that makes sense is that they would make more money.
Here's a question for you. If people are willing to pay for stuff they can get for free, how come no one is making money off shareware?
think twice before you put anything on the network. Back up anything that you can't afford to lose. If there's something you can't afford to be released to the public, it probably shouldn't be on a computer connected to the internet in the first place. If it has to be, hire someone else to do it. Get insurance. And then prepare a contingency plan for when your security system fails.
I hear this all the time, and it probably applies to the other side of the fence as well.
Sure. You can break into 95% of computers by just learning the tools, and nothing about networking. Likewise, you can protect yourself from 95% of script kiddies by just learning the tools, and nothing about networking.
The "average user in the home" has no reason to learn anything more than the basic tools. As for the admin, or anyone else with an economic incentive to protect their network, it probably makes economic sense to just hire someone else to do it. Unless of course that's really what you want to do with your life (in which case you probably wouldn't be asking slashdot).
Yeah, exactly... We'd have to start smaller. Say, 4000 shares each of AOL?
Or just 100 shares each of LNUX. Of course, what use would that be? I guess it puts it into perspective just how insignificant slashdotters really are.
No, it's far more complicated than that. Especially for someone like Ballmer, who is likely hitting all the limits, like the AMT and $100,000 limits. There are incentive stock options, and nonqualified stock options. And there are many different exercise scenarios for each.
But in any case, the tax on these options, exercised several years ago, was already paid (for someone like Ballmer). So the basis in the stock is at bubble prices, and Ballmer likely will be able to show a capital loss.
Slashdot Mirror
Kazza is offering songs at $0.00 per song, with a $0.00/month subscription.
So is ClearChannel.
Before the internet I used to tape songs off the radio and make mix tapes and trade them with friends. If thats not illegal how is this illegal?
It's not illegal because you've already paid the DAT tax on those blank tapes.
If you download from Kazaa straight to your Audio CD-R (which is subject to the DAT tax), it is perfectly legal, just like taping off the radio. However, if you record off the radio into an mp3 on your hard drive, that's illegal just like downloading from kazaa.
Copyright is a monopoly. There will be no real competition until a statutory license for this service is set.
Of course, if you substitute "music" for "laptops running linux" I'm sure the /. crowd would quickly change their tune.
The difference is cost and volume. Having a few CDs of various genres, most of which were donated anyway, and which generate revenue in the form of late fees is one thing. Having multiple channels of streaming digital music 24 hours a day is another thing altogether.
It depends on the specifics, but I'd probably oppose this because the educational value is probably far outweighed by the cost.
You can try doing rate-shaping of just file-sharking connections - something we've experimented with - but future versions of the software may be encrypted
Actually P2P can't effectively be encrypted since there is no key signing authority so it can always be attacked by a man-in-the-middle.
The best solution is probably to make it a violation of the rules, take a $100 deposit, and then suspend the accounts of anyone caught breaking the rules, keeping their deposit.
It is a microcosm of the real world.
And just like "the real world," a lot of people are against increasing spending on frivolous items.
They have a monopoly, sure, but not because anyone is forced to use their software. They have a monopoly because their software is better than their competitors. All the rest is related to the the fact that they have a monopoly.
Just look at Britney Spears... or VHS... or Michael Bay movies... or McDonalds... or Twinkies... or fossil fuels... I could go on...
Has just about everyone on slashdot used Britney Spears, Michael Bay movies, or Twinkies? As for the other three, I'd say yes, they're good. Better than their alternatives, even.
My point is, popularity and quality are not the same thing.
And my point is that popularity is an indicator of quality. It's not always true, because sometimes there are other factors (people are legally or physically forced into a certain choice). But all other things equal, the better product will be the more popular one.
Microsoft has the worlds best marketing machine...
Only because they have so many profits from creating such great products.
how do I know? because they routinely beat the competition, even when the competition offers a better product, at a lower price.
Others may have lower prices, but what product does someone make better than Microsoft which Microsoft is beating their competition at?
Personally I'd agree on the browser, perhaps. But most of my friends who I've shown mozilla to don't like it. So that's just my own personal taste, and frankly I weigh access to source code a lot heavier than most people.
You mean it was a rhetorical question...
The reason I answered wasn't because I thought you wanted an answer, though. It was more to point out the absurdity of suggesting that Windows isn't better. If it's not better, why do so many people use it?
Oooh, approved by Sony and better technically. This one might last as long as betamax!
have you ever used Windows?
Is there anyone on here who hasn't?
Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't. Depends if the image is copyrightable, if the copyright has expired, if he's using it under fair use, etc.
Take for instance speeding. People break the speed limit all the time, because they're not likely to get caught, and the penalties are low if they do get caught.
Likewise with most copyright infringement. Your chances of getting caught are very small. Even if you do get caught, you have fair use defenses, and even if you lose, you don't lose all that much. If you can show the judge that you were not aware that you were committing copyright infringement, the court can lower damages to only $200.
Now once you get a cease and desist order, things change. You're going to be considered a willful infringer, and now you're liable for up to $150,000 in statutory damages, and even criminal sanctions if your works amount to more than $1000 or you're distributing them for commercial gain.
As for fair use, fair use is whatever the supreme court justices say it is. It's best not to rely on fair use once you've received a cease and desist, or if you're planning on profiting off copyright infringement. At least not without hiring a lawyer first.
Well, it was more like 44 radio commercials... Twelve of which were during peak afternoon driving times (@$250/apiece) on the #1-rated show during in this marker during that time period. Average listening audience is projected between 9,800 and 13,500 or so for those times.
Well, I don't know enough about radio marketing to comment on whether or not that's likely to get people to buy CDs. Could be that the commercial wasn't done well. Could be that 44 radio commercials just isn't a good advertising mechanism. I don't know.
As far as Janis Ian goes, perhaps she is an apologist, perhaps not. But I was approaching this from my own viewpoint - that I have downloaded many mp3's in my time, and never in my life did I buy more than when I was able to sample new music while Napster was alive. I spent more in a single month during that time period than I have in total since Napster shut down.
Well, if you're going to take purely the denotation of the word, and ignore the connotation, then Janis Ian is, most definately, an apologist.
As for anecdotes, I've never bought a CD from an RIAA-affiliated artist since Napster. A lot of my friends haven't either. Even my less technical friends tend to get burned CD-Rs from my more technical friends. So in my experience, Napster et. al. have hurt the recording industry.
I have bought CDs though. But I've always bought them from indy artists, after watching them perform live. That, in my opinion, is your best bet at making money. Get a fan base through live performances, and sell your CDs there.
Also, in my opinion having mp3s available online probably isn't going to hurt your CD sales at live performances. Buying someone's CD after watching a great performance is more like tipping a waitress after receiving excellent service. You don't really do it for the CD as much as to show your support.
So, as you say, the real question, the piece I haven't been able to figure out yet, is how much (if any) the free mp3s are hurting my business.
In your case, I don't think it really hurts. Probably doesn't help much either. The fact of the matter is there's too much competition for listen-at-home music for the little guys to really make money at it. Maybe a few lucky individuals can do it, but I'm talking about single digits a year.
Mp3's or not, I think this is going somewhere, even if it's not the overnight sucess I would have liked.
Best of luck to you. It's a tough business. I know quite a few musicians who are without a doubt better than the vast majority of RIAA affiliated artists, and still can't afford to quit their day job. Fortunately, you seem to enjoy or at least tolerate the business aspect of it, so you have an upper hand over many others.
I and I'm sure many others would love to hear a followup in a few months.
Hmm, and what about his paid advertising. That didn't seem to increase his sales either.
One radio commercial to 10,000 people is hardly likely to. I don't see how that's relevant though. The question is whether or not P2P hurts sales. It's not whether or not paid advertising helps sales.
And how, exactly does Janis Ian fit into your generalizations?
She's an apologist.
She's surely not a /.'er, perhaps you could point out how she's a "P2P apologist"?
Sounds to me like she's justifying copyright infringement. That makes her an apologist.
if nobody knows about you, how can they be expected to buy your stuff?
if your stuff is free, how can you expect to make any money off it? Sure, maybe you'll make an occasional sale, but nowhere near as much as you'll make if you're not giving your stuff away for free.
Janis argues that we pay for bottled water, when we can get it for free. And that's true, some people do. And some people will pay for CDs even though they can download mp3s for free. But that skirts the question. The question is whether or not P2P reduces sales, not whether or not it eliminates them. To use the bottled water analogy, would bottled water companies make more or less money if we couldn't get water from our faucets? It seems to me that the only answer that makes sense is that they would make more money.
Here's a question for you. If people are willing to pay for stuff they can get for free, how come no one is making money off shareware?
This isn't a simple equation where one can assume that changing one variable will result in a change in another.
Sure it is... Supply and demand. Increase supply more than you increase demand, and price goes down.
OK, OK. There are two variables.
I think his logic was clear from his last question:
Are we really wrong about the availability of MP3s affecting music sales?
It seems that he's fallen for the statement made by many slashdotters and other P2P apologists that the spread of MP3s doesn't hurt music sales.
It just isn't true. And it goes against common sense logic, as your rhetorical question suggests.
How does an indie artist make a living when gig prices for unknown artists will barely cover the gas money and CDs won't sell?
Get a job.
Perhaps you've seen the prices of those things called Storage Area Networks? It's not exactly $1/gig.
think twice before you put anything on the network. Back up anything that you can't afford to lose. If there's something you can't afford to be released to the public, it probably shouldn't be on a computer connected to the internet in the first place. If it has to be, hire someone else to do it. Get insurance. And then prepare a contingency plan for when your security system fails.
I hear this all the time, and it probably applies to the other side of the fence as well.
Sure. You can break into 95% of computers by just learning the tools, and nothing about networking. Likewise, you can protect yourself from 95% of script kiddies by just learning the tools, and nothing about networking.
The "average user in the home" has no reason to learn anything more than the basic tools. As for the admin, or anyone else with an economic incentive to protect their network, it probably makes economic sense to just hire someone else to do it. Unless of course that's really what you want to do with your life (in which case you probably wouldn't be asking slashdot).
Most exploits are due to poor programming of a client or daemon that implements the protocol, not a fundamental flaw in the protocol itself.
Yes, but this person was talking about network security.
Isn't stealing source reason enough?
Yeah, exactly... We'd have to start smaller. Say, 4000 shares each of AOL?
Or just 100 shares each of LNUX. Of course, what use would that be? I guess it puts it into perspective just how insignificant slashdotters really are.
No, it's far more complicated than that. Especially for someone like Ballmer, who is likely hitting all the limits, like the AMT and $100,000 limits. There are incentive stock options, and nonqualified stock options. And there are many different exercise scenarios for each.
But in any case, the tax on these options, exercised several years ago, was already paid (for someone like Ballmer). So the basis in the stock is at bubble prices, and Ballmer likely will be able to show a capital loss.