By Charlie Demerjian: Saturday 12 July 2003, 15:00 THE RIAA is one of the most evil organizations on the planet. From the schemes that they have implemented, to the ones that they proposed, it is quite obvious to even the most casual observer that the planning committee of the RIAA has thought processes that would make a sadistic North Korean prison warden cringe. I will assume that you know about the lawyer wielding antics that have brought them to fame, the political curiosities that scurry from the legislative process like roaches every time you shine a light on them, and the other games they play. If you want a good start, go to Slashdot, and do a search for RIAA.
You will notice that I haven't used the term $!#£@*rs yet, the journalistic guidelines of The Inquirer will not allow the use of that term in reference to anyone who has more lawyers than we do. Damn. Those journalistic guidelines also state that I should disclose any biases that I may hold regarding the subject of my writing. Here goes, I don't like the RIAA much. I will however begrudgingly admit that I find their novel use of lawyers worthy of respect, in a Mussolini made the trains run on time sort of way.
Most people simply ignore the rantings and screed of the RIAA, it is easy (see here). If you do the math, and they make good on their threats to sue "thousands" of P2P users, the odds of any one of the 35 million plus users of Kazaa, not to mention the dozens of other networks, being sued are on the order of one in 10,000. Think roughly the odds of being trampled by a herd of zebra above the Arctic Circle, while being hit by a meteor and lightning. Oh yeah, those threats are going to matter.
A few brave individuals do something about it. They either spend their time, money, and effort to change the laws, or protest. You would think that more people would stand up to protect their legal rights from being trampled, but alas, we live in a world of really really dumb sheep.
Have you done anything, or do you just hope the odds don't catch up to you? I am not talking about hanging one of those little Christmas Tree air fresheners in "zebra repelling" scent in your car, but I mean really doing something, whether it is as simple as writing a physical letter to your Congressperson, or showing up at a local capital for a debate? Probably not, this is why we at Inquirer Labs US are going to do something for you.
As you know, the RIAA generously, with a flourish of backroom deals, set rates for webcasting songs. Curiously, they seem to have set them several times higher than what traditional radio stations pay. These rates are so high that only the largest commercial webcasters can pay them, more or less putting the smaller, worthwhile stations out of business. One would have to conclude that this was not by coincidence. We can all look forward to a vast wasteland of webcasting that resembles the sad state of FM radio in the US. Yipee, time for suicide if you liked music.
Why is this good news? Well, there is a gold hidden in the RIAA's moneygrubbing, power mad jihad, lots of gold. A closer look at the webcast rates shows that it charges.07 cents per song per listener. For the math challenged, if you have 100,000 listeners, you pay 70 cents per song. That can add up quickly, unless you are a US commercial FM station, where your bill probably won't exceed $4 a day due to necessary commercial time. If you still think this is bad news, bear with me a little longer.
The last piece of the puzzle is that the RIAA has gone after P2P networks with a vengeance, breeding hatred on a level rarely seen in modern times. No one, even most artists who they supposedly represent, likes them. Most people out there would happily pay a few dollars a year to put an end to them. Other than a donation to the EFF, what is one to do? Enter Inquirer Labs US.
We (OK, you saw through this, me) at Inquirer Labs US propose a new webcasting radio station, or a whole lot of them.
In the early days of personal computing - when most software was written by individuals - there were loads of educational computer games, many of them very well designed and fun. But these days you need a budget of millions to create a game, so unfortunately there aren't so many educational titles around.
Not necessarily true. You only need large teams if you want to have the coolest new graphics and sound. If it's an educational program, the money might better be spent developing good concepts and good playability rather than on features that are of lesser importance. The only problem would be that it might not look state of the art.
This sounds potentially like a great method to prevent spam or at least to allow verified mail, but it still doesn't sound like a complete solution. One of the distinguishing characteristics of the Internet is that it allows people anonymity. If only emails with digital signatures are allowed then anonymous email won't get through. On the other hand, if verified email were possible, it would prevent false positives for spam and Bayesian filters could handle the rest of email. This way emails wouldn't be falsely designated as spam and everything would get through.
Well, if you're a conservative it might be tough to convince you, but it's admirable though that you're willing to hear and consider different points of view. While Dean has been branding himself as a liberal, in truth his record is very moderate. Three main reasons I support him are economics, national security, and foreign policy.
On economics, Bush has given huge tax cuts to the rich and not cut spending at all. This has turned our biggest surplus in history to our biggest deficit. In fact, while on the surface he cuts taxes, his economic stewardship in fact is causing states to rise taxes, effectively increasing taxes for the lower and middle classes. Dean is a fiscal conservative. He believes strongly in a balanced budget and often fought off Democrats in the Vermont legislature who wanted to increase spending, because he believes fiscal discipline is important. He wants a national health care plan but it costs much less than the Iraqi occupation will cost and much less than the tax cuts, and also less than Dick Gephardt's plan.
On national security, I believe that contrary to popular perception, Bush is very weak. Bush has stifled the 9/11 commission that was investigating our intelligence failures. The non-partisan Council of Foreign Relations believes that the terrorist threat is greater and ever and that there isn't enough spending on security. I believe that Bush has simply exploited 9/11 in order to further his own agenda rather than making us safer. Also, I believe that Bush has made the Justice Department too powerful and given law enforcement way too much power. I am somewhat of a social libertarian and I believe that if government has too much power it will tend to abuse it. Dean's plan I think would do a lot more to improve our national security.
The last thing is foreign policy. Bush's policy of pre-emption is very dangerous and is alienating the entire world and creating bad precedents. Bush manipulated intelligence reports in order to make the case for the Iraqi war and now his facts are crumbling and the CIA is very upset. This has become a scandal in Britain, where the media is more open. Dean opposed the Iraqi war not because he thought Saddam was a good person but because he thought we risked alienating the rest of the world and because he thought Iraq didn't pose a threat to us. Dean would make America a leader in the world and maintain our military supremacy but he would work with the world community, not against it. For example, if we gave Iraq a bit more time we might have been able to create a multinational coalition that would greatly reduce the nation building costs. We will be there for ten years at tens of billions of dollars per year and it's using up half our military, threatening our security and costing lives, all for an exaggerated threat.
Dean often comments that Bush has forgotten ordinary people, and I believe that Bush is more concerned with his special interests than helping the American people. Dean is a man of the people, willing to speak what he thinks, even when it goes against his party line. He's honest and has a proven track record from his time in Vermont. I think he'd make a great President.
I agree, and perhaps I oversimplified things a bit--but still, liberty and equality are two of the most widely held American values and ideals, and most people believe strongly in them.
Well, I don't understand the guy's concerns. This DARPA effort is just the application of current technology to a traditional warzone necessity...If the rest of the world finally gets the gumption to eliminate its own racist and manipulative dictators and potentates, then they can democratize themselves and join the 21st century.
If you look at the last 100 years, the US government has had prominant roles in overthrowing a large number of governments, many of them democratic. It has often replaced democracies with dictatorships simply because the dictatorships were more favorable to us. In the long term, this type of policy is extremely self-defeating and has created an enormous amount of anti-US sentiment in the world.
How many times are you going to use the words "Orwellian society" is your reply. Unless you are Howard Dean himself, you are simply regugitating his opinion as if it were your own. Either you don't have the facilities to form your own opinion or you are brainwashed. I seem to be in a bad mood this morning... oh well.
That's my line, not his. My opinions are my own. I simply happen to agree with the man on most issues (not all, but most).
The reason I ask is that owning weapons is a Liberty guaranteed by the law of the land, the Constitution... so if Howard Dean doesn't want people like me to be able to defend ourslves, then I find it highly ironic that you'd post a quote from Benjamin Franklin about conserving our Liberties when your favorite Presidential candidate opposes one of the most important ones.
I like how you incorrectly assume the position of my favorite candidate and then dislike him based on it. Basically be believes in "sensible" gun laws. He wants to enforce laws we already have (such as the assault weapons ban) rather than create new ones. He thinks gun laws should be at a state level. The NRA gave him an A rating. Liberals might not like all of this about him but Vermont has the lowest homicide rate in the country, and it's tough to argue with facts like that.
If you feel otherwise - i.e. are more afraid of Bush than the Islamist radical or coke runner next door - then you're either a lunatic or - perhaps - are a criminal yourself.
Your logic is absurd. You're using the same argument as a person who says "agree with me or you're an anti-American terrorist." I am concerned about the state of our government because I believe it is anti-American. It tries to use fear tactics to scare people into supporting it. It is beholden to a group of corporate interests and it is controlled by a tight group of neoconservatives who want to control the whole Middle East (a group with Rumfeld, Wolfowitz, and several others wrote a letter to Clinton in 1998, three years before the terrorist attacks, urging him to invade Iraq).
With sufficient concentration of power, Republicans are too efficient and too much gets done. Much as they decry 'activist government', that's what we've got now.
I find this concentration of power alarming as well. And the state legislatures (both Democratic and Republican) engage in too much gerrymandering when drawing up district lines, causing many analysts to believe that Republicans will hold the House of Representatives for the next ten years, short of a voter revolution such as the one in 1994. Many people believe that Bush's political advisor Karl Rove (who one author went so far as to call him "Bush's Brain") is trying to engineer a generation of complete Republican control of government. And I'd be nearly as alarmed if this happened with Democrats (slightly less because I think they aren't as disciplined as the Republicans; they had all of government from 1992-94 but had a lot of infighting so they didn't do as much as they might have otherwise).
To quote a great American patriot, Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
The United States was formed in order to create a government for the people, not against them. Our people are honorable citizens, not potential terrorist suspects. This trend toward an Orwellian society goes against all American values.
Of course, one more USA measure to control the rest of the world.
I understand your concerns, but please keep in mind though, that it's not Americans doing this. It's the Bush cabal. I'm American and I strongly believe in traditional American values and our Constitution. Bush doesn't believe in American values. He believes that everyone is a potential terrorist and he uses fiery rhetoric in order to scare people into supporting him. All these Orwellian programs are patently un-American.
In his speech "The Great American Restoration", Howard Dean spoke of how he wanted to restore America's values to the government, and I'm sure his thoughts would be of interest to you:
"But there is a fundamental difference between the defense of our nation and the doctrine of preemptive war espoused by this administration. The President's group of narrow-minded ideological advisors are undermining our nation's greatness in the world. They have embraced a form of unilateralism that is even more dangerous than isolationism.
"This administration has shown disdain for allies, treaties, and international organizations alike.
"In doing so they would throw aside our nation's role as the inspirational leader of the world the beacon of hope and justice in the interests of humankind. And instead, they would present our face to the world as a dominant power prepared to push aside any nation with which we do not agree.
"Our foreign and military policies must be about America leading the world, not America against the world."
The trends in the government toward an Orwellian society sinerely worry me. Ashcroft and Bush have exploited 9/11 in order to pass many new laws that curb the openness of American society. They do all this under the guise of "national security" -- and yet we are not any more secure -- the non-partisan Council of Foreign Relations recently put out a report, saying that "Nearly two years after 9/11, the United States is drastically underfunding local emergency responders and remains dangerously unprepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil, particularly one involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-impact conventional weapons. If the nation does not take immediate steps to better identify and address the urgent needs of emergency responders, the next terrorist incident could be even more devastating than 9/11."
Our state of government is corrupt. Politicians are being bribed left and right in order to allow the big-media to consolidate even more, in order to pass DMCA type legislation, and in order to pass acts such as the PATRIOT Act, which should have been named the Big Brother Act. They are even creating Orwellian agencies such as the Total Information Awareness program (renamed to the Terrorism Information Awareness system, in hopes that this would help them fool the public on its purposes).
This is a farce. We need a new leader who will restore American values to this country. I personally think Howard Dean is our best chance at restoring this country to what it was (a good example of what he stands for is in his speech titled "The Great American Restoration", but in all honestly, almost anyone would be preferable to the anti-American Bush cabal.
To play the devil's advocate (since many believe Microsoft is the devil), of course they don't like when people steal their IP, and of course they would sue. Would you not do the same?
And what IP do they steal? If they flat out steal IP would they not end up in court? I'm curious for specific examples of what you're talking about, not just generic "they're a buncha thieves" statements. I know that early on in their days they took discarded ideas from other companies and I know that many companies will copy the innovators and rebrand the ideas as their own, but what non-innovative corporations wouldn't copy the innovators if they don't get sued about it? And if it's a serious violation you're speaking of then wouldn't Microsoft get sued?
No, this is a Swiss Army knife. Please cease and desist advertising the DMCA as a Swiss Army knife immediately or we will use the DMCA against you in court.
But the news.com article says that "Corbis also accused the retailers of removing copy protection from the images in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."
This could be an interesting test of the DMCA. It has stood up a lot but how well can it stand up against itself? Could the DMCA win again or could it finally fall down? One of them must lose, so will it be the DMCA, or instead could it be the DMCA? It really makes you think...
Does anyone have any idea how the Amazon marketplace system is set up and what causes them to say that "the way Amazon is organized may change the analysis from the eBay analysis...the more directly they're involved, the more they may seem like a traditional infringer" ?
I don't know about computer hardware going up in value, but I'm hoping some company will start selling non DRM processors as soon as Intel and Microsoft pull out of the market. They might be as fast as Intel or AMD processors but I'm sure there would be a market for them.
And what about Macs? I haven't heard of any DRM plans for Mac computers.
Didn't you hear? Microsoft is programming the DRM system with their patented HexCode (TM). While it may decrease productivity, programming in hex and binary turns a simple 7% profit into a 111% profit, making MicroStock more attractive to inventestors.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure Senator Hollings will pass a bill that bans WiFi access, in order to solve this problem of cataclysmic proportions.
Here's a mirror:
.07 cents per song per listener. For the math challenged, if you have 100,000 listeners, you pay 70 cents per song. That can add up quickly, unless you are a US commercial FM station, where your bill probably won't exceed $4 a day due to necessary commercial time. If you still think this is bad news, bear with me a little longer.
By Charlie Demerjian: Saturday 12 July 2003, 15:00
THE RIAA is one of the most evil organizations on the planet. From the schemes that they have implemented, to the ones that they proposed, it is quite obvious to even the most casual observer that the planning committee of the RIAA has thought processes that would make a sadistic North Korean prison warden cringe. I will assume that you know about the lawyer wielding antics that have brought them to fame, the political curiosities that scurry from the legislative process like roaches every time you shine a light on them, and the other games they play. If you want a good start, go to Slashdot, and do a search for RIAA.
You will notice that I haven't used the term $!#£@*rs yet, the journalistic guidelines of The Inquirer will not allow the use of that term in reference to anyone who has more lawyers than we do. Damn. Those journalistic guidelines also state that I should disclose any biases that I may hold regarding the subject of my writing. Here goes, I don't like the RIAA much. I will however begrudgingly admit that I find their novel use of lawyers worthy of respect, in a Mussolini made the trains run on time sort of way.
Most people simply ignore the rantings and screed of the RIAA, it is easy (see here). If you do the math, and they make good on their threats to sue "thousands" of P2P users, the odds of any one of the 35 million plus users of Kazaa, not to mention the dozens of other networks, being sued are on the order of one in 10,000. Think roughly the odds of being trampled by a herd of zebra above the Arctic Circle, while being hit by a meteor and lightning. Oh yeah, those threats are going to matter.
A few brave individuals do something about it. They either spend their time, money, and effort to change the laws, or protest. You would think that more people would stand up to protect their legal rights from being trampled, but alas, we live in a world of really really dumb sheep.
Have you done anything, or do you just hope the odds don't catch up to you? I am not talking about hanging one of those little Christmas Tree air fresheners in "zebra repelling" scent in your car, but I mean really doing something, whether it is as simple as writing a physical letter to your Congressperson, or showing up at a local capital for a debate? Probably not, this is why we at Inquirer Labs US are going to do something for you.
As you know, the RIAA generously, with a flourish of backroom deals, set rates for webcasting songs. Curiously, they seem to have set them several times higher than what traditional radio stations pay. These rates are so high that only the largest commercial webcasters can pay them, more or less putting the smaller, worthwhile stations out of business. One would have to conclude that this was not by coincidence. We can all look forward to a vast wasteland of webcasting that resembles the sad state of FM radio in the US. Yipee, time for suicide if you liked music.
Why is this good news? Well, there is a gold hidden in the RIAA's moneygrubbing, power mad jihad, lots of gold. A closer look at the webcast rates shows that it charges
The last piece of the puzzle is that the RIAA has gone after P2P networks with a vengeance, breeding hatred on a level rarely seen in modern times. No one, even most artists who they supposedly represent, likes them. Most people out there would happily pay a few dollars a year to put an end to them. Other than a donation to the EFF, what is one to do? Enter Inquirer Labs US.
We (OK, you saw through this, me) at Inquirer Labs US propose a new webcasting radio station, or a whole lot of them.
This sounds potentially like a great method to prevent spam or at least to allow verified mail, but it still doesn't sound like a complete solution. One of the distinguishing characteristics of the Internet is that it allows people anonymity. If only emails with digital signatures are allowed then anonymous email won't get through. On the other hand, if verified email were possible, it would prevent false positives for spam and Bayesian filters could handle the rest of email. This way emails wouldn't be falsely designated as spam and everything would get through.
Well, if you're a conservative it might be tough to convince you, but it's admirable though that you're willing to hear and consider different points of view. While Dean has been branding himself as a liberal, in truth his record is very moderate. Three main reasons I support him are economics, national security, and foreign policy.
On economics, Bush has given huge tax cuts to the rich and not cut spending at all. This has turned our biggest surplus in history to our biggest deficit. In fact, while on the surface he cuts taxes, his economic stewardship in fact is causing states to rise taxes, effectively increasing taxes for the lower and middle classes. Dean is a fiscal conservative. He believes strongly in a balanced budget and often fought off Democrats in the Vermont legislature who wanted to increase spending, because he believes fiscal discipline is important. He wants a national health care plan but it costs much less than the Iraqi occupation will cost and much less than the tax cuts, and also less than Dick Gephardt's plan.
On national security, I believe that contrary to popular perception, Bush is very weak. Bush has stifled the 9/11 commission that was investigating our intelligence failures. The non-partisan Council of Foreign Relations believes that the terrorist threat is greater and ever and that there isn't enough spending on security. I believe that Bush has simply exploited 9/11 in order to further his own agenda rather than making us safer. Also, I believe that Bush has made the Justice Department too powerful and given law enforcement way too much power. I am somewhat of a social libertarian and I believe that if government has too much power it will tend to abuse it. Dean's plan I think would do a lot more to improve our national security.
The last thing is foreign policy. Bush's policy of pre-emption is very dangerous and is alienating the entire world and creating bad precedents. Bush manipulated intelligence reports in order to make the case for the Iraqi war and now his facts are crumbling and the CIA is very upset. This has become a scandal in Britain, where the media is more open. Dean opposed the Iraqi war not because he thought Saddam was a good person but because he thought we risked alienating the rest of the world and because he thought Iraq didn't pose a threat to us. Dean would make America a leader in the world and maintain our military supremacy but he would work with the world community, not against it. For example, if we gave Iraq a bit more time we might have been able to create a multinational coalition that would greatly reduce the nation building costs. We will be there for ten years at tens of billions of dollars per year and it's using up half our military, threatening our security and costing lives, all for an exaggerated threat.
Dean often comments that Bush has forgotten ordinary people, and I believe that Bush is more concerned with his special interests than helping the American people. Dean is a man of the people, willing to speak what he thinks, even when it goes against his party line. He's honest and has a proven track record from his time in Vermont. I think he'd make a great President.
I agree, and perhaps I oversimplified things a bit--but still, liberty and equality are two of the most widely held American values and ideals, and most people believe strongly in them.
And frankly, I'd rather have a president who didn't stonewall reporters and stifle investigation into intelligence failures that lead to 9/11. I believe that Bush is worsening our national security and making terrorist attacks much more likely.
To quote a great American patriot, Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
The United States was formed in order to create a government for the people, not against them. Our people are honorable citizens, not potential terrorist suspects. This trend toward an Orwellian society goes against all American values.
In his speech "The Great American Restoration", Howard Dean spoke of how he wanted to restore America's values to the government, and I'm sure his thoughts would be of interest to you:
"But there is a fundamental difference between the defense of our nation and the doctrine of preemptive war espoused by this administration. The President's group of narrow-minded ideological advisors are undermining our nation's greatness in the world. They have embraced a form of unilateralism that is even more dangerous than isolationism.
"This administration has shown disdain for allies, treaties, and international organizations alike.
"In doing so they would throw aside our nation's role as the inspirational leader of the world the beacon of hope and justice in the interests of humankind. And instead, they would present our face to the world as a dominant power prepared to push aside any nation with which we do not agree.
"Our foreign and military policies must be about America leading the world, not America against the world."
The trends in the government toward an Orwellian society sinerely worry me. Ashcroft and Bush have exploited 9/11 in order to pass many new laws that curb the openness of American society. They do all this under the guise of "national security" -- and yet we are not any more secure -- the non-partisan Council of Foreign Relations recently put out a report, saying that "Nearly two years after 9/11, the United States is drastically underfunding local emergency responders and remains dangerously unprepared to handle a catastrophic attack on American soil, particularly one involving chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-impact conventional weapons. If the nation does not take immediate steps to better identify and address the urgent needs of emergency responders, the next terrorist incident could be even more devastating than 9/11."
Our state of government is corrupt. Politicians are being bribed left and right in order to allow the big-media to consolidate even more, in order to pass DMCA type legislation, and in order to pass acts such as the PATRIOT Act, which should have been named the Big Brother Act. They are even creating Orwellian agencies such as the Total Information Awareness program (renamed to the Terrorism Information Awareness system, in hopes that this would help them fool the public on its purposes).
This is a farce. We need a new leader who will restore American values to this country. I personally think Howard Dean is our best chance at restoring this country to what it was (a good example of what he stands for is in his speech titled "The Great American Restoration", but in all honestly, almost anyone would be preferable to the anti-American Bush cabal.
I don't generally understand long, complex, legal arguments in German, but the astounding Fish translates it perfectly. Here are a couple quotes:
"Employers could go on thin ice, if they pay coworkers for the letter of open SOURCE often commodity."
"Even if one can argue perhaps over or other detail the study, then she calls many problems nevertheless with the name."
To play the devil's advocate (since many believe Microsoft is the devil), of course they don't like when people steal their IP, and of course they would sue. Would you not do the same?
And what IP do they steal? If they flat out steal IP would they not end up in court? I'm curious for specific examples of what you're talking about, not just generic "they're a buncha thieves" statements. I know that early on in their days they took discarded ideas from other companies and I know that many companies will copy the innovators and rebrand the ideas as their own, but what non-innovative corporations wouldn't copy the innovators if they don't get sued about it? And if it's a serious violation you're speaking of then wouldn't Microsoft get sued?
No, this is a Swiss Army knife. Please cease and desist advertising the DMCA as a Swiss Army knife immediately or we will use the DMCA against you in court.
--Swiss Army Brands, Inc.
But the news.com article says that "Corbis also accused the retailers of removing copy protection from the images in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."
This could be an interesting test of the DMCA. It has stood up a lot but how well can it stand up against itself? Could the DMCA win again or could it finally fall down? One of them must lose, so will it be the DMCA, or instead could it be the DMCA? It really makes you think...
This article is very murky on details...
Does anyone have any idea how the Amazon marketplace system is set up and what causes them to say that "the way Amazon is organized may change the analysis from the eBay analysis...the more directly they're involved, the more they may seem like a traditional infringer" ?
Excuse me? Are you accusing the honorable New York Times of paying reporters who invent the 'facts' of their stories? That, sir, is absurd!
I don't know about computer hardware going up in value, but I'm hoping some company will start selling non DRM processors as soon as Intel and Microsoft pull out of the market. They might be as fast as Intel or AMD processors but I'm sure there would be a market for them.
And what about Macs? I haven't heard of any DRM plans for Mac computers.
Didn't you hear? Microsoft is programming the DRM system with their patented HexCode (TM). While it may decrease productivity, programming in hex and binary turns a simple 7% profit into a 111% profit, making MicroStock more attractive to inventestors.