How much more will it take for the public to get fed up with the RIAA's money-grubbing, creativity-crushing, and music homogenizing before enough people simply stop buying CDs?
Even moreso if the RIAA is successful in cutting into tour profits of the artists, when will people stop going to concerts enough for the musicians to revolt against their labels?
I'm afraid it'll probably come down to an almost complete lack of rights before enough people make a stir about all of this copyright infrigement bullshit. And it is bullshit. I have created several works that are technically copyrighted by virtue of the fact I created them (and I could file for a formal copyright, but what's the point?), yet I can't sensibly expect my work to be valueable enough that I should have a monopoly on it indefinately (assuming I renew the copyright indefinately).
Just like the SCO case -- if you try to hide all your evidence/copyrighted materials and only show them to those who pay enough (analogous to signing an NDA) -- how can you expect anyone to care enough about you or your work to pay you royalties.
Get down off your ego - you're just not that imporant...no one is.
Hopefully O'Reilly will continue in this vein of beginner books - the Head First series - as an educational and fun way of jump-starting the reader into the subject matter.
Once the reader has absorbed the introductory material in the Head First book, he/she is ready and more able to delve deeper into the subject with a 'heavier' book -- in this case, Learning Java.
And why should it be funny or otherwise surprising that robots are objects of fear? What is the underlying plot of two very popular science fiction movies right now?
We developed artificial intelligence and it turned us (humans) into batteries
We developed aritifical intelligence and many intelligent military robots and they turned us into jelly
Aside from that we've got science fiction from yesteryear (think Day the Earth Stood Still) where the robots (even if not intelligent) have the capacity to destroy us all. It doesn't surprise me in the least that Jane Workaday and Joe Somebody are not keen on 'intelligent technology' which they may consider to be something as benign as a computer.
Hmm... maybe Neo should try saying, "Klatu, Verada, Nicto!"
X10, the makers of miniature survailance equipment have signed an agreement with the FBI to make sure no seductive women go unsurvailed at any given moment.
Encryption is already limited by governmental law. I believe 1024-bit encryption is the current limit according to the FCC and other federal bodies. The government doesn't want people to be able to communicate using an encryption algorithm that they cannot already break. IIRC, IBM had developed an incredibly strong encryption mechanism many years ago and were forbidden by the US govenment to implement it without relaxing the strength of they cipher. If I only had a link...
How would you prove it's still active? If you took it apart could the manufacturer sue you for disassembling their property much like you can't tinker with cell phones and the like without the FCC potentially coming down on you?
I personally use Evolution for email, but Firebird (Mozilla derivative) for browsing. I'm not sure I'd ever recommend any to any of the organization's I'm part of to use Mozilla for email.
* The submittor of each winning design will get $75 credit at ThinkGeek
* 3 Copies of your T-Shirt Design
$75 so I can buy one of the t-shirts I designed, and 3 copies of the t-shirt design (iron-ons?) because naturally I will have destroyed all originals after submission just in case OSDN wanted to sue me for IP violations?
The point is not necessarily in the ability to control the plane's direction after the EMP goes off, but before. Think parabolic arc (or something close enough to it). Set the course, speed, and right before the wall, kill all electrical systems. The plane coasts through the soft wall and into Joe's Bistro on the 14th floor of the Plaza Building.
Consider a small EMP device is smuggled on-board (not possible you say because our security is perfect?...but anyway). What's to prevent a hostile takeover of the cockpit, point the plane in the direction of the target, increase the plane's speed, and then just before hitting the soft wall... ZZZZZAAP!! EMP goes off and kills the electrical system including the automatic device. No amount of automation will protect an electrical system from an electromagnetic pulse. But then again IANAP, so maybe someone's developed a counter-EMP device used to protect sensitive equipment.
We therefore need to allow the plane to relinquish control in case of an emergency (engine failure in this case).
Now that we know an engine failure will relinquish control of the plane for emergency situations, all a terrorist would have to do is make sure the plane's engines failed near (or better yet, somewhat within) one of these restricted areas, then when the system cuts back over to pilot control, the terrorist has unrestricted flight (so to speak) within the restricted zone....until the crash.
In other words, build a better plane, and they'll build a better terrorist.
The other loophole (at least with New York's No-Call List) is that charitable organizations are exempt from the list, so you may still get the Arthritis Foundation calling you at dinnertime asking if you'd be willing to snail-spam all your neighbors for donations (happened to me). You can ask not to be called, but of course you have to be willing to perpetually reject charitable requests (which I have legitimate reason to do financially).
On the other hand, since I've signed up for the no-call list two years ago I haven't had a spam call since (only charity calls). The list works, but it takes several months from the time you sign up to the time you are legally allowed to start taking names because the directory of uncallable phone numbers is only published once every three months. Also, I think there is a 3 or 4 year time-limit on the list before you have to sign up for it again.
The.NET architecture and it's IL (Intermediate Language) is about as close in concept as you can get to bytecode and the JVM. The trick for Sun now will be to expand and optimize Java so that it is a better choice than.NET for application developers. At present, I've seen a lot of reasons why.NET is more convenient for developers than Java, particularly when dealing with XML.
Hopefully, the deal between Sun and RedHat to create an open-source JVM will come to fruition and will be just the shot-in-the-arm that Java needs to fix critical bugs and other asundry problems in Sun's VM implementation.
Plus, if I share 10,000 txt files renamed to 'song-artist.mp3', will I get some papers? Sounds like a good way to countersue.
Sounds like a good way to waste your time and money.
place a disclaimer on all your shares - "This is for personal use only under the Fair Use Act. Unauthorized use or download is strictly prohibited...
MAME ROM's are distributed with this disclaimer, but that didn't stop www.mame.dk from having to remove all ROM downloads.
If *everyone* shares 25 songs, who are they going to sue then?
Yes, but will everyone only share the same 25 songs as everyone else, or will each person share 25 different songs? How would you coordinate such an effort to make sure available variety is maintained. And finally, what if Joe Download is on a very sparsely populated node of his P2P software, his choice is next to nothing.
KaZaA, I'm quite sure, has a facility for you to specify which directories are suitable for sharing and which are not. By placing your legitimate back-up copies in the "shared" directory you are infringing on the copyright of the copyright holder because you're essentially telling KaZaA that this file is O.K. to share when in fact it's not.
There's nothing tricky here -- the responsibility is on you not to distribute copies of things that aren't yours to distribute.
...is will they gather evidence from file sharers before suing them? Imagine a scenario wherein a major filesharer deals exclusively in material that has been donated or is in the public domain?
Just because some one is a major source of mp3s and other files doesn't mean they're intrinsically breaking the law. I get the feeling the RIAA will simply look at the top 1000 file sharers (based on download numbers) and systematically sue them for alleged copyright infringement. Wouldn't it be funny if they sued Project Gutenberg by accident!
Even when an album can stand as a work of art as a whole, it shouldn't be required to purchase the entire ensemble of songs together.
At Men's Warehouse I can buy a whole suit that looks great with a coordinating shirt, tie, tie chain, hankercheif, and shoes. But perhaps I simply like the pants -- there's no obligation to buy all the other parts simply because I need new pants.
Let's assume for the moment that the majority of people who want to hear this song that's not available for download begrudgingly buy the album to get the one song. Ingore the fact that a few of those people will rip the song and give it to friends who will continue to do the same.
*Time Passes*
Now the compilation CD containing this song has come out...who's going to buy it? The people who couldn't wait already have it (and have already gotten sick of it) and the people who could wait have probably forgotten about it over the passage of time.
My point is "really good songs" only become so when they are exposed en masse so that people can realize how good this song is. If it's really that good, you've got to have some strength of will to not acquire a copy for many years waiting for the compilation CD. Just think, your music collection would be pretty complete with the latest 70's compilations about now and starting in on the 80's and 90's.
The only album that jumps straight to my mind as a work of art that is not complete unless it's whole is Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. Each song flows into the next creating an essentially unbreakable hour-long song. None of these artists do anything remotely close to that and I can't agree that these albums they talk of are a singular work of art. Mostly they are poorly arranged collections of small works of art (such as a private home gallery).
Slashdot Mirror
Even moreso if the RIAA is successful in cutting into tour profits of the artists, when will people stop going to concerts enough for the musicians to revolt against their labels?
I'm afraid it'll probably come down to an almost complete lack of rights before enough people make a stir about all of this copyright infrigement bullshit. And it is bullshit. I have created several works that are technically copyrighted by virtue of the fact I created them (and I could file for a formal copyright, but what's the point?), yet I can't sensibly expect my work to be valueable enough that I should have a monopoly on it indefinately (assuming I renew the copyright indefinately).
Just like the SCO case -- if you try to hide all your evidence/copyrighted materials and only show them to those who pay enough (analogous to signing an NDA) -- how can you expect anyone to care enough about you or your work to pay you royalties.
Get down off your ego - you're just not that imporant...no one is.
Once the reader has absorbed the introductory material in the Head First book, he/she is ready and more able to delve deeper into the subject with a 'heavier' book -- in this case, Learning Java.
- We developed artificial intelligence and it turned us (humans) into batteries
- We developed aritifical intelligence and many intelligent military robots and they turned us into jelly
Aside from that we've got science fiction from yesteryear (think Day the Earth Stood Still) where the robots (even if not intelligent) have the capacity to destroy us all. It doesn't surprise me in the least that Jane Workaday and Joe Somebody are not keen on 'intelligent technology' which they may consider to be something as benign as a computer.Hmm... maybe Neo should try saying, "Klatu, Verada, Nicto!"
X10, the makers of miniature survailance equipment have signed an agreement with the FBI to make sure no seductive women go unsurvailed at any given moment.
Encryption is already limited by governmental law. I believe 1024-bit encryption is the current limit according to the FCC and other federal bodies. The government doesn't want people to be able to communicate using an encryption algorithm that they cannot already break. IIRC, IBM had developed an incredibly strong encryption mechanism many years ago and were forbidden by the US govenment to implement it without relaxing the strength of they cipher. If I only had a link...
Oh wait...I was supposed to read the WHOLE thing?
How would you prove it's still active? If you took it apart could the manufacturer sue you for disassembling their property much like you can't tinker with cell phones and the like without the FCC potentially coming down on you?
Browsing -- yes, email -- no.
The point is not necessarily in the ability to control the plane's direction after the EMP goes off, but before. Think parabolic arc (or something close enough to it). Set the course, speed, and right before the wall, kill all electrical systems. The plane coasts through the soft wall and into Joe's Bistro on the 14th floor of the Plaza Building.
Consider a small EMP device is smuggled on-board (not possible you say because our security is perfect? ...but anyway). What's to prevent a hostile takeover of the cockpit, point the plane in the direction of the target, increase the plane's speed, and then just before hitting the soft wall... ZZZZZAAP!! EMP goes off and kills the electrical system including the automatic device. No amount of automation will protect an electrical system from an electromagnetic pulse. But then again IANAP, so maybe someone's developed a counter-EMP device used to protect sensitive equipment.
Now that we know an engine failure will relinquish control of the plane for emergency situations, all a terrorist would have to do is make sure the plane's engines failed near (or better yet, somewhat within) one of these restricted areas, then when the system cuts back over to pilot control, the terrorist has unrestricted flight (so to speak) within the restricted zone....until the crash.
In other words, build a better plane, and they'll build a better terrorist.
On the other hand, since I've signed up for the no-call list two years ago I haven't had a spam call since (only charity calls). The list works, but it takes several months from the time you sign up to the time you are legally allowed to start taking names because the directory of uncallable phone numbers is only published once every three months. Also, I think there is a 3 or 4 year time-limit on the list before you have to sign up for it again.
Hopefully, the deal between Sun and RedHat to create an open-source JVM will come to fruition and will be just the shot-in-the-arm that Java needs to fix critical bugs and other asundry problems in Sun's VM implementation.
Sorry Johnny, I'm going to have to send you to the principal's office. You know pencils are a restricted item in school now.
Plus, if I share 10,000 txt files renamed to 'song-artist.mp3', will I get some papers? Sounds like a good way to countersue. Sounds like a good way to waste your time and money.
place a disclaimer on all your shares - "This is for personal use only under the Fair Use Act. Unauthorized use or download is strictly prohibited... MAME ROM's are distributed with this disclaimer, but that didn't stop www.mame.dk from having to remove all ROM downloads.
If *everyone* shares 25 songs, who are they going to sue then? Yes, but will everyone only share the same 25 songs as everyone else, or will each person share 25 different songs? How would you coordinate such an effort to make sure available variety is maintained. And finally, what if Joe Download is on a very sparsely populated node of his P2P software, his choice is next to nothing.
I didn't think so.
I would be quite surprised if the major P2P "sharers" are making a lot of money off the files they share.
There's nothing tricky here -- the responsibility is on you not to distribute copies of things that aren't yours to distribute.
...I can't share my porn as BritneySpears_01.mp3 and not worry about a lawsuit?
Just because some one is a major source of mp3s and other files doesn't mean they're intrinsically breaking the law. I get the feeling the RIAA will simply look at the top 1000 file sharers (based on download numbers) and systematically sue them for alleged copyright infringement. Wouldn't it be funny if they sued Project Gutenberg by accident!
1. claim $3 billion in damages
2. shoot feet out from under self
3. ???
4. PROFIT!!!
Sorry, responded to the wrong post. :-)
At Men's Warehouse I can buy a whole suit that looks great with a coordinating shirt, tie, tie chain, hankercheif, and shoes. But perhaps I simply like the pants -- there's no obligation to buy all the other parts simply because I need new pants.
*Time Passes*
Now the compilation CD containing this song has come out...who's going to buy it? The people who couldn't wait already have it (and have already gotten sick of it) and the people who could wait have probably forgotten about it over the passage of time.
My point is "really good songs" only become so when they are exposed en masse so that people can realize how good this song is. If it's really that good, you've got to have some strength of will to not acquire a copy for many years waiting for the compilation CD. Just think, your music collection would be pretty complete with the latest 70's compilations about now and starting in on the 80's and 90's.
The only album that jumps straight to my mind as a work of art that is not complete unless it's whole is Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. Each song flows into the next creating an essentially unbreakable hour-long song. None of these artists do anything remotely close to that and I can't agree that these albums they talk of are a singular work of art. Mostly they are poorly arranged collections of small works of art (such as a private home gallery).