Someone always has to post a comment to the effect that "spam would go away if you just make it illegal...blah, blah, blah...." hmmm...lets examine that shall we?
Every internet connected country would have to outlaw spam in theory for this pipe dream to work. Then, you would have to have a super secret international spam police.
Then magically overnight everyone would be so scared to send spam that it would just stop.... ha thats laughable.
The U.S. outlawed various narcotics and that sure as heck stopped all the drug sellers and users didnt it.
Come-on The knee jerk reactions American's make to any unpopular subject is always government regulation. Instead of taking actions on ones own we are always inclined to be babysitted, until that imposes on our freedoms, then all of a sudden we want government out of the picture. Take a few simple steps on your own and reduce if not eliminate your spam consumption.
A) DONT sign up for lists that you know are junk! If you do, sign up with a throw-away account.
B) use an email address that isnt easy for spammers to find using dictionary attacks like "bob123@aol.com". Creating an address 11 characters or longer without common words will help reduce the number of spam collectors finding your address.
C)Don't post your address where it can be easily collected by mail harvesters.
D)Don't use yahoo, MSN, and the like for email and then complain that you get spam. They are FREE accounts. How do you think they make money to keep offering those accounts? Why do you think they offer free accounts? To sell your email address to spammers!!!!!!
E) Support programmers and companies who offer defenitive EULAs against selling your address and or provide or offer methods to block spam effectively.
F) Consider using software that sends an autoresponder to anyone trying to send you email that you have not recieved from before which requires them to authenticate themselves before thier mail can reach your box. Put the work on spammers and not on your sys admin or yourself
The "controversy" over copy prtoection is really a mute point. When it all boils down to it the music industry isn't producing products that I am willing to purchase. I cringe at the thought of spending $20 to purchase the crap that is being passed off as music recently.
I went to a local fair in my home town last Wednesday and went up to one of the vendors who was selling CD's. None of the CD's had pretty printed booklets in the jewel cases and all the printed sides of the CD's had plain text names of the artists printed on them with the lists of songs. And, none of the CD's were burned copies. They were all silver discs. Oh yeah, any CD was $5, or you could buy 5 CD's for $20. I wonder how much this plays in the reduced number of CD sells??? I wonder which is more damaging, MP3's or bootleg CD's? And BTW, they had the most popular booth at the fair by far.
Personally, if the major lables sold there new CD's for a similarly priced deal then A:) They would sell a tremendesly higher number of CD's B:)It would become cost prohibitive for people to bootleg and make a money thus lowering substantialy the loss due to bootlegging and C:)Customers would more than likely purchase more CD's rather than download MP3's if not simply for not having to try to hunt down MP3's wait for them to download, have to buy blank media, then witing for them to burn to the disc.
Personally if new RIAA approved CD's cost $5 i would just go to the store and buy it before i would burn it. But at the current price point I wont. Especially not for the crap that is on the shelves today.
From Sony's side one would think that by keeping the average user from playing a cd on his/her computer by means of copy protection that it would keep people from copying the music and distributing it illegally. Secondly, possibly forcing someone to purchase a new Sony product that can read the encoded CD. I think this form of anti-piracy will only increase the likelyhood of the albums ending up on p2p networks. I listen to the majority of my music either played off my computer or in my car. Why would i buy a cd that wont work in my computer, hmmm I WONT. But if i really really really want to listen to it on my computer i can either A) Download it from a p2p which of course would be illegal, or B)By the CD, play it in my home audio system that just happens to be run into the back of my audio card press play on one and record on the other....well which one do you think ill do? If im not mistaken its illegal either way. If I was the type to do something illegal I sure wouldnt fork out $20 to do it. So we have seen the trend go from record companies putting special tracks on CDs that you can only access by putting them in your PC or MAC (ie, Peter Gabriel, Britney Spears) to try and promote sales, to record companies putting special tracks on CDs to keep you from playing them on PCs and MACs to try and promote sales. Hey Sony, why dont you just quit producing CDS? Let every record store have a PC set up in the store connected to your hughe database of music. When a customer walks into a record store all that is in there is a free standing booth, i pick the songs i want, swipe my credit card and presto out a little slot in the booth comes a nice new freshly burned cd of just the songs i want in mp3 format. And then i can go online and do the same thing at $ONY.COM and the songs are made available for me to download. Just stop selling premanufactured CDS. I throw all my jewel cases and attached literature directly in the trash when i buy a cd anyway. SImply charge per song and put the burden of the media format on the consumer. Thats what we want anyway. I know, I know this sounds like almost every other pay per listen idea that hasent worked, but noone has done it right. If you get rid of the overhead of producing the pretty package and only offer the source in one format then it forces the consumer to purchase it that way.. I dont know just my 2 cents
Slashdot Mirror
Someone always has to post a comment to the effect that "spam would go away if you just make it illegal...blah, blah, blah...." hmmm...lets examine that shall we? Every internet connected country would have to outlaw spam in theory for this pipe dream to work. Then, you would have to have a super secret international spam police. Then magically overnight everyone would be so scared to send spam that it would just stop.... ha thats laughable. The U.S. outlawed various narcotics and that sure as heck stopped all the drug sellers and users didnt it. Come-on The knee jerk reactions American's make to any unpopular subject is always government regulation. Instead of taking actions on ones own we are always inclined to be babysitted, until that imposes on our freedoms, then all of a sudden we want government out of the picture. Take a few simple steps on your own and reduce if not eliminate your spam consumption. A) DONT sign up for lists that you know are junk! If you do, sign up with a throw-away account. B) use an email address that isnt easy for spammers to find using dictionary attacks like "bob123@aol.com". Creating an address 11 characters or longer without common words will help reduce the number of spam collectors finding your address. C)Don't post your address where it can be easily collected by mail harvesters. D)Don't use yahoo, MSN, and the like for email and then complain that you get spam. They are FREE accounts. How do you think they make money to keep offering those accounts? Why do you think they offer free accounts? To sell your email address to spammers!!!!!! E) Support programmers and companies who offer defenitive EULAs against selling your address and or provide or offer methods to block spam effectively. F) Consider using software that sends an autoresponder to anyone trying to send you email that you have not recieved from before which requires them to authenticate themselves before thier mail can reach your box. Put the work on spammers and not on your sys admin or yourself
The "controversy" over copy prtoection is really a mute point. When it all boils down to it the music industry isn't producing products that I am willing to purchase. I cringe at the thought of spending $20 to purchase the crap that is being passed off as music recently.
I went to a local fair in my home town last Wednesday and went up to one of the vendors who was selling CD's. None of the CD's had pretty printed booklets in the jewel cases and all the printed sides of the CD's had plain text names of the artists printed on them with the lists of songs. And, none of the CD's were burned copies. They were all silver discs. Oh yeah, any CD was $5, or you could buy 5 CD's for $20. I wonder how much this plays in the reduced number of CD sells??? I wonder which is more damaging, MP3's or bootleg CD's? And BTW, they had the most popular booth at the fair by far.
Personally, if the major lables sold there new CD's for a similarly priced deal then A:) They would sell a tremendesly higher number of CD's B:)It would become cost prohibitive for people to bootleg and make a money thus lowering substantialy the loss due to bootlegging and C:)Customers would more than likely purchase more CD's rather than download MP3's if not simply for not having to try to hunt down MP3's wait for them to download, have to buy blank media, then witing for them to burn to the disc.
Personally if new RIAA approved CD's cost $5 i would just go to the store and buy it before i would burn it. But at the current price point I wont. Especially not for the crap that is on the shelves today.
/.ed or not the law is going to come after /. for Denial of Service attacks if we keep it up.....haha
From Sony's side one would think that by keeping the average user from playing a cd on his/her computer by means of copy protection that it would keep people from copying the music and distributing it illegally. Secondly, possibly forcing someone to purchase a new Sony product that can read the encoded CD. I think this form of anti-piracy will only increase the likelyhood of the albums ending up on p2p networks. I listen to the majority of my music either played off my computer or in my car. Why would i buy a cd that wont work in my computer, hmmm I WONT. But if i really really really want to listen to it on my computer i can either A) Download it from a p2p which of course would be illegal, or B)By the CD, play it in my home audio system that just happens to be run into the back of my audio card press play on one and record on the other....well which one do you think ill do? If im not mistaken its illegal either way. If I was the type to do something illegal I sure wouldnt fork out $20 to do it. So we have seen the trend go from record companies putting special tracks on CDs that you can only access by putting them in your PC or MAC (ie, Peter Gabriel, Britney Spears) to try and promote sales, to record companies putting special tracks on CDs to keep you from playing them on PCs and MACs to try and promote sales. Hey Sony, why dont you just quit producing CDS? Let every record store have a PC set up in the store connected to your hughe database of music. When a customer walks into a record store all that is in there is a free standing booth, i pick the songs i want, swipe my credit card and presto out a little slot in the booth comes a nice new freshly burned cd of just the songs i want in mp3 format. And then i can go online and do the same thing at $ONY.COM and the songs are made available for me to download. Just stop selling premanufactured CDS. I throw all my jewel cases and attached literature directly in the trash when i buy a cd anyway. SImply charge per song and put the burden of the media format on the consumer. Thats what we want anyway. I know, I know this sounds like almost every other pay per listen idea that hasent worked, but noone has done it right. If you get rid of the overhead of producing the pretty package and only offer the source in one format then it forces the consumer to purchase it that way.. I dont know just my 2 cents