I don't really mean to sound so critical, but I just don't understand the problem.
Amazon.com was not making a lot of money while it was a "hip" and "trendy" place to buy books. So it's trying to expand to make more money.
But guess what? YOU CAN STILL BUY BOOKS THERE.
Honestly. Why do you expect Amazon.com to stay a books-only store when they're not making money from it? Does that make any sense at all from any kind of perspective? By expanding without killing off their books area, you can still get what you want (books) and they have the opportunity to bring more people in.
And, by the way, let me take this opportunity to rail against people who take snipes at stores that are considered "common." Exactly what the !@#$% do you have against K-Mart? Oh, no, a store that sells inexpensive goods. Oh, no, a store where the working class goes to spend money. I can feel the property values dropping already.
There is entirely too much elitism on the internet.
(Moderators, feel free to knock me down. I know I'm ranting.)
You're confusing "success" with "usefulness." Windows is incredibly successful. It's the single most dominant operating system on the market today -- even in areas where it's not trying to compete!
Yes, it's a lousy operating system. Yes, it's a VERY lousy operating system. Yes, it's a PAINFULLY lousy operating system. But it is very successful.
I see what you're saying, and I'm just about ready to concede defeat, but I want to get a few things clear first.:-)
Let's take the Macintosh OS for a second: while I suppose the UI is just a program sitting on top of the kernel, it certainly doesn't seem to be sitting on top of it in the same manner that X and the X Window Managers are sitting on top of the Linux kernel! My point with the "distinct entities" comment was that X and the Window Managers and Bash and all that other stuff aren't really integrated into the kernel, so they could theoretically be distributed under any licenses they want. That seems to be your point as well, with the additional point that the Amiga OS will be the same way.
I'm wondering if it will, though. The impression I kept getting about the AmigaOS was that the UI was very, very tightly integratd into the OS proper, similar to the MacOS, so I wonder how possible it would be to meet both conditions: to be both tightly integrated and just a kernel module, or a layer on the kernel, or what have you. I'm not a programmer, this could be the easiest thing in the world to do, it just doesn't sound like it from my perspective.
Proprietary software can exist on Linux b/c there is an exemption in the GPL which allows proprietary code to make necessary calls (or whatever the terminology is) on a computer -- rough translation: a proprietary app can run on top of a GPL'd operating system. If the proprietary app tried to modify the GPL'd OS in any way, well, then there might be a problem.
The reverse is also true: a GPL'd app can run on top of a proprietary OS.
The problem I'm having is that I don't see the same parallel between "kernel" and "the rest of the OS" that I see with "app" and "OS in general." I just don't see it. I freely grant that it could be b/c I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me that the relationship between an OS kernel and the rest of the operating system proper must by necessity be a lot more intertwined than an application and an operating system.
But, as always, never discount the possibility that I am WRONG.
Oracle, Informix, Sybase, DB2, have APPLICATIONS that run on top of Linux. Under the GPL, the viral quality of the GPL is exempted if an application is making a call to an operating system.
I see a distinction between that and the rest of the Amiga OS. What they claim to be doing is using the Linux kernel as a foundation for the rest of the operating system -- since it's the Amiga OS, presumably a graphical operating system -- which is not the same as an application.
Different parts of a Linux distribution can be placed under different licenses because Linux is not one operating system per se. You have a kernel, a few different shells (bash, etc.) a windowing environment (X) all of which are separate and distinct entities that cooperate and work together. I don't see this distinction where the new Amiga OS is concerned. I can't see how anyone would be able to classify "every part of the OS except the kernel" as a distinct application that runs on top of the Linux kernel.
If that is really the argument made, I think it would seriously weaken the legitimacy of the GPL. But that's just my opinion, and, as always...
... never discount the possibility that I am WRONG.
I'm not so sure. The GPL specifically forbids opening up only _part_ of your source code -- that's the viral nature part. If you can prove that an OS is not "one big thing" then I guess you can justify doing that, and admittedly an Operating System is a pretty vague concept, but the kernel is _part_ of an OS, not separate from it, so if you use a GPL'd kernel in your OS the OS is required to be free software b/c of the GPL's viral nature.
I'm not a recognized expert on the GNU General Public License, but methinks I see a problem here:
The GPL, which the Linux Kernel is distributed under, is viral. Any code that makes use of the Linux kernel must, therefore, be distributed under the GPL or a license that is compatible with the GPL.
Also, if the GPL'd software makes calls to other software or libraries, those software or libraries must also be distributed under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license. The only exceptions to this are, basically, operating systems.
So how will this new Amiga OS be licensed? If they really are going to be using the Linux kernel, then it _must_ be distributed under a Free Software license. I can't see any way around it. I find it difficult to believe that Gateway would be willing to do this, my opinion is that they either a) haven't thought this through, or b) think they've found a way around it.
I think everyone should watch this very closely, and this question ("what kind of license?") should be asked, very pointedly, over and over again, until they answer.
This could be a very important precident for free software - if Amiga thinks they can use kernel technology licensed under the GPL without in turn freeing up their source code, they need to either a) be convinced otherwise or b) be taken to court. If option b), then we'll see exactly how legally binding the terms of the GPL are.
Then again, never discount the possiblity that I am WRONG.
It would have to be more than $1.99, b/c w/a CD burner you wouldn't be able to create the volume that makes CDs so cheap, but it would still be significantly cheaper than what you'd pay now.
that's the standard artist cut -- 7 cents per CD sold. And out of THAT cut comes all the costs of manufacturing and distribution, paying off the studio engineers, paying off the band manager and promoter, and paying for touring costs.
If you really think that's a pretty hefty chunk of a $15 CD, the dollar is a lot stronger where you live than where I live.
It's just not possible for every musician out there to tour. For example, I have never been able to find musicians who were willing to put in the kind of commitment it would take to be an actual "real live" band. (It's a shame b/c it would be a killer live act).
Some musicians are purely solo acts or studio bands and would be really boring on stage. Is there some reason they should be denied an income if their music is still geniuinely good?
John Katz is correct in his assertion that the RIAA (the organization that represents the major labels) is trying desperately to take control of music distribution over the internet. He is also correct in implying that the MP3 music format is part of a revolution that could, if we play our cards right, topple over the stranglehold that the "big 5" have had on music distribution in the United States and all over the world.
Where he is entirely wrong, however, is in the assertion that the sites the RIAA are targeting are in any way associated with this new revolution.
Pirate music sites are nothing new, have been nothing new, and will be nothing new. Nothing that they do will ever have any appreciable affect on the music industry, and anyone who believes so is just buying into the RIAA's propaganda. The RIAA likes to use pirate sites as their straw man because they can't touch the real threat: the musicians and web sites that post MP3s of music that are 100% legal.
As a musician who posts his music on the internet in the MP3 format, I am much more of a threat to the RIAA than a ripped & encoded pirated copy of anything put out by Nine Inch Nails.
Sure, NIN is a lot more popular and well known than the Baptist Death Ray. Sure, NIN is sought after and will be downloaded more than the Baptist Death Ray. But the Baptist Death Ray and other artists with similar beliefs are setting up a dangerous precident: that it's OK for the artist, not a record label, to decide who is allowed to download what music. And that the artist, not the record label, can take full responsibility of his/her product.
Of course, the RIAA can't force musicians to go to labels, can't force musicians to relinquish their rights to their music, so they claim they are trying to protect their artists from piracy. Bull. They are trying to protect the industry from the Baptist Death Ray, Bruce Satinover, Mickey Dean and his Talking Guitar, MadelynIris, and every other musician who wilingly, of their own volition, and more importantly legally releases their music in the MP3 format for free download and distribution.
The RIAA has been targeting sites of pirated music and forcing the site maintainers to shut them down. Whoopee. What they can't do, and what will really bring them down if this takes off, is make me and my comerades-in-arms stop releasing music under the MP3 format.
This is so depressing, and more, it enrages me to think that this kind of stuff can happen.
Anyone who wants to do _anything_ as a public service can no longer simply "just do it" -- cover your backsides, boys and girls, because if you piss off anyone, I mean _anyone_ your "host" might decide to send you up as a sacrificial lamb.
Get everything in writing.
Keep backups of everything on a really big hard drive.
Encourage supporters to archive your site.
I think it's shameful that Harvard won't let him get the information he needs to graduate. I think it's shameful that his professor doesn't seem to give a damn. Personally, I think Harvard's reaction disgusts me more than AntiOnline's.
Don't think for a second, however, that I approve of AntiOnline's actions to any degree. I'm ashamed that they can do this stuff and still look themselves in the face at night. So much for the computing "community."
It's going to get worse. Apparently, the whole idea that the internet is a medium for the free exchange of ideas is getting less and less true, becasue any idea that you don't like can be litigated out of existence.
If you create a derived work from something that isn't technically in violation of any patents -- even if you're in a country where those laws do not apply -- I don't believe you can be held liable for any wrongdoing. In other words, b/c it was developed in Sweden, the code should be safe -- regardless of where it is developed from now on.
I can't fault your logic at all. And I think the LGPL is an excellent tool to use when you want to help make a standard more open, because it is commercial software-friendly without keeping the free software community excluded from the core technology.
All I can say is, I'm very happy that the MP3 world has an accessible encoding technology. This make the position of us MP3 musician a _lot_ stronger and more independent from the RIAA.
Well, this is going to be a pain in the butt, however, I can't see how it will really affect a machine. I mean, given the current size of today's typical application, a BIOS chip couldn't do more than flash a message or perhaps one graphic -- can you imagine Phoenix making a BIOS chip with enough space to actually hold an AOL install program? Me neither.
If the BIOS flashes some stupid message at the beginning of the boot sequence, someone will write a virus that will infect the BIOS, changing the message to something truly funny and/or vile, and that will pretty much be the end of it...
Didn't the Supreme Court already rule that it was unconstitutional to use filtering software in public libraries? I'm only half-remembering, but wasn't there litigation in Viriginia that basically forbid a Library from using filtering software? I thought the Supreme Court was involved in that one, but I may be mistaken and it may have just been a Circuit Court case (in which case the ruling stands for only the part of the country where that Circuit Court has influence).
I know there are instances when Congress can overrule a S.C. decision -- if the S.C. makes their decision so narrowly that it states the law is being enforced beyond its original scope, in which case Congress just passes a law that specifically addresses what they want -- but I didn't think that was the case here.
Can someone point to a URL that deals with that decision so we can see exactly how Congress (bless 'em) can screw up our lives even more?
I'd hardly descripe BeOS as a tricycle. It's filesystem is essentially a fully relational database, it boots in 15 seconds, and it multitasks and threads like you wouldn't believe. It has probably the most sophisticated support for multiple processors available for any PC workstation anywhere. Not the traits of a tricycle. Don't let the pretty GUI fool you -- that's one mean OS.
A lot of the messages responding to this (very strange) turn of events are basically saying "Oh, no, AOL is another monopoly." This, quite frankly, is NOT true. There are many, many things I dislike about AOL, and they are a very large company, but they are not a Monopoly, and while this turn of events is shocking, I don't consider it terribly dangerous. Here's why:
1. Monopolies must own a huge majority of the markets they control in order to truly be monopolies. As far as the Internet goes, I doubt very much that this is the case: while AOL may be one of the largest online services around, the sheer number of people on the internet, whether through large ISP's like GTE or BellSouth, or through local ISP's, keeps AOL from the Lion's share of marketshare. Also, since ISP's don't need to own most of the market to stay in business, I see little danger (at this point) of ISP's going belly up en masse and leaving us with only AOL and a few others.
2. WinAmp is a very popular MP3 player, but it's not the only one out there -- and if I recall correctly, it's currently being sued for illegally using a proprietary MP3 codec. There are plenty of MP3 players out there -- some freely available -- for people to use if AOL decides to hike up the price significantly.
3. IceCast is a free software implementation of AOL's purchase, so there seems little danger of that capability being denied from the world at large.
Because of those three points, it seems unlikely AOL's purchases will be any significant threat to their respective markets, so long as everyone is wary and keeps a close eye on AOL's future actions.
Besides that, they continued to support Mozilla after they bought Netscape, didn't they? That should be some encouragement...
Ok, I am neither a Linux user or a Windows user (I'm an OS/2 user, primarily). I've tried installing Linux in the past, but it usually winds up being taken off my machine because it's just too much of a headache.
I have to say that this time, I think Linux will stay on my machine for at least a little while. Caldera OpenLinux has by far been my most pleasant encounter with Linux to date.
The install process is much, much easier than RH 5.2 -- although it's not without it's problems. I couldn't install OL2.2 on hdc, b/c when I did it wouldn't boot, it couldn't be added to Boot Manager, nothing. I would up having to nuke NT (what a shame) and using that partition on hda as my Linux partition. Then, it worked ok. It took me about a day to figure that out.
Since then, I've had only a few problems. I haven't been able to get my sound card to work (a Crystal TidalWave 128)... yet... and it took me forever to figure out the trick to getting StarOffice to install. I still haven't figured out how to configure my printer.
On the other hand, I find the documentation that Caldera provides to be very good. While the user's manual doesn't go into Linux in-depth, it covers some very important things -- including how to configure a kernel, which I was able to do (hey, not a big deal to most of you, but _trust_ me, what a rush). I was able to install it on my laptop, and for the first time I can use a PCMCIA modem on it. And Caldera's web site has a great knowledge base, I'm very impressed.
I've seen some concerns that people feel Caldera is trying to "dumb down" Linux by making it boot straight to a graphical system. Trust me -- this isn't happening. KDE is an ok desktop (not the Workplace Shell, though!) but it can't do everything. I've already had to delve into the depths of man files and HOWTOs to get everything working.
What Caldera OpenLinux 2.2 _does_ do, however, is give us newbies a "safe" starting point -- a place that looks familiar to us. We'll make tiny little forays into the horrible world of the blinking command prompt, and if it doesn't work we'll retreat to a good solid game of Freecell or Reversi. When we actually do something right in that horrible place, we'll feel more comfortable with it. Sooner or later, we'll be able to edit configuration files with the best of you.
Anyway, it's not a perfect distribution, but it's a pretty good one.
The last thing I need is someone telling me that I need to spend six months to get up to the level of knowledge that I have now with my _own_ operating system (OS/2, if you're wondering). If Caldera is willing to set up tools that allow me to use Linux occasionally without any appreciable downtime, BULLY FOR THEM. And if you really think I need to spend six months to a year so that I can run command line batchfiles, I have better things to do with my time. Get over it.
I emailed this reply to the author, as well as posted it on one of the MP3.com bulletin boards:
+---
I am very distressed by your column. I think that you have missed some key items that make the MP3 format far more important than you realize.
While I agree with you that the MP3 format will change -- as you say, change in file formats are inevitable -- I don't know why this will constitute the "death" of anything. The HTML format has changed -- changed drastically over the last four years -- yet it is still right here and has kept the web a very open environment.
The promise of MP3 is manyfold, and all of these factors are important:
1) MP3 quality is almost as good as CDs isn't as important as the size of the file.
while you tend to doubt that "almost is good enough" consider that MP3 quality is almost as good as CDs AND is so much smaller than a CD track that you can feasibly download it from the internet. I'll grant it's still not very practical, but new technologies never start out 100% practical. They do, however, evolve.
It's not the quality of the MP3 that makes it powerful, it's the size. The size is SO MUCH SMALLER than your average CD track that it more than makes up for the slight loss in sound quality.
2) MP3 is an open standard.
You site the Sony MiniDisc as an example of near-quality CD sound that was a huge failure. Remember that Sony OWNED the specs for the Sony MiniDisc -- no other company had a chance of making as much money off of the format. MP3 is an open standard -- anyone can use the specs and create MP3 compatible devices. In fact, there is now an MP3 player that can be installed in a car, as well as the Rio and Diamond's new competing product, and some CD-players are now supporting the MP3 format -- so you'll be able to play MP3's from your stereo. Do you think Philips would be able to play the Sony Minidisc without playing Sony a healthy sum of money first?
Open technology is always at an advantage when competing with proprietary technology, because companies usually think they can make more of a profit if they don't have to pay for the tools. That's why PCs continue to thrive today, despite other platforms (like the Macs) that were, once upon a time, far, far better designed.
3) MP3 is being embraced by musicians.
Don't discount this one. Sites like MP3.com and AMP3.com are teeming with thousands of musicians who are, of their own free will, using the MP3 format to release their music, bypassing the record industry entirely. MP3.com even allows artists to create audio CDs that they will sell and split the profits with the artist 50-50 (which is a far greater percentage of profits than artists would get going through a "traditional" label).
This may be even more significant than the "technological" advantages MP3 has, b/c it's so political. There are a lot of artists who don't like the way the record industry works. Record companies exist to make money, and they do it with a vengance, and there's a whole lot of really pissed of musicians from every genre imaginable who would be more than happy to find a way to distribute their music without dealing with a record company at all.
4) MP3 is an evolutionary format.
Like all file formats, MP3 will change over time. The successor to MP3, MPEG Layer 4, is already being developed and talked about. Just as later versions of Excel can still read Excel 5.0 spreadsheets, later versions of MP3 players will be able to play MP3 files. The fact that the file format has become smaller, or more optimized, or higher in quality doesn't suddenly nullify the entire MP3 movement, it simply alters it.
The good thing is that because MP3 is an open format, its changes are also open -- there's very little danger that the new format will suddenly fall into the hands of people who will only authorize its use by the RIAA, for example. Just like any other internet standard, it will be able to be used by anyone with the knowledge and time to write a program that can use it.
I'd like to ad that the people who run MP3.com (http://www.mp3.com, the largest repository of legal MP3 music on the internet) say they don't really care about the format at all -- they chose MP3 because it was the best one for the artists who use their site. When something new comes along that will work (without wrecking everything else) I suspect they'll start moving over to that.
This is not a "fetish over a file type," as you describe it. This is a bruhaha over what the file type is doing for artists who embrace it. The RIAA and the record labels they represent are scared to death that they won't be able to call the shots and make the money any more. They're spreading a lot of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) about the MP3 format in the hopes that they'll be able to introduce something they control -- and will therefore be able to continue to have artists depend on them for revenue so they can continue to clean house.
Respectfully, Baptist Death Ray http://www.mp3.com/baptistdeathray
I saw Mr. Fallwell on Politically Incorrect one night. I didn't know who he was at first, he just looked like a kind, fairly jolly grandfather. He was charismatic and made you want to like him whether you agreed with him or not.
Then I realized who he was, and I became very, very afraid.
Brothers and sisters, there is a devil among us and he lives in Lynchburg. How ironic is _that_?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really mean to sound so critical, but I just don't understand the problem.
Amazon.com was not making a lot of money while it was a "hip" and "trendy" place to buy books. So it's trying to expand to make more money.
But guess what? YOU CAN STILL BUY BOOKS THERE.
Honestly. Why do you expect Amazon.com to stay a books-only store when they're not making money from it? Does that make any sense at all from any kind of perspective? By expanding without killing off their books area, you can still get what you want (books) and they have the opportunity to bring more people in.
And, by the way, let me take this opportunity to rail against people who take snipes at stores that are considered "common." Exactly what the !@#$% do you have against K-Mart? Oh, no, a store that sells inexpensive goods. Oh, no, a store where the working class goes to spend money. I can feel the property values dropping already.
There is entirely too much elitism on the internet.
(Moderators, feel free to knock me down. I know I'm ranting.)
You're confusing "success" with "usefulness." Windows is incredibly successful. It's the single most dominant operating system on the market today -- even in areas where it's not trying to compete!
Yes, it's a lousy operating system. Yes, it's a VERY lousy operating system. Yes, it's a PAINFULLY lousy operating system. But it is very successful.
I see what you're saying, and I'm just about ready to concede defeat, but I want to get a few things clear first. :-)
Let's take the Macintosh OS for a second: while I suppose the UI is just a program sitting on top of the kernel, it certainly doesn't seem to be sitting on top of it in the same manner that X and the X Window Managers are sitting on top of the Linux kernel! My point with the "distinct entities" comment was that X and the Window Managers and Bash and all that other stuff aren't really integrated into the kernel, so they could theoretically be distributed under any licenses they want. That seems to be your point as well, with the additional point that the Amiga OS will be the same way.
I'm wondering if it will, though. The impression I kept getting about the AmigaOS was that the UI was very, very tightly integratd into the OS proper, similar to the MacOS, so I wonder how possible it would be to meet both conditions: to be both tightly integrated and just a kernel module, or a layer on the kernel, or what have you. I'm not a programmer, this could be the easiest thing in the world to do, it just doesn't sound like it from my perspective.
Well, I guess I can't argue with that. :-)
Proprietary software can exist on Linux b/c there is an exemption in the GPL which allows proprietary code to make necessary calls (or whatever the terminology is) on a computer -- rough translation: a proprietary app can run on top of a GPL'd operating system. If the proprietary app tried to modify the GPL'd OS in any way, well, then there might be a problem.
The reverse is also true: a GPL'd app can run on top of a proprietary OS.
The problem I'm having is that I don't see the same parallel between "kernel" and "the rest of the OS" that I see with "app" and "OS in general." I just don't see it. I freely grant that it could be b/c I'm not a programmer, but it seems to me that the relationship between an OS kernel and the rest of the operating system proper must by necessity be a lot more intertwined than an application and an operating system.
But, as always, never discount the possibility that I am WRONG.
Oracle, Informix, Sybase, DB2, have APPLICATIONS that run on top of Linux. Under the GPL, the viral quality of the GPL is exempted if an application is making a call to an operating system.
I see a distinction between that and the rest of the Amiga OS. What they claim to be doing is using the Linux kernel as a foundation for the rest of the operating system -- since it's the Amiga OS, presumably a graphical operating system -- which is not the same as an application.
Different parts of a Linux distribution can be placed under different licenses because Linux is not one operating system per se. You have a kernel, a few different shells (bash, etc.) a windowing environment (X) all of which are separate and distinct entities that cooperate and work together. I don't see this distinction where the new Amiga OS is concerned. I can't see how anyone would be able to classify "every part of the OS except the kernel" as a distinct application that runs on top of the Linux kernel.
If that is really the argument made, I think it would seriously weaken the legitimacy of the GPL. But that's just my opinion, and, as always...
... never discount the possibility that I am WRONG.
I'm not so sure. The GPL specifically forbids opening up only _part_ of your source code -- that's the viral nature part. If you can prove that an OS is not "one big thing" then I guess you can justify doing that, and admittedly an Operating System is a pretty vague concept, but the kernel is _part_ of an OS, not separate from it, so if you use a GPL'd kernel in your OS the OS is required to be free software b/c of the GPL's viral nature.
I'm going to read that !@#$% license again...
I'm not a recognized expert on the GNU General Public License, but methinks I see a problem here:
The GPL, which the Linux Kernel is distributed under, is viral. Any code that makes use of the Linux kernel must, therefore, be distributed under the GPL or a license that is compatible with the GPL.
Also, if the GPL'd software makes calls to other software or libraries, those software or libraries must also be distributed under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license. The only exceptions to this are, basically, operating systems.
So how will this new Amiga OS be licensed? If they really are going to be using the Linux kernel, then it _must_ be distributed under a Free Software license. I can't see any way around it. I find it difficult to believe that Gateway would be willing to do this, my opinion is that they either a) haven't thought this through, or b) think they've found a way around it.
I think everyone should watch this very closely, and this question ("what kind of license?") should be asked, very pointedly, over and over again, until they answer.
This could be a very important precident for free software - if Amiga thinks they can use kernel technology licensed under the GPL without in turn freeing up their source code, they need to either a) be convinced otherwise or b) be taken to court. If option b), then we'll see exactly how legally binding the terms of the GPL are.
Then again, never discount the possiblity that I am WRONG.
It would have to be more than $1.99, b/c w/a CD burner you wouldn't be able to create the volume that makes CDs so cheap, but it would still be significantly cheaper than what you'd pay now.
that's the standard artist cut -- 7 cents per CD sold. And out of THAT cut comes all the costs of manufacturing and distribution, paying off the studio engineers, paying off the band manager and promoter, and paying for touring costs.
If you really think that's a pretty hefty chunk of a $15 CD, the dollar is a lot stronger where you live than where I live.
It's just not possible for every musician out there to tour. For example, I have never been able to find musicians who were willing to put in the kind of commitment it would take to be an actual "real live" band. (It's a shame b/c it would be a killer live act).
Some musicians are purely solo acts or studio bands and would be really boring on stage. Is there some reason they should be denied an income if their music is still geniuinely good?
Heh. I should know better than to try and parse HTML correctly when I'm ranting.
Baptist Death Ray on MP3.com: http://www.mp3.com/baptistdeathray
Baptist Death Ray on AMP3.com: http://www.amp3.net/baptistdeathray
Chris Wright
the Baptist Death Ray
John Katz is correct in his assertion that the RIAA (the organization that represents the major labels) is trying desperately to take control of music distribution over the internet. He is also correct in implying that the MP3 music format is part of a revolution that could, if we play our cards right, topple over the stranglehold that the "big 5" have had on music distribution in the United States and all over the world.
Where he is entirely wrong, however, is in the assertion that the sites the RIAA are targeting are in any way associated with this new revolution.
Pirate music sites are nothing new, have been nothing new, and will be nothing new. Nothing that they do will ever have any appreciable affect on the music industry, and anyone who believes so is just buying into the RIAA's propaganda. The RIAA likes to use pirate sites as their straw man because they can't touch the real threat: the musicians and web sites that post MP3s of music that are 100% legal.
As a musician who posts his music on the internet in the MP3 format, I am much more of a threat to the RIAA than a ripped & encoded pirated copy of anything put out by Nine Inch Nails.
Sure, NIN is a lot more popular and well known than the Baptist Death Ray. Sure, NIN is sought after and will be downloaded more than the Baptist Death Ray. But the Baptist Death Ray and other artists with similar beliefs are setting up a dangerous precident: that it's OK for the artist, not a record label, to decide who is allowed to download what music. And that the artist, not the record label, can take full responsibility of his/her product.
Of course, the RIAA can't force musicians to go to labels, can't force musicians to relinquish their rights to their music, so they claim they are trying to protect their artists from piracy. Bull. They are trying to protect the industry from the Baptist Death Ray, Bruce Satinover, Mickey Dean and his Talking Guitar, MadelynIris, and every other musician who wilingly, of their own volition, and more importantly legally releases their music in the MP3 format for free download and distribution.
The RIAA has been targeting sites of pirated music and forcing the site maintainers to shut them down. Whoopee. What they can't do, and what will really bring them down if this takes off, is make me and my comerades-in-arms stop releasing music under the MP3 format.
Chris Wright
the Baptist Death Ray
Baptist Death Ray on MP3.com
Baptist Death Ray on AMP3.com
[ r a n t ]
This is so depressing, and more, it enrages me to think that this kind of stuff can happen.
Anyone who wants to do _anything_ as a public service can no longer simply "just do it" -- cover your backsides, boys and girls, because if you piss off anyone, I mean _anyone_ your "host" might decide to send you up as a sacrificial lamb.
Get everything in writing.
Keep backups of everything on a really big hard drive.
Encourage supporters to archive your site.
I think it's shameful that Harvard won't let him get the information he needs to graduate. I think it's shameful that his professor doesn't seem to give a damn. Personally, I think Harvard's reaction disgusts me more than AntiOnline's.
Don't think for a second, however, that I approve of AntiOnline's actions to any degree. I'm ashamed that they can do this stuff and still look themselves in the face at night. So much for the computing "community."
It's going to get worse. Apparently, the whole idea that the internet is a medium for the free exchange of ideas is getting less and less true, becasue any idea that you don't like can be litigated out of existence.
[ / r a n t ]
If you create a derived work from something that isn't technically in violation of any patents -- even if you're in a country where those laws do not apply -- I don't believe you can be held liable for any wrongdoing. In other words, b/c it was developed in Sweden, the code should be safe -- regardless of where it is developed from now on.
Isn't it?
I can't fault your logic at all. And I think the LGPL is an excellent tool to use when you want to help make a standard more open, because it is commercial software-friendly without keeping the free software community excluded from the core technology.
All I can say is, I'm very happy that the MP3 world has an accessible encoding technology. This make the position of us MP3 musician a _lot_ stronger and more independent from the RIAA.
Well, this is going to be a pain in the butt, however, I can't see how it will really affect a machine. I mean, given the current size of today's typical application, a BIOS chip couldn't do more than flash a message or perhaps one graphic -- can you imagine Phoenix making a BIOS chip with enough space to actually hold an AOL install program? Me neither.
If the BIOS flashes some stupid message at the beginning of the boot sequence, someone will write a virus that will infect the BIOS, changing the message to something truly funny and/or vile, and that will pretty much be the end of it...
Didn't the Supreme Court already rule that it was unconstitutional to use filtering software in public libraries? I'm only half-remembering, but wasn't there litigation in Viriginia that basically forbid a Library from using filtering software? I thought the Supreme Court was involved in that one, but I may be mistaken and it may have just been a Circuit Court case (in which case the ruling stands for only the part of the country where that Circuit Court has influence).
I know there are instances when Congress can overrule a S.C. decision -- if the S.C. makes their decision so narrowly that it states the law is being enforced beyond its original scope, in which case Congress just passes a law that specifically addresses what they want -- but I didn't think that was the case here.
Can someone point to a URL that deals with that decision so we can see exactly how Congress (bless 'em) can screw up our lives even more?
Splitters.
I'd hardly descripe BeOS as a tricycle. It's filesystem is essentially a fully relational database, it boots in 15 seconds, and it multitasks and threads like you wouldn't believe. It has probably the most sophisticated support for multiple processors available for any PC workstation anywhere. Not the traits of a tricycle. Don't let the pretty GUI fool you -- that's one mean OS.
Doesn't have the Workplace Shell, though.
A lot of the messages responding to this (very strange) turn of events are basically saying "Oh, no, AOL is another monopoly." This, quite frankly, is NOT true. There are many, many things I dislike about AOL, and they are a very large company, but they are not a Monopoly, and while this turn of events is shocking, I don't consider it terribly dangerous. Here's why:
1. Monopolies must own a huge majority of the markets they control in order to truly be monopolies. As far as the Internet goes, I doubt very much that this is the case: while AOL may be one of the largest online services around, the sheer number of people on the internet, whether through large ISP's like GTE or BellSouth, or through local ISP's, keeps AOL from the Lion's share of marketshare. Also, since ISP's don't need to own most of the market to stay in business, I see little danger (at this point) of ISP's going belly up en masse and leaving us with only AOL and a few others.
2. WinAmp is a very popular MP3 player, but it's not the only one out there -- and if I recall correctly, it's currently being sued for illegally using a proprietary MP3 codec. There are plenty of MP3 players out there -- some freely available -- for people to use if AOL decides to hike up the price significantly.
3. IceCast is a free software implementation of AOL's purchase, so there seems little danger of that capability being denied from the world at large.
Because of those three points, it seems unlikely AOL's purchases will be any significant threat to their respective markets, so long as everyone is wary and keeps a close eye on AOL's future actions.
Besides that, they continued to support Mozilla after they bought Netscape, didn't they? That should be some encouragement...
Ok, I am neither a Linux user or a Windows user (I'm an OS/2 user, primarily). I've tried installing Linux in the past, but it usually winds up being taken off my machine because it's just too much of a headache.
I have to say that this time, I think Linux will stay on my machine for at least a little while. Caldera OpenLinux has by far been my most pleasant encounter with Linux to date.
The install process is much, much easier than RH 5.2 -- although it's not without it's problems. I couldn't install OL2.2 on hdc, b/c when I did it wouldn't boot, it couldn't be added to Boot Manager, nothing. I would up having to nuke NT (what a shame) and using that partition on hda as my Linux partition. Then, it worked ok. It took me about a day to figure that out.
Since then, I've had only a few problems. I haven't been able to get my sound card to work (a Crystal TidalWave 128)... yet... and it took me forever to figure out the trick to getting StarOffice to install. I still haven't figured out how to configure my printer.
On the other hand, I find the documentation that Caldera provides to be very good. While the user's manual doesn't go into Linux in-depth, it covers some very important things -- including how to configure a kernel, which I was able to do (hey, not a big deal to most of you, but _trust_ me, what a rush). I was able to install it on my laptop, and for the first time I can use a PCMCIA modem on it. And Caldera's web site has a great knowledge base, I'm very impressed.
I've seen some concerns that people feel Caldera is trying to "dumb down" Linux by making it boot straight to a graphical system. Trust me -- this isn't happening. KDE is an ok desktop (not the Workplace Shell, though!) but it can't do everything. I've already had to delve into the depths of man files and HOWTOs to get everything working.
What Caldera OpenLinux 2.2 _does_ do, however, is give us newbies a "safe" starting point -- a place that looks familiar to us. We'll make tiny little forays into the horrible world of the blinking command prompt, and if it doesn't work we'll retreat to a good solid game of Freecell or Reversi. When we actually do something right in that horrible place, we'll feel more comfortable with it. Sooner or later, we'll be able to edit configuration files with the best of you.
Anyway, it's not a perfect distribution, but it's a pretty good one.
The last thing I need is someone telling me that I need to spend six months to get up to the level of knowledge that I have now with my _own_ operating system (OS/2, if you're wondering). If Caldera is willing to set up tools that allow me to use Linux occasionally without any appreciable downtime, BULLY FOR THEM. And if you really think I need to spend six months to a year so that I can run command line batchfiles, I have better things to do with my time. Get over it.
I emailed this reply to the author, as well as posted it on one of the MP3.com bulletin boards:
+---
I am very distressed by your column. I think that you have missed some key items that make the MP3 format far more important than you realize.
While I agree with you that the MP3 format will change -- as you say, change in file formats are inevitable -- I don't know why this will constitute the "death" of anything. The HTML format has changed -- changed drastically over the last four years -- yet it is still right here and has kept the web a very open environment.
The promise of MP3 is manyfold, and all of these factors are important:
1) MP3 quality is almost as good as CDs isn't as important as the size of the file.
while you tend to doubt that "almost is good enough" consider that MP3 quality is almost as good as CDs AND is so much smaller than a CD track that you can feasibly download it from the internet. I'll grant it's still not very practical, but new technologies never start out 100% practical. They do, however, evolve.
It's not the quality of the MP3 that makes it powerful, it's the size. The size is SO MUCH SMALLER than your average CD track that it more than makes up for the slight loss in sound quality.
2) MP3 is an open standard.
You site the Sony MiniDisc as an example of near-quality CD sound that was a huge failure. Remember that Sony OWNED the specs for the Sony MiniDisc -- no other company had a chance of making as much money off of the format. MP3 is an open standard -- anyone can use the specs and create MP3 compatible devices. In fact, there is now an MP3 player that can be installed in a car, as well as the Rio and Diamond's new competing product, and some CD-players are now supporting the MP3 format -- so you'll be able to play MP3's from your stereo. Do you think Philips would be able to play the Sony Minidisc without playing Sony a healthy sum of money first?
Open technology is always at an advantage when competing with proprietary technology, because companies usually think they can make more of a profit if they don't have to pay for the tools. That's why PCs continue to thrive today, despite other platforms (like the Macs) that were, once upon a time, far, far better designed.
3) MP3 is being embraced by musicians.
Don't discount this one. Sites like MP3.com and AMP3.com are teeming with thousands of musicians who are, of their own free will, using the MP3 format to release their music, bypassing the record industry entirely. MP3.com even allows artists to create audio CDs that they will sell and split the profits with the artist 50-50 (which is a far greater percentage of profits than artists would get going through a "traditional" label).
This may be even more significant than the "technological" advantages MP3 has, b/c it's so political. There are a lot of artists who don't like the way the record industry works. Record companies exist to make money, and they do it with a vengance, and there's a whole lot of really pissed of musicians from every genre imaginable who would be more than happy to find a way to distribute their music without dealing with a record company at all.
4) MP3 is an evolutionary format.
Like all file formats, MP3 will change over time. The successor to MP3, MPEG Layer 4, is already being developed and talked about. Just as later versions of Excel can still read Excel 5.0 spreadsheets, later versions of MP3 players will be able to play MP3 files. The fact that the file format has become smaller, or more optimized, or higher in quality doesn't suddenly nullify the entire MP3 movement, it simply alters it.
The good thing is that because MP3 is an open format, its changes are also open -- there's very little danger that the new format will suddenly fall into the hands of people who will only authorize its use by the RIAA, for example. Just like any other internet standard, it will be able to be used by anyone with the knowledge and time to write a program that can use it.
I'd like to ad that the people who run MP3.com (http://www.mp3.com, the largest repository of legal MP3 music on the internet) say they don't really care about the format at all -- they chose MP3 because it was the best one for the artists who use their site. When something new comes along that will work (without wrecking everything else) I suspect they'll start moving over to that.
This is not a "fetish over a file type," as you describe it. This is a bruhaha over what the file type is doing for artists who embrace it. The RIAA and the record labels they represent are scared to death that they won't be able to call the shots and make the money any more. They're spreading a lot of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) about the MP3 format in the hopes that they'll be able to introduce something they control -- and will therefore be able to continue to have artists depend on them for revenue so they can continue to clean house.
Respectfully,
Baptist Death Ray
http://www.mp3.com/baptistdeathray
I saw Mr. Fallwell on Politically Incorrect one night. I didn't know who he was at first, he just looked like a kind, fairly jolly grandfather. He was charismatic and made you want to like him whether you agreed with him or not.
Then I realized who he was, and I became very, very afraid.
Brothers and sisters, there is a devil among us and he lives in Lynchburg. How ironic is _that_?