Or maybe we could start making television commercials... picture this: we fade each of the names of the websites above, with a voiceover that goes "The day Wexler and Smith get their way, these sites would go dark."
Ooh...dark, ominous, reasonably threatening... Good idea, but how about something a bit more targeted?
Not exactly the point that I was trying to get across. New technology in general is very cool for geeks and others like us. Unfortunately, marketing and corporate fun intercept these 'toys' before they go to market. I was attempting to point out that any new wireless distribution (systems) of cable content would quickly become completely regulated by corporate interests.
The 'future of cable' seems pretty neat, but with the people currently in charge, how long would it take before it's regulated and the consumer products have encryption (or some other way to keep you out and keep them in control) built-in?
"I think a love of art does, in fact, go a long way. I'm a musician that will probably never make a red cent on my music -- but that's okay. Instead of playing for the wealthy and powerful, I get to play for my friends, and we all have a great time;) Just a thought..."
I'd have to second that whole-heartedly. I don't have to be paid to be a musician. Sometimes I even feel weird being paid for it. I love the art and the science of music, no matter what I get in return. In fact, I doubt I'd be able to deal with life (and stay reasonably sane) without it.
If art cannot be paid for we risk no art.
In a way, making it all free will reduce the amount of music around, but the first to go will be the mass-produced/only-for-profit music. Without profit, music would go back to its roots, back to the sole purpose of self-expression. Hell, people have been making music almost as long as we've been able to communicate.
Sorry buddy, it's all relative here. Musicans, audiophiles and others who live for music/sound almost always notice a difference. It *all* depends on who you talk to. As a musician, and having friends in the field, I can say most of us *hate* lossy compression. Most others don't usually notice a difference and can get by just fine with mp3s at 128 kbps or oggs at 64. Individual experience, taste, and knowledge are the determining factors. Nothing scientific about it.
I don't really see much of a problem there. $15 isn't grossly unreasonable, just slightly excessive. Try being a musican. I just lost some (sheet) music last week (about 15 songs), and it's in the process of costing me $200.
If you think listening to music as a normal student is tough, try being a musican too.
While mp3s are still at the same sampling frequency and bit depth of a CD, the compression algorythm is far from perfect. Almost every mp3 I've ever downloaded was encoded at 128 kbps, far from CD quality. As a musician and an audiophile, I've found that mp3s usually need to be at 256 or 320 kbps before they're accurate enough for long-term listening. Of course, this is all subjective, and if you're just listening casually, 128 kbps is probably plenty.
You're also probably right about the damage p2p can do to the RIAA, but if there are many people like me that find the mp3s floating around to be poor substitutes, it's about the same thing as tape trading, only with less legwork. In the end, the CD will probably be bought by the audiophile or musician if he/she enjoys the music sampled as an mp3. The cheapskates won't buy the CD anyway, they might even steal it off the shelf if it's good enough (costing even more). The average consumers are most likely to buy the artist's next album if they like a song or two.
All other arguments aside, people are going to do what their personalities dictate, filesharing just speeds up the process.
"...how would a student reverse engineering filtering software to discover its ban list pose a threat to the company's copyright?"
That's an easy one. The company has to be trusted to be filtering things correctly. If, by reverse engineering, they are found to be doing shady things (blocking competitors, etc), the company's customers no longer trust them. Without that trust, they have no customers.
What I might be trying to say is that the software must be trusted by either hiding the bad practices and using the law to prevent that information from being leaked, or by doing it right in the first place. Guess which one they apparently chose?
(He didn't get past that, but a standard American response would continue with...)
2.) Attack enemy's past.
3.) Attack enemy through slander to his peers.
4.) Attack enemy publicly.
5.) Think about a logical argument, try it out. If it turns out that your enemy's argument is better, repeat from step 1 until the enemy gives up.
I'll show respect for my leaders when one of two things happens:
1.) They show us respect in return and stop treating everyone like suspects (DMCA, Patriot act, etc).
Or
2.) When I go into boot camp and my opinion on this issue no longer matters.
Yeah, digital is digital.
Are you saying a digital recording at 8 KHz/8-bits is the same as a digital recording at 96 KHz/24-bits, or two digital recordings at 44.1 KHz/16-bits are the same?
Yes, digital is digital, but not all digital recordings are the same.
I remember a lecture somewhere about this. Along with that, there was a plaque with 'hello' in every language on the planet, and a recording too. I think they might have included some (classical) music too.
As a member of the youth, I should take offense, but then again, I'm an outcast. Don't worry about the flamebait part of it, I see it all around. It fits well with the article earlier today. Most of my peers (and I could probably fall under this too) are excessively arrogant. This doesn't help here now, and it certainly won't help when we inherit this country and move out into the world. Look out everyone, and I apologize now, so as not to be guilty by association.
Good thing he's not using TurboTax either. I am just stating that I have no need to use TurboTax because my friend can help me with my taxes while I help him with his computer. It's a give-and-take thing, a you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours thing.
I don't really think it's sudden. The people who are informed on a specific issue are usually much more vocal than those outside it's scope. Having said that, there has probably been outcry before, but we are now the people that are on the 'inside' of the industry providing the machines. I don't think I need to mention all the breaches of trust within this industry. We've all seen too many examples of abused trust within closed-source code recently to realistically place anything of any importance on another black-box system.
Maybe I'm going about it the wrong way. The machines are more modern, obviously, and parts are smaller. Nothing inside is readily visible. Hard to trust something you can't see, eh?
This is actually quite a shock to me. Dropping a game after this long is a stupid business move, but I salute their dignity by not just releasing it anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Ooh...dark, ominous, reasonably threatening... Good idea, but how about something a bit more targeted?
Not exactly the point that I was trying to get across. New technology in general is very cool for geeks and others like us. Unfortunately, marketing and corporate fun intercept these 'toys' before they go to market. I was attempting to point out that any new wireless distribution (systems) of cable content would quickly become completely regulated by corporate interests.
The 'future of cable' seems pretty neat, but with the people currently in charge, how long would it take before it's regulated and the consumer products have encryption (or some other way to keep you out and keep them in control) built-in?
I'd have to second that whole-heartedly. I don't have to be paid to be a musician. Sometimes I even feel weird being paid for it. I love the art and the science of music, no matter what I get in return. In fact, I doubt I'd be able to deal with life (and stay reasonably sane) without it.
If art cannot be paid for we risk no art.
In a way, making it all free will reduce the amount of music around, but the first to go will be the mass-produced/only-for-profit music. Without profit, music would go back to its roots, back to the sole purpose of self-expression. Hell, people have been making music almost as long as we've been able to communicate.
Sorry buddy, it's all relative here. Musicans, audiophiles and others who live for music/sound almost always notice a difference. It *all* depends on who you talk to. As a musician, and having friends in the field, I can say most of us *hate* lossy compression. Most others don't usually notice a difference and can get by just fine with mp3s at 128 kbps or oggs at 64. Individual experience, taste, and knowledge are the determining factors. Nothing scientific about it.
If you think listening to music as a normal student is tough, try being a musican too.
While mp3s are still at the same sampling frequency and bit depth of a CD, the compression algorythm is far from perfect. Almost every mp3 I've ever downloaded was encoded at 128 kbps, far from CD quality. As a musician and an audiophile, I've found that mp3s usually need to be at 256 or 320 kbps before they're accurate enough for long-term listening. Of course, this is all subjective, and if you're just listening casually, 128 kbps is probably plenty.
You're also probably right about the damage p2p can do to the RIAA, but if there are many people like me that find the mp3s floating around to be poor substitutes, it's about the same thing as tape trading, only with less legwork. In the end, the CD will probably be bought by the audiophile or musician if he/she enjoys the music sampled as an mp3. The cheapskates won't buy the CD anyway, they might even steal it off the shelf if it's good enough (costing even more). The average consumers are most likely to buy the artist's next album if they like a song or two.
All other arguments aside, people are going to do what their personalities dictate, filesharing just speeds up the process.
That's an easy one. The company has to be trusted to be filtering things correctly. If, by reverse engineering, they are found to be doing shady things (blocking competitors, etc), the company's customers no longer trust them. Without that trust, they have no customers.
What I might be trying to say is that the software must be trusted by either hiding the bad practices and using the law to prevent that information from being leaked, or by doing it right in the first place. Guess which one they apparently chose?
Russia! Cheap alcohol and *millions* of potential joke opporotunities.
1.) Attack with random insults
(He didn't get past that, but a standard American response would continue with...)
2.) Attack enemy's past.
3.) Attack enemy through slander to his peers.
4.) Attack enemy publicly.
5.) Think about a logical argument, try it out. If it turns out that your enemy's argument is better, repeat from step 1 until the enemy gives up.
1.) They show us respect in return and stop treating everyone like suspects (DMCA, Patriot act, etc).
Or
2.) When I go into boot camp and my opinion on this issue no longer matters.
Yeah, digital is digital. Are you saying a digital recording at 8 KHz/8-bits is the same as a digital recording at 96 KHz/24-bits, or two digital recordings at 44.1 KHz/16-bits are the same? Yes, digital is digital, but not all digital recordings are the same.
interesting system. I take a bag of marbles and throw it at my keyboard until I get 8-12 characters and go from there.
I remember a lecture somewhere about this. Along with that, there was a plaque with 'hello' in every language on the planet, and a recording too. I think they might have included some (classical) music too.
It's poetic!
Hehe, we can't afford anything like that! We're too busy buying new toys...er...computers!
Or, even more interesting, attempting to cause orgasms!
As a member of the youth, I should take offense, but then again, I'm an outcast. Don't worry about the flamebait part of it, I see it all around. It fits well with the article earlier today. Most of my peers (and I could probably fall under this too) are excessively arrogant. This doesn't help here now, and it certainly won't help when we inherit this country and move out into the world. Look out everyone, and I apologize now, so as not to be guilty by association.
Good thing he's not using TurboTax either. I am just stating that I have no need to use TurboTax because my friend can help me with my taxes while I help him with his computer. It's a give-and-take thing, a you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours thing.
It's times like these when I feel lucky that I've got a good buddy that's a tax guy...and I've got dirt on him.
I don't think I need to mention all the breaches of trust within this industry. We've all seen too many examples of abused trust within closed-source code recently to realistically place anything of any importance on another black-box system.
Maybe I'm going about it the wrong way. The machines are more modern, obviously, and parts are smaller. Nothing inside is readily visible. Hard to trust something you can't see, eh?
I think he's trying to say he wants to know with reasonable and publicly visible proof that his vote is being counted.
I don't see that as a problem. Of course, you could be right too... I wouldn't want anyone to see who I voted for either.
Interesting comment either way.
This is actually quite a shock to me. Dropping a game after this long is a stupid business move, but I salute their dignity by not just releasing it anyway.
I don't know if the spelling mistake was intentional or not, but the irony of it makes it impossible not to comment... assertain... beautiful.
And here I was planning on graduating this year!