Another translation:
I had a small house of brokerage on Wall Street... many days no business come to my hut... my hut... but Jimmy has fear? A thousand times no. I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey strong bowels were girded with strength like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo... dung....Glorious sunset of my heart was fading. Soon the super karate monkey death car would park in my space. But Jimmy has fancy plans... and pants to match. The monkey clown horrible karate round and yummy like cute small baby chick would beat the donkey.
When you record sound into a digital recorder, it changes from sound waves into 1's and 0's. Then, software can change those 1's and 0's back into sound to be played through speakers. Encrypting those 1's and 0's again so they can eventually be decoded back into 1's and 0's and back into sound is just another form of copying. Your encrypted copy is not an original work, or even a derivative work.
I'm not sure what you mean by "there is literally no information I am passing".
- You and your friend agreed upon the encryption key information, even if you obfuscated that agreement by letting a third party create the code and you and your friend individually follow that third party's instructions. (such as "use code XYZ for the transfer on Feb 12th.")
- You encrypted the file, and you passed it to your friend.
The fact that you both discard the key after the transfer (one time pad) does not change the fact that you passed an encrypted copyrighted file.
Of course it'd be very difficult to prove guilt here if you and your friend kept the process a secret. But if you were willing to admit this process to a court, to see if by using "one time pad" encryption you somehow "laundered" the copyright off the music file that you start with and your friend ended up with, I think it'd still be considered copyright infringement.
So to sum up:
- "one time pad" encryption would make it very difficult for the copyright owner to provide evidence of the infringement
- It's still copyright infringement
Oh I agree it's possible to build your fan base before signing to a label - that's ideal. I was just describing how bands who don't bother doing that can sacrifice too much by signing a deal too early in their career.
Personally, I still think what new bands sacrifice for their record deals is by far not worth it, compared to just doing all that stuff themselves, especially early on in a band's career. Personally I don't. As I've seen more sharks eat my friends bands then symbiotic parasites getting rich together with them. So for the list of sharks vs beneficial parasites is 5:0. Maybe I wasn't clear. I was trying to say it's generally a bad idea for bands to sign a deal early on in their career. Is that what you're saying, too? (I think you do agree with me here; maybe you misunderstood me?)
That's a large group that can't be ignored and its time to come up with new business models to serve the freeloader market." A business model that 'serves the freeloader market' means 'get them to pay for the album'. That's not gonna happen - that's why they're freeloaders, because they don't want to pay. If you think there's anything you can do to make them want it so bad that they'll just have to pay for it, you're wrong. If you somehow made Radiohead music always require payment, the freeloader crowd would just never listen. You should focus on adding value for your paying customers, not trying to squeeze value out of freeloaders.
"...the majority of music consumers feel that digital recorded music should be free and is not worth paying for.... Sure, the statistics show that a majority of site visitors downloaded the album for free. Who cares? A majority of music listeners to any given album listen to it for free these days, whether on the radio or by filesharing it, and never buy the album. I've never bought a Bob Seger album, but from all the free radio play I've received I can even sing along to many of his popular songs.
So like I said, majority is irrelevant and is not a measure of success. A useful statistic would be: did Radiohead make more money this way than they would have with a traditional release?
The problem is that most small bands don't have the exposure that Radiohead does. "During the first 29 days of October, 1.2 million people worldwide visited the 'In Rainbows' site."
Small bands sign with a label not just to get a loan, but also to get promotion services. Aside from giving you a loan and pressing your CD's, the company might:
- contact all the radio stations where your music would fit and try to hype you up to get airplay
- arrange for you to open for bigger touring bands also on the label
- send out your CD to get reviewed by various magazines etc
- use their network and connections to spread your name around
You could do this all by yourself, but it's actually a lot of work, and many bands prefer to "focus on the music" (meaning they're not interested in the business aspects, just the music aspects of being a band... sadly it's the business aspects that make money - playing beautiful music on the street won't make money without the business aspect of putting down a hat for donations).
Radiohead did this all themselves - the did the record company's job. They hired their own publicists directly, contracted with distributors (the website storefront developers, and whoever is manufacturing their box sets). They still had to promote their music using their own network of contacts, though their own name is already very popular. They're big enough that industry eyes were already on them, so they don't really need a record label to lend a hand by begging for magazines to review their new album.
So what worked for Radiohead doesn't necessarily translate to smaller bands trying to break out onto the scene.
Personally, I still think what new bands sacrifice for their record deals is by far not worth it, compared to just doing all that stuff themselves, especially early on in a band's career.
In the end it's really all about the music. If the songs you write are really good, then even recording them by yourself will still produce desirable music. Then once you're making some money touring and selling your semi-pro quality CD after shows, you'll have more clout when arranging terms for your second album's national distribution with a major label. That's because now they need you more than you need them, and because you bring your own fan base you pose much less risk to the company than the average band.
The mistake that many bands make is if you write really good music but let a label handle all the business starting early on - it's like selling your company's stock the day you open your doors, then watching the other investors get rich as your company gets popular and successful.
But if the songs you write suck so much that no one goes to your concerts and no one buys your CDs after the show, then, when you sign a record deal, don't be surprised that the record company thinks it deserves a huge share, because after all you were bombing before they got involved, and you're more like a studio musician to them than a gotta-sign breakthrough band.
Hard drive manufacturers are selling you exactly what they are claiming. 1GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes is printed right on the box and SI units agree. It's pedantic, and maybe annoying, but it is correct. As far as I'm concerned, the HD manufacturers should contemplate a suit against Microsoft for incorrectly reporting disk size.
Yes but they're highlighting a very misleading fact.
And it wasn't always this way - they switched around 1997-1998, many years after the PC took off. So knowing that they had already been selling hard drives under a different counting system, and knowing that the popular OS's would still be using the old counting system, they changed what they put on the box.
The only possible reason could be to mislead the average customer into thinking he was getting a bigger drive than he actually was getting.
What if the hard drive industry set up their own standards group, making 1 megabyte = 750,000 bytes? They're still correct, but they're only doing it to trick the customer with inflated expectations of usable drive capacity.
No, they don't have to kick down the door. But first it should be a call from their ISP instructing them how to clean the virus. If they refuse then they are as guilty as an operator.
They just have to act in the shareholders' interests. If one of their biggest shareholders is a mutual fund focused on green investing, then Amazon would be obliged to make their operations environmentally-friendly, even if it was expensive, in order to satisfy their shareholders' interest.
There's a difference in "focus on stock price" and "focus on shareholders".
It's not as hard anymore, if you avoid iTunes Music Store.
1. Set up an account - at Amazon MP3 Music Store, MP3Tunes, eMusic, others in time... 2. Hope they have a song you want (they might, they might not... probably not yet) 3. Buy the song (Just takes a click or two) 4. Put the song on any mp3 player (done, no drm at these stores!) 5. Play the song on Linux (well, need an mp3 codec but whatev, you need one in windows too) 6. Share the songs with your friends (Complaining that it's hard to share songs with your friends is the whole purpose of DRM. If you'd respect copyright and let your friends buy their own MP3's, we wouldn't need DRM. You're not legally allowed to redistribute copyrighted songs without authorization from the copyright holder - that goes way beyond fair use imho)
Total waste of time; prevalence of this crap on Digg is why I stopped reading it, and now Slashdot isn't too far behind it seems. Digg has a "Bury" button.
Slashdot needs a "Chop up and feed to the pigs out back" button.
> One side of this debate is responsible folks who have a duty to protect. And the other side is lots of academic arguments, talking points, Bush hatred, and hype.
It's not a two-sided debate. Yes, there are honest law enforcement officers (police, NSA, FBI, etc), and yes there are clueless talking heads in the world. But there is a third side of irresponsible folks who have a duty to protect, but instead use their national security powers to their own advantage, unrelated to the noble cause of stopping terrorism. And there's the fourth side (my side) of people with a genuine concern about people on the third side, and they believe that the country needs to protect itself from those unscrupulous people.
That protection comes in the form of judicial oversight. It's not hard to get a FISA warrant to tap someone you have a hunch is involved in terrorism. But it is hard, as it should be, to get a FISA warrant to wiretap a non-terrorist political opponent, or a peaceful anti-war group.
So of course when people like me find that the Bush administration wants the NSA to be able to wiretap without FISA oversight, we are concerned - with FISA historically approving nearly every wiretap warrant request it has ever received, who else does the administration want to wiretap that they don't think the FISA court would have approved?
> Maybe listening to a few conversations without a warrant isn't the end of the world if it means preventing an attack.
Of course it's not the end of the world.
But judicial oversight is there to make sure the power isn't abused.
And the only people who would want to avoid judicial oversight are the ones who want to abuse the power.
Let me add something. Apparently you'd tell the family of the dead terrorist victims:
We could have prevented this by listening to a few more conversations. You're making it sound like the two options are "wiretap anyone we want to without any oversight" and "don't wiretap at all". That is blatantly wrong, and you're being irresponsible putting forth such an untruth.
In reality, the middle ground, where most people come from, is that yes, police should have the ability to wiretap, but because it is such a strong power and has such potential for abuse, they can only have that power with judicial oversight - the FISA court, in this case. This system worked just fine for years and years - there were no delays, warrants were only rarely denied, and counter-terrorism got along well. Then, all of the sudden, Bush decides he wants to circumvent the FISA courts and just wiretap who he wants without getting warrants.
I haven't seen in any of your arguments why the requirement to "obtain a warrant within a few days of the tap" causes such undue trouble for honest wiretappers. It's worked for years, and checks and balances were preserved.
Would you seriously be willing to actually be accountable for that choice and actually tell the families that? Wouldn't a serious person have to think about it a little more and maybe see if he could divine the difference between locking someone up and overhearing a conversation? I am perfectly willing to be accountable for my choices and my actions.
Stop pulling this "but puppies and babies will most certainly die if you don't agree with me, how can you live with that?" crap, it's getting old.
So what do you tell the guy who you wiretap without a warrant (because you didn't want to bother collecting evidence to justify your surveillance to a judge), and then you decide to detain him without a warrant as an enemy combatant, lock him up for 3 years in a military prison without a trial or an attorney, keep his family in the dark about his whereabouts, then eventually realize you made a big mistake and got the wrong guy, which a little evidence gathering at the start could have prevented. So now you've taken away an innocent citizen's freedom all because YOU thought YOU should be the end all and be all of law enforcement, regardless of what our constitution says about checks and balances.
Now what do you tell that guy and his family was the great and just reason you took him away for three years? Because you - one NSA operative - had a hunch that he was a terrorist?
What if I think that YOU are a terrorist? Can I lock you up for a few years on my own whims? Or would you want some process of checks and balances to make sure one misguided accuser can't cause too much damage to an innocent person's life?
Checks and balances exist for a reason. Attitudes like yours are exactly the reason we need to preserve them.
A golf clap is a quiet form of clapping performed by lightly and rapidly clapping the fingers of one hand against the palm of the other. It is patterned after the sound of distant clapping heard during televised golf tournaments, and is sometimes used as a sarcastic form of applause, used to show indifference or disdain.
Slashdot Mirror
When you record sound into a digital recorder, it changes from sound waves into 1's and 0's. Then, software can change those 1's and 0's back into sound to be played through speakers. Encrypting those 1's and 0's again so they can eventually be decoded back into 1's and 0's and back into sound is just another form of copying. Your encrypted copy is not an original work, or even a derivative work.
I'm not sure what you mean by "there is literally no information I am passing".
- You and your friend agreed upon the encryption key information, even if you obfuscated that agreement by letting a third party create the code and you and your friend individually follow that third party's instructions. (such as "use code XYZ for the transfer on Feb 12th.")
- You encrypted the file, and you passed it to your friend.
The fact that you both discard the key after the transfer (one time pad) does not change the fact that you passed an encrypted copyrighted file.
Of course it'd be very difficult to prove guilt here if you and your friend kept the process a secret. But if you were willing to admit this process to a court, to see if by using "one time pad" encryption you somehow "laundered" the copyright off the music file that you start with and your friend ended up with, I think it'd still be considered copyright infringement.
So to sum up:
- "one time pad" encryption would make it very difficult for the copyright owner to provide evidence of the infringement
- It's still copyright infringement
Oh I agree it's possible to build your fan base before signing to a label - that's ideal. I was just describing how bands who don't bother doing that can sacrifice too much by signing a deal too early in their career.
So like I said, majority is irrelevant and is not a measure of success. A useful statistic would be: did Radiohead make more money this way than they would have with a traditional release?
The problem is that most small bands don't have the exposure that Radiohead does. "During the first 29 days of October, 1.2 million people worldwide visited the 'In Rainbows' site."
Small bands sign with a label not just to get a loan, but also to get promotion services. Aside from giving you a loan and pressing your CD's, the company might:
- contact all the radio stations where your music would fit and try to hype you up to get airplay
- arrange for you to open for bigger touring bands also on the label
- send out your CD to get reviewed by various magazines etc
- use their network and connections to spread your name around
You could do this all by yourself, but it's actually a lot of work, and many bands prefer to "focus on the music" (meaning they're not interested in the business aspects, just the music aspects of being a band... sadly it's the business aspects that make money - playing beautiful music on the street won't make money without the business aspect of putting down a hat for donations).
Radiohead did this all themselves - the did the record company's job. They hired their own publicists directly, contracted with distributors (the website storefront developers, and whoever is manufacturing their box sets). They still had to promote their music using their own network of contacts, though their own name is already very popular. They're big enough that industry eyes were already on them, so they don't really need a record label to lend a hand by begging for magazines to review their new album.
So what worked for Radiohead doesn't necessarily translate to smaller bands trying to break out onto the scene.
Personally, I still think what new bands sacrifice for their record deals is by far not worth it, compared to just doing all that stuff themselves, especially early on in a band's career.
In the end it's really all about the music. If the songs you write are really good, then even recording them by yourself will still produce desirable music. Then once you're making some money touring and selling your semi-pro quality CD after shows, you'll have more clout when arranging terms for your second album's national distribution with a major label. That's because now they need you more than you need them, and because you bring your own fan base you pose much less risk to the company than the average band.
The mistake that many bands make is if you write really good music but let a label handle all the business starting early on - it's like selling your company's stock the day you open your doors, then watching the other investors get rich as your company gets popular and successful.
But if the songs you write suck so much that no one goes to your concerts and no one buys your CDs after the show, then, when you sign a record deal, don't be surprised that the record company thinks it deserves a huge share, because after all you were bombing before they got involved, and you're more like a studio musician to them than a gotta-sign breakthrough band.
And how many billions did it cost to apprehend this one non-repeat offender murderer?
Yes but they're highlighting a very misleading fact.
And it wasn't always this way - they switched around 1997-1998, many years after the PC took off. So knowing that they had already been selling hard drives under a different counting system, and knowing that the popular OS's would still be using the old counting system, they changed what they put on the box.
The only possible reason could be to mislead the average customer into thinking he was getting a bigger drive than he actually was getting.
What if the hard drive industry set up their own standards group, making 1 megabyte = 750,000 bytes? They're still correct, but they're only doing it to trick the customer with inflated expectations of usable drive capacity.
No, they don't have to kick down the door. But first it should be a call from their ISP instructing them how to clean the virus. If they refuse then they are as guilty as an operator.
So? If we do in fact know where they are physically located, local police should go and confiscate them.
They just have to act in the shareholders' interests. If one of their biggest shareholders is a mutual fund focused on green investing, then Amazon would be obliged to make their operations environmentally-friendly, even if it was expensive, in order to satisfy their shareholders' interest.
There's a difference in "focus on stock price" and "focus on shareholders".
Actually you can search wikipedia like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Prior%20Art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Search%20Term
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Prior%20Art
It's not as hard anymore, if you avoid iTunes Music Store.
1. Set up an account - at Amazon MP3 Music Store, MP3Tunes, eMusic, others in time...
2. Hope they have a song you want (they might, they might not... probably not yet)
3. Buy the song (Just takes a click or two)
4. Put the song on any mp3 player (done, no drm at these stores!)
5. Play the song on Linux (well, need an mp3 codec but whatev, you need one in windows too)
6. Share the songs with your friends (Complaining that it's hard to share songs with your friends is the whole purpose of DRM. If you'd respect copyright and let your friends buy their own MP3's, we wouldn't need DRM. You're not legally allowed to redistribute copyrighted songs without authorization from the copyright holder - that goes way beyond fair use imho)
If you want to boycott mainland China, you could buy items "Made in Taiwan" or "Made in Korea".
If there's one good reason to support windows, it's to help sorority girls upload their pajama party photos to your^H^H^H^H their flickr account.
Slashdot needs a "Chop up and feed to the pigs out back" button.
Pix or it didn't happen.
How do you remaster a disk without putting it in some drive?
> One side of this debate is responsible folks who have a duty to protect. And the other side is lots of academic arguments, talking points, Bush hatred, and hype.
It's not a two-sided debate. Yes, there are honest law enforcement officers (police, NSA, FBI, etc), and yes there are clueless talking heads in the world. But there is a third side of irresponsible folks who have a duty to protect, but instead use their national security powers to their own advantage, unrelated to the noble cause of stopping terrorism. And there's the fourth side (my side) of people with a genuine concern about people on the third side, and they believe that the country needs to protect itself from those unscrupulous people.
That protection comes in the form of judicial oversight. It's not hard to get a FISA warrant to tap someone you have a hunch is involved in terrorism. But it is hard, as it should be, to get a FISA warrant to wiretap a non-terrorist political opponent, or a peaceful anti-war group.
So of course when people like me find that the Bush administration wants the NSA to be able to wiretap without FISA oversight, we are concerned - with FISA historically approving nearly every wiretap warrant request it has ever received, who else does the administration want to wiretap that they don't think the FISA court would have approved?
> Maybe listening to a few conversations without a warrant isn't the end of the world if it means preventing an attack.
Of course it's not the end of the world.
But judicial oversight is there to make sure the power isn't abused.
And the only people who would want to avoid judicial oversight are the ones who want to abuse the power.
We could have prevented this by listening to a few more conversations. You're making it sound like the two options are "wiretap anyone we want to without any oversight" and "don't wiretap at all". That is blatantly wrong, and you're being irresponsible putting forth such an untruth.
In reality, the middle ground, where most people come from, is that yes, police should have the ability to wiretap, but because it is such a strong power and has such potential for abuse, they can only have that power with judicial oversight - the FISA court, in this case. This system worked just fine for years and years - there were no delays, warrants were only rarely denied, and counter-terrorism got along well. Then, all of the sudden, Bush decides he wants to circumvent the FISA courts and just wiretap who he wants without getting warrants.
I haven't seen in any of your arguments why the requirement to "obtain a warrant within a few days of the tap" causes such undue trouble for honest wiretappers. It's worked for years, and checks and balances were preserved. Would you seriously be willing to actually be accountable for that choice and actually tell the families that? Wouldn't a serious person have to think about it a little more and maybe see if he could divine the difference between locking someone up and overhearing a conversation? I am perfectly willing to be accountable for my choices and my actions.
Stop pulling this "but puppies and babies will most certainly die if you don't agree with me, how can you live with that?" crap, it's getting old.
So what do you tell the guy who you wiretap without a warrant (because you didn't want to bother collecting evidence to justify your surveillance to a judge), and then you decide to detain him without a warrant as an enemy combatant, lock him up for 3 years in a military prison without a trial or an attorney, keep his family in the dark about his whereabouts, then eventually realize you made a big mistake and got the wrong guy, which a little evidence gathering at the start could have prevented. So now you've taken away an innocent citizen's freedom all because YOU thought YOU should be the end all and be all of law enforcement, regardless of what our constitution says about checks and balances.
Now what do you tell that guy and his family was the great and just reason you took him away for three years? Because you - one NSA operative - had a hunch that he was a terrorist?
What if I think that YOU are a terrorist? Can I lock you up for a few years on my own whims? Or would you want some process of checks and balances to make sure one misguided accuser can't cause too much damage to an innocent person's life?
Checks and balances exist for a reason. Attitudes like yours are exactly the reason we need to preserve them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golf_clap
A golf clap is a quiet form of clapping performed by lightly and rapidly clapping the fingers of one hand against the palm of the other. It is patterned after the sound of distant clapping heard during televised golf tournaments, and is sometimes used as a sarcastic form of applause, used to show indifference or disdain.
"The data from these telescopes, which are located in Australia, China and Europe, was streamed around the world at a rate of 256 Mb per second"
This means that over 10 seconds 2560Mb of data would be streamed, according to NASA.