This "unregulated P2P doens't affect CD sales" has got to be the dumbest file-sharing meme to make the rounds.
We're technologists, right?
We believe in the ultimate triumph of the network, right?
Unregulated P2P doens't affect CD sales -- c'mon, how stupid can this debate get? If the network gets faster, and the P2P reliability better, and the increasing ease of CD-burners, and printers, etc.
And what about pay-for downloads? Is unregulated P2P downloads also not an issue there?
Also perhaps of interest to Slashdot readers, check this out from Larry Lessig's blog
A quote from his new book, "Free Culture":
"I have begun a large process at home of ripping all of my and my wife's CDs, and storing them in one archive. Then, using Apple's iTunes, or a wonderful program called Andromeda, we can build different play lists of our music: Bach, Baroque, Love Songs, Love Songs of Significant Others -- the potential is endless."
I can imagine all sorts of stuff -- mostly assorted chemical byproducts of living organisms that woldn't necessarily be used for medicinal purposes -- a few quick examples include glow in the dark chemicals, glues, anti-freezes, and so on.
"Considerable for them is about dozen meters at this point."
Well, first off you cited a distance from the Spirit site, which is quite a lot tougher than the Opportunity site -- my guess is that we'll be seeing much longer "blind" drives from Opportunity in the next few weeks.
Furthermore, note that the Opportunity site is now a much more likely repeat-visit candidate than the Spirit site.
Also, compare even that Spirit blind-drive distance to what Pathfinder could do a few years ago, and think about what may be reasonable to expect next time...
"They are controlled from California and what one of them has done in 3 months could have been accomplished in a matter of hours by a human."
Don't forget that the Mars rovers self-navigate with the help of 3D terrain maps that they build with their stereoscopic vision, and can travel unguided over considerable distances, and that's a big plus given the amount of time that it takes to transfer information between Earth and Mars.
Obviously people can still do lots of things better than robots, but the robots are getting better, and the loss of a robot is a heck of lot more acceptible than the loss of a person (or people).
AND better robot/AI tech has tons of practical uses here.
"And I, for one, would prefer to see more the money spent - or some of it at least - on deep sea exploration."
Excellent point.
It's amazing how little of the Oceans have been cloesly explored, and there is presumably a lot of potential medicine (and perhaps materials) to be discovered... oh yeah, and great bug-eyed monsters too...
Bush's call for a manned mission to Mars is mostly a publicity stunt. And since the PR polling that followed his announcement indicated luke-warm support, you'll not be hearing make too much more noise on the subject.
Personally, I don't see such a need to send people into space, apart from the admittedly spectacular gee-whiz factor.
I've been amazed at what the Mars rovers have been doing, for months, on their own, and I also think that the application of robotics and AI "in the field" will wind up having practical uses back home.
All the "people in space" talk also winds up at odds (for share of a limited budget) with the "real" science that is trying to figure out the nature of the physical universe.
"Isn't supporting practically 100% of browsers at no extra expense why we have web standards?"
Well, not exactly. For instance, think about plug-ins like Flash or Java. It's easy enough to envision a sophisticated Web-app that would require such plug-ins to be present. Additionally, I think BuyMusic uses Microsoft's DRM anyway, and so it's not such a shock that they mostly target a Windows audience.
I do still wonder why the BuyMusic site itself would require IE...
"In what other business is cutting off 10% of potential customers {snip} considered a good business decision, or even sane?"
Well, the question is what the additional expense is of supporting that remaining 10%.
Lets say for the sake of argument that it would cost just as much to support that remaining 10% as it does the first 90% -- wouldn't it then be an obvious decision to hold off on that last 10%, at least until it can be shown that it would bring in greater revenue than the cost of implementation?
What about the.0001% still using TRS-80? Should they be supported? Where do you draw the line?
"This is hardly what the EFF was advocating. Suing individuals instead of the medium still makes sense."
And so why don't they simply say so?
That's the problem with EFF -- they cheer on file-sharing when then should be playing a more reasonable and responsible roll. It's largly the fault of organizations like them that we're now getting increasingly nasty legislation.
If the EFF were instead saying something like: "P2P is great, but don't use it to share unauthorized work -- instead, share works by authors who *want* to be shared" my guess is that fewer people would continue with the logically corrupt "I'll just do as I please" mindset.
"The example you give is of them suing because a company used bits of a Zappa tune in a commercial. No way in hell he woulda gone for something like that. I can't argue with her there. Poor FZ was probably rolling over in his grave about his song in a commercial."
But if you read the other comments in this thread, you'll see that many (most?) argue "he's dead, he has no rights" and so that would likewise apply to commercial work, no?
If Frank's widow has rights over commercial use, then Frank's widow has *rights*. Many (most?) of those arguing here say that she should not have any.
Now we would then have a huge new quasi-governmental bureaucracy that would pay directly to the RIAA and would cost a whole lot more than those DOJ lawyers.
"Gail Zappa goes after cover bands who use Frank Zappa's name, forcing them to take all references and photos of him off of their websites and their flyers."
Your position is that any band should be able to just go ahead and use Frank Zappa's image and name in their own commercial work, without any oversight whatsoever?
Come now! Do you really not believe that the Internet has the potential to more directly connect artist and fan, cut out some of the middlemen, and do away with the traditional dependence on brick-and-mortar and conventional "terrestrial" radio?
"copyright law protects the industry at the expense of the artist"
That is plainly wrong.
Copyright law protects the copyright holder, whether that happens to be a record company (for those artists who have signed away their rights) or the artists themselves (for artists who have decided to retain their rights -- or who have not yet had the opportunity to decide whether to sign them over to a record company).
"I've been saying that for years, they are commiting a crime, but that's not the point. The problem here is that the punishment far outweighs the crime."
BUT, if you actually look at the RIAA copyright infringement cases so far, with their hypothetical $150,000-per penalty (clearly a ridiculously high penalty), the fact is that most cases have settled for about $3000 for a few thousand files, which comes out to about $1 per file... (which isn't really any more than what they would have cost if purchased via iTunes anyway)
Hmmm, doesn't anybody remember when the EFF used to argue that we shouldn't hold P2P tech accountable for how some may misuse it? And that they themselves suggestted suing infringers rather than the technology?
Slashdot Mirror
We're technologists, right?
We believe in the ultimate triumph of the network, right?
Unregulated P2P doens't affect CD sales -- c'mon, how stupid can this debate get? If the network gets faster, and the P2P reliability better, and the increasing ease of CD-burners, and printers, etc.
And what about pay-for downloads? Is unregulated P2P downloads also not an issue there?
Quite a thread, eh? ;)
-Scott
Also perhaps of interest to Slashdot readers, check this out from Larry Lessig's blog
A quote from his new book, "Free Culture":
First, I make Andromeda, so thanks for suggesting it.
It so happens that I just put up new reviews and overview pages.
And the Andromeda home page itself is http://www.turnstyle.com/andromeda.
fwiw, I've been working on Andromeda since 1999...
I can imagine all sorts of stuff -- mostly assorted chemical byproducts of living organisms that woldn't necessarily be used for medicinal purposes -- a few quick examples include glow in the dark chemicals, glues, anti-freezes, and so on.
Well, first off you cited a distance from the Spirit site, which is quite a lot tougher than the Opportunity site -- my guess is that we'll be seeing much longer "blind" drives from Opportunity in the next few weeks.
Furthermore, note that the Opportunity site is now a much more likely repeat-visit candidate than the Spirit site.
Also, compare even that Spirit blind-drive distance to what Pathfinder could do a few years ago, and think about what may be reasonable to expect next time...
Don't forget that the Mars rovers self-navigate with the help of 3D terrain maps that they build with their stereoscopic vision, and can travel unguided over considerable distances, and that's a big plus given the amount of time that it takes to transfer information between Earth and Mars.
Obviously people can still do lots of things better than robots, but the robots are getting better, and the loss of a robot is a heck of lot more acceptible than the loss of a person (or people).
AND better robot/AI tech has tons of practical uses here.
Excellent point.
It's amazing how little of the Oceans have been cloesly explored, and there is presumably a lot of potential medicine (and perhaps materials) to be discovered... oh yeah, and great bug-eyed monsters too...
Bush's call for a manned mission to Mars is mostly a publicity stunt. And since the PR polling that followed his announcement indicated luke-warm support, you'll not be hearing make too much more noise on the subject.
Personally, I don't see such a need to send people into space, apart from the admittedly spectacular gee-whiz factor.
I've been amazed at what the Mars rovers have been doing, for months, on their own, and I also think that the application of robotics and AI "in the field" will wind up having practical uses back home.
All the "people in space" talk also winds up at odds (for share of a limited budget) with the "real" science that is trying to figure out the nature of the physical universe.
I, for one, would prefer more robotics and AI, and less "people in space" for the time being.
Hi John Doe, they now have your IP.
Well, not exactly. For instance, think about plug-ins like Flash or Java. It's easy enough to envision a sophisticated Web-app that would require such plug-ins to be present. Additionally, I think BuyMusic uses Microsoft's DRM anyway, and so it's not such a shock that they mostly target a Windows audience.
I do still wonder why the BuyMusic site itself would require IE...
Well, the question is what the additional expense is of supporting that remaining 10%.
Lets say for the sake of argument that it would cost just as much to support that remaining 10% as it does the first 90% -- wouldn't it then be an obvious decision to hold off on that last 10%, at least until it can be shown that it would bring in greater revenue than the cost of implementation?
What about the .0001% still using TRS-80? Should they be supported? Where do you draw the line?
And so why don't they simply say so?
That's the problem with EFF -- they cheer on file-sharing when then should be playing a more reasonable and responsible roll. It's largly the fault of organizations like them that we're now getting increasingly nasty legislation.
If the EFF were instead saying something like: "P2P is great, but don't use it to share unauthorized work -- instead, share works by authors who *want* to be shared" my guess is that fewer people would continue with the logically corrupt "I'll just do as I please" mindset.
But if you read the other comments in this thread, you'll see that many (most?) argue "he's dead, he has no rights" and so that would likewise apply to commercial work, no?
If Frank's widow has rights over commercial use, then Frank's widow has *rights*. Many (most?) of those arguing here say that she should not have any.
However, let's just assume that it's not a reasonable extension.
And let's assume that the EFF gets their way.
Now we would then have a huge new quasi-governmental bureaucracy that would pay directly to the RIAA and would cost a whole lot more than those DOJ lawyers.
You're just repeating the spin by the Sharman Networks lawyer.
How exactly is the Government footing the bill for the RIAA's civil suits?
RIAA was wrong to go after P2P technology, and EFF is wrong in cheering on what they themselves have characterized as misuse.
I don't expect moral logic from the RIAA -- we all know that they're there to protect financial interests -- but I do expect moral logic from EFF.
Your position is that any band should be able to just go ahead and use Frank Zappa's image and name in their own commercial work, without any oversight whatsoever?
Come now! Do you really not believe that the Internet has the potential to more directly connect artist and fan, cut out some of the middlemen, and do away with the traditional dependence on brick-and-mortar and conventional "terrestrial" radio?
Well, his position is that he should be able to sell copies of recently released works if that's what he decides to do.
That is plainly wrong.
Copyright law protects the copyright holder, whether that happens to be a record company (for those artists who have signed away their rights) or the artists themselves (for artists who have decided to retain their rights -- or who have not yet had the opportunity to decide whether to sign them over to a record company).
BUT, if you actually look at the RIAA copyright infringement cases so far, with their hypothetical $150,000-per penalty (clearly a ridiculously high penalty), the fact is that most cases have settled for about $3000 for a few thousand files, which comes out to about $1 per file... (which isn't really any more than what they would have cost if purchased via iTunes anyway)
Hmmm, doesn't anybody remember when the EFF used to argue that we shouldn't hold P2P tech accountable for how some may misuse it? And that they themselves suggestted suing infringers rather than the technology?
Well, Frank's widdow protects her copyright interests in Frank's works...