It seems to me that the RIAA can still just go file John Doe suits against these students, and it's pretty clear that the school can identify them, so I'm not really sure how much of a difference this makes...
"There will always be freeloaders and parasites in human society. Rather than getting your panties in a wad about something as old as the human race, move on and spend your energy on something more important. Whining and moaning over the fact that a relatively small percentage of the population will always look to cirumvent the system in order to avoid paying for a service is just pathetic."
Piss-poor logic. Violence, racism, and cruelty are also as old as the human race, is that a reason to ignore those traits? Of corse not.
Nor are we talking about a relatively small percentage, if estimates I've seen (90% of p2p is unauthorized) are correct.
Your "whining panty" talk isn't going help bring about a better world in which creators are more directly compensated for their work.
Well, duh, the estimated 90% of transactions that trade unauthorized copies of protected works. Even the EFF will characterize that as a misuse of p2p technology.
convenience != legality
And so if your next response is: "let's make it legal," then my question is "how?" -- would you tax everybody who uses the Internet, and monitor network traffic at the ISP level? (because that's essentially direction in which the EFF-type plans would take us)
I don't see too many people opposed to "technological development" -- RIAA readily aknowledges that p2p can be a handy tool.
The problem is the culture that encourages misuse of these tools, rather than a respect for them.
Look at pro-gun people -- they take great care to explain safe and appropriate use. You'll seldom, if ever, hear anything similar when it comes to p2p...
(and, fwiw, I'm exactly one of the technologists who are supposed to worry about these things)
"Although this seems to be perfectly acceptable to a large number of folks over 30"
"Time to grow up and realize..."
Well, assuming that this then puts you in the 'under 30' camp, it's *you* that'll be doing the growing up -- and can then reevaluate attitudes like: "I don't give a shit which choice you make *so long as you get out of the way*."
"If its not music, its ringtones, video games, or something."
But, of course, that's exactly the problem the report seems to say isn't happening. Additionally...
First: if this report instead "established" loses due to p2p, how would that affect this conversation about p2p? (my guess: few would accept it)
Second: don't we all here generally understand that the Internet, and the tools we use over it, gets better and faster all the time? Isn't it just plain obvious that, even *if* p2p doesn't affect sales now, that eventually it will?
Happy birthday! Did you want to be an astronaut when you grew up?;)
Don't confuse "recoding" with "songwriting" rights
on
EZTree Shuts Down
·
· Score: 1
"The majority of material spread by EZT was from bands that allow taping and there was no issue with that."
Unless the bands only perform their own work, they don't actually have a right to OK digital distribution.
Look at radio -- the songwriters get paid, but not whoever recorded the song (unless it's the same person).
So, a band *can* say "it's cool to record our show" but they *can't* say "it's cool to distribute it for free over the Internet" (again, unless, they own both the performance and song-wrighting rights).
"The market determines the features, if someone wants to try to sell a DVD player without FF, they are welcome to do so. Though I doubt it would sell very well without some other really really good feature."
Wrong. The market isn't the only factor. Just look at the iTunes Music Store. If it was just about what the market wants, there wouldn't be DRM.
It's not just about what the market wants -- it's about what the market wants in the context of world in which technology providers and media providers are struggling to find balance (or, to become dominant).
"No one is advocating manufacturers be forced (as in, by law) to do anything."
"My DVD player has no right to restrict me from fastfowarding through any part of that media."
So, should DVD manufacturers be forced to include a fast forward feature? What if, for some reason, they don't want to? What other features must they include?
I'd totally love to dump my craptacualar tel-co (in my case Verizon), but still keep my DSL line, and jump fully into VoIP.
I'd gladly dump my phone servive, and pay a fraction of the money I would save toward better bandwidth.
The only remaining advantage of POTs is that it has its own power (when we had the blackout here in NYC, the landlines kept working).
We paid for this infrastructure held by this monopoly (or, baby monopolies), and it seems only fair that we should get better service from it (or, them).
Is there a specific search that someone can suggest that would demonstrate this problem?
Who are the lawyers that will litigate this?
on
Tracking GPL Violators
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Who are the lawyers that will litigate this, presumably pro-bono? The "free as in beer" that goes hand-in-hand with "free as in speech" doesn't help here, and that's a shortcoming of OSS that should be acknowledged.
Even the big companies that donate to big OSS projects aren't going to donate $$$ to litigate specific GPL violations.
Certainly worth noting this, from down near the bottom:
Disclosures This article builds on paid consulting I conducted for LimeWire. I thank LimeWire for their willingness to let me share my findings with the public.
"Actually, it IS good because it demonstrates to the riaa that users are willing to pay for downloads and it puts pressure on them to provide a similar service for similar cost... or else lose out completely."
Totally off-whack. The Russian site is not paying the musicians. How is a licensed service that *also* pays musicians a reasonable amount supposed provide a similar service at a similar cost? Hint: 1 + 1 <> 3
"I personally think we should boycott all movie and music purchases until they realize that p2p distribution is something the PEOPLE want and the laws are supposed to reflect the PEOPLE's desires, not corporations (which are supposed to be accountable to the people)."
Boycott is a great and reasonable reaction, provided that isn't "boycott + still download whatever I want."
Additionally, it's useless to say that you would prefer to legalize what is now unauthorized filesharing *without* also saying something about how it should work.
Do you actually want the government to install monitoring software at ISPs, which would then collect your Internet usage data, and pass it on to the entertainment industry? Because that's what it'll be like.
And this is good beacuse a Russian business is making money by selling copies of US (and Euro, etc.) musicians' work, but paying them nothing in return? Is that about right?
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me that the RIAA can still just go file John Doe suits against these students, and it's pretty clear that the school can identify them, so I'm not really sure how much of a difference this makes...
Yes, and the Slashdot story included the quote because the sumbitter was similarly confused. Not everybody who RTFA reads every FW.
It's just plain stupid to make up quotes, even if immediately followed by a "just kidding."
It's not debatable, that was bad journalistic style.
But if that wasn't already obvious, the amount of confusion generated by the fake qoute should make it obvious now.
You said that old problems that have plagued humanity weren't worth striving to better, and I think that's stupid. Still do.
Are you one of those Troll people?
Piss-poor logic. Violence, racism, and cruelty are also as old as the human race, is that a reason to ignore those traits? Of corse not.
Nor are we talking about a relatively small percentage, if estimates I've seen (90% of p2p is unauthorized) are correct.
Your "whining panty" talk isn't going help bring about a better world in which creators are more directly compensated for their work.
Well, duh, the estimated 90% of transactions that trade unauthorized copies of protected works. Even the EFF will characterize that as a misuse of p2p technology.
convenience != legality
And so if your next response is: "let's make it legal," then my question is "how?" -- would you tax everybody who uses the Internet, and monitor network traffic at the ISP level? (because that's essentially direction in which the EFF-type plans would take us)
The problem is the culture that encourages misuse of these tools, rather than a respect for them.
Look at pro-gun people -- they take great care to explain safe and appropriate use. You'll seldom, if ever, hear anything similar when it comes to p2p...
(and, fwiw, I'm exactly one of the technologists who are supposed to worry about these things)
"Time to grow up and realize..."
Well, assuming that this then puts you in the 'under 30' camp, it's *you* that'll be doing the growing up -- and can then reevaluate attitudes like: "I don't give a shit which choice you make *so long as you get out of the way*."
But, of course, that's exactly the problem the report seems to say isn't happening. Additionally...
First: if this report instead "established" loses due to p2p, how would that affect this conversation about p2p? (my guess: few would accept it)
Second: don't we all here generally understand that the Internet, and the tools we use over it, gets better and faster all the time? Isn't it just plain obvious that, even *if* p2p doesn't affect sales now, that eventually it will?
Happy birthday! Did you want to be an astronaut when you grew up? ;)
Unless the bands only perform their own work, they don't actually have a right to OK digital distribution.
Look at radio -- the songwriters get paid, but not whoever recorded the song (unless it's the same person).
So, a band *can* say "it's cool to record our show" but they *can't* say "it's cool to distribute it for free over the Internet" (again, unless, they own both the performance and song-wrighting rights).
Wrong. The market isn't the only factor. Just look at the iTunes Music Store. If it was just about what the market wants, there wouldn't be DRM.
It's not just about what the market wants -- it's about what the market wants in the context of world in which technology providers and media providers are struggling to find balance (or, to become dominant).
"No one is advocating manufacturers be forced (as in, by law) to do anything."
Wrong again, just look at the broadcast flag.
So, should DVD manufacturers be forced to include a fast forward feature? What if, for some reason, they don't want to? What other features must they include?
I'd gladly dump my phone servive, and pay a fraction of the money I would save toward better bandwidth.
The only remaining advantage of POTs is that it has its own power (when we had the blackout here in NYC, the landlines kept working).
We paid for this infrastructure held by this monopoly (or, baby monopolies), and it seems only fair that we should get better service from it (or, them).
How exactly would you suggest that they improve their software to prevent spam and phishing?
Sometimes a little stick can be a good thing...
Most want some tracks shared, but others kept for CDs.
It's misleading to say that musicians favor P2P without considering what portion of their catalog they'd like to be shared.
Is there a specific search that someone can suggest that would demonstrate this problem?
Even the big companies that donate to big OSS projects aren't going to donate $$$ to litigate specific GPL violations.
Kind of reminds me of the Mars Rovers' Autonomous Rover Navigation (QT video)...
Disclosures
This article builds on paid consulting I conducted for LimeWire. I thank LimeWire for their willingness to let me share my findings with the public.
Actually, no.
Musicians make deals and voluntarily sign contracts with the record labels.
Futhermore, musicians have plenty of alternatives to going the label route, such as self-publishing via services like CD Baby, etc.
A Russian site that sells music and pays the musicians nothing is far worse than crappy deals with record labels.
Totally off-whack. The Russian site is not paying the musicians. How is a licensed service that *also* pays musicians a reasonable amount supposed provide a similar service at a similar cost? Hint: 1 + 1 <> 3
"I personally think we should boycott all movie and music purchases until they realize that p2p distribution is something the PEOPLE want and the laws are supposed to reflect the PEOPLE's desires, not corporations (which are supposed to be accountable to the people)."
Boycott is a great and reasonable reaction, provided that isn't "boycott + still download whatever I want."
Additionally, it's useless to say that you would prefer to legalize what is now unauthorized filesharing *without* also saying something about how it should work.
Do you actually want the government to install monitoring software at ISPs, which would then collect your Internet usage data, and pass it on to the entertainment industry? Because that's what it'll be like.
Does that really sound better to you?
And this is good beacuse a Russian business is making money by selling copies of US (and Euro, etc.) musicians' work, but paying them nothing in return? Is that about right?
Aren't neutron stars "stars"? And aren't they smaller than planets?
As per last time, that info comes from the ISPs.