Again, I think that most P2P'ers like getting stuff for free, but we can agree to disagree on that.
However, since rightsholders would have to opt into this system -- let's say some do and some don't, reasonable?
So, downloaders who actually decide to voluntarily get a license would only be protected from those rightsholders who have opted in, and NOT those who have decided against doing so.
Would you really want such a license? I mean, you still have to verify the "sharability" of the files you want to download -- or what, you'll just download any un-licensed files anyway?
"They're suggesting a compulsory license, much like the one used in radio. That's on purpose to prevent the very thing you are apparently concerned with."
Nope, it's not compulsory, take a look. No rightsholder is forced to particpate if they don't want to, unlike other compulsories that you seem to be refering to.
"If the license is reasonable, why wouldn't they? To suggest otherwise is assuming all downloaders are only trying to avoid paying for it. That simply isn't true."
All downloaders are only trying to avoid paying? I don't know. Most? Absolutely.
Have you ever tried to sell anything via "voluntary" payment? I have. The vast majority won't pay if they don't have to. As soon as you require payment, you see almost 10 times more payment -- and that's the money intended to go to the artists.
"Well, yes, I would pay a monthly fee to download, if this allowed me to download everything I want. But I really don't think that rightsholders would agree."
Also keep in mind that there would need to be a way to divide up that monthly fee, presumably by popularity.
Many of these "alternative copyright" proposals suggest adding monitoring software to personal PCs or ISPs, to gauge that popularity. Does that sound good to you?
Others suggest limited statistical sampling, but when you do that, the less popular artists get "thrown out." Does that sound good to you?
"I know that file sharing of unlicensed copyrighted works is illegal, but the practice of threatening lawsuits left and right still bothers me."
Nobody likes lawsuits (except, perhaps lawyers). But in all likelyhood, they will remain part of the response to unauthorized file-sharing.
Even the EFF acknowledges this. Not so long ago the EFF suggested that the RIAA should be suing infringers and in the EFF's more recent file-sharing solution "white paper" they continue to suggest the same. (under "What about file sharers who won't pay?" you'll see "Copyright holders (and perhaps the collecting society itself) would continue to be entitled to enforce their rights against 'free-loaders.'"
Here's my journal entry on the subject. Too keep from going farther OT here, why don't we continue discussion there?
Just tried, but it's locked.
fwiw, have you seen my personal page? That page links off to stuff that I've written, and stuff that took time to prepare (as opposed to a simple post), and so it's really a better way to get a sense for where I stand...
"It's possible for codec A to be match almost perfectly, but in such a way that the difference is easily audible."
Correct!
A psycho-acoustic difference is not necessarily the same as numeric data difference.
Some minor numeric differences can be perceived as substantial psycho-acoustical differences -- and conversely, some substantial numerical differences be perceived as minor psycho-acoustical differences
Hey Short Circuit, does this mean I'm not your "foe" anymore?;)
I'm not saying that it needs to be a computer-based accuracy check (that's fairly easy -- you just: 1) compress, 2) uncompress, 3) compare that to the uncompressed source).
People are fine, if not even better -- but, I do think that the question "which of these sounds most like the original" is a better question than "which of these sound best" when it comes to deciding what codec works best.
Of course it matters! I took a quick look, but I didn't seem to find anything describing how the tests were performed.
IMHO, the best way to test is to provide an uncompressed source and a variety of compressed files, and ask "which most closely matches the uncompressed source" -- and NOT "which sounds best."
Years ago, I did an a/b switch test with a high-end audio engineer between a CD and a 128kbit/s MP3. Though we could both clearly hear a difference, he actually guessed wrong.
My point is: the test needs to be blind, and the test should be looking for compressed files that most closely sound like the uncompressed original -- and not the ones that "sound best."
Some people, when looking for a new apartment here in NYC will ask: "does FreshDirect deliver here".
Re:Yay, more advertising.
on
Video T-shirts
·
· Score: 1
I don't need to sell anything to understand my position on the issues.
I didn't say that you need to sell anything to understand your position -- but I would say that if you don't sell anything, that's a pretty relevent detail regarding how you came to that position.
A) 'cause it's driving you nuts?
I think that we would be having a more productive conversation.
B) See my first reply in this post.
See my first reply in this post.
C) It's a secret. Only my hairdresser knows for sure.
Ah, so now I know something! You may have hair!
D) The moment it becomes relevent, you'll be the first to know.
That moment is long past.
E) It's lunchtime...gotta go. Later, dude.:-)
Ah, so now I know something else! You may live on the West Coast!
Re:Yay, more advertising.
on
Video T-shirts
·
· Score: 1
Yes, iminplaya, I think who I am and what I do is important to understanding my position on the issues that I discuss here on Slashdot.
And you must agree: after all, why are you so very unwilling to reveal (even vaguely) what you do to put the food on your table, and the roof over your head?
Rather than quit cold, and get the nasty headaches, it's a heck of a lot easier to gradually reduce -- I start with my regular level, and then the next day have a bit more than half as much, and so on for a few days, till it's just a sip.
Or, you can quit cold and get a wicked headache for a day or so...
First, the premise that security is no more than avoiding lawsuits for copyright infringement.
Second, forgetting that your name is still on the bill for that ISP, and that in all likely hood (see your ISP TOS) that makes you liable for what happens over your line.
"Hey these are their rules. If they refuse to abide by them, then don't even think for a New York Second that I should have to. If it doens't apply to everyone, then you can't apply it to anyone. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. What goes around, comes around. What they're doing is just more evidence that THEY are the ones ripping off the artists, NOT the P2P'ers. They're(RIAA) violating signed contracts! Not some stupid EULA.("forgetting" to pay royalties...That's a good one) It's just another ruse to protect a business model that is no longer valid. And they're ripping off the public by denying them(us) the right to buy unencumbered equipment."
"PS, nice work you did on your 'streamer' software.. i used to use it when it was still allowed to 'share' at the office."
You too! That's great!;)
When it comes to banning links, I would tend to agree -- banning a link is one of those "slippery slope" issues. The first example that comes to mind is the 2600 DeCSS debacle.
Which leads to the next question: can I even speak that same URL?
Slashdot Mirror
However, since rightsholders would have to opt into this system -- let's say some do and some don't, reasonable?
So, downloaders who actually decide to voluntarily get a license would only be protected from those rightsholders who have opted in, and NOT those who have decided against doing so.
Would you really want such a license? I mean, you still have to verify the "sharability" of the files you want to download -- or what, you'll just download any un-licensed files anyway?
Nope, it's not compulsory, take a look. No rightsholder is forced to particpate if they don't want to, unlike other compulsories that you seem to be refering to.
"If the license is reasonable, why wouldn't they? To suggest otherwise is assuming all downloaders are only trying to avoid paying for it. That simply isn't true."
All downloaders are only trying to avoid paying? I don't know. Most? Absolutely.
Have you ever tried to sell anything via "voluntary" payment? I have. The vast majority won't pay if they don't have to. As soon as you require payment, you see almost 10 times more payment -- and that's the money intended to go to the artists.
Also keep in mind that there would need to be a way to divide up that monthly fee, presumably by popularity.
Many of these "alternative copyright" proposals suggest adding monitoring software to personal PCs or ISPs, to gauge that popularity. Does that sound good to you?
Others suggest limited statistical sampling, but when you do that, the less popular artists get "thrown out." Does that sound good to you?
For starters, it's hinged on the notion that rightsholders will voluntarily license, and that downloaders will voluntarily pay.
Does that sound reasonable to you? Really?
Also note that the EFF proposal suggests that rightsholders would sue downloaders who don't pay. Sound familiar?
Grousing that some artists decide to do just that leads to a suggestion that perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to do so?
154 and 1032? If only that was 128 and 1024, at least then it would make sense.
Nobody likes lawsuits (except, perhaps lawyers). But in all likelyhood, they will remain part of the response to unauthorized file-sharing.
Even the EFF acknowledges this. Not so long ago the EFF suggested that the RIAA should be suing infringers and in the EFF's more recent file-sharing solution "white paper" they continue to suggest the same. (under "What about file sharers who won't pay?" you'll see "Copyright holders (and perhaps the collecting society itself) would continue to be entitled to enforce their rights against 'free-loaders.'"
Just tried, but it's locked.
fwiw, have you seen my personal page? That page links off to stuff that I've written, and stuff that took time to prepare (as opposed to a simple post), and so it's really a better way to get a sense for where I stand...
Correct!
A psycho-acoustic difference is not necessarily the same as numeric data difference.
Some minor numeric differences can be perceived as substantial psycho-acoustical differences -- and conversely, some substantial numerical differences be perceived as minor psycho-acoustical differences
Just curious: what are some of my views that you strongly disagree with?
I'm not saying that it needs to be a computer-based accuracy check (that's fairly easy -- you just: 1) compress, 2) uncompress, 3) compare that to the uncompressed source).
People are fine, if not even better -- but, I do think that the question "which of these sounds most like the original" is a better question than "which of these sound best" when it comes to deciding what codec works best.
IMHO, the best way to test is to provide an uncompressed source and a variety of compressed files, and ask "which most closely matches the uncompressed source" -- and NOT "which sounds best."
Years ago, I did an a/b switch test with a high-end audio engineer between a CD and a 128kbit/s MP3. Though we could both clearly hear a difference, he actually guessed wrong.
My point is: the test needs to be blind, and the test should be looking for compressed files that most closely sound like the uncompressed original -- and not the ones that "sound best."
Regular ants, maybe, but how about Them!?
And if a career as a professional gamer doesn't work out ... you can always fall back on a career in professional sports.
Some people, when looking for a new apartment here in NYC will ask: "does FreshDirect deliver here".
I didn't say that you need to sell anything to understand your position -- but I would say that if you don't sell anything, that's a pretty relevent detail regarding how you came to that position.
A) 'cause it's driving you nuts?
I think that we would be having a more productive conversation.
B) See my first reply in this post.
See my first reply in this post.
C) It's a secret. Only my hairdresser knows for sure.
Ah, so now I know something! You may have hair!
D) The moment it becomes relevent, you'll be the first to know.
That moment is long past.
E) It's lunchtime...gotta go. Later, dude.
Ah, so now I know something else! You may live on the West Coast!
And you must agree: after all, why are you so very unwilling to reveal (even vaguely) what you do to put the food on your table, and the roof over your head?
It's so nice to know that there are yet more surfaces for them to cover.
Every so often I quit coffee, just to do it.
Rather than quit cold, and get the nasty headaches, it's a heck of a lot easier to gradually reduce -- I start with my regular level, and then the next day have a bit more than half as much, and so on for a few days, till it's just a sip.
Or, you can quit cold and get a wicked headache for a day or so...
Second, forgetting that your name is still on the bill for that ISP, and that in all likely hood (see your ISP TOS) that makes you liable for what happens over your line.
First day with the bold tag?
Demand more allowance!
You too! That's great! ;)
When it comes to banning links, I would tend to agree -- banning a link is one of those "slippery slope" issues. The first example that comes to mind is the 2600 DeCSS debacle.
Which leads to the next question: can I even speak that same URL?
It's always really cool to "bump into" somebody who uses my software, thanks! ;)
So we care about the law now?
It seems to me that the prevailing sentiment here is that it's ok to copy anything you want regardless of what the law has to say, not so?