" But why not cut out the middle-man? We don't need "the music industrie" for on-line music do we?
Artist -> Online shop -> Customer makes more sense to me.
The online shop (iTunes for instance) could take care of the marketing as well."
So you want Apple to be the sole music producer and distributor in the world? Talk about a monopoly. At least the big 5 need to compete against eachother and the smaller labels. Not to mention Apple has no expertise in either producing or marketing music.
" The music companies aren't even paying for the bandwidth! Or paying to administer ITMS! The biggest problem they have is signing all the checks Apple sends them."
In other news, music companies don't pay Tower Record's electric bill.
"...and it might become more viable for a greater number of people to make a living as "professional musicians" (i.e. enough to get by, though not ba-zillionaires)."
Because before the advent of recorded music, it was so much easier to make a career out of music, right? All you had to do was find a wealthy aristocrat or merchant willing to support your career. Or you had the choice of becoming a traveling minstrel.
Musicians have much more opportunity today then before the advent of recorded music.
If allofmp3.com can make money chargin a dime a song. Apple could give the music lablebs $0.60, keep $0.20, make double what allofmp3.com makes, and be legal. As it stands now Apple gets something like half your $1.
"This perfectly encapsulates the spirit of modern China: The capitalistic freedoms to lie, cheat and steal, but not the humanist freedoms to speak, organize and share information."
Capitalism is not about lying, cheating, and stealing. These actions are against capitalism. Capitalism is about free, open, voluntary trade where each person understands exactly what they're getting in a transaction. Unfortunately, in real life, both buyers and sellers lie, cheat, and steal to make up for deficiencies and gain an unfair advantage.
" They are (generally) going after people who can't afford to fight...
I wonder how much it would affect the strategy is large numbers of objectors banded together to create a massive defense fund. Retain a few lawyers and offer to defend anyone who is accused."
Everyone ignores the fact that these people are guilty, even if they themselves don't realize it. Those computers are all being used to distribute copyrighted material illegally. The people owning the computers just don't realize it's happening because their kids or their kids' friends installed and used the software. To assume that the accusations are false is to deny reality. I can download p2p and find any song I want. Someone has to be guilty.
articles like this show/. is about as credible a news source as Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh.
You don't understand English or Economics
on
P2P Now and Then
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"While *some* used/use it as justification and denial, I have also seen, ans have used it because when talking about FACTS (not opinions or personal beliefs), the crimes involving p2p and copyrights involve piracy copyright infringement, not rape, murder, larceny, stealing, theft, etc.
Copyright infringement (gain + no loss) != theft (gain + loss. Copyright education + RIAA/MPAA/BSA = PROPAGANDA AND F"
You don't understand English: Or are phrases such as "you stole my idea" or "you're stealing cable" not correct English
You don't understand Economics: Claiming copyright infringement causes no loss to the producer is a fallacy. Illegal sources of the product lower the effective value of the product i.e. the price at which it can be sold. So therefore a loss of the product's value has occurred. Note that/.ers often say that labels should make albums cheaper so they'd buy them instead of stealing them.
I think this article brings up an interesting copyright issue. If it's ok to time shift tv shows to watch them when you want, does that also mean you get to archive the show and watch it as many shows as you want? Now that it has been shown that there is a market for DVD copies of tv shows, clearly this material, which should be protected by copyright, has value. Therefore archiving should be illegal since it is a violation of copyright.
Now many people argue that "they beamed it into my home, I should be able to do with it whatever I want." However GPLed code is freely available for download, so therefore, I should be able to ignore the GPL agreement as well, since the arguement is essentially the same. Broadcast tv doesn't exempt copyright. The idea of pushing vs pulling is irrelevent in this case because either way, you've chosen to buy a device to receive the signal/code.
So my point is, although time shifting is copying in a literal sense, it doesn't violate the spirit of copyright, since you watch the show once and then delete it. Archiving does violate copyright because you've made a copy, which you've kept. And I know about the hone recording act, but I think in the digital age it is overly permissive and unconstitutional.
French Clippy: "You look like you're trying to fight a war of independence. Would you like some help with that?""
How about: French Clippy: "You look like you're trying to fight a war of independence against the British. Would you like some help with that?" Puts it in context a little better. The French were a lot more helpful when they were listening to enlightenment philosphers instead of Marx.
"Maybe I'm in the minority, but I specifically do NOT want a device that does more than one thing. In my history of owning devices that do multiple things, it is always the case that they do each poorly. It is less than the sum of the parts. "
Yes, because it makes a lot of sense to carry a phone, an mp3 player, a portable video game device, and a PDA around, rather than having one general purpose device that does all four.
" Every antenna must use an amplifier to turn a weak input signal into a usable internal signal. Unless the circuit is specifically shielded, which is expensive, much of the amplified signal leaks back out the antenna. Most receivers are thus noise-producers. This includes FM, TV and non-aircraft-certified GPS receivers, all of which are ostensibly of interest to airplane passengers."
The LNA would need to have really high gain, and/or really poor reverse isolation to inject a significant amount of power into the antennae. If the Apple engineers are really that clever, they could solve the problem.
" Pilots don't like radios in the cabin because radio reception involves producing radio frequencies - yes, it's a small transmitter - which could interfere with vital navigation radios."
It's only a transmitter in the sense that all electronic equipment broadcasts radiation at frequencies related to what's going on in the circuitry. So your CPU broadcasts some junk at it's clock frequency, for instance.
" Well, personally, I don't want to listen to the radio, ever. That's why I have an iPod. I used to listen to the radio for NPR shows, but with most of the "good stuff" from NPR being available as podcasts, well, my car radio stays on "Aux Input" all the time now, and I don't own another radio reciever at all.
I think Apple intentionally doesn't include an FM tuner on purpose, as they are theying to replace radio, not just replace CD players, with the iPod. They're doing a good job of it, too."
What about when you're in the gym, and you want to tune into the room FM broadcast of the audio for the tv's. SOL with iPod.
Computer science is not a vocational course to make you a good programmer. Computer science is the study of computing machinery. Therefore a lot of effort is placed in learning formal proofs, finite automata, turing machines, etc, which define what is possible with computing machines. A computer science degree should help you become an expert on the fundamentals of computing machines capabilities and uses, not make you a better web developer.
"Your impression from before is correct. Apple knows what it's doing regarding security. MS doesn't (though their marketing / affiliate dept. seems to know how terrible their security is). It's really that simple."
Macs aren't targeted because there is no real financial incentive because of a 2% market share. Apple has to patch their software, just like everyone else. The only popular product they make, iTunes has been cracked, and isn't secure.
How do you propose writing a virus that automatically spreads on a mchine with a 2% market share? With Windows, if you steal someone's address book, you can email other people and have a high probability of hitting another Windows machine. I don't know why people keep saying Macs are more secure since that is impossible to prove. You need to accept the fact that no machine is secure, and take the appropriate steps based on the risk you're willing to accept. I've seen hacked Linux, and Solaris boxes, as well as Windows. Saying a machine is more secure than another without being able to point to specific code, or even architecture, is naive.
" The only reason grabbing headlines is passe is because its easy to create a PC virus. Its an accomplishment on the other hand to infect unix boxes (Macs especially because they are popular and their smug users think they are invulnerable;-)"
You know where the term root kit comes from, don't you? They don't call it an Administrator kit.
Slashdot Mirror
" But why not cut out the middle-man? We don't need "the music industrie" for on-line music do we?
Artist -> Online shop -> Customer makes more sense to me.
The online shop (iTunes for instance) could take care of the marketing as well."
So you want Apple to be the sole music producer and distributor in the world? Talk about a monopoly. At least the big 5 need to compete against eachother and the smaller labels. Not to mention Apple has no expertise in either producing or marketing music.
" The music companies aren't even paying for the bandwidth! Or paying to administer ITMS! The biggest problem they have is signing all the checks Apple sends them."
In other news, music companies don't pay Tower Record's electric bill.
"...and it might become more viable for a greater number of people to make a living as "professional musicians" (i.e. enough to get by, though not ba-zillionaires)."
Because before the advent of recorded music, it was so much easier to make a career out of music, right? All you had to do was find a wealthy aristocrat or merchant willing to support your career. Or you had the choice of becoming a traveling minstrel.
Musicians have much more opportunity today then before the advent of recorded music.
If allofmp3.com can make money chargin a dime a song. Apple could give the music lablebs $0.60, keep $0.20, make double what allofmp3.com makes, and be legal. As it stands now Apple gets something like half your $1.
" What Apple should do is start it's own label."
What the hell does Apple know about music production? You might as well suggest they design their own processors instead of going to Intel.
" Maybe they could cut costs..but, oh, I don't know.. hiring less lawyers to sue their customers."
Maybe Apple should cut their costs or profit. All they're doing is providing a server with files to download. The music labels do most of the work.
" I've been an OSX user for nearly 5 years. Still waiting..."
With a 3% market share, there isn't much profit motive in exploiting OS X, so hope Apple keeps flying under the radar.
"This perfectly encapsulates the spirit of modern China: The capitalistic freedoms to lie, cheat and steal, but not the humanist freedoms to speak, organize and share information."
Capitalism is not about lying, cheating, and stealing. These actions are against capitalism. Capitalism is about free, open, voluntary trade where each person understands exactly what they're getting in a transaction. Unfortunately, in real life, both buyers and sellers lie, cheat, and steal to make up for deficiencies and gain an unfair advantage.
" They are (generally) going after people who can't afford to fight...
I wonder how much it would affect the strategy is large numbers of objectors banded together to create a massive defense fund. Retain a few lawyers and offer to defend anyone who is accused."
Everyone ignores the fact that these people are guilty, even if they themselves don't realize it. Those computers are all being used to distribute copyrighted material illegally. The people owning the computers just don't realize it's happening because their kids or their kids' friends installed and used the software. To assume that the accusations are false is to deny reality. I can download p2p and find any song I want. Someone has to be guilty.
articles like this show /. is about as credible a news source as Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh.
"While *some* used/use it as justification and denial, I have also seen, ans have used it because when talking about FACTS (not opinions or personal beliefs), the crimes involving p2p and copyrights involve piracy copyright infringement, not rape, murder, larceny, stealing, theft, etc.
/.ers often say that labels should make albums cheaper so they'd buy them instead of stealing them.
Copyright infringement (gain + no loss) != theft (gain + loss. Copyright education + RIAA/MPAA/BSA = PROPAGANDA AND F"
You don't understand English:
Or are phrases such as "you stole my idea" or "you're stealing cable" not correct English
You don't understand Economics:
Claiming copyright infringement causes no loss to the producer is a fallacy. Illegal sources of the product lower the effective value of the product i.e. the price at which it can be sold. So therefore a loss of the product's value has occurred. Note that
I think this article brings up an interesting copyright issue. If it's ok to time shift tv shows to watch them when you want, does that also mean you get to archive the show and watch it as many shows as you want? Now that it has been shown that there is a market for DVD copies of tv shows, clearly this material, which should be protected by copyright, has value. Therefore archiving should be illegal since it is a violation of copyright.
Now many people argue that "they beamed it into my home, I should be able to do with it whatever I want." However GPLed code is freely available for download, so therefore, I should be able to ignore the GPL agreement as well, since the arguement is essentially the same. Broadcast tv doesn't exempt copyright. The idea of pushing vs pulling is irrelevent in this case because either way, you've chosen to buy a device to receive the signal/code.
So my point is, although time shifting is copying in a literal sense, it doesn't violate the spirit of copyright, since you watch the show once and then delete it. Archiving does violate copyright because you've made a copy, which you've kept. And I know about the hone recording act, but I think in the digital age it is overly permissive and unconstitutional.
" Well, "wrong" is one word to use. The word I'd use is "liable". I think we'll see a class-action lawsuit soon."
I think Tivo is more worried about Hollywood than consumers.
"Just one more good reason to bite the bullet, sit down, and build yourself a MythTV box."
MythTV runs on general purose PC hardware only, and therefore wastes a lot of power. It would be much better if it ran on dedicated hardware.
"Let me fix that up for ya:
French Clippy: "You look like you're trying to fight a war of independence. Would you like some help with that?""
How about:
French Clippy: "You look like you're trying to fight a war of independence against the British. Would you like some help with that?"
Puts it in context a little better. The French were a lot more helpful when they were listening to enlightenment philosphers instead of Marx.
"Maybe I'm in the minority, but I specifically do NOT want a device that does more than one thing. In my history of owning devices that do multiple things, it is always the case that they do each poorly. It is less than the sum of the parts.
"
Yes, because it makes a lot of sense to carry a phone, an mp3 player, a portable video game device, and a PDA around, rather than having one general purpose device that does all four.
" Every antenna must use an amplifier to turn a weak input signal into a usable internal signal. Unless the circuit is specifically shielded, which is expensive, much of the amplified signal leaks back out the antenna. Most receivers are thus noise-producers. This includes FM, TV and non-aircraft-certified GPS receivers, all of which are ostensibly of interest to airplane passengers."
The LNA would need to have really high gain, and/or really poor reverse isolation to inject a significant amount of power into the antennae. If the Apple engineers are really that clever, they could solve the problem.
" Pilots don't like radios in the cabin because radio reception involves producing radio frequencies - yes, it's a small transmitter - which could interfere with vital navigation radios."
It's only a transmitter in the sense that all electronic equipment broadcasts radiation at frequencies related to what's going on in the circuitry. So your CPU broadcasts some junk at it's clock frequency, for instance.
" Well, personally, I don't want to listen to the radio, ever. That's why I have an iPod. I used to listen to the radio for NPR shows, but with most of the "good stuff" from NPR being available as podcasts, well, my car radio stays on "Aux Input" all the time now, and I don't own another radio reciever at all.
I think Apple intentionally doesn't include an FM tuner on purpose, as they are theying to replace radio, not just replace CD players, with the iPod. They're doing a good job of it, too."
What about when you're in the gym, and you want to tune into the room FM broadcast of the audio for the tv's. SOL with iPod.
Computer science is not a vocational course to make you a good programmer. Computer science is the study of computing machinery. Therefore a lot of effort is placed in learning formal proofs, finite automata, turing machines, etc, which define what is possible with computing machines. A computer science degree should help you become an expert on the fundamentals of computing machines capabilities and uses, not make you a better web developer.
"Your impression from before is correct. Apple knows what it's doing regarding security. MS doesn't (though their marketing / affiliate dept. seems to know how terrible their security is). It's really that simple."
Macs aren't targeted because there is no real financial incentive because of a 2% market share. Apple has to patch their software, just like everyone else. The only popular product they make, iTunes has been cracked, and isn't secure.
How do you propose writing a virus that automatically spreads on a mchine with a 2% market share? With Windows, if you steal someone's address book, you can email other people and have a high probability of hitting another Windows machine. I don't know why people keep saying Macs are more secure since that is impossible to prove. You need to accept the fact that no machine is secure, and take the appropriate steps based on the risk you're willing to accept. I've seen hacked Linux, and Solaris boxes, as well as Windows. Saying a machine is more secure than another without being able to point to specific code, or even architecture, is naive.
" The only reason grabbing headlines is passe is because its easy to create a PC virus. Its an accomplishment on the other hand to infect unix boxes (Macs especially because they are popular and their smug users think they are invulnerable ;-)"
You know where the term root kit comes from, don't you? They don't call it an Administrator kit.
If I ever see another "secure by design" bs comment from /. idiots, I'll be sure to point out this story.
"How about something along the lines of prohibiting companies from using gpl stuff in building drm schemes ?"
If GPL is about freedom, why are you restricting the uses of "free" software. That doesn't sound like freedom to me.