There was a show in the Netherlands about a year ago, where the contestants were given a booklet with 1000 questions nd ansers from which the questions would be asked. I didn't know that the first time I watched. Just when I was in awe of the contestants (obviously, they knew very much) one girl was able to say who came second in last years Tour de France. When the host asked her (not a real question, just making conversation) who won, she didn't have a clue...
Maybe I had too much coffee this morning, but... I see a right hand in the mirror. Meaning it must be a left hand. Which was the point of the original poster.
Expecting the RIAA-backed services to give you unprotected files in the format you want is a bit unreasonable.
Unreasonable? Sure. That's because we're all thieves (yeah, yeah, it's not theft it's that copyright thingie, I know). We can't be trusted. Even better: it would be unreasonable to trust us.
Cool. Why stop at not giving the customers what they want, add insult to injury and call us unreasonable too!
So, it would be nice if we could compare full album sales instead of the unbalance "tracks vs. singles".
Not necessarily. As the music industry inevitably moves towards a digital distribution model, the album as a concept will lose it's current position. There will be bands still putting out albums with a theme, but lots of bands, especially those targeting the teens-market will just sell seperate songs and stop bothering with the really shitty songs - insert own shitty teens music joke here - to boost the album playing time from 25 minutes to 60+. So I would expect the album as we know it to become less mainstream and therefore less of a yardstick to measure sales by.
Reminds me of two columns by the late dutch master (or grandmaster, I can't remember) Jan Hein Donner. In the first one he wrote about women not being able to play chess. Obviously that generated a lot of reactions, to which he devoted a second column. One woman wrote to him: "Next you're going to write that negroes can't play chess!". Donners reply: "Negroes can play chess. It's the female negroes that can't play chess."
It sounds better in dutch, but you get the idea.
... who does not see a huge difference between the two definitions of the phrase "Second Superpower"?
The difference between these two definitions is irrelevant. The point is that Google's page ranking system resulted in the almost complete vanishing of the first definition. In this case it's not that big a deal, because both definitions are pretty similar. But a relatively small number of internet users can make a new phrase disappear from Google's lists. Either unknowingly or on purpose.
I always felt that if the SI unit for mass was the kilogram, and prefixes k and m were used for multiplying/dividing by 1000, that a metric ton would have to be written as kkg. And a gram would be a mkg.
Hey, that reads remarkably like something I have read before. Oh wait, that was in the article itself.
Wouldn't it be nice if people would actually read the articles they commented on? Ah, well, maybe a next lifetime.
I'm sure a lot of people would find this disturbing, but I guess it's "the way" of our generation.
I don't play online games and have no affinity with it (does that make me a bad nerd?),
yet the story gave me goosebumps. I thought it was great. New, maybe a bit weird, but great.
The sites were making money using MLB-related logos that were not theirs to use. There are plenty of informative baseballsites that are not being taken down by MLB. They took action against just four sites - don't you think there are more baseball sites than four?
For those who haven't read them, on the Janis Ian site she has posted two great articles on internet piracy;
the original article and
one on the reactions on it.
Basically, she concludes that her record sales went up when she decided to put some of her music for free on her website.
Her explanation is that as long as buying the original provides extra quality it will be bought. Just like everyone has free access to water, "yet people buy bottled water because it tastes better".
You think the DCMA is an unethical law, and you may think that it's morally ok to disobey it, but in principle it doesn't make a difference, although I more or less agree with you on both counts and I'm happy that a DMCA-equivalent doesn't exist in my country. What I am saying is that it's a slippery slope once everyone starts to obey only the laws he/she thinks make sense.
I'm not an expert on law, but I think that it doesn't matter whether you think a law makes sense or not. You break it, you face the consequences. So, in principle, I think the two cases are the same.
No, it's not. It's the equivalent of your.us domain, which is the US TLD..com,.net,.org are international domains, and I do not understand why these domains are managed by a US company in agreement with the US government.
Slashdot Mirror
They get tons of people walking into their main office daily, and the vast majority of them aren't you. Why should you be any different?
There was a show in the Netherlands about a year ago, where the contestants were given a booklet with 1000 questions nd ansers from which the questions would be asked. I didn't know that the first time I watched. Just when I was in awe of the contestants (obviously, they knew very much) one girl was able to say who came second in last years Tour de France. When the host asked her (not a real question, just making conversation) who won, she didn't have a clue...
Well, I hope he appeals. And gets access to his hard drive, so he can have his own experts analyze the data.
For a moment there I was thinking you wrote "And gets access to his hard drive, so he can have his porn back"...
Maybe I had too much coffee this morning, but ... I see a right hand in the mirror. Meaning it must be a left hand. Which was the point of the original poster.
So it's a publicity stunt with a point (and not the first one this week I might add).
We don't hate cell phones, we hate other people's cell phones.
Na, he means an asteroid will destroy the Mars base as soon as it's there, so we shouldn't bother.
Expecting the RIAA-backed services to give you unprotected files in the format you want is a bit unreasonable.
Unreasonable? Sure. That's because we're all thieves (yeah, yeah, it's not theft it's that copyright thingie, I know). We can't be trusted. Even better: it would be unreasonable to trust us.
Cool. Why stop at not giving the customers what they want, add insult to injury and call us unreasonable too!
So, it would be nice if we could compare full album sales instead of the unbalance "tracks vs. singles".
Not necessarily. As the music industry inevitably moves towards a digital distribution model, the album as a concept will lose it's current position. There will be bands still putting out albums with a theme, but lots of bands, especially those targeting the teens-market will just sell seperate songs and stop bothering with the really shitty songs - insert own shitty teens music joke here - to boost the album playing time from 25 minutes to 60+. So I would expect the album as we know it to become less mainstream and therefore less of a yardstick to measure sales by.
"Freddie the Knife", "Guido the Strangler", etc
You left out Jack the Ripper. Both a dangerous killer AND a distributor of illegaly encoded music.
You forgot the six legged chair and the electrical hammer.
Reminds me of two columns by the late dutch master (or grandmaster, I can't remember) Jan Hein Donner. In the first one he wrote about women not being able to play chess. Obviously that generated a lot of reactions, to which he devoted a second column. One woman wrote to him: "Next you're going to write that negroes can't play chess!". Donners reply: "Negroes can play chess. It's the female negroes that can't play chess." It sounds better in dutch, but you get the idea.
The difference between these two definitions is irrelevant. The point is that Google's page ranking system resulted in the almost complete vanishing of the first definition. In this case it's not that big a deal, because both definitions are pretty similar. But a relatively small number of internet users can make a new phrase disappear from Google's lists. Either unknowingly or on purpose.
As in Compuglobalhypermeganet? Could this be Homers commercial breakthrough?
I bought the DVD and I just want to see the damn movie.
Funny thing: if you watch a ripped version of the movie, the warning's gone!
I always felt that if the SI unit for mass was the kilogram, and prefixes k and m were used for multiplying/dividing by 1000, that a metric ton would have to be written as kkg. And a gram would be a mkg.
Hey, that reads remarkably like something I have read before. Oh wait, that was in the article itself.
Wouldn't it be nice if people would actually read the articles they commented on? Ah, well, maybe a next lifetime.
Do the ogg players contain easter oggs already?
I'm sure a lot of people would find this disturbing, but I guess it's "the way" of our generation.
I don't play online games and have no affinity with it (does that make me a bad nerd?),
yet the story gave me goosebumps. I thought it was great. New, maybe a bit weird, but great.
Q: Is glass solid or liquid?
A: Yes.
Seems like a clear answer to me.
The sites were making money using MLB-related logos that were not theirs to use.
There are plenty of informative baseballsites that are not being taken down by MLB.
They took action against just four sites - don't you think there are more baseball sites than four?
For those who haven't read them, on the Janis Ian site she has posted two great articles on internet piracy;
the original article and one on the reactions on it.
Basically, she concludes that her record sales went up when she decided to put some of her music for free on her website.
Her explanation is that as long as buying the original provides extra quality it will be bought. Just like everyone has free access to water, "yet people buy bottled water because it tastes better".
You think the DCMA is an unethical law, and you may think that it's morally ok to disobey it, but in principle it doesn't make a difference, although I more or less agree with you on both counts and I'm happy that a DMCA-equivalent doesn't exist in my country.
What I am saying is that it's a slippery slope once everyone starts to obey only the laws he/she thinks make sense.
I'm not an expert on law, but I think that it doesn't matter whether you think a law makes sense or not.
You break it, you face the consequences. So, in principle, I think the two cases are the same.
No, it's not. It's the equivalent of your .us domain, which is the US TLD. .com, .net, .org are international domains, and I do not understand why these domains are managed by a US company in agreement with the US government.