Another CNN 'science' article about some guy who *MAY* have found something that *COULD* be important. *POSSIBLE* *MAYBE* *SORTA* *KINDA*
They're always so eager to publish anything by anyone in a lab coat who's in need of funding.
And of course there's nothing informative to explain what the story means.
Ie; What the hell is a maser? What does it emit? Am I the only one reading CNN that isn't an astrophysisist?
And inevitably, a few days later, they publish a 'follow-up' article which retracts everything they said. "Meteor to hit earth in 3 days!" "Another Moon Found" "Meteor actually not going to hit earth" "Moon is really dog-doo on a stick"
Iraq never honored the terms of the truce of the Gulf War, Saddam never ceased the WMD programs, never honored the no-fly zones, never allowed inspectors in. The stupid ass shell-games he played with the weapons inspectors when they were there, and no doubt he'll play again, don't count.
Simply put, the US has every legal right to go back in and remove Saddam. He's masterminded (failed) plot to assasinate George Bush Sr. The fact that he's an idealogue maniac, willing to test gas agents on his own people, use them as human shields, fund terrorists, hand a briefcase of anthrax to al queda, or any other nightmare scenarios gives the US a moral right to do so.
In fact, I see it as an ethical obligation to do so. What do you think Saddam would do if he was diagnosed with a terminal illness tomorrow, and had nothing to lose? Would he think about his citizens (the ones he gassed and used as human shields) when he hands over his arsenal to muslim extremists to get revenge on the big evil US?
And, the US is equally concerned with Chinas regime, though the only course we have with them at the moment is diplomacy and economic pressure.
And it has had an effect. China has come along way since Tianemen Square. Westerners now regularly visit the country, Hong Kong has a budding capitalist economy, pressures from western groups are changing the way the peasants view their own freedoms, or lack thereof.
China will change eventually the same way the Soviet Union did. Their system doesn't work. We don't need to strongarm them, it'll happen naturally. Just not overnight. Leave it to the Chinese, and offer whatever assistance they ask for.
I wouldn't use it, frankly I wouldn't install whatever software or configure whatever proxy you cooked up to force the banners onto my laptop.
Perhaps there are plenty of folk who would, I'd think mainly people who live/work in the area, as most tourists would have no clue as to its existence (unless you used your ad revenue to rent conventional ad space on the sides of buses, etc).
If you sold advertising to locals (mom n pop type stores downtown), it seems to me you'd be lucky to break even.
Sounds like a pretty crappy get-rich-quick scheme. Why don't you try bootlegging beanie babies?
>I can still remember the Challenger disaster. What a shame. And what hubris, taking a schoolteacher along for a ride, so millions of kids could watch the Shuttle explode on TV in real time...
You say that like it was the plan all along.
Noone knew it was going to blow up, and everyone involved (teacher included) knew the risks.
> Ordinary civilians have no place taking joyrides in space. Not yet
You go ahead and define 'ordinary'. And then tell them what they can and cannot do.
Here's a secret: Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, Roberta Bondar, Sally Ride, all 'ordinary' people. They don't come from some super-race of genetically bred space-people. Or do they?
Besides, others closer to your definition of 'ordinary' *have* taken joyrides on russian craft. There's the japanese reporter who spent a week or two up there. (And got awful sick, as I remember).
No way, no how. I don't think I'm ready to trust my life to a space program that has to cowtow to B-List celebrities to pay the rent.
Plus, I've seen too much media coverage about Russian technology in action. Think submarines, chernobyls, satellites, space stations, political ideologies.
No thanks, Pepsi. I'll take my chances with the giant slingshot I'm building in my backyard.
> This is not for monetary gain, but still widespread pirated software distribution just the same.
The jury's still out on that, as far as I see it. "Releases" start on the uber-elite "topsites" and slowly filter down to the 13 year old with the fserve on irc.
Yet "Releases" will be packaged and for sale on the streets of Russia, China, Hong Kong oftentimes long before they hit the online geek "scene".
There is alot of money in the illegitimate sale of pirated software, and various mobs have their hands elbow deep in it.
Someone pays for all their equipment. Someone gives organized crime access to the "topsites" (which exist only in legend to your run-of-the-mill 'warez' scener).
No, I'm not spreading gov'ment FUD or trolling, but where there's money to be made by violating a law, organized crime will show up to make sure it's done right.
The scene's changed since the early days of kids trading c64 disks through the mail.
Re:try saying this code isn't free speech
on
Open Source Art?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
A painting is art, a paintbrush is not.
Similarly, the onscreen display could be considered art, while the code that generated it may not.
Noone has won anything.
Re:A couple of points, mildly off-topic
on
Open Source Art?
·
· Score: 2
it is limited.. The GPL != "open source", i wish people would stop interchanging the two terms. It's just one liscensing scheme.
Anyways,
In the case, the code is merely available. There's no liscense attached to the code in any way, shape or form, at least none I could find (I could be wrong). Thus, like all works, it is inherently copyrighted. If you used the code without permission, you could be in trouble, whether you credited anyone or not.
(Just like if you wrote an essay/short story in school, and the teacher, or another student got it published under his name. You can sue for infringement, even though you never formally filed a copyright)
Another example,
Where I work, we distribute all code for our main application to unix boxes in the field, so we can customize it on-site. This doesn't make it open source, if a client stole our code, we'd have them over a barrel.
Re:Who the hell is reviewing articles at Slashdot?
on
Open Source Art?
·
· Score: 1
sad thing is now there'll be 2 dozen idiotic comments about visual basic being a used that'll be modded +5 - insightful, as though slamming a language just because you don't like its creator is insight.
> Here's a clue: If no one is asking for payment, it's not commerce.
Here's another. If someone is asking for payment, it is.
Do you honestly think KaZaa is doing any real trading of your home movies, the music you recorded in your garage, or the (surely nonexistant) code you're writing as open source?
If any of it had value, you'd be selling it.
Will all content require DRM? No. Will all commercial content require DRM? No.
Are companies (not just internet) in a hurry to flood the internet with content when they have no way to guarantee any sort of profit from it, besides the 'honor system'? No.
> "Running non-secure software will become a federal offense punishable by life in prison or worse"
Yeah you'll be executed for warez. Goddamnit, get a grip on reality.
> Any and all programs not specifically authorized, approved and certified by M$ will not be allowed to run
Simply not true.
> those in power will see to it to make it a legal mandate to precent cyber-terrorism in the future
Gack, too much TV.
Remember when idiotic comments didn't get modded up as insightful?
I don't.
Frankly I'd rather see Microsoft (you know them as M$) control the world than the kneejerk reactionaries of slashdot. Though in the real world, luckily, neither scenario is likely.
If Microsoft wasn't developing DRM, someone else would.
The status quo of "all yer base are belong to $SCRIPTKIDDY" can't fly, like it or not. The 'honor system' doesn't work.
There are many who want a secure platform. It's a double edged sword, and will be an option for all of the forseeable future.
You don't want rights management? Fine. You can't use this service. You don't want to run a trusted platform? Fine, you can't connect to my network/server. You don't want your personal info on a card? Fine. You cant drive a car.
I'm getting really tired of the knee-jerk reactions from the average teenaged slashdot reader. Does anyone ever try to objectively think through both the pros and cons of a either DRM or trusted computing platform?
> It would kill the Western world's economy if done too quickly, and the larger companies with a keen interest in oil are going to make dang sure it doesn't happen too quickly, if at all.
I dunno about this, the huge industries behind horses and steam engines could do little to prevent internal combustion.
I hear this conspiracy theory alot, but in the real world, how could they prevent a better technology? Do you actually see a law being written that forces you into a gas combustion engine?
> In the end, the only two winners would be the envrionmentalists... and the peace loving people... Neither of the two have any foothold in the policy makers domain.
Hmm. Last I checked there was a huge "environmental" lobby spouting FUD and gloom and doom at every corner. Look at the energy crisis in California. We (America) has arguably more oil than the Arab world. We can't tap it because of the environmental lobby.
Same goes for the 'peace loving people'. You have a very lopsided view of government.
The world depends on oil, commuter vehicles are just a portion of that dependency. Millions of us heat our homes with it (more of it goes up my flue than out of my tailpipe), and there are plenty of other transportation technologies where hybrid fuel cells just don't apply, and wont for a long long time (planes, trains, ships, semis, buses). Electric wheels just dont turn as hard as gas-driven ones. (torque)
The dependency on oil isn't going away because of a car that runs on batteries.
This is exciting to me because it seems much more economical. It looks as though it would be less prone to breakdown, and easier to repair when one occurs.
"We're on the threshold of a whole new system," says Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards. "The time where accountants decide what music people hear is coming to an end. Accountants may be good at numbers, but they have terrible taste in music. I don't know how I'm going to get paid, but I'd rather go out into the brave new world than live with dinosaurs that are far too big for their boots."
> you can't share files with more than a few clients from 2K-pro
We didn't need to. We needed to share with exactly 3 clients. In specific, the PC that takes the mugshots, the PC at the 'booking desk' where they "books the perps", and the clerk's PC who enters offense data. It simply had to be physically seperate from the real server that handles the calls for service data from the dispatchers, and runs the records management system.
Can't have big TIFFs knocking out the 911 system.
It was a dead-simple system in a Mayberry-esque Sheriff's dept, if you haven't guessed. Those of you who live in rural areas with small PDs, here's a peek at how they use the technology.
> Domain controllers are tricky but thay have been working for a good four years now at least
My point is, tricky for the sake of tricky doesn't cut it. 5 minutes compared to hours of time we ultimately bill to the client, or eat ourselves. Plus, I didn't appreciate having to spend any more time than I had to in the middle of a bad episode of "Dukes of Hazzard"
It was just an example of a simple task made complicated by an idealogue.
"Right now it's a bunch of states making their own laws about how people in other states can do business," Crandall, his attorney, said. "It's a profoundly interesting case about whether the government can regulate business on the Internet, or at least regulate equally."
Hooray! Next stop, a government regulated internet! That cant possibly have any other effects beyond removal of unwanted e-mails.
"The law, which does not ban all unsolicited commercial e-mail, makes it illegal to send an e-mail to people in Washington that contains deceptive subject lines, uses a bogus return address or uses a third party's domain name without permission."
deceptive subject lines? Don't try and tell me there isn't room for lawyers to abuse that.
"This is a great victory for Washington consumers," Attorney General Christine Gregoire said yesterday. "Deceptive e-mails are more than just a nuisance, they rob consumers and businesses of money and time."
This isn't an anti-spam law, per se, it sounds more like an anti-anonymous-email law. How long until some lawyer tries to morph 'valid return address' into 'using your real name'?
Like all laws, it has to be levied with common sense. We all know how much common sense lawyers have.
IANAL, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Basically, the royalty owed is seven hundredths of a cent, per song, per listener.
When the RIAA argues losses on P2P, they calculate it based on the sales of CDs. Which is probably about 2 bucks per song transferred.
What is the distinction? They both use the same underlying technology. You can save an mp3 stream from a 'net radio' to a file without losing quality.
Why cant a *ster service just track and charge users seven hudredths of a cent per song? For a buck a week, you could get 14.3 tunes. 30 bucks a month would equate to an album a day.
Let publishers waive royalties if they wish.
Rather than a network of 'servers', classify it as a network of 'internet radio stations'. Or is it not one already?
I don't see this as a loophole, but a perfectly acceptable system. Probably 90% or higher of P2P users use it as an alternative to conventional radio.
If the copyright appeals board set a royalty of seven hundredths of a cent, how can the RIAA claim any more than that?
IANAL, someone who is please clarify the difference (between an MP3 only service and internet radio) for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Our planet is merely solar.
These are EXTRAsolar.
That sucks.
Of course, if we upgraded to extrasolar, then some jerk is gonna get megasolar just to outdo us.
Another CNN 'science' article about some guy who *MAY* have found something that *COULD* be important. *POSSIBLE* *MAYBE* *SORTA* *KINDA*
They're always so eager to publish anything by anyone in a lab coat who's in need of funding.
And of course there's nothing informative to explain what the story means.
Ie; What the hell is a maser? What does it emit? Am I the only one reading CNN that isn't an astrophysisist?
And inevitably, a few days later, they publish a 'follow-up' article which retracts everything they said. "Meteor to hit earth in 3 days!" "Another Moon Found" "Meteor actually not going to hit earth" "Moon is really dog-doo on a stick"
Meh.
Iraq never honored the terms of the truce of the Gulf War, Saddam never ceased the WMD programs, never honored the no-fly zones, never allowed inspectors in. The stupid ass shell-games he played with the weapons inspectors when they were there, and no doubt he'll play again, don't count.
Simply put, the US has every legal right to go back in and remove Saddam. He's masterminded (failed) plot to assasinate George Bush Sr. The fact that he's an idealogue maniac, willing to test gas agents on his own people, use them as human shields, fund terrorists, hand a briefcase of anthrax to al queda, or any other nightmare scenarios gives the US a moral right to do so.
In fact, I see it as an ethical obligation to do so. What do you think Saddam would do if he was diagnosed with a terminal illness tomorrow, and had nothing to lose? Would he think about his citizens (the ones he gassed and used as human shields) when he hands over his arsenal to muslim extremists to get revenge on the big evil US?
And, the US is equally concerned with Chinas regime, though the only course we have with them at the moment is diplomacy and economic pressure.
And it has had an effect. China has come along way since Tianemen Square. Westerners now regularly visit the country, Hong Kong has a budding capitalist economy, pressures from western groups are changing the way the peasants view their own freedoms, or lack thereof.
China will change eventually the same way the Soviet Union did. Their system doesn't work. We don't need to strongarm them, it'll happen naturally. Just not overnight. Leave it to the Chinese, and offer whatever assistance they ask for.
I wouldn't use it, frankly I wouldn't install whatever software or configure whatever proxy you cooked up to force the banners onto my laptop.
Perhaps there are plenty of folk who would, I'd think mainly people who live/work in the area, as most tourists would have no clue as to its existence (unless you used your ad revenue to rent conventional ad space on the sides of buses, etc).
If you sold advertising to locals (mom n pop type stores downtown), it seems to me you'd be lucky to break even.
Sounds like a pretty crappy get-rich-quick scheme. Why don't you try bootlegging beanie babies?
PEP-si had cocaine in it too.
Both were marketed as 'pick-me-ups'. To an extent, they both still are, with caffeine replacing cocaine.
Too may people were pouring it up their noses.
>I can still remember the Challenger disaster. What a shame. And what hubris, taking a schoolteacher along for a ride, so millions of kids could watch the Shuttle explode on TV in real time...
You say that like it was the plan all along.
Noone knew it was going to blow up, and everyone involved (teacher included) knew the risks.
> Ordinary civilians have no place taking joyrides in space. Not yet
You go ahead and define 'ordinary'. And then tell them what they can and cannot do.
Here's a secret: Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, Roberta Bondar, Sally Ride, all 'ordinary' people. They don't come from some super-race of genetically bred space-people. Or do they?
Besides, others closer to your definition of 'ordinary' *have* taken joyrides on russian craft. There's the japanese reporter who spent a week or two up there. (And got awful sick, as I remember).
> since when is a political ideology a technology?
since you could patent it.
Ask a silly question.. something
> And remember: Chernobyl almost worked...
You just tell that to yourself when the giant radioactive spiders come for YOU.
No way, no how. I don't think I'm ready to trust my life to a space program that has to cowtow to B-List celebrities to pay the rent.
Plus, I've seen too much media coverage about Russian technology in action. Think submarines, chernobyls, satellites, space stations, political ideologies.
No thanks, Pepsi. I'll take my chances with the giant slingshot I'm building in my backyard.
You can't share something you don't own.
"Hey, take some of that guys beer. I like to share."
> This is not for monetary gain, but still widespread pirated software distribution just the same.
The jury's still out on that, as far as I see it. "Releases" start on the uber-elite "topsites" and slowly filter down to the 13 year old with the fserve on irc.
Yet "Releases" will be packaged and for sale on the streets of Russia, China, Hong Kong oftentimes long before they hit the online geek "scene".
There is alot of money in the illegitimate sale of pirated software, and various mobs have their hands elbow deep in it.
Someone pays for all their equipment. Someone gives organized crime access to the "topsites" (which exist only in legend to your run-of-the-mill 'warez' scener).
No, I'm not spreading gov'ment FUD or trolling, but where there's money to be made by violating a law, organized crime will show up to make sure it's done right.
The scene's changed since the early days of kids trading c64 disks through the mail.
A painting is art, a paintbrush is not.
Similarly, the onscreen display could be considered art, while the code that generated it may not.
Noone has won anything.
it is limited.. The GPL != "open source", i wish people would stop interchanging the two terms. It's just one liscensing scheme.
Anyways,
In the case, the code is merely available. There's no liscense attached to the code in any way, shape or form, at least none I could find (I could be wrong). Thus, like all works, it is inherently copyrighted. If you used the code without permission, you could be in trouble, whether you credited anyone or not.
(Just like if you wrote an essay/short story in school, and the teacher, or another student got it published under his name. You can sue for infringement, even though you never formally filed a copyright)
Another example,
Where I work, we distribute all code for our main application to unix boxes in the field, so we can customize it on-site. This doesn't make it open source, if a client stole our code, we'd have them over a barrel.
sad thing is now there'll be 2 dozen idiotic comments about visual basic being a used that'll be modded +5 - insightful, as though slamming a language just because you don't like its creator is insight.
> Here's a clue: If no one is asking for payment, it's not commerce.
Here's another. If someone is asking for payment, it is.
Do you honestly think KaZaa is doing any real trading of your home movies, the music you recorded in your garage, or the (surely nonexistant) code you're writing as open source?
If any of it had value, you'd be selling it.
Will all content require DRM? No. Will all commercial content require DRM? No.
Are companies (not just internet) in a hurry to flood the internet with content when they have no way to guarantee any sort of profit from it, besides the 'honor system'? No.
> "Running non-secure software will become a federal offense punishable by life in prison or worse"
Yeah you'll be executed for warez. Goddamnit, get a grip on reality.
> Any and all programs not specifically authorized, approved and certified by M$ will not be allowed to run
Simply not true.
> those in power will see to it to make it a legal mandate to precent cyber-terrorism in the future
Gack, too much TV.
Remember when idiotic comments didn't get modded up as insightful?
I don't.
Frankly I'd rather see Microsoft (you know them as M$) control the world than the kneejerk reactionaries of slashdot. Though in the real world, luckily, neither scenario is likely.
DRM exists.
Palladium doesn't exist.
So tell me how they're the same thing?
If Microsoft wasn't developing DRM, someone else would.
The status quo of "all yer base are belong to $SCRIPTKIDDY" can't fly, like it or not. The 'honor system' doesn't work.
There are many who want a secure platform. It's a double edged sword, and will be an option for all of the forseeable future.
You don't want rights management? Fine. You can't use this service. You don't want to run a trusted platform? Fine, you can't connect to my network/server. You don't want your personal info on a card? Fine. You cant drive a car.
I'm getting really tired of the knee-jerk reactions from the average teenaged slashdot reader. Does anyone ever try to objectively think through both the pros and cons of a either DRM or trusted computing platform?
> It would kill the Western world's economy if done too quickly, and the larger companies with a keen interest in oil are going to make dang sure it doesn't happen too quickly, if at all.
... and the peace loving people ... Neither of the two have any foothold in the policy makers domain.
I dunno about this, the huge industries behind horses and steam engines could do little to prevent internal combustion.
I hear this conspiracy theory alot, but in the real world, how could they prevent a better technology? Do you actually see a law being written that forces you into a gas combustion engine?
> In the end, the only two winners would be the envrionmentalists
Hmm. Last I checked there was a huge "environmental" lobby spouting FUD and gloom and doom at every corner. Look at the energy crisis in California. We (America) has arguably more oil than the Arab world. We can't tap it because of the environmental lobby.
Same goes for the 'peace loving people'. You have a very lopsided view of government.
The world depends on oil, commuter vehicles are just a portion of that dependency. Millions of us heat our homes with it (more of it goes up my flue than out of my tailpipe), and there are plenty of other transportation technologies where hybrid fuel cells just don't apply, and wont for a long long time (planes, trains, ships, semis, buses). Electric wheels just dont turn as hard as gas-driven ones. (torque)
The dependency on oil isn't going away because of a car that runs on batteries.
This is exciting to me because it seems much more economical. It looks as though it would be less prone to breakdown, and easier to repair when one occurs.
"We're on the threshold of a whole new system," says Rolling Stones guitarist Keith Richards. "The time where accountants decide what music people hear is coming to an end. Accountants may be good at numbers, but they have terrible taste in music. I don't know how I'm going to get paid, but I'd rather go out into the brave new world than live with dinosaurs that are far too big for their boots."
Someone UNDERSTOOD something Richards SAID!?
He talks like Prince writes.
I love the blurry photo of the scientist, or rather the caption.
"Yuri Fialko says the earthquake data is valuable"
Not too enthralling for us who just like to look at the pictures, rather than RTFA'ing.
No, it wasn't a troll.
> you can't share files with more than a few clients from 2K-pro
We didn't need to. We needed to share with exactly 3 clients. In specific, the PC that takes the mugshots, the PC at the 'booking desk' where they "books the perps", and the clerk's PC who enters offense data. It simply had to be physically seperate from the real server that handles the calls for service data from the dispatchers, and runs the records management system.
Can't have big TIFFs knocking out the 911 system.
It was a dead-simple system in a Mayberry-esque Sheriff's dept, if you haven't guessed. Those of you who live in rural areas with small PDs, here's a peek at how they use the technology.
> Domain controllers are tricky but thay have been working for a good four years now at least
My point is, tricky for the sake of tricky doesn't cut it. 5 minutes compared to hours of time we ultimately bill to the client, or eat ourselves. Plus, I didn't appreciate having to spend any more time than I had to in the middle of a bad episode of "Dukes of Hazzard"
It was just an example of a simple task made complicated by an idealogue.
Wouldn't it depend on what you consider deceptive?
Here's a pretend e-mail from something I opted in to. (The law doesnt differentiate between solicited and unsolicited, so much as I can see)
From: marketing@bestbuy.com
Subj: Exciting new products!
Another walkman!
-
Thats not exciting. I'm going to sue for lost time and wages.
-
From: grampa@yourhometown.com
Subj: Interesting photo!
-
Sorry, Gramps. I don't find your dog interesting. I'm going to sue.
-
From: slashbot@slashdot.org
Subj: Interesting headlines and insightful comments on SlashDot
Now, we ALL know that's deceptive.
I don't see how the internet can exist in anything close to its current form once the lawyers rend it from bit to bit.
"Right now it's a bunch of states making their own laws about how people in other states can do business," Crandall, his attorney, said. "It's a profoundly interesting case about whether the government can regulate business on the Internet, or at least regulate equally."
Hooray! Next stop, a government regulated internet! That cant possibly have any other effects beyond removal of unwanted e-mails.
"The law, which does not ban all unsolicited commercial e-mail, makes it illegal to send an e-mail to people in Washington that contains deceptive subject lines, uses a bogus return address or uses a third party's domain name without permission."
deceptive subject lines? Don't try and tell me there isn't room for lawyers to abuse that.
"This is a great victory for Washington consumers," Attorney General Christine Gregoire said yesterday. "Deceptive e-mails are more than just a nuisance, they rob consumers and businesses of money and time."
This isn't an anti-spam law, per se, it sounds more like an anti-anonymous-email law. How long until some lawyer tries to morph 'valid return address' into 'using your real name'?
Like all laws, it has to be levied with common sense. We all know how much common sense lawyers have.
IANAL, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
IM giants told to work it out
I can't wait for..
Financial giants told to shove it
Seriously, where do these jackasses get off?
"At the age of 6, Leonard Kleinrock was reading a Superman comic at *HIS* apartment in Manhattan" (emphasis added)
I really doubt he had his own apartment at 6.
Ok, we all know about the issue of royalties for internet radio:
0 2- 07-21-radio_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/20
Basically, the royalty owed is seven hundredths of a cent, per song, per listener.
When the RIAA argues losses on P2P, they calculate it based on the sales of CDs. Which is probably about 2 bucks per song transferred.
What is the distinction? They both use the same underlying technology. You can save an mp3 stream from a 'net radio' to a file without losing quality.
Why cant a *ster service just track and charge users seven hudredths of a cent per song? For a buck a week, you could get 14.3 tunes. 30 bucks a month would equate to an album a day.
Let publishers waive royalties if they wish.
Rather than a network of 'servers', classify it as a network of 'internet radio stations'. Or is it not one already?
I don't see this as a loophole, but a perfectly acceptable system. Probably 90% or higher of P2P users use it as an alternative to conventional radio.
If the copyright appeals board set a royalty of seven hundredths of a cent, how can the RIAA claim any more than that?
IANAL, someone who is please clarify the difference (between an MP3 only service and internet radio) for me.