I want good music. I don't want to spend a lot. I want the actual people who *create* the music to benefit. And, I want it all to be easy. This is what MP3 can be about (and it is about, check out mp3.com).
So why is everybody pirating music? Simple. Record producers have spent millions of dollars telling us what we want to hear. Like it or not, that sort of advertising does work, and people (myself included) have trouble getting over the notion that, if a band hasn't been advertised all over the place, they're probably not good. Naturally, it is going to take time for people to discover the "other" musicians out there. In the meantime, people still want the music they have been told is good.
Ever wonder why the RIAA always goes after the means of distribution and not the distributors? (example, they want the mp3 format made illegal, not just pirate mp3s. They want napster shut down, not just cleaned up). The RIAA is well aware of the fact that there is lots of good music out there, and lots of musicians who would love to give their music away (or charge a few bucks/album). This is the RIAA's real problem. They no longer have a strangle hold on music distribution. The one thing they have left is that people still want the music they produce. When their music is no longer available on napster, they are truly fucked, because it means people have discovered the "other" music out there. It's my bet you'll never see the RIAA go after pirate music, just music distribution in general. They don't want people to discover the alternatives. And as long as forums like napster are flooded with pirate mp3's, people won't.
Anyway, the whole point is that the RIAA is not needed. They don't create any music, they just distribute and advertise it and make $15 for a $16 album (the other dollar goes to the artist, minus $.05 which goes overseas to the poor schmucks packaging cd's, but thats another story).
MP3's allow small bands to produce and distribute their music world wide for free. If you need proof of this, go to mp3.com and browse for a while. Sure, a lot of it is crap, but a lot of it is also really really good.
And, if you want to really scare the RIAA, *DONT PIRATE THEIR MUSIC*, plunk down a few bucks for somebody else's music. That will have them shitting bricks:)
Hope this is somewhat legible, its hard to write anything longer than "First Post!!!" in this damn little box:)
Wow, from the looks of the site it looks more like it was set up by the MPAA:) I've never seen such a professional looking site setup to advocate piracy. And they bought a domain name as well? Geez... Where's 3dsMaxWarez.com???
Seriously though, these guys have been paid off by the MPAA.
"The posting of the hacking code is akin to mass producing and distributing keys to a department store. The keys have only one real purpose: to allow a thief to open a locked door to steal the goods he targets." -- Jack Valenti.
Actually, the code tells people *how* to break the encryption. Jack Valenti has just told us *how* to break into department stores, by making and distributing copies of the keys.
If telling people how to break encryption is illegal, then so should be telling them how to break into department stores.
I urge anyone with a store to sue Jack Valenti for inventing and distributing a method for illegal store entry. His words are a direct threat to your rights of possesion as a store owner. Sue the Times while you're at it for distribution as well.:)
Seriously though, Mr. Valenti, I have a feeling you are on the wrong end of a very serious battle. I will savor watching you fall.
I believe the popular theory on why people get sick when sensory information doesn't match is that this is an evolved reaction to poisoning. Many poisons alter the way people process sensory information, so when the brain encounters this, it empties the stomach to reduce the amount of poison in the system (which, in the caveman days, was more often ingested than injected, theoretically at least:)
So, how long before we have a robot that can be rigged with a shotgun, and sent into a bank remotely? All it would need to do is pose a threat long enough to force a large wire transfer to an iranian account. After that it could simply self-destruct. I wonder how many local police forces are prepared for something like that:)
...from a marketing standpoint. It reminds people how old their software is, and invokes a need to buy a new version after a few years have passed. Lets face it, OS 3.11 sounds up to date anytime, but OS '89 sounds plain old. What could be better than to release a product under a name that sounds nice and new and have the name "magically" change to something old as the time for a new release draws near.
Ever notice how console sports games get released year after year (madden '97, madden '98, etc) with virtually no changes? If they called the games madden 1 and madden 2, people would expect major changes and be dissapointed. Release it as '98 and '99, however, and people just eat it up.
There will always be people who can hack any game (quake, starcraft, diablo, us banking system). Given a reasonable amount of security (ie, more than any game out there, but not 100% secure), the number of people who can (and who actually will) undetectably hack the game is very small. Add to this that most talented hackers are also responsible hackers, and that they probably get a bigger kick out of making the hack than using the hack, and the problem is almost nonexistent. So what if a few people test out an aimbot in quake 9, or for that matter if they steal a few million from the banking system (hey, if they pull it off undetected, they deserve the $$).
The problem is not that these people hack the game, it's that they make their work available to everyone (further evidence that they are not interested in using the hack. If they want to benefit from it, why give it away to everyone??). The multitudes of people who download the hack and use it irresponsibly are the problem. The Diablo fiasco (bearing in mind that the diablo hack was *very* easy. However, had there been encryption and other safeguards, it would have been difficult enough that only a small percentage of people could have done it) illustrates this point. The problem wasn't that one guy hacked the game and got some gold, it was that the hack got distributed, and anyone download a patch and got free gold.
Anyway, the point to all this is that it is useless (and unnecessary) to stop hacking. With a *reasonable* amount of security, only a few people will be able to hack the game. Their impact on the game will be minimal. Instead, we need to go after the people that download the hacks. If we get rid of them, the problem goes away. So rather than waste time trying to make a hack proof system, we need to waste time trying to stop hack proliferation. So, how can we detect known hacks? And what do we do to the users? (easy on a persistent online game, just ban the account. What about games like sc and quake? blacklist? ban ip?)
As far as I can tell, the guy hasn't actually made one of these computers yet. It's just an idea he has, and he wants money to research it. Why does he deserve money? Why does he deserve a patent? He doesn't.
I've "invented" a 5 pound mountain bike. I can't actually build it because the technology to make it doesn't exist. I think I'll patent it so when somebody comes along and actually creates a 5 pound mountain bike, I can sue. I guess all that's left is for me to whine about VC's not wanting to spend *their* money on *my* "brilliant invention". Boo hoo.
Patents should be for people who create actual technology. VC's are there to help those people produce the product. They are not there to help every person with an idea. Let's face it, ideas are worthless without the technology to back them up.
Gee, I have an idea for paint that changes color on request. I have no idea how to make it work, but I'll make up some technical jargon and patent it. Somebody else can do the real work later, and pay me for it.
If this guy actually has any real technology, I appologize. I'm sure he doesn't, however, because if he walked into a room with an actual paper computer, I'm sure he would have no trouble finding investors. This guy represents much of what is wrong with patents. Go ahead and whine, but don't expect sympathy from me.
As far as I know, all digital watermark techniques that depend on imbedded frequencies (even the ones that stand up to JPEG) fail under (iterative) fractal compression. Anyone have any info on that? If this is true, we just need to adopt a fractal compression standard, and make sure we do the compression, not the scanner.
Fuck the RIAA. Stealing from them may be illegal, but in my book it is not immoral. What napster really needs is a way to send $.05 from the user directly to the artist for each download.
I just have to say that what went on at the Brooklyn Art Mueseum does not exemplify a trampling of free speech. If one relies on public funding to present an exhibit, then one must please the public or risk losing funding. Its not about free speech; People have a right to express their opinions, not a right to government funding.
I say this not because I am offended by a shit covered virgin mary (its probably one of the few art exhibits I would actually pay to see), but because it's ridiculous to cite this as a violation of free speech.
I think this will catch on for some applications because it offeres significant advantages:
One example would be small studios that produce video effects. Under this rental system, they won't need the money up front to set up a 64 machine SGI render farm. They simply pay for the render time they use, yet get speedy results as though they had tremendous computing power on site. They won't need to manage installing, upgrading, etc... And users will watch the software slowly evolve, rather than having to wait for 2.0 for the one feature they need, only to find out the interface has changed.
Plus, its easier for software developers to debug and test. Not to mention the fact that it cuts down on piracy, which could bring the costs down for paying customers.
Finally, it ups the competition level since it makes it much easier for companies to try out and switch to other software packages. They no longer need to make a large, upfront investment in a certain package.
So, for buisness oriented software, I think its a great idea. For home users, however, free software will become an even better option. Of the software I actually pay for, I wouldn't hesitate to erase it all if I had to pay a monthly charge.
I'm not sure why anyone would pay for digital music under the current distribution system. Download lower quality songs for a *slight* price break? No thanks. Not to mention that I have to pay for the storage... And, when my HD bites it, I lose all the songs that I haven't burnt to CD yet. What a mess. For a few bucks extra, I get a relatively permanent CD (plus booklet) that I can create MP3's from at any bit rate I like.
Before I pay for digital music, I need to know that I can download songs I have paid for anytime I want. I want the company to keep track of the songs I have paid for, and to make the songs available for download by me at anytime (at higher and higher bit rates and in different formats as times change). That way, I can pay for a song once, and never have to worry about losing it. This way, the music companies can still control the music (I don't agree with them doing this, but it is inevitable that they will try) by making the music players unable to save to disk; you will need to download a song each time you want to hear it. Plus, each portable device can be given an encryption key, and the PC music players can encrypt the song for one portable device only. That way, per download, you can only send the song to one portable device, and can't trade from one portable to another. Furthermore, each download could be watermarked with the owner's information. If said owner distributes his songs, the record companies can trace it back to said owner.
Of course, there will always be ways to circumvent any security measure. The only thing the record companies can do is make their distribution so much more convenient that the majority of people don't bother to pirate. It looks like they can do that, too: with the new satellite networks going up (designed to provide digital music to cars across the entire country), record companies could stream songs I request (that I have purchased already... Or, they could implement a pay-per-play system) to my devices (each with a separate encryption key). That way, only devices I have authorized can listen to my songs (I can register my friend's car radio so I can listen to my songs in her car), and the record company can make sure I am only listening to one song at a time. Under this system, I have every song I've ever owned available to me at any time on any of my home or portable devices. On a pay-per-play basis, I have virtually every song available to me, all on a portable satellite device. Pirate MP3s just don't compete with that sort of convenience, even if they are free. Record companies remain in control, can charge for songs, albums, pay-per-play, or even stream me advertisements and give me the songs for free. And it seems as though the technology to distribute songs in this way is almost available.
Unfortunately, the artists lose under a system like this. Once again, the record company gets rich while the artist gets squat per album sale. Oh well, once a proletarian, always a proletarian.
Let us not forget that Japanese export laws are currently preventing fully functional dev kits from getting into the hands of US developers... At least according to Sony.
Depending on how one views the "reunification" of Tibet, 1950 comes to mind. And the chip is the controlled item, not the parts that the Chinese will undoubtedly be making. Not that I mean to defend the US...
Slashdot Mirror
Here's my take on the whole MP3 biz.
:)
:)
I want good music. I don't want to spend a lot. I want the actual people who *create* the music to benefit. And, I want it all to be easy. This is what MP3 can be about (and it is about, check out mp3.com).
So why is everybody pirating music? Simple. Record producers have spent millions of dollars telling us what we want to hear. Like it or not, that sort of advertising does work, and people (myself included) have trouble getting over the notion that, if a band hasn't been advertised all over the place, they're probably not good. Naturally, it is going to take time for people to discover the "other" musicians out there. In the meantime, people still want the music they have been told is good.
Ever wonder why the RIAA always goes after the means of distribution and not the distributors? (example, they want the mp3 format made illegal, not just pirate mp3s. They want napster shut down, not just cleaned up). The RIAA is well aware of the fact that there is lots of good music out there, and lots of musicians who would love to give their music away (or charge a few bucks/album). This is the RIAA's real problem. They no longer have a strangle hold on music distribution. The one thing they have left is that people still want the music they produce. When their music is no longer available on napster, they are truly fucked, because it means people have discovered the "other" music out there. It's my bet you'll never see the RIAA go after pirate music, just music distribution in general. They don't want people to discover the alternatives. And as long as forums like napster are flooded with pirate mp3's, people won't.
Anyway, the whole point is that the RIAA is not needed. They don't create any music, they just distribute and advertise it and make $15 for a $16 album (the other dollar goes to the artist, minus $.05 which goes overseas to the poor schmucks packaging cd's, but thats another story).
MP3's allow small bands to produce and distribute their music world wide for free. If you need proof of this, go to mp3.com and browse for a while. Sure, a lot of it is crap, but a lot of it is also really really good.
And, if you want to really scare the RIAA, *DONT PIRATE THEIR MUSIC*, plunk down a few bucks for somebody else's music. That will have them shitting bricks
Hope this is somewhat legible, its hard to write anything longer than "First Post!!!" in this damn little box
Cheers!
Wow, from the looks of the site it looks more like it was set up by the MPAA :) I've never seen such a professional looking site setup to advocate piracy. And they bought a domain name as well? Geez... Where's 3dsMaxWarez.com???
Seriously though, these guys have been paid off by the MPAA.
Cheers!
//Express this
enum ERights{rtFreedom,rtReligion,rtGuns,rtDeCSS};
int main()
{
CCountry *USA=new CCountry();
USA->AddCorporation(new CMPAA());
if(!USA->IsLegal(rtDeCSS))
{
CCorporation *corp=USA->FirstCorp();
while(corp)
{
if(!corp->AgreesWith(rtDeCSS))
{
cout<<"fuck the "<<corp->GetName()<<endl;
USA->RemoveCorporation(corp);
delete corp;
corp=USA->FirstCorp();
}
else
corp=USA->NextCorp(corp);
}
}
return 0;
}
"The posting of the hacking code is akin to mass producing and distributing keys to a department store. The keys have only one real purpose: to allow a thief to open a locked door to steal the goods he targets." -- Jack Valenti.
:)
Actually, the code tells people *how* to break the encryption. Jack Valenti has just told us *how* to break into department stores, by making and distributing copies of the keys.
If telling people how to break encryption is illegal, then so should be telling them how to break into department stores.
I urge anyone with a store to sue Jack Valenti for inventing and distributing a method for illegal store entry. His words are a direct threat to your rights of possesion as a store owner. Sue the Times while you're at it for distribution as well.
Seriously though, Mr. Valenti, I have a feeling you are on the wrong end of a very serious battle. I will savor watching you fall.
I believe the popular theory on why people get sick when sensory information doesn't match is that this is an evolved reaction to poisoning. Many poisons alter the way people process sensory information, so when the brain encounters this, it empties the stomach to reduce the amount of poison in the system (which, in the caveman days, was more often ingested than injected, theoretically at least :)
So, how long before we have a robot that can be rigged with a shotgun, and sent into a bank remotely? All it would need to do is pose a threat long enough to force a large wire transfer to an iranian account. After that it could simply self-destruct. I wonder how many local police forces are prepared for something like that :)
...from a marketing standpoint. It reminds people how old their software is, and invokes a need to buy a new version after a few years have passed. Lets face it, OS 3.11 sounds up to date anytime, but OS '89 sounds plain old. What could be better than to release a product under a name that sounds nice and new and have the name "magically" change to something old as the time for a new release draws near.
Ever notice how console sports games get released year after year (madden '97, madden '98, etc) with virtually no changes? If they called the games madden 1 and madden 2, people would expect major changes and be dissapointed. Release it as '98 and '99, however, and people just eat it up.
There will always be people who can hack any game (quake, starcraft, diablo, us banking system). Given a reasonable amount of security (ie, more than any game out there, but not 100% secure), the number of people who can (and who actually will) undetectably hack the game is very small. Add to this that most talented hackers are also responsible hackers, and that they probably get a bigger kick out of making the hack than using the hack, and the problem is almost nonexistent. So what if a few people test out an aimbot in quake 9, or for that matter if they steal a few million from the banking system (hey, if they pull it off undetected, they deserve the $$).
The problem is not that these people hack the game, it's that they make their work available to everyone (further evidence that they are not interested in using the hack. If they want to benefit from it, why give it away to everyone??). The multitudes of people who download the hack and use it irresponsibly are the problem. The Diablo fiasco (bearing in mind that the diablo hack was *very* easy. However, had there been encryption and other safeguards, it would have been difficult enough that only a small percentage of people could have done it) illustrates this point. The problem wasn't that one guy hacked the game and got some gold, it was that the hack got distributed, and anyone download a patch and got free gold.
Anyway, the point to all this is that it is useless (and unnecessary) to stop hacking. With a *reasonable* amount of security, only a few people will be able to hack the game. Their impact on the game will be minimal. Instead, we need to go after the people that download the hacks. If we get rid of them, the problem goes away. So rather than waste time trying to make a hack proof system, we need to waste time trying to stop hack proliferation. So, how can we detect known hacks? And what do we do to the users? (easy on a persistent online game, just ban the account. What about games like sc and quake? blacklist? ban ip?)
As far as I can tell, the guy hasn't actually made one of these computers yet. It's just an idea he has, and he wants money to research it. Why does he deserve money? Why does he deserve a patent? He doesn't.
I've "invented" a 5 pound mountain bike. I can't actually build it because the technology to make it doesn't exist. I think I'll patent it so when somebody comes along and actually creates a 5 pound mountain bike, I can sue. I guess all that's left is for me to whine about VC's not wanting to spend *their* money on *my* "brilliant invention". Boo hoo.
Patents should be for people who create actual technology. VC's are there to help those people produce the product. They are not there to help every person with an idea. Let's face it, ideas are worthless without the technology to back them up.
Gee, I have an idea for paint that changes color on request. I have no idea how to make it work, but I'll make up some technical jargon and patent it. Somebody else can do the real work later, and pay me for it.
If this guy actually has any real technology, I appologize. I'm sure he doesn't, however, because if he walked into a room with an actual paper computer, I'm sure he would have no trouble finding investors. This guy represents much of what is wrong with patents. Go ahead and whine, but don't expect sympathy from me.
As far as I know, all digital watermark techniques that depend on imbedded frequencies (even the ones that stand up to JPEG) fail under (iterative) fractal compression. Anyone have any info on that? If this is true, we just need to adopt a fractal compression standard, and make sure we do the compression, not the scanner.
Fuck the RIAA. Stealing from them may be illegal, but in my book it is not immoral. What napster really needs is a way to send $.05 from the user directly to the artist for each download.
No offense, but I'll take drug-using over christian any day. Christians push the deadliest substance on earth!
I just have to say that what went on at the Brooklyn Art Mueseum does not exemplify a trampling of free speech. If one relies on public funding to present an exhibit, then one must please the public or risk losing funding. Its not about free speech; People have a right to express their opinions, not a right to government funding.
I say this not because I am offended by a shit covered virgin mary (its probably one of the few art exhibits I would actually pay to see), but because it's ridiculous to cite this as a violation of free speech.
they didn't ban explosives, adhesives, cattle prods, and electrical shocks. Anyone know of a less restricted tournament?
I think this will catch on for some applications because it offeres significant advantages:
One example would be small studios that produce video effects. Under this rental system, they won't need the money up front to set up a 64 machine SGI render farm. They simply pay for the render time they use, yet get speedy results as though they had tremendous computing power on site. They won't need to manage installing, upgrading, etc... And users will watch the software slowly evolve, rather than having to wait for 2.0 for the one feature they need, only to find out the interface has changed.
Plus, its easier for software developers to debug and test. Not to mention the fact that it cuts down on piracy, which could bring the costs down for paying customers.
Finally, it ups the competition level since it makes it much easier for companies to try out and switch to other software packages. They no longer need to make a large, upfront investment in a certain package.
So, for buisness oriented software, I think its a great idea. For home users, however, free software will become an even better option. Of the software I actually pay for, I wouldn't hesitate to erase it all if I had to pay a monthly charge.
I'm not sure why anyone would pay for digital music under the current distribution system. Download lower quality songs for a *slight* price break? No thanks. Not to mention that I have to pay for the storage... And, when my HD bites it, I lose all the songs that I haven't burnt to CD yet. What a mess. For a few bucks extra, I get a relatively permanent CD (plus booklet) that I can create MP3's from at any bit rate I like.
Before I pay for digital music, I need to know that I can download songs I have paid for anytime I want. I want the company to keep track of the songs I have paid for, and to make the songs available for download by me at anytime (at higher and higher bit rates and in different formats as times change). That way, I can pay for a song once, and never have to worry about losing it. This way, the music companies can still control the music (I don't agree with them doing this, but it is inevitable that they will try) by making the music players unable to save to disk; you will need to download a song each time you want to hear it. Plus, each portable device can be given an encryption key, and the PC music players can encrypt the song for one portable device only. That way, per download, you can only send the song to one portable device, and can't trade from one portable to another. Furthermore, each download could be watermarked with the owner's information. If said owner distributes his songs, the record companies can trace it back to said owner.
Of course, there will always be ways to circumvent any security measure. The only thing the record companies can do is make their distribution so much more convenient that the majority of people don't bother to pirate. It looks like they can do that, too: with the new satellite networks going up (designed to provide digital music to cars across the entire country), record companies could stream songs I request (that I have purchased already... Or, they could implement a pay-per-play system) to my devices (each with a separate encryption key). That way, only devices I have authorized can listen to my songs (I can register my friend's car radio so I can listen to my songs in her car), and the record company can make sure I am only listening to one song at a time. Under this system, I have every song I've ever owned available to me at any time on any of my home or portable devices. On a pay-per-play basis, I have virtually every song available to me, all on a portable satellite device. Pirate MP3s just don't compete with that sort of convenience, even if they are free. Record companies remain in control, can charge for songs, albums, pay-per-play, or even stream me advertisements and give me the songs for free. And it seems as though the technology to distribute songs in this way is almost available.
Unfortunately, the artists lose under a system like this. Once again, the record company gets rich while the artist gets squat per album sale. Oh well, once a proletarian, always a proletarian.
Let us not forget that Japanese export laws are currently preventing fully functional dev kits from getting into the hands of US developers... At least according to Sony.
Depending on how one views the "reunification" of Tibet, 1950 comes to mind. And the chip is the controlled item, not the parts that the Chinese will undoubtedly be making. Not that I mean to defend the US...