so the situation as i understand it is that previously, metallica members spoke out very strongly against people downloading copies of their copyrighted materials without their permission. they feel that the copyrights that they have on the music that they made should be honoured and respected. flash forward to present time, and now they (like so many other artists) are offering free copies of some of their material, such as live recordings, to people who purchase their album...
am i the only one who doesn't see how this is hypocritical in any way, shape, or form? they don't like copyright infringement, but at the same time they offer some of their music for free...how are these in any way related. how can this be hypocritical. the problem is you losers don't really have a clue what's going on, you just seem to enjoy picking people and demonizing everything they do...
face it, lars had every right to say whatever he wants about his copyrighted material. he and his bandmates have dedicated their entire lives to creating these songs. their entire lives. you will never understand what that means, because 99.999% of you will never dedicate your lives to anything. you'll never pick something you love, and do it, through good times and bad, and come out on top...but these guys have. they've given up the whole possibility of living a normal life to make these songs. and you're stealing them, and claiming to be morally and ethically right in doing so...i'd be pretty pissed if i were him. you just don't understand. to you, music is a hobby, it's a fun thing to listen to. you have these flipant uninformed views on music because you think you're a music lover, you use words such as passionate to describe how you feel about music, but you have no idea what you're talking about. you read what are essentially attention-grabbing pressreleases from artists saying that record labels are bad, and you believe it. if someone posted an article about some revolutionary one-time pad cryptosystem, you'd make so much fun of them for falling for that crap, but then the offspring claim that they love napster, or band x speaks out about the evils of the music industry and you totally fall for it. so i'm basically making fun of you for that. the offspring is not pronapster, no professional band is. professional bands don't make music for fun, they make it to sell. no one gets a big fat record deal by accident. bands are only anti-music industry because you people love it when the little guys stick it to the man, and you buy more of their albums that the music industry allowed them to create. and the riaa, who they also claim to hate, writes them a big fat check for the albums they sell. and the people who write songs about being poor drive BMW's, and it's all one big scam that you're all falling for...you bring up examples like incubus suing their label because they are so hard done by, but the label is rolling in dough...but didn't they get like a million a piece for like one or two albums...and didn't sony just lay off like 1,000 people from their music division...but the poor starving artists are being screwed by the big rich record labels...
wake up.
So now we go and ponder the theoretical. What if we find out that that Jon guy who cracked the CSS encryption on DVD's had really just obtained the codes by violating an NDA? How would that change things.
Everyone thinks that Jon is a hero. Everyone thinks that this russian kid is a criminal. I want to know what the difference between these two is.
Had the story been more like "Russian kid steals documents and uses them to make a program that'd let you decode and play DirecTV feeds in Linux" would this guy have been a slashdot idol. Is it really what the person does with the information that determines how right/wrong that person was?
I think that's what the DMCA is supposed to be, like an NDA of sorts. It's an agreement between the company and the consumer that gives certain rights to the consumer that purchased the product, and prevents them from doing certain things. At least that's what i think it was supposed to be, only the companies involved botched the thing so badly that it pretty much gives them the rights to do anything they want. So here goes another question. If the DMCA was very well worded, and served as an NDA that prevented the consumer from sharing details about the product they've purchased, then would the slashdot community consider it as bad? Would we still stand behind that Jon kid, even though now he broke a well-worded NDA?
What I'm trying to figure out is why everyone is so anti-company in this forum. It seems that it's always big bad company versus good ol' hacker. It seems like no one feels that companies should have any rights whatsoever, so is this the case or am I missing something here. Is the problem that the DMCA is poorly worded? is the problem that it prevents you from getting things for free? is the problem that the RIAA is inherently evil and so the DMCA must be bad?
exactly. i bet if DirecTV was a member of the RIAA or was some record company then this entire community would be up in arms trying to protect this guy.
or if say the documents had been for some copy-protection scheme that sony was using for their cd's. this guy would be a hero. slashdot readers have the most absurd double-standards i've ever seen.
remember...steal from record companies, because....well, it's easy and you want the songs...
man, it must be nice to be better than so many millions of people...i wish i was good enough to not find britney's music to be catchy (not that i've ever purchased any of her products)...please can you enlighten us, is there any way we can attain such a status (hell your post got a score of 4 on the almighty slashdot site)...do we stop believing the words of the businessmen who run the labels, and start blindly believing the words of the drunken artists who think that they could do a better job of running the business? do we trust those who've finally made enough money from selling music that they can stick their necks out and make public their strong opinions about how music should be free? please help us out...we're going broke buying all these high-priced cd's and supporting evil corporations like the ones that seek out the top artists, entertainers, and songwriters, and allow their material to be enjoyed by the whole world, but for a price...c'mon, throw us a freakin bone here...
Slashdot Mirror
so the situation as i understand it is that previously, metallica members spoke out very strongly against people downloading copies of their copyrighted materials without their permission. they feel that the copyrights that they have on the music that they made should be honoured and respected. flash forward to present time, and now they (like so many other artists) are offering free copies of some of their material, such as live recordings, to people who purchase their album... am i the only one who doesn't see how this is hypocritical in any way, shape, or form? they don't like copyright infringement, but at the same time they offer some of their music for free...how are these in any way related. how can this be hypocritical. the problem is you losers don't really have a clue what's going on, you just seem to enjoy picking people and demonizing everything they do... face it, lars had every right to say whatever he wants about his copyrighted material. he and his bandmates have dedicated their entire lives to creating these songs. their entire lives. you will never understand what that means, because 99.999% of you will never dedicate your lives to anything. you'll never pick something you love, and do it, through good times and bad, and come out on top...but these guys have. they've given up the whole possibility of living a normal life to make these songs. and you're stealing them, and claiming to be morally and ethically right in doing so...i'd be pretty pissed if i were him. you just don't understand. to you, music is a hobby, it's a fun thing to listen to. you have these flipant uninformed views on music because you think you're a music lover, you use words such as passionate to describe how you feel about music, but you have no idea what you're talking about. you read what are essentially attention-grabbing pressreleases from artists saying that record labels are bad, and you believe it. if someone posted an article about some revolutionary one-time pad cryptosystem, you'd make so much fun of them for falling for that crap, but then the offspring claim that they love napster, or band x speaks out about the evils of the music industry and you totally fall for it. so i'm basically making fun of you for that. the offspring is not pronapster, no professional band is. professional bands don't make music for fun, they make it to sell. no one gets a big fat record deal by accident. bands are only anti-music industry because you people love it when the little guys stick it to the man, and you buy more of their albums that the music industry allowed them to create. and the riaa, who they also claim to hate, writes them a big fat check for the albums they sell. and the people who write songs about being poor drive BMW's, and it's all one big scam that you're all falling for...you bring up examples like incubus suing their label because they are so hard done by, but the label is rolling in dough...but didn't they get like a million a piece for like one or two albums...and didn't sony just lay off like 1,000 people from their music division...but the poor starving artists are being screwed by the big rich record labels... wake up.
So now we go and ponder the theoretical. What if we find out that that Jon guy who cracked the CSS encryption on DVD's had really just obtained the codes by violating an NDA? How would that change things.
Everyone thinks that Jon is a hero. Everyone thinks that this russian kid is a criminal. I want to know what the difference between these two is.
Had the story been more like "Russian kid steals documents and uses them to make a program that'd let you decode and play DirecTV feeds in Linux" would this guy have been a slashdot idol. Is it really what the person does with the information that determines how right/wrong that person was?
I think that's what the DMCA is supposed to be, like an NDA of sorts. It's an agreement between the company and the consumer that gives certain rights to the consumer that purchased the product, and prevents them from doing certain things. At least that's what i think it was supposed to be, only the companies involved botched the thing so badly that it pretty much gives them the rights to do anything they want. So here goes another question. If the DMCA was very well worded, and served as an NDA that prevented the consumer from sharing details about the product they've purchased, then would the slashdot community consider it as bad? Would we still stand behind that Jon kid, even though now he broke a well-worded NDA?
What I'm trying to figure out is why everyone is so anti-company in this forum. It seems that it's always big bad company versus good ol' hacker. It seems like no one feels that companies should have any rights whatsoever, so is this the case or am I missing something here. Is the problem that the DMCA is poorly worded? is the problem that it prevents you from getting things for free? is the problem that the RIAA is inherently evil and so the DMCA must be bad?
what gives?
exactly. i bet if DirecTV was a member of the RIAA or was some record company then this entire community would be up in arms trying to protect this guy. or if say the documents had been for some copy-protection scheme that sony was using for their cd's. this guy would be a hero. slashdot readers have the most absurd double-standards i've ever seen. remember...steal from record companies, because....well, it's easy and you want the songs...
man, it must be nice to be better than so many millions of people...i wish i was good enough to not find britney's music to be catchy (not that i've ever purchased any of her products)...please can you enlighten us, is there any way we can attain such a status (hell your post got a score of 4 on the almighty slashdot site)...do we stop believing the words of the businessmen who run the labels, and start blindly believing the words of the drunken artists who think that they could do a better job of running the business? do we trust those who've finally made enough money from selling music that they can stick their necks out and make public their strong opinions about how music should be free? please help us out...we're going broke buying all these high-priced cd's and supporting evil corporations like the ones that seek out the top artists, entertainers, and songwriters, and allow their material to be enjoyed by the whole world, but for a price...c'mon, throw us a freakin bone here...