The problem, pragmatically speaking, is: if people keep bitching about the *AAs, downloading mp3 and divx, AND buying cd/movie tickets/dvd, things could go on the current "gray way" for a while. If the *AAs start feeling the effect of a boycott in addition to the natural p2p effect, they might get really pissed and push harder for a general crackdown. I'm not sure if all this applies to such a massive-scale issue, but i think it makes sense.
Besides, if your objective is to hurt them, a (mass) boycott would work. If your objective is to make things change, you could only fail.
The root problem is no one (not artists nor buyers) needs labels anymore, but they just won't
let themselves die. And the laws, obviously not reflecting the people's thoughts, won't allow it to happen naturally. And, to a certain extent, this is true for movie corporations, game publishers and other intermediaries not needed anymore.
"Is a device driver a derivative work of the kernel? My opinion is no, but only the courts can truly answer that question"
What a sad mindset. How do you expect a clueless old judge to anser this kind of question? Only someone with a deep understanding of the technical and conceptual issue can try to answer.
The law is not the Truth.
The world just doesn't need record labels anymore. They're obviously not willing to die, but I don't see how and why anyone should do anything to keep'em alive. How many cds have I bought since I have broadband? One, maybe. How many cds would I buy for 5$, knowing that at least half go to the artist? Many more, sure.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem, pragmatically speaking, is: if people keep bitching about the *AAs, downloading mp3 and divx, AND buying cd/movie tickets/dvd, things could go on the current "gray way" for a while. If the *AAs start feeling the effect of a boycott in addition to the natural p2p effect, they might get really pissed and push harder for a general crackdown. I'm not sure if all this applies to such a massive-scale issue, but i think it makes sense. Besides, if your objective is to hurt them, a (mass) boycott would work. If your objective is to make things change, you could only fail. The root problem is no one (not artists nor buyers) needs labels anymore, but they just won't let themselves die. And the laws, obviously not reflecting the people's thoughts, won't allow it to happen naturally. And, to a certain extent, this is true for movie corporations, game publishers and other intermediaries not needed anymore.
If the musician Wyman wins the litigation, it will be the final proof the world is totally fucked up on all abstraction layers.
"Is a device driver a derivative work of the kernel? My opinion is no, but only the courts can truly answer that question" What a sad mindset. How do you expect a clueless old judge to anser this kind of question? Only someone with a deep understanding of the technical and conceptual issue can try to answer. The law is not the Truth.
The world just doesn't need record labels anymore. They're obviously not willing to die, but I don't see how and why anyone should do anything to keep'em alive. How many cds have I bought since I have broadband? One, maybe. How many cds would I buy for 5$, knowing that at least half go to the artist? Many more, sure.
The .doc binary also reveals this name: Katherine L. Trunkey... This Katherine Trunkey?
Not that I know who she is...
"Maybe Philip K. Dick was right to be paranoid about governments." Maybe??
Was about to point out that... Maybe she's a rough butch and loves to be metioned as a man! :D