RedHat is no longer an Open Source company in the sense that most people here mean?
How is that? Is it because they open source all of their configuration tools? Is it because they employ high profile gnome, gcc, and kernel developers? Is it because they refuse to ship software which is encumbered by patent issues and therfor not distributable under the GPL? You do realise that you can download the source for Red Hat Enterprise Linux and compile it all by yourself, right?
In time, RedHat will enter into a contract with SCO, and go on their merry way.
Right. They won't ship an audio file player with an MP3 codec, but they'll reach a a licensing agreement with SCO over baseless claims of copyright.
I think instant runoff elections, where you rank x out of the y listed candidates, is about as close to negative voting as you can get. That way, you could clearly indicate what kind of candidate (liberal/conservative/labor/union/asinine) and then indicate your preference from that group. And if there ever was a negative vote, I think there would be rioting if a candidate won with a net negative.
But they are charing it. You can't get compensated for losses with a levy then go ahead and look for even more compensation elsewhere, I remember a lawsuit against them for this about a year back, anyone feel like hunting down the url?
Unfortunately I don't understand wht you're trying to say here. My point was that you said they are overcharging and we are being forced to pay a levy on blank CDRs. So we should be allowed to download because of that levy. I was saying we aren't being forced. You have to choose to buy the levied audio CDR. If you did, however, then by all means make use of it. I was just trying to say that the existence of a levy on some CDRs does not justify downloading music. If you don't want to pay the tax, buy data CDRs, but then don't download infringing music. If you want to download the infringing music, spend the extra dough for an audio cd.
Back to our original topic: I'd really love to see someone add those features and use them to block all comercial songs so people can have a free place to trade their indy/live/etc songs. It would be too much of a pain to force people to sort their collections and choose which to share, so sharing a blacklisted song shouldn't punish it(just not list it). Maybe do simple substring searches adn warn users, but not block them (Nothing was more pathetic than the last days of napster where you had to download m3ta11kuh mp3s).
That does sound pretty cool. I've been checking out a bunch of new stuff on internet radio, only to find out half of it is produced/distributed by RIAA studios. Fortunately most of it is foreing stuff, so i could potentially just buy the import version.
Heh and the US electronic voting systems are a big joke. With those crappy systems, sending UN/independent observers to monitor your elections won't help at all.
I seem to remember reading something recently about Ireland pushing an electronic voting system for the EU with no paper trail. Sounds like just as big a joke over there to me, only it affects over 12 countries directly.
As far as I'm concerned, we should cut out the labels altogether, in favor of direct purchase from artists or music pools.
Cutting out the labels should mean you just don't buy music produced and/or distributed by them. If there is an artist you like who is on such a label, go to their concert and buy a CD there. Buy a used copy of their CD (although that doesn't get money to the artist). Try to contact the artist to find out if they have any suggestions for how you can support them and not the label.
It does, depending on the overpricing. The levy on cd-rs enforced by the RIAA justifies music downloading ("If I have to pay for it anyways, I'm getting screwed if I don't do it" logic).
Nobody is forcing you to buy the $10 audio CDR. Just buy the $1 data CDR. Then you're not paying the levy and thus aren't being screwed.
Try asking a random selection of 1000 people the following question: "Am I a thief if I make a tape of a friend's (copyrighted) CD?" (this is a form of copyright violation most people, even not computer literate, can understand and relate to).
That isn't copyright violation in the U.S.. It's called Fair Use and is protected by law. It's why recordable [audio] CDs and tapes have a levy on them which goes to the R.I.A.A.. The difference between doing that and downloading over the internet is that there is a limit imposed due to physical proximity which is only overcome by paying to ship the media to your friend. You must also pay for the media. Downloading over the internet removes these two key points which led the courts to declare such usage legal in the first place.
So now that I've given an analysis on the differences between the two (physical sharing vs. online sharing) with respect to how the courts view them, please stop trying to justify online infringement by citing Fair Use.
I know an entire sentence is quite a bit to read (my post was only one sentence, btw), but I specifially said I believe the PATRIOT Act is such a law. When working at a company as a vendor to Sprint, on an enterprise instant messaging project, logging features were a huge deal with them to be comliant with the PATRIOT Act. I certainly admit that I don't know for sure myself. I suppose you also don't remember the stories of bookstores trashing customer records rather than risk being forced to turn them over under the PATRIOT Act.
No. I've heard of no service providers with enough physical connections to support every single customer. I worked at a telecom company a couple years ago, and forget what the average concentration was.
Not keeping certain logs would put the ISP in violation of certain federal laws, of which the DMCA may be one, but most notably the PATRIOT Act, I believe.
That was one of the best skits ever. Right up there with the land shark, belushi losing it in his St Patrick's Day speech on weekend update (Potato famine!), velvet jones, buh-whee sings the classics, and someone off-camera throwing stuff at Eddie Murphy (unscripted).
You think any open source projects could have gotten this done?
And exactly why would they? It's open source, the source code is given freely to anyone who wants it. If you're talking about a GPL violation by way of not disitrbuting the source to the set of people they distributed the binaries to, wouldn't that be a civil suit? Would the FBI and SS even be involved in a civil suit?
To be pedantic would have been to say that impeached just means formally accused in front of a tribunal (court). Clinton was brought to court and tried, as such he was successfully impeached. He was not successfully removed from office as a result of his impeachment. OJ was not successfully tried for murder. To quote the usage section of dictionary.com's entry for impeached:
This popular use of impeach as a synonym of "throw out" (even if by due process) does not accord with the legal meaning of the word. As recent history has shown, when a public official is impeached, that is, formally accused of wrongdoing, this is only the start of what can be a lengthy process that may or may not lead to the official's removal from office.
The difference is what you describe is just HP and Whoever deciding to buy from one manufacturer over another. For Dell, HP, IBM, and Sony to get together and say to Microsoft, as one voice, "You will change your policy to this to better suit us" they would get in trouble for harming the consumer. It's basically anticompetitve monopoly, but with a group instead of a company.
what I just don't understand is why did these OEMs agree to this?
Without having license to sell Windows with their PCs, they would have been unable to remain competitive.
Collectively couldn't they have had some leverage against Microsoft in a business sense?
I believe that's called collusion, and that's frowned upon too. Many big RIAA studies were convicted of colluding to keep CD prices artificially high. There was supposed to be a rebate, which I signed up for but never received.
From the government's point of view, all businesses are supposed to play fair (no anticompetitive monopolies) and not from clubs to stomp out newcomers (collusion). Everybody can play, and every has a level playing field.
I think the concern is not that consumption will genetically modify us, but rather the alterations, combined with being consumed by other animals we do it, will potentially result in a substance toxic to us.
Aren't those fish sterile (on purpose)? I believe a read something like that when the news about them first came out.
That actually brings up another concern. If an animal is genetically modified, including sterility, and it gets into the wild. There is a chance that the rest of the modifications will give it a reproductive advantage (like salmon made larger so we get more food out of them). So then you have all these sterile animals who are 'mating' with all the females, and no offspring are produced, which has a pretty bad effect on that population.
Slashdot Mirror
How is that? Is it because they open source all of their configuration tools? Is it because they employ high profile gnome, gcc, and kernel developers? Is it because they refuse to ship software which is encumbered by patent issues and therfor not distributable under the GPL? You do realise that you can download the source for Red Hat Enterprise Linux and compile it all by yourself, right?
In time, RedHat will enter into a contract with SCO, and go on their merry way.
Right. They won't ship an audio file player with an MP3 codec, but they'll reach a a licensing agreement with SCO over baseless claims of copyright.
I've probably been trolled, but whatever.
most DSL lines are actually just run over unused fractional T1 circuits, so you still get concentration rations there.
Ah. I was speaking strictly of the U.S. situation, where you have a choice to pay the levy or not.
I think instant runoff elections, where you rank x out of the y listed candidates, is about as close to negative voting as you can get. That way, you could clearly indicate what kind of candidate (liberal/conservative/labor/union/asinine) and then indicate your preference from that group. And if there ever was a negative vote, I think there would be rioting if a candidate won with a net negative.
Unfortunately I don't understand wht you're trying to say here. My point was that you said they are overcharging and we are being forced to pay a levy on blank CDRs. So we should be allowed to download because of that levy. I was saying we aren't being forced. You have to choose to buy the levied audio CDR. If you did, however, then by all means make use of it. I was just trying to say that the existence of a levy on some CDRs does not justify downloading music. If you don't want to pay the tax, buy data CDRs, but then don't download infringing music. If you want to download the infringing music, spend the extra dough for an audio cd.
Back to our original topic: I'd really love to see someone add those features and use them to block all comercial songs so people can have a free place to trade their indy/live/etc songs. It would be too much of a pain to force people to sort their collections and choose which to share, so sharing a blacklisted song shouldn't punish it(just not list it). Maybe do simple substring searches adn warn users, but not block them (Nothing was more pathetic than the last days of napster where you had to download m3ta11kuh mp3s).
That does sound pretty cool. I've been checking out a bunch of new stuff on internet radio, only to find out half of it is produced/distributed by RIAA studios. Fortunately most of it is foreing stuff, so i could potentially just buy the import version.
I seem to remember reading something recently about Ireland pushing an electronic voting system for the EU with no paper trail. Sounds like just as big a joke over there to me, only it affects over 12 countries directly.
Cutting out the labels should mean you just don't buy music produced and/or distributed by them. If there is an artist you like who is on such a label, go to their concert and buy a CD there. Buy a used copy of their CD (although that doesn't get money to the artist). Try to contact the artist to find out if they have any suggestions for how you can support them and not the label.
Nobody is forcing you to buy the $10 audio CDR. Just buy the $1 data CDR. Then you're not paying the levy and thus aren't being screwed.
That isn't copyright violation in the U.S.. It's called Fair Use and is protected by law. It's why recordable [audio] CDs and tapes have a levy on them which goes to the R.I.A.A.. The difference between doing that and downloading over the internet is that there is a limit imposed due to physical proximity which is only overcome by paying to ship the media to your friend. You must also pay for the media. Downloading over the internet removes these two key points which led the courts to declare such usage legal in the first place.
So now that I've given an analysis on the differences between the two (physical sharing vs. online sharing) with respect to how the courts view them, please stop trying to justify online infringement by citing Fair Use.
kudos for doing the research. If I was 'willing to mod' and had points, i'd give them to you. ;)
I know an entire sentence is quite a bit to read (my post was only one sentence, btw), but I specifially said I believe the PATRIOT Act is such a law. When working at a company as a vendor to Sprint, on an enterprise instant messaging project, logging features were a huge deal with them to be comliant with the PATRIOT Act. I certainly admit that I don't know for sure myself. I suppose you also don't remember the stories of bookstores trashing customer records rather than risk being forced to turn them over under the PATRIOT Act.
No. I've heard of no service providers with enough physical connections to support every single customer. I worked at a telecom company a couple years ago, and forget what the average concentration was.
Not keeping certain logs would put the ISP in violation of certain federal laws, of which the DMCA may be one, but most notably the PATRIOT Act, I believe.
I'm just waiting for SCO to hire Brovloski for the trial of the century: Everybody vs.Everybody.
So the glasses run Linux? Surely you don't mean to imply he's lying.
It should be pointed out that Firebird, Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org, and even the Gimp are all available natively on windows.
That was one of the best skits ever. Right up there with the land shark, belushi losing it in his St Patrick's Day speech on weekend update (Potato famine!), velvet jones, buh-whee sings the classics, and someone off-camera throwing stuff at Eddie Murphy (unscripted).
And exactly why would they? It's open source, the source code is given freely to anyone who wants it. If you're talking about a GPL violation by way of not disitrbuting the source to the set of people they distributed the binaries to, wouldn't that be a civil suit? Would the FBI and SS even be involved in a civil suit?
The difference is what you describe is just HP and Whoever deciding to buy from one manufacturer over another. For Dell, HP, IBM, and Sony to get together and say to Microsoft, as one voice, "You will change your policy to this to better suit us" they would get in trouble for harming the consumer. It's basically anticompetitve monopoly, but with a group instead of a company.
thanks for the tip
Without having license to sell Windows with their PCs, they would have been unable to remain competitive.
Collectively couldn't they have had some leverage against Microsoft in a business sense?
I believe that's called collusion, and that's frowned upon too. Many big RIAA studies were convicted of colluding to keep CD prices artificially high. There was supposed to be a rebate, which I signed up for but never received.
From the government's point of view, all businesses are supposed to play fair (no anticompetitive monopolies) and not from clubs to stomp out newcomers (collusion). Everybody can play, and every has a level playing field.
I think the concern is not that consumption will genetically modify us, but rather the alterations, combined with being consumed by other animals we do it, will potentially result in a substance toxic to us.
That actually brings up another concern. If an animal is genetically modified, including sterility, and it gets into the wild. There is a chance that the rest of the modifications will give it a reproductive advantage (like salmon made larger so we get more food out of them). So then you have all these sterile animals who are 'mating' with all the females, and no offspring are produced, which has a pretty bad effect on that population.
They were going to repost it as a new front page article tomorrow, and link back to this one in the repost of the old one.