You're right. They aren't under any obligations, other than to their shareholders, to make money, and wouldn't it make sense to offer a product to consumers that would afford them that option? That's one of the aspects of this whole thing I don't understand.
If a guy buys an album on record, and then records it to tape so he can listen to it in his car over and over without ruining the record, where is the harm in that? Similarly, if I listen primarily to mp3s because of how easy it is to sit at my machine and dump them into a playlist and let them roll, where's the harm in that?
So its in a digital, sharable format now. Big deal. I can still record it to tape and toss it over the wall to my neighbor, who can listen to it until he's sick of it for absolutely nothing.
Do you see where were getting at? It's really silly of an industry whose primary goal is to make money with the sale of their product, limit that product of it's intended usage. That's like shooting yourself in the foot.
So that kind of copy protection might stop a few people. I guarantee that the kind of people they don't want it to work for will still find a way. Hell, I can take that CD, toss it in my CD drive, open up Sound Forge, and press record. Boom. Done. And I just realized that I could be nabbed under the DMCA for having written a scheme for circumventing copyright protection. A precedent set by the RIAA.
Well, what exactly causes frequency deviation? I'm not terribly familiar with it, and I can only imagine that there are a few things associated with it?
What's really going to suck is when it actually happens to one of those high-profile, illuminati/politicians, there's going to be yet another increase in Orwellian-type citizen monitoring and authentication laws, most likely in the form of some Patriot II act.
What worries me is not so much the people that try to steal identities, because as most of us understand how its perpetrated, its easier for us to avoid and/or control the consequences, but when some crazy system gets put into place 3 years from now by the Republican cronies because of some silent passing of a Partriot Act clause. I for one don't feel like having to provide a blood sample to get into my office, or giving a sperm sample for a new home loan ala Gattaca.
Man...you're sick. Seriously. It's not your industry, and frankly, your incapacity to cope with the changing market climate is the exact problem the rest of the "industry" is having. Metallica is not inspirational. Do you realize that their greed has set the precedence in this country to allow other gluttonous companies to extort, bully and steal from the general public? It's also given way for the government to stagnate and destroy innovation while intruding into our private and personal lives? You may think you have nothing to hide, but mark my words that when the day comes that one of your children are the victims of some targetted governmental effort to eliminate the terrorist threat in our nation because they are a smart, intelligent individual capable of thinking on their own, you will wish that you hadn't given so much credit to Metallica. Instead, you'll be wondering why you hadn't made an effort to see what was really happening to you and your family instead of worrying about how to make a buck on the "industry."
Do you really, honestly believe that blacklisting people is going to make one bit of difference? Do you realize the kind of people that you would blacklist? I happen to know church leaders that don't really know much about this issue, but do know that they can listen to a new Amy Grant track online using P2P software. Do you really want to be responsible for suggesting that people like that be blacklisted? I don't think you know thing one about what you're dealing with here. I think your ignorance is more of a detriment to your family than some pirate uploading a CD online.
I think its high-time you get informed of the realities of this world, otherwise you're really not going to like what happens to your children when they live in a world similar to the world Harrison Bergeron lived in. And if you aren't familiar with what I'm talking about, click that link and start your education there.
"Many everyday Joes and Janes do not have any concept what current copyright law really is"
How long have warez sites existed? Have they EVER been legal?
NO. It doesn't matter if you download it off a site, buy it off the street, or get on P2P. Warez are ILLEGAL. What's the difference between an illegal copy of software and an illegal copy of a song? None.
You're still making the assumption that regular everyday Joes and Janes know what "Warez" are. Your myopic view of the world needs to come to an end. Just because 1 out of 4 people are online, doesn't mean they have the foggiest idea what they are doing besides checking their email. I know engineers that don't have any clue about even the broadest principles behind copyright law because they simply don't give a damn.
I believe it is highly likely that they will drop the case against her, but only under the condition that she or her family discuss any of the details of the arrangement with anyone in the media. Usually, its very difficult to get the media to follow something like this once the story has been broken because there really isn't much to report on it at that point. They will probably take or delete the machine of music files, slap her parents with a small fine, and stick little suzie in the corner with no dinner, this way they can legitimately say that they took action against them, while not tossing them out on the street, which I guarantee the media would most certainly follow.
"The people with the most knowledge may have an interest in hiding that knowledge.
The easiest way for them to do so would be to artificially inflate a completely different scenario to focus attention on that item.
Like bidding up an attack on Egypt on a certain day. When the actual event will be the assassination of an Israeli government official."
Then how do we know that this whole scheme isn't in fact a ruse to take the focus off of some other program that is in the process of getting funded. A program with a much less radical premise, but equally sinister.
I do believe ALL but a small percentage of RIAA artists retain copyright. Even on a popular artist, the record company still makes more money in great orders of magnitude higher than the artist ever does, in fact, most of those artist are in the red for great lengths of time with their record companies before they even see a single solitary dime earned.
What I'm getting at is how is this any different from what is being done to artists now, assuming you are treating them as the copyright holders? I see this business model as a new opportunity to work out better compensation to the artist, as well as giving them the opportunity to hold their own copyrights. As a fledgling artist, you could theoretically produce an album, sell a single copy to Snapster at anywhere from $500 to $20,000 plus some small percentage of income over the course of a few months and bam, you have yourself a job. You get to make music for a living. All recording costs are your own, and 90% of the marketing is your responsibility. Interesting perspective on the whole thing, eh?
And if you're looking for an example of applied technology, head a few hours north to the red-light district. Its the only place in the U.S. where you can pay for a blowjob with a debit card.
"What we're asking here is basically whether copyright infringement should be criminalized. And I am asking this. It didn't seem to be important, as far as I can tell, for the first century of the Republic to treat infringement as anything other than a civil matter. If I recall correctly it was not a federal crime until 1897."
I think the law's movement from civil to criminal is due largely in part to the ease at which the infringement takes place. It occurs in a fairly anonymous way (not completely, but within respects to the sea of other infringers.) Its occurring at an expansive rate. The means and tools are sold retail in malls. The list goes on.
Consider it against something like car theft. If the tools to lift cars were sold at retail outlets at clearance prices and rebates, if there were large meetings that took place where people could attend from all over to discuss the best cars to steal and how to steal them, if you could steal a car or two a day, versus someone stealing 20 jaguars an hour, would it appear so much as a crime to you? Imagine standing around the watercooler with co-workers and saying things like, "yeah I just picked up the new Acura NSX, its great you should get yourself one, or better yet, I'll get you one if you can get me a few of those Nissan's I've heard so much about..."
That's how these lawmakers are seeing this as. Unfortunately its creating an environment where the legitimate buyers and duplicators are being treated more and more like the rest of us "lawbreakers." The prices have gone up, the selection has gone down, along with the quality and all the while the punishments have become more severe.
Using the car analogy again, its as though automobile makers never made cars with locks, just ignitions. Then the stealing occurred. As a result, the auto makers made less cars, with less features, and charged more for them, with more complicated locking mechanisms and keys. And suddenly you could get in trouble by duplicating your car keys in case you lost a set. In fact, if such a thing ever happened, your only "legal" course of action was to buy a new car. And if you in fact were caught stealing a car, you were killed "Judge Dredd" style where you stood. All the while, we as taxpayers continue to pay for this to occur.
Granted, there's lots more to consider, but I wanted to illustrate the extremities taking place, and the need for some middle ground to it all. I think the power shift has become an issue for the corporations, and drastic, expensive measures aren't given a second thought as long as the corporation can retain that power. I may appear in favor of copyright infringement laws, but I oppose them adamantly in favor of something that makes a little more sense. I'd rather not see them disappear completely, but work the way they are supposed to instead of for the purpose of the corporations and goverments' witch hunt.
Re:Okaaaaay
on
Linus on DRM
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
All that "rhetoric" on how they can be used to stop a tyrannical government could've flown back in 1776 when the people were the government and there wasn't such a thing as a "defense budget." In good ol' 1776, the farmer and the president had the same shit at their disposal. Now if you come within a mile of the White House with so much as a.22 handgun, the prez's SS (I really meant secret service) makes the phone call to the man on the roof about the "terrorist" en route, and he takes your ass out with a high-powered rifle right between the eyes at a range in excess of a few hundred yards.
To hell with breaking a sweat in an Apache...
I completely understand your argument, but at least I hope you see the "Tyrannical" underpinnings of the foundation from which our president, and most of our government, acts from. If you don't like what they're doing, you may have a right to say it, but at this point you have to assume that a public declaration of your opinion will result in your name appearing on an Ashcroft sactioned terrorism watchdog list with a silent, but rather large barrel pointed at your back. Wish you had some defense now...
We aren't undecided, were divided. There's a big difference between not knowing who to vote for, and voting for someone that the other half of the people know they are voting for.
And in fact, had the presidency been decided upon the majority vote of the people, Al Gore would have become president. Its the ass-backwards electoral college system that voted Dickhead, sorry, George Bush in as president.
The unclarity you speak of comes not from the indecision of either the people or the ass-backwards electoral college, but from the fact that you can't distinguish the two from each other. Educate yourself before you make claims.
To paraphrase a statement I once heard, "There are no truths, only that which has been proven false and that which remains to be proven false."
It has always been my opinion that laws and rules are simply observations that are static and immutable within the context of the act of observation. In other words, anything is possible when you're not watching. Therein lies part of the principle of The Singularity. We don't know what could take place beyond the occurrance of the Singularity, and within it that, The Singularity could occur with such speed that 1) we'd never know it or 2) it would simply be beyond our immediate comprehension (that preceeding statement implies that we could one day comprehend it, but not without it having already come and gone.)
Slashdot Mirror
hahahaha awww, someone's all butt-hurt. :)
Dell, Sony to purchase 130,000 cars.
MSBorg: Assimilate or lose your address book.
I must really be out of the "hacker leet" loop. I have no idea what this "messange" network is that you speak of.
You're right. They aren't under any obligations, other than to their shareholders, to make money, and wouldn't it make sense to offer a product to consumers that would afford them that option? That's one of the aspects of this whole thing I don't understand.
If a guy buys an album on record, and then records it to tape so he can listen to it in his car over and over without ruining the record, where is the harm in that? Similarly, if I listen primarily to mp3s because of how easy it is to sit at my machine and dump them into a playlist and let them roll, where's the harm in that?
So its in a digital, sharable format now. Big deal. I can still record it to tape and toss it over the wall to my neighbor, who can listen to it until he's sick of it for absolutely nothing.
Do you see where were getting at? It's really silly of an industry whose primary goal is to make money with the sale of their product, limit that product of it's intended usage. That's like shooting yourself in the foot.
So that kind of copy protection might stop a few people. I guarantee that the kind of people they don't want it to work for will still find a way. Hell, I can take that CD, toss it in my CD drive, open up Sound Forge, and press record. Boom. Done. And I just realized that I could be nabbed under the DMCA for having written a scheme for circumventing copyright protection. A precedent set by the RIAA.
Senseless...
The member's of the beatles don't own jack on the copyrights of their materials. It's all owned by Michael Jackson. Well....mostly owned by Jacko.
I don't know...seems like you didn't have to think through your misspelling of "wihtout."
Looks like there's hope.
Well, what exactly causes frequency deviation? I'm not terribly familiar with it, and I can only imagine that there are a few things associated with it?
What's really going to suck is when it actually happens to one of those high-profile, illuminati/politicians, there's going to be yet another increase in Orwellian-type citizen monitoring and authentication laws, most likely in the form of some Patriot II act.
What worries me is not so much the people that try to steal identities, because as most of us understand how its perpetrated, its easier for us to avoid and/or control the consequences, but when some crazy system gets put into place 3 years from now by the Republican cronies because of some silent passing of a Partriot Act clause. I for one don't feel like having to provide a blood sample to get into my office, or giving a sperm sample for a new home loan ala Gattaca.
Man...you're sick. Seriously. It's not your industry, and frankly, your incapacity to cope with the changing market climate is the exact problem the rest of the "industry" is having. Metallica is not inspirational. Do you realize that their greed has set the precedence in this country to allow other gluttonous companies to extort, bully and steal from the general public? It's also given way for the government to stagnate and destroy innovation while intruding into our private and personal lives? You may think you have nothing to hide, but mark my words that when the day comes that one of your children are the victims of some targetted governmental effort to eliminate the terrorist threat in our nation because they are a smart, intelligent individual capable of thinking on their own, you will wish that you hadn't given so much credit to Metallica. Instead, you'll be wondering why you hadn't made an effort to see what was really happening to you and your family instead of worrying about how to make a buck on the "industry."
Do you really, honestly believe that blacklisting people is going to make one bit of difference? Do you realize the kind of people that you would blacklist? I happen to know church leaders that don't really know much about this issue, but do know that they can listen to a new Amy Grant track online using P2P software. Do you really want to be responsible for suggesting that people like that be blacklisted? I don't think you know thing one about what you're dealing with here. I think your ignorance is more of a detriment to your family than some pirate uploading a CD online.
I think its high-time you get informed of the realities of this world, otherwise you're really not going to like what happens to your children when they live in a world similar to the world Harrison Bergeron lived in. And if you aren't familiar with what I'm talking about, click that link and start your education there.
"Many everyday Joes and Janes do not have any concept what current copyright law really is"
How long have warez sites existed? Have they EVER been legal?
NO. It doesn't matter if you download it off a site, buy it off the street, or get on P2P. Warez are ILLEGAL. What's the difference between an illegal copy of software and an illegal copy of a song? None.
You're still making the assumption that regular everyday Joes and Janes know what "Warez" are. Your myopic view of the world needs to come to an end. Just because 1 out of 4 people are online, doesn't mean they have the foggiest idea what they are doing besides checking their email. I know engineers that don't have any clue about even the broadest principles behind copyright law because they simply don't give a damn.
I believe it is highly likely that they will drop the case against her, but only under the condition that she or her family discuss any of the details of the arrangement with anyone in the media. Usually, its very difficult to get the media to follow something like this once the story has been broken because there really isn't much to report on it at that point. They will probably take or delete the machine of music files, slap her parents with a small fine, and stick little suzie in the corner with no dinner, this way they can legitimately say that they took action against them, while not tossing them out on the street, which I guarantee the media would most certainly follow.
No but its quite possible that their kids do.
That's awesome. Just don't be surprised if you end up with a Fed agent at your door serving you with a DMCA complaint.
Sloan and Rooney, if it hasn't already been suggested.
Sounds like "REEFER MADNESS" all over again.
"The people with the most knowledge may have an interest in hiding that knowledge.
The easiest way for them to do so would be to artificially inflate a completely different scenario to focus attention on that item.
Like bidding up an attack on Egypt on a certain day. When the actual event will be the assassination of an Israeli government official."
Then how do we know that this whole scheme isn't in fact a ruse to take the focus off of some other program that is in the process of getting funded. A program with a much less radical premise, but equally sinister.
I do believe ALL but a small percentage of RIAA artists retain copyright. Even on a popular artist, the record company still makes more money in great orders of magnitude higher than the artist ever does, in fact, most of those artist are in the red for great lengths of time with their record companies before they even see a single solitary dime earned.
What I'm getting at is how is this any different from what is being done to artists now, assuming you are treating them as the copyright holders? I see this business model as a new opportunity to work out better compensation to the artist, as well as giving them the opportunity to hold their own copyrights. As a fledgling artist, you could theoretically produce an album, sell a single copy to Snapster at anywhere from $500 to $20,000 plus some small percentage of income over the course of a few months and bam, you have yourself a job. You get to make music for a living. All recording costs are your own, and 90% of the marketing is your responsibility. Interesting perspective on the whole thing, eh?
Lights, liquor and loose women!
And if you're looking for an example of applied technology, head a few hours north to the red-light district. Its the only place in the U.S. where you can pay for a blowjob with a debit card.
Is that you drake?
"What we're asking here is basically whether copyright infringement should be criminalized. And I am asking this. It didn't seem to be important, as far as I can tell, for the first century of the Republic to treat infringement as anything other than a civil matter. If I recall correctly it was not a federal crime until 1897."
I think the law's movement from civil to criminal is due largely in part to the ease at which the infringement takes place. It occurs in a fairly anonymous way (not completely, but within respects to the sea of other infringers.) Its occurring at an expansive rate. The means and tools are sold retail in malls. The list goes on.
Consider it against something like car theft. If the tools to lift cars were sold at retail outlets at clearance prices and rebates, if there were large meetings that took place where people could attend from all over to discuss the best cars to steal and how to steal them, if you could steal a car or two a day, versus someone stealing 20 jaguars an hour, would it appear so much as a crime to you? Imagine standing around the watercooler with co-workers and saying things like, "yeah I just picked up the new Acura NSX, its great you should get yourself one, or better yet, I'll get you one if you can get me a few of those Nissan's I've heard so much about..."
That's how these lawmakers are seeing this as. Unfortunately its creating an environment where the legitimate buyers and duplicators are being treated more and more like the rest of us "lawbreakers." The prices have gone up, the selection has gone down, along with the quality and all the while the punishments have become more severe.
Using the car analogy again, its as though automobile makers never made cars with locks, just ignitions. Then the stealing occurred. As a result, the auto makers made less cars, with less features, and charged more for them, with more complicated locking mechanisms and keys. And suddenly you could get in trouble by duplicating your car keys in case you lost a set. In fact, if such a thing ever happened, your only "legal" course of action was to buy a new car. And if you in fact were caught stealing a car, you were killed "Judge Dredd" style where you stood. All the while, we as taxpayers continue to pay for this to occur.
Granted, there's lots more to consider, but I wanted to illustrate the extremities taking place, and the need for some middle ground to it all. I think the power shift has become an issue for the corporations, and drastic, expensive measures aren't given a second thought as long as the corporation can retain that power. I may appear in favor of copyright infringement laws, but I oppose them adamantly in favor of something that makes a little more sense. I'd rather not see them disappear completely, but work the way they are supposed to instead of for the purpose of the corporations and goverments' witch hunt.
All that "rhetoric" on how they can be used to stop a tyrannical government could've flown back in 1776 when the people were the government and there wasn't such a thing as a "defense budget." In good ol' 1776, the farmer and the president had the same shit at their disposal. Now if you come within a mile of the White House with so much as a .22 handgun, the prez's SS (I really meant secret service) makes the phone call to the man on the roof about the "terrorist" en route, and he takes your ass out with a high-powered rifle right between the eyes at a range in excess of a few hundred yards.
To hell with breaking a sweat in an Apache...
I completely understand your argument, but at least I hope you see the "Tyrannical" underpinnings of the foundation from which our president, and most of our government, acts from. If you don't like what they're doing, you may have a right to say it, but at this point you have to assume that a public declaration of your opinion will result in your name appearing on an Ashcroft sactioned terrorism watchdog list with a silent, but rather large barrel pointed at your back. Wish you had some defense now...
"microsoft solution"
Now there's an oxymoron if I ever heard one.
We aren't undecided, were divided. There's a big difference between not knowing who to vote for, and voting for someone that the other half of the people know they are voting for.
And in fact, had the presidency been decided upon the majority vote of the people, Al Gore would have become president. Its the ass-backwards electoral college system that voted Dickhead, sorry, George Bush in as president.
The unclarity you speak of comes not from the indecision of either the people or the ass-backwards electoral college, but from the fact that you can't distinguish the two from each other. Educate yourself before you make claims.
To paraphrase a statement I once heard, "There are no truths, only that which has been proven false and that which remains to be proven false."
It has always been my opinion that laws and rules are simply observations that are static and immutable within the context of the act of observation. In other words, anything is possible when you're not watching. Therein lies part of the principle of The Singularity. We don't know what could take place beyond the occurrance of the Singularity, and within it that, The Singularity could occur with such speed that 1) we'd never know it or 2) it would simply be beyond our immediate comprehension (that preceeding statement implies that we could one day comprehend it, but not without it having already come and gone.)