90 minute delay?
Who's bright idea was that? If I'm not mistaken, you buy a TiVo (or similar device) so that you can view programming at your leisure and schedule. With something like that, you'd have to wait an hour to watch a 30 minute show you missed by 30 minutes. You might as well just tried to be in front of the TV 30 minutes earlier in the first place.
Do you know why someone is trying to put this into effect? (not a gripe @ you.)
"Does anyone have anything positive to say about netsol, I mean they really were and are a horrible company that overprices everything."
Not everything I got from them is overpriced. For instance, when I had a registered domain with them, I used to get lots of free email offers delivered straight to my inbox!
The consumption of oil and forests for energy, ironically, is something we arrived at through scientific discovery and more ironically something that science hasn't been able to ratify.
Some people like things the way they are, some people enjoy the profits of said things and others just lend credence to destructive means via ignorance.
Bush probably fits into all of the above nicely, so as someone else has stated, thats looking at the glass as it is: The container and the contained. There's plenty of time to make half-full/half empty jokes about Bush's intelligence.
To act in this manner when information sensitive to the company's business is leaked by employee, contractor or other, regardless of how its perceived.
"An unknown defendant called Doe 1 is also named in the suit."
Apple: "We don't know who they are yet, but were suing them irregardless...Why? because I have a MIGHTY NEEED to sue nameless individuals..."
This will also, never work. No flock of highly paid anti-riaa/mpaa lobbyists will ever change the minds of men that have such deepy ingrained personal agendas. That's akin to moving the Rock of Gibraltar for the sake of a little more shade on your side of the fence.
Geeks should stick with what they know best. Business geeks should develop business models that compete on a very real, financial level with those of the RIAA/MPAA, computer geeks should develop software and products that exceed the legislation of Depends-wearing politians, and lawyer geeks need to look for loopholes, or start setting precedents in the courts.
Were past the point of changing or reverting what's now in motion, we have to start putting our own new things in motion.
Whether you know it or not, a LARGE portion of "indie" labels are supported by the Big Five.
The Big Five's don't get involved with them in anyway other than minimum financing and support along the lines of lawyers/administration/distribution.
The reason why indie labels actually last beyond a few years is for this reason. Let's not forget that a Big Five's motive for owning an indie is to allow them to extend their market reach beyond what they can't reach themselves. The Big Five are smart enough to identify and acknowledge the market of "pretentious, elitist, indie-only" music buyers, sub-genre listeners/buyers and Anti-RIAA boycotting geeks.
Cable companies encounter the same thing I sometimes encounter as a web designer...dealing with the lowest common denominator.
There are still alot of simple minded people out there that they have to continue supporting as far as how the method of delivery is concerned. I wouldn't necessarily call these people dummies, but I know that my grandmother isn't up to the challenge a TiVo might present to her. What I'm getting at is that only the largest of companies may be in a financially suitable position to develop products/programming that coinsides with the PVR. It's like having to write code to support an old browser, while not having the money or resources to make a second, more updated version of the same code. The only difference is that I don't go around saying the new browsers are the devil.
The other side of that coin is technology expansion rate. If you build something that works with the current technology now, how long will it be before that is old and you have to build/create new stuff for the new technology. I am all for new stuff, new tech, new anything. New is in, but from a business standpoint, I'd hate to be in a position where what I've spent money to develop will only apply for a short period of time before I have to spend the same, or even more money to continue to support it.
Future and unknown factors are major concerns for business. Proven models of income are what keep companies afloat.
This might have been brought up and if so I apologize for the redundancy...
But what if the RIAA decided to start backing off on the "pirates" and the average joes doing the downloading and the webcasting?
Do you think that would help their current public perception and, concurrently, help their bottom line? From what I can see, they feel that their public perception is pretty far down the crapper, so far, in fact, that they see no other option to continue their harrassment tactics against their market-share.
Consider this: If they loosened up, would we start to change our minds about them? Would an RIAA sanctioned repeal of some of these pending-legislation bills improve their public standing and therefore, increase their bottom line? Look at who their battling. We've all spent a decent amount of coin on computers, hardware, etc. so who's to say that if they backed off, some of that cash might head back in their direction.
I'd just like to see this whole thing resolved, but maybe if we took a different approach (i.e. writing letters to congressmen that support the RIAA explaining that backing off would increase goodwill and possibly their dollar figures), we might actually start seeing the change were looking for.
I for one don't want to make enemies of these guys permanently, just take a look at how many 800 lb gorillas they have in their corner.
I think an issue that we tend to overlook while arguing the merits [or lack thereof] of copyright laws, is the issue of who actually holds the copyrights.
My understanding is that the origins of copyright law came from individuals looking to have a legal recourse to protect and expand their options in a business environment. As it was stated, "Economic advantage is not in and of itself a valid purpose or justification for copyright or patent laws", but it doesn't exclude the notion that an economic gain can be made from IP and thus, provides a basis for encouragement and resource for further development.
Again, I have to emphasize that these laws were made to be exerciseable by the individual. If you know even a little about the process of songwriting and publishing, you know that the copyrights of these works get turned over to the corporation (non-person entity) in exchange for a split of the proceeds from a given work. Once that happens, the exerciseable rights are stripped from the person responsible for the work and handed over to a boardroom of fat cats whose only interest is to expand their bottom line. I believe that had the rights remained with individuals, the option to return IP to a the public domain would have been exercised. I feel that its the sentiment of artists that once the financial gains have been exhausted under copyright protection of a work, they feel that there is no harm in reintroducing it "back into the wild" so to speak, so that other people might also be inspired to create. Corporations are the copyright holders and as such they put a stranglehold on the material, making it financially unaccessible to anyone but them. If you haven't paid them for the right (or made an arrangement for them to benefit financially) to use their copyrighted material, then its hands off. Futhermore, they take it a step further and continue the exercise in inaccessibility years beyond a reasonable timeframe just so that any possibility for a few bucks to be made isn't overlooked.
With the exception of Metallica (and their situation is very different from most other artists), you don't hear the actual artists themselves coming out and raising the issue as much as you do the record companies and the RIAA because the fact of the matter is that they don't have a leg to stand on anymore. All their "IP" is under new ownership. They can only back their label's decision and even to that extent, what I've seen is far from convincing.
Copyright law may not need the reexamining as much as maybe who rights they are protecting.
Some people are working on it, at least something very similar.
I need to make something of an argument in favor of copyright laws. They exist because back in the early days of the music industry, great artists were getting robbed literally of all their work, and not ever seeing a single solitary dime for it.
Music production (making any type of music) requires work and effort. Any artist can tell you that regardless of how much they love it, it takes time to write up a good song. So let's say that we build a site as you propose with all kinds of liberal rights applied to the works featured therein. Suddenly you have the RIAA, the record companies, their lawyers and their A&R people rummaging through the site, finding hooks for their own material while jumping through the loopholes in an effort to expand their bottom line with little or no compensation to the new artists.
Its easier for a company to take new material and push it through to an audience via a tested performer than to chance it on an untested, potentially unmarketable new artist. There are lots and lots of sharks in the music industry because they know that musicians aren't lawyers, they aren't business people and therefore are prone to being taken advantage of.
Copyright laws are there for a reason, they exist because some lazy, scheming fat cat just sat back and raked it in while some naive, but extrememly creative individual worked day and night just to get a few bucks for gas.
Slashdot Mirror
90 minute delay?
Who's bright idea was that? If I'm not mistaken, you buy a TiVo (or similar device) so that you can view programming at your leisure and schedule. With something like that, you'd have to wait an hour to watch a 30 minute show you missed by 30 minutes. You might as well just tried to be in front of the TV 30 minutes earlier in the first place.
Do you know why someone is trying to put this into effect? (not a gripe @ you.)
Yes yes, I know and agree...it was a joke. Chill.
You mean the 'BigBrotherland' security act...
"Does anyone have anything positive to say about netsol, I mean they really were and are a horrible company that overprices everything."
Not everything I got from them is overpriced. For instance, when I had a registered domain with them, I used to get lots of free email offers delivered straight to my inbox!
The consumption of oil and forests for energy, ironically, is something we arrived at through scientific discovery and more ironically something that science hasn't been able to ratify.
Some people like things the way they are, some people enjoy the profits of said things and others just lend credence to destructive means via ignorance.
Bush probably fits into all of the above nicely, so as someone else has stated, thats looking at the glass as it is: The container and the contained. There's plenty of time to make half-full/half empty jokes about Bush's intelligence.
ok enough. I know I f@#$ed up the english language.
Could it? That's pretty damn cheap for a Wi-Fi enabled burner. Because if it's not a burner, than what the hell does this have to do with a PVR...
Yeah yeah...so now were onto semantics, eh?
....
"WRECKLESS": Without wreck?
To act in this manner when information sensitive to the company's business is leaked by employee, contractor or other, regardless of how its perceived.
Your next sig should read: "If you EAT FOOD, befriend me."
"An unknown defendant called Doe 1 is also named in the suit." Apple: "We don't know who they are yet, but were suing them irregardless...Why? because I have a MIGHTY NEEED to sue nameless individuals..."
grandma tango airbag.
agreed.
This will also, never work. No flock of highly paid anti-riaa/mpaa lobbyists will ever change the minds of men that have such deepy ingrained personal agendas. That's akin to moving the Rock of Gibraltar for the sake of a little more shade on your side of the fence.
Geeks should stick with what they know best. Business geeks should develop business models that compete on a very real, financial level with those of the RIAA/MPAA, computer geeks should develop software and products that exceed the legislation of Depends-wearing politians, and lawyer geeks need to look for loopholes, or start setting precedents in the courts.
Were past the point of changing or reverting what's now in motion, we have to start putting our own new things in motion.
Problem with that:
Whether you know it or not, a LARGE portion of "indie" labels are supported by the Big Five. The Big Five's don't get involved with them in anyway other than minimum financing and support along the lines of lawyers/administration/distribution.
The reason why indie labels actually last beyond a few years is for this reason. Let's not forget that a Big Five's motive for owning an indie is to allow them to extend their market reach beyond what they can't reach themselves. The Big Five are smart enough to identify and acknowledge the market of "pretentious, elitist, indie-only" music buyers, sub-genre listeners/buyers and Anti-RIAA boycotting geeks.
What was your fave? The one with the whales is mine...what is that, 4?
Cable companies encounter the same thing I sometimes encounter as a web designer...dealing with the lowest common denominator.
There are still alot of simple minded people out there that they have to continue supporting as far as how the method of delivery is concerned. I wouldn't necessarily call these people dummies, but I know that my grandmother isn't up to the challenge a TiVo might present to her. What I'm getting at is that only the largest of companies may be in a financially suitable position to develop products/programming that coinsides with the PVR. It's like having to write code to support an old browser, while not having the money or resources to make a second, more updated version of the same code. The only difference is that I don't go around saying the new browsers are the devil.
The other side of that coin is technology expansion rate. If you build something that works with the current technology now, how long will it be before that is old and you have to build/create new stuff for the new technology. I am all for new stuff, new tech, new anything. New is in, but from a business standpoint, I'd hate to be in a position where what I've spent money to develop will only apply for a short period of time before I have to spend the same, or even more money to continue to support it.
Future and unknown factors are major concerns for business. Proven models of income are what keep companies afloat.
This joke is officially a runaway train, heading for a wreck...
Programs write poetry about YOU.
Look who's ranked at #5 on the political contribution list. Not to mention look at their party majority in regards to those contributions. Aren't the Dems supposed to (historically) work for the little guy?
This might have been brought up and if so I apologize for the redundancy... But what if the RIAA decided to start backing off on the "pirates" and the average joes doing the downloading and the webcasting? Do you think that would help their current public perception and, concurrently, help their bottom line? From what I can see, they feel that their public perception is pretty far down the crapper, so far, in fact, that they see no other option to continue their harrassment tactics against their market-share. Consider this: If they loosened up, would we start to change our minds about them? Would an RIAA sanctioned repeal of some of these pending-legislation bills improve their public standing and therefore, increase their bottom line? Look at who their battling. We've all spent a decent amount of coin on computers, hardware, etc. so who's to say that if they backed off, some of that cash might head back in their direction. I'd just like to see this whole thing resolved, but maybe if we took a different approach (i.e. writing letters to congressmen that support the RIAA explaining that backing off would increase goodwill and possibly their dollar figures), we might actually start seeing the change were looking for. I for one don't want to make enemies of these guys permanently, just take a look at how many 800 lb gorillas they have in their corner.
I think an issue that we tend to overlook while arguing the merits [or lack thereof] of copyright laws, is the issue of who actually holds the copyrights.
My understanding is that the origins of copyright law came from individuals looking to have a legal recourse to protect and expand their options in a business environment. As it was stated, "Economic advantage is not in and of itself a valid purpose or justification for copyright or patent laws", but it doesn't exclude the notion that an economic gain can be made from IP and thus, provides a basis for encouragement and resource for further development.
Again, I have to emphasize that these laws were made to be exerciseable by the individual. If you know even a little about the process of songwriting and publishing, you know that the copyrights of these works get turned over to the corporation (non-person entity) in exchange for a split of the proceeds from a given work. Once that happens, the exerciseable rights are stripped from the person responsible for the work and handed over to a boardroom of fat cats whose only interest is to expand their bottom line.
I believe that had the rights remained with individuals, the option to return IP to a the public domain would have been exercised. I feel that its the sentiment of artists that once the financial gains have been exhausted under copyright protection of a work, they feel that there is no harm in reintroducing it "back into the wild" so to speak, so that other people might also be inspired to create.
Corporations are the copyright holders and as such they put a stranglehold on the material, making it financially unaccessible to anyone but them. If you haven't paid them for the right (or made an arrangement for them to benefit financially) to use their copyrighted material, then its hands off. Futhermore, they take it a step further and continue the exercise in inaccessibility years beyond a reasonable timeframe just so that any possibility for a few bucks to be made isn't overlooked.
With the exception of Metallica (and their situation is very different from most other artists), you don't hear the actual artists themselves coming out and raising the issue as much as you do the record companies and the RIAA because the fact of the matter is that they don't have a leg to stand on anymore. All their "IP" is under new ownership. They can only back their label's decision and even to that extent, what I've seen is far from convincing.
Copyright law may not need the reexamining as much as maybe who rights they are protecting.
Some people are working on it, at least something very similar. I need to make something of an argument in favor of copyright laws. They exist because back in the early days of the music industry, great artists were getting robbed literally of all their work, and not ever seeing a single solitary dime for it. Music production (making any type of music) requires work and effort. Any artist can tell you that regardless of how much they love it, it takes time to write up a good song. So let's say that we build a site as you propose with all kinds of liberal rights applied to the works featured therein. Suddenly you have the RIAA, the record companies, their lawyers and their A&R people rummaging through the site, finding hooks for their own material while jumping through the loopholes in an effort to expand their bottom line with little or no compensation to the new artists. Its easier for a company to take new material and push it through to an audience via a tested performer than to chance it on an untested, potentially unmarketable new artist. There are lots and lots of sharks in the music industry because they know that musicians aren't lawyers, they aren't business people and therefore are prone to being taken advantage of. Copyright laws are there for a reason, they exist because some lazy, scheming fat cat just sat back and raked it in while some naive, but extrememly creative individual worked day and night just to get a few bucks for gas.