to this damage. The band clearly does not recognize that it is a pawn in this game. That is a surprise to me, as I had always thought them to be somewhat intelligent. RIAA is using Metallica, Dre, etc. to take the heat. I'm pretty sure that these acts are being largely misled by their agents (who may be acting in the intere$ts of others) and also to some extent coached. Check out the interview with Phish in this weeks Onion (theonion.com) to see what I mean.
Re:Congratulations From Moscow (offtopic)
on
Victory in Holland
·
· Score: 1
What's scary here is that I probably know you. I graduated Wilton in 94. Go Beavers!
...because this particular AOL feature is becoming a significant problem for me and my co-workers. I do tech support for a rather large corporation, and of course we have a lot of users that sign on remotely. Well, maybe they aren't supposed to install AOL on their company laptops, but they do. And maybe we don't have to support people who use remote connections on their home machines, but we do. And when you have a major earner on the line who can't get to their e-mail when they're home sick, you jolly well try to help. And the best thing we can come up with is to have them create another hardware profile (w9x feature) for the company connection. Keep in mind we're talking about people who scream at us because their attachments are "missing" (saved to a non-standard directory). It's difficult, it's time consuming, and for all I know it may not work at all. We are talking about a lot of man hours not only for the endusers, but for the support staff as well. I would estimate that I have spent at least 5-6 hours working these issues this week alone. And I still have 10 hours left tomorrow. Interestingly I did have a lady opine that AOL's DUN hijacking was more like "a Microsoft thing". I had to laugh with her on that one. The article itself states that most people only want to configure DUN connections once; I do it every day, and it's draining enough as is. Imagine throwing this onion into the ointment. I'm frustrated, as are many others. So I'm thinking of talking with my manager and seeing if he wants to act on this. I doubt he will, but it might be a good conversation piece.
Still, imagine if major corporations decide to join in. AOL really could get into serious trouble then. Thoughts?
...Lots of reasons were advanced why consumers ought to want DIVX, but they never managed to overcome the inherent goofiness of the idea in most peoples' minds.
And it really does seem goofy, doesn't it? The thing that bugs me is that, until recently, when I bought something it was mine. In my mind, I ought to be free to do whatever I wish to my property. But apparently, it's not my property. So we have to look at a new way to define this thing I have:
Is it a movie, or is it media containing a movie?
Do I in fact own a piece of the movie by paying for the media? Or, can I never own a movie, in whole or in part, unless I have paid a director, cast, and crew money to make it for me (I'm ignoring the possibility of making a movie by oneself)?
What *IS* a movie, exactly?
If it's digital, does the file format change what it is?
How do you buy the rights to intellectual property if the original owner is dead?
...and so on. While the law answers many of these questions for us, the point is that a lot of the answers are outdated. After all, when's the last time you backed up your HDD to a VHS tape? If my point isn't clear, it's that different forms of what are considered intellectual property can be copied to so many different types of media, attempting to sort out what is and isn't permissible according to copyright law is practically impossible.
That's how I feel rationally. Emotionally, it's much simpler. Tell me that you don't want me to have it, and I'll never stop trying to get it.
I got an interesting spam on my throwaway hotmail account today. I read it in full just for kicks, and saw an interesting notation at the bottom, which I've copied here:
"***Under Bill S.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress this letter Can Not be Considered Spam as long as we include the way to be removed."
"To be removed from future mailings Free, simply respond with "REMOVE" in the subject line. This will permanently remove you from all future mailing: remove@update4u.net"
Of course, it's common knowledge that a response will get you spammed to the nth degree. So clearly they don't intend to live up to their end of the deal. Is their legal reference for real? I know that the legality of sending unsolicited mail is dubious at best anyway, thanks to the fax law that was mentioned before. The main concern is that these spammers might be able to turn the tables on us somehow.
Oh, here's something that a completely unrelated search turned up; a how-to for spammers! Behold this nauseating chunk here: http://www.billminder.com/
For the record, I take no responsibility for any damages that occur as a result of hordes of/. readers being aware of this site's existence.:)
(of course, the software could just be virus laden bait; we can dream, right?)
Slashdot Mirror
to this damage. The band clearly does not recognize that it is a pawn in this game. That is a surprise to me, as I had always thought them to be somewhat intelligent. RIAA is using Metallica, Dre, etc. to take the heat. I'm pretty sure that these acts are being largely misled by their agents (who may be acting in the intere$ts of others) and also to some extent coached. Check out the interview with Phish in this weeks Onion (theonion.com) to see what I mean.
What's scary here is that I probably know you. I graduated Wilton in 94. Go Beavers!
"Teaches people right not read their License Agreement."
And if they don't agree to the agreement, what happens then? It's not like they can get a refund on a free CD.
Still, imagine if major corporations decide to join in. AOL really could get into serious trouble then. Thoughts?
And it really does seem goofy, doesn't it? The thing that bugs me is that, until recently, when I bought something it was mine. In my mind, I ought to be free to do whatever I wish to my property. But apparently, it's not my property. So we have to look at a new way to define this thing I have:
Is it a movie, or is it media containing a movie?
Do I in fact own a piece of the movie by paying for the media? Or, can I never own a movie, in whole or in part, unless I have paid a director, cast, and crew money to make it for me (I'm ignoring the possibility of making a movie by oneself)?
What *IS* a movie, exactly?
If it's digital, does the file format change what it is?
How do you buy the rights to intellectual property if the original owner is dead?
That's how I feel rationally. Emotionally, it's much simpler. Tell me that you don't want me to have it, and I'll never stop trying to get it.
I got an interesting spam on my throwaway hotmail account today. I read it in full just for kicks, and saw an interesting notation at the bottom, which I've copied here:
/. readers being aware of this site's existence. :)
"***Under Bill S.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th U.S. Congress this letter Can Not be Considered Spam as long as we include the way to be removed."
"To be removed from future mailings Free, simply respond with "REMOVE" in the subject line. This will permanently remove you from all future mailing: remove@update4u.net"
Of course, it's common knowledge that a response will get you spammed to the nth degree. So clearly they don't intend to live up to their end of the deal. Is their legal reference for real? I know that the legality of sending unsolicited mail is dubious at best anyway, thanks to the fax law that was mentioned before. The main concern is that these spammers might be able to turn the tables on us somehow.
Oh, here's something that a completely unrelated search turned up; a how-to for spammers! Behold this nauseating chunk here: http://www.billminder.com/
For the record, I take no responsibility for any damages that occur as a result of hordes of
(of course, the software could just be virus laden bait; we can dream, right?)