I don't think you know how my.mp3.com works. my.mp3.com buys every one of the CD's they let you listen to, just like I did. I paid a copy of "Morning Glory", they paid for a copy of "Morning Glory". They make me put my CD in my computer, their server checks to make sure it is a legal copy of the CD, not a bootleg, and then they let me listen to their copy. There is no trading of mp3's. Now the suggestion I made of uploading all my CD's to my.mp3.com that would make it more of a traditional fair use copy, would be me copying my CD's up to their server. This would be a pointless waste of bandwidth, obviously, but just because my data is physically stored on another server, doesn't mean I have given it to them. It's still mine and they are providing the storage.
Freenet, Gnutella, and many clones are totally anonymous. These allow for totally illegal sharing, and if they (music industry) close down the few legal sites, my.mp3.com being one, they are shooting their only saviors in the head.All that will be left will be the growing underground of illegal sharing. But fortunately or unfortunatley depending on which side you are on in this, stupidity is fatal on the Internet.
What is illegal at my.mp3.com? I am listening to music I paid for. Whether I listen to my physical CD I brought home from the store, the tape I made for my car, or someone else's copy, I'm not hearing any Oasis songs the Noel hasn't drunken his cut of already. I am baffled as to how this can be seen as illegal. In theory if I upload all the songs I have on my CD to my.mp3.com, under fair use, its legal, but if I listen to their copy it's not?
You may be right. I only read the trade publications, and I haven't seen the little guys crying yet. However, I suggest you tell your 50 indie label friends to start scrambling to get some technology going. The Internet is not a new channel of selling. It is a paradigm shift and the middle man is a loser. Record companies are a middle man, like travel agents. Unless they can provide some other services to musicians or customers, they're in trouble. Right now they aren't. If musicians can sell their stuff over the internet all over the world themselves and get $3 per unit, why the hell would they want to go to a record company and get =$.50? All they need is an advertising agencey they can hire for a flat fee. And possibly a loan agency for production costs. And as for giving away stuff that I steal, you have somewhat of a point, however, almost everything I have on Napster is something I own, and want others to learn about and like. Minor Threat, Velocity Girl, Tangerine Dream, Jimmy Cliff, Lucsious Jackson, a few newer people. You try going to Sam Goody and finding Minor Threat. Plus, I could just download stuff and not run a server to share. It's a community thing. Just like open source software, that I also write. Yeah, it's still illegal, but check the response someone else gave above about speeding. Yeah I speed, yeah it's illegal, yeah it slightly increases the threat to others on the road, but as an adult I can decide that 45 is safe in a low traffic, dry, 30 mph section of the road. I may also decide if it is snowy on the highway that I will drive below the minimun speed limit. Basic economics teaches that leaks in the system, i.e. piracy here, come about because of a flaw in the market. There is a demand of some kind not being met. In this case my guess is that cost of the product and the delivery systems offered are below what consumers want. Before Napster et al, there was no option except to go down to Sam Goody and buy a CD. This huge explosion of software like Napster is how economics works, its just that the powers that be, RIAA, don't like to be told how to do their business by consumers, whom they have ignored for many years. Now they are caught with their pants down, and are crying to daddy for help.
I'm not sure what I was blasting that didn't need blasting. In no way was I blasting Jesus or religious people. The phrase "coming down from Jesus" that I used is a figure of speach like "God bless you." Not literally. I meant it in the sense that people presenting themselves as a Jesus like person who has the one and only correct answer about something like this. I think I agree with you about Jesus' point of view on this. I think he would wonder why Dre is charging people less fortunate than himself for something that, once produced, costs him nothing.
If I had $10 million I'd be handing it out on street corners, let alone going after the people that made me rich to ask for more. I'm not greedy so it wouldn't bother me much. Again it is not a loss, it is a lack of gain. No one is going into his bank account and taking $1000, its just that he gets a new check for $150,000 every week instead of $150,000.50 . You'll be hard pressed to find financial sympathy for millionaires.
When I run Napster, Gnutella, Freenet, on my IP address, it is costing me. I am paying $150 a month for that IP and other people use it. It's called giving a little back to people that have given you something, which Metallica and Dre are unfamiliar with. And you are wrong, he is right. Yeah the little indie labels aren't scared of Napster but the big ones are. Ask Chuck D. If artists could put out the music in the same quantities and make $3 off each sale instead of $.50 do you think they would do it and leave the big companies behind? There's no love lost there.
That got an "Insightful"? You pick the weakest part of the argument as your straw man, knock it down, and say that proves the entire argument is invalid. Very weak.
Fight on Boomer. "Sign, sign everywhere a sign..."
You know water is worth a lot to people. Why don't they charge $100 a gallon? And food. Does $2400 sound too much for a ham? I bet people would pay it if they had to, don't you? Basic economics also teaches that leaks in the system, i.e. piracy here, come about because of a flaw in the market. There is a demand of some kind not being met. In this case my guess is that cost of the product and the delivery systems offered are below what consumers want. Before Napster et al, there was no option except to go down to Sam Goody and buy a CD. This huge explosion of software like Napster IS how economics works, its just that the powers that be, RIAA, don't like to be told how to do their business by consumers, whom they have ignored for many years. Now they are caught with their pants down, and are crying to daddy for help.
Wanna bet no one bitches? A couple years ago Garth Brooks and some others were suing stores that sell used CD's because they didn't like not getting a cut on the RESALE of thier CD's. They figured since you are getting CD quality music of theirs, they get to double, triple,... dip on each sale. Suggest your idea to the MPAA and see what kind of reponse you get.
Search: Alternative, folk, whatever. Read article, search under name in said article. Search jackass-know-it-all, find you.
My guess is you don't have, and probably never used napster. Yeah, it is mostly used for illegal downloading, but it has other uses as well. Look in university areas and there are lots of local band stuff on there. I get tired of holier than thou (Metallica reference) people coming down from Jesus to spread His word and damn us to hell for copying music of people we've made millionaires. Boo-fucking-hoo. (Minor Threat reference) I see this as sticking it to the man thats been charging us $14 for something that costs them to $.10 to make for the past 15 years. The beauty of the web is moving the power from the center to the people. Dre can try and stop it and he's going to get steam rollered.
How much money is enough for Dre? 10 million, 50 million? How can you support a millionaire suing a bunch of 14 year olds $13? These are the people that made him a millionaire. Yeah it's illegal but so what. He has the right to sue them, but then I have the right to call him a greedy whore, which I am.
Yeah, legally he has the right to sue, but do you think it is morally appropriate for a multi-millionaire to try and screw another $13.99 out of pimply faced teenagers that have to work at McDonalds saturday night, while Dre is getting wasted and screwing groupies? Legal is one thing, being a greedy whore is another. If it was someone stamping out 100,000 bootleg copies of his CD and selling it for $10, all over the country on ebay, I would feel a little more sympathy. These kids aren't making any money, they just want to hear the music. It's on the radio free to them, they can tape it there as well. Has everyone supporting Dre on this never had a friend make a compilation tape for them? Thats the same thing. Send Dre $3. I don't see the point except greed.
I am set to "No Katz" in my prefs, but I'll be damned if he doesn't sneak through anyway, as exemplified by this piece. I not sure what you want. No one complaining? I believe that to be one of the two points of this site. 1) Give out information, 2) have discussion on same.
No, you don't have to release copyrighted material. There is only a fraction of LOC materials that are copyrighted. Everything written between 10,000 B.C. and 1920 A.D. isn't copyrighted. Lets start with that first and move on.
I just stopped and thought about it and have concluded this argument is total crap. What is your point? That because people don't like something no one should have it?
Not everyone has a car. Not everyone can drive. Cars have killed people.
So no more cars? I don't like avacado's, who gives a shit? There is no valid argument why information chould not be spread in as many forms as is possible. Blind people can't read text, so not text books only braille? I can't read braille, no more braille books?
Read the gubment sight. It feels so good....
on
Microsoft Loses
·
· Score: 1
It may be in great detail, but man it reads like butter. Everything I've been feeling for years, written out in the cold black and white by a Federal judge. I'm cheering as I read, "Oh, yeah baby take THAT one!", etc. Get fresh underwear, its that good.
I have been doing it since Nov 1 of last year. We are working on a new database system a company in St. Louis. I live in San Diego with my partner in St. Louis. We fire up our video conferencing software every morning, leave it running all day, and its pretty close to being there. I would agree with an earlier post about wasting time. Self control is the only hard part for me (since I have little to none) so I have to work hard to keep at the task at hand. I am logged into the Novell server there, get my files, put updates, etc. I think it is the mentallity of the employer that is the only real hurdle to overcome.
Slashdot Mirror
If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.
Have you read any of the hundred posts above you?
I don't think you know how my.mp3.com works. my.mp3.com buys every one of the CD's they let you listen to, just like I did. I paid a copy of "Morning Glory", they paid for a copy of "Morning Glory". They make me put my CD in my computer, their server checks to make sure it is a legal copy of the CD, not a bootleg, and then they let me listen to their copy. There is no trading of mp3's.
Now the suggestion I made of uploading all my CD's to my.mp3.com that would make it more of a traditional fair use copy, would be me copying my CD's up to their server. This would be a pointless waste of bandwidth, obviously, but just because my data is physically stored on another server, doesn't mean I have given it to them. It's still mine and they are providing the storage.
Freenet, Gnutella, and many clones are totally anonymous. These allow for totally illegal sharing, and if they (music industry) close down the few legal sites, my.mp3.com being one, they are shooting their only saviors in the head.All that will be left will be the growing underground of illegal sharing.
But fortunately or unfortunatley depending on which side you are on in this, stupidity is fatal on the Internet.
What is illegal at my.mp3.com? I am listening to music I paid for. Whether I listen to my physical CD I brought home from the store, the tape I made for my car, or someone else's copy, I'm not hearing any Oasis songs the Noel hasn't drunken his cut of already.
I am baffled as to how this can be seen as illegal. In theory if I upload all the songs I have on my CD to my.mp3.com, under fair use, its legal, but if I listen to their copy it's not?
You may be right. I only read the trade publications, and I haven't seen the little guys crying yet.
However, I suggest you tell your 50 indie label friends to start scrambling to get some technology going.
The Internet is not a new channel of selling. It is a paradigm shift and the middle man is a loser. Record companies are a middle man, like travel agents. Unless they can provide some other services to musicians or customers, they're in trouble. Right now they aren't.
If musicians can sell their stuff over the internet all over the world themselves and get $3 per unit, why the hell would they want to go to a record company and get =$.50? All they need is an advertising agencey they can hire for a flat fee. And possibly a loan agency for production costs.
And as for giving away stuff that I steal, you have somewhat of a point, however, almost everything I have on Napster is something I own, and want others to learn about and like. Minor Threat, Velocity Girl, Tangerine Dream, Jimmy Cliff, Lucsious Jackson, a few newer people.
You try going to Sam Goody and finding Minor Threat.
Plus, I could just download stuff and not run a server to share. It's a community thing. Just like open source software, that I also write. Yeah, it's still illegal, but check the response someone else gave above about speeding.
Yeah I speed, yeah it's illegal, yeah it slightly increases the threat to others on the road, but as an adult I can decide that 45 is safe in a low traffic, dry, 30 mph section of the road. I may also decide if it is snowy on the highway that I will drive below the minimun speed limit.
Basic economics teaches that leaks in the system, i.e. piracy here, come about because of a flaw in the market. There is a demand of some kind not being met. In this case my guess is that cost of the product and the delivery systems offered are below what consumers want. Before Napster et al, there was no option except to go down to Sam Goody and buy a CD. This huge explosion of software like Napster is how economics works, its just that the powers that be, RIAA, don't like to be told how to do their business by consumers, whom they have ignored for many years. Now they are caught with their pants down, and are crying to daddy for help.
I'm not sure what I was blasting that didn't need blasting. In no way was I blasting Jesus or religious people. The phrase "coming down from Jesus" that I used is a figure of speach like "God bless you." Not literally.
I meant it in the sense that people presenting themselves as a Jesus like person who has the one and only correct answer about something like this.
I think I agree with you about Jesus' point of view on this. I think he would wonder why Dre is charging people less fortunate than himself for something that, once produced, costs him nothing.
If I had $10 million I'd be handing it out on street corners, let alone going after the people that made me rich to ask for more.
I'm not greedy so it wouldn't bother me much. Again it is not a loss, it is a lack of gain. No one is going into his bank account and taking $1000, its just that he gets a new check for $150,000 every week instead of $150,000.50 . You'll be hard pressed to find financial sympathy for millionaires.
hypocrisy (h-pkr-s)
n., pl. hypocrisies.
1.The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess;
falseness.
2.An act or instance of such falseness.
When I run Napster, Gnutella, Freenet, on my IP address, it is costing me. I am paying $150 a month for that IP and other people use it. It's called giving a little back to people that have given you something, which Metallica and Dre are unfamiliar with.
And you are wrong, he is right. Yeah the little indie labels aren't scared of Napster but the big ones are. Ask Chuck D. If artists could put out the music in the same quantities and make $3 off each sale instead of $.50 do you think they would do it and leave the big companies behind? There's no love lost there.
That got an "Insightful"?
You pick the weakest part of the argument as your straw man, knock it down, and say that proves the entire argument is invalid. Very weak.
Fight on Boomer. "Sign, sign everywhere a sign..."
You know water is worth a lot to people. Why don't they charge $100 a gallon? And food. Does $2400 sound too much for a ham? I bet people would pay it if they had to, don't you?
Basic economics also teaches that leaks in the system, i.e. piracy here, come about because of a flaw in the market. There is a demand of some kind not being met. In this case my guess is that cost of the product and the delivery systems offered are below what consumers want. Before Napster et al, there was no option except to go down to Sam Goody and buy a CD. This huge explosion of software like Napster IS how economics works, its just that the powers that be, RIAA, don't like to be told how to do their business by consumers, whom they have ignored for many years. Now they are caught with their pants down, and are crying to daddy for help.
You can hate us Americans, but we're just going to come back with twice as much love for you!
We love you!
Let's talk Joe, why not.
That is a very good idea.
... dip on each sale.
Wanna bet no one bitches? A couple years ago Garth Brooks and some others were suing stores that sell used CD's because they didn't like not getting a cut on the RESALE of thier CD's.
They figured since you are getting CD quality music of theirs, they get to double, triple,
Suggest your idea to the MPAA and see what kind of reponse you get.
Search: Alternative, folk, whatever.
Read article, search under name in said article.
Search jackass-know-it-all, find you.
My guess is you don't have, and probably never used napster. Yeah, it is mostly used for illegal downloading, but it has other uses as well. Look in university areas and there are lots of local band stuff on there. I get tired of holier than thou (Metallica reference) people coming down from Jesus to spread His word and damn us to hell for copying music of people we've made millionaires. Boo-fucking-hoo. (Minor Threat reference)
I see this as sticking it to the man thats been charging us $14 for something that costs them to $.10 to make for the past 15 years.
The beauty of the web is moving the power from the center to the people. Dre can try and stop it and he's going to get steam rollered.
How much money is enough for Dre? 10 million, 50 million? How can you support a millionaire suing a bunch of 14 year olds $13? These are the people that made him a millionaire. Yeah it's illegal but so what. He has the right to sue them, but then I have the right to call him a greedy whore, which I am.
Yeah, legally he has the right to sue, but do you think it is morally appropriate for a multi-millionaire to try and screw another $13.99 out of pimply faced teenagers that have to work at McDonalds saturday night, while Dre is getting wasted and screwing groupies? Legal is one thing, being a greedy whore is another. If it was someone stamping out 100,000 bootleg copies of his CD and selling it for $10, all over the country on ebay, I would feel a little more sympathy. These kids aren't making any money, they just want to hear the music. It's on the radio free to them, they can tape it there as well. Has everyone supporting Dre on this never had a friend make a compilation tape for them? Thats the same thing. Send Dre $3. I don't see the point except greed.
Call the phone number say, "Is icee there? This is mafiaboy."
I am set to "No Katz" in my prefs, but I'll be damned if he doesn't sneak through anyway, as exemplified by this piece.
I not sure what you want. No one complaining? I believe that to be one of the two points of this site. 1) Give out information, 2) have discussion on same.
No, you don't have to release copyrighted material. There is only a fraction of LOC materials that are copyrighted. Everything written between 10,000 B.C. and 1920 A.D. isn't copyrighted. Lets start with that first and move on.
I just stopped and thought about it and have concluded this argument is total crap. What is your point? That because people don't like something no one should have it?
Not everyone has a car.
Not everyone can drive.
Cars have killed people.
So no more cars? I don't like avacado's, who gives a shit?
There is no valid argument why information chould not be spread in as many forms as is possible. Blind people can't read text, so not text books only braille? I can't read braille, no more braille books?
It may be in great detail, but man it reads like butter. Everything I've been feeling for years, written out in the cold black and white by a Federal judge. I'm cheering as I read, "Oh, yeah baby take THAT one!", etc.
Get fresh underwear, its that good.
...did you see all the funny monkies? They was talking.
I'm converting a DeCSS as we speak. Would this be a good example of file sharing?
I have been doing it since Nov 1 of last year. We are working on a new database system a company in St. Louis. I live in San Diego with my partner in St. Louis. We fire up our video conferencing software every morning, leave it running all day, and its pretty close to being there.
I would agree with an earlier post about wasting time. Self control is the only hard part for me (since I have little to none) so I have to work hard to keep at the task at hand.
I am logged into the Novell server there, get my files, put updates, etc.
I think it is the mentallity of the employer that is the only real hurdle to overcome.