I mean, "input type crash", the word crash just got my M$ suspicous deeds rolling.
Maybe this is a special pre-XP era piracy battle scheme. When users update their version of Windows and the CDkey or serial key appears to be jacked, they divert you to a "NEW" page, crashing your IE. Average joe might think, "oh no, must be me pieratted windose, gots to got me a real cupy instead"
Concept is the same. You are virtually SCARING someone into doing something.
To some people, going to jail is equal death. So you end up the same. And that doesnt mean that person's got issues, it just means that his vision of jail is different from yours.
How is this different from the mafia and triad members asking for protection money? The effect is the same, a user is being threatened, rather or not of what he is or is not doing.
In effect, all the RIAA is doing is to scare people into doing something. That's got to be illegal in some way. I mean, would the police pull a gun on a crack addicts head?
perhaps the difference is that sometimes even the mafia and triads have morals
Actually using spam companies to spam the mass community and tell them to stop pirating their overpriced plastics.
In conjunction with M$, they will also roll out an unblockable windows messaging service that will pop up a message reminding you not pirate plastics as soon as a keyword is identified: Such as Britney, Spears, Boy, Band, Love, Like, Foo, plus practically the entire webster dictionary
Can't beat you legally? We will beat you illegally, and there's NOTHING you can do about it -RIAA PR
One of my friend's dad taught me this method. Everytime you buy a rebate-type item that's not instant, make a photo copy of the receipt, the UPC code bars (the thing that they make you cut out so you can't return them), a form of provable valid date, and whatever else that you have to mail back. He would then use registered mail if the rebate is high enough, and then, send it out.
He keeps all the un-returned rebats in a folder on top of his computer. Eventually, over a long period of time, when the check NEVER comes, he would call them and ask. When things are completely going the wrong way, he would scan the information he kept and send it.
He told me often times when you show that you give a crap about that rebate, they will deliver you the check. He mentioned that he also will complain to BBB or some form of agency if the rebate falls through. But he did say that sometimes, the company would call the bluff back on you knowing that you would never bring a lawsuit or your complaint has any possible damage on their already pathetic image cough *TDK* cough.
As many/.ers already pointed out, RIAA or any intermediates are not needed in this process. Anyone with business sense will hire a web dev for a system like this. RIAA or intermediates must in some way provide an ultimate download system that will overshadow any others. Keep in mind that RIAA does not have a wide reach of audiences. Their allies? Lobbied politicians, not actual consumers. Any average fan looking for his/her favorite artist, will go to fan sites and artists official site, not RIAA.
Not only that, RIAA must also venture forth to a new era: an era full of competitors. They will no longer be the Microsoft of music business. Current artists might have contracts that bind themselves to RIAA, fairly or unfairly. A new system of distribution, the grand selling point of RIAA, is now separated into viable outside sources no longer under RIAA's control. New artists and existing ones will have greater options, including using themselves as a distribution channel. Aside from that, a company, or even an individual, could provide massive exposure for any artists through their web system. This will all be possible as long as binding contracts do not exist.
From another point of view, why would RIAA go along with the new trend? They are the king, if not dictator, of the current business. They represent the many mainstream artists. Why adapt and lose the throne? Why give up their options and choices so consumers have more? They are the consumer's primary source, and all they have to do is outlaw, cut out, the secondary source at which people are getting from, P2P. In fact, for people without rights to their mp3s, they are effectively paying for a number of CDs with their entire life savings. 97 bill, that's around 5.7 billion CDs sold, nevermind they will never obtain that much, that's what they are valued as.
Last note, a flat fee? Technically I already feel like paying a flat fee. Every CD is around 14-17. Not all songs are worthwhile on a CD, and some are just outright awful. Consumers prefer to get only their favorite song. With CDs, your only option (in a world without P2P), is to shell out that 14-17 bucks for it. Download option also means fiercer competition among artists. To attract fans, they must output more appealing music.
I bet they are hoping to get some financial backing to help them on their upcoming insider trading suit.
"We need funding for a law suit!" - Sue a few spammers "We need funding for marketing, to bombard the public with useless AOL CDs" - Sue a few spammers
I see you had concern with network admins knocking on your door. What about AOL?
Although I am not 100% on this, but AIM I believe is their trademark, and such they are going to defend it (as long as you are getting more hits than they ever will).
imaddict.com was an example. Their IM addiction survey and other stuff were REAL popular. I know they got legal letter from AOL regarding the trademark usage, and his attitude at first wasn't exactly yielding. Now I just tried going there again and it's not even on the DNS servers.
I am no lawyer, and I guess this is slightly off topic. But I am interested in something like this. It is an idea AOL might not have thought off and seems like they might be interested in something like this (given their current status, they probably have to increase AOL CDs so there's a higher chance someone will install their crap by accident).
Much like my email address, the less people know about it, the better.
The less people I know on AIM will effectively minimize my chances of existing on that site.
Unpopularity pays off here.
This can help out AIM in an undirect way. AIM spammers spam the living hell out of all members on that site. Users cannot set higher privacy settings (in chance of losing chances meeting new people and such), they can't have effective spam filters like spam killer for email. The spam is even more direct, it's not sitting in your mailbox, it's DIRECTLY on your desktop. Users find new IM screen names. AOL claims their AIM program is more popular due to the new 10 million users, who basically might be the same 10 million highschool/college kiddies.
From eBay's stand point (not a seller there), wouldn't it be hard to tell how "authentic" the CD is? Given, it's your work, but how can eBay verify that?
Aside from that, I do not see any, and I really do mean ANY problems or legal concerns that one artist, or any other type of creator, to distribute, sell, lend, etc their own creation that they own. Furthermore the intervention from a 3rd party is solely up to the creator of the product. I fail to see the concept "our(RIAA) way or the highway" legal or acceptable.
I do want to see them outlaw mp3 format. As soon as they tread towards this idea, I can hear many, and I mean MANY, companies up in arms against them. At that point, they would probably outlaw many games, applications, and multimedia material.
"* Music now competes directly at retail with DVDs, music videos, and video games. Most stores that carry any of those carry all of them"
Seriously. 17 bucks + tax for a Justin Tumblefake CD Frisbee and target board/booklet, I might as well as buy some classic games where the replay value is greater than 1
"# We're in a recession. All discretionary spending is down. Cars and air travel are doing much worse than music."
Very true. Although I definitely would like to see the Travel business blame piracy for their financial downturns.
I might go as far as add another point, the RIAA has gone real far in terms of getting their voices heard. And partially, I think that has turned quite a few people against them. That's just speculation; but I see more and more people aware of them in a very negative way, and that might contribute somewhat...
"then how is that a loss? If I copy a song I would not, or could not, buy, how much has anyione lost?"
I guess then the question can be thrown back at you this way: How much did you gain? Nevermind how much I lost, how much more do you have than the second before you obtain a copy? Since your question is rather vague in terms of just sheer gain versus loss.
Stat Person: "How many Britney Spears CD did you buy?" Consumer: "None, I don't like her songs" -Marked as pirate
Stat Person: "What is your current occupation?" Consumer: "Student" -Marked as pirate, twice
Stat Person: "What was your last Xmas gift?" Consumer: "a 32x CD burner" -Marked as pirate, 32 times
Stat Person: "Why are you returning that CD?" Consumer: "It won't work on my computer or my Discman" -Marked as pirate
Jokes aside, Filesharing obviously does put somewhat of a dent into business. Given, there are people out there unwilling to buy regardless of source. However, not being the extreme, it is possible to capitalize on this massive market. Given at a reasonable price and great availability structure, I can vision people buying their music in ways of files rather than CDs. I am convinced that it's their persistance to resist the trend that led to their losses.
Filesharing is a catalyst, not a problem or solution. If they can harness the idea into a structure, it's a solution. If they continue to ignore where technology is going, then it's a problem (on their end). Someone else will capitalize on that market.
I might be entirely out of the loop here, why would Veronica Moser or other artist banned from selling on ebay? If the music is their's and the creation is copyrighted to them, what's to stop them from selling or giving it out for free?
I am not sure I understand the entire situation...
"most assuredly that is the truth. i have bought tons of cd's after getting a few mp3's. the RIAA needs to understand the marketing potential in filesharing......jsut my thought, at least"
Actually, I think they do. I mean they are suing a few kids for 97 billion dollars, that's more than the actual market value+potential, perhaps. For that amount, the marketing potential in filesharing is rather psychotically huge.
RIAA To destroy one evil, is to invite a greater evil.
In other news, Music CDs will now only play in Windows Media Player 10.x. All music CDs will require online activation. Under DMCA, it is illegal to be able to play these music CDs under Linux, violators will skip prosecution and proceed to Punishment UpU.R.Arse, where users will be forced to sit down and watch the formating of their computer into FAT16 booting Windows 9x.
that's understandable. Although I believe there should be restrictions in terms of what you can do with it. Simply I don't believe you can say I bought this system and I can make copies of its software because I own the system.
However, the case here is he was selling parts of a system that he does not legally owned, namely, the BIOS. You can't just take someone else's product, modify parts of it, and then sell it as your product; with it being the modified part you are cloning.
How about future versions of windows will parse google site wrong..........that would be interesting.
From time to time, IE on my computer (company owned, hence I have no admin access to install Netscape) will parse google wrong. THe page will just show up as half a G (from google's logo). Sometimes the tope half, sometimes the right half, but you get the picture. That's the ONLY thing it shows, no search form/buttons.
Although I can hardly blame Microsoft (hardly, doesn't mean I didn't) when I managed to get Netscape 7, which did do the same thing, but at a very low rate.
"user types in www.google.com on IE, and a bsod pops up: The website you have tried to enter, has not been monopolized, please try again later."
Slashdot Mirror
this sounds more like a command to me
I mean, "input type crash", the word crash just got my M$ suspicous deeds rolling.
Maybe this is a special pre-XP era piracy battle scheme. When users update their version of Windows and the CDkey or serial key appears to be jacked, they divert you to a "NEW" page, crashing your IE. Average joe might think, "oh no, must be me pieratted windose, gots to got me a real cupy instead"
sarcasm was seriously intended
I was really just kidding
19 seconds, post rejected. HA
Method is what I am asking
Not the effect
big difference there.
Concept is the same. You are virtually SCARING someone into doing something.
To some people, going to jail is equal death. So you end up the same. And that doesnt mean that person's got issues, it just means that his vision of jail is different from yours.
How is this different from the mafia and triad members asking for protection money? The effect is the same, a user is being threatened, rather or not of what he is or is not doing.
In effect, all the RIAA is doing is to scare people into doing something. That's got to be illegal in some way. I mean, would the police pull a gun on a crack addicts head?
perhaps the difference is that sometimes even the mafia and triads have morals
Actually using spam companies to spam the mass community and tell them to stop pirating their overpriced plastics.
In conjunction with M$, they will also roll out an unblockable windows messaging service that will pop up a message reminding you not pirate plastics as soon as a keyword is identified: Such as Britney, Spears, Boy, Band, Love, Like, Foo, plus practically the entire webster dictionary
Can't beat you legally? We will beat you illegally, and there's NOTHING you can do about it -RIAA PR
It's a feature
Now pay us for a new copy
Sincerely,
Your trustworthy Micro$oft tech support,
I.P Freely
*For more information, please send your company payroll to us, thank you.
One of my friend's dad taught me this method. Everytime you buy a rebate-type item that's not instant, make a photo copy of the receipt, the UPC code bars (the thing that they make you cut out so you can't return them), a form of provable valid date, and whatever else that you have to mail back. He would then use registered mail if the rebate is high enough, and then, send it out.
He keeps all the un-returned rebats in a folder on top of his computer. Eventually, over a long period of time, when the check NEVER comes, he would call them and ask. When things are completely going the wrong way, he would scan the information he kept and send it.
He told me often times when you show that you give a crap about that rebate, they will deliver you the check. He mentioned that he also will complain to BBB or some form of agency if the rebate falls through. But he did say that sometimes, the company would call the bluff back on you knowing that you would never bring a lawsuit or your complaint has any possible damage on their already pathetic image cough *TDK* cough.
the world was perfect, and RIAA didn't exist.
/.ers already pointed out, RIAA or any intermediates are not needed in this process. Anyone with business sense will hire a web dev for a system like this. RIAA or intermediates must in some way provide an ultimate download system that will overshadow any others. Keep in mind that RIAA does not have a wide reach of audiences. Their allies? Lobbied politicians, not actual consumers. Any average fan looking for his/her favorite artist, will go to fan sites and artists official site, not RIAA.
As many
Not only that, RIAA must also venture forth to a new era: an era full of competitors. They will no longer be the Microsoft of music business. Current artists might have contracts that bind themselves to RIAA, fairly or unfairly. A new system of distribution, the grand selling point of RIAA, is now separated into viable outside sources no longer under RIAA's control. New artists and existing ones will have greater options, including using themselves as a distribution channel. Aside from that, a company, or even an individual, could provide massive exposure for any artists through their web system. This will all be possible as long as binding contracts do not exist.
From another point of view, why would RIAA go along with the new trend? They are the king, if not dictator, of the current business. They represent the many mainstream artists. Why adapt and lose the throne? Why give up their options and choices so consumers have more? They are the consumer's primary source, and all they have to do is outlaw, cut out, the secondary source at which people are getting from, P2P. In fact, for people without rights to their mp3s, they are effectively paying for a number of CDs with their entire life savings. 97 bill, that's around 5.7 billion CDs sold, nevermind they will never obtain that much, that's what they are valued as.
Last note, a flat fee? Technically I already feel like paying a flat fee. Every CD is around 14-17. Not all songs are worthwhile on a CD, and some are just outright awful. Consumers prefer to get only their favorite song. With CDs, your only option (in a world without P2P), is to shell out that 14-17 bucks for it. Download option also means fiercer competition among artists. To attract fans, they must output more appealing music.
I bet they are hoping to get some financial backing to help them on their upcoming insider trading suit.
"We need funding for a law suit!" - Sue a few spammers
"We need funding for marketing, to bombard the public with useless AOL CDs" - Sue a few spammers
I see you had concern with network admins knocking on your door. What about AOL?
Although I am not 100% on this, but AIM I believe is their trademark, and such they are going to defend it (as long as you are getting more hits than they ever will).
imaddict.com was an example. Their IM addiction survey and other stuff were REAL popular. I know they got legal letter from AOL regarding the trademark usage, and his attitude at first wasn't exactly yielding. Now I just tried going there again and it's not even on the DNS servers.
I am no lawyer, and I guess this is slightly off topic. But I am interested in something like this. It is an idea AOL might not have thought off and seems like they might be interested in something like this (given their current status, they probably have to increase AOL CDs so there's a higher chance someone will install their crap by accident).
Just a thought
Much like my email address, the less people know about it, the better.
The less people I know on AIM will effectively minimize my chances of existing on that site.
Unpopularity pays off here.
This can help out AIM in an undirect way. AIM spammers spam the living hell out of all members on that site. Users cannot set higher privacy settings (in chance of losing chances meeting new people and such), they can't have effective spam filters like spam killer for email. The spam is even more direct, it's not sitting in your mailbox, it's DIRECTLY on your desktop. Users find new IM screen names. AOL claims their AIM program is more popular due to the new 10 million users, who basically might be the same 10 million highschool/college kiddies.
From eBay's stand point (not a seller there), wouldn't it be hard to tell how "authentic" the CD is? Given, it's your work, but how can eBay verify that?
Aside from that, I do not see any, and I really do mean ANY problems or legal concerns that one artist, or any other type of creator, to distribute, sell, lend, etc their own creation that they own. Furthermore the intervention from a 3rd party is solely up to the creator of the product. I fail to see the concept "our(RIAA) way or the highway" legal or acceptable.
I do want to see them outlaw mp3 format. As soon as they tread towards this idea, I can hear many, and I mean MANY, companies up in arms against them. At that point, they would probably outlaw many games, applications, and multimedia material.
Amen to that
"* Music now competes directly at retail with DVDs, music videos, and video games. Most stores that carry any of those carry all of them"
Seriously. 17 bucks + tax for a Justin Tumblefake CD Frisbee and target board/booklet, I might as well as buy some classic games where the replay value is greater than 1
"# We're in a recession. All discretionary spending is down. Cars and air travel are doing much worse than music."
Very true. Although I definitely would like to see the Travel business blame piracy for their financial downturns.
I might go as far as add another point, the RIAA has gone real far in terms of getting their voices heard. And partially, I think that has turned quite a few people against them. That's just speculation; but I see more and more people aware of them in a very negative way, and that might contribute somewhat...
"then how is that a loss? If I copy a song I would not, or could not, buy, how much has anyione lost?"
I guess then the question can be thrown back at you this way:
How much did you gain? Nevermind how much I lost, how much more do you have than the second before you obtain a copy? Since your question is rather vague in terms of just sheer gain versus loss.
Stat Person: "How many Britney Spears CD did you buy?"
Consumer: "None, I don't like her songs"
-Marked as pirate
Stat Person: "What is your current occupation?"
Consumer: "Student"
-Marked as pirate, twice
Stat Person: "What was your last Xmas gift?"
Consumer: "a 32x CD burner"
-Marked as pirate, 32 times
Stat Person: "Why are you returning that CD?"
Consumer: "It won't work on my computer or my Discman"
-Marked as pirate
Jokes aside, Filesharing obviously does put somewhat of a dent into business. Given, there are people out there unwilling to buy regardless of source. However, not being the extreme, it is possible to capitalize on this massive market. Given at a reasonable price and great availability structure, I can vision people buying their music in ways of files rather than CDs. I am convinced that it's their persistance to resist the trend that led to their losses.
Filesharing is a catalyst, not a problem or solution. If they can harness the idea into a structure, it's a solution. If they continue to ignore where technology is going, then it's a problem (on their end). Someone else will capitalize on that market.
I might be entirely out of the loop here, why would Veronica Moser or other artist banned from selling on ebay? If the music is their's and the creation is copyrighted to them, what's to stop them from selling or giving it out for free?
I am not sure I understand the entire situation...
"most assuredly that is the truth. i have bought tons of cd's after getting a few mp3's. the RIAA needs to understand the marketing potential in filesharing......jsut my thought, at least"
Actually, I think they do. I mean they are suing a few kids for 97 billion dollars, that's more than the actual market value+potential, perhaps. For that amount, the marketing potential in filesharing is rather psychotically huge.
ban their own marketing morons from sending those damn AOL CDs.
Those things serve the same purpose as Spam: "If you spam them, they will come"
RIAA
To destroy one evil, is to invite a greater evil.
In other news, Music CDs will now only play in Windows Media Player 10.x.
All music CDs will require online activation.
Under DMCA, it is illegal to be able to play these music CDs under Linux, violators will skip prosecution and proceed to Punishment UpU.R.Arse, where users will be forced to sit down and watch the formating of their computer into FAT16 booting Windows 9x.
watch it
/. too
the RIAA read
given the time you post this, you effectively have an equivalent of 800,000 mp3 files given the time of growth researched by RIAA
I am not a car fanatic, but I don't think there are copy-protection schemes in the process of getting a new engine in.
I don't think you can disassemble an engine and copy its technology either?
that's understandable. Although I believe there should be restrictions in terms of what you can do with it. Simply I don't believe you can say I bought this system and I can make copies of its software because I own the system.
However, the case here is he was selling parts of a system that he does not legally owned, namely, the BIOS. You can't just take someone else's product, modify parts of it, and then sell it as your product; with it being the modified part you are cloning.
How about future versions of windows will parse google site wrong..........that would be interesting.
From time to time, IE on my computer (company owned, hence I have no admin access to install Netscape) will parse google wrong. THe page will just show up as half a G (from google's logo). Sometimes the tope half, sometimes the right half, but you get the picture. That's the ONLY thing it shows, no search form/buttons.
Although I can hardly blame Microsoft (hardly, doesn't mean I didn't) when I managed to get Netscape 7, which did do the same thing, but at a very low rate.
"user types in www.google.com on IE, and a bsod pops up: The website you have tried to enter, has not been monopolized, please try again later."
"We believe that we can provide consumers with a better product and a better user experience"
that means Microsoft will be making plans to buy google.
other than that, no, they really can't
read subject
you can read, right?