It's quite thorough and useful, but it reads as if the personal bias affected the results. This isn't surprising. I've found that my friends have a reaction to Sarah Palin that's 100% correlated with their politics. So I'm not surprised that the economists felt the same way.
So I'm sticking with the independents who conclude that it's a toss up.
The real problem here is that we're trying to guess "better" when the two paths are just different. Obama will certainly pour more money into infrastructure and rebuilding the industries that hire Americans to do things. McCain will probably pour more money into bolstering America's influence abroad, probably through military action. Is one better? It depends what you want.
But we'll get one. That's for sure. I don't think the Libertarians are going to win.
These are all basic protocols that I use everyday with my desktop. I don't have an iPhone, but I'm under the impression that none of them work with the iPhone.
The Office of Naval Research paid for some of the early iterations of TOR. I think they pulled the funding, making it already "shut down by an agency."Now, it's entirely possible that it was shut down for normal bureaucratic reasons like the funding manager wanted to spend the money somewhere else. But it's sort of past tense. The programmers have been funded by others, but money always runs out. So it might be "shut down" yet again.
You could argue that the beauty of the internet is that everyone gets an equal share of the information online.
We must have different friends. I know some folks who aren't particular rich, but they brag about having two or three DSL lines into their house to satisfy their bandwidth needs. Some even have their own T1. The poor have always been stuck on dialup.
With their own YUI libraries. See here
Anyone have any experience with this? I'm a bit wary of trusting Yahoo, although I guess it's easy enough to swap it out.
These are just mouldering old buildings. Do we set aside some corner of London because someone famous did something there a long time ago? No. We move on and build newer better things.
A better solution is to build a living museum by creating courses that teach kids how to build strong cryptographic tools. This will protect British business and help the average Brit defend themselves against fraudsters roaming the net. I think one classroom with free classes could do more to memorialize the spirit of Bletchley Park than a bunch of old buildings filled with dusty display cases.
So if it's wrong for the RIAA to take your money, why is okay for you to take their music. After all, you're not using the money. It's just sitting in the bank. Why don't you share it with them? Oh, it gets so confusing to me. As far as I can tell, it's okay to take things from big companies but not from little people. But if the big companies need to fire some little people, I don't know what to make of it all. Sigh. Luckily, I've got some Slashdotters to help me.
It should be fair use to use a piece of music in the example quoted, provided there's no intent to make money from it.
So I can take your car or your girl-- as long as I don't make money from it. Using something that's not yours is a-okay-- as long as you don't make money doing it.
Affiliates are just advertising venues who get paid on commissions. NYC is the center of magazine publishing. They're the old school version of affiliates. If everyone who advertises in a magazine creates a point of presence in NYC, oo boy, the magazines will be upset.
It's certainly cheaper for the central server, but doesn't it just push the workload out to the local machines and network connections? Doesn't it just push the costs to the local user who pays for the bandwidth? I like P2P and think some of the algorithms are pretty clever, but I can't deny that my local pipe is saturated by the kids downloading things. There are times I would like my email and web traffic to move a bit faster.
My prediction is that some clever Slashdot folks will start claiming that P2P is just an evil trick by the man to stick us with the distribution costs!
I've grown so annoyed with the virtual shoplifters on the internet who give fair use a bad name that I actually hope the RIAA will be able to hang a few of the folks with the 50,000 song collection that they got for free. But I don't think charging $150,000 per incident is the way to do it. Charge $150 and the police will be more likely to prosecute. Heck, if the police department in my town could write tickets for illicit copies, you know they would love that. They routinely write $27 tickets for inane violations like parking the wrong way on the street. Most people pay them because it's more trouble than fighting them-- then they park the right way. I bet $15 per violation would bring in more money and increase compliance.
The campaign is described as one to 'force "consumers" to buy what they're told to buy .
Uh. I don't think so. I think they're just saying, "Don't steal our content." Maybe they're being a bit draconian with fines of $150,000, but no one is saying that you have to buy their cruddy content. They're just asking you not to steal it. It's a big difference and one that the anti-RIAA folks don't want to figure out. They want to steal-- er "fair use"-- whatever they like and then complain if someone says no.
Good points, but I think you have a much greater argument for "fair use" if you're not reproducing something exactly. Degrading the image sounds like a viable alternative.
I respect Public Citizen and I'm glad they're out there fighting the good fight, but I would never rely on their legal judgement alone. I've been in conversations with some of the lawyers there and they were obsessed with finding a way to "prove" that practically any P2P use is "fair use". At some point, making copies is just making copies for losers who won't pay because they're too cheap. Sure, there are great cases with handicapped kids, but the folks I spoke with at Public Citizen seemed obsessed with finding some legal justification for how making 40,000 copies for your closest and most personal friends was some how "fair". It ain't gonna happen folks.
If you get into trouble and your bottom is on the line, make sure you get a lawyer with enough political sense to figure out how everyone thinks about the case. Not just the dreamers of the techno-utopia who believe that somehow everyone is going post all of their work for free and the farmers and carpenters will be so inspired that they'll just build us McMansions and fill the fridge with steaks.
1) Scan it.
2) Blur 90% of the text.
3) Post it.
4) Build a headline from the nastiest sentence.
5) Decide whether you're going to fight or switch.
6) Move on.
It was pretty funny to see this article posted immediately after the perennial "how can I make money with free software?" Someone has a sense of humor.
You can make money by giving things away completely for free, but you won't make much. That's why most people find a way to gently twist the arm of the user and get them to pay a bit.
The math isn't very hard. It may not be an answer you want to hear, but it seems like a legit estimate to me.
Now, it's true that there are plenty of great bands that distribute their music for free. But given that the going rate is $.99/song and given that most of the most commercial bands want to make money and given that people seem to like the more commercial bands, I think it's a fair estimate.
Still, if I were making the estimate I would do something like say, "Assuming that people only devote half of their iPod to commercial music, it would cost $20,000 to fill it legally."
It's a cute idea when you're deep in Twainspace and the master is firmly in control of reality, but it's quite another thing in the real world. Does anyone know anyone who's managed to get others to paint their fence, either literally or figuratively? I think it's a rare thing and it almost happens more by accident than by design.
Yes, some places like Slashdot have managed to build a public gathering spot and sell some ads around it, but it's quite another to get this crowd to do real, coordinated work. Then, I contend, you might as well hire people and pay them because it will take even more work to herd the crowd of cats.
Imagine someone shares a DRM-free song from Apple iTunes by posting it deliberately on a small file sharing network. Someone in that network turns around and "shares" it with millions. Then the RIAA says, "Okay, you want us to count all of the infringement? We subpoenaed some network and found that the one particular copy of the song has been downloaded 1 million times." [Cue Austin Powers little finger.] At.99 per download, that $990,000 in damages for that one song. And thanks to the fact that Apple listened to the demands for no DRM, we can now trace that one copy of the song back to the rightful owner, the original infringer. Here's a bill for $990,000. We won't bother with just asking for $9250 for that song.
Now, I realize that many of the million people wouldn't have paid 99 cents for the song in the first place. I realize that the band probably got some publicity. But it sure sounds to me like $990,000 is as fair a number as we can ever come up with. So maybe these statutory guesstimates aren't so bad after all. I've seen file "sharing" networks. I've seen the number of songs sloshing around college campuses. The more I think about it, the more I realize that $150,000 isn't tooo outrageous.
The so-called copyfighters should be careful what they wish for. If the RIAA is forced to actually count the downloads because some pedantic fool is able to successfully argue that "making available" isn't really infringement, then they're going to do it. And the numbers could be even higher and more damning. Computers can log a huge amount of data and 64 bit machines can count pretty high.:-)
After all, the strength of the GPL depends upon the strength of copyright law. If it's okay for some dude to "share" a song by putting it on a P2P network, wouldn't it be okay for some GPL-hater to distribute binary code on a P2P network without including the source?
I leave my connection open to share it with friends and neighbors who need a quick connection. It's easy to watch the flashing lights on the box next to my desk and there's never been a real problem. No one has abused it. No spammer has parked in front of my house and let loose a gazillion offers to fix the manhood of the nation. Really. It's been fine. It's like offering people a glass of water. It's like letting a traveling salesman turn around in my driveway. Some day, I hope that a contractor at my house or a doctor making a house call (hah!) will be able to use it.
Others should do the same. Sure, you can lock yours down. But this is just neighborly.
(He says as he crosses his fingers and hopes that no spammers come and take advantage of his kindness like they've learned to abuse all of the trust given to them by others on the network. Sigh.)
I can see James Bond's next assignment: saving the billion dollar a year tourist industry of Florida from some mad man with the microbe that will turn the beaches to rock! [Cue: evil laugh]
this crime does not require jail time according to the law.
Sorry , but there's something called criminal copyright infringement and it can yield up to 5 years in jail. See here . Parsing it requires a law degree, but given that you're such a hard nosed advocate for jail time, I hope you'll call for some real time in the pokey for the woman. It sounds like she's lucky the police didn't bring criminal charges. (Can they do that now after the fact?)
I think the world would be a much better place if when a corporation broke the law somebody has to go to fucking jail,
So should this filesharing chick go to jail ? Or is that only "corporations"? What if she sets up a "corporation" like allofmp3.com? Does that make her eligible for jail in your book?
Slashdot Mirror
It's quite thorough and useful, but it reads as if the personal bias affected the results. This isn't surprising. I've found that my friends have a reaction to Sarah Palin that's 100% correlated with their politics. So I'm not surprised that the economists felt the same way. So I'm sticking with the independents who conclude that it's a toss up. The real problem here is that we're trying to guess "better" when the two paths are just different. Obama will certainly pour more money into infrastructure and rebuilding the industries that hire Americans to do things. McCain will probably pour more money into bolstering America's influence abroad, probably through military action. Is one better? It depends what you want. But we'll get one. That's for sure. I don't think the Libertarians are going to win.
These are all basic protocols that I use everyday with my desktop. I don't have an iPhone, but I'm under the impression that none of them work with the iPhone.
The Office of Naval Research paid for some of the early iterations of TOR. I think they pulled the funding, making it already "shut down by an agency."Now, it's entirely possible that it was shut down for normal bureaucratic reasons like the funding manager wanted to spend the money somewhere else. But it's sort of past tense. The programmers have been funded by others, but money always runs out. So it might be "shut down" yet again.
You could argue that the beauty of the internet is that everyone gets an equal share of the information online.
We must have different friends. I know some folks who aren't particular rich, but they brag about having two or three DSL lines into their house to satisfy their bandwidth needs. Some even have their own T1. The poor have always been stuck on dialup.
With their own YUI libraries. See here Anyone have any experience with this? I'm a bit wary of trusting Yahoo, although I guess it's easy enough to swap it out.
These are just mouldering old buildings. Do we set aside some corner of London because someone famous did something there a long time ago? No. We move on and build newer better things. A better solution is to build a living museum by creating courses that teach kids how to build strong cryptographic tools. This will protect British business and help the average Brit defend themselves against fraudsters roaming the net. I think one classroom with free classes could do more to memorialize the spirit of Bletchley Park than a bunch of old buildings filled with dusty display cases.
So if it's wrong for the RIAA to take your money, why is okay for you to take their music. After all, you're not using the money. It's just sitting in the bank. Why don't you share it with them? Oh, it gets so confusing to me. As far as I can tell, it's okay to take things from big companies but not from little people. But if the big companies need to fire some little people, I don't know what to make of it all. Sigh. Luckily, I've got some Slashdotters to help me.
It should be fair use to use a piece of music in the example quoted, provided there's no intent to make money from it.
So I can take your car or your girl-- as long as I don't make money from it. Using something that's not yours is a-okay-- as long as you don't make money doing it.
Right.
Affiliates are just advertising venues who get paid on commissions. NYC is the center of magazine publishing. They're the old school version of affiliates. If everyone who advertises in a magazine creates a point of presence in NYC, oo boy, the magazines will be upset.
I wouldn't want to be under the knife at that moment when a gaze is diverted.
It's certainly cheaper for the central server, but doesn't it just push the workload out to the local machines and network connections? Doesn't it just push the costs to the local user who pays for the bandwidth? I like P2P and think some of the algorithms are pretty clever, but I can't deny that my local pipe is saturated by the kids downloading things. There are times I would like my email and web traffic to move a bit faster.
My prediction is that some clever Slashdot folks will start claiming that P2P is just an evil trick by the man to stick us with the distribution costs!
I've grown so annoyed with the virtual shoplifters on the internet who give fair use a bad name that I actually hope the RIAA will be able to hang a few of the folks with the 50,000 song collection that they got for free. But I don't think charging $150,000 per incident is the way to do it. Charge $150 and the police will be more likely to prosecute. Heck, if the police department in my town could write tickets for illicit copies, you know they would love that. They routinely write $27 tickets for inane violations like parking the wrong way on the street. Most people pay them because it's more trouble than fighting them-- then they park the right way. I bet $15 per violation would bring in more money and increase compliance.
The campaign is described as one to 'force "consumers" to buy what they're told to buy .
Uh. I don't think so. I think they're just saying, "Don't steal our content." Maybe they're being a bit draconian with fines of $150,000, but no one is saying that you have to buy their cruddy content. They're just asking you not to steal it. It's a big difference and one that the anti-RIAA folks don't want to figure out. They want to steal-- er "fair use"-- whatever they like and then complain if someone says no.
Good points, but I think you have a much greater argument for "fair use" if you're not reproducing something exactly. Degrading the image sounds like a viable alternative.
I respect Public Citizen and I'm glad they're out there fighting the good fight, but I would never rely on their legal judgement alone. I've been in conversations with some of the lawyers there and they were obsessed with finding a way to "prove" that practically any P2P use is "fair use". At some point, making copies is just making copies for losers who won't pay because they're too cheap. Sure, there are great cases with handicapped kids, but the folks I spoke with at Public Citizen seemed obsessed with finding some legal justification for how making 40,000 copies for your closest and most personal friends was some how "fair". It ain't gonna happen folks.
If you get into trouble and your bottom is on the line, make sure you get a lawyer with enough political sense to figure out how everyone thinks about the case. Not just the dreamers of the techno-utopia who believe that somehow everyone is going post all of their work for free and the farmers and carpenters will be so inspired that they'll just build us McMansions and fill the fridge with steaks.
1) Scan it.
2) Blur 90% of the text.
3) Post it.
4) Build a headline from the nastiest sentence.
5) Decide whether you're going to fight or switch.
6) Move on.
It was pretty funny to see this article posted immediately after the perennial "how can I make money with free software?" Someone has a sense of humor. You can make money by giving things away completely for free, but you won't make much. That's why most people find a way to gently twist the arm of the user and get them to pay a bit.
The math isn't very hard. It may not be an answer you want to hear, but it seems like a legit estimate to me.
Now, it's true that there are plenty of great bands that distribute their music for free. But given that the going rate is $.99/song and given that most of the most commercial bands want to make money and given that people seem to like the more commercial bands, I think it's a fair estimate.
Still, if I were making the estimate I would do something like say, "Assuming that people only devote half of their iPod to commercial music, it would cost $20,000 to fill it legally."
It's a cute idea when you're deep in Twainspace and the master is firmly in control of reality, but it's quite another thing in the real world. Does anyone know anyone who's managed to get others to paint their fence, either literally or figuratively? I think it's a rare thing and it almost happens more by accident than by design. Yes, some places like Slashdot have managed to build a public gathering spot and sell some ads around it, but it's quite another to get this crowd to do real, coordinated work. Then, I contend, you might as well hire people and pay them because it will take even more work to herd the crowd of cats.
Imagine someone shares a DRM-free song from Apple iTunes by posting it deliberately on a small file sharing network. Someone in that network turns around and "shares" it with millions. Then the RIAA says, "Okay, you want us to count all of the infringement? We subpoenaed some network and found that the one particular copy of the song has been downloaded 1 million times." [Cue Austin Powers little finger.] At .99 per download, that $990,000 in damages for that one song. And thanks to the fact that Apple listened to the demands for no DRM, we can now trace that one copy of the song back to the rightful owner, the original infringer. Here's a bill for $990,000. We won't bother with just asking for $9250 for that song.
:-)
Now, I realize that many of the million people wouldn't have paid 99 cents for the song in the first place. I realize that the band probably got some publicity. But it sure sounds to me like $990,000 is as fair a number as we can ever come up with. So maybe these statutory guesstimates aren't so bad after all. I've seen file "sharing" networks. I've seen the number of songs sloshing around college campuses. The more I think about it, the more I realize that $150,000 isn't tooo outrageous.
The so-called copyfighters should be careful what they wish for. If the RIAA is forced to actually count the downloads because some pedantic fool is able to successfully argue that "making available" isn't really infringement, then they're going to do it. And the numbers could be even higher and more damning. Computers can log a huge amount of data and 64 bit machines can count pretty high.
After all, the strength of the GPL depends upon the strength of copyright law. If it's okay for some dude to "share" a song by putting it on a P2P network, wouldn't it be okay for some GPL-hater to distribute binary code on a P2P network without including the source?
I leave my connection open to share it with friends and neighbors who need a quick connection. It's easy to watch the flashing lights on the box next to my desk and there's never been a real problem. No one has abused it. No spammer has parked in front of my house and let loose a gazillion offers to fix the manhood of the nation. Really. It's been fine. It's like offering people a glass of water. It's like letting a traveling salesman turn around in my driveway. Some day, I hope that a contractor at my house or a doctor making a house call (hah!) will be able to use it.
Others should do the same. Sure, you can lock yours down. But this is just neighborly.
(He says as he crosses his fingers and hopes that no spammers come and take advantage of his kindness like they've learned to abuse all of the trust given to them by others on the network. Sigh.)
I can see James Bond's next assignment: saving the billion dollar a year tourist industry of Florida from some mad man with the microbe that will turn the beaches to rock! [Cue: evil laugh]
this crime does not require jail time according to the law.
Sorry , but there's something called criminal copyright infringement and it can yield up to 5 years in jail. See here . Parsing it requires a law degree, but given that you're such a hard nosed advocate for jail time, I hope you'll call for some real time in the pokey for the woman. It sounds like she's lucky the police didn't bring criminal charges. (Can they do that now after the fact?)
I think the world would be a much better place if when a corporation broke the law somebody has to go to fucking jail,
So should this filesharing chick go to jail ? Or is that only "corporations"? What if she sets up a "corporation" like allofmp3.com? Does that make her eligible for jail in your book?