I don't seen any independent artists selling in iTMS at a discount to the $.99 being funneled to the big companies. It might bring Big Music down if you could buy better stuff for less money. And wasn't Apple always about bringing down Big Everything to benefit the Common Man?
What's being stolen is the Public Domain. It is being stolen by ever increasing lengths of copyright durations that far exceed the -- in the USA at least -- expressed intent of encouraging the creation of the performing arts.
The moment something is created, the copyright in effect at that moment was clearly sufficient for its creation. Extending it afterwards only steals from the public at large to benefit -- not the individual artist to any great extent, who may already be dead -- but the giant publishing corporations who have sought to own all creative works in perpetuity for centuries now. The American Constitution specifies secure for a limited periodexactly because European publishing houses of the time had been able to lock up copyrights forever.
It's kinda like making a business selling air.... Something that has always been around and something that isn't ever going away and somewhere someone had an idea to make a profit selling something that should be free...
Wow, selling air. What a concept. Before you know it they'll be selling water too -- and at prices higher than gasoline.
Easy. Any level of lossy compression is a damaged version of the original. And if consumers get used to listening to damaged music, and even like it, well bad music will certainly drive good music out.
Then again, it's hard to imagine anything more damaging to music than a circa 1960 era car radio with a 5-inch paper dynamic speaker cone that has baked itself into petrification after a few summers inside a closed up car. Clearly after a couple experiences with that, no one listened to music in the decade of the 1960s any more.
The real proof will be getting an actual conviction. Proving that it was more than just an IP address sharing the files. Finding the actual computers (diskwipe anybody). Proving that files were actually downloaded by another person (this is going to be tricky). Proving what losses you've actually suffered because of this. Proving that the files weren't already available elsewhere (where did these alleged file sharers get them). Proving it wasn't somebody else breaking in over you know highly insecure WiFi adapter. And then there's getting money out of a poor college student.
And what happens when even one of these cases is lost by the music monopoly? Can they risk that? I will be highly surprised to see any of these cases actually reach a verdict.
by halting all IE development for several years before reconstituting the IE team to create IE 7.0, Microsoft has set back Web development by an immeasurable amount of time.
What was Microsoft thinking? That afer IE6 the product was perfect and would never need further development work?
I remember once upon a time when it was Netscape that had "Netscape Extensions" that you could choose to use for a richer user experience, or not to be more compatible.
Now it's Microsoft who doesn't meet commonly agreed upon standards.
The more things change...
Well, you can fill in the rest.
The scientists had no right to keep this information secret if they used publically funded (one of the telescopes on Mount Palomar) equipment to make this discovery, or their salaries are paid from tax money. Taxpayers deserved to hear about it when it was discovered.
The people involved in this should be banned from using public equipment due to their clear lack of ethics!
Any "official" sacred writing or liturgical text of any religious group, or any translation thereof, is automatically in the public domain.
I would modify this to make such public domain disclosure a condition of being allowed as an officially government recognized religion. Any group that didn't want to adhere to this rule could opt out, losing whatever benefits and tax exemptions would otherwise be granted
For the record, Scientology was officially recognized as a valid religion under the Bill Clinton administration at his urging.
Proper commenting, as usual, remains just out of reach.
Today's Excuse: Well I would have commented my code just like they said to, but the site was Slashdotted so I couldn't learn how to do it right. By the time the page finally loaded it was time to deliver the project. But I really, really, REALLY promise I will comment my code next time. Yes, really!
A problem Freenet faces is highlighted by the Scientology debate -- and I don't mean if Tom Cruise is right for Katie Holmes.
In order to accurately discuss Scientology you need access to documents they claim are copyrighted and sell only at extornist prices. Open informed discussion brings lawsuits.
Yet free speech via Freenet brings charges that it is just a method used to violate copyrights.
If you'd like to read about the original Kegbot, find a copy of Bodyguard and 4 Other Short SF Novels from Galaxy ed. Horace L. Gold (Doubleday, 1960, hc) and read the story "How-2" by Clifford D. Simak nv Galaxy Nov '54.
Requests from third parties to remove information are generally denied. The Wayback Machine makes exceptions in certain circumstances, for example if the Web pages contain personal information provided in confidence, such as medical data.
I bet the (so-called) Church of Scientology gets everything they want pulled.
In addition, Web-site operators can prevent material from remaining in the public domain by using a piece of computer code, known as a robots.txt file, which stops bots belonging to the Wayback Machine and regular search engines from copying pages.
This is pretty bogus because it only works if there is still a current web-site at the spidered address that is on-line and can deliver a robots.txt file saying DON'T! It has already been proven in another case that rapid-fire multiple requests to WBM will cause it to give up pages even when robots.txt says not to.
I see two ways to fix this problem of misuse of a valuable archive:
1: Federal law PROHIBITING the use of evidence from the Wayback Machine in court trials. This is a valuable historical archive that will be less valuable if people worry that it can be used against them in the future in unforeseen ways, and block contributing to it. How many sites already block the WBM TCI/IP address range?
2: WBM could simply announce that they refuse to cooperate in any future trials -- AND THEN DO EXACTLY THAT! Without them to attest to the accuracy of the retrieved data, many cases relying on that data would fall flat on their faces.
Think for a moment. The WBM was not created to make lawyer's lives easier, and their law firms richer!
So they're checking for past infringments. Is that the same as current infringment? I.e. even if you get a takedown notice and obey it, are you still equally guilty that once upon a time you in violation? That's what it's soundling like here.
why in the name of Cuthulu would Google ever so much as CONSIDER hiring one of gates' minions in the first place...
Although moderated as Flamebait -1, it's not very good flamebait. It has yet to attract a single flame.
If I were M2 moderating this post, I'd have to give it an Unfair! After all, it states a valid premise of just where does one's loyality lie? That's an important question for any employer. After all, if they're not loyal to their former employer, what will they be to you? Certainly a valid point to bring up in this discussion.
If a company requires you to not work for a competitor in your specialized field of knowledge for a given length of time after termination of your employment with them, and you're not fortunate enough to have more than one marketable skill, then your company should pay you for the amount of time they are not permitting you to work otherwise!
This would make non-compete agreements both fair, and a lot less common. As written now, the company owns you -- without additional compensation -- for the length of the non-compete agreement!
In fact, if at all possible, I'd be asking for a signing bonus equivalent to the amount of employment time you'll lose through their non-compete clause as part of joining any company demanding such an agreement in the first place. Get it up front.
Too bad this is at the end of an old article now that nobody will read.
Slashdot Mirror
What I remember was a DOS upgrade where QEMM.EXE wouldn't load, but renaming it to XEMM.EXE (or anything else) loaded and ran just fine.
Yes, Microsoft pulled this crap against various software vendors, even of Lotus wasn't one of them.
I don't seen any independent artists selling in iTMS at a discount to the $.99 being funneled to the big companies. It might bring Big Music down if you could buy better stuff for less money. And wasn't Apple always about bringing down Big Everything to benefit the Common Man?
What's being stolen is the Public Domain. It is being stolen by ever increasing lengths of copyright durations that far exceed the -- in the USA at least -- expressed intent of encouraging the creation of the performing arts.
The moment something is created, the copyright in effect at that moment was clearly sufficient for its creation. Extending it afterwards only steals from the public at large to benefit -- not the individual artist to any great extent, who may already be dead -- but the giant publishing corporations who have sought to own all creative works in perpetuity for centuries now. The American Constitution specifies secure for a limited period exactly because European publishing houses of the time had been able to lock up copyrights forever.
Now we've become them!
Wow, selling air. What a concept. Before you know it they'll be selling water too -- and at prices higher than gasoline.
Easy. Any level of lossy compression is a damaged version of the original. And if consumers get used to listening to damaged music, and even like it, well bad music will certainly drive good music out.
Then again, it's hard to imagine anything more damaging to music than a circa 1960 era car radio with a 5-inch paper dynamic speaker cone that has baked itself into petrification after a few summers inside a closed up car. Clearly after a couple experiences with that, no one listened to music in the decade of the 1960s any more.
And what happens when even one of these cases is lost by the music monopoly? Can they risk that? I will be highly surprised to see any of these cases actually reach a verdict.
DOH! You got to my incredibly obvious solution first.
Because the viruses that will infect it are still in their first Beta as well.
What was Microsoft thinking? That afer IE6 the product was perfect and would never need further development work?
How about: You can turn the tide by demanding better from Microsoft or using a better alternative Web browser.
A small correction, you will allow, please.
There are still a lot of people out their ignorant to the fact that something else FREE exists.
Now it's Microsoft who doesn't meet commonly agreed upon standards.
The more things change...
Well, you can fill in the rest.
This new planet will be discovered to be the home of Cold Fusion.
Shouldn't that be the not-so-secure server?
The people involved in this should be banned from using public equipment due to their clear lack of ethics!
I would modify this to make such public domain disclosure a condition of being allowed as an officially government recognized religion. Any group that didn't want to adhere to this rule could opt out, losing whatever benefits and tax exemptions would otherwise be granted
For the record, Scientology was officially recognized as a valid religion under the Bill Clinton administration at his urging.
Today's Excuse: Well I would have commented my code just like they said to, but the site was Slashdotted so I couldn't learn how to do it right. By the time the page finally loaded it was time to deliver the project. But I really, really, REALLY promise I will comment my code next time. Yes, really!
In order to accurately discuss Scientology you need access to documents they claim are copyrighted and sell only at extornist prices. Open informed discussion brings lawsuits.
Yet free speech via Freenet brings charges that it is just a method used to violate copyrights.
How do you reconcile these two, divergent views?
If you'd like to read about the original Kegbot, find a copy of Bodyguard and 4 Other Short SF Novels from Galaxy ed. Horace L. Gold (Doubleday, 1960, hc) and read the story "How-2" by Clifford D. Simak nv Galaxy Nov '54.
I bet the (so-called) Church of Scientology gets everything they want pulled.
In addition, Web-site operators can prevent material from remaining in the public domain by using a piece of computer code, known as a robots.txt file, which stops bots belonging to the Wayback Machine and regular search engines from copying pages.
This is pretty bogus because it only works if there is still a current web-site at the spidered address that is on-line and can deliver a robots.txt file saying DON'T! It has already been proven in another case that rapid-fire multiple requests to WBM will cause it to give up pages even when robots.txt says not to.
I see two ways to fix this problem of misuse of a valuable archive:
1: Federal law PROHIBITING the use of evidence from the Wayback Machine in court trials. This is a valuable historical archive that will be less valuable if people worry that it can be used against them in the future in unforeseen ways, and block contributing to it. How many sites already block the WBM TCI/IP address range?
2: WBM could simply announce that they refuse to cooperate in any future trials -- AND THEN DO EXACTLY THAT! Without them to attest to the accuracy of the retrieved data, many cases relying on that data would fall flat on their faces.
Think for a moment. The WBM was not created to make lawyer's lives easier, and their law firms richer!
So they're checking for past infringments. Is that the same as current infringment? I.e. even if you get a takedown notice and obey it, are you still equally guilty that once upon a time you in violation? That's what it's soundling like here.
In the mean time, time to do a Freenet search for his paper. I can't believe all of the copies were destroyed.
Although moderated as Flamebait -1, it's not very good flamebait. It has yet to attract a single flame.
If I were M2 moderating this post, I'd have to give it an Unfair! After all, it states a valid premise of just where does one's loyality lie? That's an important question for any employer. After all, if they're not loyal to their former employer, what will they be to you? Certainly a valid point to bring up in this discussion.
This would make non-compete agreements both fair, and a lot less common. As written now, the company owns you -- without additional compensation -- for the length of the non-compete agreement!
In fact, if at all possible, I'd be asking for a signing bonus equivalent to the amount of employment time you'll lose through their non-compete clause as part of joining any company demanding such an agreement in the first place. Get it up front.
Too bad this is at the end of an old article now that nobody will read.