That's not unfortunate at all -- for the rest of us! Given how Big Music tries to control, for Life + 75 now, every aspect of music we listen to, and given how they'd love to charge us for every time we listen to a song now that technology could actually make that possible, I, for one, am glad that they were unable to expand into the newest area of distribution. If it was up to them, CD/DVD drives would be incapable of ever burning music at all, enforced by a ROM area in the firmware. And blank media would be taxed through the roof! And the price of music would be higher every year, even as the costs of production and distribution were dropping like a stone.
Go ahead and blame everybody but yourself. It won't change anything, but you'll feel better. And make sure that Golden Parachute is properly packed, and easily at hand, you loser.
by limiting sales of the iPhone to two per customer and requiring that purchases must now be made with a credit or debit card -- cash will not be accepted."
Can iPods be far behind? After all, how many iPods are out there that never downloaded a single track from iTMS? WE CAN'T ALLOW THIS!
By not accepting cash, Apple shows that customer's privacy means absolutely nothing to them -- and that they're not the Good Guys they try to make themselves out to be.
Well, I managed to jam every AP in my area:) Set it to Israel channel spacing with Xtreme speed, full power and Adhoc connected. It just kicks em off in some cases permanently as some AP's presumably crashed:)
The FCC will be knocking at -- er, crashing through -- your door shortly.
Does the MPAA actually download and examine the content of the files?
Yes, their investigators SafeNet (formerly MediaSentry) download a couple dozen songs for audio identification (they listen to them to see if it's the copyrighted version of the song in question), and then try to claim that they've proven that some songs are as represented, and that likely all the other ones are too!
A good reason to be using PeerGuardian, or some other effective method of implementing the P2P Blocklist of known P2P enemies. What they can't download, they can't use against you.
I'd love to see statistics on what they have spent to go after filesharers versus what they have recovered in settlements.
The only number I'd like to see is how many sales are truly lost to P2P filesharing.
I don't mean how much RIAA member company profits have declined in the dot.com bust. That was a recession and all types of purchases were cut back. Also, very little new music is really all that exciting, all hype to the contrary.
And I don't mean how much money they've lost because they used to be able to make you buy an entire CD just to get the one song you really wanted, while that rest of that CD is UTTER JUNK! That should have been ruled Illegal Tying long ago, and had them fully slapped down hard.
The industry claims that every download equates to a lost sale. We know that's an outright lie, but no one is making them shut up about it yet as they should.
Truth is that it's likely impossible to actually prove that filesharing happened. Yeah, MediaSentry, now SafeNet, claims that they got downloads of infringing material from a certain IP at a certain time, but that's not capital-D Distribution because they work for the plaintiffs. Short of a keyboard+screenshot logger, illegal tapping of the broadband line right as it comes out of the computer, or a witness to the filesharing in question (and how would that witness even know who was downloading a file anyway, since KaZaA names are all aliases?), their is no actual proof of Distribution.
In the one court case the RIAA did win, Distribution was never proven. That woman was convicted, on a preponderance of the evidence, of Making Available. The jury was stupid, Internet illiterate -- and damn proud of it! Yet the two foremost authorities on copyright law (Nimmer, and the other one whose name escapes me -- IANAL) require that Distribution actually occur before the owner's exclusive right has been violated. That's impossible to prove with the evidence the RIAA has unless they can force someone to testify against the Defendant. In fact, turning somebody who probably participated in the downloading themselves is likely the only way the RIAA could honestly win a case with a fair jury and proper jury instructions.
Furthermore, even if "illegal" music files are found on a computer hard drive, that doesn't mean that they were "illegally downloaded" by the computer owner. They could have been ripped from owned or borrowed CD's. A friend could have brought over a data DVD of MP3 files and loaded them. The point is that MP3's on a computer hard drive alone is not evidence of illegal downloading.
Ray, you ask elsewhere what evidence to demand from the RIAA. Most of all you should require a guaranteed unaltered hard drive image of the computer that actually collected the evidence, this snapshot taken at the time that the Plaintiff's so-called evidence was collected. You also need them to Prove that the time clock on their screen shots matches the time clock that the ISP used when logging the IP address data. THESE ITEMS ARE CRUCIAL in determining that the evidence in question was accurately collected.
Consider, would you accept fingerprint data where you never questioned the technician on how it was gathered, or determined that he was using proper equipment with proper training? Or that the matching method used was the best available?
Would you accept as uncontaminated and properly tested DNA evidence from someone who had never shown any expertise in the area of DNA collection, could not provide proof that he had the equipment or training necessary to properly collect uncontaminated samples, or used a lab with no track record of being able to properly test samples?
How about a policeman who can't produce at trial the radar gun, in the condition it was in at the time he claims he caught your client speeding? There's a case pending right now where GPS evidence disputes the police radar evidence. And it can be very hard with a radar gun to know for sure which car it tagged. Would you accept that unquestioned?
I would hope not!
The evidence, methods, and personnel here require similar scrutiny. There is so much stuff that can go wrong in a personal computer these days, using questionable software (KaZaA in particular, which is the program that SafeNet maintains the use when they say "we went out on the internet like any other use could and found these infringing files offered for distribution"), virus/worm/trojan infections, adware/spyware, inept investigators.
And be sure to get the exact IP addresses the investigators used when downloading the files offered in evidence. There might be logs proving whether or not that IP addresses ever connected to the computers in question. In addition, the investigators may have been using illegal IP addresses in attempts to get around IP Address Blocking -- ev
The congressman is wrong in the belief that the Market will fix the problem. When you only have one option, as I do currently (and yet, it's Comcast), there is no Market!
What I would accept as a reasonable compromise would be enforced Network Neutrality for any consumer -- not any zip code, but any consumer -- where there is not 3 viable choices. Viable choices are broadband options where the slowest of the three best possibilities is at least 50% of the speed of the fastest choice. That way you're not forced to choose between 12Mbs cable versus 1.5Mbs DSL.
An interesting side-effect of this would be if one carrier bought up another one in the area and reduced the choices below 3, Network Neutrality immediately returns to all affected customers.
Took them long enough to figure this one out. I've recall hearing that this has been going on for 10 years at least! And since you can snatch a domain name and hold it for a few days before returning it for a refund, it doesn't even cost these crooks money to pull off this scam!
Internet traffic is now growing much more quickly than the rate at which router cost is decreasing,
This sounds like Moore's Law working against us.
Truth is that such growth rates must eventually slow as we run out of new users and new must-have apps to run in the Internet. That will not likely happen tomorrow, however. So where's all this Dark Fiber waiting for light?
$1 million is not enough. It's not nearly enough to deter this behavior in Verizon, and all the other ISP's who are claiming the same thing. $1 BILLION would have been a much better number.
But does Verizon even have a billion? Of course they do. That, and many more billions that they can spend on the FCC 700MHz auction. Slap 'em, and slap 'em hard!
Hi, I need a hobby. Probing the Storm Work Bot Network sounds like fun. But I need an IP address to use. Anybody know of any MediaSentry/MediaDefender/RIAA addresses that might be available?
Project Gutenberg's problem is that they're not in Canada themselves, and hence find themselves under USA law and all the stupid treaties they've signed along the way.
The Chinese have clearly bought into the rumor that that Moon is absolutely littered with alien technology. Now they want to be the first to bring it back to China, clone it on the cheap with virtual slave labor, paint it with Pb paint, and sell it to the western barbarians.
Slashdot Mirror
What a load of CRAP Yahoo insists on downloading and displaying on their main search page!
That's not unfortunate at all -- for the rest of us! Given how Big Music tries to control, for Life + 75 now, every aspect of music we listen to, and given how they'd love to charge us for every time we listen to a song now that technology could actually make that possible, I, for one, am glad that they were unable to expand into the newest area of distribution. If it was up to them, CD/DVD drives would be incapable of ever burning music at all, enforced by a ROM area in the firmware. And blank media would be taxed through the roof! And the price of music would be higher every year, even as the costs of production and distribution were dropping like a stone.
Go ahead and blame everybody but yourself. It won't change anything, but you'll feel better. And make sure that Golden Parachute is properly packed, and easily at hand, you loser.
The design is seventy years old.
It has never successfully flown during all that time.
LET'S SPEND MONEY ON IT NOW!
Same people who stood in line the first day to plunk down $699 on an iPhone.
Since people own the content they create, is anyone sending DMCA takedown notices over articles they've contributed to?
Hey, stick to The Rules. No new, paradigm-changing technologies are allowed to be announced as arriving in less than 5 years.
For that matter, they can't be more than 5 years out either!
In Soviet Russia, we discovered this 5 years ago!
Can iPods be far behind? After all, how many iPods are out there that never downloaded a single track from iTMS? WE CAN'T ALLOW THIS!
By not accepting cash, Apple shows that customer's privacy means absolutely nothing to them -- and that they're not the Good Guys they try to make themselves out to be.
The FCC will be knocking at -- er, crashing through -- your door shortly.
Yes, their investigators SafeNet (formerly MediaSentry) download a couple dozen songs for audio identification (they listen to them to see if it's the copyrighted version of the song in question), and then try to claim that they've proven that some songs are as represented, and that likely all the other ones are too!
A good reason to be using PeerGuardian, or some other effective method of implementing the P2P Blocklist of known P2P enemies. What they can't download, they can't use against you.
The only number I'd like to see is how many sales are truly lost to P2P filesharing.
I don't mean how much RIAA member company profits have declined in the dot.com bust. That was a recession and all types of purchases were cut back. Also, very little new music is really all that exciting, all hype to the contrary.
And I don't mean how much money they've lost because they used to be able to make you buy an entire CD just to get the one song you really wanted, while that rest of that CD is UTTER JUNK! That should have been ruled Illegal Tying long ago, and had them fully slapped down hard.
The industry claims that every download equates to a lost sale. We know that's an outright lie, but no one is making them shut up about it yet as they should.
In the one court case the RIAA did win, Distribution was never proven. That woman was convicted, on a preponderance of the evidence, of Making Available. The jury was stupid, Internet illiterate -- and damn proud of it! Yet the two foremost authorities on copyright law (Nimmer, and the other one whose name escapes me -- IANAL) require that Distribution actually occur before the owner's exclusive right has been violated. That's impossible to prove with the evidence the RIAA has unless they can force someone to testify against the Defendant. In fact, turning somebody who probably participated in the downloading themselves is likely the only way the RIAA could honestly win a case with a fair jury and proper jury instructions.
Furthermore, even if "illegal" music files are found on a computer hard drive, that doesn't mean that they were "illegally downloaded" by the computer owner. They could have been ripped from owned or borrowed CD's. A friend could have brought over a data DVD of MP3 files and loaded them. The point is that MP3's on a computer hard drive alone is not evidence of illegal downloading.
Ray, you ask elsewhere what evidence to demand from the RIAA. Most of all you should require a guaranteed unaltered hard drive image of the computer that actually collected the evidence, this snapshot taken at the time that the Plaintiff's so-called evidence was collected. You also need them to Prove that the time clock on their screen shots matches the time clock that the ISP used when logging the IP address data. THESE ITEMS ARE CRUCIAL in determining that the evidence in question was accurately collected.
Consider, would you accept fingerprint data where you never questioned the technician on how it was gathered, or determined that he was using proper equipment with proper training? Or that the matching method used was the best available?
Would you accept as uncontaminated and properly tested DNA evidence from someone who had never shown any expertise in the area of DNA collection, could not provide proof that he had the equipment or training necessary to properly collect uncontaminated samples, or used a lab with no track record of being able to properly test samples?
How about a policeman who can't produce at trial the radar gun, in the condition it was in at the time he claims he caught your client speeding? There's a case pending right now where GPS evidence disputes the police radar evidence. And it can be very hard with a radar gun to know for sure which car it tagged. Would you accept that unquestioned?
I would hope not!
The evidence, methods, and personnel here require similar scrutiny. There is so much stuff that can go wrong in a personal computer these days, using questionable software (KaZaA in particular, which is the program that SafeNet maintains the use when they say "we went out on the internet like any other use could and found these infringing files offered for distribution"), virus/worm/trojan infections, adware/spyware, inept investigators.
And be sure to get the exact IP addresses the investigators used when downloading the files offered in evidence. There might be logs proving whether or not that IP addresses ever connected to the computers in question. In addition, the investigators may have been using illegal IP addresses in attempts to get around IP Address Blocking -- ev
What I would accept as a reasonable compromise would be enforced Network Neutrality for any consumer -- not any zip code, but any consumer -- where there is not 3 viable choices. Viable choices are broadband options where the slowest of the three best possibilities is at least 50% of the speed of the fastest choice. That way you're not forced to choose between 12Mbs cable versus 1.5Mbs DSL.
An interesting side-effect of this would be if one carrier bought up another one in the area and reduced the choices below 3, Network Neutrality immediately returns to all affected customers.
So how do I contact the congressman?
Took them long enough to figure this one out. I've recall hearing that this has been going on for 10 years at least! And since you can snatch a domain name and hold it for a few days before returning it for a refund, it doesn't even cost these crooks money to pull off this scam!
This sounds like Moore's Law working against us.
Truth is that such growth rates must eventually slow as we run out of new users and new must-have apps to run in the Internet. That will not likely happen tomorrow, however. So where's all this Dark Fiber waiting for light?
But does Verizon even have a billion? Of course they do. That, and many more billions that they can spend on the FCC 700MHz auction. Slap 'em, and slap 'em hard!
Hi, I need a hobby. Probing the Storm Work Bot Network sounds like fun. But I need an IP address to use. Anybody know of any MediaSentry/MediaDefender/RIAA addresses that might be available?
I'd be happy with 20/10 service for less money.
Project Gutenberg's problem is that they're not in Canada themselves, and hence find themselves under USA law and all the stupid treaties they've signed along the way.
They sure didn't say that very nicely? It was like: OBEY, OR DIE! Obey the EU directives, or our Canadian lawyer will get you good!
And where is Google in all this? I would have expected them to be the first to be hosting Google Sheet Music.
The Chinese have clearly bought into the rumor that that Moon is absolutely littered with alien technology. Now they want to be the first to bring it back to China, clone it on the cheap with virtual slave labor, paint it with Pb paint, and sell it to the western barbarians.
Wow, now we're up to Amiga range from 22 years ago.
I thought this was the task for the PS3. Maybe you can use it's GPU in addition to its Cell.