For those of you who didn't bother to read the article before you posted (which is 99.9999 percent of you), this proposed law would only apply to those who have prerelease items that they are not entitled to have, NOT just any damned thing, which is what most of you want to think/imply. "Prerelease" is a $10 word for "not yet available to the public".
If it is not available for release to the general public, and if you don't have permission of the copyright holder to have it, then gee...you're violating copyright.
So here is a quick tip on how to avoid getting busted under this act if it does become law:
Don't have prerelease copyrighted material on your system if you don't have permission of the copyright holder.
I turn it off under "view", like darned near everything else that takes up space that I'd rather use for actual browsing. I have the usual menu bar, 6 buttons, and the address box. I have my tabs across the top under that. Everything else is turned off.
Microsoft isn't doing anyone any favors here, or tossing us a carrot.
The job of Virtual PC is to emulate a x86 environment. The job of the most common version of Linux is to run on a x86 environment. Doing anything that would willfully prevent Linux from running would most likely also break a hell of a lot of other applications that Microsoft loves.
About the only way Microsoft could stop Virtual PC from running Linux (or any other OS for that matter) without breaking other apps would be to put code in that explicity looks to see if its Linux you're installing, and if so Blue Screen. Even Microsoft isn't going to be that openly blatant.
For me personally, this doesn't really matter. I'm sticking with VMware, and I don't much give a damn what Microsoft does with Virtual PC. VMware ain't broke, so I ain't fixing it:-)
It was reported today that Cowboy Neal finally started reading Slashdot himself. This is in an effort to cut down on duplicate articles. Film at 11. And again at 11:30 and midnight.
Obviously I cannot vouch for that 70 - 100 year figure:-)
But what I can say is this.
I've got CD-Rs that I've burned that date back to 1995. At one time or another, I've used probabaly every brand there is, and all of the no-names too.
I've never even once had a problem with a Fuji CD-R. In fact, I have been so pleased with them that Fuji is now the only brand I will buy in both CD-Rs and DVD+RWs. I don't even bother with price comparisons between the brands on the shelf any more...my data is worth way more to me than a few dollars saved on a no-name hundred pack.
I will also throw in that I do avoid glue-on labels too. I either use the Sharpie method, or I write on the card stock inserts in the CD case and leave the disc itself blank.
It was the most lame thing I believe I've ever seen for a toon. It looked like a really bad anime artist decided to get piss drunk and take another try at drawing.
Insert the usual "I am not a lawyer here", but I can fairly easily answer your question.
If you did not legally obtain the right to use the music (as in purchased the CD, purchased the music from a legitimate online music service, etc) and you do not have the permission of the copyright holder to otherwise obtain the music (as in a band says "here's our music, download it for free"), then it is illegal to download it.
Likewise, if you do not have permission of the copyright holder, or are not the copyright holder yourself, to share the music, in most cases it is illegal to make it available to others.
If you legitimately obtained the music, it is legal for you to make copies for the car, make mix CDs for your own use, etc etc.
Personally, having worked in both the photorgaphic and video industries, I have absolutely no sympathy for people who get busted for making material available for download by others without permission. I also have no sympathy for anyone who gets busted for downloading that material. And I have very little sympathy for those who get busted and yell "but I didn't know my kids (grandkids, aunt, uncle, etc) were doing that!"...just like the owner of a car can be held responsible for how others use it, if you can't maintain control of your own computer and be aware of what's going on with it, you're too damned stupid to be allowed to own one.
The number one terrorist that needs to be on that list is Attorney General John Ashcroft. He's done more to undermine the Constitution than any foreign organization has ever dreamed of.
You compare downloading music to taking a photo of a poster, so let me ask you this.
It just so happens that besides having a career as a computer programmer, I also work as a freelance photographer. Let's say I take some cool photo and start selling copies of it. You see it at the store and take a photo of my photo and make it available for others to download. Now, are you telling me that because you are not depriving me of my physical property that it is legal for you to do that? And I'll save you some effort...I already know for a fact that scenario is not legal.
Let me ask another one. This group is real keen on the GPL. Let's say you write some cool whiz-bang piece of software and place it under the GPL. I download your source, make changes, and release it as a closed-source proprietary product. I'm not depriving you in any way of your source code or your product. But most of the same people on Slashdot who say its okay to download mp3s without permission would also be on me like hair on a gorilla to honor the terms of the GPL.
Again, I agree with the points others, including you, have made that the music industry needs to find a new business model that works in the 21st century. But because you or I, or some 12 yearold girl that now feels worried because she got caught, disagree with their current business model, that does not give any of us the right to distribute their property without permission. Don't like the law? Then work to change it. Are you knowingly violating current law? Then don't bitch when you get prosecuted.
If she shoplifted a CD from the local store, would you be so ready to defend her actions? Not hardly. And this is no different, contrary to what most of you will tell me. Again, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. And whether you agree with the law or not, it is currently the law. Don't whine when you get prosecuted under it.
Mom should have been paying attention to what little honey was doing on the computer. I have no sympathy.
To an extent, I agree with everything you say here.
First, I'll be 42 next month, so I ain't no teenybopper either:-)
I prefer blues, and a lot of the time the music I want to buy is no longer available for sale. Hence, I download it. Don't think for an instant that just because I poopoo those who complain about being prosecuted for downloading music that I've never downloaded any myself. But I do so knowing full well that I am violating the law.
Now, if the members of the RIAA would just get off their dead asses, open their old catalogs, and let me download what I want for 99 cents a song, I'd be happy to pay for it.
But you and I, and people like us, are the exception. We are searching for artists that interest us.
The majority of downloaders, on the other hand, are going after stuff like Britney Spears, Madonna, etc etc. I'm sorry, but just how much more exposure do they, and artists of their level, need? You can't get through a day and NOT here their music somewhere unless you are deaf. So I have a hard time believing that most song downloaders are doing so to "sample new music". I think most are simply doing it to get it for free and feel like they are "stickin' it to dah man!"
Oh, I certainly agree with your last point. The United States, while claiming it is "the land of the free", has some of the most restrictive and draconian copyright laws in the world. I have certainly not missed the irony in the fact that the former powers in Iraq, while being one of the most oppressive governments on the planet, also had very reasonable copyright laws (laws which Hillary Rosen herself now feels it is her duty to help rewrite).
But at the same time, as I have said before, the law is the law, and those who violate the law, even as an act of civil disobedience to get the law changed, should not be surprised, shocked, or disappointed when they get prosecuted under those laws.
In another thread on this topic I have seen someone go so far as comparing the downloading of songs to Martin Luther King's fight for civil rights. True, Dr. King violated the laws he felt were unjust in order to draw attention to the issue. But he did so knowing full well that he was going to be prosecuted under those laws.
The RIAA finally does what geeks have asked for years by going after the offenders instead of after P2P technology itself. And geeks still object. Film at 11.
I've got a very novel idea for avoiding a RIAA lawsuit. It is an idea that I'm sure will be unpopular, and I'm therefore also sure that this message will be moded down as flaimbait even though it is nothing of the sort, because that is how simpleminded moderators deal with a differing viewpoint here.
But my idea is simple...don't want to be sued by the RIAA? THEN DON'T SWAP COPYRIGHTED MUSIC WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER.
If my ISP wants to filter things such that I cannot run a server from my house, that is okay. I can live with that, since I'm buying residential service and not business access. Uploading is throttled down to 64kbs anyway (I'm on a cable modem), so it would make a shitty server point anyway.
But the first time my ISP limits what I can receive without giving me the option of turning it off will be the last time I use my ISP. Its not their place to determine what is "good" and what is "bad" for me, nor is it their duty to protect me from my own stupidity. Babies who need their hands held and cannot think for themselves can use AOL.
I realize this will be an unpopular point of view with 98% of Slashdotters, but...
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Its that simple.
Regardless of if you agree with it or not, the law is the law, and it is currently illegal to hack in to a system without permission. If you don't like it, then work to get the law changed. And in the meantime, don't expect sympathy if you get busted for breaking it while knowing full well you could be prosecuted. Any man with brains enough to hack in to a system should have brains enough to know he can get busted for doing so.
Yes, I did. And in fact I did before the virus was even released. Further, I blocked port 135 at my router the day the virus was released. I have never even once had a virus infect any computer I own, even the ones running Microsoft OSes and Outlook/Outlook Express, and I've owned computers since 1980 starting with a TRS-80 Model 1.
Don't assume that because I think the little shits that write viruses should be held accountable for their actions that I am a newbie, a Microsoft fanboy, or a victim. You would be very wrong on all three counts.
If I were to remove the driver side window from my car and replace it with a piece of trash bag, making the car obviously insecure to anyone with more than two brain cells, that still does not give someone the right to damage the interior of my car. Likewise, just because Microsoft peddles insecure garbage does not give some little pimple-faced moron with no social life other than his left hand the right to damage someone's computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Last time my net connection went down I had such bad withdrawl symptoms that I had to smoke some weed to aleviate the pain.
McBride is practicing an age old bit of wisdom...
If ya can't dazzle 'em with intelligence, baffle 'em with bullshit.
And he's obviously an expert at shoveling.
How does this make "many acts that were once legal now illegal"?
It has never been legal to posess copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder. That's the whole basis of copyright law.
For those of you who didn't bother to read the article before you posted (which is 99.9999 percent of you), this proposed law would only apply to those who have prerelease items that they are not entitled to have, NOT just any damned thing, which is what most of you want to think/imply. "Prerelease" is a $10 word for "not yet available to the public".
If it is not available for release to the general public, and if you don't have permission of the copyright holder to have it, then gee...you're violating copyright.
So here is a quick tip on how to avoid getting busted under this act if it does become law:
Don't have prerelease copyrighted material on your system if you don't have permission of the copyright holder.
I turn it off under "view", like darned near everything else that takes up space that I'd rather use for actual browsing. I have the usual menu bar, 6 buttons, and the address box. I have my tabs across the top under that. Everything else is turned off.
Microsoft isn't doing anyone any favors here, or tossing us a carrot.
:-)
The job of Virtual PC is to emulate a x86 environment. The job of the most common version of Linux is to run on a x86 environment. Doing anything that would willfully prevent Linux from running would most likely also break a hell of a lot of other applications that Microsoft loves.
About the only way Microsoft could stop Virtual PC from running Linux (or any other OS for that matter) without breaking other apps would be to put code in that explicity looks to see if its Linux you're installing, and if so Blue Screen. Even Microsoft isn't going to be that openly blatant.
For me personally, this doesn't really matter. I'm sticking with VMware, and I don't much give a damn what Microsoft does with Virtual PC. VMware ain't broke, so I ain't fixing it
MSIE is "too late to the party". I've been using the ultimate pop-up blocker for about two years now.
Its called "Opera".
It was reported today that Cowboy Neal finally started reading Slashdot himself. This is in an effort to cut down on duplicate articles. Film at 11. And again at 11:30 and midnight.
Obviously I cannot vouch for that 70 - 100 year figure :-)
But what I can say is this.
I've got CD-Rs that I've burned that date back to 1995. At one time or another, I've used probabaly every brand there is, and all of the no-names too.
I've never even once had a problem with a Fuji CD-R. In fact, I have been so pleased with them that Fuji is now the only brand I will buy in both CD-Rs and DVD+RWs. I don't even bother with price comparisons between the brands on the shelf any more...my data is worth way more to me than a few dollars saved on a no-name hundred pack.
I will also throw in that I do avoid glue-on labels too. I either use the Sharpie method, or I write on the card stock inserts in the CD case and leave the disc itself blank.
It was the most lame thing I believe I've ever seen for a toon. It looked like a really bad anime artist decided to get piss drunk and take another try at drawing.
We could also change the name of "dogshit", but it will still stink just as bad.
I know I won't be original with this, but what the hell...I have karma out the yingy-yang, time to burn up some of it.
Dear Gator,
Your program is fucking spyware. And if you don't like me saying that, then get a spoon and eat me.
Insert the usual "I am not a lawyer here", but I can fairly easily answer your question.
If you did not legally obtain the right to use the music (as in purchased the CD, purchased the music from a legitimate online music service, etc) and you do not have the permission of the copyright holder to otherwise obtain the music (as in a band says "here's our music, download it for free"), then it is illegal to download it.
Likewise, if you do not have permission of the copyright holder, or are not the copyright holder yourself, to share the music, in most cases it is illegal to make it available to others.
If you legitimately obtained the music, it is legal for you to make copies for the car, make mix CDs for your own use, etc etc.
Personally, having worked in both the photorgaphic and video industries, I have absolutely no sympathy for people who get busted for making material available for download by others without permission. I also have no sympathy for anyone who gets busted for downloading that material. And I have very little sympathy for those who get busted and yell "but I didn't know my kids (grandkids, aunt, uncle, etc) were doing that!"...just like the owner of a car can be held responsible for how others use it, if you can't maintain control of your own computer and be aware of what's going on with it, you're too damned stupid to be allowed to own one.
The number one terrorist that needs to be on that list is Attorney General John Ashcroft. He's done more to undermine the Constitution than any foreign organization has ever dreamed of.
Wish I had some mod points to give out this week. Your post needs to be at the top.
No, I'm not missing any points, you are.
You compare downloading music to taking a photo of a poster, so let me ask you this.
It just so happens that besides having a career as a computer programmer, I also work as a freelance photographer. Let's say I take some cool photo and start selling copies of it. You see it at the store and take a photo of my photo and make it available for others to download. Now, are you telling me that because you are not depriving me of my physical property that it is legal for you to do that? And I'll save you some effort...I already know for a fact that scenario is not legal.
Let me ask another one. This group is real keen on the GPL. Let's say you write some cool whiz-bang piece of software and place it under the GPL. I download your source, make changes, and release it as a closed-source proprietary product. I'm not depriving you in any way of your source code or your product. But most of the same people on Slashdot who say its okay to download mp3s without permission would also be on me like hair on a gorilla to honor the terms of the GPL.
Again, I agree with the points others, including you, have made that the music industry needs to find a new business model that works in the 21st century. But because you or I, or some 12 yearold girl that now feels worried because she got caught, disagree with their current business model, that does not give any of us the right to distribute their property without permission. Don't like the law? Then work to change it. Are you knowingly violating current law? Then don't bitch when you get prosecuted.
Boo hoo hoo, cry me a friggin' river.
If she shoplifted a CD from the local store, would you be so ready to defend her actions? Not hardly. And this is no different, contrary to what most of you will tell me. Again, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. And whether you agree with the law or not, it is currently the law. Don't whine when you get prosecuted under it.
Mom should have been paying attention to what little honey was doing on the computer. I have no sympathy.
To an extent, I agree with everything you say here.
:-)
First, I'll be 42 next month, so I ain't no teenybopper either
I prefer blues, and a lot of the time the music I want to buy is no longer available for sale. Hence, I download it. Don't think for an instant that just because I poopoo those who complain about being prosecuted for downloading music that I've never downloaded any myself. But I do so knowing full well that I am violating the law.
Now, if the members of the RIAA would just get off their dead asses, open their old catalogs, and let me download what I want for 99 cents a song, I'd be happy to pay for it.
But you and I, and people like us, are the exception. We are searching for artists that interest us.
The majority of downloaders, on the other hand, are going after stuff like Britney Spears, Madonna, etc etc. I'm sorry, but just how much more exposure do they, and artists of their level, need? You can't get through a day and NOT here their music somewhere unless you are deaf. So I have a hard time believing that most song downloaders are doing so to "sample new music". I think most are simply doing it to get it for free and feel like they are "stickin' it to dah man!"
Oh, I certainly agree with your last point. The United States, while claiming it is "the land of the free", has some of the most restrictive and draconian copyright laws in the world. I have certainly not missed the irony in the fact that the former powers in Iraq, while being one of the most oppressive governments on the planet, also had very reasonable copyright laws (laws which Hillary Rosen herself now feels it is her duty to help rewrite).
But at the same time, as I have said before, the law is the law, and those who violate the law, even as an act of civil disobedience to get the law changed, should not be surprised, shocked, or disappointed when they get prosecuted under those laws.
In another thread on this topic I have seen someone go so far as comparing the downloading of songs to Martin Luther King's fight for civil rights. True, Dr. King violated the laws he felt were unjust in order to draw attention to the issue. But he did so knowing full well that he was going to be prosecuted under those laws.
The RIAA finally does what geeks have asked for years by going after the offenders instead of after P2P technology itself. And geeks still object. Film at 11.
I've got a very novel idea for avoiding a RIAA lawsuit. It is an idea that I'm sure will be unpopular, and I'm therefore also sure that this message will be moded down as flaimbait even though it is nothing of the sort, because that is how simpleminded moderators deal with a differing viewpoint here.
But my idea is simple...don't want to be sued by the RIAA? THEN DON'T SWAP COPYRIGHTED MUSIC WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER.
If my ISP wants to filter things such that I cannot run a server from my house, that is okay. I can live with that, since I'm buying residential service and not business access. Uploading is throttled down to 64kbs anyway (I'm on a cable modem), so it would make a shitty server point anyway.
But the first time my ISP limits what I can receive without giving me the option of turning it off will be the last time I use my ISP. Its not their place to determine what is "good" and what is "bad" for me, nor is it their duty to protect me from my own stupidity. Babies who need their hands held and cannot think for themselves can use AOL.
I realize this will be an unpopular point of view with 98% of Slashdotters, but...
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Its that simple.
Regardless of if you agree with it or not, the law is the law, and it is currently illegal to hack in to a system without permission. If you don't like it, then work to get the law changed. And in the meantime, don't expect sympathy if you get busted for breaking it while knowing full well you could be prosecuted. Any man with brains enough to hack in to a system should have brains enough to know he can get busted for doing so.
I wonder what would happen if 40,000 slashdotters mailed a copy of this to their respective congressferrets?
Unless they each attach $1000 to their letter, not a damned thing.
America has the best government money can buy.
Heh! I had the same vision from Deliverence in mind when I wrote that :-)
Yes, I did. And in fact I did before the virus was even released. Further, I blocked port 135 at my router the day the virus was released. I have never even once had a virus infect any computer I own, even the ones running Microsoft OSes and Outlook/Outlook Express, and I've owned computers since 1980 starting with a TRS-80 Model 1.
Don't assume that because I think the little shits that write viruses should be held accountable for their actions that I am a newbie, a Microsoft fanboy, or a victim. You would be very wrong on all three counts.
If I were to remove the driver side window from my car and replace it with a piece of trash bag, making the car obviously insecure to anyone with more than two brain cells, that still does not give someone the right to damage the interior of my car. Likewise, just because Microsoft peddles insecure garbage does not give some little pimple-faced moron with no social life other than his left hand the right to damage someone's computer.