while I can tell you now that your basicvly saying you will never buy from the major lables and other indi lables
Well, yes. In the past 6 months, at least, I think I have purchased ONE album which came from a major American label. (Type O Negative's 'Life is Killing Me', and THAT was because of the permissive way they allowed MP3s online) Everything else HAS either been indie, European, or from legitimate online music store.
Both the Supreme Court and the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 say 'yes'. And, in fact, by the AHRA we pay for those copying rights whenever we buy blank audio CDs.
I don't know about anyone else, but personally, I'm not using one of these things until they stop putting restrictions on the file usage. As far as I'm concerned, once I buy something, it is *mine*, and I won't pay money for a production which the ex-owners are still attempting to control by proxy.
Yes, I know the restrictions can be gotten around by burning, and then ripping that, but that's not the point. It's a matter of principle. Companies everywhere keep trying to put restrictions on what we do with things we *own*, and that's just not right - economically, morally, or socially. It saddens me so many people are willing to accept the situation without question.
But in the meantime, I'll stick with services like Magnatune which don't try to control the content once it leaves their hands.
Wow. That was a sublimely brilliant troll. In a roundabout way, you suggest that money is more important than scientific advancement, and that it's acceptible for a cunning businessman to exploit geeks in his employ. Not bad.
It seems like, for the parallax to work like they're descibing, there'd be a very narrow space you'd be able to stick your eyes to have the effect work. Also, I can't imagine how working with this thing for long wouldn't lead to eye-strain headaches - that's been true of virtually every similar "fake" 3D system.
Actually, this is a more interesting question than the original poster probably realizes... Remember, since the 70s, money IS speech. That's how coporations can get away with bribing politicians - SCOTUS ruled (very stupidly IMHO, but that's another issue) that giving money to people represents a form of speech, and is thus afforded First Amendment protects. So, at the moment at least, legally if the government says, "you cannot give money to group X" they *ARE* breeching the First Amendment.
Just from a legal standpoint, it would be highly interesting to see that stance argued. It would be very, VERY difficult to create a ruling that preserves the idea of money-as-speech while still making donating money to terrorists illegal. Not, at least, without being fascistly arbitrary about it. (IE, you're allowed to give money (talk about?) only those groups we approve of.)
Of course, I'd be perfectly happy if such a case got rid of the whole silly notion of money being speech. This situation, more than anything, aptly illustrates why that is a BAD idea.
So to you I would say, yes, we need to wake up, and so does 94% of the world that hates us,
Uhhhh... HUH? From where, exactly, did you produce this number? And why do you fail to make distinctions between "hates the United States" and "is unhappy over how the US has behaved lately?" Most world governments recognize our system as being turbulent - I suspect many of them are now just waiting for the next government in '04 in hopes it behaves more nicely. And the average citizen of the world doesn't really CARE about us because either A)they're too wrapped up in their own problems, or B)we aren't dropping bombs anywhere too close to them.
I get really, really annoyed at folks who spout "this or that country hates America!" just because that country doesn't approve of what we're doing at the moment. We don't have a monopoly on moral righteousness, ya know.
Look at the list of names on the E Online article that was posted higher up.
Scorsese, both Coppolas, Barry Levinson, Redford, Sam Raimi, Darabont, Altman, David Lynch, Spike Jonze, Cronenberg, the Coen Bros... It's virtually a who's-who of all the best filmmakers in Hollywood, and a mix of old greats and up-and-comers.
If those people decided to jump ship and form their own movie collective, they could. Easily. Hell, many of them ALREADY have their own production companies and\or studios. Sure the MPAA technically controls distribution - but do you see any of the huge theatre chains saying 'no' to the latest Redford or Scorsese flick? The Academy - which is a separate entity - refusing them entrance? I don't think so.
The fact that so many truly great directors (and writers) are on that list, I think, proves just HOW misguided Valenti is being. He and the studios see films as nothing more than Product - made as cheap as possible, peddled out to the brain dead masses. But the people who signed that list are the ones who *know* better. And if they ever decided to leave, they could, never look back, and the MPAA system would likely crumble in their wake. (I mean, really, who's the MPAA got left? Speilberg... Uh...)
The question is whether these directors would be willing to take that chance - and whether the studio heads even REALIZE the importance of visionary directors in their schemes anymore.
The problem with all Tax software is that they are marketed primarily to those people LEAST competent to use them. People with some actual intelligence can do them on their own - doing your own 1040 is pretty simple, you just need a calculator. Or past a level of complexity, they recognize the need for a CPA. (both to make sure it's done correctly, and to get the best tax breaks)
Conversely, you get someone who's ignorant of tax law and *realizes* their ignorance, and they just scurry off to the CPA regardless of their return. (and, I note, there's no shame in this - tax law is *insane*)
And then, in the middle, are those who purchase TaxCut\TurboTax. They either A)think they know more than they do, or B)believe it's some sort of magic number-sorting program that will instantly produce a tax return for them with no amount of work on their part. I had some customers who legitimately believed they didn't even have to worry about the prompts, that the program would somehow magically "know" what was income, what was royalties, etc etc. (and, of course, if the luser manages to create for themselves a Schedule-C when all they did was have a garage sale, that's the program's fault, even though the prompts and explanations are written at about a middle-school level)
And don't even get me STARTED on those boneheads that thought they could use a $15 piece of software to cheat on their taxes like a $1500 CPA. "But I did this LAST year!" "Which means you got lucky and weren't audited, since it was illegal last year too." (I even had one guy *demand* I help him hide a home business under "Miscellaneous Income" because if a CPA can do it, TaxCut MUST do it for him. He got hung up on.)
I will say, if you know something about taxes to begin with, TaxCut IS a pretty good program. It had a few bugs in the calculations, but most were the staggeringly complex sort one or two people MIGHT stumble across through dumb luck. (and one REALLY idiotic bug involving proxy servers blocking e-filing, but that's another story) The problem is it's marketed (and priced) specifically towards those who LEAST need to be using it. So go on use it if you have a simple return, or if you have a decent understanding of home taxes and just need a hand with the math and specific forms. Otherwise, just get a CPA. It's safer.
(the horror, the horror) might I respectfully suggest that, if your tax return is more complex than a 1040 and maybe a few stock trades, just hire a CPA.
Hey, better yet, let's combine it with the "809" Telephone Scam. People on that list are going to assume any business call left on their machine is legitimate - OR else be calling to get the ID of the company so they can sue. They'd make millions. (look here for info on the basic scam)
Then why doesn't the FTC own up to it? I agree, simple user tracking would be a completely legitimate use for the "bug" - but if that was the case, they'd be completely up-front about it, wouldn't they?
Then again, in this government, it seems nebulous quasi-denials that sound suspicious are the defacto norm...
I'm just happy to have someone say they understand the sig. Politics in America are so skewed that it flies right by most people.
So whoever your political favorite is, congratulations, you are at least far more politically educated than most.
(oh, and to answer your question: the short version is that the Conservatives back Bush because they've been taught to thinking anything Democrat is Evil and Communist. So as long as Bush is preaching the opposite of the Dems, he's therefore Conservative. (Orwell would be proud))
You're undoubtedly right. But SCO's acting out of desperation - death is very nearly assured in EITHER case. But, if the option is disincorporate gracefully -suicide- or attempt to take Linux down with them -kamikaze-, taking out Linux offers them a SLIM chance of survival. Which is, in their eyes, better than none at all.
Sigh.
Actually, that's a VERY good question that hasn't been put to the test yet. *Generally* when two laws conflict, the older one is given priority - if they wanted to change the law, they should change THAT law, not pass a new one over top of it. Since the AHRA explicitly gives us permission to copy audio recordings, trying to create a "new offense" to make it illegal again is a very bad legal tactic.
But, the fact that we *pay* for that right is what will likely clinch it. I'd like, actually, to see someone bring a suit against the RIAA demanding their CD-ROM surcharge back. If they're going to copy-protect the CDs, and make circumventing that illegal, then we're paying them money for every blank we buy, in return for *nothing*.
MOST likely, however, it'll never get to court. No one making a personal-use copy of a CD would get caught doing so, and certainly not prosecuted. (I mean, can you imagine them trying to haul someone up under DMCA offenses, for making a single private-use copy of a CD? It'd be a bigger PR nightmare than suing a 12 year old girl...)
Simply put, I think this article ultimately tells us EXACTLY why they're embarking on this legal insanity. They have no viable product, they're hopefully behind technologically, and falling further behind every month, and their vendors are getting restless. So they're throwing a hail mary and hoping they can sue their largest competitor into nonexistance. If Linux goes away, they suddenly have a market again.
Actually, what happens is that when you Mouseover a media file, it immediately tries to grab the file info for display. And because of the way that Windows will automatically go searching for codecs, the header can be used to trick the machine into going and downloading a virus. Presumably running said virus would require root. (since it's only a theoretical exploit at this point, no way of knowing...)
But no, it stems from Windows giving cross-permissions to everything and assuming, in essence, cheats that make life easier for them would never ever be abused...
It might make it easier for average users to infect themselves, BUT they won't spread it. Keep in mind, these days, most damage caused by viruses is secondary. SoBig didn't directly damage ANY computers - but it crippled a lot of networks and inboxes because of the huge load of mail it generates.
And that's what, as far as I know, NO ONE would manage to dumb Linux down to be able to do. All of the big virii like SoBig and Blaster rely on Microsoft's boneheaded insistance on cross-linking every program and giving everything full root rights. Did you know there's one theoretical expoit in Windows, thankfully not done yet, in which an MP3 could be given a corrupt header, which points IE to a virus online, and be activated simply on MOUSEOVER? No joke, it's out in MS's security updates archive.
So even if it becomes easier for lusers to infect themselves, the chances of an Internet crippling worm are FAR reduced. (and that's even assuming a few standardized builds; the huge multitude of programs available for Linux create a form of security through obscurity)
Odd that it took the media that long to pick up on this. Some bands have been adding extras to their discs for a couple years now. (ignoring the "Enhanced CD!" craze of the mid-90s) I've gotten to the point that I'll actually go out of my way to buy music from people providing extras just for the support. (which is how I have "Devine Beings of Leisure" in my collection...;-) )
The OTHER odd thing is that it took them that long to think of this. Labels in Asia have been doing this for ages - practically all major legitimate releases contain a bonus disc, usually a VCD with a couple videos on it. The pirates rarely bother copying it, so it gives a real incentive for people to buy the official product.
(and rather than releasing "real" singles, many of the artists release "MaxiSingles" with 2 or 3 new songs\unreleased tracks and some remixes)
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're deluded rather than a troll.
Before posting again, read This - The Audio Home Recording Act.
Short short version - not only do you fully have the right to duplicate the copyrighted material, YOU PAY FOR that right if you ever buy blank CDs.
It was a nasty little piece of legislation the RIAA cooked up that let them directly tax the sales of blank CDs, while granting us nothing but copying rights the courts had already said we had. Luckily, the law IS with us now specifically to educate people like you.
Yeah, I could tell by the trailers that Underworld was going to suck.
Me too. The roommate dragged me to it, swore I'd love it. He occasionally forgets there are those of us in this world whose criteria for rating a piece of art aren't restricted to "contains leather-clad butt-kicking femme."
I saved my sanity by, halfway through, mentally writing the scathing review that would be going on my blog afterwards...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yes. In the past 6 months, at least, I think I have purchased ONE album which came from a major American label. (Type O Negative's 'Life is Killing Me', and THAT was because of the permissive way they allowed MP3s online) Everything else HAS either been indie, European, or from legitimate online music store.
Both the Supreme Court and the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 say 'yes'. And, in fact, by the AHRA we pay for those copying rights whenever we buy blank audio CDs.
Stupid silly typo...
Yes, I know the restrictions can be gotten around by burning, and then ripping that, but that's not the point. It's a matter of principle. Companies everywhere keep trying to put restrictions on what we do with things we *own*, and that's just not right - economically, morally, or socially. It saddens me so many people are willing to accept the situation without question.
But in the meantime, I'll stick with services like Magnatune which don't try to control the content once it leaves their hands.
Wow. That was a sublimely brilliant troll. In a roundabout way, you suggest that money is more important than scientific advancement, and that it's acceptible for a cunning businessman to exploit geeks in his employ. Not bad.
Anyone have an article with more info on it?
Sorry...
Just from a legal standpoint, it would be highly interesting to see that stance argued. It would be very, VERY difficult to create a ruling that preserves the idea of money-as-speech while still making donating money to terrorists illegal. Not, at least, without being fascistly arbitrary about it. (IE, you're allowed to give money (talk about?) only those groups we approve of.)
Of course, I'd be perfectly happy if such a case got rid of the whole silly notion of money being speech. This situation, more than anything, aptly illustrates why that is a BAD idea.
Uhhhh... HUH? From where, exactly, did you produce this number? And why do you fail to make distinctions between "hates the United States" and "is unhappy over how the US has behaved lately?" Most world governments recognize our system as being turbulent - I suspect many of them are now just waiting for the next government in '04 in hopes it behaves more nicely. And the average citizen of the world doesn't really CARE about us because either A)they're too wrapped up in their own problems, or B)we aren't dropping bombs anywhere too close to them.
I get really, really annoyed at folks who spout "this or that country hates America!" just because that country doesn't approve of what we're doing at the moment. We don't have a monopoly on moral righteousness, ya know.
Scorsese, both Coppolas, Barry Levinson, Redford, Sam Raimi, Darabont, Altman, David Lynch, Spike Jonze, Cronenberg, the Coen Bros... It's virtually a who's-who of all the best filmmakers in Hollywood, and a mix of old greats and up-and-comers.
If those people decided to jump ship and form their own movie collective, they could. Easily. Hell, many of them ALREADY have their own production companies and\or studios. Sure the MPAA technically controls distribution - but do you see any of the huge theatre chains saying 'no' to the latest Redford or Scorsese flick? The Academy - which is a separate entity - refusing them entrance? I don't think so.
The fact that so many truly great directors (and writers) are on that list, I think, proves just HOW misguided Valenti is being. He and the studios see films as nothing more than Product - made as cheap as possible, peddled out to the brain dead masses. But the people who signed that list are the ones who *know* better. And if they ever decided to leave, they could, never look back, and the MPAA system would likely crumble in their wake. (I mean, really, who's the MPAA got left? Speilberg... Uh...)
The question is whether these directors would be willing to take that chance - and whether the studio heads even REALIZE the importance of visionary directors in their schemes anymore.
Conversely, you get someone who's ignorant of tax law and *realizes* their ignorance, and they just scurry off to the CPA regardless of their return. (and, I note, there's no shame in this - tax law is *insane*)
And then, in the middle, are those who purchase TaxCut\TurboTax. They either A)think they know more than they do, or B)believe it's some sort of magic number-sorting program that will instantly produce a tax return for them with no amount of work on their part. I had some customers who legitimately believed they didn't even have to worry about the prompts, that the program would somehow magically "know" what was income, what was royalties, etc etc. (and, of course, if the luser manages to create for themselves a Schedule-C when all they did was have a garage sale, that's the program's fault, even though the prompts and explanations are written at about a middle-school level)
And don't even get me STARTED on those boneheads that thought they could use a $15 piece of software to cheat on their taxes like a $1500 CPA. "But I did this LAST year!" "Which means you got lucky and weren't audited, since it was illegal last year too." (I even had one guy *demand* I help him hide a home business under "Miscellaneous Income" because if a CPA can do it, TaxCut MUST do it for him. He got hung up on.)
I will say, if you know something about taxes to begin with, TaxCut IS a pretty good program. It had a few bugs in the calculations, but most were the staggeringly complex sort one or two people MIGHT stumble across through dumb luck. (and one REALLY idiotic bug involving proxy servers blocking e-filing, but that's another story) The problem is it's marketed (and priced) specifically towards those who LEAST need to be using it. So go on use it if you have a simple return, or if you have a decent understanding of home taxes and just need a hand with the math and specific forms. Otherwise, just get a CPA. It's safer.
Just sayin', ya know...
Hey, better yet, let's combine it with the "809" Telephone Scam. People on that list are going to assume any business call left on their machine is legitimate - OR else be calling to get the ID of the company so they can sue. They'd make millions. (look here for info on the basic scam)
Then again, in this government, it seems nebulous quasi-denials that sound suspicious are the defacto norm...
So whoever your political favorite is, congratulations, you are at least far more politically educated than most.
(oh, and to answer your question: the short version is that the Conservatives back Bush because they've been taught to thinking anything Democrat is Evil and Communist. So as long as Bush is preaching the opposite of the Dems, he's therefore Conservative. (Orwell would be proud))
You're undoubtedly right. But SCO's acting out of desperation - death is very nearly assured in EITHER case. But, if the option is disincorporate gracefully -suicide- or attempt to take Linux down with them -kamikaze-, taking out Linux offers them a SLIM chance of survival. Which is, in their eyes, better than none at all. Sigh.
But, the fact that we *pay* for that right is what will likely clinch it. I'd like, actually, to see someone bring a suit against the RIAA demanding their CD-ROM surcharge back. If they're going to copy-protect the CDs, and make circumventing that illegal, then we're paying them money for every blank we buy, in return for *nothing*.
MOST likely, however, it'll never get to court. No one making a personal-use copy of a CD would get caught doing so, and certainly not prosecuted. (I mean, can you imagine them trying to haul someone up under DMCA offenses, for making a single private-use copy of a CD? It'd be a bigger PR nightmare than suing a 12 year old girl...)
Simply put, I think this article ultimately tells us EXACTLY why they're embarking on this legal insanity. They have no viable product, they're hopefully behind technologically, and falling further behind every month, and their vendors are getting restless. So they're throwing a hail mary and hoping they can sue their largest competitor into nonexistance. If Linux goes away, they suddenly have a market again.
But no, it stems from Windows giving cross-permissions to everything and assuming, in essence, cheats that make life easier for them would never ever be abused...
Hey, thanks for saving a lazy /.er from having to do actual research. :-) (I'd lost the link)
And that's what, as far as I know, NO ONE would manage to dumb Linux down to be able to do. All of the big virii like SoBig and Blaster rely on Microsoft's boneheaded insistance on cross-linking every program and giving everything full root rights. Did you know there's one theoretical expoit in Windows, thankfully not done yet, in which an MP3 could be given a corrupt header, which points IE to a virus online, and be activated simply on MOUSEOVER? No joke, it's out in MS's security updates archive.
So even if it becomes easier for lusers to infect themselves, the chances of an Internet crippling worm are FAR reduced. (and that's even assuming a few standardized builds; the huge multitude of programs available for Linux create a form of security through obscurity)
It says it going to install software on the back of the CD case. Ergo, you grant permission by putting the CD in.
The OTHER odd thing is that it took them that long to think of this. Labels in Asia have been doing this for ages - practically all major legitimate releases contain a bonus disc, usually a VCD with a couple videos on it. The pirates rarely bother copying it, so it gives a real incentive for people to buy the official product.
(and rather than releasing "real" singles, many of the artists release "MaxiSingles" with 2 or 3 new songs\unreleased tracks and some remixes)
Before posting again, read This - The Audio Home Recording Act. Short short version - not only do you fully have the right to duplicate the copyrighted material, YOU PAY FOR that right if you ever buy blank CDs.
It was a nasty little piece of legislation the RIAA cooked up that let them directly tax the sales of blank CDs, while granting us nothing but copying rights the courts had already said we had. Luckily, the law IS with us now specifically to educate people like you.
Aren't you glad?
Me too. The roommate dragged me to it, swore I'd love it. He occasionally forgets there are those of us in this world whose criteria for rating a piece of art aren't restricted to "contains leather-clad butt-kicking femme."
I saved my sanity by, halfway through, mentally writing the scathing review that would be going on my blog afterwards...