First of all, you HAVE heard of the Great Firewall of China, right?
Secondly, I can see why they would do this.
You get a DVD player, you can get DVDs. Including American films. British films. Australian films. (Granted, with region coding, not all on the same box) With an alternative, China-only format, it's alot less likely that you will see something the Chinese government considers "mayo" (Not allowed.)
It's like Kazaa. The RIAA really didn't have *that* much of a problem with piracy over the net until it was easy for everyone to do it. The Chinese government had no problem with DVDs until they realized - DVDs are information - and it is easy to get information we don't want them to see.
So they switched formats. It's a smart move - the RIAA could have had Piracy licked YEARS ago if they switched to a new media format for audio so that it wouldn't be so easy to stick it in your CD Rom drive and rip it. And I don't just mean "copy protection" I mean - make the damn thing square or something so it physically wouldn't fit in the drive.
I don't think Music Chips will take off. You can't play them in your computer, you can't copy them, you need to buy new hardware to use them, they're probably *too* small to use, and there's no reason to believe there will be any change in sound quality.
In short, if these things take off, it will only because the music industy won't release music legally any other way.
And I hope they do.
CD-Roms have been around since 1991 - one of the reasons they were so popular a format for data and music is because a CD-Rom can be used for either data OR music. Want to play a CD in your computer? Sure! No special technology required.
The real reason for the change is that these new music whachamacallits is that they're probably not going to be usable in a computer. Meaning it's less likely that Joe Newb can rip & share them.
I'm surprized that they haven't done so already.
Whatever. Indie bands will use CDs - the much more useful and popular format - and they'll prosper.
The strange thing is that between homestarrunner.com, fan films, and... other activities... most of my entertainment isn't through the TV anymore.
When TV - cable especially - put out either programs I can micro-pay for, or allow me to buy single channels (Cartoon Network, and BBC America for me) then I'll turn back to the TV.
If the TV model switched from "The consumer is not the customer" to "The consumer is the customer" - we'd get better TV, cheaper, overnight.
QUOTED: This is such a blatant spin, I can only shake my head in awe. The RIAA is not "suing its customers" - it is suing illegal filesharers. While I suppose it is remotely possible that a small fraction of those people actually occassionally buy a CD every few months, and would thus technically make them "customers", the logical connection drawn by the inflammatory statement in the story summary is completely backwards.
RESPONSE: The "suing it's customers" deal isn't as inaccurate a claim as you think. Illegal filesharers typically buy MORE music than non-filesharing customers. Why? Because they are exposed to more and more kinds of music.
How else are you going to tell if that new album is any good unless you get a chance to listen to it? And yes, Borders and other places have very recently installed listening booths. But back when everyone got into Napster, back in 1998 or so, that wasn't even an option. (In fact, it could be said that Napster provided the impeteus for the listening booths, no?)
As for Microsoft attacking an illegal OfficeXP piracy ring in Korea, yeah, I don't think anyone would complain about that - just as no one complains about the RIAA hitting "the real pirates" in Hong Kong. Whether legal or not, there's a large ethical difference (for most people) between someone downloading to hear the music, and someone ripping off CDs to sell bootlegs.
His intentions were good. But could he have done this with the permission of the NYT instead?
Say what you want about "they'd shore up the system before he went in" -- isn't the entire point of white-hattery to get people to shore up their system?
Now, *considering* Lamo's intentions and reputation, the NYT would be, well, assholes for not trying to allow some sort of light sentence. But this isn't, like, say the RIAA, where they go after 12 year olds that don't know what they're doing is wrong. Lamo's been in this business long enough to know that what he was doing was illegal.
There needs to be a significant revision of the code of ethics of White Hat Hackers - specifically, it needs to be written down.
One of the rules that should be in there is:
1) I will notify and seek permission from any public or private individual, corporation or institution that will explain what I am about to do and seek permission to do so. I will make it clear that whatever I find, I will be publishing my findings.
Number two should be something along the lines of "not working within the U.S. whenever possible" or something like that.
As a kid, I was actually pretty interested in the idea of ham-radio. I loved the idea of communicating worldwide with people.
(I suppose that's when the Internet came along, I took to it like a duck to water...)
But, honestly, I couldn't get the morse code requirement. The way my brain works, it's hard for me to, well, memorize stuff. Calling it up on command would be even sillier.
So I never got into it.
Here's the thing though.
We have typewriters. We have computers. You can still *use* morse code without *knowing* morse code - simply hook up a computer on your line, type your message, and have the computer encode all of the message to Morse. If one wants to recieve, that can be translated by computer also.
Morse is a great transmission type - and great for redundancy in emergencies - but it's hard to learn and use. Instead, why not keep the positives of morse code, while taking away it's negative - it's hard-to-learn status?
-- Funksaw
F*ckin A!
This is great for those of us who don't have cable, and it shows those a**holes in American media up a thing or two.
Plus, you know. Legal alternative to downloading illegal American TV shows.
-- Funksaw
Here's something I don't get.
There's probably alot of OSS designers on Slashdot, pretty much 80% of them (a guess) are pissed off at the RIAA/MPAA
I don't get it.
I like indie films. I'd like to watch more of them - preferably on my computer. But I haven't had a chance to hear about most of them.
Why hasn't someone invented a P2P client for movies, like Furthernet, that only allows you to download authorized indie movies? I'm sure indie film makers will love the idea, and it provides a true alternative to the MPAA's whining while still being 99% liability proof.
I'm lucky I live in a city which actually has a big collection of indie movies playing, Austin, but why can't someone with some coding skills just write a P2P client like Furthernet for movies?
Hell, I bet you could even just take the Furthernet code and switch the authorized downloads around!
-- Funksaw
I'm replying to you because you don't have a listed email address... but this message really is for pfankus.
Do NOT let your friends sign that contract without doing research first. The major labels take away copyrights - which means even YOU can't put up your MP3s on the net if you don't want to. They also pay you crap, and considering that you're talking about jazz musicians, you'll probably end up IN DEBT to the record label. Indeed, if you're serious about music, either self-promote and self-produce, or go to a smaller, indie label that won't screw you over as badly as the RIAA's major labels will.
Let's not also forget that with Clear Channel reducing the number of songs it plays, P2P is about the only method of promotion you're going to have! Even if you do sign to a label is NO guarantee that the record is going to get promoted.
For chrissakes man, once you sign with the big boys, you have to sue to get out of those damn long-term contracts.
-- Funksaw
QUOTE: People tend to complain a lot about the profit margins in the music industry, and use this as an argument to not buy CD's but download them.
REBUTTAL: To be honest, alot of people don't buy CDs cause they're fed up with the RIAA. That's why I don't.
QUOTE: Furthermore, a lot of people complain that copying their collection is just fair use, and they feel restricted in their rights by the recent developments in DRM. Without the music industry however we wouldn't have CDs to rip, or DRM protected tracks to download;)
REBUTTAL: There are plenty of CDs out there, and plenty of non-DRM MP3s out there by artists not affiliated with the RIAA.
QUOTE: We (consumer and industry) obviously need each other.
REBUTTAL: I don't need the RIAA. The RIAA is not the entirety of the music industry - there's still plenty of music out there from non-RIAA artists.
QUOTE: So my question is: Can you think of (a) profitable business model(s) that would *not* use DRM?
REBUTTAL: Indie labels already have this profitable business model. They release a few tracks as MP3 or MP3 streams, and sell albums. Some even release the entirety of the album - because they don't make alot of profit on the album itself, and make their money from increased exposure - which leads to bigger gates at live venues.
This is probably just the opposition doing general ratfucking in the spirit of Donald Segretti and all the other Nixon Dirty Tricksters.
I doubt they'd go about spamming people directly after the problems with the Texas email.
Yes, the Dean Campaign is net-savvy - they have to be. That's the core of their support, that's the source of their fundraising, that's the general nature of the beast. Like it or not, Dean's core consituancy are those that care about YRO.
-- Funksaw
It's not a STOLEN naming gimmick. It's an INFRINGING naming gimmick. There's a difference! The gimmick is merely copied, it's not like Napster loses it's gimmick.
Besides, copying the naming gimmick merely increases the popularity of the naming gimmick and increases the demand for the original! It's like free publicity!
Perhaps a very interesting thing is "rpg" book copying on the net.
Roleplaying game books can cost upwards of $20 for a suppliment, $35-45 for a core book. Dungeons and Dragons, the big granddaddy of them all, only charges $30 for it's core books, but since you have to buy three of them, that's really $90, plus one of their settings for another $30-40, you're talking an investment of about $120.
But even your typical GURPS suppliment (known for detail and low price) costs about $24 nowadays...
So there definetely IS a market for piracy - many RPG players are kids who literally can't afford the book, yet want to read it anyway. Another section are people who want to see what the book contains before plunking down hard-earned cash... while most gaming stores let people browse and read the goods, they may not have more obscure games, or for some reason they may not carry a line from a particular author. (For example, some gaming stores don't carry non-D&D stuff, others, especially big chains like Borders, don't carry GURPS stuff, which has it's own distribution network, Warehouse 23.)
And for the most part, (although I can't speak for everyone) actually *keeping* the PDF pretty much frowned upon. There's a dozen "legitimate" reasons to download the books - all of which either end up with a purchased book or a deleted file. There are a couple companies that have been horrible to their customers, (The Hasbro-owned Wizards of the Coast, for one, and some people who have been forced to deal with the White Wolf sysadmin thinks he's a BOFH,) but most of them are really nice guys who actually do pay their authors, artists, etc. Some even go so far as to release a free PDF online, but sell the book cheaply in the stores (like Guardians of Order's "Tri-Stat DX") and many RPG companies are beginning to see the benifits of PDF distribution despite the risk of piracy.
Even so, I don't see this as being as much of a problem for the book industry in general as it is for the RPG book industry, mostly because the RPG book industry is typically more expensive, is composed of a typically younger, cash starved audience (High Schoolers & College Students)
Even there, in this industry that should be rife with piracy, the general concensus is that the RPG book is more portable, easier to read, and usually cheaper than printing it out, either at Kinkos or from an inkjet (the jury's still out on the lazer printer.)
Our best hope will be that the book industries don't march up in arms about this the way the record and movie industries have. ESPECIALLY with books, this will turn out to be No Big Deal. Unlike movies and music, books have no big control over the market (sure, being on Scholastic instead of Ted Humperdink might get you on the Oprah's book club, but if you aren't writing a book that Oprah would possibly like anyway, like automotive repair, then it doesn't really matter, does it?) to lose. Remember, the music industry is fighting to keep a monopoly, they are NOT fighting to keep profits.
Actually, this is interesting, if not particularly important.
It shows just exactly how much JUNK that a Windows install puts on your system. Crap you don't need... in most cases, crap you don't know about, can't get rid of, or don't want. I'm pissed because my Windows partition is 6 gigs and WinXP takes up nearly 2 gigs of that, while still running slower than my 7 year old computer did back in 1996. Windows is actually a pretty fast operating system, once you take away all the junk. This just shows how much junk there is.
Although, if someone had come out with this 6 years ago, I'd be clamoring for the code - I would have loved this instead of having to clear out the advertizing junk and IE and Outlook Express manually...
After the RIAA announced it would sue uploaders, I downloaded Kazaa Lite to 'stick it to the man' and upload indie music. (www.fairforshare.com for a big batch to get you started) Anyway, I did a quick search for "RIAA" in Kazaa - seeing if that would bring up anything.
It did. I remember one guy had a bunch of songs on his server that has "screw the RIAA" in the comments field. - alot of them, I think, and his name was "indepunk77" - I remember that because it's an easy name to remember.
"indepunk77" is one of the names that's coming up on the list of people to be sued.
I don't have access to Kazaa now, but I was wondering if anyone else wonders if the media-guys set the bots to *look* for "RIAA"
This is completely anecdotal evidence combined with conjecture. Take it with all the salt you want. -- Funksaw
Anyone here have experience with the X-plane? I would imagine that static tables are much less realistic, unless this new method of simulation is so slow the computers start lagging when processing it.
Here's what I'd like to know:
It overturns the 45% rule, but does it still prohibit cross-ownership of TV and newspapers?
That would be the major problem... as much as I have a problem with the Gannett chain, they're still a newspaper company, run by newsmen who primarily report the news... while TV is increasingly run by entertainment companies run by entertainment moguls who turn the news into 'infotainment.'
-- Funksaw
Here's the sad thing.
The best way to fight the RIAA is to not get caught. Don't upload music from your computer - rather, only upload the music authorized for sharing.
The great thing about this particular method of attack is that it requires the average user to be scared of the RIAA. And if you're scared of the RIAA, you think that you'd be tempted to buy from them?
By the time that you hear that you're a target, you don't want to do business with them anymore. Stopping copyright infringement on the net does NOT mean people will start buying CDs again. On the contrary, it meants that people will START buying CDs from non-RIAA members, START buying used-CDs and STOP buying from the RIAA.
Very few people will willingly knowingly cut their own throat.
-- Funksaw
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, you HAVE heard of the Great Firewall of China, right?
Secondly, I can see why they would do this.
You get a DVD player, you can get DVDs. Including American films. British films. Australian films. (Granted, with region coding, not all on the same box) With an alternative, China-only format, it's alot less likely that you will see something the Chinese government considers "mayo" (Not allowed.)
It's like Kazaa. The RIAA really didn't have *that* much of a problem with piracy over the net until it was easy for everyone to do it. The Chinese government had no problem with DVDs until they realized - DVDs are information - and it is easy to get information we don't want them to see.
So they switched formats. It's a smart move - the RIAA could have had Piracy licked YEARS ago if they switched to a new media format for audio so that it wouldn't be so easy to stick it in your CD Rom drive and rip it. And I don't just mean "copy protection" I mean - make the damn thing square or something so it physically wouldn't fit in the drive.
This is what the Chinese are trying to do.
-- Funksaw
I don't think Music Chips will take off. You can't play them in your computer, you can't copy them, you need to buy new hardware to use them, they're probably *too* small to use, and there's no reason to believe there will be any change in sound quality.
In short, if these things take off, it will only because the music industy won't release music legally any other way.
And I hope they do.
CD-Roms have been around since 1991 - one of the reasons they were so popular a format for data and music is because a CD-Rom can be used for either data OR music. Want to play a CD in your computer? Sure! No special technology required.
The real reason for the change is that these new music whachamacallits is that they're probably not going to be usable in a computer. Meaning it's less likely that Joe Newb can rip & share them.
I'm surprized that they haven't done so already.
Whatever. Indie bands will use CDs - the much more useful and popular format - and they'll prosper.
-- Funksaw
The strange thing is that between homestarrunner.com, fan films, and... other activities... most of my entertainment isn't through the TV anymore.
When TV - cable especially - put out either programs I can micro-pay for, or allow me to buy single channels (Cartoon Network, and BBC America for me) then I'll turn back to the TV.
If the TV model switched from "The consumer is not the customer" to "The consumer is the customer" - we'd get better TV, cheaper, overnight.
-- Funksaw
Wait a minute.
Analog broadcasts are to stop on December 2006?
Damn.
Okay, here's the deal: I don't buy cable because there's nothing good on cable. There's nothing good on the networks either, but that's free.
I have rabbit ears - mostly to pick up PBS and the campus radio network.
Now in order to get PBS and the campus radio network, I need to buy a new TV or a new antenna?
In that case, f*ck them. There's not enough good stuff on TV to justify the expense anyway.
-- Funksaw
QUOTED:
This is such a blatant spin, I can only shake my head in awe. The RIAA is not "suing its customers" - it is suing illegal filesharers. While I suppose it is remotely possible that a small fraction of those people actually occassionally buy a CD every few months, and would thus technically make them "customers", the logical connection drawn by the inflammatory statement in the story summary is completely backwards.
RESPONSE:
The "suing it's customers" deal isn't as inaccurate a claim as you think. Illegal filesharers typically buy MORE music than non-filesharing customers. Why? Because they are exposed to more and more kinds of music.
How else are you going to tell if that new album is any good unless you get a chance to listen to it? And yes, Borders and other places have very recently installed listening booths. But back when everyone got into Napster, back in 1998 or so, that wasn't even an option. (In fact, it could be said that Napster provided the impeteus for the listening booths, no?)
As for Microsoft attacking an illegal OfficeXP piracy ring in Korea, yeah, I don't think anyone would complain about that - just as no one complains about the RIAA hitting "the real pirates" in Hong Kong. Whether legal or not, there's a large ethical difference (for most people) between someone downloading to hear the music, and someone ripping off CDs to sell bootlegs.
In the post above, replace "don't know what they're doing is wrong" with "don't know what they're doing is illegal."
Even *I* sometimes make that mistake. Damn media saturation bombs.
-- Funksaw
Lamo did a dumb thing.
His intentions were good. But could he have done this with the permission of the NYT instead?
Say what you want about "they'd shore up the system before he went in" -- isn't the entire point of white-hattery to get people to shore up their system?
Now, *considering* Lamo's intentions and reputation, the NYT would be, well, assholes for not trying to allow some sort of light sentence. But this isn't, like, say the RIAA, where they go after 12 year olds that don't know what they're doing is wrong. Lamo's been in this business long enough to know that what he was doing was illegal.
There needs to be a significant revision of the code of ethics of White Hat Hackers - specifically, it needs to be written down.
One of the rules that should be in there is:
1) I will notify and seek permission from any public or private individual, corporation or institution that will explain what I am about to do and seek permission to do so. I will make it clear that whatever I find, I will be publishing my findings.
Number two should be something along the lines of "not working within the U.S. whenever possible" or something like that.
-- Funksaw
I believe the phrase you're looking for is "taking candy from a baby."
-- Funksaw
As a kid, I was actually pretty interested in the idea of ham-radio. I loved the idea of communicating worldwide with people. (I suppose that's when the Internet came along, I took to it like a duck to water...) But, honestly, I couldn't get the morse code requirement. The way my brain works, it's hard for me to, well, memorize stuff. Calling it up on command would be even sillier. So I never got into it. Here's the thing though. We have typewriters. We have computers. You can still *use* morse code without *knowing* morse code - simply hook up a computer on your line, type your message, and have the computer encode all of the message to Morse. If one wants to recieve, that can be translated by computer also. Morse is a great transmission type - and great for redundancy in emergencies - but it's hard to learn and use. Instead, why not keep the positives of morse code, while taking away it's negative - it's hard-to-learn status? -- Funksaw
F*ckin A! This is great for those of us who don't have cable, and it shows those a**holes in American media up a thing or two. Plus, you know. Legal alternative to downloading illegal American TV shows. -- Funksaw
Here's something I don't get. There's probably alot of OSS designers on Slashdot, pretty much 80% of them (a guess) are pissed off at the RIAA/MPAA I don't get it. I like indie films. I'd like to watch more of them - preferably on my computer. But I haven't had a chance to hear about most of them. Why hasn't someone invented a P2P client for movies, like Furthernet, that only allows you to download authorized indie movies? I'm sure indie film makers will love the idea, and it provides a true alternative to the MPAA's whining while still being 99% liability proof. I'm lucky I live in a city which actually has a big collection of indie movies playing, Austin, but why can't someone with some coding skills just write a P2P client like Furthernet for movies? Hell, I bet you could even just take the Furthernet code and switch the authorized downloads around! -- Funksaw
I'm replying to you because you don't have a listed email address... but this message really is for pfankus. Do NOT let your friends sign that contract without doing research first. The major labels take away copyrights - which means even YOU can't put up your MP3s on the net if you don't want to. They also pay you crap, and considering that you're talking about jazz musicians, you'll probably end up IN DEBT to the record label. Indeed, if you're serious about music, either self-promote and self-produce, or go to a smaller, indie label that won't screw you over as badly as the RIAA's major labels will. Let's not also forget that with Clear Channel reducing the number of songs it plays, P2P is about the only method of promotion you're going to have! Even if you do sign to a label is NO guarantee that the record is going to get promoted. For chrissakes man, once you sign with the big boys, you have to sue to get out of those damn long-term contracts. -- Funksaw
QUOTE: People tend to complain a lot about the profit margins in the music industry, and use this as an argument to not buy CD's but download them.
;)
REBUTTAL: To be honest, alot of people don't buy CDs cause they're fed up with the RIAA. That's why I don't.
QUOTE: Furthermore, a lot of people complain that copying their collection is just fair use, and they feel restricted in their rights by the recent developments in DRM. Without the music industry however we wouldn't have CDs to rip, or DRM protected tracks to download
REBUTTAL: There are plenty of CDs out there, and plenty of non-DRM MP3s out there by artists not affiliated with the RIAA.
QUOTE: We (consumer and industry) obviously need each other.
REBUTTAL: I don't need the RIAA. The RIAA is not the entirety of the music industry - there's still plenty of music out there from non-RIAA artists.
QUOTE: So my question is:
Can you think of (a) profitable business model(s) that would *not* use DRM?
REBUTTAL: Indie labels already have this profitable business model. They release a few tracks as MP3 or MP3 streams, and sell albums. Some even release the entirety of the album - because they don't make alot of profit on the album itself, and make their money from increased exposure - which leads to bigger gates at live venues.
The questions you pose are VERY loaded.
-- Funksaw
This is probably just the opposition doing general ratfucking in the spirit of Donald Segretti and all the other Nixon Dirty Tricksters. I doubt they'd go about spamming people directly after the problems with the Texas email. Yes, the Dean Campaign is net-savvy - they have to be. That's the core of their support, that's the source of their fundraising, that's the general nature of the beast. Like it or not, Dean's core consituancy are those that care about YRO. -- Funksaw
It's not a STOLEN naming gimmick. It's an INFRINGING naming gimmick. There's a difference! The gimmick is merely copied, it's not like Napster loses it's gimmick.
Besides, copying the naming gimmick merely increases the popularity of the naming gimmick and increases the demand for the original! It's like free publicity!
Perhaps a very interesting thing is "rpg" book copying on the net.
Roleplaying game books can cost upwards of $20 for a suppliment, $35-45 for a core book. Dungeons and Dragons, the big granddaddy of them all, only charges $30 for it's core books, but since you have to buy three of them, that's really $90, plus one of their settings for another $30-40, you're talking an investment of about $120.
But even your typical GURPS suppliment (known for detail and low price) costs about $24 nowadays...
So there definetely IS a market for piracy - many RPG players are kids who literally can't afford the book, yet want to read it anyway. Another section are people who want to see what the book contains before plunking down hard-earned cash... while most gaming stores let people browse and read the goods, they may not have more obscure games, or for some reason they may not carry a line from a particular author. (For example, some gaming stores don't carry non-D&D stuff, others, especially big chains like Borders, don't carry GURPS stuff, which has it's own distribution network, Warehouse 23.)
And for the most part, (although I can't speak for everyone) actually *keeping* the PDF pretty much frowned upon. There's a dozen "legitimate" reasons to download the books - all of which either end up with a purchased book or a deleted file. There are a couple companies that have been horrible to their customers, (The Hasbro-owned Wizards of the Coast, for one, and some people who have been forced to deal with the White Wolf sysadmin thinks he's a BOFH,) but most of them are really nice guys who actually do pay their authors, artists, etc. Some even go so far as to release a free PDF online, but sell the book cheaply in the stores (like Guardians of Order's "Tri-Stat DX") and many RPG companies are beginning to see the benifits of PDF distribution despite the risk of piracy.
Even so, I don't see this as being as much of a problem for the book industry in general as it is for the RPG book industry, mostly because the RPG book industry is typically more expensive, is composed of a typically younger, cash starved audience (High Schoolers & College Students)
Even there, in this industry that should be rife with piracy, the general concensus is that the RPG book is more portable, easier to read, and usually cheaper than printing it out, either at Kinkos or from an inkjet (the jury's still out on the lazer printer.)
Our best hope will be that the book industries don't march up in arms about this the way the record and movie industries have. ESPECIALLY with books, this will turn out to be No Big Deal. Unlike movies and music, books have no big control over the market (sure, being on Scholastic instead of Ted Humperdink might get you on the Oprah's book club, but if you aren't writing a book that Oprah would possibly like anyway, like automotive repair, then it doesn't really matter, does it?) to lose. Remember, the music industry is fighting to keep a monopoly, they are NOT fighting to keep profits.
-- Funksaw
Actually, this is interesting, if not particularly important.
It shows just exactly how much JUNK that a Windows install puts on your system. Crap you don't need... in most cases, crap you don't know about, can't get rid of, or don't want. I'm pissed because my Windows partition is 6 gigs and WinXP takes up nearly 2 gigs of that, while still running slower than my 7 year old computer did back in 1996. Windows is actually a pretty fast operating system, once you take away all the junk. This just shows how much junk there is.
Although, if someone had come out with this 6 years ago, I'd be clamoring for the code - I would have loved this instead of having to clear out the advertizing junk and IE and Outlook Express manually...
Here's the strange thing.
After the RIAA announced it would sue uploaders, I downloaded Kazaa Lite to 'stick it to the man' and upload indie music. (www.fairforshare.com for a big batch to get you started) Anyway, I did a quick search for "RIAA" in Kazaa - seeing if that would bring up anything.
It did. I remember one guy had a bunch of songs on his server that has "screw the RIAA" in the comments field. - alot of them, I think, and his name was "indepunk77" - I remember that because it's an easy name to remember.
"indepunk77" is one of the names that's coming up on the list of people to be sued.
I don't have access to Kazaa now, but I was wondering if anyone else wonders if the media-guys set the bots to *look* for "RIAA"
This is completely anecdotal evidence combined with conjecture. Take it with all the salt you want.
-- Funksaw
Anyone here have experience with the X-plane?
I would imagine that static tables are much less realistic, unless this new method of simulation is so slow the computers start lagging when processing it.
-- Funksaw
I've never really bought into the whole "bad cop" theory of the RIAA.
By the time most people hear of the RIAA to the point where they CARE, they do the research and find out exactly who the RIAA is.
Even so, you think a guy who says he's going to boycott the RIAA doesn't know that it means "the record companies?"
The RIAA isn't the ACLU, an organization for a large number of people, the RIAA is an organization with 5 easy to remember companies as it's members.
-- Funksaw
UT is also my school. It's also a great law school and a great Journalism school (my grad school field of study.)
:D
It really is one of the best bangs for the educational buck
-- Funksaw
Here's what I'd like to know: It overturns the 45% rule, but does it still prohibit cross-ownership of TV and newspapers? That would be the major problem... as much as I have a problem with the Gannett chain, they're still a newspaper company, run by newsmen who primarily report the news... while TV is increasingly run by entertainment companies run by entertainment moguls who turn the news into 'infotainment.' -- Funksaw
um... right. That really should have been two complete thoughts, but kinda merged into one. -- Funksaw
Here's the sad thing. The best way to fight the RIAA is to not get caught. Don't upload music from your computer - rather, only upload the music authorized for sharing. The great thing about this particular method of attack is that it requires the average user to be scared of the RIAA. And if you're scared of the RIAA, you think that you'd be tempted to buy from them? By the time that you hear that you're a target, you don't want to do business with them anymore. Stopping copyright infringement on the net does NOT mean people will start buying CDs again. On the contrary, it meants that people will START buying CDs from non-RIAA members, START buying used-CDs and STOP buying from the RIAA. Very few people will willingly knowingly cut their own throat. -- Funksaw
When did I ever say anything about Clinton being good? Just cause I don't like Bush's crap doesn't mean I like Clinton's crap any better.