Have you EVER tried to contact someone of "importance"? I've attempted everything from writing intelligent, professional letters to degrading myself to sniveling begging to get the attention of one of my two senators. I've gotten:
A response telling me to sod off unless I was a contributor looking for a meeting.
A snide response telling me I was an idiot.
A response telling me that, basically, he didn't understand the issue and wasn't going to think about it.
If YOU have a half million dollars to buy some time with a member of the United States government, please use it to do so. I can't afford to be heard by my *ahem* *cough*representatives*cough*. I've tried.
It would be interesting to see what the "amnesty" documents actually say (of course, maybe someone can get me modded to Hell and back by posting a link to such information from one of the other RIAA nightmare stories).
I can envision a document that says, in legalese mumbo jumbo, of course, that the victim... er.. defendant... isn't allowed to rip from their CDs for ANYTHING - backup, mixing, playing in more than one location, etc. - or some other ridiculous terms that make it HIGHLY undesirable to sign. Then, when the vict... damn... defendant refuses to sign it, they can run around screaming that these people are completely unreasonable and impossible to work with. Instant PR in a bottle, just add huge wads of cash to the justic... errr... legal system ((right != justice) != the law).
If the person does sign, they can haul their ass back into court if they step out of line even once and get caught. Then, they can say that this person "broke the law" by ripping a CD they bought or some similar assinine remark. Maybe then they can scare those pesky people who refuse to fork out $60 for 3 copies of the same CD to listen to at home, work, and in the car.
You bring up a good point about legitmate entertainment. Obviously, this item was purchased by either the children or their parents because it was determined by one of those parties that the entertainment was legitmate. One would assume that some burden must be placed on the consumer for actually recognizing that this ENTERTAINMENT... not a step-by-step guide on proper social interaction.
It can certainly be argued that companies shouldn't necessarily market something just because they can, but it also can be argued that the company shouldn't necessarily have to divine morality out the demands of their target audience. If the consuming public wants blood, guts, murder, sex - that's what they get. If they want wholesome, educational entertainment (I should get a +5 funny just for saying that...), that's what they will get.
Amazing how when you see some camera-mugging lawyer pointing the finger at society (where the blame partially belongs), they're actually yelling strictly about movies, music, and video games which is only a subset of it....
I'm reminded of a line out of a Batman comic that I have in which a paramedic tells Batman not to feel bad after a maniac shoots several people because he (Batman) couldn't have known. Batman's response is something to the effect of:
"I don't. I didn't shoot anyone."
I think that applies here fairly well. Noone at Take Two shot anyone (at least not in relation to this case), and it wasn't their job to watch and raise every fucking 90 IQ kid out there who plays their game when the parents don't screen their kids' purchases. A more apt lawsuit might be filed against the parents for criminal negligence and the fact that they let their mentally ill, retarded children anywhere near guns...
Actually, my apologies to all the mentally retarded people out there, I shouldn't have grouped you with people as ridiculously stupid as those kids...
Let me explain to you how it works (I'm not being condescending, just making a point):
You go to court and get a lawyer. The company sends 3. You want to just go up and say "look... I didn't do anything, prove it" knowing they can't prove it.
The company just keeps throwing out delay tactics while your bills add up. Eventually, you have no choice but to go bankrupt or settle to end the case.
The company gets money, you get screwed, and they also get a little PR to parade around to the public. If the lawyers are real slick and they finagle a win, they also get the start of a precedent.
The company says the number of non-pirates swept into their dragnet is minuscule...
That's totally fucking irrelevant assuming it's even true.
If they're hitting ANY non-pirates in their "dragnet", why the hell aren't they checking this stuff out before they send extortion letters?
So, not only are we supposed to accept that DirecTV is trying to act as both the executive and judicial branches of government by both serving the warrants and imposing a judgement in the form of a 3500.00 "fine", we're also supposed to say it's OK that they're arbitrary shooting is hitting innocent bystanders because they get the right target MOST of the time?
Jeezisfuckinchrist.... how long until America becomes a completely corporate-run state with a puppet government to speak for it, again?
Ummm.. hello? Slashdot, will you please sit down and shut up until we get to the end of the discussion?
In case no one else has bothered to notice, there's absolutely NO evidence that this is actually happening. Maybe the gov't of Tawain is just as technically incompotent as the U.S. gubment and they're just being bowled over by shitty administration of their systems. Maybe nothing's happening. Maybe outer space aliens have hidden data signals in their computers that are blocking traffic, who knows?
If I write my name in the paper under the lottery results and put $1,000,000,000,000 next to it, it doesn't really mean I won anything. Sheesh... show a little composure and demand to see at least a tiny bit of evidence before you piss your pants over this...
I'm giving consumers the benefit of the doubt in that they are intelligent enough to decide what the CD is worth to them.
That's partially true, but it's only PART of the equation. The decision as to the value of the product is also based on the comparisons of similar products. If the only thing they've ever been given to compare against is other ridiculously overpriced crap, they lose the ability, through no fault of their own, to make a fair comparison of the real value of the product.
If someone comes out with Widgets and you think they're a great thing, but you have no idea what the material value is and there's never really been anything you can compare them to*, you have to base your decision SOLELY on your emotional reaction to the product. If that reaction is strong, you buy the product. BUT, if you had known the real material value BEFORE making the decision, the fact that a Widget costs $2.50 to produce and promote may very well make you rethink the decision of shelling out $20.00 for that Widget on a logical level.
That's exactly what the music industry did to consumers: made them purchase the product on a strictly emotional level by actively denying them the necessary information to make a logical decision. You can argue that consumers should be left to their own devices when it comes to deciding this sort of thing, but it shouldn't be the consumer's job to always beat information out of crooked corporations. Hence the judgement. That's part of why courts are there, to protect people so they don't have to spend every waking moment protecting themselves. If you were always left to worry about how a corporate might be (and would be) abusing your trust instead of having someone else do some minimal oversight, your entire day would be spent trying to desperately avoid getting ripped off. You'd have to know every detail about every product you bought. Why? That's why the court decided against the industry - it's called "checks and balances" and it makes it POSSIBLE for you to make intelligent decisions.
* Bear in mind that the industry claimed when CDs came out that the medium was expensive to provide - hence the high prices. They claimed prices would drop as an economy of scale set in. They lied. Prices are exhorbitant for CDs. That has been the case now for well over a decade.
If you don't like the price, you don't have to fucking buy it. I hardly think consumers deserve to be reimbursed b/c they CHOSE to spend that money on the cd.
I know you're just being a troll, but my karma can kiss my ass.
Perhaps in your deluded state of self-aggrandizement you forgot that not everybody out there is aware of exactly what a CD really costs to produce. If consumers have never seen a CD fairly priced, how are they supposed to realize that they're being ripped off?
I guess, however, that everybody in the world is supposed to have exactly the same knowlege about the same things as you, right? I forgot that on Slashdot we're all so much better than everyone else because we know different things than they do and have different experiences.
all the tools for a secure windows box are already there
Oh, really? So, if I want to remove Internet Explorer because it's such a buggy, hole-ridden program tied right to the OS, Microsoft has a tool for me to do that? So, if I don't want to install the RPC service on my W2k box at home, I can do that during the installation? So, if I want to forgoe Explorer because I don't need pretty point and click interfaces, I can do that?
You've got it backwards. Unlike well-designed systems, Microsoft DOESN'T provide you with the tools to make the box secure. That's one of the biggest problems - you have to rely on their "one-a-day" pills to make the box secure, and even then, it's not secure, it's just you filling one of many holes in the dam.
I've always been amused by this sort of thing and a thought that goes with it:
If I already have nothing to lose, what if I just continually refuse to pay? The court can TELL you to pay up, but it can't really MAKE you do it. The worst they can do, IIRC, is ruin your credit and whatnot. Could they actually repo things to try and recover the "damages" the plaintiff was seeking? I got sued for a couple hundred bucks. Ultimately, the nasty little JP upped it to 1200, but from what I was told, it sounded like if I never paid it I could just be reported to collections if the plaintiff so desired. If 15000 RIAA victims all refuse to pay, what are they going to do, send 15000 people to collections? That's a pretty big group of people. Big groups engaged in active civil disobedience can get media attention... but then, I could be wrong about that - maybe they CAN make you pay up somehow.
I used to be one of those people who came on/. and argued that stealing songs was wrong regardless, but as the RIAA abuses got worse, so did my attitude. Frankly, I don't give a fuck anymore. Put all of them, "artists" and all out on the street. If the RIAA wants war, they can have it. And it's time people got off their high horses about 'not going down to their level' and fought it.
Christ... first thing I did when I read that was stop moving my mouse.. then the thought crossed my mind that by doing that, I was just setting up a new signature, so I started moving the mouse. Then, I started to think that maybe I was moving the mouse in my own special way, so I tried to make something up.
I'd like you to point out a system that actually does something useful that hasn't needed a patch. Even OpenBSD had one security hole by default so far... and it doesn't really do much of anything out of the box.
The problem with Microsoft isn't that they release software with flaws. Programming flaws happen. The problem with Microsoft is that they let their marketroids drive technical decisions and you wind up with stupid shit like the RPC vulnerability in WinXP Home. They were more concerned with support costs from supporting stupid people who couldn't get RPC working than with doing the Right Thing and leaving it off for the 75% of people who just don't need it, so they wound up being embarassed by MS Blaster. Hopefully, this delay means that they're taking the time to sit back and evaluate their systems more thoroughly to make them something that's actually worth the two hundred dollar price tag... it's okay to send the customers to the local fabric store if you have to, just not as often as they do it for as big of peices of fabric as they do.
The first thing I thought when I saw that headline was "wow - that's like America thinks it is".
I wrote to my senators once each regarding issues. I sat and took the time to do research and provide references to my findings, wrote it up in a very professional manner, proofed it, etc. before sending it. On one of them I got an autoresponse that basically said "If you're a contributor trying to set a meeting time call this number, if you're anyone else, go away". I never got ANY response from the other. I notice several people so far have mentioned they wrote to their MEPs about this issue and it sounds like they may have actually been heard.
Hmmmm..... must be nice to live in a country where your representatives represent you at least occasionally...
..but the lack of apps keeps it from being as usable; the apps that are available are not very compatible with what everyone else is using
Oh, bulldonkey.
I've never come across a Microsoft Office document that couldn't be opened with Open Office, Mozilla hasn't crapped out on me on a website in months (excepting those poorly written ones that check UAs and kick non-IE users before they even get to the door), Evolution connects to Exchange just fine, MySQL makes a perfectly good desktop database replacement for Access (if you install the right tools) and I don't know anyone in your run-of-the-mill office job who uses anything more than that. If you have people that need specialized tools like Macromedia / Acrobat / HR and Accounting software, etc., screw Wine and plunk down a MS Windows system for that person. Stick a leaner Linux on the backend and you're done (yea, I'm well aware it's not that simple, but once you get it running it runs pretty smoothly if you have a clue and your PHBs stay out of the way).
I would rather the users have a very intuitive package in front of them to minimize calls like "how do I start using this? I have to source what and do what to my environment?"
Why would you let your average Joe Sixpack install and setup there own software? You should be installing it for them.
Linux is far from 100% secure...
Anything that does something is never going to be 100% secure. 100% security involves pulling the plug out of the wall, encasing the computer in cement, and burying it out in the desert somewhere. The point is that a well-managed Linux/BSD system is leaps and bounds ahead of any Microsoft offering (yea, Win2k3 will go belly up eventually, mark my words.. it's been hit once, it will be hit again). And yea, if you look at ALL the patches that are available for a given distro, there's a lot. But hell, if you're running 90 different things on the system and you only need 10 of them, you shouldn't be allowed to run it. And, if you're going to try and hold every security flaw in every Linux app against Linux itself, I suggest you start holding every security flaw in every Windows app against Microsoft as well.
Where is the mantra of "the hole shouldn't be there in the first place?" that is constantly fire off at MS when those holes are found in open source software?
Only people who don't have to write code say dumb things like "the problem shouldn't have existed at all". A security flaw because of a mistake (e.g. buffer overflow) and a security flaw because of a marketer (e.g. hanging out three open, useless ports to the Network in a "HOME" operating system) are miles apart in stupidity.
Nope, sorry, try again. You're not "interesting", you're just arguing the wrong points and trying to pass it off as intelligent banter.
They lost more than one dude... I have a 2.5 year old Dimension here that runs Windows (effectively a true Wintendo for me..) and a no-name build running Linux. I was thinking of getting a new Dell since my current PC is a little underpowered for modern gaming but otherwise running well. Well, unless Dell comes back with a REALLY good reason for this idiocy, I won't be thinking about them any longer and I sure as hell am done recommending them to other people.... I'll take the extra hour to just build my own instead.
It's frightening to watch Cronenberg build the "average everyday guy" and then tear him apart by exposing him for what he really is: the "average everyday guy".
Unfortunately, that goes back to the stupid sheep-people being governed. We, the people who can see where this is going, are a serious minority.
As I see it (and I could be wrong, mind you), there are five major groups involved in this revolving argument:
1. The pirates who are just ripping shit off because they're cheap and/or they can. 2. The people who are sharing files as honest samples, and who buy the CDs of the artists they enjoy (I used to fall into this category until I realized that all music sucks ass these days and just stopped downloading and buying anything..). 3. The RIAA - who is afraid they're monopoly might slip and, in typical form, is also afraid to embrace new technology. 4. The big one: the stupid people who don't know what's going on, and, when told, don't care.
The fifth group is the judicial and legislative members of government who need to make the decisions. Their is a (very?) small voice of protest against the RIAA, then there's the RIAA which can buy all the time it wants with congressional members and judges. It takes A LOT of people to shout down that kind of clout...
I seriously believe that the American people are NOT capable of making well-informed decisions anymore. It's far more convenient to simply let the government and big companies make decisions for them while they go about their ruinous, self-centered business. Pop on the boob tube and be told what to wear, eat, drink, and do for recreation. Pop on the radio and hear the same tired tunes rehashed a million times over - none of that fancy "artsy stuff" to offend the senses! Go to work, get told what to do, come home, repeat ad nauseam.
That's just it... it doesn't MATTER what your definition of ANYTHING is. If you're a judge weighing a case related to this issue, then I stand corrected.
That's not hard evidence, it's a quote from a Web site. It's far less valid as a reason for believing something than even anecdotal evidence. Actually, the general success of shareware is support for my argument.
Nah, it's not even a direct quote. The point was that these folks (multiple apps I used had this affliction) were losing money because everyone wanted to give them some "free advertising". And the proliferation of shareware was not the same thing. Shareware was crippled. It expired after X time or it was missing features. It was a SAMPLE. You're talking about what the industry SHOULD be doing, not what P2P is doing for them.
I've actually benefited the artist by my actions in this case. There is no way this can be considered theft.
Maybe you did benefit the artists, but trot this argument out in court and you'll be laughed all the way to the jail cell. It is considered theft, because theft is defined by the courts and not you.
Frankly, I'm surprised no real research has been done into the effects of music piracy on CD sales,
I'm not. Research like this, unless done independantly, is expensive. If it's done independantly, the RIAA will undoubtedly shut it up by greasing some media-mogul palms. If the RIAA pays for the research, as you said, they'll just pull a Microsoft and buy the "correct" results.
I'm not arguing that what the RIAA is doing is right. I'm just arguing that you can't use the "Free Advertising" argument as an excuse to steal music and expect to get away with it. By continuing that idiotic claim (the "Fair Use" crap goes with it - fair use law is so bloody muddled that only a complete idiot would trust hiding behind it), we play right into the hands of the enemy. Go in front of a court and try to argue that point and you'll be shot down before you finish the thought. You'll just look like some idiot kid stealing music and that will reflect back on the rest of us who are anti-RIAA. What good does that do anyone?
Reminds me of when shareware software was the fad thing. I remember seeing a couple of pieces of software that said something to the effect of:
"Sorry, we can't offer you the software in exchange for a link or banner back to our page. If we kept doing that, we'd have tons of free advertising all over the web, and no money." There's some HARD EVIDENCE where "free advertising" in exchange for "free distribution" failed that counteracts your anecdotal evidence.
*ahem* Excuse me, let me get this off my chest:
IT IS NOT THE FUCKING CONSUMER'S JOB TO ADVERTISE THE ALBUM!
Thanks... now that that's said, why are you playing advertiser? If the RIAA isn't advertising the albums then the consumers shouldn't be buying them and the artists shouldn't be signing with the bastards.
Stealing IS stealing. It's not logical since, IMHO, it DOES help the artists by exposing them to more people... however, you still stole the songs.
The argument doesn't hold water, not because the exposure is ineffective for the artists, but because it's still not an excuse for theft.
There will always be the mindless sheep, you can't simply remove them from the equation
And THAT is the root of most problems my friend. Regardless of whether you like or not, you are being fucked by the stupid people.
It is NOT your job to "expose people to new music". But let me clarify my actual position: I personally have nothing against someone downloading a compressed file for the purposes of sampling a group. Don't like it? Delete it. Like it? Go buy the album. I won't give dirty looks.
HOWEVER, the fact remains that it is still ILLEGAL to do that. Maybe you think it shouldn't be, maybe you think it should be - but it is. Don't like it? Too bad. By continuing to download illegal media, you're merely playing into the hands of the RIAA. They get to scream bloody murder about lost sales (and yes - I blame THEM and their shit-stinking "music" for their plummeting sales) and the courts will look more favorably on TIGHTER restrictions. As if it weren't bad enough that they have the money to buy new laws, pirates are giving them the "MORAL" ground in the eyes of the dumbass courts.
The point is: SHARING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL IS ILLEGAL UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES. If you don't like it, buy indie or support local, unsigned groups and fight the good fight against the RIAA in the meantime. You're not going to help anyone but Rosen and her cronies by downloading and sharing more media.
The "free advertising" argument is ridiculous, absolutely doesn't hold water, and is something I'm getting tired of hearing.
Whether you like it or not, stealing music is stealing music is stealing music. If the song is not owned by you, and you are not explicitly told that you can download it for free, you should not download it. If you don't know about the band, don't buy the album. It's really very simple. If everyone started playing by the rules and acting like conscious consumers instead of mindless pop-addled sheep people, the RIAA would hang itself. Everyone would hear the same crappy song on the radio again and again and think "gee - I wonder if the other songs on the album are good". Then they would think "Well, I can't justify $20 for a CD that I've only hear 1/12 of" and they wouldn't buy it. Record sales and piracy would drop like a rock simultaneously, and the RIAA would be forced to admit that they control shitty music, and unless they start making GOOD music at a REASONABLE price, they're going to be eating out of garbage cans for the rest of their lives.
No one is listening to what you keep saying because you're argument is ridiculous...
Slashdot Mirror
if you don't like it, *change it*!
Have you EVER tried to contact someone of "importance"? I've attempted everything from writing intelligent, professional letters to degrading myself to sniveling begging to get the attention of one of my two senators. I've gotten:
If YOU have a half million dollars to buy some time with a member of the United States government, please use it to do so. I can't afford to be heard by my *ahem* *cough*representatives*cough*. I've tried.
It would be interesting to see what the "amnesty" documents actually say (of course, maybe someone can get me modded to Hell and back by posting a link to such information from one of the other RIAA nightmare stories).
I can envision a document that says, in legalese mumbo jumbo, of course, that the victim... er.. defendant... isn't allowed to rip from their CDs for ANYTHING - backup, mixing, playing in more than one location, etc. - or some other ridiculous terms that make it HIGHLY undesirable to sign. Then, when the vict... damn... defendant refuses to sign it, they can run around screaming that these people are completely unreasonable and impossible to work with. Instant PR in a bottle, just add huge wads of cash to the justic... errr... legal system ((right != justice) != the law).
If the person does sign, they can haul their ass back into court if they step out of line even once and get caught. Then, they can say that this person "broke the law" by ripping a CD they bought or some similar assinine remark. Maybe then they can scare those pesky people who refuse to fork out $60 for 3 copies of the same CD to listen to at home, work, and in the car.
You bring up a good point about legitmate entertainment. Obviously, this item was purchased by either the children or their parents because it was determined by one of those parties that the entertainment was legitmate. One would assume that some burden must be placed on the consumer for actually recognizing that this ENTERTAINMENT... not a step-by-step guide on proper social interaction.
It can certainly be argued that companies shouldn't necessarily market something just because they can, but it also can be argued that the company shouldn't necessarily have to divine morality out the demands of their target audience. If the consuming public wants blood, guts, murder, sex - that's what they get. If they want wholesome, educational entertainment (I should get a +5 funny just for saying that...), that's what they will get.
Amazing how when you see some camera-mugging lawyer pointing the finger at society (where the blame partially belongs), they're actually yelling strictly about movies, music, and video games which is only a subset of it....
Well, actually, if all of the chemical imbalances are just right a single, seemingly benign event COULD trigger a highly psychotic reaction. :)
But, I don't think these kids were born psycho... just really, incredibly, frustratingly, unbelievably STUPID.
I'm reminded of a line out of a Batman comic that I have in which a paramedic tells Batman not to feel bad after a maniac shoots several people because he (Batman) couldn't have known. Batman's response is something to the effect of:
"I don't. I didn't shoot anyone."
I think that applies here fairly well. Noone at Take Two shot anyone (at least not in relation to this case), and it wasn't their job to watch and raise every fucking 90 IQ kid out there who plays their game when the parents don't screen their kids' purchases. A more apt lawsuit might be filed against the parents for criminal negligence and the fact that they let their mentally ill, retarded children anywhere near guns...
Actually, my apologies to all the mentally retarded people out there, I shouldn't have grouped you with people as ridiculously stupid as those kids...
You've obviously never been sued....
Let me explain to you how it works (I'm not being condescending, just making a point):
You go to court and get a lawyer. The company sends 3. You want to just go up and say "look... I didn't do anything, prove it" knowing they can't prove it.
The company just keeps throwing out delay tactics while your bills add up. Eventually, you have no choice but to go bankrupt or settle to end the case.
The company gets money, you get screwed, and they also get a little PR to parade around to the public. If the lawyers are real slick and they finagle a win, they also get the start of a precedent.
The American justice system at work...
That's totally fucking irrelevant assuming it's even true.
If they're hitting ANY non-pirates in their "dragnet", why the hell aren't they checking this stuff out before they send extortion letters?
So, not only are we supposed to accept that DirecTV is trying to act as both the executive and judicial branches of government by both serving the warrants and imposing a judgement in the form of a 3500.00 "fine", we're also supposed to say it's OK that they're arbitrary shooting is hitting innocent bystanders because they get the right target MOST of the time?
Jeezisfuckinchrist.... how long until America becomes a completely corporate-run state with a puppet government to speak for it, again?
We can only hope the rest of the cameras follow suit...
See, now you have good reason to stay inside and read Slashdot 24/7...
Ummm.. hello? Slashdot, will you please sit down and shut up until we get to the end of the discussion?
In case no one else has bothered to notice, there's absolutely NO evidence that this is actually happening. Maybe the gov't of Tawain is just as technically incompotent as the U.S. gubment and they're just being bowled over by shitty administration of their systems. Maybe nothing's happening. Maybe outer space aliens have hidden data signals in their computers that are blocking traffic, who knows?
If I write my name in the paper under the lottery results and put $1,000,000,000,000 next to it, it doesn't really mean I won anything. Sheesh... show a little composure and demand to see at least a tiny bit of evidence before you piss your pants over this...
That's partially true, but it's only PART of the equation. The decision as to the value of the product is also based on the comparisons of similar products. If the only thing they've ever been given to compare against is other ridiculously overpriced crap, they lose the ability, through no fault of their own, to make a fair comparison of the real value of the product.
If someone comes out with Widgets and you think they're a great thing, but you have no idea what the material value is and there's never really been anything you can compare them to*, you have to base your decision SOLELY on your emotional reaction to the product. If that reaction is strong, you buy the product. BUT, if you had known the real material value BEFORE making the decision, the fact that a Widget costs $2.50 to produce and promote may very well make you rethink the decision of shelling out $20.00 for that Widget on a logical level.
That's exactly what the music industry did to consumers: made them purchase the product on a strictly emotional level by actively denying them the necessary information to make a logical decision. You can argue that consumers should be left to their own devices when it comes to deciding this sort of thing, but it shouldn't be the consumer's job to always beat information out of crooked corporations. Hence the judgement. That's part of why courts are there, to protect people so they don't have to spend every waking moment protecting themselves. If you were always left to worry about how a corporate might be (and would be) abusing your trust instead of having someone else do some minimal oversight, your entire day would be spent trying to desperately avoid getting ripped off. You'd have to know every detail about every product you bought. Why? That's why the court decided against the industry - it's called "checks and balances" and it makes it POSSIBLE for you to make intelligent decisions.
* Bear in mind that the industry claimed when CDs came out that the medium was expensive to provide - hence the high prices. They claimed prices would drop as an economy of scale set in. They lied. Prices are exhorbitant for CDs. That has been the case now for well over a decade.
I know you're just being a troll, but my karma can kiss my ass.
Perhaps in your deluded state of self-aggrandizement you forgot that not everybody out there is aware of exactly what a CD really costs to produce. If consumers have never seen a CD fairly priced, how are they supposed to realize that they're being ripped off?
I guess, however, that everybody in the world is supposed to have exactly the same knowlege about the same things as you, right? I forgot that on Slashdot we're all so much better than everyone else because we know different things than they do and have different experiences.
Oh, really? So, if I want to remove Internet Explorer because it's such a buggy, hole-ridden program tied right to the OS, Microsoft has a tool for me to do that? So, if I don't want to install the RPC service on my W2k box at home, I can do that during the installation? So, if I want to forgoe Explorer because I don't need pretty point and click interfaces, I can do that?
You've got it backwards. Unlike well-designed systems, Microsoft DOESN'T provide you with the tools to make the box secure. That's one of the biggest problems - you have to rely on their "one-a-day" pills to make the box secure, and even then, it's not secure, it's just you filling one of many holes in the dam.
I've always been amused by this sort of thing and a thought that goes with it:
If I already have nothing to lose, what if I just continually refuse to pay? The court can TELL you to pay up, but it can't really MAKE you do it. The worst they can do, IIRC, is ruin your credit and whatnot. Could they actually repo things to try and recover the "damages" the plaintiff was seeking? I got sued for a couple hundred bucks. Ultimately, the nasty little JP upped it to 1200, but from what I was told, it sounded like if I never paid it I could just be reported to collections if the plaintiff so desired. If 15000 RIAA victims all refuse to pay, what are they going to do, send 15000 people to collections? That's a pretty big group of people. Big groups engaged in active civil disobedience can get media attention... but then, I could be wrong about that - maybe they CAN make you pay up somehow.
I used to be one of those people who came on /. and argued that stealing songs was wrong regardless, but as the RIAA abuses got worse, so did my attitude. Frankly, I don't give a fuck anymore. Put all of them, "artists" and all out on the street. If the RIAA wants war, they can have it. And it's time people got off their high horses about 'not going down to their level' and fought it.
Christ... first thing I did when I read that was stop moving my mouse.. then the thought crossed my mind that by doing that, I was just setting up a new signature, so I started moving the mouse. Then, I started to think that maybe I was moving the mouse in my own special way, so I tried to make something up.
Then it occurred to me that I'm using lynx.
I'd like you to point out a system that actually does something useful that hasn't needed a patch. Even OpenBSD had one security hole by default so far... and it doesn't really do much of anything out of the box.
The problem with Microsoft isn't that they release software with flaws. Programming flaws happen. The problem with Microsoft is that they let their marketroids drive technical decisions and you wind up with stupid shit like the RPC vulnerability in WinXP Home. They were more concerned with support costs from supporting stupid people who couldn't get RPC working than with doing the Right Thing and leaving it off for the 75% of people who just don't need it, so they wound up being embarassed by MS Blaster. Hopefully, this delay means that they're taking the time to sit back and evaluate their systems more thoroughly to make them something that's actually worth the two hundred dollar price tag... it's okay to send the customers to the local fabric store if you have to, just not as often as they do it for as big of peices of fabric as they do.
The first thing I thought when I saw that headline was "wow - that's like America thinks it is".
I wrote to my senators once each regarding issues. I sat and took the time to do research and provide references to my findings, wrote it up in a very professional manner, proofed it, etc. before sending it. On one of them I got an autoresponse that basically said "If you're a contributor trying to set a meeting time call this number, if you're anyone else, go away". I never got ANY response from the other. I notice several people so far have mentioned they wrote to their MEPs about this issue and it sounds like they may have actually been heard.
Hmmmm..... must be nice to live in a country where your representatives represent you at least occasionally...
Oh, bulldonkey.
I've never come across a Microsoft Office document that couldn't be opened with Open Office, Mozilla hasn't crapped out on me on a website in months (excepting those poorly written ones that check UAs and kick non-IE users before they even get to the door), Evolution connects to Exchange just fine, MySQL makes a perfectly good desktop database replacement for Access (if you install the right tools) and I don't know anyone in your run-of-the-mill office job who uses anything more than that. If you have people that need specialized tools like Macromedia / Acrobat / HR and Accounting software, etc., screw Wine and plunk down a MS Windows system for that person. Stick a leaner Linux on the backend and you're done (yea, I'm well aware it's not that simple, but once you get it running it runs pretty smoothly if you have a clue and your PHBs stay out of the way).
I would rather the users have a very intuitive package in front of them to minimize calls like "how do I start using this? I have to source what and do what to my environment?"
Why would you let your average Joe Sixpack install and setup there own software? You should be installing it for them.
Linux is far from 100% secure...
Anything that does something is never going to be 100% secure. 100% security involves pulling the plug out of the wall, encasing the computer in cement, and burying it out in the desert somewhere. The point is that a well-managed Linux/BSD system is leaps and bounds ahead of any Microsoft offering (yea, Win2k3 will go belly up eventually, mark my words.. it's been hit once, it will be hit again). And yea, if you look at ALL the patches that are available for a given distro, there's a lot. But hell, if you're running 90 different things on the system and you only need 10 of them, you shouldn't be allowed to run it. And, if you're going to try and hold every security flaw in every Linux app against Linux itself, I suggest you start holding every security flaw in every Windows app against Microsoft as well.
Where is the mantra of "the hole shouldn't be there in the first place?" that is constantly fire off at MS when those holes are found in open source software?
Only people who don't have to write code say dumb things like "the problem shouldn't have existed at all". A security flaw because of a mistake (e.g. buffer overflow) and a security flaw because of a marketer (e.g. hanging out three open, useless ports to the Network in a "HOME" operating system) are miles apart in stupidity.
Nope, sorry, try again. You're not "interesting", you're just arguing the wrong points and trying to pass it off as intelligent banter.
They lost more than one dude... I have a 2.5 year old Dimension here that runs Windows (effectively a true Wintendo for me..) and a no-name build running Linux. I was thinking of getting a new Dell since my current PC is a little underpowered for modern gaming but otherwise running well. Well, unless Dell comes back with a REALLY good reason for this idiocy, I won't be thinking about them any longer and I sure as hell am done recommending them to other people.... I'll take the extra hour to just build my own instead.
The ultimate anti-feelgood movie.
It's frightening to watch Cronenberg build the "average everyday guy" and then tear him apart by exposing him for what he really is: the "average everyday guy".
I don't got it: 28.8 my friends. The Matrix is... loading... very.... slowly.... I blame my Karma.
Unfortunately, that goes back to the stupid sheep-people being governed. We, the people who can see where this is going, are a serious minority.
As I see it (and I could be wrong, mind you), there are five major groups involved in this revolving argument:
1. The pirates who are just ripping shit off because they're cheap and/or they can.
2. The people who are sharing files as honest samples, and who buy the CDs of the artists they enjoy (I used to fall into this category until I realized that all music sucks ass these days and just stopped downloading and buying anything..).
3. The RIAA - who is afraid they're monopoly might slip and, in typical form, is also afraid to embrace new technology.
4. The big one: the stupid people who don't know what's going on, and, when told, don't care.
The fifth group is the judicial and legislative members of government who need to make the decisions. Their is a (very?) small voice of protest against the RIAA, then there's the RIAA which can buy all the time it wants with congressional members and judges. It takes A LOT of people to shout down that kind of clout...
I seriously believe that the American people are NOT capable of making well-informed decisions anymore. It's far more convenient to simply let the government and big companies make decisions for them while they go about their ruinous, self-centered business. Pop on the boob tube and be told what to wear, eat, drink, and do for recreation. Pop on the radio and hear the same tired tunes rehashed a million times over - none of that fancy "artsy stuff" to offend the senses! Go to work, get told what to do, come home, repeat ad nauseam.
That's just it... it doesn't MATTER what your definition of ANYTHING is. If you're a judge weighing a case related to this issue, then I stand corrected.
Nah, it's not even a direct quote. The point was that these folks (multiple apps I used had this affliction) were losing money because everyone wanted to give them some "free advertising". And the proliferation of shareware was not the same thing. Shareware was crippled. It expired after X time or it was missing features. It was a SAMPLE. You're talking about what the industry SHOULD be doing, not what P2P is doing for them.
Maybe you did benefit the artists, but trot this argument out in court and you'll be laughed all the way to the jail cell. It is considered theft, because theft is defined by the courts and not you.
I'm not. Research like this, unless done independantly, is expensive. If it's done independantly, the RIAA will undoubtedly shut it up by greasing some media-mogul palms. If the RIAA pays for the research, as you said, they'll just pull a Microsoft and buy the "correct" results.
I'm not arguing that what the RIAA is doing is right. I'm just arguing that you can't use the "Free Advertising" argument as an excuse to steal music and expect to get away with it. By continuing that idiotic claim (the "Fair Use" crap goes with it - fair use law is so bloody muddled that only a complete idiot would trust hiding behind it), we play right into the hands of the enemy. Go in front of a court and try to argue that point and you'll be shot down before you finish the thought. You'll just look like some idiot kid stealing music and that will reflect back on the rest of us who are anti-RIAA. What good does that do anyone?
Reminds me of when shareware software was the fad thing. I remember seeing a couple of pieces of software that said something to the effect of:
"Sorry, we can't offer you the software in exchange for a link or banner back to our page. If we kept doing that, we'd have tons of free advertising all over the web, and no money." There's some HARD EVIDENCE where "free advertising" in exchange for "free distribution" failed that counteracts your anecdotal evidence.
*ahem* Excuse me, let me get this off my chest:
IT IS NOT THE FUCKING CONSUMER'S JOB TO ADVERTISE THE ALBUM!
Thanks... now that that's said, why are you playing advertiser? If the RIAA isn't advertising the albums then the consumers shouldn't be buying them and the artists shouldn't be signing with the bastards.
Stealing IS stealing. It's not logical since, IMHO, it DOES help the artists by exposing them to more people... however, you still stole the songs.
The argument doesn't hold water, not because the exposure is ineffective for the artists, but because it's still not an excuse for theft.
And THAT is the root of most problems my friend. Regardless of whether you like or not, you are being fucked by the stupid people.
It is NOT your job to "expose people to new music". But let me clarify my actual position: I personally have nothing against someone downloading a compressed file for the purposes of sampling a group. Don't like it? Delete it. Like it? Go buy the album. I won't give dirty looks.
HOWEVER, the fact remains that it is still ILLEGAL to do that. Maybe you think it shouldn't be, maybe you think it should be - but it is. Don't like it? Too bad. By continuing to download illegal media, you're merely playing into the hands of the RIAA. They get to scream bloody murder about lost sales (and yes - I blame THEM and their shit-stinking "music" for their plummeting sales) and the courts will look more favorably on TIGHTER restrictions. As if it weren't bad enough that they have the money to buy new laws, pirates are giving them the "MORAL" ground in the eyes of the dumbass courts.
The point is: SHARING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL IS ILLEGAL UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES. If you don't like it, buy indie or support local, unsigned groups and fight the good fight against the RIAA in the meantime. You're not going to help anyone but Rosen and her cronies by downloading and sharing more media.
The "free advertising" argument is ridiculous, absolutely doesn't hold water, and is something I'm getting tired of hearing.
Whether you like it or not, stealing music is stealing music is stealing music. If the song is not owned by you, and you are not explicitly told that you can download it for free, you should not download it. If you don't know about the band, don't buy the album. It's really very simple. If everyone started playing by the rules and acting like conscious consumers instead of mindless pop-addled sheep people, the RIAA would hang itself. Everyone would hear the same crappy song on the radio again and again and think "gee - I wonder if the other songs on the album are good". Then they would think "Well, I can't justify $20 for a CD that I've only hear 1/12 of" and they wouldn't buy it. Record sales and piracy would drop like a rock simultaneously, and the RIAA would be forced to admit that they control shitty music, and unless they start making GOOD music at a REASONABLE price, they're going to be eating out of garbage cans for the rest of their lives.
No one is listening to what you keep saying because you're argument is ridiculous...