Privacy isn't a property - it is a privilege. Maybe not so much of a privilege, but a right. If an organization (especially a gov't org) has information about you that could be harmful towards you if it fell into the wrong hands then it is that organization's duty to protect that information.
I think the wording is odd in that statement. It isn't privacy that is a property, it's the information that is a property. Privacy is a means to protect that information, and failing to protect personal "property" that someone is required to provide is my issue here. Absolutely.
Revolutions dfefinately made for what the second one lacked; ten fold. The original post put it quite aptly when he said it will put you back into a coma. Go see this movie as soon as you can.
"Really, the only thing that differentiates this 'game console' from a standard, Windows-running PC is that it has no way to get data on or off of it except through a dedicated connection to Infinium Labs' own servers via your broadband ISP, plus the fact that if you try to open it up or modify it or grab data from the hard drive, bad things will happen, starting with violation of the terms under which you will lease or purchase the Phantom."
That's kind of scary. Anyone got a link to the Phantom liscense agreement? This thing seems pretty cool, but it gives me the creeps. I mean, seriously, just by opening this thing up you violate some damned agreement. By tinkering with something that you own you stand the chance of getting in trouble....obsurd.
But misgivings aside, the Phantom seems like a sweet little peice of machinery coupled together with a good service. This should've been done a long time ago.
Dear Mr. Berkely Breathed,
"Opus" the penguin is currently property of SCO Inc. Please, come sign our amnesty form and delete all images and shred all drawings of this character. Additionally, you will be neuralized to ensure that you never think of our beloved Opus again. Furthermore, if you somehow do manage do succomb to even the most minimal thought of Opus we will kidnap your first born and hold him/her hostage and force him/her to watch "Strangers With Candy" until he/she becomes insane and delusional or until your central neural unit dissolves all meaning of the word "Opus".
Thank you for your cooperation.
More nonsense from the media to generate hyped headlines so that retards buy their newspaper. They're not suing the 12 yr old.. they're suing the person responsible for the internet connection. The headline is entirely misleading.
Hey you, watch it!!!!!
"Fox News: Fair and Balanced"
NOTE: that is copyright of the Fox News Network. Any use of it my result in frequent anal prodding.
Surgeon General Warning: Use of the Fox News Network slogan may result in severe and rapid blood loss. Pregnant women should not use any Fox News Network material.
OK, cheap shots aside; what will this lawsuit serve? They obviously know they won't get much money, if any, from a girl living in a city's subsidized housing system. This is nothing more than a tactic designed to instill fear into file-sharers, call it an attempt at Social Engineering.
Call it what you want, but the purpose of this is to create a system sustaining environment. Who cares if people stop file-sharing out of fear? The main point is that they stop sharing the files. Also, who cares if the RIAA kills themselves with this one? Let 'em. The only unfortunate people are the ones who get sued. In this case, the Torres familly really is pathetic, is it me or does it not seem blatantly obvious that (at least it should to the parent) downloading thousands of big name songs for only $29 seem a little awry? While this attack by the RIAA is absolutely morally despicable, their argument is completely legally binding.
Maybe one option for those being sued is to file a class action against the RIAA for unjust legal practices or something of that nature.
This is just going to keep getting bigger until this whole situation just crashes. Rolling snowball effect anyone?
Finally someone here seems to make some sense. If you're going to trade copyrighted music you ought to be prepared to face the consequences.
Wake UP! Complaining that they're trying to stop LEGAL trading is one thing. But they're not doing that. If you make your own music and distribute it, the RIAA isn't going to bat an eye.
Absolutely right. A large amount of the people are posting their comments blindly by thinking that RIAA is attacking everyone who is using some P2P program.
Additionally, the argument that the artists only get a small portion of the proceeds from CDs is completely ludicrous. The artists know damn well what they are getting themselves into, and if they don't then they shoudl've RTF contract a little better. For all those who tried to use this argument: You are no better than the RIAA with respect to the artists. You are using them (the artists) as your tool.
However, I do beleive that the RIAA is putting on some type of show with all this. Their actions are over the top. They will most likely be hurting middle-class people who really didn't see this coming and who don't have the means to fight it; which leads me to thank the EFF for basically putting out the other side of the issue and standing up for people. Moreover, I really don't see much hope for the people being sued. They almost certainly are guilty and should probably settle as quickly as possible to minimize their loss. They apparently had copyrighted works posted online free for anyone to download which does violate copyright standards which have been in place for quite some time now. There is harm that has been done by this and will continue to be done by this if it is allowed to continue. The RIAA's purpose here can be considered 'system sustaining'. While it may cost more for them to go through this whole legal process the main point is to get as many people as possible to stop trading music that they own. (NOTE: Success levels vary.)
Most people probably see online music piracy as a type of calculated risk. Odds are they aren't going to get caught and will reap a decent reward. The suing of the 261 file-sharers proves this by showing that only the 261 "most active" traders are now directly targeted. Now , IDK how the RIAA conducted their search for these people, but these are the ones who probably have the largest amount of copyrighted music in their Shared Music folder. These are the people who didn't calculate the risk factor very well and now have a hell of a mess on their hands which will undoubtedly ruin the better part of their lives for the next several years. Now, the real question becomes clear: Is the RIAA justified in their actions?
1) Legally: Yes
2) Morally: No
But, honestly, what other choice do they have? They are after all, a consortium of corporations interested in one thing: The Bottom Line.
Which, one can inevitably concede: screw the bottom line. Goto Cd Baby. Or goto the local music retailers in your area. Buy used CDs and donate/sell your old CDs. There is so much more out there than what many people know. But then again, I suppose ignorance truly is bliss.
If the RIAA's service is so bad that people would have preferred Napster to going to the store, then the problem is entirely the RIAA's fault.
What is this about the RIAA's service? I haven't been to a record store for quite some time. But as far as service goes isn't that up to the record store and not the recording industry?
Broadband is not failing. Early adopters were few and far between, but now more & more people are upgrading their connection. My home got a cable modem within the first year they were rolled out in my area (circa 2000). As of December 2002 there were 19.9 million broadband subscribers in the U.S.A. According to the FCC report that is a "23% increase during the second half of 2002." As more people adopt high-speed connections the prices will most likely drop; similar to what happened in the cell phone industry, with the cable modems being offered for free and other promotions. The DRM and the DMCA have absolutely no effect on broadband usage in the US whatsoever. What the hell does the average person know about that? Zilch. They are probably more worried about getting pr0n to the desktop a bit faster.
Honestly, after reading the article, the post on/., and thinking about this issue for about an hour I can not come up with one reason why the new ownership rules are even an issue. What really needs to be known is who came up with these new measures and who suggested them to Mr. Powell in the first place. Then we'll see where there real controllers of the FCC comes from.
In a recorded phone convesation last February:
BigMedia: Hey Mike, is there any way we get can some more control over the media? Yah know, with the Internet and all we really don't feel that we reach the millions of people we'd like to. Michael Powell: Sure, I'll get something your desk by Tuesday morning. BigMedia: Any way you can have done by Monday? Michael Powell: Ummmm, ok.::click::
....the duality of American corporate culture. Ad spots and web sites devoted to helping the average worker, then the moves to outsource any job overseas. If the actors/actresses in other countries spoke perfect English, were white, and worked for less there would be no movie production industry in the USA. Less talk about "starving artists" and more talk about bottom line. (but that wouldn't be a very effective ad campaign now would it)
Slashdot Mirror
Here is the DC Appeals court opinion (in PDF): RIAA v. Verizon Internet.
Thank you for finally making the point that the "movie extras" on DVD are for the most part complete bullshit. Please mod parent up.
Way to go Sharman! You have now hurt your branding appeal.
Privacy isn't a property - it is a privilege.
Maybe not so much of a privilege, but a right. If an organization (especially a gov't org) has information about you that could be harmful towards you if it fell into the wrong hands then it is that organization's duty to protect that information.
I think the wording is odd in that statement. It isn't privacy that is a property, it's the information that is a property. Privacy is a means to protect that information, and failing to protect personal "property" that someone is required to provide is my issue here.
Absolutely.
just a quickie: sweet sig, nofx rocks.
Revolutions dfefinately made for what the second one lacked; ten fold. The original post put it quite aptly when he said it will put you back into a coma. Go see this movie as soon as you can.
That's kind of scary. Anyone got a link to the Phantom liscense agreement? This thing seems pretty cool, but it gives me the creeps. I mean, seriously, just by opening this thing up you violate some damned agreement. By tinkering with something that you own you stand the chance of getting in trouble....obsurd.
But misgivings aside, the Phantom seems like a sweet little peice of machinery coupled together with a good service. This should've been done a long time ago.
also running an article: Look Ma' No Projection Screen
Dear Mr. Berkely Breathed,
"Opus" the penguin is currently property of SCO Inc. Please, come sign our amnesty form and delete all images and shred all drawings of this character. Additionally, you will be neuralized to ensure that you never think of our beloved Opus again. Furthermore, if you somehow do manage do succomb to even the most minimal thought of Opus we will kidnap your first born and hold him/her hostage and force him/her to watch "Strangers With Candy" until he/she becomes insane and delusional or until your central neural unit dissolves all meaning of the word "Opus".
Thank you for your cooperation.
Hey you, watch it!!!!!
"Fox News: Fair and Balanced"
NOTE: that is copyright of the Fox News Network. Any use of it my result in frequent anal prodding.
Surgeon General Warning: Use of the Fox News Network slogan may result in severe and rapid blood loss. Pregnant women should not use any Fox News Network material.
Call it what you want, but the purpose of this is to create a system sustaining environment. Who cares if people stop file-sharing out of fear? The main point is that they stop sharing the files. Also, who cares if the RIAA kills themselves with this one? Let 'em. The only unfortunate people are the ones who get sued. In this case, the Torres familly really is pathetic, is it me or does it not seem blatantly obvious that (at least it should to the parent) downloading thousands of big name songs for only $29 seem a little awry?
While this attack by the RIAA is absolutely morally despicable, their argument is completely legally binding.
Maybe one option for those being sued is to file a class action against the RIAA for unjust legal practices or something of that nature.
This is just going to keep getting bigger until this whole situation just crashes. Rolling snowball effect anyone?
Wake UP! Complaining that they're trying to stop LEGAL trading is one thing. But they're not doing that. If you make your own music and distribute it, the RIAA isn't going to bat an eye.
Absolutely right. A large amount of the people are posting their comments blindly by thinking that RIAA is attacking everyone who is using some P2P program.
Additionally, the argument that the artists only get a small portion of the proceeds from CDs is completely ludicrous. The artists know damn well what they are getting themselves into, and if they don't then they shoudl've RTF contract a little better. For all those who tried to use this argument: You are no better than the RIAA with respect to the artists. You are using them (the artists) as your tool.
However, I do beleive that the RIAA is putting on some type of show with all this. Their actions are over the top. They will most likely be hurting middle-class people who really didn't see this coming and who don't have the means to fight it; which leads me to thank the EFF for basically putting out the other side of the issue and standing up for people. Moreover, I really don't see much hope for the people being sued. They almost certainly are guilty and should probably settle as quickly as possible to minimize their loss. They apparently had copyrighted works posted online free for anyone to download which does violate copyright standards which have been in place for quite some time now. There is harm that has been done by this and will continue to be done by this if it is allowed to continue. The RIAA's purpose here can be considered 'system sustaining'. While it may cost more for them to go through this whole legal process the main point is to get as many people as possible to stop trading music that they own. (NOTE: Success levels vary.)
Most people probably see online music piracy as a type of calculated risk. Odds are they aren't going to get caught and will reap a decent reward. The suing of the 261 file-sharers proves this by showing that only the 261 "most active" traders are now directly targeted. Now , IDK how the RIAA conducted their search for these people, but these are the ones who probably have the largest amount of copyrighted music in their Shared Music folder. These are the people who didn't calculate the risk factor very well and now have a hell of a mess on their hands which will undoubtedly ruin the better part of their lives for the next several years. Now, the real question becomes clear: Is the RIAA justified in their actions?
1) Legally: Yes
2) Morally: No
But, honestly, what other choice do they have? They are after all, a consortium of corporations interested in one thing: The Bottom Line. Which, one can inevitably concede: screw the bottom line. Goto Cd Baby. Or goto the local music retailers in your area. Buy used CDs and donate/sell your old CDs. There is so much more out there than what many people know. But then again, I suppose ignorance truly is bliss.
go ahead and search for kazaa-lite on google.F -8&q=kazaa+lite&btnG=Google+Search
you will find a direct link to the official Kazaa-Lite website.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UT
What is this about the RIAA's service? I haven't been to a record store for quite some time. But as far as service goes isn't that up to the record store and not the recording industry?
...is also running an article on the stats: http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,60282,00 .html
Who would own the copyright to such a composition?
Broadband is not failing. Early adopters were few and far between, but now more & more people are upgrading their connection. My home got a cable modem within the first year they were rolled out in my area (circa 2000). As of December 2002 there were 19.9 million broadband subscribers in the U.S.A. According to the FCC report that is a "23% increase during the second half of 2002." As more people adopt high-speed connections the prices will most likely drop; similar to what happened in the cell phone industry, with the cable modems being offered for free and other promotions.
The DRM and the DMCA have absolutely no effect on broadband usage in the US whatsoever. What the hell does the average person know about that? Zilch. They are probably more worried about getting pr0n to the desktop a bit faster.
Honestly, after reading the article, the post on /., and thinking about this issue for about an hour I can not come up with one reason why the new ownership rules are even an issue. What really needs to be known is who came up with these new measures and who suggested them to Mr. Powell in the first place. Then we'll see where there real controllers of the FCC comes from.
::click::
In a recorded phone convesation last February:
BigMedia: Hey Mike, is there any way we get can some more control over the media? Yah know, with the Internet and all we really don't feel that we reach the millions of people we'd like to.
Michael Powell: Sure, I'll get something your desk by Tuesday morning.
BigMedia: Any way you can have done by Monday?
Michael Powell: Ummmm, ok.
http://www.ninjaculture.com/articles/057.asp
....the duality of American corporate culture. Ad spots and web sites devoted to helping the average worker, then the moves to outsource any job overseas. If the actors/actresses in other countries spoke perfect English, were white, and worked for less there would be no movie production industry in the USA. Less talk about "starving artists" and more talk about bottom line. (but that wouldn't be a very effective ad campaign now would it)
I just got a new cell phone number, now all the people I don't want calling me anymore can't. ;-)
maybe if the patent office was smart enough to ensure anti-trust cases like this wouldn't happen in the first place...