I'm surprised you can work up the courage to walk across the street. After all, walking across the street can be deadly, and can get you killed real fast.
Twit.
You take chances just by breathing. Aspiring to nobler pursuits, taking risks has led to some of the greatest achievements of this century and is to be applauded.
"Because the privately-run ones will try to do things on the cheap and the quick."
You must be a Canadian. Only Canadians think that Government-done means things are done right.
Government done means it cost a lot of money to do, and only 2/3 of the job was completed, with the next election based on people frantically trying to get the voters to believe their vision of getting the final 1/3 of the job complete. What happens, of course, is that 2/3's complete somehow gets rolled back to only 1/2 complete and it's all the fault of the previous party in power.
Privately run means the damn job gets done, and on budget. And innovation does not get stifled.
Government-run, doing things expensively and long term, did not prevent two US space shuttles from exploding.
*** Do not buy this album. If I want to hear it, download it instead. ***
No, no, no dude. You've sent the wrong message. You've just told the music execs that you are unrepentant music pirate who will use any excuse to justify not paying for music.
Yeah, I know where you're coming from, but the Gucci-wearing music geniuses won't. And they'll take your above statement as the justification for their virus-laden music cds: you must be forced to pay for the music.
If you want to let them know you are really UPSET about legitimately purchasing a cd, about doing the RIGHT thing but instead of being given a pat on the back they label you a thief instead, then don't go anywhere near their music.
Don't purchase it. Don't download it. Don't listen to it on the radio. You hear the Beasties on Q107, phone the DJ and tell him not to put such crap on the air.
Then write, both to the Beasties and to the music execs, and tell them you aren't purchasing their music, you aren't downloading their music, hell, you won't even listen to it because of the DRM-virus on the last cd. Then tell 'em you are encouraging all of your friends to do the same.
When the music industry sees all interest in their bands die - put DRM on a music cd and sales/interest in the band/artist dies - the industry will soon learn not to DRM anything.
And that is what both you and me want -- to purchase an audio cd and be able to play it without fearing it'll screw the computer up and result in another 3 days worth of fighting with the damn machine to get it working properly again, all because I was stupid enough to want to play the music on the portable mp3 player. THAT kind of hassle I do not need.
If the sucker works in my Tungsten E, in a small mp3 player, in the camera, and the computer can access it through my current SD card slot, I'm interested. Hell, I'm more than interested, what's the price?
If your stuff gets stolen, you lose: the camera, the ipod, the tiny card, the tiny card reader, etc etc. Sure, I could claim insurance, but I've a deductible of $400, so I'd only get $200+ back on $700+ worth of stuff (Canadian dollars, not US).
But the article is a good indication of where portable memory storage is headed, and I can't wait. Besides, if they come out with a 12 gig CF card, it won't be long before there will be devices who'll gobble all that space up.
*Osama bin Laden is dead. He was killed in the assault on the Tora Bora mountains in November 2001. He's a dead man.*
Is there any conclusive evidence of this, or is this an assumption of the informed based on the man hasn't been heard from in awhile and someone else has stepped into his shoes as head shit-disturber?
And if there is conclusive evidence, or a well-reasoned argument, are there any good websites you would recommend reading?
*The downloaders are just benefitting from your theft.*
Yeah, but is it the uploader who is stealing?
In order to convict someone of theft, you have to prove intent. Computers are confusing enough to the newbie that someone could download and install Kazaa without realizing that a: the software is primarily used to share music and video files that are copyright restricted and b: their shared folder is by default shared with the world unless specified otherwise.
You'd have to prove that the uploader was saavy enough with computers that they understood the nature of Kazaa and knew or should have known they were sharing files they had no right to share.
Having mp3s on the computer and leaving the shared folder 'on' is the same as having a bunch of cds in the window and the front door wide open while a parade goes past your front door.
You haven't made copies of the mp3's, the downloaders did. You didn't steal your cd's, those who entered through your front door stole the cd's.
The downloaders searched, found, then created copies of mp3s that they were uncertain or should have known were copyright protected. The downloaders are the thieves.
This is what the Canadian Courts have problems with. The courts understand that distribution rights are being violated, they don't feel that placing mp3s in a shared folder violates the distribution rights. It's those who seek out and copy those mp3s who violate distribution rights.
I can theoretically understand the music industry going after the uploaders as the music industry protecting their rights to distribute, but the p2p issue is akin to the illegal drug trade in that if there wasn't users, there wouldn't be dealers.
If Joe Sixpack uses an 'authorized' recording device, Joe Sixpack will be allowed to watch that recording within a prescribed period of time at least once. And if he tries to watch it twice, a box will pop up asking him to use the remote control to enter in his credit card # and cc expiry date.
It's already happened in Canada. Mp3 players, blank cd's, blank dvd's, hard drives, etc etc get hit with a freakin' tax levy that's turned over to the media conglomerates as compensation for the monies lost via p2p downloading.
It doesn't take much to figure the same will happen in the US.
We know the RIAA is suing uploaders. We knew that months ago. The only thing even remotely newsworthy about this story is that there are still fools uploading copyright-protected works.
You're thinking of P2P music sharing as theft, and only as theft, when a number of people have told you it's their primary method of having music promoted to them.
Or in other words, how do you find out about new bands that are obscurer than most if you don't listen to the radio? And don't bleat about music subscription services; if you aren't able to listen to the music for free, you won't listen to the music, hence you won't know about Obscure Band X.
I hardly ever listen to radio, and never watch Muchmusic except when channel surfing. But when I was accessing Napster, I was exposed to the works of artists I would never otherwise heard of and purchased.
But you say p2p is theft, and you're flexing the muscles of your lawyers, so I stopped trying to listen to music via the 'net a long time ago.
And I'm no longer hearing of new artists.
And the cd's are copyright protected (a/k/a a pain in the ass to get them to play properly). Where's the extra value I get from putting up with the copyright protection crap? At least the dvd's more than compensated for the region coding/macrovision with stunning video and audio quality.
And the music subscription services almost always have the right to 'expire' any music I buy from 'em at their whim, plus they've got numerous restrictions on the music files/player software.
So music purchasing is no longer fun and you've gone a long way to convince me that you really don't want me hanging around. So, I don't download music, I don't purchase music.
Now these are just my perceptions, but then my perceptions rule my wallet.
*** While this may force foreign firms to lower their patent fees, some experts warn that China risks isolating itself if it creates standards that are incompatible with the rest of the world." ***
I doubt this will force foreign firms to lower their patent fees, and further doubt that the Chinese goverment cares much about isolating themselves from the rest of the world.
And when you've got billions of people in your market, you don't have to care about the rest of the world's standards.
Me too on all external links opening up as tabs instead of new windows.
Other'n that, I like Firefox's lack of gizmos and gadgets. If I want to surf with every plug in fuctionality/programming language enabled, I'd use IE. I like Firefox because it DOESN'T do all that stuff - it has tabs and image blocking. And that's all I need.
I used to like google because I got honest search results from 'em. I knew if I googled, I could trust that I was finding all possibilities, not something creatively ranked according to how much cash someone paid to get their site to pop up higher in the ranking. But currently I'm finding I like the results from Altavista and Alltheweb better than Google's results.
I don't need Google's email; I don't like the size limit as I have no idea how much space a lifetime's worth of email will take up, and given I can save email to my hard drive, Yahoo's limitation of 6mb is fine. And all I need to do is click on Mozilla, go to Yahoo Mail, and sign in.
I don't need a special search bar. Again, I click on Mozilla and proceed to my favourite search engine.
I don't need a search engine for my hard drive. I've already got a pretty good idea what's on my hard drive and where everything is located. Anything I can't find I can hunt down with Window's Find feature.
Google is getting way overhyped. With an IPO to hit the market sooner or later, this is going to be another stock that soars in price initially, then tanks over time.
*However, customs agents usually don't have good senses of humor. *
Oh, I don't know; somehow I think Customs would laugh themselves silly when told this story.
Even funnier, Customs probably x-rayed the box, determined the box did not contain anything illegal or products that would explode enroute (the box was shipped by air), and let the box continue enroute.
Would anyone know if the scammers could appeal the Vat Tax - ie. item shipped did not match description on customs form - to get their Vax Tax monies refunded?
Slashdot Mirror
About 95% of 12gb. Why would I go to the trouble of ripping the albums to mp3 if I didn't like the music to begin with?
I'm surprised you can work up the courage to walk across the street. After all, walking across the street can be deadly, and can get you killed real fast.
Twit.
You take chances just by breathing. Aspiring to nobler pursuits, taking risks has led to some of the greatest achievements of this century and is to be applauded.
"Because the privately-run ones will try to do things on the cheap and the quick."
You must be a Canadian. Only Canadians think that Government-done means things are done right.
Government done means it cost a lot of money to do, and only 2/3 of the job was completed, with the next election based on people frantically trying to get the voters to believe their vision of getting the final 1/3 of the job complete. What happens, of course, is that 2/3's complete somehow gets rolled back to only 1/2 complete and it's all the fault of the previous party in power.
Privately run means the damn job gets done, and on budget. And innovation does not get stifled.
Government-run, doing things expensively and long term, did not prevent two US space shuttles from exploding.
*** Do not buy this album. If I want to hear it, download it instead. ***
No, no, no dude. You've sent the wrong message. You've just told the music execs that you are unrepentant music pirate who will use any excuse to justify not paying for music.
Yeah, I know where you're coming from, but the Gucci-wearing music geniuses won't. And they'll take your above statement as the justification for their virus-laden music cds: you must be forced to pay for the music.
If you want to let them know you are really UPSET about legitimately purchasing a cd, about doing the RIGHT thing but instead of being given a pat on the back they label you a thief instead, then don't go anywhere near their music.
Don't purchase it. Don't download it. Don't listen to it on the radio. You hear the Beasties on Q107, phone the DJ and tell him not to put such crap on the air.
Then write, both to the Beasties and to the music execs, and tell them you aren't purchasing their music, you aren't downloading their music, hell, you won't even listen to it because of the DRM-virus on the last cd. Then tell 'em you are encouraging all of your friends to do the same.
When the music industry sees all interest in their bands die - put DRM on a music cd and sales/interest in the band/artist dies - the industry will soon learn not to DRM anything.
And that is what both you and me want -- to purchase an audio cd and be able to play it without fearing it'll screw the computer up and result in another 3 days worth of fighting with the damn machine to get it working properly again, all because I was stupid enough to want to play the music on the portable mp3 player. THAT kind of hassle I do not need.
*The truth is that there are a lot of average people who browse Slashdot because they want to learn about things.*
BINGO!
Nice!
If the sucker works in my Tungsten E, in a small mp3 player, in the camera, and the computer can access it through my current SD card slot, I'm interested. Hell, I'm more than interested, what's the price?
This has to be the coolest thing I've seen in awhile!
Kudos!
Is good, but is no good on the road.
If your stuff gets stolen, you lose: the camera, the ipod, the tiny card, the tiny card reader, etc etc. Sure, I could claim insurance, but I've a deductible of $400, so I'd only get $200+ back on $700+ worth of stuff (Canadian dollars, not US).
But the article is a good indication of where portable memory storage is headed, and I can't wait. Besides, if they come out with a 12 gig CF card, it won't be long before there will be devices who'll gobble all that space up.
Thank you for the info :) Now I'm off to do some googling.
*Osama bin Laden is dead. He was killed in the assault on the Tora Bora mountains in November 2001. He's a dead man.*
Is there any conclusive evidence of this, or is this an assumption of the informed based on the man hasn't been heard from in awhile and someone else has stepped into his shoes as head shit-disturber?
And if there is conclusive evidence, or a well-reasoned argument, are there any good websites you would recommend reading?
Hell with cnn; a search of the net only has dfw with the latest developments, and that's 11 hours old.
Forgive me. I'll try to refresh the cnn website more often ... ;)
There's video coming out of the wedding party ... a number of the deceased are now being matched with participants on the video.
Even I have doubts that the US hit a legitimate target in this case.
*The downloaders are just benefitting from your theft.*
Yeah, but is it the uploader who is stealing?
In order to convict someone of theft, you have to prove intent. Computers are confusing enough to the newbie that someone could download and install Kazaa without realizing that a: the software is primarily used to share music and video files that are copyright restricted and b: their shared folder is by default shared with the world unless specified otherwise.
You'd have to prove that the uploader was saavy enough with computers that they understood the nature of Kazaa and knew or should have known they were sharing files they had no right to share.
Having mp3s on the computer and leaving the shared folder 'on' is the same as having a bunch of cds in the window and the front door wide open while a parade goes past your front door.
You haven't made copies of the mp3's, the downloaders did. You didn't steal your cd's, those who entered through your front door stole the cd's.
The downloaders searched, found, then created copies of mp3s that they were uncertain or should have known were copyright protected. The downloaders are the thieves.
This is what the Canadian Courts have problems with. The courts understand that distribution rights are being violated, they don't feel that placing mp3s in a shared folder violates the distribution rights. It's those who seek out and copy those mp3s who violate distribution rights.
I can theoretically understand the music industry going after the uploaders as the music industry protecting their rights to distribute, but the p2p issue is akin to the illegal drug trade in that if there wasn't users, there wouldn't be dealers.
If Joe Sixpack uses an 'authorized' recording device, Joe Sixpack will be allowed to watch that recording within a prescribed period of time at least once. And if he tries to watch it twice, a box will pop up asking him to use the remote control to enter in his credit card # and cc expiry date.
It's already happened in Canada. Mp3 players, blank cd's, blank dvd's, hard drives, etc etc get hit with a freakin' tax levy that's turned over to the media conglomerates as compensation for the monies lost via p2p downloading.
It doesn't take much to figure the same will happen in the US.
We know the RIAA is suing uploaders. We knew that months ago. The only thing even remotely newsworthy about this story is that there are still fools uploading copyright-protected works.
You're thinking of P2P music sharing as theft, and only as theft, when a number of people have told you it's their primary method of having music promoted to them.
Or in other words, how do you find out about new bands that are obscurer than most if you don't listen to the radio? And don't bleat about music subscription services; if you aren't able to listen to the music for free, you won't listen to the music, hence you won't know about Obscure Band X.
I hardly ever listen to radio, and never watch Muchmusic except when channel surfing. But when I was accessing Napster, I was exposed to the works of artists I would never otherwise heard of and purchased.
But you say p2p is theft, and you're flexing the muscles of your lawyers, so I stopped trying to listen to music via the 'net a long time ago.
And I'm no longer hearing of new artists.
And the cd's are copyright protected (a/k/a a pain in the ass to get them to play properly). Where's the extra value I get from putting up with the copyright protection crap? At least the dvd's more than compensated for the region coding/macrovision with stunning video and audio quality.
And the music subscription services almost always have the right to 'expire' any music I buy from 'em at their whim, plus they've got numerous restrictions on the music files/player software.
So music purchasing is no longer fun and you've gone a long way to convince me that you really don't want me hanging around. So, I don't download music, I don't purchase music.
Now these are just my perceptions, but then my perceptions rule my wallet.
*** While this may force foreign firms to lower their patent fees, some experts warn that China risks isolating itself if it creates standards that are incompatible with the rest of the world." ***
I doubt this will force foreign firms to lower their patent fees, and further doubt that the Chinese goverment cares much about isolating themselves from the rest of the world.
And when you've got billions of people in your market, you don't have to care about the rest of the world's standards.
Yep, that's the one.
I hate websites that make me use that browser.
Me too on all external links opening up as tabs instead of new windows.
Other'n that, I like Firefox's lack of gizmos and gadgets. If I want to surf with every plug in fuctionality/programming language enabled, I'd use IE. I like Firefox because it DOESN'T do all that stuff - it has tabs and image blocking. And that's all I need.
I used to like google because I got honest search results from 'em. I knew if I googled, I could trust that I was finding all possibilities, not something creatively ranked according to how much cash someone paid to get their site to pop up higher in the ranking. But currently I'm finding I like the results from Altavista and Alltheweb better than Google's results.
I don't need Google's email; I don't like the size limit as I have no idea how much space a lifetime's worth of email will take up, and given I can save email to my hard drive, Yahoo's limitation of 6mb is fine. And all I need to do is click on Mozilla, go to Yahoo Mail, and sign in.
I don't need a special search bar. Again, I click on Mozilla and proceed to my favourite search engine.
I don't need a search engine for my hard drive. I've already got a pretty good idea what's on my hard drive and where everything is located. Anything I can't find I can hunt down with Window's Find feature.
Google is getting way overhyped. With an IPO to hit the market sooner or later, this is going to be another stock that soars in price initially, then tanks over time.
Twirlip? Twirlip! Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuude!
...
OMG, how completely delightful it is to see you again!
And copyright law is completely being an ass in this instance. Unless this means the radio must play less of Justin Timberlake and ilk
Lieing to the US CUSTOMS SERVICE?
Wrong consonant; they lied to UK Customs. It was to UK Customs that duties were paid.
*However, customs agents usually don't have good senses of humor. *
Oh, I don't know; somehow I think Customs would laugh themselves silly when told this story.
Even funnier, Customs probably x-rayed the box, determined the box did not contain anything illegal or products that would explode enroute (the box was shipped by air), and let the box continue enroute.
Would anyone know if the scammers could appeal the Vat Tax - ie. item shipped did not match description on customs form - to get their Vax Tax monies refunded?