1. Part of a judge's job is to determine whether a law is constitutional or not. Please take a Civics course.
2. P2P is just FTP with a centralized list/searching tool. My point exactly. Please try to comprehend the issue before throwing your forehead against it. How much easier is it for people to use P2P than FTP? Well, for the reason you pointed out, the ease of use difference is significant.
3. Sorry if you aren't following the news - I was referring to the "amnesty" that the RIAA has offered. "Amnesty" is misleading, and positions the RIAA as a law enforcement agency. Obviously, before you slam your head in a wall again, the RIAA meant amnesty against their own lawsuits, but that is not what is implied.
I appreciate a good rant as well as anyone else, but hell, let's think before submitting, shall we?
There were a few promising, and some other, less promising, statements made in this article. So I'll summarize what I like/dislike:
1. Looks like there are some politicians listening to us, a little. And a republican! 'Course, the senator is looking to defend ISPs, but the byproduct is defending the users of that ISP from having their privacy violated for no reason.
2. Looks like there may actually be some traction happening on this issue - all prior "looks" by judges at this issue has been a quick dismissal of the concerns.
Don't Like:
1. The judges are not bothering to consider whether the DMCA is constitional, nor if the way it is being abused is constitional, but whether or not it was intended to be used the way it is - this is NOT a good sign. It isn't going to help on the larger issue, but maybe it'll clean up the smaller one.
2. Ginsberg doesn't seem to understand the difference in usability for the average user between an FTP site and a P2P file sharing network. Not that his comments are invalid, but certainly the scope is very different. How do we educate our judicial system?
Anyway, some thoughts... take them as you will (I'm sure there are things I missed here).
Main thing I think we need to remind our congressman about - the RIAA is NOT a law enforcement agency, and should be slapped the hell down if they think they can step into that role.
The RIAA isn't a publisher, nor are they an editor, etc. They are a consortium of individual companies that have formed to protect their industry's "interests". If you want to restate this as something the companies themselves do, fine - I don't have enough information to argue. But please, this does NOT describe the RIAA.
This is true. Read the rest - it is the fact that you keep a copy of the music while others also have a copy that violates the copyright. That's why it is "copy" right. Anyway, handing the CD over means you don't have it, right?
Anyone else constantly impressed with this guy? As someone who owns 90% of the fiction he's created, and who has read more like 95% (and I've bought Ender's Game somewhere near 50 times), I obviously appreciate his abilities as a storyteller. And now he writes a coherent, fair statement regarding the state of "piracy", etc. in the movie/music business, and it just gets better. Hoorah for Mr. Card! Keep them coming...
And yet, SOMEHOW, I was still able to be the first post - even though I didn't PAY for the privilege! What a world we live in!!! (and a few more !!! for good measure)
Since ya'all haven't read the article, and this thing has been out for a long time - understand that every single person in Canada pays a tax which goes in a fund for the labels, which basically pays for this - it has been suggested that we adopt something similar here, but of course, the RIAA doesn't seem to think it is fair.
Well, I've read a lot of posts that say this should/is illegal. Fine, let's go for it - everyone needs to contact the Better Business Bureau and their local congressmen/women (here is contact info for Oregon; Washington, etc. - use your brain, you'll figure it out), and get some movement on this. Don't just sit there and make angry comments! Do it...
Hmmm, well, two of those aren't too bad (the single vendor thing isn't real world though - most businesses use many applications that ain't anywhere nearly Microsoft - try working for a mid-sized company). Umm, but the virus scan thing - haven't seen any information that supports that arguement. Well, I should say information that I see as remotely valid, but I guess that's a little subjective. Any evidence for these claims?
I agree about the troll thing - I think a moderator or two is assuming that you aren't being honest. And I see what you are saying about the P2P thing, but I've got two problems with that - 1) Stopping innovation in order to "remove a scapegoat" seems a bit base-ackwards; 2) I really don't believe that would do the trick - there are other scapegoats out there... for example, did you know that there are actually huge factories out there that pump out illegal copies of CDs (in the millions!) everyday? That's what was being pointed to before the whole P2P thing...
Not to be insensitive, but please read some of the other posts I've seen referring to the real facts of the case. I am sorry your wife was recently laid off. That sucks. But to blame illegal sharing of music is wrong. Your industry is still making a hell of a lot of money. The profit margins are not significantly changed by the advent of these P2P networks. The issue that is brought up by these networks is copyright, and they serve as notice that the music labels need to reorganize their business models. They can make money in an industry where piracy is rampant, WITHOUT alienating the consumer (and some have). Please do some more research on this issue, and DO NOT compare file sharing with drugs. That's just silly.
Does this really address the question? First of all, using the term "killer app" seems kind of silly in these circumstances, but since i don't want to pursue that - I'll leave it be. But comparing this to a mall? People BUY things at a mall. The mall comparison didn't work for webpage stores. If you use P2P to GET STUFF, then it has better be FREE stuff, 'cause otherwise it will be as the original poster said - P2P will give way to commercial solutions (or lawsuits).
Slashdot Mirror
Danke schon - I wasn't aware of that.
Hmmm... catch up please:
1. Part of a judge's job is to determine whether a law is constitutional or not. Please take a Civics course.
2. P2P is just FTP with a centralized list/searching tool. My point exactly. Please try to comprehend the issue before throwing your forehead against it. How much easier is it for people to use P2P than FTP? Well, for the reason you pointed out, the ease of use difference is significant.
3. Sorry if you aren't following the news - I was referring to the "amnesty" that the RIAA has offered. "Amnesty" is misleading, and positions the RIAA as a law enforcement agency. Obviously, before you slam your head in a wall again, the RIAA meant amnesty against their own lawsuits, but that is not what is implied.
I appreciate a good rant as well as anyone else, but hell, let's think before submitting, shall we?
Most judges are voted for, and if not directly, then indirectly (by voting for those who appoint them) - so VOTE! and stop whining...
There were a few promising, and some other, less promising, statements made in this article. So I'll summarize what I like/dislike:
1. Looks like there are some politicians listening to us, a little. And a republican! 'Course, the senator is looking to defend ISPs, but the byproduct is defending the users of that ISP from having their privacy violated for no reason.
2. Looks like there may actually be some traction happening on this issue - all prior "looks" by judges at this issue has been a quick dismissal of the concerns.
Don't Like:
1. The judges are not bothering to consider whether the DMCA is constitional, nor if the way it is being abused is constitional, but whether or not it was intended to be used the way it is - this is NOT a good sign. It isn't going to help on the larger issue, but maybe it'll clean up the smaller one.
2. Ginsberg doesn't seem to understand the difference in usability for the average user between an FTP site and a P2P file sharing network. Not that his comments are invalid, but certainly the scope is very different. How do we educate our judicial system?
Anyway, some thoughts... take them as you will (I'm sure there are things I missed here).
Main thing I think we need to remind our congressman about - the RIAA is NOT a law enforcement agency, and should be slapped the hell down if they think they can step into that role.
True, but if you keep giving the book away, it's nice to have a copy around...
Nope, this isn't true - it's not legal to store the song in our brain's memory either...*sigh*
The RIAA isn't a publisher, nor are they an editor, etc. They are a consortium of individual companies that have formed to protect their industry's "interests". If you want to restate this as something the companies themselves do, fine - I don't have enough information to argue. But please, this does NOT describe the RIAA.
This is true. Read the rest - it is the fact that you keep a copy of the music while others also have a copy that violates the copyright. That's why it is "copy" right. Anyway, handing the CD over means you don't have it, right?
Anyone else constantly impressed with this guy? As someone who owns 90% of the fiction he's created, and who has read more like 95% (and I've bought Ender's Game somewhere near 50 times), I obviously appreciate his abilities as a storyteller. And now he writes a coherent, fair statement regarding the state of "piracy", etc. in the movie/music business, and it just gets better. Hoorah for Mr. Card! Keep them coming...
And yet, SOMEHOW, I was still able to be the first post - even though I didn't PAY for the privilege! What a world we live in!!! (and a few more !!! for good measure)
There REALLY wasn't that many comments to read to figure this was a dup - and they were at least 30 minutes old.
Advertising! I could hardly wait!
Hehehehe - okay, well, good to know. Thanks!
Actually, all the stories here are posted by users. Try submitting the story yourself before complaining. Thanks!
Since ya'all haven't read the article, and this thing has been out for a long time - understand that every single person in Canada pays a tax which goes in a fund for the labels, which basically pays for this - it has been suggested that we adopt something similar here, but of course, the RIAA doesn't seem to think it is fair.
America != US ;-P
Well, I've read a lot of posts that say this should/is illegal. Fine, let's go for it - everyone needs to contact the Better Business Bureau and their local congressmen/women (here is contact info for Oregon; Washington, etc. - use your brain, you'll figure it out), and get some movement on this. Don't just sit there and make angry comments! Do it...
Yeah, some day I'll be able to stop myself from doing that. *hangs head in shame*
(a) That's not the only problem;
(b) VB isn't the topic; and
(c) That isn't even true.
Wow, none out of three!
Hmmm, well, two of those aren't too bad (the single vendor thing isn't real world though - most businesses use many applications that ain't anywhere nearly Microsoft - try working for a mid-sized company). Umm, but the virus scan thing - haven't seen any information that supports that arguement. Well, I should say information that I see as remotely valid, but I guess that's a little subjective. Any evidence for these claims?
Being that Homeland Defense is currently the great evil of this nation, let the personal attacks on Mr. Amit Yoran begin!
So is the amount of music lost by "file-sharing"...
I agree about the troll thing - I think a moderator or two is assuming that you aren't being honest. And I see what you are saying about the P2P thing, but I've got two problems with that - 1) Stopping innovation in order to "remove a scapegoat" seems a bit base-ackwards; 2) I really don't believe that would do the trick - there are other scapegoats out there... for example, did you know that there are actually huge factories out there that pump out illegal copies of CDs (in the millions!) everyday? That's what was being pointed to before the whole P2P thing...
Not to be insensitive, but please read some of the other posts I've seen referring to the real facts of the case. I am sorry your wife was recently laid off. That sucks. But to blame illegal sharing of music is wrong. Your industry is still making a hell of a lot of money. The profit margins are not significantly changed by the advent of these P2P networks. The issue that is brought up by these networks is copyright, and they serve as notice that the music labels need to reorganize their business models. They can make money in an industry where piracy is rampant, WITHOUT alienating the consumer (and some have). Please do some more research on this issue, and DO NOT compare file sharing with drugs. That's just silly.
Does this really address the question? First of all, using the term "killer app" seems kind of silly in these circumstances, but since i don't want to pursue that - I'll leave it be. But comparing this to a mall? People BUY things at a mall. The mall comparison didn't work for webpage stores. If you use P2P to GET STUFF, then it has better be FREE stuff, 'cause otherwise it will be as the original poster said - P2P will give way to commercial solutions (or lawsuits).