My plan is thus - I will create files of nothing but static, and label them Brittney Spears, Netallica, etc. You know, the big targets. I will share something like 10,000 useless files. When they sue me, I'll point out that titles aren't copyrightable, that I own the static, and countersue for harrassment. How many of us doing it would it take to work as a countermeasure?
First of all, yes. The RIAA's legal stance is that any downloading is copyright infringement, even if you own the CD. But second of all, they aren't suing downloaders. They're suing people who share files, because it's an easier case to make for illegal distribution. The problem with this is that even if they're tactics worked, and every person in the United states stopped sharing files (I stopped a while ago, due to bandwidth issues...It slowed down Counterstrike) the majority of filesharers live outside the U.S. (England, Germany, Japan, hell, all of europe.)
I'll do you one better, I download songs from albums I own, on vinyl. According to their website, I'm going to hell.
Anyone who feels the need is welcome to check out Dictionary.com's entry on mail, which entered Middle English from old French - who apparently got it from the Germanic peoples at one time. But even funnier is the idea of trying to prevent your language from evolving - especially when the invading language is English!! Less than one percent of the words in the English language are originally English anyway...A lot of them came from France, oddly enough. That and France doesn't seem too concerned about Latin or Greek words seeping into their culture. Where do they think 'electronique' comes from?
This guy needs to check his math in a couple of ways: First of all, 100,000 x.07 is NOT 70 cents, it's 70 Dollars. I find this a significant differance (though you may disagree). Second of all, a 1 in 10,000 chance of getting sued for thousands of dollars is not a negligable chance. For me, and I suspect most Slashdotters, there is a significantly better chance of getting sued by the RIAA than getting a date this month. Finally, I don't think he put much thought into just how much this will cost the average user. I listen to music on my computer, by conservative estimate, about three hours a day. For arguments sake, let's call that 3 and a half hours, with an average song time of 3 and a half minutes. (Obviously, if you're listening to 'Thick as a Brick' or 'Autobahn' the average time will increase. Bear with me) So about sixty songs a day, at.07 a song, this works out to about 1.50 a month - sounds alright, but is it really better than 9.99 a month for Rhapsody, after which you own the songs? You can listen to them when you're not online, burn CD's etc...
He's actually one of the worlds leading authorities on black holes, and talks in the article about experiments in that area that could destroy the earth. Experiments being carried out right now.
Of course, you probably read the article too, and knew that.
It has also been suggested that Hindenberg was himself 'sabotaging' his own efforts. Many of his problems can be traced back to a reasonably simple math error (If simple can be used to describe the mathematics in nuclear physics) and some have though that Hindenberg was trying to walk the fine line of appearing to develop a Nuclear Weapon while keeping it from ever coming to fruition.
This article isn't about 'good' or 'evil' uses of knowledge. He's talking about lines of research and experimentation that could potentially kill every human on the earth, or destroy our atmosphere, or destroy the planet flat out. I don't recall cavemen having to fact in 'planet destruction' on their risk assessment for the wheel.
Read Malthus and tell me if eliminating hunger and disease wouldn't do us any social harm. In a case like that, I predict a nuclear war within 1 generation.
Legally, file-sharing is stealing and we should all burn in hell forever. This isn't the point. The point is that file-sharing isn't going away no matter what the RIAA does. There's nothing they can do. Since they cannot stop it, period, they need to accept it and figure out how to roll with the punches.
to paraphrase Pink Floyd, "Mother, should I trust the government?
This is not censorship in any way shape or form. The article makes it very clear that Times policy is that no photographs be altered. The Photographer should have been aware of this policy, and chose to ignore it. This is not a case of the government not liking what the photograph portrays and telling the newspaper not to print it. That would be censorship. Firing a photographer for violating policy is not.
However, even if the Times themselves had not liked what the altered image showed, and pulled the photograph whatever reason (it was unpatriotic, it portrayed soldiers in an unfavorable light, etc.) even that would not be censorship. It would be a private business deciding not to show a picture for their own reasons. I've noticed that many Slashdotters don't seem to understand that censorship is only when the government forces someone to stop saying something, printing something, etc. A private business can decide not to say something, or to fire an employee for saying things that they believe are damaging to their business, and be perfectly within their rights.
Actually, all any commercial company does is attempt to find out what people want, and provide it to them. We're not talking about a moral justification here, with consequences to consider, and an absolute right or wrong. We're talking about a potential service that a demand obviously exists for, and the music industry being too blind to recognize a potenial way to cash in on this demand. This is Economics, not Ethics.
Is it possible that the universe shares other characteristics with doughnuts? Could "dark matter" be a powdery tasty substance on the surface of the universe?
The fact is that the RIAA has gotten so locked into a downloading = stealing mindset that they can't see past a pay-per-download service. All of this is based on a logical fallacy: listening to music for free is stealing/wrong. I listen to RIAA approved free music all the time, and have never paid a dime to do so; I listen to the Radio.
The RIAA has the money to set up a truly superior peer to peer system, not to mention a superior range and quality of mp3's. How would this system make money? How does Radio make money? Advertisements. If you can't beat Kazaa's price, beat Kazaa's product.
Forget for the moment that peer to peer networks are cheap to sustain, that it would repair a lot of the damage their public image has sustained, etc. Part of the program for this network could scan your MP3's, cross-correlate them with thousands of other people with similar tastes, and hit you with advertising for bands tailored just for you. It would be a phenomenal way to promote new artists to niche audiences.
Slashdot Mirror
My plan is thus - I will create files of nothing but static, and label them Brittney Spears, Netallica, etc. You know, the big targets. I will share something like 10,000 useless files. When they sue me, I'll point out that titles aren't copyrightable, that I own the static, and countersue for harrassment. How many of us doing it would it take to work as a countermeasure?
First of all, yes. The RIAA's legal stance is that any downloading is copyright infringement, even if you own the CD. But second of all, they aren't suing downloaders. They're suing people who share files, because it's an easier case to make for illegal distribution. The problem with this is that even if they're tactics worked, and every person in the United states stopped sharing files (I stopped a while ago, due to bandwidth issues...It slowed down Counterstrike) the majority of filesharers live outside the U.S. (England, Germany, Japan, hell, all of europe.) I'll do you one better, I download songs from albums I own, on vinyl. According to their website, I'm going to hell.
Anyone who feels the need is welcome to check out Dictionary.com's entry on mail, which entered Middle English from old French - who apparently got it from the Germanic peoples at one time. But even funnier is the idea of trying to prevent your language from evolving - especially when the invading language is English!! Less than one percent of the words in the English language are originally English anyway...A lot of them came from France, oddly enough. That and France doesn't seem too concerned about Latin or Greek words seeping into their culture. Where do they think 'electronique' comes from?
This guy needs to check his math in a couple of ways: First of all, 100,000 x .07 is NOT 70 cents, it's 70 Dollars. I find this a significant differance (though you may disagree). Second of all, a 1 in 10,000 chance of getting sued for thousands of dollars is not a negligable chance. For me, and I suspect most Slashdotters, there is a significantly better chance of getting sued by the RIAA than getting a date this month. Finally, I don't think he put much thought into just how much this will cost the average user. I listen to music on my computer, by conservative estimate, about three hours a day. For arguments sake, let's call that 3 and a half hours, with an average song time of 3 and a half minutes. (Obviously, if you're listening to 'Thick as a Brick' or 'Autobahn' the average time will increase. Bear with me) So about sixty songs a day, at .07 a song, this works out to about 1.50 a month - sounds alright, but is it really better than 9.99 a month for Rhapsody, after which you own the songs? You can listen to them when you're not online, burn CD's etc...
Those historians would be referred to as "correct," and I offer myself up in humility before the readers of slashdot.
He's actually one of the worlds leading authorities on black holes, and talks in the article about experiments in that area that could destroy the earth. Experiments being carried out right now.
Of course, you probably read the article too, and knew that.
It has also been suggested that Hindenberg was himself 'sabotaging' his own efforts. Many of his problems can be traced back to a reasonably simple math error (If simple can be used to describe the mathematics in nuclear physics) and some have though that Hindenberg was trying to walk the fine line of appearing to develop a Nuclear Weapon while keeping it from ever coming to fruition.
This article isn't about 'good' or 'evil' uses of knowledge. He's talking about lines of research and experimentation that could potentially kill every human on the earth, or destroy our atmosphere, or destroy the planet flat out. I don't recall cavemen having to fact in 'planet destruction' on their risk assessment for the wheel.
Read Malthus and tell me if eliminating hunger and disease wouldn't do us any social harm. In a case like that, I predict a nuclear war within 1 generation.
Legally, file-sharing is stealing and we should all burn in hell forever. This isn't the point. The point is that file-sharing isn't going away no matter what the RIAA does. There's nothing they can do. Since they cannot stop it, period, they need to accept it and figure out how to roll with the punches.
They remind me of the Captain of the Titanic.
How about Black Flags pioneering SST Records?
to paraphrase Pink Floyd, "Mother, should I trust the government?
This is not censorship in any way shape or form. The article makes it very clear that Times policy is that no photographs be altered. The Photographer should have been aware of this policy, and chose to ignore it. This is not a case of the government not liking what the photograph portrays and telling the newspaper not to print it. That would be censorship. Firing a photographer for violating policy is not.
However, even if the Times themselves had not liked what the altered image showed, and pulled the photograph whatever reason (it was unpatriotic, it portrayed soldiers in an unfavorable light, etc.) even that would not be censorship. It would be a private business deciding not to show a picture for their own reasons. I've noticed that many Slashdotters don't seem to understand that censorship is only when the government forces someone to stop saying something, printing something, etc. A private business can decide not to say something, or to fire an employee for saying things that they believe are damaging to their business, and be perfectly within their rights.
Still shouldn't trust the government though.
Wait...Dot Matrix printers are obsolete? When did that happen? Oh man...been too long since I upgraded.
Actually, all any commercial company does is attempt to find out what people want, and provide it to them. We're not talking about a moral justification here, with consequences to consider, and an absolute right or wrong. We're talking about a potential service that a demand obviously exists for, and the music industry being too blind to recognize a potenial way to cash in on this demand. This is Economics, not Ethics.
Is it possible that the universe shares other characteristics with doughnuts? Could "dark matter" be a powdery tasty substance on the surface of the universe?
The fact is that the RIAA has gotten so locked into a downloading = stealing mindset that they can't see past a pay-per-download service. All of this is based on a logical fallacy: listening to music for free is stealing/wrong. I listen to RIAA approved free music all the time, and have never paid a dime to do so; I listen to the Radio.
The RIAA has the money to set up a truly superior peer to peer system, not to mention a superior range and quality of mp3's. How would this system make money? How does Radio make money? Advertisements. If you can't beat Kazaa's price, beat Kazaa's product.
Forget for the moment that peer to peer networks are cheap to sustain, that it would repair a lot of the damage their public image has sustained, etc. Part of the program for this network could scan your MP3's, cross-correlate them with thousands of other people with similar tastes, and hit you with advertising for bands tailored just for you. It would be a phenomenal way to promote new artists to niche audiences.