Haven't RTFA'd, but aren't libraries a public good? Yes, when I was a university student I barely used the physical library, relying instead on papers I could get online, etc., but the reason I could get access to those paper databases was because the school funded my access, and I paid for part of it with my tuition. These were academic databases - as far as I knew, there was no equivalent database of fiction, non-fiction, etc., just bookstores, Amazon.com et al., and, yes, libraries. At my local library in town, I've got a library card (that was either free or $2, can't remember which at present) that provides me access to an immense set of writing for gratis. What large-scale databases of books - that is, mainstream current literature, not things that have gone out of copyright, such as Project Gutenberg - are present? If some version of the Kindle is both cheap and lets users read current books both legally and for free (some kind of checkout system?), the library seems likely to remain.
On the point of public good: libraries are for everyone, not just the tech-savvy. Sure, it's great that people are getting connected, it's great that people have the disposable income to buy lots of books, but libraries serve many populations of people, not just those who are on the proper side of the Digital Divide. Do we really think that the digitally illiterate population of America (given that the topic is American, not that the digital divide is just a national issue) will have dropped to nothing by 2019? Because I am really dubious of that.
tl;dr Just because many people on one side of the digital divide have disposable income and like their books on terminal screens, it doesn't mean that a service provided for the good of the populace as a whole will whither and die.
I haven't RTFA'd, so don't know if this is in there, but Zunior.com is already offering FLAC downloads for $2 more than their mp3 downloads; it was definitely an incentive to buy from them, and I imagine some other, smaller mp3 stores are also offering lossless. Hopefully both Apple and eMusic will take the hint.
I had to do some network setups of new Dell machines with the toolbar preinstalled. The redirector was actually a huge headache because it overrode the instructions issued when a machine was attached to the server. So instead of automatically redirecting users to the company's intranet, they found themselves getting sent to the Google/Dell custom page. Definitely did a number on my trust of Google.
So, is this the first example of serious Wikipedia scandal, such as the introduction of widespread spam to email users, or the defrauding of ebay users by people claiming to sell sports memorabilia? Or is this just an example of shoddy editing? (I am rather inclined towards the former.)
I definitely do the birthday wall post, and I have to say I've thought of this same issue. Sharing of wall post text, where I don't even know one of the parties, is pretty darned vexatious.
If one can be an 'art geek' or 'movie geek' it's not necessarily so surprising is it? It doesn't seem as if the term is necessarily confined to people who tinker with machines anymore, and that it's simply just a fashion statement. (Would any geek want to actually be Napoleon Dynamite, who despite his dancing skills, in good faith tried to use a patently bogus time machine?) Since being a 'geek' has been disassociated with being a coder or engineer, it seems more like the mainstream has managed to steal a concept from a subculture and put its own mainstream spin on it.
I do, however, have a friend who decided to be a Comp Sci major because of the movie Hackers, so make of that what you will.
...is that it's not actually doing much that's different. There isn't anything inherently wrong with rap, in the same way that there isn't anything wrong with rock or electronic; all genres have their fans and detractors. But if Nerdcore just means whipping out Lord of The Rings references, why doesn't Led Zep get labeled "Nerd Rock" for "The Battle For Evermore". The best rappers are famous for their cleverness and humor (consider the pop-culture references of The Beastie Boys or Eminem, and the host of comic rappers like Kool Keith and Public Enemy's Flava Flav), but generally have other factors going for them as well (the world-class production of Paul's Boutique, or the more substantive comments of PE's other members such as frontman Chuck D.)
Nerdcore can be fun - and M.C. Frontalot's "Which M.C. Was That?" is a good few minutes, but it doesn't seem to have any substance with which to retain interest. Maybe with a major label thy could be some kind of "Vox Nerdi", but otherwise I doubt it. And until someone tops the ridiculous science references of "Sounds of Science", I continue to give the crown to the Beastie Boys.
As a college student, I'd like to note that on my campus mac users (and some windows users too, probably) are making use of the miracle of iTunes.
Since the newest version of iTunes lets you share music across the network, a large number of students have simply opened up their lists for perusing and playing. (Downloading, as far as I know, is impossible.)
Because no one is downloading the files, so clearly is just benefitting from sampling the music (that is, some people will almost definitely purchase CDs when they find themselves deprived of permanent access to songs that they like. -Ideally. I realize I am a bit optimistic), I feel that this should be legal, even though I realize that it's probably not. However, I find it amusing that even though iTunes warns you that you should only share music with yourself -presumably when on some other computer on the network with iTunes- it allows multiple users to be logged in at the same time, and doesn't require that you set a password. So the system has essentially set itself up to be abused.
2. I suppose the girl might have been lying about not beiing aware of breaking of the law.
Ignoring points 1. and 2. for the moment, one of the main issues with file sharing is concern that people are losing track of what "intellectual property" is. I don't mean this as a "KaZaA is evil" or "Damn the RIAA!" rant, just that this seems like very concrete proof that we have reached the stage of the game where some people who are trading the files are unaware that they are doing anything wrong. (And please don't respond "I'm only hurting an evil corporation so it's okay." I mean entirely unaware of violation.)
So if you are totally, totally aware of wrongdoing, does 2. apply?
Pfah. I was trying to come up with some grand conclusion for my brilliant point above, but I really can't. At best, it's proof a sea-change in the concept of intellectual property, but it would sound a tad pretentious to make such a claim. And filesharing advocates have already been making it for years.
f*ckedcompany.com is out, f*ckedcountry.com is in?
(And this might not be moral, and it might be a ridiculous idea for a government-funded project, but someone, somewhere, will start a free one for the amusement of themselves and their friends.)
Is that instead of just deleting old programs, you can throw frisbees at them and they'll disappear. For once, you'll be able to have as much fun deleting files as Strong Bad[homestarrunner.com].
What stands out about the message is that the RIAA is saying that it is willing to do what it can to students who violate copyright. I'm not siding with it, by any means, but I think it indicates a fundamental mindset that is key to the whole "Free music until the prices are fair" movement.
RIAA: "If you violate copyright laws, we can fine you an obscene amount of money and destroy your future. Is destroying your future worth a song?"
Students, et al.: "You want to destroy my future just because I downloaded a song? That's crazy, man!"
The point about downloading music being theft is well taken, because it's true. But it's also a form of civil disobedience. If I download a song, even to sample it so that I can discover if I want the album, I'm breaking the law. But the mindset about computers is that this is such a petty thing, something done ridiculously easily, that it can't be equivalent to lifting a CD from the store. And if the RIAA does succeed in getting that message across, do they really want to? "Hey, kids, those CD singles that we're selling for eight bucks are for all basic purposes the same as files that are a measly 3.8 megabytes. Not that we're overcharging, mind you..."
It really is all about mindshare, and public perception.
As to consequences, I'm a student at Princeton. We now have a new, university provided network search engine, which they have done everything possible to remove mp3s, divxs, and avis from. There are still a lot of shared files on the network, though; the only difficulty is getting network maps.
As to direct action, if the university gets a complaint about your having illegally copyrighted material shared on the network, they demand that you delete it. Otherwise they leave us alone.
While there are many excellent arguments for eMusic, it still lacks a few things that Apple's service provides.
Subscriptions are cool. Emusic is $10/ month? Get more than 120 mp3s per year and you beat Apple's price model. But it doesn't have the same kind of consumer style as opening iTunes, popping open a playlist and downloading. Sure, it's just the difference between using a web-browser and a virtual browser, but style matters to the public in this crazy world, so it's a good point.
Emusic also caters to the more obscure music crowd. If you're looking for Velvet Acid Christ, or other stuff that doesn't get much radio play, they are an excellent choice. But Top 40 and all its close relatives, as terrible as you might think it is, is still the main concern. The iTunes store covers it much better than Emusic does, so it serves much better as a test of consumer interest in online music sales than Emusic does. And if Apple has enough success on a limited level, they might drop prices (seeing as how it will be impossible to increase them without people getting ticked off), thus increasing interest and also beating eMusic's prices.
Sure, a lot of the initial store users are just getting in on the hype. I've barely heard anything about the store mentioned here at college, and I still run into people who don't know what an iPod is; Apple's pronouncement probably hasn't touched a large segment of the population. But business is business, and whether the money comes from a few crazy users who are getting their friends in on it, or a devoted fan base, the money is still coming. Besides, the former group can easily become the latter, given some time.
Grokster & KaZaA are doing well, and they're making the RIAA think. But in the end, that's their purpose. If people who want music for lower prices come out and say "Hey! We just want it for free, so let's jack it!", then there's hardly any social benefit to theft, you're just stealing because you're cheap. But if you get presented with a price model that you like, and it seems like the industry is going to play fair, don't steal. Because then the industry just works harder to screw you, and eventually will use its massive lawyer task force to win.
I don't think I'm going to start using the music store soon, mainly because I don't have 10.2, and because there's a very fine used CD store in town with a huge selection and low prices. But 99 cents for a song, along with cover art and ten CD burns doesn't seem like such an awful deal. Wait a month and see what comes. Windows Music Store?
The placement of an FM Radio recorder on an MP3 player must be giving the music industry some kind of headache. While it is one thing to call some bootlegged Avril (or artist of choice...) mp3 illegal, if you recorded it and placed it on the player then it most certainly is not. And while it's impossible to tell if an mp3 on a player was ripped from a CD or downloaded, it seems like this radio recorder makes the issue even more complicated. Imagine, for example, having one of those babies in your living room and just continuously downloading all the music you hear and burning it to CD. I would assume that's perfectly legal (seeing as how taping the radio is), and can't be stopped.
Hmm... free distribution of recorded-from-radio CD-Rs, anyone?
Slashdot Mirror
Haven't RTFA'd, but aren't libraries a public good? Yes, when I was a university student I barely used the physical library, relying instead on papers I could get online, etc., but the reason I could get access to those paper databases was because the school funded my access, and I paid for part of it with my tuition. These were academic databases - as far as I knew, there was no equivalent database of fiction, non-fiction, etc., just bookstores, Amazon.com et al., and, yes, libraries. At my local library in town, I've got a library card (that was either free or $2, can't remember which at present) that provides me access to an immense set of writing for gratis. What large-scale databases of books - that is, mainstream current literature, not things that have gone out of copyright, such as Project Gutenberg - are present? If some version of the Kindle is both cheap and lets users read current books both legally and for free (some kind of checkout system?), the library seems likely to remain. On the point of public good: libraries are for everyone, not just the tech-savvy. Sure, it's great that people are getting connected, it's great that people have the disposable income to buy lots of books, but libraries serve many populations of people, not just those who are on the proper side of the Digital Divide. Do we really think that the digitally illiterate population of America (given that the topic is American, not that the digital divide is just a national issue) will have dropped to nothing by 2019? Because I am really dubious of that. tl;dr Just because many people on one side of the digital divide have disposable income and like their books on terminal screens, it doesn't mean that a service provided for the good of the populace as a whole will whither and die.
I haven't RTFA'd, so don't know if this is in there, but Zunior.com is already offering FLAC downloads for $2 more than their mp3 downloads; it was definitely an incentive to buy from them, and I imagine some other, smaller mp3 stores are also offering lossless. Hopefully both Apple and eMusic will take the hint.
I had to do some network setups of new Dell machines with the toolbar preinstalled. The redirector was actually a huge headache because it overrode the instructions issued when a machine was attached to the server. So instead of automatically redirecting users to the company's intranet, they found themselves getting sent to the Google/Dell custom page. Definitely did a number on my trust of Google.
So, is this the first example of serious Wikipedia scandal, such as the introduction of widespread spam to email users, or the defrauding of ebay users by people claiming to sell sports memorabilia? Or is this just an example of shoddy editing? (I am rather inclined towards the former.)
Dear PhishTank user: There has ben a problem with your account information. Please go to http://www.phishtank-org.uk/UserID357zzzzx.html to make appropriate changes.
I definitely do the birthday wall post, and I have to say I've thought of this same issue. Sharing of wall post text, where I don't even know one of the parties, is pretty darned vexatious.
If one can be an 'art geek' or 'movie geek' it's not necessarily so surprising is it? It doesn't seem as if the term is necessarily confined to people who tinker with machines anymore, and that it's simply just a fashion statement. (Would any geek want to actually be Napoleon Dynamite, who despite his dancing skills, in good faith tried to use a patently bogus time machine?) Since being a 'geek' has been disassociated with being a coder or engineer, it seems more like the mainstream has managed to steal a concept from a subculture and put its own mainstream spin on it.
I do, however, have a friend who decided to be a Comp Sci major because of the movie Hackers, so make of that what you will.
...is that it's not actually doing much that's different. There isn't anything inherently wrong with rap, in the same way that there isn't anything wrong with rock or electronic; all genres have their fans and detractors. But if Nerdcore just means whipping out Lord of The Rings references, why doesn't Led Zep get labeled "Nerd Rock" for "The Battle For Evermore". The best rappers are famous for their cleverness and humor (consider the pop-culture references of The Beastie Boys or Eminem, and the host of comic rappers like Kool Keith and Public Enemy's Flava Flav), but generally have other factors going for them as well (the world-class production of Paul's Boutique, or the more substantive comments of PE's other members such as frontman Chuck D.) Nerdcore can be fun - and M.C. Frontalot's "Which M.C. Was That?" is a good few minutes, but it doesn't seem to have any substance with which to retain interest. Maybe with a major label thy could be some kind of "Vox Nerdi", but otherwise I doubt it. And until someone tops the ridiculous science references of "Sounds of Science", I continue to give the crown to the Beastie Boys.
Since the newest version of iTunes lets you share music across the network, a large number of students have simply opened up their lists for perusing and playing. (Downloading, as far as I know, is impossible.)
Because no one is downloading the files, so clearly is just benefitting from sampling the music (that is, some people will almost definitely purchase CDs when they find themselves deprived of permanent access to songs that they like. -Ideally. I realize I am a bit optimistic), I feel that this should be legal, even though I realize that it's probably not. However, I find it amusing that even though iTunes warns you that you should only share music with yourself -presumably when on some other computer on the network with iTunes- it allows multiple users to be logged in at the same time, and doesn't require that you set a password. So the system has essentially set itself up to be abused.
1. "ignorance of the law" is no excuse
2. I suppose the girl might have been lying about not beiing aware of breaking of the law.
Ignoring points 1. and 2. for the moment, one of the main issues with file sharing is concern that people are losing track of what "intellectual property" is. I don't mean this as a "KaZaA is evil" or "Damn the RIAA!" rant, just that this seems like very concrete proof that we have reached the stage of the game where some people who are trading the files are unaware that they are doing anything wrong. (And please don't respond "I'm only hurting an evil corporation so it's okay." I mean entirely unaware of violation.)
So if you are totally, totally aware of wrongdoing, does 2. apply?
Pfah. I was trying to come up with some grand conclusion for my brilliant point above, but I really can't. At best, it's proof a sea-change in the concept of intellectual property, but it would sound a tad pretentious to make such a claim. And filesharing advocates have already been making it for years.
f*ckedcompany.com is out, f*ckedcountry.com is in? (And this might not be moral, and it might be a ridiculous idea for a government-funded project, but someone, somewhere, will start a free one for the amusement of themselves and their friends.)
Is that instead of just deleting old programs, you can throw frisbees at them and they'll disappear. For once, you'll be able to have as much fun deleting files as Strong Bad[homestarrunner.com].
What stands out about the message is that the RIAA is saying that it is willing to do what it can to students who violate copyright. I'm not siding with it, by any means, but I think it indicates a fundamental mindset that is key to the whole "Free music until the prices are fair" movement. RIAA: "If you violate copyright laws, we can fine you an obscene amount of money and destroy your future. Is destroying your future worth a song?" Students, et al.: "You want to destroy my future just because I downloaded a song? That's crazy, man!" The point about downloading music being theft is well taken, because it's true. But it's also a form of civil disobedience. If I download a song, even to sample it so that I can discover if I want the album, I'm breaking the law. But the mindset about computers is that this is such a petty thing, something done ridiculously easily, that it can't be equivalent to lifting a CD from the store. And if the RIAA does succeed in getting that message across, do they really want to? "Hey, kids, those CD singles that we're selling for eight bucks are for all basic purposes the same as files that are a measly 3.8 megabytes. Not that we're overcharging, mind you..." It really is all about mindshare, and public perception. As to consequences, I'm a student at Princeton. We now have a new, university provided network search engine, which they have done everything possible to remove mp3s, divxs, and avis from. There are still a lot of shared files on the network, though; the only difficulty is getting network maps. As to direct action, if the university gets a complaint about your having illegally copyrighted material shared on the network, they demand that you delete it. Otherwise they leave us alone.
Subscriptions are cool. Emusic is $10/ month? Get more than 120 mp3s per year and you beat Apple's price model. But it doesn't have the same kind of consumer style as opening iTunes, popping open a playlist and downloading. Sure, it's just the difference between using a web-browser and a virtual browser, but style matters to the public in this crazy world, so it's a good point.
Emusic also caters to the more obscure music crowd. If you're looking for Velvet Acid Christ, or other stuff that doesn't get much radio play, they are an excellent choice. But Top 40 and all its close relatives, as terrible as you might think it is, is still the main concern. The iTunes store covers it much better than Emusic does, so it serves much better as a test of consumer interest in online music sales than Emusic does. And if Apple has enough success on a limited level, they might drop prices (seeing as how it will be impossible to increase them without people getting ticked off), thus increasing interest and also beating eMusic's prices.
Sure, a lot of the initial store users are just getting in on the hype. I've barely heard anything about the store mentioned here at college, and I still run into people who don't know what an iPod is; Apple's pronouncement probably hasn't touched a large segment of the population. But business is business, and whether the money comes from a few crazy users who are getting their friends in on it, or a devoted fan base, the money is still coming. Besides, the former group can easily become the latter, given some time.
Grokster & KaZaA are doing well, and they're making the RIAA think. But in the end, that's their purpose. If people who want music for lower prices come out and say "Hey! We just want it for free, so let's jack it!", then there's hardly any social benefit to theft, you're just stealing because you're cheap. But if you get presented with a price model that you like, and it seems like the industry is going to play fair, don't steal. Because then the industry just works harder to screw you, and eventually will use its massive lawyer task force to win.
I don't think I'm going to start using the music store soon, mainly because I don't have 10.2, and because there's a very fine used CD store in town with a huge selection and low prices. But 99 cents for a song, along with cover art and ten CD burns doesn't seem like such an awful deal. Wait a month and see what comes. Windows Music Store?
The placement of an FM Radio recorder on an MP3 player must be giving the music industry some kind of headache. While it is one thing to call some bootlegged Avril (or artist of choice...) mp3 illegal, if you recorded it and placed it on the player then it most certainly is not. And while it's impossible to tell if an mp3 on a player was ripped from a CD or downloaded, it seems like this radio recorder makes the issue even more complicated. Imagine, for example, having one of those babies in your living room and just continuously downloading all the music you hear and burning it to CD. I would assume that's perfectly legal (seeing as how taping the radio is), and can't be stopped. Hmm... free distribution of recorded-from-radio CD-Rs, anyone?