I don't understand why this was modded "flamebait."
I attacked a premise upon which the parent's argument relied, namely by saying that Radiohead's interest in a new business model was far outweighed by an interest in enriching themselves at their fans' expenses.
Do the nameless mods care to explain why I am flamebaiting rather than making a reasonable argument, or am I just damned to mod hell?
The way they distributed and marketed "In Rainbows" was INTENDED as a strong statement (a publicity stunt, if you will) on the business model of the big labels, a proof that success in this business is possible without them.
Well, I took it as a strong statement on the Radiohead's willingness to bait and switch their paying fans with lame 160 kbps files to pocket some extra cash and promote a traditional CD release.
Radiohead took my money and implied I'd get something at least CD quality. 160 kpbs was a cop out and a really dick move to their fans. At the very least they should be ashamed.
Basically, before Bell Atlantic, the bar for filing a lawsuit(1) was very low. If you could outline the factors for a 'cause of action' (e.g., for, say, a tort battery claim, you'd say that the Defendant 1) intentionally 2) made contact which 3) caused harm--for the antitrust claim, I'm sure they're much more complicated), that would be sufficient to at least allow the suit to continue. If you fail to assert that those factors were met, or if there was no factual basis for what you stated, your claim could be dismissed--but the bar was set extremely low in favor of allowing suits to continue. All you had to do was basically state how you think you'd been wronged, and not have to prove much of anything. Discovery would start, the defendant would have to produce emails and documents relating to your claim, and if evidence (or lack thereof) showed that your claim was groundless, it could still be thrown out via summary judgment without having to go to trial.
The Bell Atlantic decision is a little vague, but it seems to raise the bar. It says that there has to be some evidence to support the claim factors if the lawsuit is even going to go to discovery. The issue with this is that, when a corporation has all of the evidence, they're not going to turn it over willingly. If, in a hypothetical, you have a high suspicion of an antitrust violation occurring, however reasonable, unless you had some hard evidence beforehand you can't file suit. Before Bell, you could file the suit and discovery would commence, and if the evidence existed the company would have to turn it over. Now, you have to somehow get the evidence beforehand.
Some may argue it's fairer, since claims can't be brought 'on a whim,' or to harass by starting expensive litigation without any evidence. But in cases where there seems to be strong indications of antitrust, but no direct evidence BEFORE discovery, it could be protecting the companies from answering for their conduct.
______________________________
1. I haven't read the Bell Atlantic decision for awhile, so I can't remember if it was just related to antitrust cases. Either way, that's what's relevant here.
But I actually have finals starting tomorrow, so maybe I should get back to studying...
What's the legality? Obviously, I doubt highly these emails can be used at a trial for any wrongdoing or unlawful behavior (say, for Miivi), but will I get into trouble just for downloading them?
...My kingdom for a link to the story years ago which quoted Steve Jobs at a meeting with executives from the MPAA where he clearly told them that they should not under any circumstances release their films online without ironclad DRM in place. My kingdom, I tell you!
In any case, he's clearly telling both sides what they want to hear. What his own opinions are, I couldn't say, but this guy does not deserve our adoration as the embodiment of logical rational discourse on DRM.
It's worth noting, however, that everything he says about securing 'landmark DRM rights' for consumers through the establishment of iTunes' DRM is the most guffaw-inducing doublespeak I've heard in quite some time.
I don't think you were responding to the grandparent post. Grandparent was complaining about business practices, using figuratively the word 'force.' You responded sardonically based on a literal interpretation of 'force' which shifted the argument from one concerned with good business practices to one concerned with rights.
You are not having an argument here, but rather a misunderstanding.
Looking at the other commentors--hacking is the least of your worries. The problem is that if you give any music to a friend, which is considered legitimate sharing to some extent, that friend might give it to a friend who uploads it to P2P. The RIAA traces it to you and you assume full liability. Thus currently legitimate behavior is now a nerve-wracking test of trust.
The notable thing here is that all the companies are doing is transferring that trust-anxiety from them->you to you->your friends. Now you have to look every friend in the eye and say "Will this person not put me in jail?"
I think "big brother" was pretty appropriate, considering how much like Stalinist Russia and other oligarchies and tyrannies this sounds like. The particulars are different, but we arrive at a very similar reality--the 'governing body' (RIAA) is has vague but powerful means to dispose of troublemakers and the 'oppressed' have really no way of knowing when they are going to get 'the bullet in their head,' except to constantly profess their loyalty (by distrusting everyone and never even taking advantage of their legitimate uses).
In the end, it's hard to forget that it's not our friends that are the spies, it's the MP3 file itself. I don't know, but to me that makes that sort of 'gray oppression' quite a bit more dehumanizing.
Google ('define regression') helped me out on this one:
Definition: A decrease in the size of a tumor or in the extent of cancer in the body.
Ok then!
Of course, if you meant "repression," there hasn't yet been a single verified documented case of the Freudian now-you-see-it-now-you-don't-but-now-you-see-it-ag ain concept we call "repression" actually taking place.
I admit I don't know much about the guy, but when I went to his blog after hearing some cloak-and-dagger stuff about the BlogSmith software, he just had some extended post about an industry function and it read like a gossip column. He spent a looooong time fawning over Norah Ephron (I recall a gushing description of why you could tell she was important because she could wear sunglasses indoors in New York City, and that she 'loved to flirt,' and so on like that).
The really amazing part is that he talked about her without a particular point or even a real compliment to whatever she does--just a generic awe of her 'importance,' with a strong undertone of "...And she was flirting with me!"
All I could think of was, "What a repugnant personality." When I saw the Wired picture, it was exactly as I imagined him.
"The content industry is going to see a serious backlash if they try this.
They tried region coding, and people over here in the UK just got players chipped and hacked."
The 'hackers will always find a way' argument is often made to make one's self feel better, but regardless of whether it has merit if people choose to believe it it will always diminish any possibility of a real victory. This is because it takes people and attention away from real arguments about the *principle* of giving consumers certain rights at the source irregardless of practical workarounds--a principle that, if accepted, can remain in effect no matter what technological means to cripple content exist and will not require faith in unknown hackers hacking unknown technology.
So...If a modding 'backlash' is the equivalent of conceding the war to win the skirmish, I guess they can expect a backlash alright.
" Attention all folks who are against copyright protection!"
Just so you know, there are maybe 3 people whose attention you've just reached. The rest of us believe in limited and reasonable copyright protection, for a finite, purely innovation-driving amount of time--which, if you notice, is just what the Constitution calls for. Our current system of copyright is nowhere near this.
Honestly, very very few of us would dream of pronouncing that we are 'against copyright.' While it might be easy to respond to some sort of anarchist straw man, please take a little more time and thought to respond to the much more complicated reality. As it is, you're wasting everyone's time.
"Although investigators say that the hard-goods traffickers, the most notorious of whom are based in China and Russia, often get their stolen products from warez groups, they are equally adept at making knock-offs of new DVD's as soon as Hollywood studios release them. For this they rely on techies known as "rippers" or "crackers" who are adept at unscrambling the security codes that studios have embedded on DVD's to deter copycats."
Funny stuff, considering various DeCSS utilities have been available for what now, over half a decade?
I always sort of cringe when I see a writer for a major publication parade his or her unsavvyness around. It really puts into question just how much they understand the issue--and indeed, the only counter-perspective to Hollywood's given is one that says that copy protection standards 'don't address new ways users watch content,' which, though true and relevant, is by far not the strongest argument against copy protection that users can legitimately come up with.
Do you think AMD has been out-innovating IBM because all of IBM's engineers are stupid? Do you think its the fault of this one man?
Their strategy is simple: Hire the best they can find.
Hey now, I understand I didn't say much about my reasons for believing AMD has been out-innovating IBM, but no reason to put little men made of straw in my mouth (and then bash them to their component molecules). As the article states, this guy is responsible for overall direction, and I was assuming that was the topic--my comment was directed towards that.
In my layman's, PC tech hobbyist mind, the design efficacy hierarchy (at least for the current generation) from best to worst is something like: AMD, IBM, Intel. I recognize this guy is a big name and stuff, but surely AMD doesn't need to mess with their overall design strategy if it is indeed already the most effective one.
I'm certainly not an expert, as I'm sure many replies will point out, but I thought AMD has been out-innovating IBM's PowerPC line for quite some time.
"If you see this same woman, is not working at a particular moment, due to not having a paying client, should you be allowed to take a free romp? Sure, why not, that's what she does, and she's just sitting there."
Wow...Just, wow.
I know multiple women who have been raped (and, if you check out the anonymous survey statistics, chances are you do as well) and I'd like to see you try to tell them that their being raped is comparable in any way to downloading a movie without permission.
I know what you were trying to say (trying to paint copyright as an absolute moral right--an idea so historically rejected and antithetical to the original conceptions of copyright in the US that that in and of itself deserves to get you kicked out of the room), but if you can't see how watching a movie without permission and raping a woman might -- just might -- be too incongruous subjects for analogy, then there isn't much more to say.
"Though by no means the first time a major-label artist has released a track to the public for remix, this is the first time such a project has been as open to the common user"
...I seem to recall Beck releasing Mixed Bizness, fully multitracked, via Sonic Foundry ACID a while back for a remix contest.
Now, as most music-software-inclined people know, ACID is basically Garageband, except it came out many many years earlier (and has at this point evolved far past where Garageband is today). ACID, of course, has also been available on the platform that the overwhelming majority of computer users use (Windows), whereas Garageband has and is not. So really, what's with the straight-from-the-marketing-department talk?
Personally I wouldn't use either piece of software unless held at jagged-broken-PCB-point-- but, hey, as a musician I'm happy that more people are getting into actually producing music, whatever tools they use. Still, I just wish the Applerati would be a little more modest about where music-tool history begins. The way some people talk about Apple's software, they sound like, to put it gently, discreetly and subtly, brainwashed zealots.
Well, as a note, Sony already did their best to appeal to the mainstream market with a launch lineup composed entirely of sequels and updates to existing mainstream banality (Lumines notwithstanding), so if the whole "appeal to the hardcore geek market" thing doesn't work, they might have to do something drastic.
Like, say, decrease their price from current "We're bigger than Jesus. You don't want to pay $70 extra for a tiny memory stick and a slip case? Tough luck," to "...Please buy our hardware. Please."
I spent a year in Austria around 1996 and, coming from America where you have Hershey's or the highway, Milka was like rediscovering chocolate. Compared to it, America chocolate tasted sort of chalky and brittle at best, 1984-style-chocolate-ration at worst.
So when did Kraft buy it? Does this mean it's gonna get worse?
Slashdot Mirror
Has anyone from the U.S. ordered one, or do we just have to wait?
I attacked a premise upon which the parent's argument relied, namely by saying that Radiohead's interest in a new business model was far outweighed by an interest in enriching themselves at their fans' expenses.
Do the nameless mods care to explain why I am flamebaiting rather than making a reasonable argument, or am I just damned to mod hell?
The way they distributed and marketed "In Rainbows" was INTENDED as a strong statement (a publicity stunt, if you will) on the business model of the big labels, a proof that success in this business is possible without them.
Well, I took it as a strong statement on the Radiohead's willingness to bait and switch their paying fans with lame 160 kbps files to pocket some extra cash and promote a traditional CD release.
Radiohead took my money and implied I'd get something at least CD quality. 160 kpbs was a cop out and a really dick move to their fans. At the very least they should be ashamed.
Basically, before Bell Atlantic, the bar for filing a lawsuit(1) was very low. If you could outline the factors for a 'cause of action' (e.g., for, say, a tort battery claim, you'd say that the Defendant 1) intentionally 2) made contact which 3) caused harm--for the antitrust claim, I'm sure they're much more complicated), that would be sufficient to at least allow the suit to continue. If you fail to assert that those factors were met, or if there was no factual basis for what you stated, your claim could be dismissed--but the bar was set extremely low in favor of allowing suits to continue. All you had to do was basically state how you think you'd been wronged, and not have to prove much of anything. Discovery would start, the defendant would have to produce emails and documents relating to your claim, and if evidence (or lack thereof) showed that your claim was groundless, it could still be thrown out via summary judgment without having to go to trial.
The Bell Atlantic decision is a little vague, but it seems to raise the bar. It says that there has to be some evidence to support the claim factors if the lawsuit is even going to go to discovery. The issue with this is that, when a corporation has all of the evidence, they're not going to turn it over willingly. If, in a hypothetical, you have a high suspicion of an antitrust violation occurring, however reasonable, unless you had some hard evidence beforehand you can't file suit. Before Bell, you could file the suit and discovery would commence, and if the evidence existed the company would have to turn it over. Now, you have to somehow get the evidence beforehand.
Some may argue it's fairer, since claims can't be brought 'on a whim,' or to harass by starting expensive litigation without any evidence. But in cases where there seems to be strong indications of antitrust, but no direct evidence BEFORE discovery, it could be protecting the companies from answering for their conduct.
______________________________
1. I haven't read the Bell Atlantic decision for awhile, so I can't remember if it was just related to antitrust cases. Either way, that's what's relevant here.
But I actually have finals starting tomorrow, so maybe I should get back to studying...
Damn you, 17 USC 1201!
Well, I'm still jealous. At least Canada apparently cleans house every so often...
What's the legality? Obviously, I doubt highly these emails can be used at a trial for any wrongdoing or unlawful behavior (say, for Miivi), but will I get into trouble just for downloading them?
In any case, he's clearly telling both sides what they want to hear. What his own opinions are, I couldn't say, but this guy does not deserve our adoration as the embodiment of logical rational discourse on DRM.
It's worth noting, however, that everything he says about securing 'landmark DRM rights' for consumers through the establishment of iTunes' DRM is the most guffaw-inducing doublespeak I've heard in quite some time.
I don't think you were responding to the grandparent post. Grandparent was complaining about business practices, using figuratively the word 'force.' You responded sardonically based on a literal interpretation of 'force' which shifted the argument from one concerned with good business practices to one concerned with rights.
You are not having an argument here, but rather a misunderstanding.
...Killzone is safe.
The notable thing here is that all the companies are doing is transferring that trust-anxiety from them->you to you->your friends. Now you have to look every friend in the eye and say "Will this person not put me in jail?"
I think "big brother" was pretty appropriate, considering how much like Stalinist Russia and other oligarchies and tyrannies this sounds like. The particulars are different, but we arrive at a very similar reality--the 'governing body' (RIAA) is has vague but powerful means to dispose of troublemakers and the 'oppressed' have really no way of knowing when they are going to get 'the bullet in their head,' except to constantly profess their loyalty (by distrusting everyone and never even taking advantage of their legitimate uses).
In the end, it's hard to forget that it's not our friends that are the spies, it's the MP3 file itself. I don't know, but to me that makes that sort of 'gray oppression' quite a bit more dehumanizing.
Google is "Don't be evil," which had that Star Wars sort of appeal until...uh...they became evil.
Definition: A decrease in the size of a tumor or in the extent of cancer in the body.
Ok then!
Of course, if you meant "repression," there hasn't yet been a single verified documented case of the Freudian now-you-see-it-now-you-don't-but-now-you-see-it-ag ain concept we call "repression" actually taking place.
The really amazing part is that he talked about her without a particular point or even a real compliment to whatever she does--just a generic awe of her 'importance,' with a strong undertone of "...And she was flirting with me !"
All I could think of was, "What a repugnant personality." When I saw the Wired picture, it was exactly as I imagined him.
[Sploosh]
[Glub glub]
"The content industry is going to see a serious backlash if they try this. They tried region coding, and people over here in the UK just got players chipped and hacked." The 'hackers will always find a way' argument is often made to make one's self feel better, but regardless of whether it has merit if people choose to believe it it will always diminish any possibility of a real victory. This is because it takes people and attention away from real arguments about the *principle* of giving consumers certain rights at the source irregardless of practical workarounds--a principle that, if accepted, can remain in effect no matter what technological means to cripple content exist and will not require faith in unknown hackers hacking unknown technology. So...If a modding 'backlash' is the equivalent of conceding the war to win the skirmish, I guess they can expect a backlash alright.
Just so you know, there are maybe 3 people whose attention you've just reached. The rest of us believe in limited and reasonable copyright protection, for a finite, purely innovation-driving amount of time--which, if you notice, is just what the Constitution calls for. Our current system of copyright is nowhere near this.
Honestly, very very few of us would dream of pronouncing that we are 'against copyright.' While it might be easy to respond to some sort of anarchist straw man, please take a little more time and thought to respond to the much more complicated reality. As it is, you're wasting everyone's time.
Funny stuff, considering various DeCSS utilities have been available for what now, over half a decade?
I always sort of cringe when I see a writer for a major publication parade his or her unsavvyness around. It really puts into question just how much they understand the issue--and indeed, the only counter-perspective to Hollywood's given is one that says that copy protection standards 'don't address new ways users watch content,' which, though true and relevant, is by far not the strongest argument against copy protection that users can legitimately come up with.
Their strategy is simple: Hire the best they can find.
Hey now, I understand I didn't say much about my reasons for believing AMD has been out-innovating IBM, but no reason to put little men made of straw in my mouth (and then bash them to their component molecules). As the article states, this guy is responsible for overall direction, and I was assuming that was the topic--my comment was directed towards that.
In my layman's, PC tech hobbyist mind, the design efficacy hierarchy (at least for the current generation) from best to worst is something like: AMD, IBM, Intel. I recognize this guy is a big name and stuff, but surely AMD doesn't need to mess with their overall design strategy if it is indeed already the most effective one.
So isn't this by all signs a step backwards?
...how they stopped showing movies on TV after the VHS threatened to rape and strangle all of the women in Boston?
Wow...Just, wow.
I know multiple women who have been raped (and, if you check out the anonymous survey statistics, chances are you do as well) and I'd like to see you try to tell them that their being raped is comparable in any way to downloading a movie without permission.
I know what you were trying to say (trying to paint copyright as an absolute moral right--an idea so historically rejected and antithetical to the original conceptions of copyright in the US that that in and of itself deserves to get you kicked out of the room), but if you can't see how watching a movie without permission and raping a woman might -- just might -- be too incongruous subjects for analogy, then there isn't much more to say.
Now, as most music-software-inclined people know, ACID is basically Garageband, except it came out many many years earlier (and has at this point evolved far past where Garageband is today). ACID, of course, has also been available on the platform that the overwhelming majority of computer users use (Windows), whereas Garageband has and is not. So really, what's with the straight-from-the-marketing-department talk?
Personally I wouldn't use either piece of software unless held at jagged-broken-PCB-point-- but, hey, as a musician I'm happy that more people are getting into actually producing music, whatever tools they use. Still, I just wish the Applerati would be a little more modest about where music-tool history begins. The way some people talk about Apple's software, they sound like, to put it gently, discreetly and subtly, brainwashed zealots.
Like, say, decrease their price from current "We're bigger than Jesus. You don't want to pay $70 extra for a tiny memory stick and a slip case? Tough luck," to "...Please buy our hardware. Please."
So when did Kraft buy it? Does this mean it's gonna get worse?