SCO's managed to put its chances of IP lawsuit success into an equation!
"The success of our SCOsource licensing initiative, at least initially, will depend to a great extent on the perceived strength of our intellectual property and contractual claims and our willingness to enforce our rights."
S = Success
X = Perceived strength of IP = 0
Y = Perceived strength of contractual claims = 0
S = X*Y*Z
Let Z = SCO's willingness to enforce its "rights."
You asked for it, so here goes... a list of CDs with >75% good songs on each one.
Dredg - El Cielo (Interscope)
Thursday - Full Collapse (Drive Through?)
Further Seems Forever - The Moon is Down (Tooth and Nail)
Me Without You - A-B Life (Tooth and Nail)
Hey Mercedes - Everynight Fire Works (Vagrant)
Zao - Liberate Ex Infernus (Tooth and Nail)
If you can't find CDs with more than one good song on them, then you're probably either shopping in the wrong section, or not looking hard enough. I heard of all the bands listed above through word-of-mouth, downloaded some tracks to sample them, and bought the CD.
All of these bands are on labels that used to be indie, but are now RIAA affiliated and cashing in on the credibility and coolness factor that indieness gives them. I would love to buy this music used, but it's obscure, as well as amazing, so it's NEVER in the used bin. In these cases, I try to support the bands by buying the music at the shows, because I think that bands can keep more money that way.
I'm not saying that you totally believe everything he/she says, only that it's preferable to know who you're dealing with, and have (hopefully) some steps in the right direction, rather than knowing only that you've been hacked, or not even knowing that. The real response to this should be that the company takes a serious look at who they're hiring to do network security, because there are obviously people out there that know more about the job than the people who are inside and *supposed* to know the intricacies of the system. This guy may not have been doing the NYT a favor, but he obviously found holes that their own internal security could not find or would not fix, he even told them about it nicely, rather than flooding the logfiles with U R 0wn3d messages. I'm not condoning what he did at all, only saying that him finding a hole was much better than the possible (probable?) alternative.
If this guy was smart, he should have taken his reputation and started a consulting business sometime before he pissed someone off sufficiently to get himself arrested.
But would you rather have someone break into your network and *not* tell you how they did it, or even that they were there at all? If some anonymous black hat had broken into the New York Times rather than Lamo, and the goes on to 0wnz their system, how much more damage would be done as a result of Andrian Lamo's not having been there? I think that, although it may have been illegal and unethical, he was still arguably doing them a favor
Everyone immediately running this guy down sounds a lot like Microsoft saying that the only reason people want to hack the xbox is so that they can pirate games for it. We all know that the only *real* reason is to install linux on it:) but MS can't stand the embarassment of admitting that. Likewise, the NYT can't stand the embarassment of admitting that they had a security hole in their network, so they try to competely discredit the guy who found the hole, and make it look like they wouldn't have had to fix it eventually anyway.
On the other hand, this guy was really naive to think that in this litigious country, someone wouldn't eventually press charges.
not to be picky, but right and wrong are not always normative terms used to describe people's opinions about what should and should not be. If I shoot you to death for no reason, you would think it's wrong, and I might think that it's right, but either way, it's wrong. If someone molests a 5-year old, he/she could think that it's right, when it's absolutely wrong under all circumstances.
P2P is not a right/wrong issue, but rather it's a neutral issue unless it's used in a "wrong" way. The problem is, while it's clear that if I shoot you for no reason, I have committed a wrong, the lines in copyright infringement are blurred. I may commit an infringement act that is illegal, but not wrong, or even unethical. Downloading music that I already own (without paying for it again) is one such act. Yes, it's illegal (despite all the arguments that may follow), but no, it's not wrong (also despite all the arguments that may follow). Downloading music that you intend use perpetually, but never intend to pay for is another gray area, but I would (at the risk of flaming) venture to say that it's wrong in most cases.
The issue is more that 1. P2P is not going to stop, regardless of right/wrongness, and 2. that copyright laws are designed around an assumption that the IP must be distributed on a single physical medium, like a CD. These two facts are at odds with each other, and the solution will eventually be that copyright laws will have to change, as will the business model for all industries that follow the assumption that their IP will only be distributed on physical media.
Probably get modded down for defending religion in any way, shape, or form, but here goes...
Christianity != Catholocism. Catholocism very arguably denies some of the central tenets of historical Christianity, and has done so since at least the council of Nicea, hence the reason for the reformation. It also was not historically the first Christian church, but grew from a perversion of the original ones founded by Paul and his followers. To find out what Christianity was originally intended to be (not Crusades and witch-burnings), read the writings of Paul, James, Peter, and the like, and you'll find that a great many people who claim to be Christian are actually not at all, in the context of the actual definition of the word. The problem is that people are considered Christian simply because they claim to follow the teachings of Christ, when actually they actually do not, in light of what the bible says he taught.
I think some Christian sects are a lot more dangerous than Scientology is.
Of course, many sects that claim to be Christian are more dangerous than Scientology, but I advance the opinion that those sects are not Christian in the historical sense of the word.
I wouldn't buy a car that could drive itself unless that was all there was - I just like driving too much. I imagine they'll happen eventually, but I think that if it does, then amateur racing (like SCCA autocross and such) will become hugely popular for people who still love to drive. On a side note, I'm still waiting for the flying DeLorean with the Mr. Fusion machine.
Aren't vidphones already here, or at least making their way into common usage?? I say give them a few years - seems like the tech is there, and its getting cheap enough.
the said company will become a major target for customer disdain
Isn't Microsoft already a major target of customer disdain? I'm not trying to start anything, but fanboys aside, I don't know too many people who really like using Windows, even among the largely computer-illiterate 'normal' users. In my workplace, MS is the butt of all kinds of office humor, but no one will consider moving away A.Because everyone has been indoctrinated to think that compatibility *requires* MS software ("but everyone uses it!"), and B.It's the government. I think that since MS has already taken care of B., it's only natural that they attempt to make sure that A. comes true as well.
I can't agree with them. Although mp3s and such are getting to be more convienient, I think that a large percentage of the population (myself included) will continue to demand a physical product as a compliment to digital media as a way of solidifying my ownership. Damned if I'm going to pay the MPAA every single time I want to watch Evil Dead, or something of the like. If we don't fight this, pay-per-play is going to become the accepted norm, and the media gluttons will only get fatter on the fact that we now have to pay multiple times for something that we should have owned in the first place. Years ago, the death of the jukebox could have put the record companies out of business, and they've adapted out of that business model, but they've never forgotten, and they'd like nothing better than to get back to it.
as a guitarist/singer of *many* different genres, my experience is that if you can't hit the notes you want (not necessarily on-key) with decent monitors, you don't deserve to be a musician. Anyone can do it, it just means you have to spend less time practicing your Darrin's Dance Grooves, and more time building up your chops.
What's really sick is that the article said that 'punk' bands are doing this too. I thought that being in key was un-punk. Would the Ramones (Sex Pistols/Nirvana/Beatles/insert name here) have been able to start a revolution while using one of these devices?? Somehow I don't think so.
Don't you think that if you cut Congress's pay, then Congresspeople will be MORE succeptible to having their votes "subsidized"? For that matter, same with campaign contributions.
I'm not suggesting that the current situation is great, nor am I suggesting that Congress is underpaid, but I do think that something other than pay cuts, or in addition to pay cuts needs to be done to address the real problem.
also, regardless of whether or not there is selective enforcement, there is definately a privacy issue at stake here. In the current situation, there's selective enforcement, but also the vast majority of traffic crimes are never even noticed. The new laws would ensure that ALL violations are noticed and noted, probably regardless of the circumstances surrounding them. I don't know about you guys, but I can count several instances where quick reactions *in violation* of several traffic laws (speeding, lane usage, etc) have saved my life from someone else's stupidity. I don't want have to worry about a ticket while swerving to avoid the oncoming drunk in my lane.
wow! Here in Southern Illinois, a local police chief said in a town newspaper a couple months ago that they won't pull you over unless you're doing 7-10 OVER the limit or its past 12:00am.
What about the thought that the industry is more negatively impacted by the small studio's legal file sharing than by the illegal filesharing of major label music?
That's probably a big reason, but I think there are two bigger ones:
1. File sharing and the internet is enabling people to find good music that has absolutely no ties to the major labels. To the labels, this is the scariest part of the whole scenario - they've lost their monopoly over the distribution channels. We all know from econ 101 that almost anytime a business moves out of a state of monopoly to a state of competition, the business's profits will decline.
2. The industry is still wasting millions on marketing that is almost not needed anymore due to the vast amounts of free marketing that the internet provides. Now, any idiot with a computer and a guitar can get his/her song heard by anyone, at almost NO COST to the musician. The labels tell us that it costs some $8 or so to make a CD (with recording/marketing costs figured in). The problem is that, while they're dumb enough to keep paying that, we're not dumb enough to believe it.
Hate to tell you, Mr. Self-Righteous Troll, but Copyright infringement != stealing. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. Intellectual property is a governmental creation. It may be necessary, and it may be wrong to infringe on copyright, but it is not wrong in the same way that breaking into your house and stealing your Metallica CD is wrong. Copyright infringement is illegal because you're denying someone potential income from their work.
Imagine this: you buy the new Metallica CD and soon realize that it's a piece of crap. You give your copy to someone else, who was intending to buy it. In this case, the record company has just lost potential revenue, yet this is not illegal (yet). In this case, you have "stolen" potential revenue from the record company (by your use of the word stolen), yet not done anything illegal.
Point: Copyright infringement is much more of a legal gray area than you want to believe.
Of course,/. has a large number of IP zealots (not including me) who would howl that these people deserve what they get because copyright infringement is always "theft," and the legitimate copyright holders always have a right to wrecklessly go after offenders regardless of how many innocent people are harmed. After all, we have to protect intellectual property...
"Linux users who are interested in additional information or purchasing an IP License for Linux should contact their local SCO sales representative or call SCO at 1-800-726-8649 or visit our web site at http://www.sco.com/scosource."
I plan to make several anonymous calls to SCO, asking them exactly which of Mr. McBride's orfices he would like his money in. I plan to pay in small bills, all folded until they're nothing but sharp little corners. Who's with me?!
Slashdot Mirror
"The success of our SCOsource licensing initiative, at least initially, will depend to a great extent on the perceived strength of our intellectual property and contractual claims and our willingness to enforce our rights."
S = Success
X = Perceived strength of IP = 0
Y = Perceived strength of contractual claims = 0
S = X*Y*Z
Let Z = SCO's willingness to enforce its "rights."
Dredg - El Cielo (Interscope)
Thursday - Full Collapse (Drive Through?)
Further Seems Forever - The Moon is Down (Tooth and Nail)
Me Without You - A-B Life (Tooth and Nail)
Hey Mercedes - Everynight Fire Works (Vagrant)
Zao - Liberate Ex Infernus (Tooth and Nail)
If you can't find CDs with more than one good song on them, then you're probably either shopping in the wrong section, or not looking hard enough. I heard of all the bands listed above through word-of-mouth, downloaded some tracks to sample them, and bought the CD.
All of these bands are on labels that used to be indie, but are now RIAA affiliated and cashing in on the credibility and coolness factor that indieness gives them. I would love to buy this music used, but it's obscure, as well as amazing, so it's NEVER in the used bin. In these cases, I try to support the bands by buying the music at the shows, because I think that bands can keep more money that way.
also, you can download
If this guy was smart, he should have taken his reputation and started a consulting business sometime before he pissed someone off sufficiently to get himself arrested.
Everyone immediately running this guy down sounds a lot like Microsoft saying that the only reason people want to hack the xbox is so that they can pirate games for it. We all know that the only *real* reason is to install linux on it :) but MS can't stand the embarassment of admitting that. Likewise, the NYT can't stand the embarassment of admitting that they had a security hole in their network, so they try to competely discredit the guy who found the hole, and make it look like they wouldn't have had to fix it eventually anyway.
On the other hand, this guy was really naive to think that in this litigious country, someone wouldn't eventually press charges.
and Stonewall Jackson's sword.
P2P is not a right/wrong issue, but rather it's a neutral issue unless it's used in a "wrong" way. The problem is, while it's clear that if I shoot you for no reason, I have committed a wrong, the lines in copyright infringement are blurred. I may commit an infringement act that is illegal, but not wrong, or even unethical. Downloading music that I already own (without paying for it again) is one such act. Yes, it's illegal (despite all the arguments that may follow), but no, it's not wrong (also despite all the arguments that may follow). Downloading music that you intend use perpetually, but never intend to pay for is another gray area, but I would (at the risk of flaming) venture to say that it's wrong in most cases.
The issue is more that 1. P2P is not going to stop, regardless of right/wrongness, and 2. that copyright laws are designed around an assumption that the IP must be distributed on a single physical medium, like a CD. These two facts are at odds with each other, and the solution will eventually be that copyright laws will have to change, as will the business model for all industries that follow the assumption that their IP will only be distributed on physical media.
Christianity != Catholocism. Catholocism very arguably denies some of the central tenets of historical Christianity, and has done so since at least the council of Nicea, hence the reason for the reformation. It also was not historically the first Christian church, but grew from a perversion of the original ones founded by Paul and his followers. To find out what Christianity was originally intended to be (not Crusades and witch-burnings), read the writings of Paul, James, Peter, and the like, and you'll find that a great many people who claim to be Christian are actually not at all, in the context of the actual definition of the word. The problem is that people are considered Christian simply because they claim to follow the teachings of Christ, when actually they actually do not, in light of what the bible says he taught.
I think some Christian sects are a lot more dangerous than Scientology is.
Of course, many sects that claim to be Christian are more dangerous than Scientology, but I advance the opinion that those sects are not Christian in the historical sense of the word.
They could just buy them a 100 HP Honda with a big metal spoiler, and the kid wouldn't know the difference.
where the hell do you live? We still have used CD stores in Illinois and Missouri, and there's not yet been a hint that they might be closed down.
I wouldn't buy a car that could drive itself unless that was all there was - I just like driving too much. I imagine they'll happen eventually, but I think that if it does, then amateur racing (like SCCA autocross and such) will become hugely popular for people who still love to drive. On a side note, I'm still waiting for the flying DeLorean with the Mr. Fusion machine. Aren't vidphones already here, or at least making their way into common usage?? I say give them a few years - seems like the tech is there, and its getting cheap enough.
Isn't Microsoft already a major target of customer disdain? I'm not trying to start anything, but fanboys aside, I don't know too many people who really like using Windows, even among the largely computer-illiterate 'normal' users. In my workplace, MS is the butt of all kinds of office humor, but no one will consider moving away A.Because everyone has been indoctrinated to think that compatibility *requires* MS software ("but everyone uses it!"), and B.It's the government. I think that since MS has already taken care of B., it's only natural that they attempt to make sure that A. comes true as well.
I can't agree with them. Although mp3s and such are getting to be more convienient, I think that a large percentage of the population (myself included) will continue to demand a physical product as a compliment to digital media as a way of solidifying my ownership. Damned if I'm going to pay the MPAA every single time I want to watch Evil Dead, or something of the like. If we don't fight this, pay-per-play is going to become the accepted norm, and the media gluttons will only get fatter on the fact that we now have to pay multiple times for something that we should have owned in the first place. Years ago, the death of the jukebox could have put the record companies out of business, and they've adapted out of that business model, but they've never forgotten, and they'd like nothing better than to get back to it.
Modded Funny?? I meant that Insightfully.
Don't you think that if you cut Congress's pay, then Congresspeople will be MORE succeptible to having their votes "subsidized"? For that matter, same with campaign contributions. I'm not suggesting that the current situation is great, nor am I suggesting that Congress is underpaid, but I do think that something other than pay cuts, or in addition to pay cuts needs to be done to address the real problem.
wow! Here in Southern Illinois, a local police chief said in a town newspaper a couple months ago that they won't pull you over unless you're doing 7-10 OVER the limit or its past 12:00am.
What about the thought that the industry is more negatively impacted by the small studio's legal file sharing than by the illegal filesharing of major label music?
1. File sharing and the internet is enabling people to find good music that has absolutely no ties to the major labels. To the labels, this is the scariest part of the whole scenario - they've lost their monopoly over the distribution channels. We all know from econ 101 that almost anytime a business moves out of a state of monopoly to a state of competition, the business's profits will decline.
2. The industry is still wasting millions on marketing that is almost not needed anymore due to the vast amounts of free marketing that the internet provides. Now, any idiot with a computer and a guitar can get his/her song heard by anyone, at almost NO COST to the musician. The labels tell us that it costs some $8 or so to make a CD (with recording/marketing costs figured in). The problem is that, while they're dumb enough to keep paying that, we're not dumb enough to believe it.
Hate to tell you, Mr. Self-Righteous Troll, but Copyright infringement != stealing. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. Intellectual property is a governmental creation. It may be necessary, and it may be wrong to infringe on copyright, but it is not wrong in the same way that breaking into your house and stealing your Metallica CD is wrong. Copyright infringement is illegal because you're denying someone potential income from their work. Imagine this: you buy the new Metallica CD and soon realize that it's a piece of crap. You give your copy to someone else, who was intending to buy it. In this case, the record company has just lost potential revenue, yet this is not illegal (yet). In this case, you have "stolen" potential revenue from the record company (by your use of the word stolen), yet not done anything illegal. Point: Copyright infringement is much more of a legal gray area than you want to believe.
Of course, /. has a large number of IP zealots (not including me) who would howl that these people deserve what they get because copyright infringement is always "theft," and the legitimate copyright holders always have a right to wrecklessly go after offenders regardless of how many innocent people are harmed. After all, we have to protect intellectual property...
As Sideshow Bob would say, "That's German for The, server, the."
"Linux users who are interested in additional information or purchasing an IP License for Linux should contact their local SCO sales representative or call SCO at 1-800-726-8649 or visit our web site at http://www.sco.com/scosource ."
I plan to make several anonymous calls to SCO, asking them exactly which of Mr. McBride's orfices he would like his money in. I plan to pay in small bills, all folded until they're nothing but sharp little corners. Who's with me?!