If I'm not mistaken, "Stichting 'De Thuiskopie'" was asked to open up the books last year, they still have to do that. Right now, it's a very murky picture.
We pay a copyright levy on CDs, cassettes, videotapes and DVDs (and we have a 0-levy on mp3-players, meaning that there is technically a levy on mp3players and portable storage devices, but it's 0. They wanted to increase this amount earlier this year, but that was thwarted (thankfully)) But we have absolutely no idea how many is being received by that organization, and who gets what percentage of that.
But Wine is available in Ubuntu's repositories, so you CAN install it yourself. And adding repositories is easily done (even for a lesser-technical user). (there is even an Ubuntu repository for newer versions of Wine too)
Sadly, at the moment there are only three ways of playing copyrighted music: 1) if the artist has released his music under a CC license, and the webradio station adheres to the terms of his/her chosen license; 2) if the station negotiates with each artist to make a deal of how much license fee they have to pay; 3) or if the station pays this blanket fee, which goes to the RIAA, whether the artist is signed to them or not.
What you were proposing was option two, and certainly that can be done if the artist is unlicensed (in other words, he owns his own work), but it costs both the artist and the station a lot of time, effort and money to draft up some legal document. If it is for just one artist, that's doable. But imagine the cost and time if you have to do it for hundreds of artists.
And in that third case, which is the most commonly used method at the moment, the only way that that artist can get his royalties, is if he/she pays the RIAA to release that money. Basically the money that's rightfully his, is being held hostage by the RIAA, through their agency called SoundExchange. So in a sense it's like this. You work for a company, but in order for you to gut paid, you have to give a competitor some money to release your hard earned cash.
So you are proposing that these internet radio stations start negotiations with every artist that they want to play music from. Are you willing to cover the attorny fees that these artists and stations are going to encounter?
Which title do you mean. The title of the Slashdot discussion? "Microsoft takes on the OLPC" Or the BBC title? "Microsoft aims to double PC base" First one means: "Microsoft starts a fight with the One Laptop Per Child initiative" The second one means "Microsoft is trying to double its marketshare on the PC market"
And you have to be bloody blind not to see the alterior motive behind it. Because it's a little too close to the release date of the OLPC, Microsoft could've done this years ago!
Granted the title isn't entirely unbiased, that doesn't mean that there is no truth to it.
But this 'fix' came a lot quicker than their debacle with the broken CDs.
On the other hand, this fix would not have been necessary, had they not used DRM in the first place. And it doesn't leave the fact, that I'm still not buying anything that Sony makes.
Why would you need this plugin, when you have all sorts of different extensions dealing with this situation.
Like for instance: mediaplayerconnectivity.
Look you can use any player you like, and you don't need to have the browser open anymore, while playing the video.
I'm sorry Microsoft, but you are too little too late.
What a long winded way Mark has of saying "We're talking with Dell right now."
Those types of conversations are very sensitive, he was probably advised not to say anything like that. (this way you could induce that they are talking with Dell, but he doesn't actually say it.
So that when eventually there is no deal, he can't be held responsible for any false hopes. After all, he didn't say that they were having talks with Dell, it was only in your mind.
it should have been seen sooner, that his number didn't appear on the call list of the hotline at 3.12am, but at 2.12am... that SHOULD have rung a bell, yet it didn't.
Well, what could we have expected, when certain law-enforcers have to deal with a possible terrorists attack, common sense goes right out the window.
If the school decided that Wikipedia is a source not to be trusted, thus it must be blocked, why stop only at Wikipedia? There are numerous sites out there that are less than reliable with regards to information. In my opinion, blocking a site because it's unreliable is stupid. What these schools should do is educate their students (what a concept!), and tell them that Wikipedia might not always be a credible information-source, and tell them to dig deeper into the subject that the school wants them to investigate. What I mean is that they tell these students that they can use Wikipedia, but not as the only source, and that the students should always fact-check before adding information into their papers.
But that would probably mean that these students actually use their brains... we can't that to happen, can we?
Besides that whole argument... How can you distinguish between an American player and for instance a Dutch player? Can you see that difference in the game? No... so how can the tax-office do that same distinguish?
You are absolutely right, though, once you convert it to real money it's real income, and indeed should be reported as such.:) Good luck, getting that through to the thick heads at the governments.
Slashdot Mirror
How can you even have 65 patents on menu's and windows?
Did they patent the location of every button and menu option?
If I'm not mistaken, "Stichting 'De Thuiskopie'" was asked to open up the books last year, they still have to do that.
Right now, it's a very murky picture.
We pay a copyright levy on CDs, cassettes, videotapes and DVDs (and we have a 0-levy on mp3-players, meaning that there is technically a levy on mp3players and portable storage devices, but it's 0. They wanted to increase this amount earlier this year, but that was thwarted (thankfully))
But we have absolutely no idea how many is being received by that organization, and who gets what percentage of that.
But Wine is available in Ubuntu's repositories, so you CAN install it yourself. And adding repositories is easily done (even for a lesser-technical user). (there is even an Ubuntu repository for newer versions of Wine too)
No, sorry, I'm not Indian. :)
Though I do like Indian food.
I claim prior art.
I used to live at number 42...
the original saying is "Understanding is a double-edged sword"
1-up that, and you get triple (three-fold)
Are you sure the developers know what to do with them?
But wouldn't delaying the movie releases actually increase the use of illegally obtained copyrighted material in Canada?
I love Internetradio, lets put that up front.
Sadly, at the moment there are only three ways of playing copyrighted music:
1) if the artist has released his music under a CC license, and the webradio station adheres to the terms of his/her chosen license;
2) if the station negotiates with each artist to make a deal of how much license fee they have to pay;
3) or if the station pays this blanket fee, which goes to the RIAA, whether the artist is signed to them or not.
What you were proposing was option two, and certainly that can be done if the artist is unlicensed (in other words, he owns his own work), but it costs both the artist and the station a lot of time, effort and money to draft up some legal document. If it is for just one artist, that's doable. But imagine the cost and time if you have to do it for hundreds of artists.
And in that third case, which is the most commonly used method at the moment, the only way that that artist can get his royalties, is if he/she pays the RIAA to release that money. Basically the money that's rightfully his, is being held hostage by the RIAA, through their agency called SoundExchange.
So in a sense it's like this. You work for a company, but in order for you to gut paid, you have to give a competitor some money to release your hard earned cash.
So you are proposing that these internet radio stations start negotiations with every artist that they want to play music from.
Are you willing to cover the attorny fees that these artists and stations are going to encounter?
I did try it... but it made me yawn.
Not if said person did not come from the USA.
Luckily, that dragon of a law isn't enforced globally.
or Land of the censors?
And I thought that China was the only country that censors websites.
-rink
(d'oh)
Next on the news; it's mighty cold in hell, could we finally have a winter rink down there?
You must be new here.
The current MO is to read just the subject line and then skip right to the comments.
Which title do you mean. The title of the Slashdot discussion? "Microsoft takes on the OLPC"
Or the BBC title? "Microsoft aims to double PC base"
First one means: "Microsoft starts a fight with the One Laptop Per Child initiative"
The second one means "Microsoft is trying to double its marketshare on the PC market"
And you have to be bloody blind not to see the alterior motive behind it. Because it's a little too close to the release date of the OLPC, Microsoft could've done this years ago!
Granted the title isn't entirely unbiased, that doesn't mean that there is no truth to it.
But this 'fix' came a lot quicker than their debacle with the broken CDs.
On the other hand, this fix would not have been necessary, had they not used DRM in the first place.
And it doesn't leave the fact, that I'm still not buying anything that Sony makes.
Like for instance: mediaplayerconnectivity.
Look you can use any player you like, and you don't need to have the browser open anymore, while playing the video.
I'm sorry Microsoft, but you are too little too late.
So that when eventually there is no deal, he can't be held responsible for any false hopes. After all, he didn't say that they were having talks with Dell, it was only in your mind.
it should have been seen sooner, that his number didn't appear on the call list of the hotline at 3.12am, but at 2.12am... that SHOULD have rung a bell, yet it didn't.
Well, what could we have expected, when certain law-enforcers have to deal with a possible terrorists attack, common sense goes right out the window.
If the school decided that Wikipedia is a source not to be trusted, thus it must be blocked, why stop only at Wikipedia? There are numerous sites out there that are less than reliable with regards to information.
In my opinion, blocking a site because it's unreliable is stupid. What these schools should do is educate their students (what a concept!), and tell them that Wikipedia might not always be a credible information-source, and tell them to dig deeper into the subject that the school wants them to investigate.
What I mean is that they tell these students that they can use Wikipedia, but not as the only source, and that the students should always fact-check before adding information into their papers.
But that would probably mean that these students actually use their brains... we can't that to happen, can we?
Besides that whole argument...
:)
How can you distinguish between an American player and for instance a Dutch player? Can you see that difference in the game? No... so how can the tax-office do that same distinguish?
You are absolutely right, though, once you convert it to real money it's real income, and indeed should be reported as such.
Good luck, getting that through to the thick heads at the governments.
I'd only want to pay this tax, if I can pay these taxes with virtual money.
everyone buys the AppleTV for the podcasts, don't they? How do they stack up against the commercially made stuff?