I didn't know that patents would follow the inventor when he switches companies
Well, I wasn't sure either, but the patent is on the name of that person, and not on the name of Opera. So I'd guess that it would follow him at least.:)
Never heard of drinking songs? Or folk music? Childrens songs?
I think that you'll find lots of examples of people singing with eachother... perhaps not a service perse, but still, it was done as a way to pass time and/or to pass on information. Well, actually you could say that it was a SERVICE.
Making music is practically as old as the oldest profession known to man.
Music wasn't limited to just the rich and famous, it belonged to everybody, EVEN to the commoners as you so put it.
And right now, if you sing Happy Birthday in a public place, you are breaking copyright laws... How's that for a service. Let the name "pirates" be a 'geuzennaam'.
So you are saying that we don't have to be able to preserve content, because Disney's stuff is well preserved? In other words, only Disney makes content that's worthy of preservation.
Are you serious?
There are a lot (and I do mean a lot) of content that's missing from public record, and we are denied access to it, by these insane laws.
The copyright-law's intention is to encourage content creators to make new content, and to have a short period of monopoly on their product, before it went into public domain for other people to build on. In the olden days people were able to stand on the shoulders of giants, if you do that right now with music or film, you can be certain to be sued to oblivion and back.
btw, when was the last time you could buy a copy of Steamboat Willie? You know that first piece of film where Mortimer -Oh excuse me- Mickey Mouse played a part. It might be well-preserved, but we, the people, aren't allowed to make remixes of it, or create a sequel on it (if we would desire to do so)
But do they really need more than 50 years of monopoly on their copyrighted material? How long did it take JK Rowling to earn that much money? Certainly not the amount of time that currently is set in the copyright laws. It's just too long. A lot of great content is locked up by this law, no one in this generation will ever learn of them if this law will still stand.
I'm not against copyright laws, but the ones in place right now are outright ludicrous in regards to amount of time they span.
Taxes on blank media to stop these lawsuits? That won't do you any good. It won't stop, they'll just say "well, it's to allow you to make a personal backup copy of a disc you legally own." not to stop suing 'piracy'.
We in The Netherlands are being taxed on our blank cds and dvds (and they wanted to add taxes on mp3-players, hard drives and flash media as well, though that's been stopped for now by the Dutch government). And the only thing that has stopped the rights groups to sue people is this thing called the privacy law. ISPs aren't allowed to give out the addresses of people that BREIN (and others) suspects from copyright infringement. It's not the taxing that stops BREIN (and it certainly wouldn't stop the MAFIAA suing you)
Incidentally, downloading music isn't illegal here, uploading however is.
> People in the US value their privacy and expect more of it than in Europe.
I'm European, and I value my privacy very much... I *hate* it that our governments are starting to use RFID-chipped passports (I think they are STILL far too unsafe to use in such a sensitive piece of personal information, but hey, who am I, right?), and I hate the all-pervasive and all-around us cameras """To protect you""". Panopticon indeed!
If you want to see where this all could be going (and seem to be going), read "The Traveller" by John Twelve Hawks...
Sadly, I'm only one voice, and for such issues we used to have Bits of Freedom, but they stopped most of their activities last year, because of lack of funding.:(
A few months back the Dutch organization of the music industry (BREIN) claimed that it wasn't the music industry that forced DRM on their tunes, but instead it was Microsoft and Apple who forced them to do it. They didn't want it, but they couldn't have it any other way. (Right in the face of the news that eMusic had just launched their European shops, but meh, who's counting...)
Right here, we have proof that it's the other way around. Jobs essentially offered the big music companies an opportunity to show that it was indeed Apple who forced DRM into iTunes, and clearly it shows that it's in fact the music industry that wants (and think they need) DRM.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's aim for that.
I wasn't whining... I was merely stating a few facts.
Fact1: iAudio mediaplayers do not play AAC.
Fact2: There is no (native) Linux client of iTunes.
perhaps EMI should try a little 'bum rushing the charts'? :)
and lose quality ;)
My modern iAudio U3 does not play AAC.
But I can't run iTunes on my pc anyway (no linux client), so it doesn't matter much for me.
Sheeple?
Sheman?
Humeep?
Pheeps?
Actually I want it to go through... and then get slammed out of court.
Setting precedent that suing people for not buying your product is just wrong.
Technically there will be 2 version 7's then... one in April and one in October.
Never heard of drinking songs? Or folk music? Childrens songs?
I think that you'll find lots of examples of people singing with eachother... perhaps not a service perse, but still, it was done as a way to pass time and/or to pass on information. Well, actually you could say that it was a SERVICE.
Making music is practically as old as the oldest profession known to man.
Music wasn't limited to just the rich and famous, it belonged to everybody, EVEN to the commoners as you so put it.
And right now, if you sing Happy Birthday in a public place, you are breaking copyright laws... How's that for a service.
Let the name "pirates" be a 'geuzennaam'.
But will it run on Windows?
So you are saying that we don't have to be able to preserve content, because Disney's stuff is well preserved? In other words, only Disney makes content that's worthy of preservation.
Are you serious?
There are a lot (and I do mean a lot) of content that's missing from public record, and we are denied access to it, by these insane laws.
The copyright-law's intention is to encourage content creators to make new content, and to have a short period of monopoly on their product, before it went into public domain for other people to build on. In the olden days people were able to stand on the shoulders of giants, if you do that right now with music or film, you can be certain to be sued to oblivion and back.
btw, when was the last time you could buy a copy of Steamboat Willie? You know that first piece of film where Mortimer -Oh excuse me- Mickey Mouse played a part. It might be well-preserved, but we, the people, aren't allowed to make remixes of it, or create a sequel on it (if we would desire to do so)
But do they really need more than 50 years of monopoly on their copyrighted material?
How long did it take JK Rowling to earn that much money? Certainly not the amount of time that currently is set in the copyright laws. It's just too long. A lot of great content is locked up by this law, no one in this generation will ever learn of them if this law will still stand.
I'm not against copyright laws, but the ones in place right now are outright ludicrous in regards to amount of time they span.
Taxes on blank media to stop these lawsuits? That won't do you any good. It won't stop, they'll just say "well, it's to allow you to make a personal backup copy of a disc you legally own." not to stop suing 'piracy'.
We in The Netherlands are being taxed on our blank cds and dvds (and they wanted to add taxes on mp3-players, hard drives and flash media as well, though that's been stopped for now by the Dutch government).
And the only thing that has stopped the rights groups to sue people is this thing called the privacy law. ISPs aren't allowed to give out the addresses of people that BREIN (and others) suspects from copyright infringement. It's not the taxing that stops BREIN (and it certainly wouldn't stop the MAFIAA suing you)
Incidentally, downloading music isn't illegal here, uploading however is.
Finally, a use for Blink tags.
> People in the US value their privacy and expect more of it than in Europe.
:(
I'm European, and I value my privacy very much...
I *hate* it that our governments are starting to use RFID-chipped passports (I think they are STILL far too unsafe to use in such a sensitive piece of personal information, but hey, who am I, right?), and I hate the all-pervasive and all-around us cameras """To protect you""".
Panopticon indeed!
If you want to see where this all could be going (and seem to be going), read "The Traveller" by John Twelve Hawks...
Sadly, I'm only one voice, and for such issues we used to have Bits of Freedom, but they stopped most of their activities last year, because of lack of funding.
Well, at least we know that most /.-ers aren't lawyers...
Wait, did he write this write-up himself? :)
I fail to see the difference between "this January" and "last January". Aren't both actually about January 2007?
But the Wii itself can't get to websites by itself. You need to get a software package (the Wii Opera browser) first.
btw, many cellphones can access the web, and many kids have cellphones, where is this Christian group with the warnings for those devices?
He said he was gay, not desperate...
A few months back the Dutch organization of the music industry (BREIN) claimed that it wasn't the music industry that forced DRM on their tunes, but instead it was Microsoft and Apple who forced them to do it. They didn't want it, but they couldn't have it any other way. (Right in the face of the news that eMusic had just launched their European shops, but meh, who's counting...)
Right here, we have proof that it's the other way around. Jobs essentially offered the big music companies an opportunity to show that it was indeed Apple who forced DRM into iTunes, and clearly it shows that it's in fact the music industry that wants (and think they need) DRM.
and here I thought that apt-get was the best thing for Linux since sliced bread.