Is Windows 8 going to be the COS - Collectible Operating System - sold in stores beside the CCGs? Open a booster pack and see how long it takes to build a complete OS. Just gotta hope that the components needed to connect to the 'net aren't one of the ultra-rares...
That sounds like a challenge to me. I'll be interested to see if the FCC accepts the challenge and shows Comcast that it's the government, not corporations that run things, despite what many (including Comcast, obviously) may think.
I'm betting the "nominal" fee really will be nominal--like $2 or something.
I'm guessing it'll be akin to the app package that they released - $20. A small enough fee that the vast majority of buyers won't balk at while being enough to bring in some nice additional revenue. Sure, it sucks to have to pay $20 for features that iPhone users will get for free (release the damn thing north of the border please!), but I've spent $20 on less-valuable things than this, by far...
While I won't argue that this is big news, because it obviously is, I must confess that I'm struggling to see how this is news for nerds. Beyond nerds being people who are interested in the world at large like everyone else, of course. But if we're going to be getting news that interests people who are interested in the world at large, when can we expect to see/. posts about Brad and Angelina?
Mention "iPhone" in an article - even one that looks like it was written by a drunken monkey - and you can get on Slashdot. I love Apple. I want an iPhone (waiting for the Canadian market to pull their heads out of their butts...). But, seriously, this article isn't about the iPhone so why does it get mentioned in the subject? (I know the answer to that - it's a rhetorical question) Not to mention, this article looks like it was written by someone in 8th grade. Or is english this guy's second language?
No, I'm not new around here. Yes, I'm being an elitist tit this morning. But, seriously....
Make it stop!! This was an interesting story to follow two or three years ago. Now, it's just brutal! Stupid people with more money than brains... Walk away from SCO. It's dead. Make it stop!! Feel like throwing money away? Drop me a line - throw some at me. I promise you, you won't get it back. Just like you won't get any money back from SCO.
So, let's see. Record company accuses user of copyright infringement and their ISP is required to terminate their service. It turns out the accusation was "in error". The user has not recourse against their accuser for the false accusation _AND_ no internet service because their ISP cut them off. Yeah, that sounds like a recipe for a ton of frivolous accusations by the copyright holders. Heck, if they could accuse the entire country and force ISPs to cut them off, that would get all the pirates, even though it would be throwing a bunch of babies out with the bath water. And, hey, there's virtually no downside because they can't be counter-sued for the false accusations!
It seriously boggles my mind that people think garbage like this up and think that it makes a hint of sense. If you accuse someone of a crime and are proven wrong, the accused should have every right under the sun to come back at you. Hard.
Screw it! Someone copyright the damn dictionary and all words within and stop people from writing books and songs entirely. Yes. I know that's a moronic suggestion but, at the rate things are going, it'll sound more and more logical compared to the inane crap that politicians and lobby groups are suggesting... And I work in a creative industry where protecting the rights to my work is important to me, but this is so far beyond laughable now....
I would find it very interesting to see a major digital content provider sue Comcast for interfering with their ability to conduct business with the end consumer. If Comcast is degrading consumers' ability to enjoy digital content, much of which is surely provided legally and via commercial transaction, I would think that would be viewed as illegal. Of course, I am not a student of business nor law so I could well be wrong, but it would certainly be interesting to see some major content providers take exception to Comcast messing with their bottom line.
"So it's possible that either Canada has been holding on to the revenue from that tax, or, more likely, the RIA of America/MPA of America feels that the tax does not "fully compensate" them for the multi-thousand-dollar 'loss' from the existence of a bootleg copy of a CD."
(slight edit and emphasis mine)
The RIAA and MPAA are not welcome to a single cent of the tax we pay on blank media. It's a Canadian tax. It goes to the CRIA ( you know, the Canadian Recording Industry Association) (and presumably other Canadian organizations).
Canada is one of the biggest violators of US copyright law? That's ok - the US is one of the biggest violators of Canadian tax law. Oh, wait. What's that? The US isn't bound by Canadian tax laws? Oh. Interesting that. I guess that sort of thing tends to happen when your a different country and make your own laws...
If this doesn't clearly demonstrate how completely out of touch with the current era (and reality) the RIAA top brass is, then nothing will. I would think that the client-companies would be eager to replace him (and all others who are similarly out of touch). That or I'd think the client-companies' shareholders would be looking to make some replacements... With people like this running the show, it's no wonder the client-companies are losing money...
The worst part of this (beyond Microsoft's outright self-serving lies) is that most Canadians are horribly uninformed/misinformed about copyright laws and will believe virtually anything they hear making copyright FUD north of the border very effective. It would be nice if more people, like Michael Geist, tried to get the truth out there but sadly his sort are rare...
Google has a Microsoft fixation? Ok, I'm not willing to argue that, but I think the fixation railroad runs both ways. It's pretty obvious that Microsoft is more than a little pre-occupied with Google.
I know for a fact that moral will sink and people will leave Yahoo.
Yes, moral will be low and people will leave Yahoo! because there will be massive(!) layoffs as Microsoft eliminates duplicated jobs and, when duplicated jobs are eliminated, the lost position almost always comes from the bought company, not the buying company. I suspect Yahoo!'s workforce are all in the process of polishing up their resumes. At least, I hope they are...
The MPAA/RIAA knows exactly what they are doing and how to exploit those they are attacking...
I'd have to disagree. Using the RIAA as an example, their member-companies are watching sales continue to decline. Sure, some will blame piracy but those of us with a clue know that a failure to adapt to the new digital age in a timely manner and a continued trend of releasing a sub-par product at an inflated price has done more to harm their bottom lines than "piracy" ever could. So, forgive me if I think the MPAA/RIAA doesn't have a clue what they are doing (though I will agree they are exploiting everyone they possibly can, including those they claim to represent...).
(I'm Canadian, so this doesn't affect me beyond the influence factor, but I'm curious none-the-less.)
Where does the money go? The FCC will raise the money, but where does that substantial bankroll go? Does it just roll into the federal budget to be dished out as the government sees fit with the rest of the money or is it earmarked for a specific use (debt repayment, for example)?
(And, heck, with the Canadian government about to do a similar auction, if anyone has the answer in regards to Canada, feel free to share it as well.)
"By 2014, anyone seeking to board an airplane or enter a federal building would have to present a REAL ID-compliant driver's license..."
So, people who live in cities with good public transportation and decide to not bother getting a driver's license (and I know many such people) will be SOL when they try to fly, despite being totally legal and legitimate citizens with entirely valid ID? Nice. Kudos on that.
"Politicians who play for the antipiracy team should be aware that they have allied themselves with a special interest that is never satisfied and that will always demand that we take additional steps toward the ultimate control state."
It boggles my mind that there aren't more politicians who have figured out this gem of wisdom. Restricting the rights and freedoms OF YOUR VOTERS for the benefit of a corporation or trade organization, who will never be happy and will continue to push for more and more restrictions and limitations, is a sure way to decrease your chances of being re-elected...
If you download a copyrighted song from a server in Antigua, will that be an ironclad defense that will make you invulnerable to future attacks from the RIAA?
Sorry, but what does that have to do with the the WTO, Antiqua, and the US ban on online gambling? And, if it does have anything to do with the topic(s) of the article (at work - busy - no time to read TFA right now), then it would be nice if the summary posted to/. made the connection clear so this statement didn't come completely out of left field...
No. They wouldn't. This would be a HORRIBLE thing for indie and local acts. If radio stations are required to pay a flat fee to SoundExchange (*), then they will make certain that all music airtime is from artists covered by their payment. Signed to an indie label? Unsigned local act? Sorry - you're not worth the airtime that we're required to pay for. This would be outrageously BAD for independent and local acts, imho.
* "The current draft sets up a scheme where commercial broadcasters pay a flat yearly fee (set by the government) to a group like SoundExchange, which would distribute the money to artists and labels. Small commercial stations would only pay $5,000 a year, and nonprofit stations like NPR would pay only $1,000 a year."
Slashdot Mirror
Is Windows 8 going to be the COS - Collectible Operating System - sold in stores beside the CCGs? Open a booster pack and see how long it takes to build a complete OS. Just gotta hope that the components needed to connect to the 'net aren't one of the ultra-rares...
Try activating encryption in your bit torrent client. I'm certain you'll see a dramatic difference.
That sounds like a challenge to me. I'll be interested to see if the FCC accepts the challenge and shows Comcast that it's the government, not corporations that run things, despite what many (including Comcast, obviously) may think.
Why'd ya have to sell out Will?
I believe the technical answer is "truck loads of cash."
I'm betting the "nominal" fee really will be nominal--like $2 or something.
I'm guessing it'll be akin to the app package that they released - $20. A small enough fee that the vast majority of buyers won't balk at while being enough to bring in some nice additional revenue. Sure, it sucks to have to pay $20 for features that iPhone users will get for free (release the damn thing north of the border please!), but I've spent $20 on less-valuable things than this, by far...
While I won't argue that this is big news, because it obviously is, I must confess that I'm struggling to see how this is news for nerds. Beyond nerds being people who are interested in the world at large like everyone else, of course. But if we're going to be getting news that interests people who are interested in the world at large, when can we expect to see /. posts about Brad and Angelina?
Mention "iPhone" in an article - even one that looks like it was written by a drunken monkey - and you can get on Slashdot. I love Apple. I want an iPhone (waiting for the Canadian market to pull their heads out of their butts...). But, seriously, this article isn't about the iPhone so why does it get mentioned in the subject? (I know the answer to that - it's a rhetorical question) Not to mention, this article looks like it was written by someone in 8th grade. Or is english this guy's second language?
No, I'm not new around here. Yes, I'm being an elitist tit this morning. But, seriously....
OH MY GAWD!!
Make it stop!! This was an interesting story to follow two or three years ago. Now, it's just brutal! Stupid people with more money than brains... Walk away from SCO. It's dead. Make it stop!! Feel like throwing money away? Drop me a line - throw some at me. I promise you, you won't get it back. Just like you won't get any money back from SCO.
Oh my gawd!
So, let's see. Record company accuses user of copyright infringement and their ISP is required to terminate their service. It turns out the accusation was "in error". The user has not recourse against their accuser for the false accusation _AND_ no internet service because their ISP cut them off. Yeah, that sounds like a recipe for a ton of frivolous accusations by the copyright holders. Heck, if they could accuse the entire country and force ISPs to cut them off, that would get all the pirates, even though it would be throwing a bunch of babies out with the bath water. And, hey, there's virtually no downside because they can't be counter-sued for the false accusations!
It seriously boggles my mind that people think garbage like this up and think that it makes a hint of sense. If you accuse someone of a crime and are proven wrong, the accused should have every right under the sun to come back at you. Hard.
Bah!
Screw it! Someone copyright the damn dictionary and all words within and stop people from writing books and songs entirely. Yes. I know that's a moronic suggestion but, at the rate things are going, it'll sound more and more logical compared to the inane crap that politicians and lobby groups are suggesting... And I work in a creative industry where protecting the rights to my work is important to me, but this is so far beyond laughable now....
I would find it very interesting to see a major digital content provider sue Comcast for interfering with their ability to conduct business with the end consumer. If Comcast is degrading consumers' ability to enjoy digital content, much of which is surely provided legally and via commercial transaction, I would think that would be viewed as illegal. Of course, I am not a student of business nor law so I could well be wrong, but it would certainly be interesting to see some major content providers take exception to Comcast messing with their bottom line.
"So it's possible that either Canada has been holding on to the revenue from that tax, or, more likely, the RIA of America/MPA of America feels that the tax does not "fully compensate" them for the multi-thousand-dollar 'loss' from the existence of a bootleg copy of a CD."
(slight edit and emphasis mine)
The RIAA and MPAA are not welcome to a single cent of the tax we pay on blank media. It's a Canadian tax. It goes to the CRIA ( you know, the Canadian Recording Industry Association) (and presumably other Canadian organizations).
Canada is one of the biggest violators of US copyright law? That's ok - the US is one of the biggest violators of Canadian tax law. Oh, wait. What's that? The US isn't bound by Canadian tax laws? Oh. Interesting that. I guess that sort of thing tends to happen when your a different country and make your own laws...
If this doesn't clearly demonstrate how completely out of touch with the current era (and reality) the RIAA top brass is, then nothing will. I would think that the client-companies would be eager to replace him (and all others who are similarly out of touch). That or I'd think the client-companies' shareholders would be looking to make some replacements... With people like this running the show, it's no wonder the client-companies are losing money...
The worst part of this (beyond Microsoft's outright self-serving lies) is that most Canadians are horribly uninformed/misinformed about copyright laws and will believe virtually anything they hear making copyright FUD north of the border very effective. It would be nice if more people, like Michael Geist, tried to get the truth out there but sadly his sort are rare...
Google has a Microsoft fixation? Ok, I'm not willing to argue that, but I think the fixation railroad runs both ways. It's pretty obvious that Microsoft is more than a little pre-occupied with Google.
I know for a fact that moral will sink and people will leave Yahoo.
Yes, moral will be low and people will leave Yahoo! because there will be massive(!) layoffs as Microsoft eliminates duplicated jobs and, when duplicated jobs are eliminated, the lost position almost always comes from the bought company, not the buying company. I suspect Yahoo!'s workforce are all in the process of polishing up their resumes. At least, I hope they are...
I think he should lose his car if he ever goes over the speed limit. Sounds about the same to what he's suggesting.
The MPAA/RIAA knows exactly what they are doing and how to exploit those they are attacking...
I'd have to disagree. Using the RIAA as an example, their member-companies are watching sales continue to decline. Sure, some will blame piracy but those of us with a clue know that a failure to adapt to the new digital age in a timely manner and a continued trend of releasing a sub-par product at an inflated price has done more to harm their bottom lines than "piracy" ever could. So, forgive me if I think the MPAA/RIAA doesn't have a clue what they are doing (though I will agree they are exploiting everyone they possibly can, including those they claim to represent...).
I'm sure there are many other articles out there, but here is a pretty thorough article on the upcoming Canadian auction.
(I'm Canadian, so this doesn't affect me beyond the influence factor, but I'm curious none-the-less.)
Where does the money go? The FCC will raise the money, but where does that substantial bankroll go? Does it just roll into the federal budget to be dished out as the government sees fit with the rest of the money or is it earmarked for a specific use (debt repayment, for example)?
(And, heck, with the Canadian government about to do a similar auction, if anyone has the answer in regards to Canada, feel free to share it as well.)
"By 2014, anyone seeking to board an airplane or enter a federal building would have to present a REAL ID-compliant driver's license..."
So, people who live in cities with good public transportation and decide to not bother getting a driver's license (and I know many such people) will be SOL when they try to fly, despite being totally legal and legitimate citizens with entirely valid ID? Nice. Kudos on that.
"Politicians who play for the antipiracy team should be aware that they have allied themselves with a special interest that is never satisfied and that will always demand that we take additional steps toward the ultimate control state."
It boggles my mind that there aren't more politicians who have figured out this gem of wisdom. Restricting the rights and freedoms OF YOUR VOTERS for the benefit of a corporation or trade organization, who will never be happy and will continue to push for more and more restrictions and limitations, is a sure way to decrease your chances of being re-elected...
If you download a copyrighted song from a server in Antigua, will that be an ironclad defense that will make you invulnerable to future attacks from the RIAA?
/. made the connection clear so this statement didn't come completely out of left field...
Sorry, but what does that have to do with the the WTO, Antiqua, and the US ban on online gambling? And, if it does have anything to do with the topic(s) of the article (at work - busy - no time to read TFA right now), then it would be nice if the summary posted to
No. They wouldn't. This would be a HORRIBLE thing for indie and local acts. If radio stations are required to pay a flat fee to SoundExchange (*), then they will make certain that all music airtime is from artists covered by their payment. Signed to an indie label? Unsigned local act? Sorry - you're not worth the airtime that we're required to pay for. This would be outrageously BAD for independent and local acts, imho.
* "The current draft sets up a scheme where commercial broadcasters pay a flat yearly fee (set by the government) to a group like SoundExchange, which would distribute the money to artists and labels. Small commercial stations would only pay $5,000 a year, and nonprofit stations like NPR would pay only $1,000 a year."