Maybe fair use wasn't the proper set of laws I was looking for, but regardless, sites are allowed to distribute small clips of audio legally without licensing the said clips, and I haven't seen them get in trouble. Go to Amazon.com or one of the many other places that sells CDs and generally they will provide the user with the ability to preview samples of audio tracks.
My question was, why doesn't this apply to filesharing system users as well, since no single user is generally supplying the entire file? A single user normally only supplies a small chunk of it-- not much bigger than those supplied legally by the big sites. Now, I could legally go and download a bunch of clips from the big sites and reconstruct the audio to get myself a music track, or I could let Kazaa (Lite) to do the same thing for me, from smaller users. Seems entirely legal to me if the big sites can do it.
Next move I see is for a single source to be limited to providing 20 seconds of a particular music file so that we can take advantage of more fair use laws.
Really, I'm not sure why I haven't seen this used yet. Almost all the major sites out there that provide music content will let you play a 10 or 20 second sample of the music for free (and as far as I know, they don't have to license it), so why can't filesharing system users legally do the same?
It just so happens that each user has a different clip... and the software is intelligent enough to piece them back together into one music file instead of me having to do it by hand;)
It all depends which artists decide to stick with the traditional model of distributing through a record label. I personally hope that some will start seeing the light and realize that they can distribute independently-- and I would assume that places like Amazon.com or other big distributor names would be more than happy to help.
Re:AOL CD's oh boy, I can't wait...
on
AOL: Amazon Who?
·
· Score: 1
No, when you put one of their DVDs in your DVD player, it'll force you to wait and download a damn update to their software before you can turn off your TV
So they're not taking control... They're just annoying as hell;)
Somehow I highly doubt that SCO is "giving" Sun these shares with option to sell them right back off. They want Sun to show their support and really have a stake in the future of the company; while it sounds like quick money right now, if SCO doesn't come out victorious, you can bet their stock will be in the toilet.
If Sun buys into this and that's what happens, not only will they have lost money (insignificant, yes), but they will have a damaged image for supporting a greedy, dying company.
Well for one thing, there are people that do that. I know several people off hand who download entire collections for the mere purpose of having the collection, but never listen to most of the songs.
My point is, what exactly is it that makes downloading music illegal? Or even some software? Or even to distribute it? The original purpose of copyright and patent laws were to protect the rights of authors/inventors/etc from someone else trying to sell the same idea as their own for a profit. But this is not the case with downloading music; you're not trying to resell it and make a profit of your own. You're not stealing their idea and using it for your own commercial purposes. If downloading a song is illegal merely because you're not paying the author for their work, shouldn't even listening to a CD with your friend be illegal? There's remnants of the idea in your brain and you remember the song... If you start humming the song out to yourself later, are you in violation of copyright laws? Where does it end?
It's because of all this intellectual property BS that I believe in the free music philosophy. I write a song, record it, put it on cd and on the internet. If you want to download it without paying me, I'm not going to sue you. If you buy the CD, great! Even better, come to a few concerts and I can get paid through ticket sales... Were you aware that the vast majority of profits for artists comes from their concerts and not their album sales?
Ouch, wow.. I have no idea where the NSync comment came from; that's hitting below the belt
I think I'd *rather* go to jail than have to listen to or much less buy NSync music. If there was ever one good indicator of the music industry going to shit...
I still fail to see how the RIAA or even the courts can assign some arbitrary value to "monetary damages" caused by people sharing files. How do they know the people downloading the file will ever even listen to it, much less that they would have bought it?
The very thought of them going after individual file sharing users sickens me. The RIAA needs to be more innovative and find ways to make being legal seem more "appealing" rather than just trying to scare the little people and take their money.
There are a lot of improvements before it can beat the reign of cellular. One major advantage of cellular technology is the very theory behind the technology-- using multiple cells to provide continuous coverage across a wide area. Granted there are still issues occasionally when switching cell towers, but it is mostly seamless.
Wifi is really still in its infancy. There are a number of issues and concerns still to be addressed, not to mention the handful of different standards currently available, some of which aren't compatible. One issue is the transition of a Wifi client from one access point to another-- there are still delays and problems in negotiating, streams are dropped, etc, etc. This is not acceptable for devices that transmit voice in realtime, and for any kind of streaming when the device is in motion.
Range is also still a big issue-- while Wifi can reach upwards of a mile with a *very* good antenna, it's still nothing compared to today's cell technology with a decent wireless device. Sure, if there are APs spread out in everyone's home with an open security key it'll work fine for around the city and most towns, but as soon as you hop onto the freeway or something, what then?
Honestly I hope that Wifi takes off as the all-around wireless standard, once these problems are fixed. It means no Telco, no airtime, no busy circuits, and no bill period.
Being able to turn to one company for all your problems sounds all great and good, but at the same time, it also means you're restricting yourself to the creativity of one company. Personally, the reason I refuse to even consider getting a Mac (at least as a primary computer) to this day is that there is not enough variety in software and options.
You can give me the "fastest PC on earth", give it the best interface ever, throw in a free car, and promise me all these other benefits, but if the software isn't there that I need for my specific purpose... I can't use it. The primary advantage of x86-based platforms is that there are so many options, so many programs, and such diverse hardware. At the same time you're trading off compatibility and a single support source, but hey-- I'm an intelligent person and I've been programming for eight years, so I can figure out how to get one POS card to work with another POS card on my own. I don't need some Apple support weenie to tell me how to fix my mouse, get my sound working, or wipe my ass.
The reason the Apple marketshare is still so low is because of the lack of software and hardware diversity. Ironically enough, software and hardware diversity depends on a strong marketshare; it's a fragile balance between intellectual supply and demand. I won't switch to an Apple because there isn't software for it that I want, but from the developer aspect I won't write for Apple because there aren't enough people to use it and make it worth my time. It's a closed cycle that takes a long time to change, and it just so happens that due to some very stupid decisions Apple made in the past (ie, closed architecture), they are stuck where they are now. If they had managed things better in the past and remained open, they would be far better off.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe fair use wasn't the proper set of laws I was looking for, but regardless, sites are allowed to distribute small clips of audio legally without licensing the said clips, and I haven't seen them get in trouble. Go to Amazon.com or one of the many other places that sells CDs and generally they will provide the user with the ability to preview samples of audio tracks.
My question was, why doesn't this apply to filesharing system users as well, since no single user is generally supplying the entire file? A single user normally only supplies a small chunk of it-- not much bigger than those supplied legally by the big sites. Now, I could legally go and download a bunch of clips from the big sites and reconstruct the audio to get myself a music track, or I could let Kazaa (Lite) to do the same thing for me, from smaller users. Seems entirely legal to me if the big sites can do it.
Next move I see is for a single source to be limited to providing 20 seconds of a particular music file so that we can take advantage of more fair use laws.
;)
Really, I'm not sure why I haven't seen this used yet. Almost all the major sites out there that provide music content will let you play a 10 or 20 second sample of the music for free (and as far as I know, they don't have to license it), so why can't filesharing system users legally do the same?
It just so happens that each user has a different clip... and the software is intelligent enough to piece them back together into one music file instead of me having to do it by hand
...Mainly because you can use it against people you don't like :)
With this, even the tech sites can seem suggestive...
"...that these Xeons can outperform..."
"...he calls extended instruction sets a waste of time..."
Careful if you take too long; he could start suggesting some enhancers Knowing M$, they probably keep a database of this...
Gah! My eyes!
This information can't leak out! We'll be subjected to Mystery Science Theatre 24/7! God save us all!
It all depends which artists decide to stick with the traditional model of distributing through a record label. I personally hope that some will start seeing the light and realize that they can distribute independently-- and I would assume that places like Amazon.com or other big distributor names would be more than happy to help.
No, when you put one of their DVDs in your DVD player, it'll force you to wait and download a damn update to their software before you can turn off your TV
;)
So they're not taking control... They're just annoying as hell
Think there's any way to hook my ten disk RAID array up to one of these suckers? ;)
You have to imagine some theoretical limit to all the plusses at some point. I can just see it now...
"What language did you write that app with?" "Oh, let's see.. That one was C plus plus, plus plus, plus plus.... plus"
And I thought the next version of C would be +++... and then ++++
Somehow I highly doubt that SCO is "giving" Sun these shares with option to sell them right back off. They want Sun to show their support and really have a stake in the future of the company; while it sounds like quick money right now, if SCO doesn't come out victorious, you can bet their stock will be in the toilet.
If Sun buys into this and that's what happens, not only will they have lost money (insignificant, yes), but they will have a damaged image for supporting a greedy, dying company.
Granting Sun a warrant to buy shares, eh? Sounds pretty overconfident to me. I'll hop right on that bandwagon and buy into the sinking ship!
You have to type in little poker face emoticons. :-/
You mean you can't tell when your computer is lying to you?
Great, now the machines will get to shake every last penny out of me too.
Well for one thing, there are people that do that. I know several people off hand who download entire collections for the mere purpose of having the collection, but never listen to most of the songs.
My point is, what exactly is it that makes downloading music illegal? Or even some software? Or even to distribute it? The original purpose of copyright and patent laws were to protect the rights of authors/inventors/etc from someone else trying to sell the same idea as their own for a profit. But this is not the case with downloading music; you're not trying to resell it and make a profit of your own. You're not stealing their idea and using it for your own commercial purposes. If downloading a song is illegal merely because you're not paying the author for their work, shouldn't even listening to a CD with your friend be illegal? There's remnants of the idea in your brain and you remember the song... If you start humming the song out to yourself later, are you in violation of copyright laws? Where does it end?
It's because of all this intellectual property BS that I believe in the free music philosophy. I write a song, record it, put it on cd and on the internet. If you want to download it without paying me, I'm not going to sue you. If you buy the CD, great! Even better, come to a few concerts and I can get paid through ticket sales... Were you aware that the vast majority of profits for artists comes from their concerts and not their album sales?
Please, get a clue and look it up.
Ouch, wow.. I have no idea where the NSync comment came from; that's hitting below the belt
I think I'd *rather* go to jail than have to listen to or much less buy NSync music. If there was ever one good indicator of the music industry going to shit...
I still fail to see how the RIAA or even the courts can assign some arbitrary value to "monetary damages" caused by people sharing files. How do they know the people downloading the file will ever even listen to it, much less that they would have bought it?
The very thought of them going after individual file sharing users sickens me. The RIAA needs to be more innovative and find ways to make being legal seem more "appealing" rather than just trying to scare the little people and take their money.
There are a lot of improvements before it can beat the reign of cellular. One major advantage of cellular technology is the very theory behind the technology-- using multiple cells to provide continuous coverage across a wide area. Granted there are still issues occasionally when switching cell towers, but it is mostly seamless.
Wifi is really still in its infancy. There are a number of issues and concerns still to be addressed, not to mention the handful of different standards currently available, some of which aren't compatible. One issue is the transition of a Wifi client from one access point to another-- there are still delays and problems in negotiating, streams are dropped, etc, etc. This is not acceptable for devices that transmit voice in realtime, and for any kind of streaming when the device is in motion.
Range is also still a big issue-- while Wifi can reach upwards of a mile with a *very* good antenna, it's still nothing compared to today's cell technology with a decent wireless device. Sure, if there are APs spread out in everyone's home with an open security key it'll work fine for around the city and most towns, but as soon as you hop onto the freeway or something, what then?
Honestly I hope that Wifi takes off as the all-around wireless standard, once these problems are fixed. It means no Telco, no airtime, no busy circuits, and no bill period.
Being able to turn to one company for all your problems sounds all great and good, but at the same time, it also means you're restricting yourself to the creativity of one company. Personally, the reason I refuse to even consider getting a Mac (at least as a primary computer) to this day is that there is not enough variety in software and options. You can give me the "fastest PC on earth", give it the best interface ever, throw in a free car, and promise me all these other benefits, but if the software isn't there that I need for my specific purpose... I can't use it. The primary advantage of x86-based platforms is that there are so many options, so many programs, and such diverse hardware. At the same time you're trading off compatibility and a single support source, but hey-- I'm an intelligent person and I've been programming for eight years, so I can figure out how to get one POS card to work with another POS card on my own. I don't need some Apple support weenie to tell me how to fix my mouse, get my sound working, or wipe my ass. The reason the Apple marketshare is still so low is because of the lack of software and hardware diversity. Ironically enough, software and hardware diversity depends on a strong marketshare; it's a fragile balance between intellectual supply and demand. I won't switch to an Apple because there isn't software for it that I want, but from the developer aspect I won't write for Apple because there aren't enough people to use it and make it worth my time. It's a closed cycle that takes a long time to change, and it just so happens that due to some very stupid decisions Apple made in the past (ie, closed architecture), they are stuck where they are now. If they had managed things better in the past and remained open, they would be far better off.