Im sure that's what EA said about Id when they first got started. Never under estimate the power of human determination. Yet on another note you won't find me volunteering to do test-flights.
Lets hope this goes the way of Circuit Kitty's DIVX concept. The whole idea is lame, the cost is lame, the fact its another device is lame. Can we also say a little late to market. We already have set top boxes like tivo. So now there seriously thinking that we are yet again going to stack another device in our home entertainment system. Can we say NetFlix, hell even block buster is doing the all you can rent for x dollars a month.
Sounds to me like some suite had this great "idea" about 2 years ago and has somehow convinced executives not to cancle the project. I wonder who their given favors out to and what favors?
Yeah in theory I agree with you, but for some reason I think we would figure a way of moving the astroid off course. We can get pretty ingenious when we all put our minds to it.
What gets me is that people actually panic even when they put the statistics right there in the page, 1 in a million chance.
There is greater chance that we would nuke ourselves out of existance.
Or yet maybe I could win the lottery, think ill go buy a ticket.
Here is the real question, if I rent storage space in Canada, save all mp3 files there then just have them stream to my desktop, does this mean I get around the RIAA.
Sounds like I just need to get some friends in Canada and make sure to network mount my drive from there.
So can't we just add 64.94.110.11 to the list of non routable addresses. (127.0.0.1, 10.*, 192.168.* and now 64.94.110.11)
I say we storm Verisign, Nerf Bats in hand. A call to arms I say!!!
Damn Marketers.
This is what space exploration has been waiting for. I and my friends have been speculating on this concept for years (with obvious insperation from Mr. Clark). A space cable is one of the true cost effective ways of getting into space. As absurd as it sounds its pure genious. The implications of what this could mean for mankind if they can actually build this structure is undescribable.
Space exploration has been hindered by cost and gravity, letting us only do a fraction of the exploration that we have wanted to do. Even creating a solution that cuts the cost of getting a hunk of metal into space by 10 times would revolutionize the industry.
Considering it takes a 300 million dollars to launch the shuttle, which averages about $4,600 per pound to get a hunk of metal into space, being able to reduce that to $12 a pound means you break all the bearers of financing. Futurists, and scientist have been saying that to really break into true space exploration, and the commercilization of space travel, mining etc.. you have to be able to break the $40 a pound barrier.
7B is nothing even if it costs twice that it still nothing with amount of costs it will save in the long run. All I can say is I hope I get to see it in my lifetime.
Well first off I am listening, and I find your view has many points. Other people are listening, it just takes time. Whether it takes a generation or not, who knows. Many fights take years. Don't give up.
1) I think we are really getting down to the techniclalities when we talk about mp3s not like the orginial, 80% of the populace can't tell the difference. All these issues are being brought forth to a court of law. This goes far beyond just the recording aspect. I have many friends on both sides of the fence. I work with orginizations that work with the RIAA, and I work with orginizations on the other side. I understand the plight of the independant musician, and I can see at some point where the RIAA is coming from. The RIAA represents an Industry, when an Industry shrinks the political leaders tend to move towards their side (whether for right or wrong) to try and bolster that industry. This is not as black and white as we would like to see it.
There are a lot of RIAA authors out there that would disagree with the fact that this just hurts the RIAA. I am working with people in the industry that are hurt by the cutbacks due to loss revenue. The RIAA states that there has been about 31% loss in revenue in the last x years. That is not a whole truth, but its a truth they use to rally behind.
In regards to no-one listening till someone sues a 12 year old girl. This is the way of things, since time began, most people need to rally behind the plight of the un-privilaged to really understand things. This is human nature you can't fight that but you can use it to your advantage.
If the RIAA is smart they will create low cost licensing package that people can purchase to be able to run open music servers. The amount of money there is enormous if structured the right way. That way the RIAA gets what they want money. The people get what they want (not to have to pay 1000's of dollars to share music). Remember there are no absolutes only compromises in what ever you due one way or another.
First of all in princaple I agree with you. But I don't think this topic is that straight forward
1) Sharing copyrighted.....
People are not sharing, they are duplicating. They are taking a original copy and making another copy of it. When the process is finished there are 2 copies of that song not 1. It would be akin to going to the public library taking a book making an exact duplicate and walking out leaving the original book there.
2) The vast majority....
Agree, and it is their choice to do so.
3) According to the U.S. Copyright Office...
I did phrase that statement in the form of an assumption, as I did not have the facts.
4) The authorized music released...
I am certainly not for the RIAA, and what they are doing is mostly a PR campaign, but they are pointing at certain instances where the courts (whether we like it or not) are ruling in their favor. They are bring things to light in their form to push public against sharing files. If you read my post I am for the freedom to share files. I find it absurd that they blame companies for illegal use of their software, and I think it is up to us as individuals to explain to people at large how absurd this is.
5) The RIAA is the only group suing people for listening to music...
Whether we like how the RIAA is operating or not they are suing people for copyright violations, whether you agree with how, what or why, they are taking it through due process of law which is how things are done in this country. It may suck, it may hurt people, but they are (as it seems) following the rules and using it in their favor. So they only way we can fight back is to do the same. Best way in my mind is to educate.
6) Only the music from the RIAA carries the threat of lawsuits...
Again, they have set up the rules in accordance to the laws that govern this country. If you don't like it boycott it. Get behind political leaders that you think will change this. Don't buy the music or somehow voice an opinion.
Again, my first point was frustration in seeing these lawsuits, as a tool to create the public opinion those software makers should be held responsible for the actions of their users. The point of my post was that we all hold the responsibility to educate that this is insane.
I have read many of the posts on this discussion, and I feel a large majority of us are missing a call to action here. What I see is a classic case of disinformation that needs to be taken care of. Not to mention a legal precedence that could prove very dangerous for software developers(which I have seen mention in a couple of posts) over time.
The RIAA has some definite legal grounds and concerns that I can sympathize with, and as much as many teenagers and college students feel or wished we lived in a social commune where one can share anything, we don't and music and art does need to be paid for. Also remember the old argument that sharing music is promoting the band, to go see them in concert or buy t-shirts etc... The labels don't get any of that action, which is probably one more reason why they're in a bigger uproar. I am not a big fan of huge corporations but this slices fairly equally between big and small, It may even hurt the smaller labels more.
And when it comes down to it the law says its illegal, so if you want to gripe then go change that particular law.
Yet the RIAA feels it needs to go on a witch-hunt, and as much as I feel bad for the recent 12 year old that got nailed for 2k (many thanks to the P2P United for paying their bill), last I checked the law is supposed to be blind and impartial, and not take any special cases so whether it's a 12 year old girl or a 24 year old college student the law is the law. Though the PR from this latest case has raised some interesting issues.
Much of this is still the fault for the RIAA in its lack of foresight and greed in not jumping on the bandwagon and working with organizations like Napster and KaZaa to create licensing deals, its not like radio has been doing it for years.
The fact that the blame is turning to KaZaa, is in my mind silly, and very dangerous, it sets legal precedence that could be very damaging. Which has been stated in many different ways within these posts so I am not going to go further into it.
What I see here is the real issue; common non-computer savvy people need to be educated on some basic principles. Here at slashdot we can argue about who is right and who is wrong, most of understand the implications of the technology. The people that need the education are the public at large, and not necessarily by big groups like P2P United, or the opposite group the RIAA. What needs to be taught to the public is how the system works, why it is ludicrous to blame KaZaa, because blaming KaZaa is akin to blaming the architect of a house for copyright violations because some person can go into a house and copy cd's without being seen by the public. Hence since the house can hide the identity and be a facilitator for the transaction to take place, the architect that build the house should then bare legal responsibility. Data will always be data and if we can't exchange that of which we own the right to for free in any means we feel appropriate we then have some serious constitutional issues to deal with.
I truly believe if you can tell someone how the system works and make the appropriate analogies so they understand the basic principals they will come to the same conclusion. That if you going to outlaw or put the responsibility of the law on the software developer then you are then going to have to do that across the board for all software. If someone makes a counterfeit bill in Photoshop than adobe is help partially responsible, if some one makes lewd and illegal comments on an instant message then it's the people who wrote the instant messenger responsibility that the action took place.
If we leave it to the newspapers to educate the populace it will simply be yet another political race that is poorly understood by the majority yet the majority will be called to vote on the subject.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, 4 out of 15 tries actually got a responce from the web sever. Think it needs more juice.
Im sure that's what EA said about Id when they first got started. Never under estimate the power of human determination. Yet on another note you won't find me volunteering to do test-flights.
Lets hope this goes the way of Circuit Kitty's DIVX concept. The whole idea is lame, the cost is lame, the fact its another device is lame. Can we also say a little late to market. We already have set top boxes like tivo. So now there seriously thinking that we are yet again going to stack another device in our home entertainment system. Can we say NetFlix, hell even block buster is doing the all you can rent for x dollars a month. Sounds to me like some suite had this great "idea" about 2 years ago and has somehow convinced executives not to cancle the project. I wonder who their given favors out to and what favors?
Yeah in theory I agree with you, but for some reason I think we would figure a way of moving the astroid off course. We can get pretty ingenious when we all put our minds to it.
What gets me is that people actually panic even when they put the statistics right there in the page, 1 in a million chance. There is greater chance that we would nuke ourselves out of existance. Or yet maybe I could win the lottery, think ill go buy a ticket.
Here is the real question, if I rent storage space in Canada, save all mp3 files there then just have them stream to my desktop, does this mean I get around the RIAA. Sounds like I just need to get some friends in Canada and make sure to network mount my drive from there.
So can't we just add 64.94.110.11 to the list of non routable addresses. (127.0.0.1, 10.*, 192.168.* and now 64.94.110.11) I say we storm Verisign, Nerf Bats in hand. A call to arms I say!!! Damn Marketers.
Stupid spell checker, yes that is my fault, just went over it too quickly this morning. Thanks for pointing that out.
Space exploration has been hindered by cost and gravity, letting us only do a fraction of the exploration that we have wanted to do. Even creating a solution that cuts the cost of getting a hunk of metal into space by 10 times would revolutionize the industry.
Considering it takes a 300 million dollars to launch the shuttle, which averages about $4,600 per pound to get a hunk of metal into space, being able to reduce that to $12 a pound means you break all the bearers of financing. Futurists, and scientist have been saying that to really break into true space exploration, and the commercilization of space travel, mining etc.. you have to be able to break the $40 a pound barrier.
7B is nothing even if it costs twice that it still nothing with amount of costs it will save in the long run. All I can say is I hope I get to see it in my lifetime.
1) I think we are really getting down to the techniclalities when we talk about mp3s not like the orginial, 80% of the populace can't tell the difference. All these issues are being brought forth to a court of law. This goes far beyond just the recording aspect. I have many friends on both sides of the fence. I work with orginizations that work with the RIAA, and I work with orginizations on the other side. I understand the plight of the independant musician, and I can see at some point where the RIAA is coming from. The RIAA represents an Industry, when an Industry shrinks the political leaders tend to move towards their side (whether for right or wrong) to try and bolster that industry. This is not as black and white as we would like to see it.
There are a lot of RIAA authors out there that would disagree with the fact that this just hurts the RIAA. I am working with people in the industry that are hurt by the cutbacks due to loss revenue. The RIAA states that there has been about 31% loss in revenue in the last x years. That is not a whole truth, but its a truth they use to rally behind.
In regards to no-one listening till someone sues a 12 year old girl. This is the way of things, since time began, most people need to rally behind the plight of the un-privilaged to really understand things. This is human nature you can't fight that but you can use it to your advantage.
If the RIAA is smart they will create low cost licensing package that people can purchase to be able to run open music servers. The amount of money there is enormous if structured the right way. That way the RIAA gets what they want money. The people get what they want (not to have to pay 1000's of dollars to share music). Remember there are no absolutes only compromises in what ever you due one way or another.
1) Sharing copyrighted.....
People are not sharing, they are duplicating. They are taking a original copy and making another copy of it. When the process is finished there are 2 copies of that song not 1. It would be akin to going to the public library taking a book making an exact duplicate and walking out leaving the original book there.
2) The vast majority....
Agree, and it is their choice to do so.
3) According to the U.S. Copyright Office...
I did phrase that statement in the form of an assumption, as I did not have the facts.
4) The authorized music released...
I am certainly not for the RIAA, and what they are doing is mostly a PR campaign, but they are pointing at certain instances where the courts (whether we like it or not) are ruling in their favor. They are bring things to light in their form to push public against sharing files. If you read my post I am for the freedom to share files. I find it absurd that they blame companies for illegal use of their software, and I think it is up to us as individuals to explain to people at large how absurd this is.
5) The RIAA is the only group suing people for listening to music...
Whether we like how the RIAA is operating or not they are suing people for copyright violations, whether you agree with how, what or why, they are taking it through due process of law which is how things are done in this country. It may suck, it may hurt people, but they are (as it seems) following the rules and using it in their favor. So they only way we can fight back is to do the same. Best way in my mind is to educate.
6) Only the music from the RIAA carries the threat of lawsuits...
Again, they have set up the rules in accordance to the laws that govern this country. If you don't like it boycott it. Get behind political leaders that you think will change this. Don't buy the music or somehow voice an opinion.
Again, my first point was frustration in seeing these lawsuits, as a tool to create the public opinion those software makers should be held responsible for the actions of their users. The point of my post was that we all hold the responsibility to educate that this is insane.
The RIAA has some definite legal grounds and concerns that I can sympathize with, and as much as many teenagers and college students feel or wished we lived in a social commune where one can share anything, we don't and music and art does need to be paid for. Also remember the old argument that sharing music is promoting the band, to go see them in concert or buy t-shirts etc... The labels don't get any of that action, which is probably one more reason why they're in a bigger uproar. I am not a big fan of huge corporations but this slices fairly equally between big and small, It may even hurt the smaller labels more.
And when it comes down to it the law says its illegal, so if you want to gripe then go change that particular law.
Yet the RIAA feels it needs to go on a witch-hunt, and as much as I feel bad for the recent 12 year old that got nailed for 2k (many thanks to the P2P United for paying their bill), last I checked the law is supposed to be blind and impartial, and not take any special cases so whether it's a 12 year old girl or a 24 year old college student the law is the law. Though the PR from this latest case has raised some interesting issues.
Much of this is still the fault for the RIAA in its lack of foresight and greed in not jumping on the bandwagon and working with organizations like Napster and KaZaa to create licensing deals, its not like radio has been doing it for years.
The fact that the blame is turning to KaZaa, is in my mind silly, and very dangerous, it sets legal precedence that could be very damaging. Which has been stated in many different ways within these posts so I am not going to go further into it.
What I see here is the real issue; common non-computer savvy people need to be educated on some basic principles. Here at slashdot we can argue about who is right and who is wrong, most of understand the implications of the technology. The people that need the education are the public at large, and not necessarily by big groups like P2P United, or the opposite group the RIAA. What needs to be taught to the public is how the system works, why it is ludicrous to blame KaZaa, because blaming KaZaa is akin to blaming the architect of a house for copyright violations because some person can go into a house and copy cd's without being seen by the public. Hence since the house can hide the identity and be a facilitator for the transaction to take place, the architect that build the house should then bare legal responsibility. Data will always be data and if we can't exchange that of which we own the right to for free in any means we feel appropriate we then have some serious constitutional issues to deal with.
I truly believe if you can tell someone how the system works and make the appropriate analogies so they understand the basic principals they will come to the same conclusion. That if you going to outlaw or put the responsibility of the law on the software developer then you are then going to have to do that across the board for all software. If someone makes a counterfeit bill in Photoshop than adobe is help partially responsible, if some one makes lewd and illegal comments on an instant message then it's the people who wrote the instant messenger responsibility that the action took place.
If we leave it to the newspapers to educate the populace it will simply be yet another political race that is poorly understood by the majority yet the majority will be called to vote on the subject.