A trip to mp3.com, for instance, turns up hundreds of thousands of bands and artists that give their music away, with *no* connection to the RIAA.
My 17 year old nephew 'distributes' some of his music on MP3.com. I've looked. It seems like lots of people in his category (kid with lots of energy, some talent, etc.) 'distribute' their music on MP3.com.
Most of it isn't very good.
Whittle down that 'hundreds of thousands of bands' figure you cite to music that's actually not just 'vanity press' material equivalent to 'personal websites' with pictures of the dog and cats.... and you don't have a heck of a lot of music.
Most of the P2P is stuff recorded in studios by RIAA protected musicians. Please be real.
Companies can keep their source code undisclosed. It is still material that they have a copyright on.
I can write a bad poem on a sheet of paper and I automatically have copyright on it.
I, and companies that produce source code, can keep that source code, or my poem, secret, disclosing it to nobody. It is then a 'trade secret' and still is copyrighted. Automatically. By virtue of me having written the bad poem and by virtue of the company having produced the source code.
If you knew how to write clearly, your counter-arguements wouldn't be a confusing mish-mash and you'd make more sense. As it stands, it looks like you're proposing a 'wide sweeping change' (always popular here on Slashdot) but you muddle around with your rationale.
G5 is an Apple whizzy-word. IBM doesn't use that name to describe their Power PC parts. IBM could come out with an equivalent part and put it in a box, but 'G5' is an Apple marketing thing.
It says right in the body text beneath the misleading title that the student's NAME has been released.
So why does the title say that the student's 'INFO' has been released, which implies that everything about the student, and all the info subpoenaed, has been released.
Far too often, alarmist but inaccurate titles detract from the credibility of this website.
The "requirement" that the grantee of either a copyright or a patent publish the work in question follows from the first clause of the sentence, i.e. "To promote the progress of science and useful arts."
It says right in the text you quoted that the aim is to 'secure.... exlusive rights.'
One exclusive right is the right of free association, and the right to control how your work is promulgated.
There's a clear rationale for disclosure of patented ideas. The whole purpose in patent law is for interests to not have to hide behind 'trade secret' policies. Nothing of the kind is true for copyright.
It's not been enforced the way that you proposed. Thank goodness firebrands like yourself aren't allowed to force your interpretation on the rest of us.
It is one of the founding beliefs in the US that it is better to let criminals go free than to punish one person for a crime they did not commit.
There is no 'founding belief' that it's better to let criminals go free.
There are principles of due process, and the right to a fair and speedy trial. Nobody ever showed enthusiasm or promoted the notion that criminals should go free.
Get a clue. Nobody who copyrights a work is under any obligation to widely spread around the work. Copyright is inherent in any written work. I can write a poem intended only for my lover, just give the one copy of the poem to that lover, and it's protected by copyright. Break into my lover's house, steal a copy of the poem, and publish it, and you've broken copyright and I have standing to nail you good for it.
Patents, in order to be patented, need to be fully disclosed. That's inherent in the patent process, you're saying 'this is MY idea, here's the whole deal laid out, I assert that it's mine.' There's no comparable oblication for copyright.
People like you who try to mush it all up are just trying to loot other people's property.
Well, them's the breaks. Supporting old hardware with new software can hold you back. Sometimes you have to make a conscious decision to let go.
Wow. Condescension.
"Nowadays when I mention things like this about, for instance, Xfree86 abandoning old hardware, or the KDE/Gnome bloat making older machines useless, I get the same comments ("get new hardware!") from Linux zealots that we in the Linux community used to expect from the Microsoft zealots."
Indeed. The perception that 'everything is free (as in 'free beer') is still thrown around a lot on the Internet. That perception is slowly changing, of course. It has to.
As it is, most people don't buy CDs because of 'those nice people at the RIAA' in the first place. So cases like this won't make any difference. People will thing 'Little kids engaging in wholesale larcenty on the internet, what has it come to? And then perhaps want further controls on juvenile behavior on the 'net.'
There isn't a Mass Movement To Topple The Media Barons except on your floor at the dorm, and everyone is used to college-aged kids getting fired up over nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
A trip to mp3.com, for instance, turns up hundreds of thousands of bands and artists that give their music away, with *no* connection to the RIAA.
My 17 year old nephew 'distributes' some of his music on MP3.com. I've looked. It seems like lots of people in his category (kid with lots of energy, some talent, etc.) 'distribute' their music on MP3.com.
Most of it isn't very good.
Whittle down that 'hundreds of thousands of bands' figure you cite to music that's actually not just 'vanity press' material equivalent to 'personal websites' with pictures of the dog and cats.... and you don't have a heck of a lot of music.
Most of the P2P is stuff recorded in studios by RIAA protected musicians. Please be real.
Companies can keep their source code undisclosed. It is still material that they have a copyright on.
I can write a bad poem on a sheet of paper and I automatically have copyright on it.
I, and companies that produce source code, can keep that source code, or my poem, secret, disclosing it to nobody. It is then a 'trade secret' and still is copyrighted. Automatically. By virtue of me having written the bad poem and by virtue of the company having produced the source code.
If you knew how to write clearly, your counter-arguements wouldn't be a confusing mish-mash and you'd make more sense. As it stands, it looks like you're proposing a 'wide sweeping change' (always popular here on Slashdot) but you muddle around with your rationale.
If you REALLY insist on outdoing folks, the phrase is: "NetBSD is S.L.O.W. on an SE/30"
But it's damned cool running X on a dinkyscreen Mac.
The quality of RS6000 hardware tends to justify the price paid. It's not cheap 'consumer grade' hardware, the market segment that Apple plays in.
RS6000 boxes are made to last. Apple hardware is made to sell the customer another box in two to three years.
G5 is an Apple whizzy-word. IBM doesn't use that name to describe their Power PC parts. IBM could come out with an equivalent part and put it in a box, but 'G5' is an Apple marketing thing.
It says right in the body text beneath the misleading title that the student's NAME has been released.
So why does the title say that the student's 'INFO' has been released, which implies that everything about the student, and all the info subpoenaed, has been released.
Far too often, alarmist but inaccurate titles detract from the credibility of this website.
The "requirement" that the grantee of either a copyright or a patent publish the work in question follows from the first clause of the sentence, i.e. "To promote the progress of science and useful arts."
.... exlusive rights.'
It says right in the text you quoted that the aim is to 'secure
One exclusive right is the right of free association, and the right to control how your work is promulgated.
There's a clear rationale for disclosure of patented ideas. The whole purpose in patent law is for interests to not have to hide behind 'trade secret' policies. Nothing of the kind is true for copyright.
It's not been enforced the way that you proposed. Thank goodness firebrands like yourself aren't allowed to force your interpretation on the rest of us.
It is one of the founding beliefs in the US that it is better to let criminals go free than to punish one person for a crime they did not commit.
There is no 'founding belief' that it's better to let criminals go free.
There are principles of due process, and the right to a fair and speedy trial. Nobody ever showed enthusiasm or promoted the notion that criminals should go free.
It sounds like you're trying to equate those other crimes with child pornography.
Society doesn't agree with you. Child Porn is a special case. It's so abhorent to mainstream society that special prohibitions are deemed appropriate.
You'd best deal with it. It's not going to change.
It sounds like you're trying to equate those other crimes with child pornography.
Society doesn't agree with you. Child Porn is a special case. It's so abhorent to mainstream society that special prohibitions are deemed appropriate.
You'd best deal with it. It's not going to change.
Get a clue. Nobody who copyrights a work is under any obligation to widely spread around the work. Copyright is inherent in any written work. I can write a poem intended only for my lover, just give the one copy of the poem to that lover, and it's protected by copyright. Break into my lover's house, steal a copy of the poem, and publish it, and you've broken copyright and I have standing to nail you good for it.
Patents, in order to be patented, need to be fully disclosed. That's inherent in the patent process, you're saying 'this is MY idea, here's the whole deal laid out, I assert that it's mine.' There's no comparable oblication for copyright.
People like you who try to mush it all up are just trying to loot other people's property.
That sounds like an excellent way to get companies warmed up to allowing any GPL'd code at all in their organization.
(please note I was using sarcasm)
Are you seriously using the term 'patent' and 'copyright' interchangably, and yet trying to be part of an adult discussion on the topic??
Overhauling commercial radio to actually play new music would be a step in the right direction.
Wow. You think the recording industry should lean heavy on the commercial radio broadcasters to play their newer music.
Hmmm. That sounds like the kind of industry collusion that would bring out platoons of anti-trust laywers.
Yeah. Michael Moore would give this issue just the amount of a dubious reputation that it exists.
Oh, but isn't he heavily in bed with the MPAA folk?
So long as you persist in stereotyping your opponents, you will never convince a majority.
It's particularly ludicrous that your stereotype your opponents mocks them stereotyping you.
Best grow up, so you can sit at the adult table and discuss issues instead of just engage in name calling.
'teh' is a typographical error.
For an example of a spelling error, the word 'luv' was you making a spelling error.
And what the hell is with your punctionation? A colon and a ')'? Did you grow up in a chat room?
The right researcher can probably come up with statistics showing that 57 million Americans have shoplifted at least once in their life.
She probably only has two grandparents anyway, or likely only one (grandma on her mother's side.)
Just as long as you include ambulance-chasing trial lawyers as 'part of the moneyed class' you might have something there.
Very quickly your credibility will fade away, if you decide to wholeheartedly exploit this.
It's a 'bleeding-heart human interest' story in the tabloids, dude.
Wow. Condescension.
"Nowadays when I mention things like this about, for instance, Xfree86 abandoning old hardware, or the KDE/Gnome bloat making older machines useless, I get the same comments ("get new hardware!") from Linux zealots that we in the Linux community used to expect from the Microsoft zealots."
Indeed. The perception that 'everything is free (as in 'free beer') is still thrown around a lot on the Internet. That perception is slowly changing, of course. It has to.
who apparently were paying $29.95 a month for Kazaa "service", and apparently thought there were thereby legit.
"Whoah! It looks like those Kazaa people are nothing but swindlers."
At least that's one way to spin it, and you know it will be spinned. (it's sure as hell being spinned here at Slashdot)
As it is, most people don't buy CDs because of 'those nice people at the RIAA' in the first place. So cases like this won't make any difference. People will thing 'Little kids engaging in wholesale larcenty on the internet, what has it come to? And then perhaps want further controls on juvenile behavior on the 'net.'
There isn't a Mass Movement To Topple The Media Barons except on your floor at the dorm, and everyone is used to college-aged kids getting fired up over nothing.