I don't get out on my pirate ship very often, but the wife allows it at least once each weekend. It's the eyepatch, you see. She just loves the eyepatch.
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Matey's!!!
Land ahead! It looks like.... Earthstation 5. Next stop.....FreeNet!!!
The Recording Industry can rationalize it all they want. In fact, in many ways, you may even be correct. The fact of the matter is, the industry that is robbing the artists are enforcing a monopoly and buying their extended copyright laws (at least here in the States). These are the people/.ers are going after. I say good for them. Just because THEY don't like decreases in sales during a national recession doesn't mean we can just ignore their price fixing, barratry, and 50 years of extortion. It's that simple.
Posting publicly because the RIAA could subpoena/. anytime for my IP#.
Yes, it will be a downhill snowball effect after that. Just have Unreal XI require a DRM O/S (which requires a DRM BIOS) and even the geeks will get it.
Put it into Office 2007 and infiltrate the Corps with it. Bundle it with 'free' built in IT-inventory software to manage users and logins, and there you go.
Considering that Microsoft already has its fingers into O/S, hardware, games, consoles, mice, keyboards, apps, programming languages, routers, media, browsers, and satellites, I'm beginning to think this is much more possible than I thought before.
When Windows or DVD playback starts to require DRM hardware people will pay extra to get it.
Isn't that the same argument they had about the "awesome potential" (cough) of SDMI appliances? That went no where!
However, if I remember correctly, it was plagued with delays and technical problems.
This DRM bios reminds me a lot of the Clipper Chip crap they tried pushing before. That got machine gunned in 2 seconds. I hope this does too. However, I fear that relentless attrition will get this stuff passed eventually.
I'm not so opposed to DRM as long as, like you say, I can go buy a non-DRM motherboard somewhere else.
Yes, that of course is fine. But that's not where it would stop. It can't. DRM is only useful if everything is using DRM. The hardware would need to be DRM compatible. The Windows O/S would have to be DRM, and the software allowed to run on Windows would be DRM. The only computers allowed to access the internet would be DRM. Easily enforced since all the routers running the internet would be DRM. The new Playstation V will be DRM. Warcraft 7 will be DRM O/S only.
They can then start selling speakers, mp3 players, etc, all DRM. Sure, at first us hackers would say "ah, I'll buy up all the non-DRM components now while I still can". But after 3 years, and everything is obsolete, and the mp3 players finally hold 1TB instead of 64MB, you're gonna look wistfully at the new stuff, new games, etc...
DRM is a threat, in a borglike fashion. I'm no Linux zealot, but Microsoft is completely behind DRM, hoping for the day that DRM-O/S is a requirement. Linux would be out as the nasty non-compliant, non-accountable O/S that MS keep saying it is. Blargh.
Gouled's case was criminal. There are different laws and facts that have to be presented. But let's say you're right. Oh well. The only goal the RIAA has here is to scare P2P users from sharing files. Do they really lose $150,000 per song traded? No. But the fine is a deterrant. They want to make a bloody example out of people this first round, and it's not going to be pretty.
If the music industry's market share continues to fall, I suspect that relevance will rapidly reach zero.
I absolutely agree. In today's corporation where the stock value is the almighty driving factor, nothing else matters. These companies don't actually have to reach $0 dollars to fail. If their stock seems to be heading south, while other stocks are heading upwards, then investors will bail. Unfortunately we've been in a recession, so everyone has gone down (unfortunately our 11% decrease in sales last year we couldn't blame on piracy!)
It's too bad that these record companies are actually so huge. For instance -- Sony. Music is hardly their only income. This allows this to buffer these so called piracy losses.
But I agree, every division needs to make money or else why bother with that division. Truth be told though, the music industry is making shitloads of money. They simply aren't INCREASING as fast as they once were. Ah the horror of it all.
--People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is calling a halt to its Burger King boycott, which reached over 800 restaurants across the U.S. and prompted the burger mogul to enforce stricter standards for the handling of its food animals.
--In the UK: Last December, the ExxonMobil Corp., known as Esso in Europe, indicated that an activist boycott is hurting its U.K. sales at the pump.
Hmmm. Not very impressive, huh? I guess you're right.
I would hope so. Logically.
Unfortunately, logic seems to have little to do with events lately. I would hate to find out. As they say... if proven guilty... then you could owe 42 million dollars. Who's going to fight the RIAA? Will they all fold? The RIAA is going to choose only those they want to sue. They've probably factored in such things as force of will, money, etc.
I always thought the the ludicrous range of $750 to $150,000 per infringement was originally based in criminal activity. You know, the old fashioned, commercial bootlegging millions of pirated CD's.
Now that we've blurred the lines with the NET ACT (trading for other copyrighted works = 'for profit) and civil suits vs. criminal suits, I can't believe the price range isn't lower.
As far as number of copies goes. I imagine the RIAA thinks that the one song 1 person downloaded from you then gets downloaded by 10 people, which then gets downloaded by 10X , etc, and will say 1 million copies are your fault. But in all actuality, you shouldn't be liable for OTHER people's illegal distribution too! Anyway, that is just my thought. I figured it was 10 to 20 times the actual cost (about $20 per song) but no matter how much math I do, I don't get to $750, let alone 150K.
(By the way, the $20 per song is from an actual article I read where they were trying to define how you could fall under a felony -- something like over $2000 worth of theft becomes a felony. Why oh why does the RIAA get away with their own math?)
If, and I do mean if... we ever organize an actual boycott (beside a few percentage) then no amount of legislation would actually change the fact that a boycott is still going on.
One of my fears is that the small geek boycott we've got going on right now is really only possible because they're pirating the material to get their fix. What if P2P wasn't available? Would everyone still stick to the boycott? I would guess: no.
The only type of boycott that will work is when the mom's and dads and grandmas of the world boycott the RIAA. And those are people who are not using P2P, also. Thus, more legislation would NOT affect those boycotting! The boycott would still go on strong.
but when there's enough bandwidth to make p2p like Freenet useable
Unfortunately, I feel that once the bandwidth is available to make Freenet useable, then it will be considered "a problem", and dealt with as we've seen every other problem dealt with. Throw in a huge USA-Today kiddie porn story, and it'll be toast.
Well, they have an ace up their sleeve there, don't they?
All the RIAA has to do is download the song themselves. That way, not only can they prove that the song is an actual RIAA song and not some 3rd-grade article about Harry Potter, but they also prove that you had the file publicly available, and IN FACT was downloaded at least once.
And last but not least, as much as I hate analogies, there are laws for intent (like selling drugs). Also, since this is a civil case, and not a criminal case, they are not required to "prove without a doubt". Not only that, but they seem to be pushing for out-of-court settlements. You don't even have to be guilty to get fucked that way.
Web sites have used that "trick" for a long time. They get shut down because it's an urban myth that that works.
By law, you are not allowed to distribute copyrighted material unless you have permission from the copyright holder, or are falling under the ever-dwindling Fair Use Laws. End of story. No little "warning" will get you out of that bind.
Another explanation is that you have to a copy in the first place to be able to make a copy. Obviously in the case of downloading, you do not have a copy yet... It's the uploader making the copies.
Slashdot Mirror
What I don't get is women's clothes shopping... Why browse for clothes, when you're set for each day of the week?
I don't get out on my pirate ship very often, but the wife allows it at least once each weekend. It's the eyepatch, you see. She just loves the eyepatch.
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Matey's!!!
Land ahead! It looks like.... Earthstation 5. Next stop.....FreeNet!!!
Obviously you've never bought a Jenna Jameson DVD.
Posting publicly because the RIAA could subpoena /. anytime for my IP#.
Put it into Office 2007 and infiltrate the Corps with it. Bundle it with 'free' built in IT-inventory software to manage users and logins, and there you go.
Considering that Microsoft already has its fingers into O/S, hardware, games, consoles, mice, keyboards, apps, programming languages, routers, media, browsers, and satellites, I'm beginning to think this is much more possible than I thought before.
We're screwed.
money talks. And the media industry has plenty of money from decades of monopoly to keep their monopoly in place.
Isn't that the same argument they had about the "awesome potential" (cough) of SDMI appliances? That went no where!
However, if I remember correctly, it was plagued with delays and technical problems.
This DRM bios reminds me a lot of the Clipper Chip crap they tried pushing before. That got machine gunned in 2 seconds. I hope this does too. However, I fear that relentless attrition will get this stuff passed eventually.
Yes, that of course is fine. But that's not where it would stop. It can't. DRM is only useful if everything is using DRM. The hardware would need to be DRM compatible. The Windows O/S would have to be DRM, and the software allowed to run on Windows would be DRM. The only computers allowed to access the internet would be DRM. Easily enforced since all the routers running the internet would be DRM. The new Playstation V will be DRM. Warcraft 7 will be DRM O/S only.
They can then start selling speakers, mp3 players, etc, all DRM. Sure, at first us hackers would say "ah, I'll buy up all the non-DRM components now while I still can". But after 3 years, and everything is obsolete, and the mp3 players finally hold 1TB instead of 64MB, you're gonna look wistfully at the new stuff, new games, etc...
DRM is a threat, in a borglike fashion. I'm no Linux zealot, but Microsoft is completely behind DRM, hoping for the day that DRM-O/S is a requirement. Linux would be out as the nasty non-compliant, non-accountable O/S that MS keep saying it is. Blargh.
Obviously.
Gouled's case was criminal. There are different laws and facts that have to be presented. But let's say you're right. Oh well. The only goal the RIAA has here is to scare P2P users from sharing files. Do they really lose $150,000 per song traded? No. But the fine is a deterrant. They want to make a bloody example out of people this first round, and it's not going to be pretty.
Nah, I doubt it. I guess the only thing to do is make sure you sold one of your mp3's for $1. Then you'd be in criminal territory.
Of course, I've always stated that you could get in less trouble if you just shoplifted the CD instead!
I absolutely agree. In today's corporation where the stock value is the almighty driving factor, nothing else matters. These companies don't actually have to reach $0 dollars to fail. If their stock seems to be heading south, while other stocks are heading upwards, then investors will bail. Unfortunately we've been in a recession, so everyone has gone down (unfortunately our 11% decrease in sales last year we couldn't blame on piracy!)
It's too bad that these record companies are actually so huge. For instance -- Sony. Music is hardly their only income. This allows this to buffer these so called piracy losses.
But I agree, every division needs to make money or else why bother with that division. Truth be told though, the music industry is making shitloads of money. They simply aren't INCREASING as fast as they once were. Ah the horror of it all.
--People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is calling a halt to its Burger King boycott, which reached over 800 restaurants across the U.S. and prompted the burger mogul to enforce stricter standards for the handling of its food animals.
--In the UK: Last December, the ExxonMobil Corp., known as Esso in Europe, indicated that an activist boycott is hurting its U.K. sales at the pump.
Hmmm. Not very impressive, huh? I guess you're right.
I would hope so. Logically.
Unfortunately, logic seems to have little to do with events lately. I would hate to find out. As they say... if proven guilty... then you could owe 42 million dollars. Who's going to fight the RIAA? Will they all fold? The RIAA is going to choose only those they want to sue. They've probably factored in such things as force of will, money, etc.
Now that we've blurred the lines with the NET ACT (trading for other copyrighted works = 'for profit) and civil suits vs. criminal suits, I can't believe the price range isn't lower.
As far as number of copies goes. I imagine the RIAA thinks that the one song 1 person downloaded from you then gets downloaded by 10 people, which then gets downloaded by 10X , etc, and will say 1 million copies are your fault. But in all actuality, you shouldn't be liable for OTHER people's illegal distribution too! Anyway, that is just my thought. I figured it was 10 to 20 times the actual cost (about $20 per song) but no matter how much math I do, I don't get to $750, let alone 150K.
(By the way, the $20 per song is from an actual article I read where they were trying to define how you could fall under a felony -- something like over $2000 worth of theft becomes a felony. Why oh why does the RIAA get away with their own math?)
If you publicly announce your illegal activities,.. ah screw it. I can't believe I'm responding to this crap.
No one gave the RIAA explicit permission
Hmmm, I think the MAIN point of all this is that the RIAA didn't give you explicit permission to distribute their copyrighted works.
If, and I do mean if... we ever organize an actual boycott (beside a few percentage) then no amount of legislation would actually change the fact that a boycott is still going on.
One of my fears is that the small geek boycott we've got going on right now is really only possible because they're pirating the material to get their fix. What if P2P wasn't available? Would everyone still stick to the boycott? I would guess: no.
The only type of boycott that will work is when the mom's and dads and grandmas of the world boycott the RIAA. And those are people who are not using P2P, also. Thus, more legislation would NOT affect those boycotting! The boycott would still go on strong.
Unfortunately, I feel that once the bandwidth is available to make Freenet useable, then it will be considered "a problem", and dealt with as we've seen every other problem dealt with. Throw in a huge USA-Today kiddie porn story, and it'll be toast.
That would be like publishing a public weblog about yourself, and then saying the RIAA broke your privacy when they read it.
All the RIAA has to do is download the song themselves. That way, not only can they prove that the song is an actual RIAA song and not some 3rd-grade article about Harry Potter, but they also prove that you had the file publicly available, and IN FACT was downloaded at least once.
And last but not least, as much as I hate analogies, there are laws for intent (like selling drugs). Also, since this is a civil case, and not a criminal case, they are not required to "prove without a doubt". Not only that, but they seem to be pushing for out-of-court settlements. You don't even have to be guilty to get fucked that way.
If you run a public web site... you can't then bitch that a certain person read that information as a breach of privacy!
By law, you are not allowed to distribute copyrighted material unless you have permission from the copyright holder, or are falling under the ever-dwindling Fair Use Laws. End of story. No little "warning" will get you out of that bind.
Oh, I didn't realize Kazaa made you download a song, one note at a time. Idiot.
Oh and guess what. You are allowed to lend your physical CD to your friends. Just like a library. So what the hell are you saying again?
I am not doing the copying, the server is.
Another explanation is that you have to a copy in the first place to be able to make a copy. Obviously in the case of downloading, you do not have a copy yet... It's the uploader making the copies.
I am sure you could turn yourself in at the RIAA piracy hotline. God knows I don't know the number off-hand, but knock yourself out.