"And, as another poster pointed out, regardless of who paid for it and how, it's now owned by the public."
Unless the sculptor did this as a work-for-hire, the copyright remains with them.
This is a bit like buying a CD. You own the CD, but the songwriters, composers and the record company still hold copyright over the recording and the words and music. They get to set the rules regarding what you can do with it (within limits set by the law, of course).
"I'm sorry, but a photograph of a sculpture is not a reproduction of said sculpture. If people were out making photographs of some artist's photographs you'd have a point."
The phrase you're looking for is "derivative work" and it's covered by copyright law:
A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".
It's my understanding that a photograph of a copyrighted piece of art will be classified as either a reproduction or a derivative work depending on the particulars of the photograph.
In short, this means that you can't publish a book of photographs of somebody else's sculptures, jewelry, and so on without first getting permission
"The issue here is that the city wants to make money selling postcards and nobody has sued their asses yet."
My understanding is that the sculptor wants to make money off of postcard sales. I do not believe that the sculptor has transfered copyright to the city.
"...complete and absolute corporate control over a nation's legal framework."
How so? This is the artist and designer asserting their copyright, not some corporation. Scultors have had this right under copyright law long before US copyright law became sponsored by Disney.
Yeah, corporate ownership of copyright law is bad, and yeah, it sucks when a sculptor is a bit too heavy-handed in asserting their rights, but these are completely different issues.
"Listening to music is free, just like looking at this sculpture is free. Playing the music (esp. in public venues where it is part of a business situation: restaurants, shops, radio stations) is where the money comes into it. The RIAA wants to be reimbursed for the use of the music in those situations."
Public performance is licensed by outfits like ASCAP and BMI. Both are non-profit societies run by and for songwriters and composers. They are unrelated to the RIAA and this licensing money goes composers, songwriters and musicians, not the RIAA.
This is vital to understand if one kneels at the shrine of "RIAA bad, musicians good." The fact is, whether we like it or not, many songwriters (from here on known as "fucking greedy songwriters") make much of their money through public performance. I think a good umbrealla sort of philosophy to accomodate this fact is that anyboody who wants to be paid for their creative output is bad. Unless they're a web designer, software developer, or otherwise have another Slashdot-friendly profession!
"The Bean itself is voilating copyrights of the buildings that it reflects...the reflections themselves are "reproductions" of the buildings that are designed by artists and builders."
To fight unfair laws, you must first understand them.
Architecture was not allowed to be copyrighted before 1990. It's not retroactive, so if the Prude was built before 1990, they're SOL.
Building designers do indeed legally have the right to restrict photographs taken of a building, although this usually relates to photos taken for commercial purposes. Putting up a mirror or other reflective object near a building would be a hard case to take to court without being laughed at, as the viewer still needs to be within the presence of the building to see the reflection. Compare this to, say, buying a book on famous architecture, which allows you view the building even if you're not standing next to it.
" What happens to other publicly displayed works of art?"
It depends on the artist.
This is, in essence, what copyright is: the right to determine how your work is copied -- including, in the case of artwork, photographic images. It is entirely the artists' prerogative.
"Essentially, this is like Ford telling people not to take pictures of their own cars because the designers (read: the company) still own the copyright to the design."
You are 100% correct. That would be unworkable, so they don't do it.
There is indeed precedent for scultors and artists to ask that their works not be reproduced commercially. About ten years back, the producers of the film "Devil's Advocate" were sued because they used a replica of a sculpture in an unauthorized manner.
"Appalling."
Perhaps. I think it comes down to whether scultures and other visual artists have the same access to copyright law as do programmers, web designers, and other professions that are more Slashdot-friendly, or if it's a "some people are more equal than others" situation. In the artists' defense, he probably asked for this restriction because he did not want to see his sculpture showing up on posters, t-shirts, and other commercial products without getting compensated.
It's the free market that eventually decides things like this. If the city realizes that it's too much of a PITA to deal with this sculptor's requirements, then they'll never buy another sculpture from him, and word will get around.
Are you saying that because Napster has only a million songs in their library vs. Apple's two million, or because Napster has big holes in their library in the type(s) of music you like?
In order for it to be the will of the people, then along with that group that wants something for free, there has to be another group that wants to give it away for free.
Plenty of people do make their music available for free... and God bless 'em. Making music, like building laptops, is expensive, yet some people are in it truly for the art, and worry not about financial gain. If you want free music, its these brave souls' music you should be trading, and not the work of people who haven't given you permission. There is indeed a place for the free exchange of art without violating somebody's rights.
"The RIAA and MPAA are suing the hell out of people downloading their material even though they're content with letting people selling bootlegs of their product(which is actually stealing money from them)."
Interesting, I've never seen that observation before. I read news items about bootlegging crackdowns all the time, such as this recent one and this one; it's an issue that's gotten to the point that governments are involved. Do you have a cite for your claim that the RIAA and MPAA are content with letting people bootleg their products?
Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down.
on
LokiTorrent Shut Down
·
· Score: 1
" And if your logic is sound, we shouldn't be able to use a browser anymore since it allows access to illegal content."
His logic is indeed sound; I think you just misunderstood him. Loki and his erstwhile users knew damn well that LokiTorrent was a great place to get pirated material. That was its sole reason for existence, and this was immediately apparent to anybody with a brain who spent a few minutes browsing the site. At the same time, there are plenty of Torrent sites that specialize in torrents for which the copyright owner has given permission. Those sites are not being shut down. There's nothing illegal about BitTorrent itself, but if you set up a Torrent site with full knowledge that you're providing access to pirated material, you're liable to be taken down.
"Wait, if a film's being downloaded, then it's already been made... so surely all these thousands of people have already been paid?"
It may be easier to understand if you replace "film" with "game" and "gaffer" with "coder."
If piracy starts affecting a game developer's bottom line sufficiently, they will lay people off, or go out of business. If enough people opt to download a game instead of buying it, that's less income the developer will have for the next game. No income = no salaries. You are 100% correct that if you pirate a game, the developer has indeed already been paid for their work on it. By buying it instead of pirating it, you're helping increase the chances that the programmer will be able to stick around to develop the next game.
Now, back to the film industry. The hundreds of people who work on any given film typically are hired for one project at a time. There's very little job security in the industry. Your ability to feed your family depends on your ability to get that next gig. The film industry is arguing that if enough people opt to P2P a film rather than see it in the theatre or buy it on DVD, that's less money for the industry, so budgets will be cut, or fewer films will be made. This means fewer jobs.
Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down.
on
LokiTorrent Shut Down
·
· Score: 1
"Legally, if you purchase a movie, you may not show it publically. That includes inviting friends over to watch."
You're correct on the first part, but inviting some friends over doesn't typically count as "public performance." Key tests are "is admission being charged" and "was the general public invited."
The rest of your post was excellent. Those are all examples of the under-the-radar type of copyright violation that happens all the time.
"Never the less this is a business opportunity that the studios are ignoring."
A more accurate way to phrase this might be "the movie studios are not putting their content online fast enough for my liking."
Record comnpanies have been selling their stuff online for five years now. There were a lot of failures, but it's finally beginning to take hold. Similarly, it took at least five years for audio CDs to take hold -- ask your parents what audio CD selection and pricing was like in the 80's. For years, the selection of audio CDs was deplorable, and new releases often came out in LP form first, followed by the CD months later. It simply took time to take hold. People even older than me can probably tell similar stories about the maturation of the audio cassette market.
Turning our attention to the film industry, look how long it took from the development of the first DVD players to the point that you could go into a Blockbuster and get an adequate selection of films on DVD. Many people reading this will also remember how long it took for the film companies to put an acceptable portion of their catalog on VHS.
And so it goes: just like most format changes, it will likely take a few years yet before online content delivery hits its stride. Is the situation unfortunate for us early adopters? You bet. Does this mean that the industry is "ignoring" the potential market? History tells us otherwise. It's apparent that new formats take several years to reach mainstream.
Re:Parent is flamebait and trollish. Mod down.
on
LokiTorrent Shut Down
·
· Score: 1
"What's really sickening me is that the collectors of the distribution do pretty much nothing to get paid, while I'm washing dishes."
Heh. Talk to somebody who owns or works for an indie label some day. They'll find your "pretty much nothing" observation to be amusing. It does, however, raise the question: if running a record label is so easy, why aren't you doing it instead of washing dishes?
"Signing with the RIAA or MPAA is not a 'choice' in the way you're probably thinking of it. They have the entire industry by the nuts. They have distribution and radio/television advertising tied up tighter than you can possibly imagine. Their grip on clubs and tours gets tighter every day. Even with the advent of the Internet, there is still no way around them."
This is an interesting observation and a refreshing counterpart to the usual claim that the magical power of the Internet is going to put the recording industry out of business any day now.
"Anything that challenges them gets sued (whether the complaint is legitimate or not), then gets bought at a bargain basement price, and finally is euthanized or utterly declawed (Select examples: mp3.com, Napster, and now LokiTorrent)"
Napster and LokiTorrent aren't the best examples. More appropriate examples are Magnatune, CDBaby, and LegalTorrents. These three enterprises show that you can compete with the established record companies in a way that does not involve piracy of copyrighted works.
"The RIAA is making slaves out of artists, not the "Pirates". The RIAA was making slaves out of artists long before the first bootleg tape was ever made. Please understand, Pirates (capital P) and the RIAA are at war, and it's not about getting music without paying for it. At its core it mirrors the "free software" movement in many ways."
I disagree. Pirating music does not embody the spirit of the free software movement any more than pirating Photoshop does. The free software movement is all about giving away your work willingly.
A much, much better analog to the free software movement is the vast legion of musicians who have eschewed going the traditional label route and have instead attempted to use the Internet to get their music directly to the consumers. Like the brave souls at the forefront of the free software movement, these folks must keep their day jobs, must be willing to work late nights, and work without the net of financial security that is possible by working with a larger entity, whether it's a huge software company or a huge record label.
"Why doesn't he move his website to some other country (except Christmas Island of course, although lokitorrent.cx would be a good url;) where nobody gives a crap about MPAA?"
Would you want to move to Afghanistan, Bhutan, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Nepal or another country that's not a signatory to the Berne Convention just to provide an outlet for teenagers to get Christmas with the Kranks for free? Some perspective here may be in order -- it's just a web site.
""Because of the wide-spread piracy the poor CEO of [insert name] studio won't be able to afford a Ferrari for his 16 year old daughter. Look what piracy has done! His daughter will be forced to drive a BMW now. How does that make you feel?""
That's interesting; while I'm sure the film industry has some high-paid executives (as do practically all industries, of course), I've always been under the impression that the typical person who makes money off of IP has a rather modest income. Am I incorrect?
The relevant text was "Even Steve Jobs Makes Mistakes" and the word "sometimes" in "Sometimes, Job acts like... well... a "Carly Fiorina"." The GP probably understands that Steve Jobs is a hundred times the manager that Carly is, but that even he makes mistakes, and sometimes he pulls a Carly. Get it?
It's a bit like saying "Even Linus Torvalds sometimes acts like a retard." This does not have the same meaning as "Linus Torvalds is a retard;" in fact, even if one didn't know who Linus is, one could infer from the sentence that Linus is considered by the speaker to be quite smart.
"Digital Radio (Digital FM & AM) will offer CD quality broadcasts in the near future effectively killing the satellite Radio market."
I think this is based on the assumption that it's the audio quality that's the primary benefit of satellite radio. While it may be for some people, for me (and most everybody I've talked to), it's the incredible variety. The lack of commercials is a second. The CD quality audio is a distant third. I believe the assumption is incorrect.
With each post on Slashdot about satellite radio, there's the "I don't see what a big deal it is" posts from the folks who haven't yet tried it, and then there's the posts from people who have it and who will never go back to terrestrial radio. I'm guessing that you (as well as those who've modded your post insightful) fall into the first category.
"Now I'm just dependant on friends to introduce me to new music. I think they have better taste then the DJ's and what the big labels want to shove down my though any way."
My experience is different. Friends continue to be a source of inspiration, but my musical horizons have been broadened by XM by an order of magnitude beyond what my friends could have provided.
" Don't piss off your employer or when it's time for people to go you're the first one."
Well put. More than that, don't piss off your employer during your probationary period, as he did. That first 30 (or sometimes 60, or 90, depending) days is when the people to whom you report see if you're really worth keeping. One way to increase your odds of being kept is to control your desire to write stuff like this:
"which led me to thinking about the "benefits" package at google. as i thought about it, i realized that most of the "benefits" actually seem to be thinly veiled timesavers to keep you at work."
If a new probationary employee doesn't have the social graces to understand why that's not the best thing to write, how good of a long-term employee is he going to be? The guy was an associate product manager, and not some engineer kept in a hole and expected to have poor social skills. Product managers must deal with people both inside and outside the company. They must be able to use common sense in their communication and possess a modicum of decorum.
I'll join the chorus of folks who've pointed out that Dell has done this for, like, ever and that it's quite common in the industry. Best Buy, CompUSA and Circuit City each pay different prices to manufacturers and distributors for the same parts, too.
By the way, Dell's pricing strategy is primarily the reason that the first question you're asked on the Dell home page when you begin shopping is not "how much do you want to spend?" but "where will you be using it?".
At the large company for which I work, whenever we buy Dells, we simply have somebody buy them on a personal credit card and have them shipped to a home address.
"Especially when one considers the recent lawsuits against Internet users for sharing MP3 files. As I remember it really wasn't that long ago that people were doing much similar acts with cassette tapes - albeit on a much smaller and slower scale."
You have astutely pointed out the crucial difference between the tape swapping of decades past and the massive music piracy of today. This distinction is lost on many people.
Drug laws are the same way. "It's just like selling a few joints a month, just on a much smaller and slower scale" is not an adequate defense when several kilograms of the stuff are found in your house.
""Spiegel: Is this freely available operating system [Linux] a threat to you? Gates: No, a competitor. That is all." I think theres one way to sum that up: Arrogance. Earlier in the article, Gates talks about sweeping statements in a derisive way, then makes one of his own. Would Microsoft spend so much time spreading FUD if Linux was not a threat?"
One of the first things you learn when you're in a position that stock prices and livelihoods hang in the balance of your words, is that you must choose them very carefully. Even if he thinks Linux is a threat, he's obviously not going to say so. He chose his words well. Appeasing Slashdotters is far lower on his list of priorities than his obligation to his shareholders.
"It also states that she had family members living with her, and that she has 24 grandchildren and 23 great-grandchildren. Odds are that one of them were using her internet account for file-sharing, so she was busted for it."
Good point. Much was made of the RIAA suing a 12-year-old girl a few years back because the mother had used her daughter's name when she signed up for the ISP account. Such is the stuff of "The RIAA regularly sues 12-year-old girls and dead grandmothers" legends.
" I don't see the point of this being on slashdot."
I found it amusing, in a somewhat morbid way. I also found it a bit unsettling. I learned a little about death, a little about life, and a little about myself.
Plus, the more "record companies are evil" stories you read, the more guilt-free piracy becomes!
"I doubt he stole anything, or transported stolen property across state lines."
According to the letter of the law, he did. The transport likely happened when he e-mailed (or snail mailed) the file to Nevada.
"Stealing would have entailed taking the data from a source within AOL and wiping that source clean."
I think you're mixing the colloquial and the legal definitions here. The legal world has a different, and often broader, definition of the words "theft," "stolen" and the like. For example, "identity theft" and "theft of service" do not typically refer to the taking of a unique piece of physical property, as you or I might define the word "theft."
"Copying and selling the information in a private database is bad, but there is no way that it is worth setting a new and dangerous legal precedent just to get this asshole a couple extra months in jail."
Can you explain what the precedent is here? Over the past decade I've seen dozens of similar cases involving confidential and proprietary information. Before it was e-mail lists, it was snail mail lists. Typically the information is sold to, or taken to, a competitor. Here, it was sold to a spammer. Are you referring to the CAN-SPAM wrinkle?
Slashdot Mirror
"And, as another poster pointed out, regardless of who paid for it and how, it's now owned by the public."
Unless the sculptor did this as a work-for-hire, the copyright remains with them.
This is a bit like buying a CD. You own the CD, but the songwriters, composers and the record company still hold copyright over the recording and the words and music. They get to set the rules regarding what you can do with it (within limits set by the law, of course).
"I'm sorry, but a photograph of a sculpture is not a reproduction of said sculpture. If people were out making photographs of some artist's photographs you'd have a point."
The phrase you're looking for is "derivative work" and it's covered by copyright law:
It's my understanding that a photograph of a copyrighted piece of art will be classified as either a reproduction or a derivative work depending on the particulars of the photograph.
You can learn more here.
In short, this means that you can't publish a book of photographs of somebody else's sculptures, jewelry, and so on without first getting permission
"The issue here is that the city wants to make money selling postcards and nobody has sued their asses yet."
My understanding is that the sculptor wants to make money off of postcard sales. I do not believe that the sculptor has transfered copyright to the city.
" ...complete and absolute corporate control over a nation's legal framework."
How so? This is the artist and designer asserting their copyright, not some corporation. Scultors have had this right under copyright law long before US copyright law became sponsored by Disney.
Yeah, corporate ownership of copyright law is bad, and yeah, it sucks when a sculptor is a bit too heavy-handed in asserting their rights, but these are completely different issues.
"Listening to music is free, just like looking at this sculpture is free. Playing the music (esp. in public venues where it is part of a business situation: restaurants, shops, radio stations) is where the money comes into it. The RIAA wants to be reimbursed for the use of the music in those situations."
Public performance is licensed by outfits like ASCAP and BMI. Both are non-profit societies run by and for songwriters and composers. They are unrelated to the RIAA and this licensing money goes composers, songwriters and musicians, not the RIAA.
This is vital to understand if one kneels at the shrine of "RIAA bad, musicians good." The fact is, whether we like it or not, many songwriters (from here on known as "fucking greedy songwriters") make much of their money through public performance. I think a good umbrealla sort of philosophy to accomodate this fact is that anyboody who wants to be paid for their creative output is bad. Unless they're a web designer, software developer, or otherwise have another Slashdot-friendly profession!
"The Bean itself is voilating copyrights of the buildings that it reflects...the reflections themselves are "reproductions" of the buildings that are designed by artists and builders."
To fight unfair laws, you must first understand them.
Architecture was not allowed to be copyrighted before 1990. It's not retroactive, so if the Prude was built before 1990, they're SOL.
Building designers do indeed legally have the right to restrict photographs taken of a building, although this usually relates to photos taken for commercial purposes. Putting up a mirror or other reflective object near a building would be a hard case to take to court without being laughed at, as the viewer still needs to be within the presence of the building to see the reflection. Compare this to, say, buying a book on famous architecture, which allows you view the building even if you're not standing next to it.
" What happens to other publicly displayed works of art?"
It depends on the artist.
This is, in essence, what copyright is: the right to determine how your work is copied -- including, in the case of artwork, photographic images. It is entirely the artists' prerogative.
"Essentially, this is like Ford telling people not to take pictures of their own cars because the designers (read: the company) still own the copyright to the design."
You are 100% correct. That would be unworkable, so they don't do it.
There is indeed precedent for scultors and artists to ask that their works not be reproduced commercially. About ten years back, the producers of the film "Devil's Advocate" were sued because they used a replica of a sculpture in an unauthorized manner.
"Appalling."
Perhaps. I think it comes down to whether scultures and other visual artists have the same access to copyright law as do programmers, web designers, and other professions that are more Slashdot-friendly, or if it's a "some people are more equal than others" situation. In the artists' defense, he probably asked for this restriction because he did not want to see his sculpture showing up on posters, t-shirts, and other commercial products without getting compensated.
It's the free market that eventually decides things like this. If the city realizes that it's too much of a PITA to deal with this sculptor's requirements, then they'll never buy another sculpture from him, and word will get around.
"Absolutely craptastic selection of music"
Are you saying that because Napster has only a million songs in their library vs. Apple's two million, or because Napster has big holes in their library in the type(s) of music you like?
In order for it to be the will of the people, then along with that group that wants something for free, there has to be another group that wants to give it away for free.
Plenty of people do make their music available for free... and God bless 'em. Making music, like building laptops, is expensive, yet some people are in it truly for the art, and worry not about financial gain. If you want free music, its these brave souls' music you should be trading, and not the work of people who haven't given you permission. There is indeed a place for the free exchange of art without violating somebody's rights.
"The RIAA and MPAA are suing the hell out of people downloading their material even though they're content with letting people selling bootlegs of their product(which is actually stealing money from them)."
Interesting, I've never seen that observation before. I read news items about bootlegging crackdowns all the time, such as this recent one and this one; it's an issue that's gotten to the point that governments are involved. Do you have a cite for your claim that the RIAA and MPAA are content with letting people bootleg their products?
" And if your logic is sound, we shouldn't be able to use a browser anymore since it allows access to illegal content."
His logic is indeed sound; I think you just misunderstood him. Loki and his erstwhile users knew damn well that LokiTorrent was a great place to get pirated material. That was its sole reason for existence, and this was immediately apparent to anybody with a brain who spent a few minutes browsing the site. At the same time, there are plenty of Torrent sites that specialize in torrents for which the copyright owner has given permission. Those sites are not being shut down. There's nothing illegal about BitTorrent itself, but if you set up a Torrent site with full knowledge that you're providing access to pirated material, you're liable to be taken down.
"Wait, if a film's being downloaded, then it's already been made... so surely all these thousands of people have already been paid?"
It may be easier to understand if you replace "film" with "game" and "gaffer" with "coder."
If piracy starts affecting a game developer's bottom line sufficiently, they will lay people off, or go out of business. If enough people opt to download a game instead of buying it, that's less income the developer will have for the next game. No income = no salaries. You are 100% correct that if you pirate a game, the developer has indeed already been paid for their work on it. By buying it instead of pirating it, you're helping increase the chances that the programmer will be able to stick around to develop the next game.
Now, back to the film industry. The hundreds of people who work on any given film typically are hired for one project at a time. There's very little job security in the industry. Your ability to feed your family depends on your ability to get that next gig. The film industry is arguing that if enough people opt to P2P a film rather than see it in the theatre or buy it on DVD, that's less money for the industry, so budgets will be cut, or fewer films will be made. This means fewer jobs.
"Legally, if you purchase a movie, you may not show it publically. That includes inviting friends over to watch."
You're correct on the first part, but inviting some friends over doesn't typically count as "public performance." Key tests are "is admission being charged" and "was the general public invited."
The rest of your post was excellent. Those are all examples of the under-the-radar type of copyright violation that happens all the time.
"Never the less this is a business opportunity that the studios are ignoring."
A more accurate way to phrase this might be "the movie studios are not putting their content online fast enough for my liking."
Record comnpanies have been selling their stuff online for five years now. There were a lot of failures, but it's finally beginning to take hold. Similarly, it took at least five years for audio CDs to take hold -- ask your parents what audio CD selection and pricing was like in the 80's. For years, the selection of audio CDs was deplorable, and new releases often came out in LP form first, followed by the CD months later. It simply took time to take hold. People even older than me can probably tell similar stories about the maturation of the audio cassette market.
Turning our attention to the film industry, look how long it took from the development of the first DVD players to the point that you could go into a Blockbuster and get an adequate selection of films on DVD. Many people reading this will also remember how long it took for the film companies to put an acceptable portion of their catalog on VHS.
And so it goes: just like most format changes, it will likely take a few years yet before online content delivery hits its stride. Is the situation unfortunate for us early adopters? You bet. Does this mean that the industry is "ignoring" the potential market? History tells us otherwise. It's apparent that new formats take several years to reach mainstream.
"What's really sickening me is that the collectors of the distribution do pretty much nothing to get paid, while I'm washing dishes."
Heh. Talk to somebody who owns or works for an indie label some day. They'll find your "pretty much nothing" observation to be amusing. It does, however, raise the question: if running a record label is so easy, why aren't you doing it instead of washing dishes?
"Signing with the RIAA or MPAA is not a 'choice' in the way you're probably thinking of it. They have the entire industry by the nuts. They have distribution and radio/television advertising tied up tighter than you can possibly imagine. Their grip on clubs and tours gets tighter every day. Even with the advent of the Internet, there is still no way around them."
This is an interesting observation and a refreshing counterpart to the usual claim that the magical power of the Internet is going to put the recording industry out of business any day now.
"Anything that challenges them gets sued (whether the complaint is legitimate or not), then gets bought at a bargain basement price, and finally is euthanized or utterly declawed (Select examples: mp3.com, Napster, and now LokiTorrent)"
Napster and LokiTorrent aren't the best examples. More appropriate examples are Magnatune, CDBaby, and LegalTorrents. These three enterprises show that you can compete with the established record companies in a way that does not involve piracy of copyrighted works.
"The RIAA is making slaves out of artists, not the "Pirates". The RIAA was making slaves out of artists long before the first bootleg tape was ever made. Please understand, Pirates (capital P) and the RIAA are at war, and it's not about getting music without paying for it. At its core it mirrors the "free software" movement in many ways."
I disagree. Pirating music does not embody the spirit of the free software movement any more than pirating Photoshop does. The free software movement is all about giving away your work willingly.
A much, much better analog to the free software movement is the vast legion of musicians who have eschewed going the traditional label route and have instead attempted to use the Internet to get their music directly to the consumers. Like the brave souls at the forefront of the free software movement, these folks must keep their day jobs, must be willing to work late nights, and work without the net of financial security that is possible by working with a larger entity, whether it's a huge software company or a huge record label.
"Why doesn't he move his website to some other country (except Christmas Island of course, although lokitorrent.cx would be a good url ;) where nobody gives a crap about MPAA?"
Would you want to move to Afghanistan, Bhutan, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Nepal or another country that's not a signatory to the Berne Convention just to provide an outlet for teenagers to get Christmas with the Kranks for free? Some perspective here may be in order -- it's just a web site.
""Because of the wide-spread piracy the poor CEO of [insert name] studio won't be able to afford a Ferrari for his 16 year old daughter. Look what piracy has done! His daughter will be forced to drive a BMW now. How does that make you feel?""
That's interesting; while I'm sure the film industry has some high-paid executives (as do practically all industries, of course), I've always been under the impression that the typical person who makes money off of IP has a rather modest income. Am I incorrect?
"Ok, you don't have a point at all. Never mind."
The relevant text was "Even Steve Jobs Makes Mistakes" and the word "sometimes" in "Sometimes, Job acts like ... well ... a "Carly Fiorina"." The GP probably understands that Steve Jobs is a hundred times the manager that Carly is, but that even he makes mistakes, and sometimes he pulls a Carly. Get it?
It's a bit like saying "Even Linus Torvalds sometimes acts like a retard." This does not have the same meaning as "Linus Torvalds is a retard;" in fact, even if one didn't know who Linus is, one could infer from the sentence that Linus is considered by the speaker to be quite smart.
"Digital Radio (Digital FM & AM) will offer CD quality broadcasts in the near future effectively killing the satellite Radio market."
I think this is based on the assumption that it's the audio quality that's the primary benefit of satellite radio. While it may be for some people, for me (and most everybody I've talked to), it's the incredible variety. The lack of commercials is a second. The CD quality audio is a distant third. I believe the assumption is incorrect.
With each post on Slashdot about satellite radio, there's the "I don't see what a big deal it is" posts from the folks who haven't yet tried it, and then there's the posts from people who have it and who will never go back to terrestrial radio. I'm guessing that you (as well as those who've modded your post insightful) fall into the first category.
"Now I'm just dependant on friends to introduce me to new music. I think they have better taste then the DJ's and what the big labels want to shove down my though any way."
My experience is different. Friends continue to be a source of inspiration, but my musical horizons have been broadened by XM by an order of magnitude beyond what my friends could have provided.
" Don't piss off your employer or when it's time for people to go you're the first one."
Well put. More than that, don't piss off your employer during your probationary period, as he did. That first 30 (or sometimes 60, or 90, depending) days is when the people to whom you report see if you're really worth keeping. One way to increase your odds of being kept is to control your desire to write stuff like this:
If a new probationary employee doesn't have the social graces to understand why that's not the best thing to write, how good of a long-term employee is he going to be? The guy was an associate product manager, and not some engineer kept in a hole and expected to have poor social skills. Product managers must deal with people both inside and outside the company. They must be able to use common sense in their communication and possess a modicum of decorum.
He demonstrated that he's not fit for that job.
I'll join the chorus of folks who've pointed out that Dell has done this for, like, ever and that it's quite common in the industry. Best Buy, CompUSA and Circuit City each pay different prices to manufacturers and distributors for the same parts, too.
By the way, Dell's pricing strategy is primarily the reason that the first question you're asked on the Dell home page when you begin shopping is not "how much do you want to spend?" but "where will you be using it?".
At the large company for which I work, whenever we buy Dells, we simply have somebody buy them on a personal credit card and have them shipped to a home address.
"Especially when one considers the recent lawsuits against Internet users for sharing MP3 files. As I remember it really wasn't that long ago that people were doing much similar acts with cassette tapes - albeit on a much smaller and slower scale."
You have astutely pointed out the crucial difference between the tape swapping of decades past and the massive music piracy of today. This distinction is lost on many people.
Drug laws are the same way. "It's just like selling a few joints a month, just on a much smaller and slower scale" is not an adequate defense when several kilograms of the stuff are found in your house.
""Spiegel: Is this freely available operating system [Linux] a threat to you? Gates: No, a competitor. That is all." I think theres one way to sum that up: Arrogance. Earlier in the article, Gates talks about sweeping statements in a derisive way, then makes one of his own. Would Microsoft spend so much time spreading FUD if Linux was not a threat?"
One of the first things you learn when you're in a position that stock prices and livelihoods hang in the balance of your words, is that you must choose them very carefully. Even if he thinks Linux is a threat, he's obviously not going to say so. He chose his words well. Appeasing Slashdotters is far lower on his list of priorities than his obligation to his shareholders.
"It also states that she had family members living with her, and that she has 24 grandchildren and 23 great-grandchildren. Odds are that one of them were using her internet account for file-sharing, so she was busted for it."
Good point. Much was made of the RIAA suing a 12-year-old girl a few years back because the mother had used her daughter's name when she signed up for the ISP account. Such is the stuff of "The RIAA regularly sues 12-year-old girls and dead grandmothers" legends.
" I don't see the point of this being on slashdot."
I found it amusing, in a somewhat morbid way. I also found it a bit unsettling. I learned a little about death, a little about life, and a little about myself.
Plus, the more "record companies are evil" stories you read, the more guilt-free piracy becomes!
"I doubt he stole anything, or transported stolen property across state lines."
According to the letter of the law, he did. The transport likely happened when he e-mailed (or snail mailed) the file to Nevada.
"Stealing would have entailed taking the data from a source within AOL and wiping that source clean."
I think you're mixing the colloquial and the legal definitions here. The legal world has a different, and often broader, definition of the words "theft," "stolen" and the like. For example, "identity theft" and "theft of service" do not typically refer to the taking of a unique piece of physical property, as you or I might define the word "theft."
"Copying and selling the information in a private database is bad, but there is no way that it is worth setting a new and dangerous legal precedent just to get this asshole a couple extra months in jail."
Can you explain what the precedent is here? Over the past decade I've seen dozens of similar cases involving confidential and proprietary information. Before it was e-mail lists, it was snail mail lists. Typically the information is sold to, or taken to, a competitor. Here, it was sold to a spammer. Are you referring to the CAN-SPAM wrinkle?