If the "muscians would probably be happy that you've enjoyed listening to their music even if they didn't make any money off of it" then they should explicitly state so.
Well, it's not their place to do that. The recordings are owned by the record companies.
Honestly, if I could just give the musicians their cut of the sales I would do it, despite the fact that I don't have much money. But, I do not feel bad whatsoever for depriving the RIAA of its profits, regardless of whether it's defined as theft or not.
Also, if I could make a copy of a BMW I would gladly do it (although I'm not sure if lossy compression would be safe with a car).
All that being said, you do make a good argument, and I do understand where you are coming from, but I still believe theft is too harsh of a word, and another word should be used instead.
So you're still depriving one of their right to gain monetary value for their blood, sweat and tears in the form of intellectual property.
I have never had any intent to buy music that I have downloaded form p2p networks.
Right now I'm going to school, and am _very_ poor. If I could afford to pay $17 a CD or even $1 a song (for something better than mp3 quality) I would, but I can't.
So the only thing I have deprived these artists of is a sale that wouldn't have happened anyways! Another note is many of these musicians would probably be happy that I enjoyed listening to their music even though they didn't make any money off of it.
If you still wish to consider this theft, you are of course entitled to your definition.
I've remarked before, it's only Americans that have this idea that a "law" is better than a "theory", etc. Can someone explain to me why that is? Is this taught in schools?
Yes. I was tought this in middle school. I was told the steps of the Scientific Method were: 1. Observe 2. Hypothosize 3. Experiment 4. Theory 5. More experiments 6. Law
Not only that but I was told that in order for something to become a law it had to hold up 100% of the time!
I was quite suprised when I got to college and learned that this was not true.
My stance is: they have the right to do this, and they have the ability to do this, but the marketplace, if enlightened to the dangers, won't allow them to succeed with it.
I agree with your opinion, somewhat. The only problem is the average computer user doesn't know what a BIOS is, or what DRM means, and quite frankly most of them don't even care. They just want to make sure they can run Windows and access the internet.
The only way for things to really change is for the common person to find out that they can get a better (or at least as good) operating system for free! But that probably won't happen until after everybody stops opening email atatchments and firewalls their system.
Right now, American Ph.D. graduates who want to work on long-term research in industry choose Microsoft as their #1 pick for employer.
Statistically, this may be true, but I can tell you I plan on getting a Ph.D.(with an emphasis in AI and NLP) and I can tell you I will never work for Microsoft.
Microsoft will create the NLP search engine of the future and will bury Google.
How about an open source NLP search engine, that will bury Mirosoft?
At this point it should be made very easy for this woman to sue the RIAA, but without the resources of a large corp. it is just going to seem like an impossiable task for her. Thus the lawsuits from the RIAA will just continue with the harassment and scare tactics.
I would imagine there's a lawyer out there somewhere that would do pro bono work for her.
All this stuff is market speak, ie: lying. I wonder why it isn't illegal.
"Market speak" isn't technically lying, it's misleading. If a company does actually lie it would be considered false advertising.
However, because most advertising is so misleading, many consumers get the implied meaning instead of the real meaning (which is exactly what the advertisers want).
Yeah, I saw a show about it a few years ago too. I think it was on 20/20 or Dateline or something like that. I don't remember them saying anything about skateboarding though.
Are they planning on making everyone in the world take a class before they can use the internet?
Of course not! Most countries wouldn't comply even if they did.
The problem is software companies don't know how to make their software safe for users who don't know what the fuck they're doing (which is a very large portion of computer users).
Slashdot Mirror
So, what's this word?
Copyright Infringement.
(or in one word: copyrightinfringement)
If the "muscians would probably be happy that you've enjoyed listening to their music even if they didn't make any money off of it" then they should explicitly state so.
Well, it's not their place to do that. The recordings are owned by the record companies.
Honestly, if I could just give the musicians their cut of the sales I would do it, despite the fact that I don't have much money. But, I do not feel bad whatsoever for depriving the RIAA of its profits, regardless of whether it's defined as theft or not.
Also, if I could make a copy of a BMW I would gladly do it (although I'm not sure if lossy compression would be safe with a car).
All that being said, you do make a good argument, and I do understand where you are coming from, but I still believe theft is too harsh of a word, and another word should be used instead.
So you're still depriving one of their right to gain monetary value for their blood, sweat and tears in the form of intellectual property.
I have never had any intent to buy music that I have downloaded form p2p networks.
Right now I'm going to school, and am _very_ poor. If I could afford to pay $17 a CD or even $1 a song (for something better than mp3 quality) I would, but I can't.
So the only thing I have deprived these artists of is a sale that wouldn't have happened anyways! Another note is many of these musicians would probably be happy that I enjoyed listening to their music even though they didn't make any money off of it.
If you still wish to consider this theft, you are of course entitled to your definition.
I've remarked before, it's only Americans that have this idea that a "law" is better than a "theory", etc.
Can someone explain to me why that is? Is this taught in schools?
Yes. I was tought this in middle school. I was told the steps of the Scientific Method were:
1. Observe
2. Hypothosize
3. Experiment
4. Theory
5. More experiments
6. Law
Not only that but I was told that in order for something to become a law it had to hold up 100% of the time!
I was quite suprised when I got to college and learned that this was not true.
My stance is: they have the right to do this, and they have the ability to do this, but the marketplace, if enlightened to the dangers, won't allow them to succeed with it.
I agree with your opinion, somewhat. The only problem is the average computer user doesn't know what a BIOS is, or what DRM means, and quite frankly most of them don't even care. They just want to make sure they can run Windows and access the internet.
The only way for things to really change is for the common person to find out that they can get a better (or at least as good) operating system for free! But that probably won't happen until after everybody stops opening email atatchments and firewalls their system.
Right now, American Ph.D. graduates who want to work on long-term research in industry choose Microsoft as their #1 pick for employer.
Statistically, this may be true, but I can tell you I plan on getting a Ph.D.(with an emphasis in AI and NLP) and I can tell you I will never work for Microsoft.
Microsoft will create the NLP search engine of the future and will bury Google.
How about an open source NLP search engine, that will bury Mirosoft?
Hey, at least you tried.
Perhaps ISPs need to have specialists for each operating system.
I'm sure they don't have many people that call who run Linux, so they wouldn't need that many CSRs to deal with these calls.
...only to be told by teachers that the album is already available for download for free.
Why don't they have the teacher tell the students that even though they made the album, the teacher is going to keep all of the money from sales?
I want to be bought buy a platform, not by an issue.
Oh, good point.
I don't vote anyways, so I really don't know what I'm talking about.
I would, however, vote for a presidential canidate if they had a solid plan to use alternate energy sources.
That is not redemption, that is buying a vote with an issue.
I'd rather someone buy my vote with an issue than with money.
At this point it should be made very easy for this woman to sue the RIAA, but without the resources of a large corp. it is just going to seem like an impossiable task for her. Thus the lawsuits from the RIAA will just continue with the harassment and scare tactics.
I would imagine there's a lawyer out there somewhere that would do pro bono work for her.
Anybody know one?
How do I block it?
I don't know about the cookie, but here's the info on that bug: Omniture Bug
All this stuff is market speak, ie: lying. I wonder why it isn't illegal.
"Market speak" isn't technically lying, it's misleading. If a company does actually lie it would be considered false advertising.
However, because most advertising is so misleading, many consumers get the implied meaning instead of the real meaning (which is exactly what the advertisers want).
You do have a point, but one problem is that the average computer user doesn't know that they can even get away from Microsoft.
Many users will see the search and say "Oh that's how I'm supposed to search now, okay," and that's just what Microsoft wants.
That's exactly why the US government won't get involved in the Free Tibet movement.
Microsoft definately deserves something, but it's not cheaters.
If somebody hacks an X-Box Live game and cheats, that person is harming every other player in the game.
If I owned an X-Box (I don't 'cause GameCube is better) I would be glad that it updated itself automatically.
Since Microsoft owns the hardware, they can also install a patch that makes it completely unusable, right?
Hey don't give them any ideas.
They may end up doing that so everybody has to upgrade to an Xbox2.
How do you expect to chose the best person for the job when the only choices you have are the people with enough money to advertise their names?
Yeah, I saw a show about it a few years ago too. I think it was on 20/20 or Dateline or something like that. I don't remember them saying anything about skateboarding though.
It figures your a fucking morman!
"Resistance is futile; You will be assimilated. Now have a complimentary book of morman."
EXACTLY! People should be able to buy a computer, take it home, plug it in, and be on the internet safely.
Are they planning on making everyone in the world take a class before they can use the internet?
Of course not! Most countries wouldn't comply even if they did.
The problem is software companies don't know how to make their software safe for users who don't know what the fuck they're doing (which is a very large portion of computer users).
I mute my TV when commercials come on.