For some reason, I think the parent company of Interscope (surely you already know this based on your arrogant tone), has quite a bit of pull with regards to how their intellectual property is protected. Think again. Interscope is a small fish in that big pond. I doubt very much that they have the ability to override RIAA policy in this regard.
Read the article you cite carefully, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Basically, it says that it's ok to download music if you're legally entitled to. Canadians get a free pass in that regard because of the tax against digital media and players.
I really can't agree with your assement. I really can't stand the RIAA and their tactics, so we're on the same page with that one. However, some of what you say just isn't true. If I see someone riding my bike without my permission, I *absolutely* have the right to stop them (the concept of Citizen's arrest or detainment is frought with peril, so I better be really really sure it's my bike.) The 4th amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) doesn't apply because it's MY bike, and the 6th amendment (right to a speedy trial) doesn't apply at all unless I have the perp arrested. Now, if it wasn't my bike, but one that looked just like it, we'd have a whole other set of problems to deal with.
Regarding the section about the RIAA and colleges, the RIAA, until it files a lawsuit, has no legal standing to request the information, but it certainly has the right to ask for it before filing a lawsuit. There's no garauntee of privacy at college, the school is free to produce and withold the data as it sees fit. Once the RIAA files a lawsuit, it's legally entitled to compel the school to produce the information it needs during the discovery process. And all they need to do to establish probable cause for that is to link the IP address of a suspected P2P sharer with the college network.
Well, they're obviously not a court of law, but if you read farther down the website:
In support of this mission, the RIAA works to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists; conduct consumer industry and technical research; and monitor and review - - state and federal laws, regulations and policies. So, they're empowered to act on behalf of their members to "protect" the "intellectual property" rights of the members.
They can't be "only an advertising or marketing body", otherwise they'd have no standing to send the takedown notices. As a trade group, they also have powers to "protect" the "intellectual property" of their members.
Very true, does anyone know if there was some kind of license file on the USB key? Without knowing that, we can't know if the RIAA is acting improperly or not.
Regardless of the licensing issue, the headline is still terrible, and doesn't accurately reflect the article.
The RIAA is a trade group with lots of labels. The RIAA also has rules for dealing with "intellectual property" protection that don't give the labels a lot of leeway. The RIAA sending out notices is based purely on the fact that the music in question is owned by a record company, and probably is done without the label's direct intervention.
Again, if the music on the keys wasn't specifically licensed for fre distribution, that's it, the songs aren't legal to download.
The only pertinent questions here are: did the USB keys include a license granting rights to distribute the songs anywhere to any medium? And if so, was the person "granting" the license legally entitled to do so?
There's a difference between finding a USB key with a song or two on it and letting your friends hear it, as opposed to hosting it on multiple web sites for a free download.
Again, how is this an RIAA campaign? The RIAA is not the label, in case you didn't realize that. Regardless of anything else, no one has produced evidence that the distribution to web sites was authorized.
It's not an RIAA campaign, and the sites are not "participating" in the campaign, they're stealing the music. My beef is with the headline the editor in question used. And Zonk in general drags the quality of slashdot down by an order of magnitude whenever he's on editor duty.
How is the RIAA attacking sites "participating in it's own campaign"? The RIAA isn't an advertising or marketing body. Did anyone check if the USB keys had a distribution license that would permit the songs to be hosted on web sites? Trent Reznor putting music on USB keys is not in itself a blanket license to distribute the songs at will.
Zonk is missing on all cylinders today, why does he still get to be an editor?
I understand about IGE, and don't like their business, but it's unjustified in this case to suddenly throw them in at the end in a blurb where the actual article doesn't have any mention of it. Regardless of their sleazy dealings, there's no reason to associate their name with this trojan as if they were connected.
Who writes these headlines? Why not have at least a modicum of neutrality? It's like when I listen to "Media Matters"...they start out with a bit called Media Minutes that reports things that I'm interested in and concerned about, but they use such loaded language that it's impossible to listen to objectively.
It was more a comment on the wishy-washy editorial stance. The editor must have known how it was going while the test was in place. While I applaud them not simply killing the article, it smacks of journalistic cowardice to insert that Editor's Note at the end. It's explicit hand-washing to distance the site from the opinion of it's writers.
Question: as a Vista user, have you experienced any of the issues (particularly the BSODs and sudden reboots) that the aritcle's author experienced?
Nice editor's note at the very end that says "Well, it's just this one guy's opinion, obviously Vista isn't unfit for any user like he thinks after EXTENDED REAL-LIFE TESTING. I'm not trying to appease our Masters in Redmond, really."
It's another terible post from a terrible writer approved by the worst slashdot editor. At least Zonk stopped being the dupe master...but he makes the worst decisions about what to post.
Oh, I figured that's what you meant (and sent). I just wish the editors would fix serious mistakes like this once they're notified. I would have mentioned it in the "preview period", but since it was attached as a story instead of a link, I couldn't read it to vette it until it was posted (and somehow too late to fix.)
Are AboveNet and TeleGlobe headquartered in Virginia? Because there doesn't seem to be any mention of Virigina in the article other than in passing, and not even in reference to the state or it's ISPs.
You said in your original post: "I use Eclipse, and I don't even have any idea what this article is about". Now you say "you're inferring that I said I used Eclipse but I don't". Which is it?
Slashdot Mirror
Read the article you cite carefully, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Basically, it says that it's ok to download music if you're legally entitled to. Canadians get a free pass in that regard because of the tax against digital media and players.
I really can't agree with your assement. I really can't stand the RIAA and their tactics, so we're on the same page with that one. However, some of what you say just isn't true. If I see someone riding my bike without my permission, I *absolutely* have the right to stop them (the concept of Citizen's arrest or detainment is frought with peril, so I better be really really sure it's my bike.) The 4th amendment (unreasonable search and seizure) doesn't apply because it's MY bike, and the 6th amendment (right to a speedy trial) doesn't apply at all unless I have the perp arrested. Now, if it wasn't my bike, but one that looked just like it, we'd have a whole other set of problems to deal with.
Regarding the section about the RIAA and colleges, the RIAA, until it files a lawsuit, has no legal standing to request the information, but it certainly has the right to ask for it before filing a lawsuit. There's no garauntee of privacy at college, the school is free to produce and withold the data as it sees fit. Once the RIAA files a lawsuit, it's legally entitled to compel the school to produce the information it needs during the discovery process. And all they need to do to establish probable cause for that is to link the IP address of a suspected P2P sharer with the college network.
They can't be "only an advertising or marketing body", otherwise they'd have no standing to send the takedown notices. As a trade group, they also have powers to "protect" the "intellectual property" of their members.
Very true, does anyone know if there was some kind of license file on the USB key? Without knowing that, we can't know if the RIAA is acting improperly or not.
Regardless of the licensing issue, the headline is still terrible, and doesn't accurately reflect the article.
The RIAA is a trade group with lots of labels. The RIAA also has rules for dealing with "intellectual property" protection that don't give the labels a lot of leeway. The RIAA sending out notices is based purely on the fact that the music in question is owned by a record company, and probably is done without the label's direct intervention.
Again, if the music on the keys wasn't specifically licensed for fre distribution, that's it, the songs aren't legal to download.
The only pertinent questions here are: did the USB keys include a license granting rights to distribute the songs anywhere to any medium? And if so, was the person "granting" the license legally entitled to do so?
There's a difference between finding a USB key with a song or two on it and letting your friends hear it, as opposed to hosting it on multiple web sites for a free download.
Again, how is this an RIAA campaign? The RIAA is not the label, in case you didn't realize that. Regardless of anything else, no one has produced evidence that the distribution to web sites was authorized.
It's not an RIAA campaign, and the sites are not "participating" in the campaign, they're stealing the music. My beef is with the headline the editor in question used. And Zonk in general drags the quality of slashdot down by an order of magnitude whenever he's on editor duty.
How is the RIAA attacking sites "participating in it's own campaign"? The RIAA isn't an advertising or marketing body. Did anyone check if the USB keys had a distribution license that would permit the songs to be hosted on web sites? Trent Reznor putting music on USB keys is not in itself a blanket license to distribute the songs at will.
Zonk is missing on all cylinders today, why does he still get to be an editor?
I understand about IGE, and don't like their business, but it's unjustified in this case to suddenly throw them in at the end in a blurb where the actual article doesn't have any mention of it. Regardless of their sleazy dealings, there's no reason to associate their name with this trojan as if they were connected.
While I'm no fan of gold farmers and in-game currency traders, is there any evidence to justify naming IGE in that addendum? What justifies that?
Who writes these headlines? Why not have at least a modicum of neutrality? It's like when I listen to "Media Matters"...they start out with a bit called Media Minutes that reports things that I'm interested in and concerned about, but they use such loaded language that it's impossible to listen to objectively.
It was more a comment on the wishy-washy editorial stance. The editor must have known how it was going while the test was in place. While I applaud them not simply killing the article, it smacks of journalistic cowardice to insert that Editor's Note at the end. It's explicit hand-washing to distance the site from the opinion of it's writers.
Question: as a Vista user, have you experienced any of the issues (particularly the BSODs and sudden reboots) that the aritcle's author experienced?
Nice editor's note at the very end that says "Well, it's just this one guy's opinion, obviously Vista isn't unfit for any user like he thinks after EXTENDED REAL-LIFE TESTING. I'm not trying to appease our Masters in Redmond, really."
Of coursethey make decisions. They just make bad ones.
It's another terible post from a terrible writer approved by the worst slashdot editor. At least Zonk stopped being the dupe master...but he makes the worst decisions about what to post.
Oh, I figured that's what you meant (and sent). I just wish the editors would fix serious mistakes like this once they're notified. I would have mentioned it in the "preview period", but since it was attached as a story instead of a link, I couldn't read it to vette it until it was posted (and somehow too late to fix.)
Are AboveNet and TeleGlobe headquartered in Virginia? Because there doesn't seem to be any mention of Virigina in the article other than in passing, and not even in reference to the state or it's ISPs.
I guess I misunderstood because of how horribly written your original question was.
Only a -1 Haughty? I must be losing my touch.
I guess I misunderstood because of how horribly written the original question was.
You said in your original post: "I use Eclipse, and I don't even have any idea what this article is about". Now you say "you're inferring that I said I used Eclipse but I don't". Which is it?
MyEclipse is an add on that enhances the base Eclipse package. www.myeclipseide.org for more info.
GA Release means General Availabiliy (a full release as opposed to a M releae, or milestone)
Vi looks like a typo, they meant Vista, I think.
Eclipse WTP is the Eclipse Web Tools Project.
I18n is shorthand for "internationalization".
All of which you would already have know if you actually used Eclipse like you said.