**WORKING** to get a job!? What a crock of shit! No wonder linuxcare is dying. If they would simply drive to my house, feed me treats, and carry me to a comfy new job at their place (and do this for all new employees), they surely would have had a multibillion dollar ipo. Damn those bad management decisions.
Ok. Wonderful. The system files can't be touched. However, all of the user's files could be erased. All the presentations, pictures, documents, spreadsheets, personal items, etc. System files can be fixed with a reinstall of the application/os; user files cannot. You either lose whatever work you did since the last backup or you lose everything if you don't back up your files.
Maybe not let the email client say "here's a text file, click on it to read" but, "this fscking file ends with a.vbs, which means its a program that you run if you open it".
McAfee did have an updated dat file for the virus around 10am this morning. I'm sure the hotmail people have updated their scanning service accordingly.
It's a bit more than 'annoying' if you happen to have a presentation or journal article being prepared and this virus hits you. I work at a medical research place and it's a bit more than 'annoying' for a doc to lose every one of his jpeg files.
And the reason the 911 virus didn't make slashdot is because it's not anywhere near as widespread or quickly moving as this one.
So every time slashdot posts something that relates to a commercial entity, it's automatically being biased and is only out to make a quick buck? What do you suggest they do? Never list news if it involves an entity related to slashdot financially? I think this is a cool story. It's just something fun to do if you're bored one afternoon. Stop trying to read so much into every little item that passes slashdot's front page. There are plenty of other things to bitch about if you feel like whining.
For those that never bothered to actually do any research before mindlessly posing, the agreement is included at the bottom of the pdf file and is referenced at the beginning.
The cost of raw materials != the cost to produce an album. There's lawyers, artists to design the cover and liner notes, the cost of the studio the band records the album in, cost of instruments, payment for producers, mixers, sound editors, etc. And that's just on a simple album. There's more design work to be done if a band wants a special 3d case or extra liner notes or a double cd album.
As soon as Metallica sells licenses to their music they lose any say over how people use said licenses...
Oh really? So, by your standards, any and all licenses are null at the time of acceptance? That's sure going to cause a lot of hell for the GPL and other linuxite licenses. It's the same with everything else. If you don't like the terms of the agreement, go elsewhere. Metallica isn't the only band in the world. Check out your local independent music store; I'm sure someone there can suggest a good band or 2.
Oh, hogwash. Musicians have no right to prevent anyone from hearing their music.
They certainly do have the right to control their music as they please. They created it, they set the terms of it. It's the same as if you coded an app. You get to choose the license which gives or restricts the rights of the users. And no, napster doesn't fall anywhere near the fair use provision of copyright law.
Copying by its very nature is not and cannot be theft.
Alright, then the napster users were "copying without permission" instead of "stealing".
Pirate? Where? I didn't know that the folks at Napster even had a boat.
You really make yourself look childish when you get into petty sematics. Words and meanings change over time. Live with it.
No one is keeping you from listening to any music you want. The RIAA doesn't give a damn what you listen to. If you want to listen to something, go buy the cd/watch the video/go to a friend's house/listen to the radio/etc.
Surely Metallica should be grateful that they are so popular on Napster?
Surely Metallica should be grateful that so many people are copying their music without paying for it. They're rich, afterall. Surely they have no right to ask PAYMENT for their services. How absurd.
What is their attempt to block all these Napster users going to achieve?
1) It will cut down on the number of people illegally copying their music on napster. 2) It suffices as a much better solution than lobbying for legislation.
That they care more about their profits than their fans?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a real fan go out and buy metallica merchandise to support the band rather than copying their music off the internet?
They want to share music! What's wrong with that?
What's wrong with it is that you enter an agreement when you buy that cd that you will only make 1 copy of it for archival purposes and not distribute it around. Making it available on napster is equivalent to distributing it. There is no verification mechanism to prevent unauthorized people from getting your (publicly available) copy of a copyrighted work.
Slashdot Mirror
Ekpashi: "I put the "dumbass" in.. uh... dumbass"
Not only do you reply to my posts way too fast, but you have bad grammar. CmdrTaco accepts bad grammar from NO ONE. It's one of his personal quirks.
That's it, donkey licker. I'm emailing CmdrTaco about your trolling. He'll bitchslap you into next week, fool.
You're not a very good troll. Take some style tips from streetlawyer.
I didn't say that, you mexican. I said memory power.
Only damn near as fast as a T1 line? Damn kids these days with their OC311s.
Damn. You remember the number of items your 2 searches returned? Wish I had that kinda memory power. You must be a psychic.
So, wouldn't that be the top 10 items?
**WORKING** to get a job!? What a crock of shit! No wonder linuxcare is dying. If they would simply drive to my house, feed me treats, and carry me to a comfy new job at their place (and do this for all new employees), they surely would have had a multibillion dollar ipo. Damn those bad management decisions.
You can't have less than 20% of something if it's only divided into 5 parts, you know. Certainly not less than 10%.
Um. What happened August 24, 1995?
They will. http://officeupdate. microsoft.com/downloadDetails/O98attch.htm
Ok. Wonderful. The system files can't be touched. However, all of the user's files could be erased. All the presentations, pictures, documents, spreadsheets, personal items, etc. System files can be fixed with a reinstall of the application/os; user files cannot. You either lose whatever work you did since the last backup or you lose everything if you don't back up your files.
Maybe not let the email client say "here's a text file, click on it to read" but, "this fscking file ends with a .vbs, which means its a program that you run if you open it".
It does that in Outlook 2000.
McAfee did have an updated dat file for the virus around 10am this morning. I'm sure the hotmail people have updated their scanning service accordingly.
It's a bit more than 'annoying' if you happen to have a presentation or journal article being prepared and this virus hits you. I work at a medical research place and it's a bit more than 'annoying' for a doc to lose every one of his jpeg files.
And the reason the 911 virus didn't make slashdot is because it's not anywhere near as widespread or quickly moving as this one.
So every time slashdot posts something that relates to a commercial entity, it's automatically being biased and is only out to make a quick buck? What do you suggest they do? Never list news if it involves an entity related to slashdot financially? I think this is a cool story. It's just something fun to do if you're bored one afternoon. Stop trying to read so much into every little item that passes slashdot's front page. There are plenty of other things to bitch about if you feel like whining.
For those that never bothered to actually do any research before mindlessly posing, the agreement is included at the bottom of the pdf file and is referenced at the beginning.
The cost of raw materials != the cost to produce an album. There's lawyers, artists to design the cover and liner notes, the cost of the studio the band records the album in, cost of instruments, payment for producers, mixers, sound editors, etc. And that's just on a simple album. There's more design work to be done if a band wants a special 3d case or extra liner notes or a double cd album.
Oh really? So, by your standards, any and all licenses are null at the time of acceptance? That's sure going to cause a lot of hell for the GPL and other linuxite licenses. It's the same with everything else. If you don't like the terms of the agreement, go elsewhere. Metallica isn't the only band in the world. Check out your local independent music store; I'm sure someone there can suggest a good band or 2.
They certainly do have the right to control their music as they please. They created it, they set the terms of it. It's the same as if you coded an app. You get to choose the license which gives or restricts the rights of the users. And no, napster doesn't fall anywhere near the fair use provision of copyright law.
Copying by its very nature is not and cannot be theft.
Alright, then the napster users were "copying without permission" instead of "stealing".
Pirate? Where? I didn't know that the folks at Napster even had a boat.
You really make yourself look childish when you get into petty sematics. Words and meanings change over time. Live with it.
No one is keeping you from listening to any music you want. The RIAA doesn't give a damn what you listen to. If you want to listen to something, go buy the cd/watch the video/go to a friend's house/listen to the radio/etc.
Surely Metallica should be grateful that they are so popular on Napster?
Surely Metallica should be grateful that so many people are copying their music without paying for it. They're rich, afterall. Surely they have no right to ask PAYMENT for their services. How absurd.
What is their attempt to block all these Napster users going to achieve?
1) It will cut down on the number of people illegally copying their music on napster. 2) It suffices as a much better solution than lobbying for legislation.
That they care more about their profits than their fans?
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a real fan go out and buy metallica merchandise to support the band rather than copying their music off the internet?
They want to share music! What's wrong with that?
What's wrong with it is that you enter an agreement when you buy that cd that you will only make 1 copy of it for archival purposes and not distribute it around. Making it available on napster is equivalent to distributing it. There is no verification mechanism to prevent unauthorized people from getting your (publicly available) copy of a copyrighted work.
Don't blame Microsoft because someone can't configure their server properly.
Then why is the motto "news for nerds" and not "news for cmdrtaco"?
Don't blame NT because you're too incompetent to use it.