True, but I think it's only a matter of time before they go after downloaders. Right now, many people think those being sued are downloaders. Once the average downloader realizes that he's not being targetted, the RIAA will have to make some examples of them.
I believe it was Maxim that printed a breakdown of where the money from a $20 CD goes. According to the blurb, about 50% goes to the retailer with another big chunk going to the executives/producers/management and something like 5% actually goes to the artist. Courtney Love, in one of her rare coherent moments, said something along the same lines. DMX is leaving the music business because he hates the fact that the recording companies own his music and he can't so much as use his music without their permission (even DMX would be guilty of piracy for downloading his own MP3s).
If you ask me, the biggest pirates are the executives. Litigating consumers is just a way of deflecting attention from the fact that consumers are tired of getting ripped off for buying $20 CDs worth only $2 and that the studio executives are worried about losing their profits. The real victims in the litigation are the artists.
I'm interested to see what happens when the RIAA sues a downloader who happens to have already purchased the CDs of the songs he is downloading -- which, in my opinion, would give him a right to those songs since he's already purchased them.
For me personally, I've sometimes downloaded songs from CDs I because 1) it's sometimes faster than ripping it myself, 2) the CD is scratched or broken, or 3) I still have the case but the CD itself was stolen. Would downloading an MP3 of a song from a CD I rightfully purchased make me a pirate?
Though there aren't many in the world, targeting high-outbound connections would effectively shut down Anonymous Remailer servers, of which many are privately run from private residences. Anonymous Remailers churn out thousands of real and spoofed messages around the clock. (Spoofed messages are used to prevent traffic analysis by sending real encrypted messages in groups that mostly contain encrypted spoofed messages).
I wish we could use open source management. The problem with proprietary management is the same as software: overpriced, bloated, slow and full of bugs.
As a consultant, I've spent a great deal of time at some corporate dinosaurs and they all seem to be bogged down by the same ineffective, self-important conventional idiots. I won't name companies, but be weary of the cars you drive...
Before we know it they'll be charging $20 for a couple of good songs and an album full of bundled crap. Gosh, if that horrid day ever comes I think disillusioned consumers may turn to piracy to get their hands on only the songs they want.
Weighing 94 pounds and having the ability to encompass a person's head in an airtight chamber for over an hour, I see this as a great immobilization and silencing device -- the perfect virtual babysitter for obnoxious kids!
A close friend of mine is an astronomer in Arizona and her primary means of gathering data is the Hubble. She recently accepted a position in Colorado to continue her work with Hubble data and a new instrument called COS planned to be placed on Hubble. Since NASA's announcement, though, the COS portion of the project has been put on hold and COS funding has lost about $1 million.
A bipartisan resolution was recently introduced in Congress to save the Hubble, a move highly supported by the Mars Society. I don't think NASA needs to be the sole financial basis for maintaining the Hubble, however. The telescope is valuable enough to private research facilities -- and still a viable platform for upgrades -- that the primary source of funding could come from them.
I took an investment class a couple of semesters ago and the textbook cost $120 brand new. With a resale value of about half that, the book itself was a terrible investment.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but I think it's only a matter of time before they go after downloaders. Right now, many people think those being sued are downloaders. Once the average downloader realizes that he's not being targetted, the RIAA will have to make some examples of them.
I believe it was Maxim that printed a breakdown of where the money from a $20 CD goes. According to the blurb, about 50% goes to the retailer with another big chunk going to the executives/producers/management and something like 5% actually goes to the artist. Courtney Love, in one of her rare coherent moments, said something along the same lines. DMX is leaving the music business because he hates the fact that the recording companies own his music and he can't so much as use his music without their permission (even DMX would be guilty of piracy for downloading his own MP3s).
If you ask me, the biggest pirates are the executives. Litigating consumers is just a way of deflecting attention from the fact that consumers are tired of getting ripped off for buying $20 CDs worth only $2 and that the studio executives are worried about losing their profits. The real victims in the litigation are the artists.
I'm interested to see what happens when the RIAA sues a downloader who happens to have already purchased the CDs of the songs he is downloading -- which, in my opinion, would give him a right to those songs since he's already purchased them.
For me personally, I've sometimes downloaded songs from CDs I because 1) it's sometimes faster than ripping it myself, 2) the CD is scratched or broken, or 3) I still have the case but the CD itself was stolen. Would downloading an MP3 of a song from a CD I rightfully purchased make me a pirate?
Though there aren't many in the world, targeting high-outbound connections would effectively shut down Anonymous Remailer servers, of which many are privately run from private residences. Anonymous Remailers churn out thousands of real and spoofed messages around the clock. (Spoofed messages are used to prevent traffic analysis by sending real encrypted messages in groups that mostly contain encrypted spoofed messages).
I wish we could use open source management. The problem with proprietary management is the same as software: overpriced, bloated, slow and full of bugs. As a consultant, I've spent a great deal of time at some corporate dinosaurs and they all seem to be bogged down by the same ineffective, self-important conventional idiots. I won't name companies, but be weary of the cars you drive...
Before we know it they'll be charging $20 for a couple of good songs and an album full of bundled crap. Gosh, if that horrid day ever comes I think disillusioned consumers may turn to piracy to get their hands on only the songs they want.
Weighing 94 pounds and having the ability to encompass a person's head in an airtight chamber for over an hour, I see this as a great immobilization and silencing device -- the perfect virtual babysitter for obnoxious kids!
It goes underwater, too??
A close friend of mine is an astronomer in Arizona and her primary means of gathering data is the Hubble. She recently accepted a position in Colorado to continue her work with Hubble data and a new instrument called COS planned to be placed on Hubble. Since NASA's announcement, though, the COS portion of the project has been put on hold and COS funding has lost about $1 million.
A bipartisan resolution was recently introduced in Congress to save the Hubble, a move highly supported by the Mars Society. I don't think NASA needs to be the sole financial basis for maintaining the Hubble, however. The telescope is valuable enough to private research facilities -- and still a viable platform for upgrades -- that the primary source of funding could come from them.
I took an investment class a couple of semesters ago and the textbook cost $120 brand new. With a resale value of about half that, the book itself was a terrible investment.