I have to ask, is the treatment of
"spyware" and "419 scams" only a mention in
the book, or is there some detail given
to these important subjects?
Also, I am technical, too, but I readily
admit to buying and reading "... for
Dummys" series books on many
(including technical) subjects. It's
nice to see a Slashdot review
for this type of book.
Well, another common thread is that most of these scams refer to Nigeria in some form or fashion. In the case of the letter in the article, the 'bank account' that money should be deposited to is:
STANDARD TRUST BANK VICTORIA ISLAND BRANCH LAGOS
If the bank is in Nigeria, the scam is Nigerian, even if the operator of the crime is from Germany, South Africa or South Florida.
Beyond that, I would agree that not all so-called 419 scams originate or route through Nigeria, however - to this day - a fairly high percentage of these scans do originate or route through Nigeria.
I can't wait to see this sort
of scam get baited. They are assuming
you are relatively gullible,
with lots of money...
Subject: Business proposistion
Dear Assassination Corp:
In light of the information you have
provided about a contract on my life,
I would like to propose a counter contract
for the identity and termination of the
person whom has contracted my death.
I couldn't agree more. And you tell them that I.E. is flawed, and shouldn't be used unless behind a coprorate proxy server, etc.
They say, but how do I use the Internet? And you (at least I've done this) hand them Mozilla and say, this is much more secure the I.E.
The statement is true (in fact is still true), but yet - these people aren't using Mozilla because they are aware of issues - it's because I told them to.
If they are stuck with a shell: exploit that hoses their computer, then they may have a worse problem than they've ever seen.
Add to that the lack of "Windows Update" automatic functionality that I.E. and Windows offers, and these expliots will never be fixed.
I'm choosing to chime in late, because you got a lot of fast responses at first. I want you to know that I see "part" of your point.
However, I stand by the word, pro-active, because there is a proactive approach now.
The initial reaction is the common problem (not OSS or Proprietary specific) of "it's not _my_ issue". The issue of problems with the Microsoft Installer that can be expliotable through "arbitrary programs" is a Microsoft issue.
It also happens that Mozilla is one of those "arbitrary programs". The new, pro-active, approach is the realization that security is the problem of every program, regardless of the underlying flaw.
It's also a realization that no project can expect another vendor/project to fix a problem. If a workaround is required to insure security, then that workaround should be made available.
Finally, I'm thinking that the URL scheme issue is not the same as the Installer issue (although they have some similarities).
I fully agree. In fact, even the presense of a "default white-list" is quite exploitable in my eyes.
It would be much better, from my point of view, if - upon a web page embedded object - a dialog would pop-up (from Mozilla) in which the default action is always "no". Then that decision should be persistant until the browser is shut-off or until the user (through bookmark or typing) requests a new web server.
First, Stephen King - some day, will die. Posts like yours will make sure that nobody will ever believe it. We'll have a new Elvis-type phenom on our hands.
Second, The Digital Imprimatur is recommended reading for people that believe Point-to-Point is still feasible. Seriously, it's a better read than anything I could say. Interestingly enough, the author (see link above) wrote a Voice over IP - point-to-point application, too.
I have a response to your leaving F/OSS in my
Journal
I invite anybody to read and reply to it.
--
I would like to also point out that this is also a case of "his issue, not mine", that has been the bane of all software (and much hardware) in both Open and Proprietary shops since the Epoch.
This issue is a vulnerability in a Microsoft technology, that just happens to - also - be accessible through Mozilla. Some people chose to ignore this issue simply because they believed that Microsoft would fix the underlying problem.
Two years later, they are realizing that Microsoft is not prone to attempt to fix this problem - and that something really needs to be done. This is the right direction. Because all security issues are every vendor's/project's problem. Not Microsoft or Mozilla, but both. Now that Mozilla is willing to look at it that way, then, the Mozilla project has made a great stride towards future improvement.
When Mozilla is taking it's development queues from the Microsoft Internet Explorer team, this points to the stinking possibility that the Mozilla team may be loosing it's touch.
I'm quite happy to see that the
Mozilla team is pro-active in fixing
the bugs that could allow MalWare to
install unchecked.
Yet, a base Mozilla 1.7 downloaded
right after release will have this
issue for a very long time. This
situation is worse, in one big way,
than the Internet Explorer issues;
Mozilla users 'feel' safe.
Non-techies that use Mozilla assume
it's 'safe' because a geek once
told them that this is the case.
I've been an Open Source supporter
for quite a long while, but the days
of relative desktop safety for F/OSS
cross-over users is coming to a close.
And, I'm probably not the only
one who "shivers", when reading,
"... almost a carbon copy of the
new Internet Explorer Information
Bar..."
It's a great vision, but in a world where every single computer is expected to have a firewall - Peer-to-Peer computing -- worldwide -- isn't going to happen.
Generally speaking - as far as the actual intruments go - there really hasn't been anything exciting or new in the last 14 years though.
There's new software, and keyboards have more computer intigration, but most boards still come in two basic models - PCM digitized signal processors (and samplers) - or Synthesized Wavelength Processors.
They sound better each year, but those basics haven't changed much.
Yeah - and 1932 was the same year as the mark's own father. He must have forgotten.
Re:Actually, "Clive" is a cut above
on
419 Scam Blow-by-Blow
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
My favorite is that the fake dead investor was born in 1932 (coincidentally the same year as the mark's father), but then -- soon after -- the dead investor is suddenly born in 1930.
Even if you're really stupid... Would you "forget" that the dead investor was born in the same YEAR as your own father????
So, you are basically proposing that there no longer be consumer involvement in the recorded music industry at all.
Let me paint a likely picture for you. Without a consumer economic view - then the only incentives for a 'recording studio' to produce an artist will be for the strict functions of selling commercial air-time, commercial-free radio subscriptions, t-shirts or concert venues. My market only has one radio station that's willing to play 'hard rock' (for instance). They have a pretty low market share, but I suppose the few of us who listen are pretty loyal. The problem is, the don't play 'metal' or 'death metal', none of them play anything hard-core.
Supply and demand, right. Well no. Death-metal CD Sales are no worse here than in any other similar sized city. Hmm. These guys don't get radio play - and if they do (rare) it's usually so "cut" that the song doesn't make sense anymore anyway.
So, crisp and clean music prevails. Like Metallica's Black Album, everyone will be forced to sell out to even consider getting a chance to be noticed. Barry Manilow makes an unnaturally strong come-back. Very recent MTV2 popularity aside, Slayer, has not stayed together for two decades because of enormous popularity brought on through radio play.
Then again, I'm sure as hell not going to send them money if I don't have to. I can't afford that, but I have purchased their most recent CD (still not as good as "Decade of Aggression: Live!").
I love music. I play music. I write music. I know that I will never, ever make a dime doing music. I have other fish to fry. That said, the model of being able to purchase copies of music for personal use makes a lot of sense to me. I see it as the last thing that keeps companies as honest as they are (which, sadly, is not very honest).
You said, "if what you're doing is useful - then somehow, some way, you'll get paid for it." This may be the case, but then again - history shows that the artists will be greatly exploited if laws are not there to protect them. I could see a recording studio saying - "Nope, we can't record that. It won't make us 'radio' royalties because the FCC won't let that get broadcast".
Nope, I really see the "free music" for everybody thing making things worse, and worse... not better. Those who benefit will be those who are willing to play for the corporate types, crisp and clean music only. "Oh baby, baby" and "Oops, I did it again" will be the only path to Stardom.
Saving the industry with 'free', may have worked in 1969 - before mass media ruled everything. Now, I don't see it happening.
It's quite likely that we will be able to see what effects Peer-to-Peer open distribution will ultimately has. I sure hope, for all of our sakes, that you are right, and I am wrong.
Java came out of Sun Labs, but it was written in a vacuum. They had a seaparte office space, and there were not a dozen hands popping in and out saying stupid things like, "you can't do that, that will conflict with my memory management library".
Most corporate labs come up with great ideas that are sqashed before they can mature, simply because somebody else says - ''Yeah, but Internet Explorer already does half of that, why don't you pass your idea to the "Explorer" team.''
Those are the opportunities that are lost daily. That's how Bell Labs came out with so much cool stuff in the late 60s early 70s. They used their R&D budget to let their engineers go nuts. Half of the stuff they worked on had no business in a telecom company, but eventually - these ideas evolved and turned into UNIX and the C language (which 10 years later were used to do telephone switching).
What was not useful was sent to museums or sold to other companies. Microsoft could do this, too. However, they have - so far - chosen not to do this.
"The individual musician needs to be protected frm the RIAA, not P2P."
If that makes you sleep better at night, so be it.
"The musicans don't make money from CD sales."
Yes, they do. From every unit sold. It's pennies per CD, but this is money. And for an Artist that can't fill the concert halls - pennies per CD is still money. Now of course, they don't make any money until the revenue has paid back the record industries initial loan to the artist, but that's another argument entirely.
Dude, if I'm a bar musician and I want to promote my stuff, P2P is not my savior. A web site is. If I dump my stuff on P2P, nobody will grab it if they don't already know my name. If they do know my name, then I'm better off directing them to my web site, where I can also direct these fans to where my next gig is. Peer-to-Peer deprives me of that opportunity.
Your argument up to the Baen Books point boils down to... The Music Industry is already hurting the artists.. why not hurt them more!
Baen Books:
There are several things that contribute to the "publicity" model of books that don't apply to Peer-to-Peer networks at all. First, the publisher chooses to issue the book in a digital format. Second, the publisher lists a "directory of choices". Third, the publisher can use this 'free' service as a promotional tool (facilitated by there being a directory of choices).
Point 1 - many bands have chosen to voluntarily publish music for promotional value, none of them have needed Peer-to-Peer to help them do this. Point 2 and 3 - By the time someone enters a song title or artist name, the promotional part isn't necessary. Go to the artists web site (most have one). If they want to share part of what they do, they will have done so themselves. There is no Peer-to-Peer directory of "what to look for", so there is no promotional use.
The multiple digital music distribution services that have popped up have had some great propotional success. "Featured Artists" pop up with free downloads from time to time, this is great. Peer-to-Peer, on the other hand, has no business distributing copyright materials.
How do you know that? With all the music flying round P2P, finding music will be a service with a value."
Let me turn your question back around. If Peer-to-Peer is the primary form of music distribution, then how will the Song writer get paid?
If Peer-to-Peer is the right way to go, great, but how does a song writer make a living? That's my question. Answer that to my satisfaction, and I'll be more than happy to agree that no-one is going to be hurt.
There are multiple (hundreds) of examples of good, popular songs that were not popular until performed by a different band. There are hundreds of examples of songs that were never performed by the original song-writer. Stephen Bishop(Songs performed by other performers) is one example of this type of song writer.
Here's what I balk at...
Vigilante Economics: If you think that P2P will even put a dent in the pockets of the record executives, you are kidding yourself. Sony Music will always sell televisions, radios, cameras. Music is a drop in their bucket. Seagrams will still sell liquor. AOL Time Warner will always sell magazines, television shows and Internet Access. It becomes unprofitable, they move on. They have other things to do. AND They will still hold the keys to the few profitable outlets left. (Music Videos, Concert Promotion, etc.). Profitable for the promoter, and the performer, but not the writer.
If it's just digital distribution you are talking about, fine. But in order to not effect a song-writer's month-to-month paycheck, said digital distribution has to have some sort of reliable copyright controls.
Am I scared, yes. Scared of people like you who think that nobody will be hurt except the mega-rich record executives.
I couldn't find how the CRTC has been helping musicians, with or without copyright or P-to-P. Thank you for informing me.
It appears that you are saying that the CPCC was behind the "blank digital media tax", and not the CRTC (which I admitted above, and will admit again -- I don't know). Again, thank you for informing me. [Although this action makes it easier to justify P-to-P within Canada, doesn't it?]
I see what you are saying about the CBC promotion of "little artists". Thanks for a great example in "Doctor"... The promotion slant is great to a certain extent - but yet after August 10th (the release date for "High Is As High Gets"), the entire album will be available for download over P2P -- simply because someone will put it on P2P for mass distribution. The promotion is great (if it's controlled) but at the same time that they should see the benefit [release date] instead - they will see their entire album ripped and available. So much for "hungry for more".
As I also said before, what the band wants to give away for free (or promotion) the band will do so. (See link on their site for Music - Audio and Video to see and hear). I'll bet they are offering the exact same three songs that you are getting from P-to-P, except you didn't have to read the rest of their web site. Seriously, Peer-to-Peer isn't doing them any favors.
P-to-P can be a great tool, but total unfettered access to all digital information (whether or not the copyright holder wants it there) is both it's strength and it's problem. What I'm saying is that if all music is freely available through Peer-to-Peer with no "copyright law", this situation will remove the market, period.
"Maybe the new real service will be finding the music that's any good in a sea of mp3s."
Great idea, Billboard will happily adjust to support MP3s if that's the only way for Billboard to stay in business. But Billboard will not be passing out money (not even 'working class' wages) to music writers and performers.
Another important point is that a large amount of music is written by music writers who currently get "working class wages" because of music distribution and copyright law. After you take away distribution accountability, how will the writer get paid? It will no longer matter who wrote the song. The "industry suits" will adjust, they will still get the money. Now they won't have any accountability to have to give any of their money to the "little" people who's shoulders they always have and always will stand upon.
Seriously, P-to-P doesn't help. I don't think it should be banned either, but when it's used for copyright materials, it's not helping anybody.
I don't know about that - some of my favorite Microsoft innovations... the Microsoft Mouse (the kidney shape mouse, the tracker mouse, the x-y axis modification available in the intelliPoint software) was a great Microsoft innovation. I know several people who still swear by the Microsoft Split Keyboard.
Kidding aside, once upon a time, they were a company that wrote language compilers, and MASM, is still the standard that other assembly compilers are compared to today. GW Basic, was quite innovative, a welcome departure from the standard BASIC language.
It could be argued too that Sun's greatest innovations were in hardware, before Java. And the closed doors/hands off policy to the Java team paid off quite well. That's my point. Don't tie someone down to what is... just let them loose.
Now excuse me while I continue using my Linux desktop.
The Folkways program was an entirely private (though non-profit) enterprise founded in 1948, and was given to the Smithsonian Institute after the Folkway's Founder's death. The Folkways program has been part of the Smithsonian family of non-profit art/grant programs since 1987.
The Folkways company came into the United State's governments care the same way the Smithsonian Institute did in 1846. The beginnings of the Smithsonian Institute was a stipulation of the will of a rich scientist named Smithson. It has been run as a "public trust" by a board of regents (like most public Universities), since it's inception. The Smithsonian Institute is allowed to sell things and solicit funds, just like a University (or the US Post Office, for that matter).
Basically, I wouldn't say that selling albums is strictly what the 'government of the U.S.' is doing here. There is a relationship between the two, but not directly... If the FCC (strictly a government department, and not a separate entity) were to sell albums directly, then we'd have a similarity to the CRTC issue that I was answering.
The article seems to imply that Microsoft needs to find a new and interesting way to innovate.
Seems to me that Sun led the way back in the early 1990s when they developed Java. Take 1 really talented software engineer, and give him something to work on. Allow him to pick 5 to 10 other talented people, and sequester them from the rest of the company for 1 year.
At Microsoft's level, they can probably afford to do this with 20 or 30 such groups in parallel working on the same or similar ideas.
After a year, dump the projects that are not going well, and refocus those groups on other ideas. Innovation is rarely done by large commitees.
As has been noted in several discussions here, Slashdot is slighly more libertarian than "democratic", although it's fun to bash George and Dick. I know several conservative Republicans that don't understand how Dick got away with handing all of these huge contracts to Haliburton (his former company) without an open bid process. Though they are also quick to point out that all of the contracts since have been under an open bid process since, and Halliburton has still been winning most of these bids.
Orrin Hatch is a well known (and strangely, well respected) member of congress, and he gives convincing arguments (assuming you don't know the subject matter either). I don't blame him or any other senator for introducing such a bill (someone would have done it -- [[again, Orrin Hatch has a history of introducing well intentioned, but not well thought out bills]]). I'm just appaulled that this bill will likely get floor time.
Afterall, bad bills get introduced all the time. When a bad bill get's seriously considered, put up for a vote and (god forbid) passed... that's when something is broken.
And you're right, I mention "Republican gun" interests, simply because in my mind it draws a simple parallel, not because I specifically believe that Republican gun interests are behind the bill. I'd say even more strongly that this type of bill, if passed, would make a convincing argument for stronger gun control laws in the future (making it more advantageous to the democratic bleeding-heart liberals).
For myself, I generally don't trust politicians in groups. Each one, alone, can do little harm - and most of them are genuinely concerned and intelligent people. Politicians in groups are a dangerous lot that too often suffer from "group-think", regardless of the ever-fading ''party line''.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to ask, is the treatment of "spyware" and "419 scams" only a mention in the book, or is there some detail given to these important subjects?
Also, I am technical, too, but I readily admit to buying and reading "... for Dummys" series books on many (including technical) subjects. It's nice to see a Slashdot review for this type of book.
STANDARD TRUST BANK VICTORIA ISLAND BRANCH LAGOS
If the bank is in Nigeria, the scam is Nigerian, even if the operator of the crime is from Germany, South Africa or South Florida.
Beyond that, I would agree that not all so-called 419 scams originate or route through Nigeria, however - to this day - a fairly high percentage of these scans do originate or route through Nigeria.
Let the bidding war begin!
They say, but how do I use the Internet? And you (at least I've done this) hand them Mozilla and say, this is much more secure the I.E.
The statement is true (in fact is still true), but yet - these people aren't using Mozilla because they are aware of issues - it's because I told them to.
If they are stuck with a shell: exploit that hoses their computer, then they may have a worse problem than they've ever seen.
Add to that the lack of "Windows Update" automatic functionality that I.E. and Windows offers, and these expliots will never be fixed.
However, I stand by the word, pro-active, because there is a proactive approach now.
The initial reaction is the common problem (not OSS or Proprietary specific) of "it's not _my_ issue". The issue of problems with the Microsoft Installer that can be expliotable through "arbitrary programs" is a Microsoft issue.
It also happens that Mozilla is one of those "arbitrary programs". The new, pro-active, approach is the realization that security is the problem of every program, regardless of the underlying flaw.
It's also a realization that no project can expect another vendor/project to fix a problem. If a workaround is required to insure security, then that workaround should be made available.
Finally, I'm thinking that the URL scheme issue is not the same as the Installer issue (although they have some similarities).
It would be much better, from my point of view, if - upon a web page embedded object - a dialog would pop-up (from Mozilla) in which the default action is always "no". Then that decision should be persistant until the browser is shut-off or until the user (through bookmark or typing) requests a new web server.
Second, The Digital Imprimatur is recommended reading for people that believe Point-to-Point is still feasible. Seriously, it's a better read than anything I could say. Interestingly enough, the author (see link above) wrote a Voice over IP - point-to-point application, too.
I have a response to your leaving F/OSS in my Journal
I invite anybody to read and reply to it.
--
I would like to also point out that this is also a case of "his issue, not mine", that has been the bane of all software (and much hardware) in both Open and Proprietary shops since the Epoch.
This issue is a vulnerability in a Microsoft technology, that just happens to - also - be accessible through Mozilla. Some people chose to ignore this issue simply because they believed that Microsoft would fix the underlying problem.
Two years later, they are realizing that Microsoft is not prone to attempt to fix this problem - and that something really needs to be done. This is the right direction. Because all security issues are every vendor's/project's problem. Not Microsoft or Mozilla, but both. Now that Mozilla is willing to look at it that way, then, the Mozilla project has made a great stride towards future improvement.
When Mozilla is taking it's development queues from the Microsoft Internet Explorer team, this points to the stinking possibility that the Mozilla team may be loosing it's touch.
I'm quite happy to see that the Mozilla team is pro-active in fixing the bugs that could allow MalWare to install unchecked.
Yet, a base Mozilla 1.7 downloaded right after release will have this issue for a very long time. This situation is worse, in one big way, than the Internet Explorer issues; Mozilla users 'feel' safe. Non-techies that use Mozilla assume it's 'safe' because a geek once told them that this is the case.
I've been an Open Source supporter for quite a long while, but the days of relative desktop safety for F/OSS cross-over users is coming to a close.
And, I'm probably not the only one who "shivers", when reading, "... almost a carbon copy of the new Internet Explorer Information Bar ..."
There's no way to defend that.
It's a great vision, but in a world where every single computer is expected to have a firewall - Peer-to-Peer computing -- worldwide -- isn't going to happen.
There's new software, and keyboards have more computer intigration, but most boards still come in two basic models - PCM digitized signal processors (and samplers) - or Synthesized Wavelength Processors.
They sound better each year, but those basics haven't changed much.
Yeah - and 1932 was the same year as the mark's own father. He must have forgotten.
Even if you're really stupid... Would you "forget" that the dead investor was born in the same YEAR as your own father????
Let me paint a likely picture for you. Without a consumer economic view - then the only incentives for a 'recording studio' to produce an artist will be for the strict functions of selling commercial air-time, commercial-free radio subscriptions, t-shirts or concert venues. My market only has one radio station that's willing to play 'hard rock' (for instance). They have a pretty low market share, but I suppose the few of us who listen are pretty loyal. The problem is, the don't play 'metal' or 'death metal', none of them play anything hard-core.
Supply and demand, right. Well no. Death-metal CD Sales are no worse here than in any other similar sized city. Hmm. These guys don't get radio play - and if they do (rare) it's usually so "cut" that the song doesn't make sense anymore anyway.
So, crisp and clean music prevails. Like Metallica's Black Album, everyone will be forced to sell out to even consider getting a chance to be noticed. Barry Manilow makes an unnaturally strong come-back. Very recent MTV2 popularity aside, Slayer, has not stayed together for two decades because of enormous popularity brought on through radio play.
Then again, I'm sure as hell not going to send them money if I don't have to. I can't afford that, but I have purchased their most recent CD (still not as good as "Decade of Aggression: Live!").
I love music. I play music. I write music. I know that I will never, ever make a dime doing music. I have other fish to fry. That said, the model of being able to purchase copies of music for personal use makes a lot of sense to me. I see it as the last thing that keeps companies as honest as they are (which, sadly, is not very honest).
You said, "if what you're doing is useful - then somehow, some way, you'll get paid for it." This may be the case, but then again - history shows that the artists will be greatly exploited if laws are not there to protect them. I could see a recording studio saying - "Nope, we can't record that. It won't make us 'radio' royalties because the FCC won't let that get broadcast".
Nope, I really see the "free music" for everybody thing making things worse, and worse ... not better. Those who benefit will be those who are willing to play for the corporate types, crisp and clean music only. "Oh baby, baby" and "Oops, I did it again" will be the only path to Stardom.
Saving the industry with 'free', may have worked in 1969 - before mass media ruled everything. Now, I don't see it happening.
It's quite likely that we will be able to see what effects Peer-to-Peer open distribution will ultimately has. I sure hope, for all of our sakes, that you are right, and I am wrong.
Most corporate labs come up with great ideas that are sqashed before they can mature, simply because somebody else says - ''Yeah, but Internet Explorer already does half of that, why don't you pass your idea to the "Explorer" team.''
Those are the opportunities that are lost daily. That's how Bell Labs came out with so much cool stuff in the late 60s early 70s. They used their R&D budget to let their engineers go nuts. Half of the stuff they worked on had no business in a telecom company, but eventually - these ideas evolved and turned into UNIX and the C language (which 10 years later were used to do telephone switching).
What was not useful was sent to museums or sold to other companies. Microsoft could do this, too. However, they have - so far - chosen not to do this.
If that makes you sleep better at night, so be it.
Yes, they do. From every unit sold. It's pennies per CD, but this is money. And for an Artist that can't fill the concert halls - pennies per CD is still money. Now of course, they don't make any money until the revenue has paid back the record industries initial loan to the artist, but that's another argument entirely.
Dude, if I'm a bar musician and I want to promote my stuff, P2P is not my savior. A web site is. If I dump my stuff on P2P, nobody will grab it if they don't already know my name. If they do know my name, then I'm better off directing them to my web site, where I can also direct these fans to where my next gig is. Peer-to-Peer deprives me of that opportunity. Your argument up to the Baen Books point boils down to... The Music Industry is already hurting the artists.. why not hurt them more!
Baen Books:
There are several things that contribute to the "publicity" model of books that don't apply to Peer-to-Peer networks at all. First, the publisher chooses to issue the book in a digital format. Second, the publisher lists a "directory of choices". Third, the publisher can use this 'free' service as a promotional tool (facilitated by there being a directory of choices).
Point 1 - many bands have chosen to voluntarily publish music for promotional value, none of them have needed Peer-to-Peer to help them do this. Point 2 and 3 - By the time someone enters a song title or artist name, the promotional part isn't necessary. Go to the artists web site (most have one). If they want to share part of what they do, they will have done so themselves. There is no Peer-to-Peer directory of "what to look for", so there is no promotional use.
The multiple digital music distribution services that have popped up have had some great propotional success. "Featured Artists" pop up with free downloads from time to time, this is great. Peer-to-Peer, on the other hand, has no business distributing copyright materials.
If Peer-to-Peer is the right way to go, great, but how does a song writer make a living? That's my question. Answer that to my satisfaction, and I'll be more than happy to agree that no-one is going to be hurt.
There are multiple (hundreds) of examples of good, popular songs that were not popular until performed by a different band. There are hundreds of examples of songs that were never performed by the original song-writer. Stephen Bishop (Songs performed by other performers) is one example of this type of song writer.
Here's what I balk at...
Vigilante Economics: If you think that P2P will even put a dent in the pockets of the record executives, you are kidding yourself. Sony Music will always sell televisions, radios, cameras. Music is a drop in their bucket. Seagrams will still sell liquor. AOL Time Warner will always sell magazines, television shows and Internet Access. It becomes unprofitable, they move on. They have other things to do. AND They will still hold the keys to the few profitable outlets left. (Music Videos, Concert Promotion, etc.). Profitable for the promoter, and the performer, but not the writer.
If it's just digital distribution you are talking about, fine. But in order to not effect a song-writer's month-to-month paycheck, said digital distribution has to have some sort of reliable copyright controls.
Am I scared, yes. Scared of people like you who think that nobody will be hurt except the mega-rich record executives.
It appears that you are saying that the CPCC was behind the "blank digital media tax", and not the CRTC (which I admitted above, and will admit again -- I don't know). Again, thank you for informing me. [Although this action makes it easier to justify P-to-P within Canada, doesn't it?]
I see what you are saying about the CBC promotion of "little artists". Thanks for a great example in "Doctor" ... The promotion slant is great to a certain extent - but yet after August 10th (the release date for "High Is As High Gets"), the entire album will be available for download over P2P -- simply because someone will put it on P2P for mass distribution. The promotion is great (if it's controlled) but at the same time that they should see the benefit [release date] instead - they will see their entire album ripped and available. So much for "hungry for more".
As I also said before, what the band wants to give away for free (or promotion) the band will do so. (See link on their site for Music - Audio and Video to see and hear). I'll bet they are offering the exact same three songs that you are getting from P-to-P, except you didn't have to read the rest of their web site. Seriously, Peer-to-Peer isn't doing them any favors.
P-to-P can be a great tool, but total unfettered access to all digital information (whether or not the copyright holder wants it there) is both it's strength and it's problem. What I'm saying is that if all music is freely available through Peer-to-Peer with no "copyright law", this situation will remove the market, period.
Great idea, Billboard will happily adjust to support MP3s if that's the only way for Billboard to stay in business. But Billboard will not be passing out money (not even 'working class' wages) to music writers and performers.Another important point is that a large amount of music is written by music writers who currently get "working class wages" because of music distribution and copyright law. After you take away distribution accountability, how will the writer get paid? It will no longer matter who wrote the song. The "industry suits" will adjust, they will still get the money. Now they won't have any accountability to have to give any of their money to the "little" people who's shoulders they always have and always will stand upon.
Seriously, P-to-P doesn't help. I don't think it should be banned either, but when it's used for copyright materials, it's not helping anybody.
Innovation requires being removed from such restraints. ...Coming up with something that's actually new.
Kidding aside, once upon a time, they were a company that wrote language compilers, and MASM, is still the standard that other assembly compilers are compared to today. GW Basic, was quite innovative, a welcome departure from the standard BASIC language.
It could be argued too that Sun's greatest innovations were in hardware, before Java. And the closed doors/hands off policy to the Java team paid off quite well. That's my point. Don't tie someone down to what is... just let them loose.
Now excuse me while I continue using my Linux desktop.
The Folkways program was an entirely private (though non-profit) enterprise founded in 1948, and was given to the Smithsonian Institute after the Folkway's Founder's death. The Folkways program has been part of the Smithsonian family of non-profit art/grant programs since 1987.
The Folkways company came into the United State's governments care the same way the Smithsonian Institute did in 1846. The beginnings of the Smithsonian Institute was a stipulation of the will of a rich scientist named Smithson. It has been run as a "public trust" by a board of regents (like most public Universities), since it's inception. The Smithsonian Institute is allowed to sell things and solicit funds, just like a University (or the US Post Office, for that matter).
Basically, I wouldn't say that selling albums is strictly what the 'government of the U.S.' is doing here. There is a relationship between the two, but not directly... If the FCC (strictly a government department, and not a separate entity) were to sell albums directly, then we'd have a similarity to the CRTC issue that I was answering.
Seems to me that Sun led the way back in the early 1990s when they developed Java. Take 1 really talented software engineer, and give him something to work on. Allow him to pick 5 to 10 other talented people, and sequester them from the rest of the company for 1 year.
At Microsoft's level, they can probably afford to do this with 20 or 30 such groups in parallel working on the same or similar ideas.
After a year, dump the projects that are not going well, and refocus those groups on other ideas. Innovation is rarely done by large commitees.
Orrin Hatch is a well known (and strangely, well respected) member of congress, and he gives convincing arguments (assuming you don't know the subject matter either). I don't blame him or any other senator for introducing such a bill (someone would have done it -- [[again, Orrin Hatch has a history of introducing well intentioned, but not well thought out bills]]). I'm just appaulled that this bill will likely get floor time.
Afterall, bad bills get introduced all the time. When a bad bill get's seriously considered, put up for a vote and (god forbid) passed... that's when something is broken.
And you're right, I mention "Republican gun" interests, simply because in my mind it draws a simple parallel, not because I specifically believe that Republican gun interests are behind the bill. I'd say even more strongly that this type of bill, if passed, would make a convincing argument for stronger gun control laws in the future (making it more advantageous to the democratic bleeding-heart liberals).
For myself, I generally don't trust politicians in groups. Each one, alone, can do little harm - and most of them are genuinely concerned and intelligent people. Politicians in groups are a dangerous lot that too often suffer from "group-think", regardless of the ever-fading ''party line''.