The money goes to the CPCC, a non-profit agency. Most of the money is redistributed to songwriters and recording artists. Some goes to record labels. None goes directly to the CRIA. Sorry, I was generalizing. Should have said the people the CRIA represents.
Not correct. Canadian law currently says that you can download copyrighted music in some cases, and there is a levy paid to the CPCC on recordable media. These are independent facts. You do not have a socialized music industry. Your health care system works somewhat like this (you can get free health care because you pay taxes) but there's no similar corelation in the music industry.
You're not the first Canadian to come to this incorrect conclusion, however. They are not independant facts. That same CPCC you know of released an opinion a year or so ago saying that downloading ought to be legal, because it is private copying and thus covered by the levy. The courts later agreed, and added that placing music in a shared folder is essentially like placing a photocopier in a library, and hence is legal as well.
It is LEGAL to download music off the Internet It is LEGAL to place music files in a shared folder (a la. Kazaa, and most other file swapping programs).
Programs that require you to upload while downloading (like BT, eDonkey) are not necessarily legal, however.
Why is Videotron turning over private information about what I legally do with my internet connection? I smell a lawsuit coming against Videotron..
(from the article) "Piracy of music, piracy of TV, piracy of film -- it's all the same. It's piracy of intellectual property and cultural products," Mr. Sasseville said Thursday from his office in Montreal. "Nobody gets paid. Not only the big companies but also the creators. It's really important that we protect our culture." NO IT'S NOT. The difference is we Canadians PAY the CRIA for EVERY SINGLE BLANK DISK WE BUY, WHETHER IT IS TO BE USED FOR MUSIC OR NOT. That's why we have the right to share music. The recording industry wants to have it both ways. I say, they can have the levy, or they can have music downloading illegal.. pick one. I don't particularily care which.
This is the same site that called a Microsoft representitive the "spokesvole".
The article complains that Anandtech (it's obvious for anyone who read the review in question) doesn't use any gaming benchmarks.
Well, take a closer look.. the article is called Intel Dual Core Performance Preview Part I: First Encounter very conveniently, (and completely expected, as well..) Anand posted the second part today, which included the gaming benchmarks we all expect.
Rewriting the GPL implementation of MS's protocols so you can use them in your proprietary product would not be significantly more difficult (in fact, it might be easier, depending on how well the GPL implementation is written ) than licensing the protocol from MS and getting their documentation to write your implementation.
And, as you rightfully point out, any other GPL apps can use this implementation without getting a license from Microsoft.. which is clearly not in MS's best interests.
Because if MS licenses their protocol to one GPL product, they're essentially giving up all license fees to any further companies who would want to use MS's protocols.. why buy a license from MS when you can just use the GPL implementation for free?
Remember that the ruling did NOT say MS must give away their IP for free, only that they license it on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis.
MS is right to be wary about giving away their intellectual property without appropriate compensation.
If I'm not free (as in freedom) to create a commercial product based on GPL code, without being forced to reveal my source code.. is GPL software really "free" (freedom) software? I think not.
Visiting this site on IE does not bring up tbe dialog where the user can be a user (read: an idiot).. it just doesn't run.
"So far, so good. Using IE, nothing is getting through. And using Firefox to browse will keep me totally secure, yes?......well, not exactly. Visit the same page in FF and, with the JRE up and running, the below happens"
"There has to be some standard of decency," he said. But he also cautioned that "No one wants censorship."
Umm.. newsflash, Mr. Senator.. your "standard of decency" (which is almost certainly different than mine, or anyone elses for that matter), IS censorship.
The point is, there are people who want to watch the content you deem "indecent", and they should not be restricted from doing so. "Land of the free", remember?
Yes, but that is besides the point. I highly doubt that the MacOS version of Office runs under Wine (if it does, then I'm underestimating the capabilities of it..).. so all of the people complaining about Office not running under WINE are running the Windows version of it.
Slashdot Mirror
nt
The money goes to the CPCC, a non-profit agency. Most of the money is redistributed to songwriters and recording artists. Some goes to record labels. None goes directly to the CRIA.
:->
Sorry, I was generalizing. Should have said the people the CRIA represents.
Not correct. Canadian law currently says that you can download copyrighted music in some cases, and there is a levy paid to the CPCC on recordable media. These are independent facts. You do not have a socialized music industry. Your health care system works somewhat like this (you can get free health care because you pay taxes) but there's no similar corelation in the music industry.
You're not the first Canadian to come to this incorrect conclusion, however.
They are not independant facts. That same CPCC you know of released an opinion a year or so ago saying that downloading ought to be legal, because it is private copying and thus covered by the levy. The courts later agreed, and added that placing music in a shared folder is essentially like placing a photocopier in a library, and hence is legal as well.
IANAL, but I know my facts
It is LEGAL to download music off the Internet
It is LEGAL to place music files in a shared folder (a la. Kazaa, and most other file swapping programs).
Programs that require you to upload while downloading (like BT, eDonkey) are not necessarily legal, however.
Why is Videotron turning over private information about what I legally do with my internet connection? I smell a lawsuit coming against Videotron..
(from the article)
"Piracy of music, piracy of TV, piracy of film -- it's all the same. It's piracy of intellectual property and cultural products," Mr. Sasseville said Thursday from his office in Montreal. "Nobody gets paid. Not only the big companies but also the creators. It's really important that we protect our culture."
NO IT'S NOT. The difference is we Canadians PAY the CRIA for EVERY SINGLE BLANK DISK WE BUY, WHETHER IT IS TO BE USED FOR MUSIC OR NOT. That's why we have the right to share music. The recording industry wants to have it both ways. I say, they can have the levy, or they can have music downloading illegal.. pick one. I don't particularily care which.
How to adblock the google ads.
Any ideas?
I dunno, coast guard?
With Walmart getting into the computer business, and all..
http://www.ppt.gc.ca/
It has none.
This is the same site that called a Microsoft representitive the "spokesvole".
The article complains that Anandtech (it's obvious for anyone who read the review in question) doesn't use any gaming benchmarks.
Well, take a closer look.. the article is called Intel Dual Core Performance Preview Part I: First Encounter
very conveniently, (and completely expected, as well..) Anand posted the second part today, which included the gaming benchmarks we all expect.
Way to troll Inquirer writer, way to troll..
So now I'll need to get a passport - which costs $87, and must be renewed every 5 years - just to cross the border??!
Uhm.. no thanks. I think I'll just stay at home.
It provides a complete text-mode Gentoo environment
/.ed)
Useless.
(And no, I didn't RTFA, TFA is
automatically be modded as a troll.
"Spokesvole"?! Oh, puh-leaze.
Good objective journalism there! Yup.
that was a completely objective article, with no hint of bias anywhere. ..
can my slashdot mod powers mod that story as a troll?
Rewriting the GPL implementation of MS's protocols so you can use them in your proprietary product would not be significantly more difficult (in fact, it might be easier, depending on how well the GPL implementation is written ) than licensing the protocol from MS and getting their documentation to write your implementation.
And, as you rightfully point out, any other GPL apps can use this implementation without getting a license from Microsoft.. which is clearly not in MS's best interests.
Because if MS licenses their protocol to one GPL product, they're essentially giving up all license fees to any further companies who would want to use MS's protocols.. why buy a license from MS when you can just use the GPL implementation for free?
Remember that the ruling did NOT say MS must give away their IP for free, only that they license it on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis.
MS is right to be wary about giving away their intellectual property without appropriate compensation.
Picture quality of today's DVDs is just fine, IMHO..
and I want them back!
The preciouses is ourses!
You're damn right I'll have opening night seats..
If I'm not free (as in freedom) to create a commercial product based on GPL code, without being forced to reveal my source code.. is GPL software really "free" (freedom) software? I think not.
BSD is a much "freer" license.
Visiting this site on IE does not bring up tbe dialog where the user can be a user (read: an idiot).. it just doesn't run.
...well, not exactly. Visit the same page in FF and, with the JRE up and running, the below happens"
"So far, so good. Using IE, nothing is getting through. And using Firefox to browse will keep me totally secure, yes?...
So, in this case, IE is more secure than FF.
"There has to be some standard of decency," he said. But he also cautioned that "No one wants censorship."
Umm.. newsflash, Mr. Senator.. your "standard of decency" (which is almost certainly different than mine, or anyone elses for that matter), IS censorship.
The point is, there are people who want to watch the content you deem "indecent", and they should not be restricted from doing so. "Land of the free", remember?
.. :->
just like Apple did with Real's "hack" to allow their songs to work on the iPod?
What's good for the goose..
Yes, but that is besides the point. I highly doubt that the MacOS version of Office runs under Wine (if it does, then I'm underestimating the capabilities of it..).. so all of the people complaining about Office not running under WINE are running the Windows version of it.
Microsoft Windows.
If you don't have it, why do you expect Office should run?
Still, this needs to be looked at closely by antitrust regulators..
Damn.. now I'm going to have that theme song in my head all day.. :->
When there's something weird,
and it don't look good
Who ya gonna call?
MI-CRO-SOFT??! (Wait..)
I mean, I'm completely against software piracy.. but this is simply crossing the line.