Twitter posted this exact same post elsewhere in this discussion, got modded down to -1 for it and is now reposting it to try and get some karma. Please don't indulge him.
Hint: it WAS Apple's fault for not properly maintaining their systems, and allowing a virus to propagate. Yes, you can run Windows systems without viruses: for some reason, I would have assumed such a system would be far better maintained than it was.
The media in the UK is, with the exception of maybe three newspapers (The Guardian, The Independent and the Morning Star (which is hardly a major player)) and TV and radio, extremely right wing, with an almost fanatical devotion to "family values". The major newspapers, like the Daily Mail, the Express, the Sun, are extremely able to whip up people into angry, paranoid frenzies against just about anything. And it will happen with Bully.
They'll stomp and cry and scream in their usual way, not for any real purpose or end, not because they think it'll do good, but because it sells newspapers, and then their readers will stomp and cry and scream, and it'll end up with Bully being banned. Joy.
I know you were being sarcastic, but of course not. They wouldn't support anything that stops them from downloading the "shit" (which they so willingly download and consume) the RIAA/MPAA member companies make.
I'm not even going to dignify that post with a response. It's just a straw man with a few other logical fallacies bundled with it.
By the way, in any corporation's ideal world, you would be charged a fee if you even looked at their product. That is the way corporations are. The RIAA would never sink so low, simply because the public backlash would kill them. And it seems the only reason you're against copyright law is because it allows people to charge money for music.
No, you're not right. I am not here to fact check summaries and make them make sense, the submitter and the editors are.
Everybody knows what a volcano is, or what Google is, or what Windows is. What a SlingPlayer is or is not isn't obvious to most people, and the submitter should have made it more clear.
One is patronising. The other is just plain stupid.
There are many, many stupid people out there who are likely to believe in some capacity that avalanche transponders will stop gigantic walls of snow coming down a mountain at high speed. It is for them that the stupid warnings are made.
Given that, in my experience, some people cannot read and obey simple two word signs, it makes a teensy bit of sense.
Taking people to court is not a good business model. They should find a way to make people want to buy the music through them, instead of downloading it.
Taking people to court isn't their fucking business model. I'm utterly sick of reading that it is. Their business model is selling copies of recorded works. Unfortunately, P2P has fucked that up.
If you love the "product" (music) so much, you'd be willing pay for it. Most downloaders don't, they use LimeWire and that is the end of it. The five people on Slashdot who will inevitably pop up and say they buy everything they download are not representative of the millions of people who download.
And no, downloaders are NOT customers. They are consumers, in the worst pejorative use of the term. Shoplifters are not customers (yeah, I know, not stealing, yadayada), no reasonable person would treat them as such.
As has been said elsewhere, the artist, RIAA and lawyers are not the only people who benefit from CD sales. Producers, session musicians, recording technicians etc...they all need to be paid too. And if downloading is more ethical than buying CDs because artists get paid so little, why not pay more than 10 cents? Or is that all an album/song is worth to you?
Britney might be shit and a millionaire, but she still deserves to be paid for her work, just like everybody else. And let's face it, people on Slashdot are hardly likely to be downloading Britney.
That's a different argument entirely. The OP was presenting it as "the RIAA hates digital distribution", not "the RIAA hates un-DRMed digital distribution". Not to mention, eMusic has many RIAA-represented bands' music in non-DRMed MP3 format.
Do you think that producers work for free? Do you think CD duplication plants duplicate CDs for free? Do you seriously think that it's the "poor and underprivileged" who download, considering that one of the requirements for downloading music is a broadband connection and PC, and that people who aren't poor and underprivileged are very likely to download as well? Do you really think you're making any kind of useful point, playing the pirate-semantics game, like always happens when someone uses the dreaded P-word, which has been in common use for centuries?
You sir, are extremely deluded. If you download, or indeed buy and listen to, music, you are not participating in human culture, you are partaking of it. It is the artists who are participating in it, and it is they, those who ask for money in return for their work, who get screwed over the most when people gleefully take their work for free. Downloading devalues culture, if anything, and almost certainly depersonifies music. It presents music as nothing more than a stream of 0s and 1s that can be deleted or created at will and on demand, rather than a work of art which someone created using their own time, skill and effort.
If they had their way we'd still be listening to music on wax spools....Buy the White Album on CD and rip it to the format of your choice, and you'll never have to buy it again (assuming you back up your data)
So they'd want everyone to still be on wax spools, but they want everyone to buy things in new formats. That makes no sense.
You do realise the RIAA etc have nothing against digital distribution, just so long as the record labels and artists that they represent get paid for what people download, don't you? They don't sue Apple, or Napster (the paid download service Napster, that is), or any other online stores.
You're barking up the wrong tree. There's a very big difference between the RIAA opposing digital distribution as whole (which they don't, even if they were certainly late to the game) and the RIAA opposing random, anonymous people distributing the work of the artists they represent for free.
You have a very fucked up definition of "customers". If people don't buy CDs, and instead download them, they're hardly "customers", are they?
They do have a way of making profit; it's called "selling copies of songs". They did it admirably until people worked out how to get songs for free. Just because it's possible to get songs for free, at the complete cost of those who financed and facilitated their production, does not mean that is something the record industry should "adjust" to. Frankly, I think a lot of the hostility towards the RIAA is more people afraid of them pissing on their free music parade.
Slashdot Mirror
I propose we give Sunday on Slashdot a new name. Something like "We've run out of things to post, so here's some old stuff" day.
Jesus christ, if you don't have anything remotely new or interesting to post, don't post anything.
Or just "wp articlename" in the address bar.
I think Debian and Ubuntu's builds of Firefox strip that out, though.
No, he didn't say anything arrogant. However, you just said something stupid.
RMS, the Founding Fathers? You have to be kidding me.
Twitter posted this exact same post elsewhere in this discussion, got modded down to -1 for it and is now reposting it to try and get some karma. Please don't indulge him.
Hint: it WAS Apple's fault for not properly maintaining their systems, and allowing a virus to propagate. Yes, you can run Windows systems without viruses: for some reason, I would have assumed such a system would be far better maintained than it was.
The media in the UK is, with the exception of maybe three newspapers (The Guardian, The Independent and the Morning Star (which is hardly a major player)) and TV and radio, extremely right wing, with an almost fanatical devotion to "family values". The major newspapers, like the Daily Mail, the Express, the Sun, are extremely able to whip up people into angry, paranoid frenzies against just about anything. And it will happen with Bully.
They'll stomp and cry and scream in their usual way, not for any real purpose or end, not because they think it'll do good, but because it sells newspapers, and then their readers will stomp and cry and scream, and it'll end up with Bully being banned. Joy.
Boy do I LOVE living in a tabloidocracy.
I know you were being sarcastic, but of course not. They wouldn't support anything that stops them from downloading the "shit" (which they so willingly download and consume) the RIAA/MPAA member companies make.
I'm not even going to dignify that post with a response. It's just a straw man with a few other logical fallacies bundled with it.
By the way, in any corporation's ideal world, you would be charged a fee if you even looked at their product. That is the way corporations are. The RIAA would never sink so low, simply because the public backlash would kill them. And it seems the only reason you're against copyright law is because it allows people to charge money for music.
No, you're not right. I am not here to fact check summaries and make them make sense, the submitter and the editors are.
Everybody knows what a volcano is, or what Google is, or what Windows is. What a SlingPlayer is or is not isn't obvious to most people, and the submitter should have made it more clear.
One is patronising. The other is just plain stupid.
There are many, many stupid people out there who are likely to believe in some capacity that avalanche transponders will stop gigantic walls of snow coming down a mountain at high speed. It is for them that the stupid warnings are made.
Given that, in my experience, some people cannot read and obey simple two word signs, it makes a teensy bit of sense.
I failed it. :S
I very much doubt OSS will derail the EU software economy. It's barely made a dent in the US one so far...
OK, this article is as clear as mud.
1) What is Sling?
2) What is SlingPlayer?
3) What is special about SlingPlayer?
Someone tell me, please.
BSD's portage
It's ports, not portage. Different system in quite a few fundamental ways.
Yes. Troll. OK.
Maybe you could find a similarly hard object until you realise the meanings of "voluntary" and "contract".
Taking people to court is not a good business model. They should find a way to make people want to buy the music through them, instead of downloading it.
Taking people to court isn't their fucking business model. I'm utterly sick of reading that it is. Their business model is selling copies of recorded works. Unfortunately, P2P has fucked that up.
If you love the "product" (music) so much, you'd be willing pay for it. Most downloaders don't, they use LimeWire and that is the end of it. The five people on Slashdot who will inevitably pop up and say they buy everything they download are not representative of the millions of people who download.
And no, downloaders are NOT customers. They are consumers, in the worst pejorative use of the term. Shoplifters are not customers (yeah, I know, not stealing, yadayada), no reasonable person would treat them as such.
Actually, what they'd really like is if each recording was a one-shot, somehow destroyed in the playback process. That would be just teriffic.
Most industries would love that. They would cream their pants if such a thing were possible. It's not limited to the RIAA.
If contracts are exploitative and unfair, that is the artist's fault for accepting such shitty terms.
As has been said elsewhere, the artist, RIAA and lawyers are not the only people who benefit from CD sales. Producers, session musicians, recording technicians etc...they all need to be paid too. And if downloading is more ethical than buying CDs because artists get paid so little, why not pay more than 10 cents? Or is that all an album/song is worth to you?
Britney might be shit and a millionaire, but she still deserves to be paid for her work, just like everybody else. And let's face it, people on Slashdot are hardly likely to be downloading Britney.
That's a different argument entirely. The OP was presenting it as "the RIAA hates digital distribution", not "the RIAA hates un-DRMed digital distribution". Not to mention, eMusic has many RIAA-represented bands' music in non-DRMed MP3 format.
This, my friend, is bullshit.
Do you think that producers work for free? Do you think CD duplication plants duplicate CDs for free? Do you seriously think that it's the "poor and underprivileged" who download, considering that one of the requirements for downloading music is a broadband connection and PC, and that people who aren't poor and underprivileged are very likely to download as well? Do you really think you're making any kind of useful point, playing the pirate-semantics game, like always happens when someone uses the dreaded P-word, which has been in common use for centuries?
You sir, are extremely deluded. If you download, or indeed buy and listen to, music, you are not participating in human culture, you are partaking of it. It is the artists who are participating in it, and it is they, those who ask for money in return for their work, who get screwed over the most when people gleefully take their work for free. Downloading devalues culture, if anything, and almost certainly depersonifies music. It presents music as nothing more than a stream of 0s and 1s that can be deleted or created at will and on demand, rather than a work of art which someone created using their own time, skill and effort.
I absolutely 100% agree with you. Thank you for putting my views in the clear, concise way that I can't :)
If they had their way we'd still be listening to music on wax spools....Buy the White Album on CD and rip it to the format of your choice, and you'll never have to buy it again (assuming you back up your data)
So they'd want everyone to still be on wax spools, but they want everyone to buy things in new formats. That makes no sense.
You do realise the RIAA etc have nothing against digital distribution, just so long as the record labels and artists that they represent get paid for what people download, don't you? They don't sue Apple, or Napster (the paid download service Napster, that is), or any other online stores.
You're barking up the wrong tree. There's a very big difference between the RIAA opposing digital distribution as whole (which they don't, even if they were certainly late to the game) and the RIAA opposing random, anonymous people distributing the work of the artists they represent for free.
You have a very fucked up definition of "customers". If people don't buy CDs, and instead download them, they're hardly "customers", are they?
They do have a way of making profit; it's called "selling copies of songs". They did it admirably until people worked out how to get songs for free. Just because it's possible to get songs for free, at the complete cost of those who financed and facilitated their production, does not mean that is something the record industry should "adjust" to. Frankly, I think a lot of the hostility towards the RIAA is more people afraid of them pissing on their free music parade.