You may think it is all about getting something for nothing. Some people think fair use is all about getting something for nothing. Neither is the case.
I don't really think "fair use" comes into the P2P equation at all. Downloading/uploading whole songs, movies or albums certainly doesn't come under fair use whatsoever. If anything the debate over DRM is the right place for discussion of fair use.
Re:Don't Understand?
on
Steal This Film
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You call it stealing. I call it instantaneous price repair.
I call it "a bullshit excuse for being a cheapskate". Just because you don't agree with the price for something doesn't give you a license to steal/P2P it (I expect the usual hundred responses talking about how "copyright infringement isn't stealing", and it isn't. I know that. It's just a useful shorthand. Give it a rest.)
You do not NEED major label music, big name films or anything like that. If you cannot afford it, don't buy it. Listen to the radio or watch TV. Download from PeopleSound or listen to bands on MySpace or something. You're not entitled to anything.
Also, you're assuming that people download stuff out of financial necessity. Most don't. They download stuff because they know it's free, and they'd rather download a song off P2P for free than pay 99 cents/79p for the same song off iTunes. Seriously, it's not out of protest against the music industry for prices or DRM or rootkits, it's more like "hey! free stuff!".
These people aren't defending P2P file sharing one little bit. They're defending downloading copyrighted works illegally, and there's a very big gulf between the two.
The summary talks about how "old media" (gotta love that, I presume making shit for no reward is "new media") have a problem with P2P because it's a threat to their livelihood. Well, really, wouldn't you? Of COURSE it's a threat to their livelihood, of COURSE they're not going to stand up and say "YES, it's absolutely A-OK for people to leech our stuff off P2P".
The filmmakers seem to belong to that immature camp of P2P defenders who go on like "We found this neat way of getting stuff we used to have to pay for for free, but now THE MAN doesn't want that, so they're spoiling our party" and consider it a form of protest against record companies if they download music. If they really wanted to hurt the RIAA they'd spread the word about decent non-RIAA bands and simply not download or buy any RIAA music, rather than go on about their supposed rights to infringe other peoples' rights.
I predict that Ubuntu is about to become "cool" and take off in the same way Firefox did. It will happen sooner or later.
Firefox is a web browser, which requires minimal upheaval to change on a normal person's system. You run the installer, you can import your bookmarks and history over with another click. Done.
Ubuntu is a whole operating system, which requires backing up data, repartitioning data and various other tasks which the average home user would have a ridiculously hard time doing. Not gonna happen any time soon, I'm afraid.
First of all, since when is discrimination okay as long as you are only discriminating against a minority?
It's a business decision, basically. Linux's multimedia support is, sadly, pisspoor...they'd have a hard time troubleshooting it.
No, changing the useragent string DOES work! This is plain and simple discrimination against anyone using software that isn't from Microsoft/Apple.
Whereas using Ogg would be discriminating against the majority of people that have no idea what an Ogg is, let alone a Vorbis or a Theora, or how to play it. It's not nice, but the NYT have to make some tradeoffs when implementing video. I'd reckon that giving the tiny percentage of users using Linux and its horribly horribly broken Flash plugin the finger is worth it to them if it lets things work for the other 99% of people.
Re:If I am the copyright owner
on
30 Days of DRM
·
· Score: 1
Two things:
1) Vista's PVP only applies to already DRMed videos. 2) Apple already has that happy fun conversion utility. It converts MP3s and CDs into un-DRMed AAC, which can be played on many players, many devices and many operating systems. "Suckers" already do eat it up like candy, because AAC offers better sound quality than MP3 (at least when ripping from CD).
Precisely my point. Record companies or the government would have no reason and would most likely not bother suing you over something they have no jurisdiction over anyway.
Re:New slogan for YouTube
on
Bob Saget 2.0
·
· Score: 1
Thing is, the content that is there, the comments and the myspace friends mean something to the person that owns the page, which is the whole point of MySpace. And if you use CSS well I'd imagine it's possible to do some great things with a MySpace page. And while the ability to fuck up presentation doesn't necessarily make MySpace great, it's certainly a large factor in its success. Compare the popularity of the far more locked down Bebo.com to that of MySpace.
I'd really love to know how a record company would extract damages from you for cracking the DRM from something they no longer have copyright over. They'd be laughed out of court, DMCA or no DMCA. That and there'd be no point, what with the subject matter being public domain and all. Not much point having PD things DRMed.
Re:the most important
on
30 Days of DRM
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Bullshit. I would be incredibly surprised if analog/not inherently electrical (e.g. tape, paper, film) copies of music, books and films are not kept by studios, publishers etc. Just because something is in a DRMed form does not make it suddenly never public domain, and if you were to crack the DRM on something that was in the public domain I doubt there's a court in the land that would convict you, or a record company in the land that would sue you.
Re:New slogan for YouTube
on
Bob Saget 2.0
·
· Score: 1
The freedom is one of the reasons MySpace is popular. It allows people, as Geocities and Angelfire did (and still do) a great amount of freedom to express themselves. If they express themselves through clashing colours and shitty HTML, that's their business and nobody elses.
I find it quite funny that people (not specifically talking about you) who talk about freedom in software consider freedom a bad thing when applied to normal people making web pages.
New slogan for YouTube
on
Bob Saget 2.0
·
· Score: 5, Funny
"YouTube: Everything Slashdotters hate about MySpace rendered as a low quality video"
Thing is, today is my day off. It's a Bank Holiday tomorrow. Out of those two days I'll spend perhaps 10 minutes posting on Slashdot. Rest of the week, I'll be at work, away from the Internet and actually doing something productive. You, however, will find limitless time during the day to post about how M$ are teh suxx0r.
Congratulations. Rather than giving a workable solution to the problem at hand, or even a valid answer to the simple "What's on your thumbdrive" question, you've instead used this article as a springboard to bash Microsoft.
And you wonder why people don't like you.
Re:one time at computer camp...
on
Computer Voodoo?
·
· Score: 1
Nonono, real nerds use a hex editor, which they etched onto a CD themselves using nothing but a handheld Class 1 laser, to code their software.
Maybe because it's a far smaller target than Windows, and I'd wager most OSX users would be far more adept at spotting a trojan/other virus than most Windows users.
So tell me if (P)urge will play your old Napster music. No, oh well, my joke is funnier than DRM.
Difference is, lots more people laugh at DRM. Urge wouldn't play Napster music, because Urge is a music download service competing with Napster, you moron.
As for the rest of your post, you really do live in a goddamn fantasy world. Please link me to proof that the Zaurus was sued out of existence. Please. Prove me wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Dammit, register so I can friend you...that post was right on the money IMO.
You may think it is all about getting something for nothing. Some people think fair use is all about getting something for nothing. Neither is the case.
I don't really think "fair use" comes into the P2P equation at all. Downloading/uploading whole songs, movies or albums certainly doesn't come under fair use whatsoever. If anything the debate over DRM is the right place for discussion of fair use.
You call it stealing. I call it instantaneous price repair.
I call it "a bullshit excuse for being a cheapskate". Just because you don't agree with the price for something doesn't give you a license to steal/P2P it (I expect the usual hundred responses talking about how "copyright infringement isn't stealing", and it isn't. I know that. It's just a useful shorthand. Give it a rest.)
You do not NEED major label music, big name films or anything like that. If you cannot afford it, don't buy it. Listen to the radio or watch TV. Download from PeopleSound or listen to bands on MySpace or something. You're not entitled to anything.
Also, you're assuming that people download stuff out of financial necessity. Most don't. They download stuff because they know it's free, and they'd rather download a song off P2P for free than pay 99 cents/79p for the same song off iTunes. Seriously, it's not out of protest against the music industry for prices or DRM or rootkits, it's more like "hey! free stuff!".
These people aren't defending P2P file sharing one little bit. They're defending downloading copyrighted works illegally, and there's a very big gulf between the two.
The summary talks about how "old media" (gotta love that, I presume making shit for no reward is "new media") have a problem with P2P because it's a threat to their livelihood. Well, really, wouldn't you? Of COURSE it's a threat to their livelihood, of COURSE they're not going to stand up and say "YES, it's absolutely A-OK for people to leech our stuff off P2P".
The filmmakers seem to belong to that immature camp of P2P defenders who go on like "We found this neat way of getting stuff we used to have to pay for for free, but now THE MAN doesn't want that, so they're spoiling our party" and consider it a form of protest against record companies if they download music. If they really wanted to hurt the RIAA they'd spread the word about decent non-RIAA bands and simply not download or buy any RIAA music, rather than go on about their supposed rights to infringe other peoples' rights.
That's true. No beef with that point, using a UA mask to hide stuff for no real reason is very wanky.
P2P might harm some business models (release a crappy movie, overhype it, and hope everyone sees it on week 1), but other business models survive.
It tends to harm the business models where creators of a work, and those who financed it, get money in return.
I predict that Ubuntu is about to become "cool" and take off in the same way Firefox did. It will happen sooner or later.
Firefox is a web browser, which requires minimal upheaval to change on a normal person's system. You run the installer, you can import your bookmarks and history over with another click. Done.
Ubuntu is a whole operating system, which requires backing up data, repartitioning data and various other tasks which the average home user would have a ridiculously hard time doing. Not gonna happen any time soon, I'm afraid.
First of all, since when is discrimination okay as long as you are only discriminating against a minority?
It's a business decision, basically. Linux's multimedia support is, sadly, pisspoor...they'd have a hard time troubleshooting it.
No, changing the useragent string DOES work! This is plain and simple discrimination against anyone using software that isn't from Microsoft/Apple.
Whereas using Ogg would be discriminating against the majority of people that have no idea what an Ogg is, let alone a Vorbis or a Theora, or how to play it. It's not nice, but the NYT have to make some tradeoffs when implementing video. I'd reckon that giving the tiny percentage of users using Linux and its horribly horribly broken Flash plugin the finger is worth it to them if it lets things work for the other 99% of people.
Two things:
1) Vista's PVP only applies to already DRMed videos.
2) Apple already has that happy fun conversion utility. It converts MP3s and CDs into un-DRMed AAC, which can be played on many players, many devices and many operating systems. "Suckers" already do eat it up like candy, because AAC offers better sound quality than MP3 (at least when ripping from CD).
Precisely my point. Record companies or the government would have no reason and would most likely not bother suing you over something they have no jurisdiction over anyway.
Thing is, the content that is there, the comments and the myspace friends mean something to the person that owns the page, which is the whole point of MySpace. And if you use CSS well I'd imagine it's possible to do some great things with a MySpace page. And while the ability to fuck up presentation doesn't necessarily make MySpace great, it's certainly a large factor in its success. Compare the popularity of the far more locked down Bebo.com to that of MySpace.
I'd really love to know how a record company would extract damages from you for cracking the DRM from something they no longer have copyright over. They'd be laughed out of court, DMCA or no DMCA. That and there'd be no point, what with the subject matter being public domain and all. Not much point having PD things DRMed.
Bullshit. I would be incredibly surprised if analog/not inherently electrical (e.g. tape, paper, film) copies of music, books and films are not kept by studios, publishers etc. Just because something is in a DRMed form does not make it suddenly never public domain, and if you were to crack the DRM on something that was in the public domain I doubt there's a court in the land that would convict you, or a record company in the land that would sue you.
The freedom is one of the reasons MySpace is popular. It allows people, as Geocities and Angelfire did (and still do) a great amount of freedom to express themselves. If they express themselves through clashing colours and shitty HTML, that's their business and nobody elses.
I find it quite funny that people (not specifically talking about you) who talk about freedom in software consider freedom a bad thing when applied to normal people making web pages.
"YouTube: Everything Slashdotters hate about MySpace rendered as a low quality video"
Thing is, today is my day off. It's a Bank Holiday tomorrow. Out of those two days I'll spend perhaps 10 minutes posting on Slashdot. Rest of the week, I'll be at work, away from the Internet and actually doing something productive. You, however, will find limitless time during the day to post about how M$ are teh suxx0r.
What in fuck are you talking about?
Congratulations. Rather than giving a workable solution to the problem at hand, or even a valid answer to the simple "What's on your thumbdrive" question, you've instead used this article as a springboard to bash Microsoft.
And you wonder why people don't like you.
Nonono, real nerds use a hex editor, which they etched onto a CD themselves using nothing but a handheld Class 1 laser, to code their software.
Probably bought it along with some condoms, porno mags and illegal fireworks to make it look inconspicuous.
I have mod points at the moment, but there's no, "Incoherent Ramblings of a Hallucinatory Madman" ranking.
:D
Depending on your point of view, and judging by a lot of posts here, I think you're looking for "Insightful".
Maybe because it's a far smaller target than Windows, and I'd wager most OSX users would be far more adept at spotting a trojan/other virus than most Windows users.
So tell me if (P)urge will play your old Napster music. No, oh well, my joke is funnier than DRM.
Difference is, lots more people laugh at DRM. Urge wouldn't play Napster music, because Urge is a music download service competing with Napster, you moron.
As for the rest of your post, you really do live in a goddamn fantasy world. Please link me to proof that the Zaurus was sued out of existence. Please. Prove me wrong.
A simple trojan would make it ridiculously easy to make a botnet on Linux or any other UNIX-like.
You mean like this butterfly?
As for the rest of your comment, I'd really love to know how someone with such a tenuous grasp on reality can be allowed to have kids.