One has to wonder how up-to-date the data used in the study was. Napster has only (really) become a big enough thing to show up on their radar or make any kind of an impact in the last 6 months or so.
Soundscan (who provide data to Billboard) have almost instant access to this information from the point of sales terminals at the major outlets (and probably some of the minor as well.) This is how Billboard can do it's weekly Top 40 list. There's enough other vagueries in their study to invalidate their claims anyway.
Sure, I believe that CD sales are down at college CD stores. What about at Best Buy, Tower Records, and all the other big chains? I don't have the stats, but I'll bet you they've been going up. Anyone have a link to any articles about the mom&pop record stores because squeezed out by the big retail chains over the last 2 years?
The funny thing is that Katz is actually a good writer. Maybe not a good writer for geeks, but a good writer overall. But this article just doesn't cut it. It is talk-talk-talk. Give me a damn list of things I can do. Give us a list of things we can do. What action does he expect?
The thing about this article that I like is that Katz is not giving us a list of things to do. I think this was intended to be food for thought. I think the action he expects is for us to hash out some ideas in response to his article. His article is just a starting point for a conversation. It's the comments you read and write that will give you some insight if not an exact answer. More talk is still necessary.
numb
we're not going to like the way this turns out
on
At The Crossroads
·
· Score: 2
The thing that bothers me the most is that there just doesn't seem to be a way to effectively protect IP on the Net without taking away our freedom to share the IP that we create ourselves. Unless we find a way to monitor everyone's connections and make sure that what they are doing or saying isn't infringing on any traditional laws. If there is another way, please say so.
I do want to see IP protected to the extent that it fosters the creation of more science and art. The free exchange of thoughts and ideas seem more important to this end than guaranteeing profit.
I think the direction we are heading is a "royalty tax" on our network connections. The RIAA already receives money for blank audio media as it is. They get this money regardless of whether they produce anything or not. I think they'll be more than happy to have the same type of tax placed on our Net connections. I doubt the MPAA will be far behind in finding a way to do this as well. Is this what it's going to take for things to be "fair?" I think it will suck having a powerful recording industry that's state sponsored, but it's the only effective way I can see for them to stay in business. Not that I'd mind seeing the RIAA go out of business--there are plenty of non-RIAA bands and labels that would benefit if they did.
My point is, surely there must be another quantum leap which can be made, which will again revolutionise the way we use our computer desktops? I just hope GNOME has the vision to try to discover the way forward, rather than living in the shadow of Microsoft. Despite the Open Source development model allowing humanity's greatest thinkers to collaborate on GNOME, it seems that these developers are unable to (or are afraid to) think on a large enough scale to surpass Microsoft.
I thought the point behind making it similar was that new users wouldn't have to make a quantum leap to switch from one platform to another. It makes sense to me that the default Gnome configuration operates in a similar manner to the Windows taskbar. Once you learn how to use it you will find it much more configurable than the Windows taskbar...so configurable in fact that you can make it operate completely different than the Windows task bar. As far as configurability goes, it's already a quantum leap ahead.
Of course, I think you're correct that we can revolutionize the way we use our desktops. Highly configurable interfaces (something that the Windows desktop is not) give us the tools we need to find it. The Gnome/E/X combo give us a starting point similar to what we've experienced with Windows, but give us the option to change it to just about anything we can dream up. Gnome does this especially at the level that the average user can handle.
Yeah, I agree with you on that. I think Apple was first to make it standard on all their machines though. I'm not a Mac guy, but wasn't Appletalk standard equipment like 15 years back?
For me programming is a break from reality. Naturally having a goal in mind makes it more interesting, but in general I just do it for the hell of it. I mess with all sorts of languages but rarely take the time to become proficient with any particular language--unless it's simple enough to learn before I find something else interesting to learn. While I'm programming it's as if I've left my body and I've entered another dimension. I don't hear people talking, see the monitor, or feel my fingers on the keys. I'm just somewhere else entirely.
So tell me why the small minority of independent artists distributing their music on napster have more important rights than the RIAA.
I assume you mean that the majority of the music you find on Napster is RIAA music and the minority of music is independent. This is absolutely true. The obvious reason is that more people own copies of RIAA material than independent artists' material. The RIAA is obviously the best at distributing music offline. You do realize, though, that the RIAA does not represent the majority of artists that are out there right? Now, independent artists make up the majority of artists that use the Internet to distribute their music.
If the choice is between trampling the RIAA's rights and trampling the rights of everyone else on the planet the wishes to distribute music, then I'm siding with the rest of the planet.
Napster is an extremely effective tool for distributing high-quality music online. Although it's still in its infancy it's already proven itself to be good for that. At one show this month one of the bands I record called me up on stage to introduce me. The first thing someone shouted out was "Hey, are you gonna put these guys on Napster?" I said, "Hell yeah...if Metallica and the major record labels don't shut them down first."
Really go and talk to and talk to as many independent musicians as you can. I bet you can't find a majority that say they don't want their music distributed on Napster. My experience so far is that the majority want it and those that don't want it or don't know what it is are the minority.
Hmmm. You would think so, no? Perhaps this was true back in the '80s, but these days colleges are a huge corporate-rock bastion. Except for college radio geeks, the student body has been corrupted by the cultural maggotry of Generic Lite Beer/Generic Lite Rock. Spring Break! Par-tay!
To be honest I haven't really hung out on a campus in 4 or 5 years. Damn I'm starting to feel old. Some bands that I heard first on college stations in the 90's: Alice in Chains, Janes Addiction, Camper van Beethoven (now known as Cracker), to name a few. And I heard them years before I heard them on the radio or MTV.
I'm assuming that you are correct and that times have changed--all the more reason to keep distribution channels open. If not for the artists, do it for the children. Don't want them going to college and being stuck listening to DMB.
Yes, bandwidth is an issue, but there were several schools that shut down due to threatening letters from the RIAA citing the DMCA. I believe Yale was one of them. There was an article about that on here a while ago. If you think that the RIAA is not actively trying to have Napster banned from campuses then you're wrong.
Err, so you can't fill a cup completely full unless you fill the cup ALL the way up?
Sorry, that statement was just too incredibly inane and stupid for me to pass up.
Heh. Are you refering to your own argument? Do you know of any software that can distinguish between music that the copyright holder wants distributed and music that the copyright holder doesn't want to distribute? If you have a method of getting rid of the stuff the RIAA owns without preventing independent artists and their fans from using the software then I'd love to hear it.
So what you're saying is that artists should not have the right to choose whether they want to embrace this wonderful new model you're advocating.
That's exactly the point! They should be able to participate instead of being limited to business models that work for the RIAA. You do realize that most artists are independent artists and need these distribution channels to spread their music, right? You can't honestly believe that the RIAA represents the bulk of musicians out there. You do realize that there are a lot more artists that want to be able to distribute their music online than those that don't, right?
I know it's unpopular here on Slashdot for musicians to actually get paid for their work, but a lot of people need to get a clue. Napster exists for only one reason: To create an illegal market for copyrighted material. All the rationalizations in the world ("Hey, I already own the material, man!") don't change the fact that Napster only exists by a loophole in the law.
The first sentence there is such obvious flamebait that I don't think there's much value to responding. So I'll move on to the rest of this quote.
First of all, the purpose of Napster is not to create an illegal market for copyrighted material. The purpose is to create an online music community where people can share music easily. Indeed, it is extremely sad that it is already so cluttered with crap that the RIAA holds copyrights on. This is a consequence of the RIAA selling billions of CD's over the years.
Perhaps you enjoy Metallica and/or Britney Speers (sp?) but there are many people who enjoy music that you've never heard. Music that you can't buy in your country, or anywhere except for a few select local music stores (these guys are getting shoved out of business too by the way--how convenient for the RIAA when distribution channels for independent artists go down the tube.) It's the people that make independent music and listen to independent music that are truly getting screwed out of this whole deal.
If Napster really were only useful for distributing copyrighted material I really wouldn't care if they were crushed. I don't know why you insist that it's intent is piracy. You can say it is as much as you want but it won't make it a reality.
You have seen Napster, right? They have chat rooms to discuss music (or do you believe that chat rooms exist soley for the purpose of distributing copyrighted material and kiddie porn?) It is a tool that can be used to build a great online community and help a lot of struggling artists. And you think Slashdot readers should cry for the super-rich RIAA when our lives are already over-saturated with their music? I for one would be thrilled if the RIAA could remove all their music from Napster. If they could though, I bet they wouldn't.
The most important point that needs to be made is that there is no way for the RIAA to control online distribution of music without taking away the freedom of independent artists to distribute music.
Think of this: Napster has been banned on many college campuses. College campuses are traditionally the place where independent music flourishes. Thus the RIAA has managed to shut down a distribution channel for the independent artists. I can't say that it was intentional, but it certainly will be a nice side-effect for the major labels. Of course, the RIAA says that "piracy" is the problem, costing them billions of dollars a year, yet at the same time they brag to their stockholders about record earnings this year.
I'll say it once more just to make sure: The RIAA can not completely control the distribution of music online without controlling the distribution of ALL music online.
Anything that allows the RIAA more control over online distribution takes away from the freedom of independent artists to distribute online.
It's time to start thinking about the original intent of copyright law and work from that. The intention of copyright law has been to foster the arts, not to guarantee revenue for entertainment cartels.
Nevertheless, any program where people are rewarded for turning in other people for alleged misdeeds has a KGB aura to it, no doubt. But why should we be so suspicious if the misdeed is, in fact, A Bad Thing?
I'd rather not have our government(s) regulating our e-mail. It'll just feed into their whole "we need more resources to fight cyber-crime" thing. I personally would really like to avoid handing any more of the Internet over to them if possible.
I have serious doubts about the benefits too. No legal solution will ever stop spam as well as a technological solution. At best it will reduce spam but it will never stop it. A technological solution on the other hand could stop automated spamming very easily. Unfortunately users and ISP's would have to make changes on the client and server side to allow for protection from automated spamming--and as far as I can tell no one is really interested in doing the work.
Users should be able to maintain a whitelist/blacklist for e-mail at their ISP. Blacklisted stuff should go to/dev/null, whitelisted stuff should pass through unhindered. Everything else should be returned with instructions on how to get to through the filter--nothing complex, maybe including a keyword or something like that. Just something the an automated mailer can't get around. It would be important that the white/blacklists could be easily maintained from the client.
It seems like every day I read about another Microsoft security hole. When will it become obvious to the managers who force Micro$oft products down our throats that they are compromising their companies security? If I forced everyone at my office to use software that is full of security holes and we got hit bad by it, I would be fired. When are IT managers going to be forced to face the consequences of their decisions?
I'm currently working for a Fortune 100 (maybe 500) financial company that is about as pro-Microsoft as you can get. They're planning on dumping their Novell servers for Win2k. It's not as if anyone actually believes that Win2k servers will be better, it's just that they already agreed to purchase "NT 5.0" quite a while back. I think there might be a financial interest in continuing to prop Microsoft up. At any rate, the decision to use Microsoft is not being made by IT. As far as I can tell it's some kind of partnership agreement made by non-IT management that dictates the use of Windows. Using Linux on-site (whether connected to the network or not) is a firing offense. Two other Fortune 100/500 financial companies that I've worked for are doing the same thing.
These companies have all bought Microsoft licenses, continually say that they're switching all their non-MS servers to W2k, but still don't because they actually know that it would be a bad idea. My guess these companies are propping up Microsoft for some other reason. They're buying licenses, not using them, and talking about Linux like it's the greatest evil around.
Anyway, all the articles about holes in M$ products get printed out by me and hung up on the board. People stop, look, laugh and shake their heads, and then it's back to business as usual. Oh well.
I think there is some confusion between mapping a genome and sequencing a genome. There definately is on my part. From what I understand sequencing is a lot more complicated than mapping. If someone could explain why mapping isn't as big of a deal as sequencing, I'd appreciate it.
I asked my sister, a grad student at Berkeley, what the difference was. To be honest I got lost not too far into the explanation. "It's about as different as being able to look at a map and actually being able to get from point A to point B," she told me. At that point I started asking her questions about the Beowulf cluster they are building in her lab until she was totally lost--I hate being shown up by my little sister;)
In fact, since they claimed 7 posts were infringing, under penalty of perjury, the whole thing is rendered null-and-void, since they have obviously committed perjury. Have you read the seven posts? At least one has nothing to do with their "copywritten trade secret. (How the hell can a trade secret be copywritten? It's two incompatable bits of laws)
That's what I'm thinking. But are you sure? Does anyone know for sure? If so, then Microsoft will have to resubmit a letter demanding only that the actual violation be taken down.
I think if that happens, then the common carrier status comes into play. If by removing the post Slashdot automatically loses their claim to common carrier status then they absolutely should not remove it. If that weren't a problem I'd say they definately should remove it.
What I'm trying to figure out here is the best strategy for Slashdot to deal with this, and what Microsoft's strategy is going to be.
One thing that I'm thinking Slashdot needs to get done is the NNTP gateway. Having everything all in one place leaves them open to attacks like these. You don't see Microsoft trying to sue deja.com or zippo.com for the zillions of copyright infringements available through their sites. Or any of the thousands of ISPs with Usenet (NNTP) servers for that matter.
Unfortunately, the moment that Slashdot directly or indirectly removes a post due to content, Slashdot becomes responsible, both in conventional and legal terms, for all user-submitted content on the site.
This is one of the primary reasons that the Slashdot editors have refused to remove posts in the past -- to do it voluntarily once (for any reason) means that they would be legally obligated to do so in the future (for any reason).
This is exactly my concern here. If they had to be required to check every single post, it would effectively kill Slashdot. Could you imagine the field day the trolls would have posting that over and over again if Slashdot is required to take it down? We'll see it reposted over and over just to cause Slashdot the trouble of going back and deleting it.
Anyone, including people at Microsoft, then has the opportunity to make Slashdot useless by repeatedly posting that same copyrighted document over and over. Anonymous posting would have to go away. Each post would have to be checked over by an editor before it was posted to the discussion. Slashdot would never be the same and we'd all be back on Usenet.
I'm sure the crew at Slashdot understands this. If all it were about was removing Microsoft's silly little document, I doubt that they'd mind. It's not as if it's not publicly available anyway from Microsoft's site.
Basically I think Slashdot has been backed into a corner. They don't have a choice but to fight it. If I ran Microsoft and wanted to crush Slashdot I would have been the one that posted that article as an AC, then sicced my lawyers on them--assuming I'd resort to that kind of tactic.
One other thing. There was only one post that could even be considered infringement. Microsoft's lawyers demanded that seven be removed. Forgetting common carrier status for a moment, would Slashdot have the right to deny Microsoft's demand in their entirety because parts (most of it in fact) aren't legitimate claims? Would it be different if the demand only asked for the removal of the infringing material and nothing more?
If the company is broken up, BillyG can have stake in only one of the companies, and therefore will be FORCED to liquidate the remaining stock. Instant cash, and it wasn't his fault, it was the government that FORCED him to do it.
I've used Windows 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, NT 4.0, and 2000 extensively. OS/2 2.0-4.0 and Linux as well. 2000 is a mess. It uses as much (if not more) resources as NT 4.0 and has all the stability of 3.1, 95, and 98 (meaning it crashes rather easily.) The driver support in my opinion isn't even close to Linux anymore (at least on the PC's I've tested it on.) I just don't see any way that Microsoft could whip it into shape at this point. If they can get Windows split off into one company and everything else into another--which is what has been proposed--then they can ditch the burden that Windows is going to become. Think about it. It's the perfect excuse to completely drop all support for a product--yeah, the OS company will have to support it, but it won't have to be their problem anymore.
In the meantime, while Windows is still profitable, Microsoft can appeal and tie things up in court. When Windows ceases to be profitable they can give up. "Not our fault, the DOJ was killing us, we surrender." Or they can intentionally fumble without surrendering so it even looks like they put up a good fight.
Anyone remember the rumors about Microsoft researching porting Office to Linux? If there's any truth to them, that might explain it.
I don't think anyone here can deny that Gates is pretty damn smart. I also hear he's a great poker player. Whatever the reason for him continuing to tweak the DOJ's nose, I'm sure it's not out of stupidity. That's what I'm trying to work out--what really is his plan here?
BTW, the first time I mentioned this someone responded with the Brer Rabbit reference. Was that coincidence, or was that you?
I swear there has to be a reason that Microsoft keeps pushing their luck like this. Honestly, consider this...Isn't it possible that they know that Windows is seriously losing ground--at least technology-wise and actually hope that the DOJ will "take Windows away." In Gates' recent article on Time's website he's already positioning to place the blame on the DOJ for future Windows problems such as the Love Bug. He's going to keep doing what he's been doing then blame the DOJ and everyone else involved for the failure of Windows. It might not fool most readers of Slashdot, but people that don't follow technology closely might believe it. Just a thought...
Another thought--what's the worst that will happen to Gates and Ballmer if the DOJ comes down as hard as they can on Microsoft? Will they go bankrupt? Will they go to jail? Or will they still have more money than they can possibly spend? They've got nothing to fear.
I am not doing free software development because I want to stand against Microsoft, but because i want to give users free software (free as in freedom). So copying the Excel user interface to me was never a moral problem.
When I was about 10 years old my parents bought Visicalc for our Apple ][+. That was the first spreadsheet program I ever used--and I'm not sure but it may have been the first. All the future spreadsheets seemed to evolve from there. It kind of makes the name Evolution seem very appropriate to me. Gnumeric copied Excel, Excel copied Lotus, Lotus copied Visicalc. My parents copied my grandparents DNA, I copied my parents DNA. Similar in many ways, but we're fundamentally different.
Excellent points. Another good reason: Why make Evolution so different that it will be hard for people to migrate from Outlook? I might enjoy learning new software, but I've noticed most of the people I meet day-to-day aren't as thrilled with the prospect.
Also, if I understand correctly from what I've read about it so far, it's divided into a front-end and a back-end. This will allow new front-ends to be built relatively easy. I'd like to point out that this type of design fosters innovation as opposed to stifling innovation. Really, to decide it's not innovative (I can barely stand to type the word anymore) based on a screenshot is unfair. Kind of like critiquing a book based on it's cover.
Slashdot Mirror
One has to wonder how up-to-date the data used in the study was. Napster has only (really) become a big enough thing to show up on their radar or make any kind of an impact in the last 6 months or so.
Soundscan (who provide data to Billboard) have almost instant access to this information from the point of sales terminals at the major outlets (and probably some of the minor as well.) This is how Billboard can do it's weekly Top 40 list. There's enough other vagueries in their study to invalidate their claims anyway.
numb
Sure, I believe that CD sales are down at college CD stores. What about at Best Buy, Tower Records, and all the other big chains? I don't have the stats, but I'll bet you they've been going up. Anyone have a link to any articles about the mom&pop record stores because squeezed out by the big retail chains over the last 2 years?
numb
The funny thing is that Katz is actually a good writer. Maybe not a good writer for geeks, but a good writer overall. But this article just doesn't cut it. It is talk-talk-talk. Give me a damn list of things I can do. Give us a list of things we can do. What action does he expect?
The thing about this article that I like is that Katz is not giving us a list of things to do. I think this was intended to be food for thought. I think the action he expects is for us to hash out some ideas in response to his article. His article is just a starting point for a conversation. It's the comments you read and write that will give you some insight if not an exact answer. More talk is still necessary.
numb
The thing that bothers me the most is that there just doesn't seem to be a way to effectively protect IP on the Net without taking away our freedom to share the IP that we create ourselves. Unless we find a way to monitor everyone's connections and make sure that what they are doing or saying isn't infringing on any traditional laws. If there is another way, please say so.
I do want to see IP protected to the extent that it fosters the creation of more science and art. The free exchange of thoughts and ideas seem more important to this end than guaranteeing profit.
I think the direction we are heading is a "royalty tax" on our network connections. The RIAA already receives money for blank audio media as it is. They get this money regardless of whether they produce anything or not. I think they'll be more than happy to have the same type of tax placed on our Net connections. I doubt the MPAA will be far behind in finding a way to do this as well. Is this what it's going to take for things to be "fair?" I think it will suck having a powerful recording industry that's state sponsored, but it's the only effective way I can see for them to stay in business. Not that I'd mind seeing the RIAA go out of business--there are plenty of non-RIAA bands and labels that would benefit if they did.
numb
My point is, surely there must be another quantum leap which can be made, which will again revolutionise the way we use our computer desktops? I just hope GNOME has the vision to try to discover the way forward, rather than living in the shadow of Microsoft. Despite the Open Source development model allowing humanity's greatest thinkers to collaborate on GNOME, it seems that these developers are unable to (or are afraid to) think on a large enough scale to surpass Microsoft.
I thought the point behind making it similar was that new users wouldn't have to make a quantum leap to switch from one platform to another. It makes sense to me that the default Gnome configuration operates in a similar manner to the Windows taskbar. Once you learn how to use it you will find it much more configurable than the Windows taskbar...so configurable in fact that you can make it operate completely different than the Windows task bar. As far as configurability goes, it's already a quantum leap ahead.
Of course, I think you're correct that we can revolutionize the way we use our desktops. Highly configurable interfaces (something that the Windows desktop is not) give us the tools we need to find it. The Gnome/E/X combo give us a starting point similar to what we've experienced with Windows, but give us the option to change it to just about anything we can dream up. Gnome does this especially at the level that the average user can handle.
numb
Yeah, I agree with you on that. I think Apple was first to make it standard on all their machines though. I'm not a Mac guy, but wasn't Appletalk standard equipment like 15 years back?
numb
For me programming is a break from reality. Naturally having a goal in mind makes it more interesting, but in general I just do it for the hell of it. I mess with all sorts of languages but rarely take the time to become proficient with any particular language--unless it's simple enough to learn before I find something else interesting to learn. While I'm programming it's as if I've left my body and I've entered another dimension. I don't hear people talking, see the monitor, or feel my fingers on the keys. I'm just somewhere else entirely.
numb
So tell me why the small minority of independent artists distributing their music on napster have more important rights than the RIAA.
I assume you mean that the majority of the music you find on Napster is RIAA music and the minority of music is independent. This is absolutely true. The obvious reason is that more people own copies of RIAA material than independent artists' material. The RIAA is obviously the best at distributing music offline. You do realize, though, that the RIAA does not represent the majority of artists that are out there right? Now, independent artists make up the majority of artists that use the Internet to distribute their music.
If the choice is between trampling the RIAA's rights and trampling the rights of everyone else on the planet the wishes to distribute music, then I'm siding with the rest of the planet.
Napster is an extremely effective tool for distributing high-quality music online. Although it's still in its infancy it's already proven itself to be good for that. At one show this month one of the bands I record called me up on stage to introduce me. The first thing someone shouted out was "Hey, are you gonna put these guys on Napster?" I said, "Hell yeah...if Metallica and the major record labels don't shut them down first."
Really go and talk to and talk to as many independent musicians as you can. I bet you can't find a majority that say they don't want their music distributed on Napster. My experience so far is that the majority want it and those that don't want it or don't know what it is are the minority.
numb
Hmmm. You would think so, no? Perhaps this was true back in the '80s, but these days colleges are a huge corporate-rock bastion. Except for college radio geeks, the student body has been corrupted by the cultural maggotry of Generic Lite Beer/Generic Lite Rock. Spring Break! Par-tay!
To be honest I haven't really hung out on a campus in 4 or 5 years. Damn I'm starting to feel old. Some bands that I heard first on college stations in the 90's: Alice in Chains, Janes Addiction, Camper van Beethoven (now known as Cracker), to name a few. And I heard them years before I heard them on the radio or MTV.
I'm assuming that you are correct and that times have changed--all the more reason to keep distribution channels open. If not for the artists, do it for the children. Don't want them going to college and being stuck listening to DMB.
numb
Yes, bandwidth is an issue, but there were several schools that shut down due to threatening letters from the RIAA citing the DMCA. I believe Yale was one of them. There was an article about that on here a while ago. If you think that the RIAA is not actively trying to have Napster banned from campuses then you're wrong.
numb
Err, so you can't fill a cup completely full unless you fill the cup ALL the way up?
Sorry, that statement was just too incredibly inane and stupid for me to pass up.
Heh. Are you refering to your own argument? Do you know of any software that can distinguish between music that the copyright holder wants distributed and music that the copyright holder doesn't want to distribute? If you have a method of getting rid of the stuff the RIAA owns without preventing independent artists and their fans from using the software then I'd love to hear it.
numb
So what you're saying is that artists should not have the right to choose whether they want to embrace this wonderful new model you're advocating.
That's exactly the point! They should be able to participate instead of being limited to business models that work for the RIAA. You do realize that most artists are independent artists and need these distribution channels to spread their music, right? You can't honestly believe that the RIAA represents the bulk of musicians out there. You do realize that there are a lot more artists that want to be able to distribute their music online than those that don't, right?
numb
I know it's unpopular here on Slashdot for musicians to actually get paid for their work, but a lot of people need to get a clue. Napster exists for only one reason: To create an illegal market for copyrighted material. All the rationalizations in the world ("Hey, I already own the material, man!") don't change the fact that Napster only exists by a loophole in the law.
The first sentence there is such obvious flamebait that I don't think there's much value to responding. So I'll move on to the rest of this quote.
First of all, the purpose of Napster is not to create an illegal market for copyrighted material. The purpose is to create an online music community where people can share music easily. Indeed, it is extremely sad that it is already so cluttered with crap that the RIAA holds copyrights on. This is a consequence of the RIAA selling billions of CD's over the years.
Perhaps you enjoy Metallica and/or Britney Speers (sp?) but there are many people who enjoy music that you've never heard. Music that you can't buy in your country, or anywhere except for a few select local music stores (these guys are getting shoved out of business too by the way--how convenient for the RIAA when distribution channels for independent artists go down the tube.) It's the people that make independent music and listen to independent music that are truly getting screwed out of this whole deal.
If Napster really were only useful for distributing copyrighted material I really wouldn't care if they were crushed. I don't know why you insist that it's intent is piracy. You can say it is as much as you want but it won't make it a reality.
You have seen Napster, right? They have chat rooms to discuss music (or do you believe that chat rooms exist soley for the purpose of distributing copyrighted material and kiddie porn?) It is a tool that can be used to build a great online community and help a lot of struggling artists. And you think Slashdot readers should cry for the super-rich RIAA when our lives are already over-saturated with their music? I for one would be thrilled if the RIAA could remove all their music from Napster. If they could though, I bet they wouldn't.
numb
The most important point that needs to be made is that there is no way for the RIAA to control online distribution of music without taking away the freedom of independent artists to distribute music.
Think of this: Napster has been banned on many college campuses. College campuses are traditionally the place where independent music flourishes. Thus the RIAA has managed to shut down a distribution channel for the independent artists. I can't say that it was intentional, but it certainly will be a nice side-effect for the major labels. Of course, the RIAA says that "piracy" is the problem, costing them billions of dollars a year, yet at the same time they brag to their stockholders about record earnings this year.
I'll say it once more just to make sure: The RIAA can not completely control the distribution of music online without controlling the distribution of ALL music online.
Anything that allows the RIAA more control over online distribution takes away from the freedom of independent artists to distribute online.
It's time to start thinking about the original intent of copyright law and work from that. The intention of copyright law has been to foster the arts, not to guarantee revenue for entertainment cartels.
numb
Nevertheless, any program where people are rewarded for turning in other people for alleged misdeeds has a KGB aura to it, no doubt. But why should we be so suspicious if the misdeed is, in fact, A Bad Thing?
/dev/null, whitelisted stuff should pass through unhindered. Everything else should be returned with instructions on how to get to through the filter--nothing complex, maybe including a keyword or something like that. Just something the an automated mailer can't get around. It would be important that the white/blacklists could be easily maintained from the client.
I'd rather not have our government(s) regulating our e-mail. It'll just feed into their whole "we need more resources to fight cyber-crime" thing. I personally would really like to avoid handing any more of the Internet over to them if possible.
I have serious doubts about the benefits too. No legal solution will ever stop spam as well as a technological solution. At best it will reduce spam but it will never stop it. A technological solution on the other hand could stop automated spamming very easily. Unfortunately users and ISP's would have to make changes on the client and server side to allow for protection from automated spamming--and as far as I can tell no one is really interested in doing the work.
Users should be able to maintain a whitelist/blacklist for e-mail at their ISP. Blacklisted stuff should go to
numb
PS: Never invite a vampire into your home.
It seems like every day I read about another Microsoft security hole. When will it become obvious to the managers who force Micro$oft products down our throats that they are compromising their companies security? If I forced everyone at my office to use software that is full of security holes and we got hit bad by it, I would be fired. When are IT managers going to be forced to face the consequences of their decisions?
I'm currently working for a Fortune 100 (maybe 500) financial company that is about as pro-Microsoft as you can get. They're planning on dumping their Novell servers for Win2k. It's not as if anyone actually believes that Win2k servers will be better, it's just that they already agreed to purchase "NT 5.0" quite a while back. I think there might be a financial interest in continuing to prop Microsoft up. At any rate, the decision to use Microsoft is not being made by IT. As far as I can tell it's some kind of partnership agreement made by non-IT management that dictates the use of Windows. Using Linux on-site (whether connected to the network or not) is a firing offense. Two other Fortune 100/500 financial companies that I've worked for are doing the same thing.
These companies have all bought Microsoft licenses, continually say that they're switching all their non-MS servers to W2k, but still don't because they actually know that it would be a bad idea. My guess these companies are propping up Microsoft for some other reason. They're buying licenses, not using them, and talking about Linux like it's the greatest evil around.
Anyway, all the articles about holes in M$ products get printed out by me and hung up on the board. People stop, look, laugh and shake their heads, and then it's back to business as usual. Oh well.
numb
Who knows, even Bill may be a /. reader?!
I'd be suprised if he wasn't. I just wonder if he posts.
numb
Windows users
CD listeners
Movie watchers
Metallica fans
Get 'em up against the wall
numb
I think there is some confusion between mapping a genome and sequencing a genome. There definately is on my part. From what I understand sequencing is a lot more complicated than mapping. If someone could explain why mapping isn't as big of a deal as sequencing, I'd appreciate it.
;)
I asked my sister, a grad student at Berkeley, what the difference was. To be honest I got lost not too far into the explanation. "It's about as different as being able to look at a map and actually being able to get from point A to point B," she told me. At that point I started asking her questions about the Beowulf cluster they are building in her lab until she was totally lost--I hate being shown up by my little sister
numb
In fact, since they claimed 7 posts were infringing, under penalty of perjury, the whole thing is rendered null-and-void, since they have obviously committed perjury. Have you read the seven posts? At least one has nothing to do with their "copywritten trade secret. (How the hell can a trade secret be copywritten? It's two incompatable bits of laws)
That's what I'm thinking. But are you sure? Does anyone know for sure? If so, then Microsoft will have to resubmit a letter demanding only that the actual violation be taken down.
I think if that happens, then the common carrier status comes into play. If by removing the post Slashdot automatically loses their claim to common carrier status then they absolutely should not remove it. If that weren't a problem I'd say they definately should remove it.
What I'm trying to figure out here is the best strategy for Slashdot to deal with this, and what Microsoft's strategy is going to be.
One thing that I'm thinking Slashdot needs to get done is the NNTP gateway. Having everything all in one place leaves them open to attacks like these. You don't see Microsoft trying to sue deja.com or zippo.com for the zillions of copyright infringements available through their sites. Or any of the thousands of ISPs with Usenet (NNTP) servers for that matter.
numb
Unfortunately, the moment that Slashdot directly or indirectly removes a post due to content, Slashdot becomes responsible, both in conventional and legal terms, for all user-submitted content on the site.
This is one of the primary reasons that the Slashdot editors have refused to remove posts in the past -- to do it voluntarily once (for any reason) means that they would be legally obligated to do so in the future (for any reason).
This is exactly my concern here. If they had to be required to check every single post, it would effectively kill Slashdot. Could you imagine the field day the trolls would have posting that over and over again if Slashdot is required to take it down? We'll see it reposted over and over just to cause Slashdot the trouble of going back and deleting it.
Anyone, including people at Microsoft, then has the opportunity to make Slashdot useless by repeatedly posting that same copyrighted document over and over. Anonymous posting would have to go away. Each post would have to be checked over by an editor before it was posted to the discussion. Slashdot would never be the same and we'd all be back on Usenet.
I'm sure the crew at Slashdot understands this. If all it were about was removing Microsoft's silly little document, I doubt that they'd mind. It's not as if it's not publicly available anyway from Microsoft's site.
Basically I think Slashdot has been backed into a corner. They don't have a choice but to fight it. If I ran Microsoft and wanted to crush Slashdot I would have been the one that posted that article as an AC, then sicced my lawyers on them--assuming I'd resort to that kind of tactic.
One other thing. There was only one post that could even be considered infringement. Microsoft's lawyers demanded that seven be removed. Forgetting common carrier status for a moment, would Slashdot have the right to deny Microsoft's demand in their entirety because parts (most of it in fact) aren't legitimate claims? Would it be different if the demand only asked for the removal of the infringing material and nothing more?
numb
If the company is broken up, BillyG can have stake in only one of the companies, and therefore will be FORCED to liquidate the remaining stock. Instant cash, and it wasn't his fault, it was the government that FORCED him to do it.
I've used Windows 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, NT 4.0, and 2000 extensively. OS/2 2.0-4.0 and Linux as well. 2000 is a mess. It uses as much (if not more) resources as NT 4.0 and has all the stability of 3.1, 95, and 98 (meaning it crashes rather easily.) The driver support in my opinion isn't even close to Linux anymore (at least on the PC's I've tested it on.) I just don't see any way that Microsoft could whip it into shape at this point. If they can get Windows split off into one company and everything else into another--which is what has been proposed--then they can ditch the burden that Windows is going to become. Think about it. It's the perfect excuse to completely drop all support for a product--yeah, the OS company will have to support it, but it won't have to be their problem anymore.
In the meantime, while Windows is still profitable, Microsoft can appeal and tie things up in court. When Windows ceases to be profitable they can give up. "Not our fault, the DOJ was killing us, we surrender." Or they can intentionally fumble without surrendering so it even looks like they put up a good fight.
Anyone remember the rumors about Microsoft researching porting Office to Linux? If there's any truth to them, that might explain it.
I don't think anyone here can deny that Gates is pretty damn smart. I also hear he's a great poker player. Whatever the reason for him continuing to tweak the DOJ's nose, I'm sure it's not out of stupidity. That's what I'm trying to work out--what really is his plan here?
BTW, the first time I mentioned this someone responded with the Brer Rabbit reference. Was that coincidence, or was that you?
numb
Another thought--what's the worst that will happen to Gates and Ballmer if the DOJ comes down as hard as they can on Microsoft? Will they go bankrupt? Will they go to jail? Or will they still have more money than they can possibly spend? They've got nothing to fear.
numb
I am not doing free software development because I want to stand against Microsoft, but because i want to give users free software (free as in freedom). So copying the Excel user interface to me was never a moral problem.
When I was about 10 years old my parents bought Visicalc for our Apple ][+. That was the first spreadsheet program I ever used--and I'm not sure but it may have been the first. All the future spreadsheets seemed to evolve from there. It kind of makes the name Evolution seem very appropriate to me. Gnumeric copied Excel, Excel copied Lotus, Lotus copied Visicalc. My parents copied my grandparents DNA, I copied my parents DNA. Similar in many ways, but we're fundamentally different.
numb
Excellent points. Another good reason: Why make Evolution so different that it will be hard for people to migrate from Outlook? I might enjoy learning new software, but I've noticed most of the people I meet day-to-day aren't as thrilled with the prospect.
Also, if I understand correctly from what I've read about it so far, it's divided into a front-end and a back-end. This will allow new front-ends to be built relatively easy. I'd like to point out that this type of design fosters innovation as opposed to stifling innovation. Really, to decide it's not innovative (I can barely stand to type the word anymore) based on a screenshot is unfair. Kind of like critiquing a book based on it's cover.
Then again, perhaps he was just being sarcastic.
numb