Re:Did you forget the Clear Channel problem?
on
LokiTorrent vs. MPAA
·
· Score: 1
I'm not quite sure how someone who can't go to a bar suddenly has the right to copy copyrighted music for his own enjoyment without paying the fee that the artist (and/or his label) have set. If the artist wanted that person to have it for free, they would give it away. There are numerous ways to "discover" indie music. One is to listen to it with your friends. This is not illegal. For your friend to copy it and give it to you is, but not for both of you to listen to it together. Then there are reading reviews (there have got to be TONS of ways online to read about new music). The "99c song" sites might even have a 30 second preview of some songs as well. I don't see how it's any harder to "discover" new music while still following the laws and wishes of the artists/labels.
If you read the state law codes, you will likely find that speed limits are enforced on PUBLIC roads. That posted speed limits are for PUBLIC roads and highways.
In my state (Washington), all laws use the word "highway". The legal defintion of "highway" is: "Highway means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel." This is RCW 46.04.197. Please note the wording. It's the entire width between the boundary lines of every way PUBLICLY MAINTAINED when any part is open to the public for vehicular travel. It must be publicly maintained _and_ open to the public for vehicular travel. If it's privately owned and operated, it's likely privately maintained too. That means it does not fall under jurisdiction of Washington State vehicle laws.
Furthermore, your assertion that speeds are a safety issue are actually quite irrelevant. There exist private tracks specifically for racing cars. If speed limits were a safety issue, then why aren't these tracks closed down?
I was talking about listening to independant music in bars. You know, live entertainment. How is my quarter in my beer going to the "goddamn IP cartel"?
If I am not 'entitled' to a free car, you are NOT entitled to earn money for building cars. You're not even 'entitled' to food, water, and electricity. Why should you be entitled to free entertainment?
Re:Did you forget the Clear Channel problem?
on
LokiTorrent vs. MPAA
·
· Score: 1
As I said before, it's OK to steal from the little guy because you can't listen to him on the radio for free??? If anything, the independant music scene is where the term "starving artist" REALLY applies. There was a site mp3.com that existed a while ago. It was exactly for independant artists to upload their music for free downloads. I don't know why it went under (maybe there was piracy going on, maybe it had a poor revenue model, I have no idea). I'm NOT against free music -- I'm saying that each artist and/or publisher have a right to determine how their copyrighted works are used, what the price point is, etc... If they choose to give it away, that's cool. But if they don't, then either pay the price they're asking or don't listen to it.
Well, if it's built with private funds and is run by private companies (requiring a toll or a "season pass" or whatever they want to do to pay for it), then why would law enforcement have ANY legal powers to enforce speeds? Police cannot come to my property and make sure that I'm driving at 35mph on my own property. Even if there were agreements in place that allowed the police to travel those roads to enforce speed limits, it would be a CIVIL penalty, as opposed to a CRIMINAL penalty. So failure to pay a "ticket" could result in a civil suit and/or termination of "season passes", but should not allow for termination of licenses or other things.
Of course, additional laws could be passed to get around this, but on the surface, it seems that police should have no legal enforcing power for any speed limits.
If you don't want to spend $50 on a game that you will only play once, then don't spend $50 on a game that you will only play once. But that doesn't give anyone the right to use it without paying for it -- the people who wrote that software have set their price. If it's higher than what you can afford / want to pay, then they've already made the choice that they're willing to not have you as a customer.
The quip about pirating a game was not meant to assume that you just want warez games. My point was simply this: if you want software outside of the realm of your education, then buy it. If you want software that is required for your education, then your school should have software licensed for school use. If they do not have the required software licensed, then you should talk to them about it. In my case, our software was a part of our tuition (well, it was some "extra" thing for computer services or network fees or something, but it wasn't an "optional" thing). I'm only aware of one piece of software that was required to be bought, and it actually came with the book for the course, and was an admittedly stripped down version, but it did everything needed for the course.
And remember -- those companies have chosen whether or not to give an educational discount, or whether or not to give a trial version. If you are unable to evaluate their software before purchase, then you don't have to buy! Their own marketing team has decided that they are willing to lose customers by not having eval versions. So let them lose the customers.
Re:Did you forget the Clear Channel problem?
on
LokiTorrent vs. MPAA
·
· Score: 1
Clear Channel Communications is... a business. They're out to make money. No one has a right to get things they want through mediums they want. If they want to charge people to get their songs in the playlists, that's their perogative. I never once said that you can listen to ALL music for free through the radio. I said that's one way. And you wouldn't possibly be saying that it's OK to infringe on the copyright of independant artists, right? I thought the argument was always that the prices from the big labels were way overpriced... But if the independant artist is having their work pirated, where's the logic? It's OK to steal from the little guy cause you can only get the big guy's music for free?
Internet radio certainly is free. There's this tradeoff called QUALITY. Just like FM radio has less quality than CDs, internet radio on 56k dialup has less quality than either. You don't have a right to get CD-quality music for free.
Furthermore, mobile listening is NOT a right that anyone has. Get a portable radio, make a tape or burn a CD of songs on the radio, if you really need mobile music. That's not illegal -- it's been very legal for a number of years.
Now, if you're talking about DMCA stuff, about fair use laws and how you won't even be able to make backup copies of CDs, then that's one thing. But making a backup copy and downloading a song that you never even purchased are two completely different things. I'm all for being able to backup music collections in case the original media is damaged somehow, but that does not give anyone the right to copy copyrighted works to give away.
I completely agree. But there's an old saying "two wrongs don't make a right". If they're doing something illegal, then doing something illegal back to them is not going to stop anything. As long as people are willing to pay the money (and there are a LOT of people paying that much, or we wouldn't have all the platinum selling artists and blobkbuster movies that we have) then they will continue on their course.
When was the last time you or someone you knew who downloaded movies, music, etc... did it because "the copyright laws are wrong" and not because "it's free!" or because "I don't wanna pay those prices" or because "I'm stickin' it to the man". Maybe you're one of the few people in that.001%.
At my school, all software required for our schooling (with few exceptions) was provided as part of our tuition. Just cause you like Quake 3 Arena or Half Life or whatever does not make it a requirement of college. Most schools will have some sort of a software purchase program and many software packages have educational discounts. If your school is requiring you to purchase software that they do not provide a license for, then take it up with your school.
Yup, and those are the people who's parents should be making sure that they're doing LEGAL things. You know, there's the thing called "radio". It's how you get to listen to songs for free. You listen to some ads, you get music. Oh, there's this new-fangled thing called "internet radio" too. It's free too! It's pretty amazing. If you don't want the things that you already can get for free, then PAY for the things that you want.
And I completely agree that it's good when a well-funded organization doesn't "win by default". However, that does NOT mean that we should fund the little guy.
Re:Question to people who donate
on
LokiTorrent vs. MPAA
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You diagree with the law or you disagree with the prices? You really disagree that companies can spend millions of dollars in set design, computer animation, sound systems, camera equipment, actors, extras, and all the hundreds or thousands of other people, but they're not entitled to receive compensation for their work? They should have control over their creation, and that's exactly what the law provides for.
I'm pretty sure that 99.999% of the people who download movies, music, e-books, software, and other copyrighted works without paying for them do so because they do not want to PAY for them. "Oh, $16 is too much for a CD! Oh, $20 is too much for a DVD! Oh, $200 is too much for a piece of software."
If you don't like your money going large organizations, then go get indie music and films. There are a ton of them, and many of them give away their work to garner interest. Go to a local bar, grab a drink, and enjoy some music.
If you don't want to pay for it, don't use it at all. You are NOT entitled to free entertainment.
4. Ergo we all benefit from LokiTorrent exercisisng its rights. Why then should we not help them out if we are able?
In the same regard, we all benefit from the MPAA exercising its rights to sue when it perceives copyright infringement on its copyrighted works. So then we should support them as well. Donations, anyone?
People aren't worried about "Take us to cuba" hujackings, they're worried about "We're all going to die" hijackings. Terrorists, not hijackings...
The point of terrorism is NOT to kill people, but to SCARE people. You kill a few, scare a bunch. With 9/11, how many people died? 4 thousand? How many people were too scared to fly? A few million? 10 million? Wouldn't it still be just as effective to kill a section of the plane (20, 30 people), scare EVERYONE on board, _and_ scare their families, friends, and anyone who heard the news about the most recent bombing?
Besides, if there were 5 terrorists on board, and if they happened to actually smuggle some explosives on board, each one of them takes a portion of the explosive to a different section. Now you get just under half of the plane. Of course, the terrorists could just detonate without any notice, or could put stuff in the food, or maybe taint the air supply, or any other thing. There are many points of failure in the current system. You may not get the plane to fly into a building, but you can still do lots of damage. Especially if you time it to be during approach somewhere - you might get more casualties and make people even more scared.
According to the list, Windows XP SP2 is the only OS not to be affected. This means that all flavors of Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 are affected. Win2k has server versions, so you can't upgrade to WinXP (the upgrade packages will NOT upgrade from 2k server to XP Pro), because they're meant for different purposes. Win2k3 was released AFTER XP, and exists only in server form...
So there are plenty of systems in use everywhere that are affected.
After some number of presentations, the total amount of time needed to memorize for all presentations will be greater than the amount of time it took to build the teleprompter. Assuming, of course, that the teleprompter is used repeatedly and repairing any breaks do not require a large amount of time. Regardless, if you only need the teleprompter a few times, it's probably not worth your time. If you need it more often than that, it's probably cheaper time-wise to build one yourself. If you need it much more than that, you're probably better of buying one that's already made, especially since there will likely be some service plan or warrantee.
EXACTLY. I grew up in Phoenix, AZ. Maybe not a great crime city, but from age 3.5 to 6th grade, I was living 2-3 blocks away from the capital building in downtown Phoenix. We had our local gang running around, we had a murder down the street, we'd see police helicopters overhead quite often.
But I knew where it was safe to go, where it was unsafe to go, what the limits were. I played basketball and our own version of baseball right in my yard, rode my bike all around, roller-skated, climbed trees or whatever else, and nothing happened to me.
The real issue is parents need to educate their kids on what to do and not to do. Now, it's true that while my dad was hardly ever home, my mom was always home, but she can't keep me from getting into a stranger's car or anything else unless she's RIGHT there.
We live in a society that likes to blame EVERYONE ELSE for their problems and not take any responsibility for their own action or inaction. Show your kids that you care, give them good instruction, and that will go a long way.
No there aren't. The Senate had 51 Republicans in it before this election, they will have 55 after the new terms are started. Unless it requires more than a simple majority, there are not enough Democrats to do anything regarding a Supreme Court Justice appointment. ESPECIALLY if Bush waits until the new terms start...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not quite sure how someone who can't go to a bar suddenly has the right to copy copyrighted music for his own enjoyment without paying the fee that the artist (and/or his label) have set. If the artist wanted that person to have it for free, they would give it away. There are numerous ways to "discover" indie music. One is to listen to it with your friends. This is not illegal. For your friend to copy it and give it to you is, but not for both of you to listen to it together. Then there are reading reviews (there have got to be TONS of ways online to read about new music). The "99c song" sites might even have a 30 second preview of some songs as well. I don't see how it's any harder to "discover" new music while still following the laws and wishes of the artists/labels.
If you read the state law codes, you will likely find that speed limits are enforced on PUBLIC roads. That posted speed limits are for PUBLIC roads and highways.
In my state (Washington), all laws use the word "highway". The legal defintion of "highway" is: "Highway means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part thereof is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel." This is RCW 46.04.197. Please note the wording. It's the entire width between the boundary lines of every way PUBLICLY MAINTAINED when any part is open to the public for vehicular travel. It must be publicly maintained _and_ open to the public for vehicular travel. If it's privately owned and operated, it's likely privately maintained too. That means it does not fall under jurisdiction of Washington State vehicle laws.
Furthermore, your assertion that speeds are a safety issue are actually quite irrelevant. There exist private tracks specifically for racing cars. If speed limits were a safety issue, then why aren't these tracks closed down?
If it's within Texas border, it's not "interstate".
I was talking about listening to independant music in bars. You know, live entertainment. How is my quarter in my beer going to the "goddamn IP cartel"?
If I am not 'entitled' to a free car, you are NOT entitled to earn money for building cars. You're not even 'entitled' to food, water, and electricity. Why should you be entitled to free entertainment?
As I said before, it's OK to steal from the little guy because you can't listen to him on the radio for free??? If anything, the independant music scene is where the term "starving artist" REALLY applies. There was a site mp3.com that existed a while ago. It was exactly for independant artists to upload their music for free downloads. I don't know why it went under (maybe there was piracy going on, maybe it had a poor revenue model, I have no idea). I'm NOT against free music -- I'm saying that each artist and/or publisher have a right to determine how their copyrighted works are used, what the price point is, etc... If they choose to give it away, that's cool. But if they don't, then either pay the price they're asking or don't listen to it.
Well, if it's built with private funds and is run by private companies (requiring a toll or a "season pass" or whatever they want to do to pay for it), then why would law enforcement have ANY legal powers to enforce speeds? Police cannot come to my property and make sure that I'm driving at 35mph on my own property. Even if there were agreements in place that allowed the police to travel those roads to enforce speed limits, it would be a CIVIL penalty, as opposed to a CRIMINAL penalty. So failure to pay a "ticket" could result in a civil suit and/or termination of "season passes", but should not allow for termination of licenses or other things.
Of course, additional laws could be passed to get around this, but on the surface, it seems that police should have no legal enforcing power for any speed limits.
If you don't want to spend $50 on a game that you will only play once, then don't spend $50 on a game that you will only play once. But that doesn't give anyone the right to use it without paying for it -- the people who wrote that software have set their price. If it's higher than what you can afford / want to pay, then they've already made the choice that they're willing to not have you as a customer.
The quip about pirating a game was not meant to assume that you just want warez games. My point was simply this: if you want software outside of the realm of your education, then buy it. If you want software that is required for your education, then your school should have software licensed for school use. If they do not have the required software licensed, then you should talk to them about it. In my case, our software was a part of our tuition (well, it was some "extra" thing for computer services or network fees or something, but it wasn't an "optional" thing). I'm only aware of one piece of software that was required to be bought, and it actually came with the book for the course, and was an admittedly stripped down version, but it did everything needed for the course.
And remember -- those companies have chosen whether or not to give an educational discount, or whether or not to give a trial version. If you are unable to evaluate their software before purchase, then you don't have to buy! Their own marketing team has decided that they are willing to lose customers by not having eval versions. So let them lose the customers.
Clear Channel Communications is... a business. They're out to make money. No one has a right to get things they want through mediums they want. If they want to charge people to get their songs in the playlists, that's their perogative. I never once said that you can listen to ALL music for free through the radio. I said that's one way. And you wouldn't possibly be saying that it's OK to infringe on the copyright of independant artists, right? I thought the argument was always that the prices from the big labels were way overpriced... But if the independant artist is having their work pirated, where's the logic? It's OK to steal from the little guy cause you can only get the big guy's music for free?
Internet radio certainly is free. There's this tradeoff called QUALITY. Just like FM radio has less quality than CDs, internet radio on 56k dialup has less quality than either. You don't have a right to get CD-quality music for free. Furthermore, mobile listening is NOT a right that anyone has. Get a portable radio, make a tape or burn a CD of songs on the radio, if you really need mobile music. That's not illegal -- it's been very legal for a number of years.
Now, if you're talking about DMCA stuff, about fair use laws and how you won't even be able to make backup copies of CDs, then that's one thing. But making a backup copy and downloading a song that you never even purchased are two completely different things. I'm all for being able to backup music collections in case the original media is damaged somehow, but that does not give anyone the right to copy copyrighted works to give away.
I completely agree. But there's an old saying "two wrongs don't make a right". If they're doing something illegal, then doing something illegal back to them is not going to stop anything. As long as people are willing to pay the money (and there are a LOT of people paying that much, or we wouldn't have all the platinum selling artists and blobkbuster movies that we have) then they will continue on their course.
When was the last time you or someone you knew who downloaded movies, music, etc... did it because "the copyright laws are wrong" and not because "it's free!" or because "I don't wanna pay those prices" or because "I'm stickin' it to the man". Maybe you're one of the few people in that .001%.
At my school, all software required for our schooling (with few exceptions) was provided as part of our tuition. Just cause you like Quake 3 Arena or Half Life or whatever does not make it a requirement of college. Most schools will have some sort of a software purchase program and many software packages have educational discounts. If your school is requiring you to purchase software that they do not provide a license for, then take it up with your school.
Yup, and those are the people who's parents should be making sure that they're doing LEGAL things. You know, there's the thing called "radio". It's how you get to listen to songs for free. You listen to some ads, you get music. Oh, there's this new-fangled thing called "internet radio" too. It's free too! It's pretty amazing. If you don't want the things that you already can get for free, then PAY for the things that you want.
And I completely agree that it's good when a well-funded organization doesn't "win by default". However, that does NOT mean that we should fund the little guy.
You diagree with the law or you disagree with the prices? You really disagree that companies can spend millions of dollars in set design, computer animation, sound systems, camera equipment, actors, extras, and all the hundreds or thousands of other people, but they're not entitled to receive compensation for their work? They should have control over their creation, and that's exactly what the law provides for.
I'm pretty sure that 99.999% of the people who download movies, music, e-books, software, and other copyrighted works without paying for them do so because they do not want to PAY for them. "Oh, $16 is too much for a CD! Oh, $20 is too much for a DVD! Oh, $200 is too much for a piece of software."
If you don't like your money going large organizations, then go get indie music and films. There are a ton of them, and many of them give away their work to garner interest. Go to a local bar, grab a drink, and enjoy some music.
If you don't want to pay for it, don't use it at all. You are NOT entitled to free entertainment.
So Miranda will do webcam/video chat? Oh wait, since you don't use that feature, it's "useless eyecandy", right?
People aren't worried about "Take us to cuba" hujackings, they're worried about "We're all going to die" hijackings. Terrorists, not hijackings...
The point of terrorism is NOT to kill people, but to SCARE people. You kill a few, scare a bunch. With 9/11, how many people died? 4 thousand? How many people were too scared to fly? A few million? 10 million? Wouldn't it still be just as effective to kill a section of the plane (20, 30 people), scare EVERYONE on board, _and_ scare their families, friends, and anyone who heard the news about the most recent bombing?
Besides, if there were 5 terrorists on board, and if they happened to actually smuggle some explosives on board, each one of them takes a portion of the explosive to a different section. Now you get just under half of the plane. Of course, the terrorists could just detonate without any notice, or could put stuff in the food, or maybe taint the air supply, or any other thing. There are many points of failure in the current system. You may not get the plane to fly into a building, but you can still do lots of damage. Especially if you time it to be during approach somewhere - you might get more casualties and make people even more scared.
According to the list, Windows XP SP2 is the only OS not to be affected. This means that all flavors of Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 are affected. Win2k has server versions, so you can't upgrade to WinXP (the upgrade packages will NOT upgrade from 2k server to XP Pro), because they're meant for different purposes. Win2k3 was released AFTER XP, and exists only in server form...
So there are plenty of systems in use everywhere that are affected.
After some number of presentations, the total amount of time needed to memorize for all presentations will be greater than the amount of time it took to build the teleprompter. Assuming, of course, that the teleprompter is used repeatedly and repairing any breaks do not require a large amount of time. Regardless, if you only need the teleprompter a few times, it's probably not worth your time. If you need it more often than that, it's probably cheaper time-wise to build one yourself. If you need it much more than that, you're probably better of buying one that's already made, especially since there will likely be some service plan or warrantee.
Sociopath != Socially challenged. :P
EXACTLY. I grew up in Phoenix, AZ. Maybe not a great crime city, but from age 3.5 to 6th grade, I was living 2-3 blocks away from the capital building in downtown Phoenix. We had our local gang running around, we had a murder down the street, we'd see police helicopters overhead quite often.
But I knew where it was safe to go, where it was unsafe to go, what the limits were. I played basketball and our own version of baseball right in my yard, rode my bike all around, roller-skated, climbed trees or whatever else, and nothing happened to me.
The real issue is parents need to educate their kids on what to do and not to do. Now, it's true that while my dad was hardly ever home, my mom was always home, but she can't keep me from getting into a stranger's car or anything else unless she's RIGHT there.
We live in a society that likes to blame EVERYONE ELSE for their problems and not take any responsibility for their own action or inaction. Show your kids that you care, give them good instruction, and that will go a long way.
You can get it back if you want. Just put your computer in the freezer.
Ah, I'd forgotten about the age-old little-kid "If I can't have my way, I'm gonna cry until I get my way" filibuster.
BTW, I don't think in any way that G.W. will nominate Ashcroft to the SC, but I think filibusters are ridiculous.
No there aren't. The Senate had 51 Republicans in it before this election, they will have 55 after the new terms are started. Unless it requires more than a simple majority, there are not enough Democrats to do anything regarding a Supreme Court Justice appointment. ESPECIALLY if Bush waits until the new terms start...