Generally, if it's legal for you to do something, it's legal for you to employ someone to do it on your behalf. I would be surprised if it would be illegal for me to, say, pay someone to come round to my house and rip my CDs for me. Amazon's system seems to be broadly analogous.
Interestingly, in the UK, both are illegal. In Canada, it is legal for you to rip for personal use, but illegal to do it for profit, or redistribute -- which means it would be illegal to pay someone to rip your CDs. It is not illegal to pay someone to lend you CDs (rent) to rip yourself, however.
This is probably why Amazon has limited this service to US IP addresses.
It's entirely possible, and entirely acceptable in my mind, that the paper wanted to do the story, found your interesting post, and then independently verified the information, which agreed with your findings. If you found it, so could they. It's all fine.
I don't think he had a problem with that... he had a problem with how they handled it (didn't mention how they found it, and then removed the bit that nobody else mentions, THEN added a snarky comment about him).
A professional journalist would have posted his response, and responded to it with a "yes, we did come across your article while doing our research; thank you for assisting us!" and left it at that. Or, if they didn't see his blog article, they would have done the same but responded to the comment with "we're sorry, we found that information by doing x; I'm glad we're not the only ones to have discovered that however!"
Journalists should never treat the public as their enemy, and they should never edit articles in the heat of the moment. Newspapers should never let a journalist edit an article without it going through an editor first -- even online. If this article's changes were vetted both time, it's shame on the newspaper editor, not just the author.
I guess you didn't read the article; he had content on his blog that showed up nowhere else, and they copied it verbatim. He really should produce the logs though.
Along the same lines, doing a search for Missy Yates will show you that she normally does cooking articles. My guess is that she hadn't heard of whois until she read the blog.
No matter which way you look at it though, the paper's handling of the incident is extremely unprofessional. Her "article" (and its updates) read more like a vanity blog than the original blogger's.
Since you could possibly be listening to the music at home while also listening to it on your cellphone, they would probably limit concurrent IP logins to something sane like 4 -- but if you have simultaneous access from 5+ IPs, then there's pretty much guaranteed to be sharing going on.
What I'm interested in is whether all the music actually gets stored in the same bitbin -- they could generate some very interesting data from that (music recommendations, etc), as well as a much better gracenote-style service.
I wonder how long it'll take the RIAA members to figure out they've been outmaneuvered by New Media (Amazon, Google and Apple) and give up?
The funny thing is, the CAA hasn't accused him of reckless activity. What they HAVE done is say "What exactly did he do that is reckless? May we please have the unedited footage so we can see if there was any reckless activity?" to which the network and the guy both responded NO!
Now the CAA has to go through more difficult routes in their investigation to answer the complaints of "reckless activity" from others with either a "yes, he did something reckless," or "investigation closed. Nothing done outside the regulations." Meanwhile, this guy is making a big publicity stunt out of the whole thing.
Indeed: FUBAR was WWII US military jargon, usually referring to combat missions led by non-US allied forces, but also in some situations to the supply lines. The stories are those told by vets regarding times when the acronym was actually used.
Oh, and if the GP started with the subject line, he'd realize that I didn't post the wrong link;)
Not everyone's doing it illegally; some of us are doing it legally via slingbox and the like.
There are very few people who aren't doing it though. The only issue I can see here is that TWC gets very precise metrics on who is watching what -- the results of which mean they might want to pay less for niche channels, and might reveal this information to the channels' advertisers, who would then realize how much they were being bilked by the channels, and move to more profitable ones/pay less money per ad.
They don't care about that; they don't get paid because you watch their ads; they get paid per household from TWC and per household from the advertisers. They still get paid even if you never see the ads. If I were an advertiser for one of these channels, I'd be delighted, as the channel would be ripping me off less -- but the channel only sees this as a lost possible revenue stream (TWC can legally provide to you for no further cost what they wanted to provide you for additional subscription cost themselves).
As far as "an application that redirects" goes: if you're set on misusing the content, why not just set up a VPN? All your friends can then VPN to an isolated network node that has your iPod rebroadcasting via AirTunes, for example. Nothing needs to be written; the software's already all available and installed (and your router might even support VPNs out of the box).
Since it's a VPN, it's really not much different than inviting all your friends over to watch the show on your TV (which surprisingly is just as illegal).
Huh? Time Warner is using its position as middleman to enable its customers to view vendor's wares on more devices in the home. The issue here is that those devices also have the ability to stream the same data directly from the vendors at a higher profit margin than they've negotiated with TW by freeloading* off of TW's network stream. The screwing over is not just one way -- both entities are attempting to screw over the other, because they both want the money, and only one of them gets to charge the consumer at consumer rates. The vendors have a choice to have TW broadcast their wares to a larger audience at a lower price, or to a dedicated audience at a higher price -- and they want to be able to do both without TW eating into those profits by allowing the dedicated audience to be a part of the larger audience.
*This is where Net Neutrality gets interesting; it's not really freeloading, as consumers have already paid TW for that bandwidth. Personally, if I was a cable provider, I'd make it part of my contract with the vendors that they do not try to undercut my rates by providing the same content directly to my customers. at a price higher than the contract stipulates but lower than a 20% markup on that rate.
This has to be one of the best episodes ever... not even eclipsed by the 2010 Angels episodes. My next top picks would be the old episodes that first introduced the Daleks, followed by the ones that filled in their back history.
Really, you could go about this many ways... I'd suggest looking up an episode guide and picking the theme you want to start with; themes, just like time lords, hop all over the Dr. Who continuum; you don't even need to watch them in order (other than watching Blink before the later Angels episodes).
I agree -- but I'd also recommend listening to the radio shows first. You could also read the books, but they're sometimes harder to find. I found reading the books for the lost episodes to be immensely informative, and my imagination is probably better than the original video.
Agreed -- I jumped from OS 9 to 10.2 because 10.0 and 10.1 brought nothing useful to the table for me (broke my apps, my drivers, were buggy, and didn't have enough APIs nailed down to ensure anything *I* wrote for them wouldn't break in the next version upgrade).
I agree with all of this... until you jailbreak. At that point you don't have Apple's benevolent blessing anymore, but the device becomes inordinately more useful. I've got the same BSD-level stuff on my iOS devices that I have on my OS X devices... I even have X installed:)
Personally, I think that alongside Cydia, someone needs to make an iOSPorts.org similar to macports.
After all, the CPU in an iPad is closer to the original Motorola MC68000 than the x86 chip in modern Macs, and the CPU power and screen resolution is significantly improved on the iPad over the Macintosh 128k (or Plus, SE/30, Color Classic II for that matter).
Well, under System 7 through OS 9 I used MPW Workshop with a network plugin for remote and windowed CLI, and MacsBUG for true under-the-hood goodness:)
OS X is still a huge improvement, although I miss MacsBUG. Playing Pong directly on the hardware was fun:)
I am cancelling my pre-order.... I will wait until this is on store shelves.... I am dropping my pre-order.... Your possible "publicity stunt" has lost you sales.
Sounds to me like you're still planning to buy, which means they've lost nothing. The sales channel you pre-ordered through will be losing a bit of compound interest, however.
Personally, I was never all that interested in the series; I can see myself buying a copy just to get my hands on some gaming history though.
I wonder if they'll do a limited run of copies designed to be played on the Phantom console:D
True... if you zero all memory in a solid block, it is effectively gone; no need to rewrite. If you zero only some memory, the wear leveling will kick in, and you might not actually have cleared the bits you meant to clear.
I know people who were running 3.11 in 1999 -- not everyone jumped on the Win95/98 bandwagon.
However, considering he bought new hardware, you'd think he would have also got 95C (integrated Internet Explorer!) which was out by that point (heck, win98 was out in some places by then).
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm... Fiber in Kansas... for some reason I have "Somewhere over the Rainbow" going through my head....
Generally, if it's legal for you to do something, it's legal for you to employ someone to do it on your behalf. I would be surprised if it would be illegal for me to, say, pay someone to come round to my house and rip my CDs for me. Amazon's system seems to be broadly analogous.
Interestingly, in the UK, both are illegal. In Canada, it is legal for you to rip for personal use, but illegal to do it for profit, or redistribute -- which means it would be illegal to pay someone to rip your CDs. It is not illegal to pay someone to lend you CDs (rent) to rip yourself, however.
This is probably why Amazon has limited this service to US IP addresses.
It's entirely possible, and entirely acceptable in my mind, that the paper wanted to do the story, found your interesting post, and then independently verified the information, which agreed with your findings. If you found it, so could they. It's all fine.
I don't think he had a problem with that... he had a problem with how they handled it (didn't mention how they found it, and then removed the bit that nobody else mentions, THEN added a snarky comment about him).
A professional journalist would have posted his response, and responded to it with a "yes, we did come across your article while doing our research; thank you for assisting us!" and left it at that. Or, if they didn't see his blog article, they would have done the same but responded to the comment with "we're sorry, we found that information by doing x; I'm glad we're not the only ones to have discovered that however!"
Journalists should never treat the public as their enemy, and they should never edit articles in the heat of the moment. Newspapers should never let a journalist edit an article without it going through an editor first -- even online. If this article's changes were vetted both time, it's shame on the newspaper editor, not just the author.
I guess you didn't read the article; he had content on his blog that showed up nowhere else, and they copied it verbatim. He really should produce the logs though.
Along the same lines, doing a search for Missy Yates will show you that she normally does cooking articles. My guess is that she hadn't heard of whois until she read the blog.
No matter which way you look at it though, the paper's handling of the incident is extremely unprofessional. Her "article" (and its updates) read more like a vanity blog than the original blogger's.
Well, if that claim is one of their forecasts... it could be wrong, you know ;)
He left out a phrase... "at the same time."
Since you could possibly be listening to the music at home while also listening to it on your cellphone, they would probably limit concurrent IP logins to something sane like 4 -- but if you have simultaneous access from 5+ IPs, then there's pretty much guaranteed to be sharing going on.
What I'm interested in is whether all the music actually gets stored in the same bitbin -- they could generate some very interesting data from that (music recommendations, etc), as well as a much better gracenote-style service.
I wonder how long it'll take the RIAA members to figure out they've been outmaneuvered by New Media (Amazon, Google and Apple) and give up?
The funny thing is, the CAA hasn't accused him of reckless activity. What they HAVE done is say "What exactly did he do that is reckless? May we please have the unedited footage so we can see if there was any reckless activity?" to which the network and the guy both responded NO!
Now the CAA has to go through more difficult routes in their investigation to answer the complaints of "reckless activity" from others with either a "yes, he did something reckless," or "investigation closed. Nothing done outside the regulations." Meanwhile, this guy is making a big publicity stunt out of the whole thing.
I'll take D for 75 trillion dollars, please :D
Indeed: FUBAR was WWII US military jargon, usually referring to combat missions led by non-US allied forces, but also in some situations to the supply lines. The stories are those told by vets regarding times when the acronym was actually used.
Oh, and if the GP started with the subject line, he'd realize that I didn't post the wrong link ;)
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0994289#m_en_gb0994289
It also has FUBAR, although misses out on the interesting history of that acronym.
Not everyone's doing it illegally; some of us are doing it legally via slingbox and the like.
There are very few people who aren't doing it though. The only issue I can see here is that TWC gets very precise metrics on who is watching what -- the results of which mean they might want to pay less for niche channels, and might reveal this information to the channels' advertisers, who would then realize how much they were being bilked by the channels, and move to more profitable ones/pay less money per ad.
They don't care about that; they don't get paid because you watch their ads; they get paid per household from TWC and per household from the advertisers. They still get paid even if you never see the ads. If I were an advertiser for one of these channels, I'd be delighted, as the channel would be ripping me off less -- but the channel only sees this as a lost possible revenue stream (TWC can legally provide to you for no further cost what they wanted to provide you for additional subscription cost themselves).
As far as "an application that redirects" goes: if you're set on misusing the content, why not just set up a VPN? All your friends can then VPN to an isolated network node that has your iPod rebroadcasting via AirTunes, for example. Nothing needs to be written; the software's already all available and installed (and your router might even support VPNs out of the box).
Since it's a VPN, it's really not much different than inviting all your friends over to watch the show on your TV (which surprisingly is just as illegal).
Huh? Time Warner is using its position as middleman to enable its customers to view vendor's wares on more devices in the home. The issue here is that those devices also have the ability to stream the same data directly from the vendors at a higher profit margin than they've negotiated with TW by freeloading* off of TW's network stream. The screwing over is not just one way -- both entities are attempting to screw over the other, because they both want the money, and only one of them gets to charge the consumer at consumer rates. The vendors have a choice to have TW broadcast their wares to a larger audience at a lower price, or to a dedicated audience at a higher price -- and they want to be able to do both without TW eating into those profits by allowing the dedicated audience to be a part of the larger audience.
*This is where Net Neutrality gets interesting; it's not really freeloading, as consumers have already paid TW for that bandwidth. Personally, if I was a cable provider, I'd make it part of my contract with the vendors that they do not try to undercut my rates by providing the same content directly to my customers. at a price higher than the contract stipulates but lower than a 20% markup on that rate.
Please mod this up. This is the best summary I've seen anywhere of the issue at play.
I like to compare it to this... lowendmac.com/ppc/20th-anniversary-macintosh.html
If you want to get started on the old stuff, you can always start with the radio shows, as they span the "lost episodes" years quite nicely.
This has to be one of the best episodes ever... not even eclipsed by the 2010 Angels episodes. My next top picks would be the old episodes that first introduced the Daleks, followed by the ones that filled in their back history.
Really, you could go about this many ways... I'd suggest looking up an episode guide and picking the theme you want to start with; themes, just like time lords, hop all over the Dr. Who continuum; you don't even need to watch them in order (other than watching Blink before the later Angels episodes).
I agree -- but I'd also recommend listening to the radio shows first. You could also read the books, but they're sometimes harder to find. I found reading the books for the lost episodes to be immensely informative, and my imagination is probably better than the original video.
Agreed -- I jumped from OS 9 to 10.2 because 10.0 and 10.1 brought nothing useful to the table for me (broke my apps, my drivers, were buggy, and didn't have enough APIs nailed down to ensure anything *I* wrote for them wouldn't break in the next version upgrade).
I agree with all of this... until you jailbreak. At that point you don't have Apple's benevolent blessing anymore, but the device becomes inordinately more useful. I've got the same BSD-level stuff on my iOS devices that I have on my OS X devices... I even have X installed :)
Personally, I think that alongside Cydia, someone needs to make an iOSPorts.org similar to macports.
After all, the CPU in an iPad is closer to the original Motorola MC68000 than the x86 chip in modern Macs, and the CPU power and screen resolution is significantly improved on the iPad over the Macintosh 128k (or Plus, SE/30, Color Classic II for that matter).
Well, under System 7 through OS 9 I used MPW Workshop with a network plugin for remote and windowed CLI, and MacsBUG for true under-the-hood goodness :)
OS X is still a huge improvement, although I miss MacsBUG. Playing Pong directly on the hardware was fun :)
I am cancelling my pre-order .... I will wait until this is on store shelves .... I am dropping my pre-order .... Your possible "publicity stunt" has lost you sales.
Sounds to me like you're still planning to buy, which means they've lost nothing. The sales channel you pre-ordered through will be losing a bit of compound interest, however.
Personally, I was never all that interested in the series; I can see myself buying a copy just to get my hands on some gaming history though.
I wonder if they'll do a limited run of copies designed to be played on the Phantom console :D
True... if you zero all memory in a solid block, it is effectively gone; no need to rewrite. If you zero only some memory, the wear leveling will kick in, and you might not actually have cleared the bits you meant to clear.
I know people who were running 3.11 in 1999 -- not everyone jumped on the Win95/98 bandwagon.
However, considering he bought new hardware, you'd think he would have also got 95C (integrated Internet Explorer!) which was out by that point (heck, win98 was out in some places by then).