I'm going to have to disagree with that analysis (IANAL, but I am a law student who is interested in practicing in copyright, so I have a little knowledge on the subject). (Before we get started, I have to say that I am not licensed to practice law anywhere, and this is not legal advice to anyone who may be reading this)
No, because the actual violation of copyright law is not downloading the song, but allowing someone else to download from you.
Hypothetical example: Charlie and Denise (fictitious names of the "Alice and Bob" variety) both have computers. Charlie rips a song from a CD and makes an MP3 of it (perfectly legal, though the RIAA would like for it not to be).
Contrary to popular opinion, the legality of ripping files is not a given. I don't have the text in front of me, but I recall the legality being hinged on judicial interpretation of several seemingly obvious, but legally fuzzy terms (such as "home audio recording device," and whether or not said term includes computers).
Charlie then places that song in his "Shared Files" folder (still perfectly legal).
Still questionably legal. This is the (untested as far as I know) act that the RIAA is trying to get labeled as inducement or contributory infringement. The idea is that, but for Charlie making it available for Denise to download, no infringement could have occurred.
Denise downloads the song--it's only at that moment that anything illegal was done, but it is Charlie, not Denise, who has broken the law.
Nope, they both have. Charlie and Denise have both infringed the reproduction and distribution rights of both the song writer and the recording artist. The RIAA has been choosing to sue only those who are making the tracks available (probably either because they think it's the cheapest way to get their message across, or because they haven't figured out a way to nail the downloaders without stirring up entrapment charges), but could go after both.
Note: this doesn't mean that I think the RIAA is right, this is just my take on the system as it stands today. Personally, I think a major overhaul is in order. One that doesn't include all of the stupid special interests that bought their way into the current system.
Aluminum doesn't spontaneously oxidize when you leave it out in a 21% oxygen atmosphere, does it?
Actually, it does. In all likelihood, you've never actually seen pure aluminum, just aluminum oxide. The reason that we can have things such as aluminum foil or aluminum can is that aluminum oxide forms an airtight barrier, preventing the underlying aluminum from further oxidation. Aluminum is exposed when you tear the foil, but it (nearly instantly) oxidises and reforms the protective layer. This becomes an issue in bulk processing of aluminum for powder (for things like paint and some pyrotechnic compositions). If the aluminum is not "burped" in the process of breaking down the particles, the powder will absorb all of the oxygen in the container, and the newly exposed surface area will cease to oxidise. When the lid id opened, "poof!" all of the unoxidised Al is suddenly exposed to a supply of O2, and a fast, exothermic reaction takes place. Being a highly reactive metal in a finely powdered state, this is BAD, but I digress...
Do you own a car? A house? When certain things are purchased, there is an assumption that there will be maintenance. Why should software be any different? Especially when it is costing you nothing to perform this maintenance? No matter how extensive pre-release testing is, things can be overlooked. These bugs are things that were only discovered after millions of hours of play testing. For a company to perform this much testing pre-release, there would be a substantial increase in development cost and time. Would you like to wait an extra year to pay $100 for your next game?
Unfortunately, I don't see a band making more than a moderate regional success without the aid of a lebel. The industry is just too closed to outsiders. You won't get your album shelved in Sam Goody, Wal Mart, and the like without the aid of a high-powered record company. The only other option is to join a smallish, "indie" label. While you still won't make MTV (most likely), a good indie label will be able to get you some exposure in independant record stores, radio stations, and the like. Some idie labels even band together in loose organizations, and can manage to get more clout that way. With this setup, you might be able to get a regional distribution in major outlets, but you still won't make the billboard charts. Sad to say, but if you want to be a rock star, you still have to play the label's games. At least until I get my plan to revolutionize the record industry underway...
I would love to see an idea like this work. Widely available music at a low price has always been something I longed for (I am a musician, and tracking down rare old recordings and paying out the nose for them has always been a chore). However, as much as I hate to say it, this or any other "pay to play" service will not end music piracy by itself. Think about it, why are so many people willing to shell out $1-$2 for a cellular ringtone (which is about 10 seconds of mediocre midi), but there is still such a large population not willing to spend $1 for something off of Itunes? Because with cell-phones, there is no free alternative. With music, people have gotten used to leeching the newest pop hit off of Kazaa, no strings attached. It will take the eradication of the easily accessible pirate networks to make pay services the default source for online music.
I don't know if it is for the reasons cited in TFA, but this is certainly holding true for me. I'm studying for my LSATs (gulp... saturday!). When taking the practice tests, I do much worse (about ten points worth) when I am going against the clock.
This isn't just due to running out of time (actually, I usually have some to spare). I think it's more about me thinking "Oh crap, I gotta finish this all in a half hour! I'd better take the first semi-correct answer before I check them all!"
We'll see in a month or two how it works out.
Well, for one, if you left the piece of paper in your shirt when you did laundry, you're hosed (admittedly, ditto for the USB key, but I would think that would be less likely to go unnoticed).
Also, with frequent key changes, you have to rewrite the piece of paper frequently. Besides the extra time it takes to re-copy all of your old passwords, you have the issue of mulitple papers lying around (perhaps you picked up the wrong copy), and disposal of old papers (digging through the trash is still the preferred method if ID theft).
Unfortunately, I have managed to catch a glimpse of said segway. The POLICE downtown in our little berg have been known to cruise around on these from time to time. I wonder if they have a little trailer to throw the "bad guys" in? Ah well, I guess this shows that the government is the richest "fad consumer" around!
Maybe I'm missing something. Let's say that criminal #1 is keeping records of ill deeds on his pc. Then this announcement goes out that the govt. now has the power to install copware on your computer. Wouldn't all but the dumbest criminals (who would've been caught anyway) simply disconnect their box, and use a non-incriminating computer for internet?
Or a firewall?
Unfortunately, the band is usually not the copyright owner. It is becoming standard business practice for labels to require that their bands hand over copyrights to all published songs.
skipping the pump and hooking directly into a low-flow water line? This would be the most expensive option (water bill), but eliminates the possibility of pump failure, and isn't reliable on ambient roomj temp (my water is quite cold when it comes out of the faucet, regardless of how hot the house is). Of course, if a hose leaks, a self-contained system would stop dripping when the reservoir was empty, while this would flood the whole house! Anyway, something to think about
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there laws against "predatory pricing"? Deliberately selling your product at a loss in order to undercut the competition, then raising the prices once your market share is big enough?
Cuckoo's Egg by Cliff Stoll. Not entirely relevant to today (describes tracking a hacker in the late 80s/early 90s), but a good read, and gives general ideas.
Re:basic... very basic.
on
You've Got PC
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
While you can get a better PC than that for under $600 right now, you miss out on one of the main reasons that the "great unwashed" are buying these PC's to begin with: internet. One of the main reasons for a family that doesn't already own a PC to get one is because internet access is becoming more and more of a convenience/necessity of life.
In an inexperienced user/internet-only situation, this looks to be a good solution. You can buy another PC for a similar price, but then you would have to add ISP charges on top of that. Plus, AOL is a name recognized by the public, which means that Grandma and Grandpa will trust them more.
I agree that the hate crime laws are flawed. I also concede that self defense is not exactly in line with the argument at hand. There are still motivic factors that must be considered. Let me give another hypothetical:
Say I get arrested for murder, and that victim happens to be a black woman? Now, should there be a difference in my sentence if I did it because she was a woman, black, or perhaps because she had been tormenting me for the last 20 years? With the last possibility, I represent almost no danger to the remaining population, the second makes me a danger to a fairly large population, and the first makes me a threat to roughly half the world.
(shudder) All this hypothetical killing gives me the creeps!
No, I think he was trying to make the case that any crime is equally bad, regardless of motivation. If I murder you, it shouldn't matter if I murdered you because you were black, or because you read slashdot.
No, but I would argue that motive on a larger scale should make a difference. For example, I would say that you would be entitled to less punishment for killing me if, say, I had just gunned down your family and are coming for you, as opposed to blasting me because I happened to walk past you when you were having a bad day.
I hate lawyers as much as the next guy, but this is a good thing.
The current online music business model sucks a big fat one. If improvements were made (better availabiliy of new and non-pop artists, choise of file size including lossless, etc.) and the fee were changed to a per-month system, I think enough people would switch over and make it work. I would gladly pay $10 a month for unlimited downloads of lossless material (the EFF says $5, which is derived from the statistic that the average american spends $60 a year on CDs, I would recommend a higher amount, though, because I expect that people would download more music in this system than they would buy in a store).
Slashdot Mirror
No, you have zero expectation of privacy in your driveway. What you have is an expectation of non-trespass and non-vandalism.
This. However, I fail to see a means by which a foreign device can be installed on an automobile WITHOUT trespassing...
No, because the actual violation of copyright law is not downloading the song, but allowing someone else to download from you.
Hypothetical example: Charlie and Denise (fictitious names of the "Alice and Bob" variety) both have computers. Charlie rips a song from a CD and makes an MP3 of it (perfectly legal, though the RIAA would like for it not to be).
Contrary to popular opinion, the legality of ripping files is not a given. I don't have the text in front of me, but I recall the legality being hinged on judicial interpretation of several seemingly obvious, but legally fuzzy terms (such as "home audio recording device," and whether or not said term includes computers).
Charlie then places that song in his "Shared Files" folder (still perfectly legal).
Still questionably legal. This is the (untested as far as I know) act that the RIAA is trying to get labeled as inducement or contributory infringement. The idea is that, but for Charlie making it available for Denise to download, no infringement could have occurred.
Denise downloads the song--it's only at that moment that anything illegal was done, but it is Charlie, not Denise, who has broken the law.
Nope, they both have. Charlie and Denise have both infringed the reproduction and distribution rights of both the song writer and the recording artist. The RIAA has been choosing to sue only those who are making the tracks available (probably either because they think it's the cheapest way to get their message across, or because they haven't figured out a way to nail the downloaders without stirring up entrapment charges), but could go after both.Note: this doesn't mean that I think the RIAA is right, this is just my take on the system as it stands today. Personally, I think a major overhaul is in order. One that doesn't include all of the stupid special interests that bought their way into the current system.
By god, if I had mod points, I'd find a way to mod this up to +5.
Posted by Zonk on Sunday January 01, @03:24AM
Just in time for Christmas? This may be one of the few times where it would actually be appropriate for the article to be a dupe.
Aluminum doesn't spontaneously oxidize when you leave it out in a 21% oxygen atmosphere, does it?
Actually, it does. In all likelihood, you've never actually seen pure aluminum, just aluminum oxide. The reason that we can have things such as aluminum foil or aluminum can is that aluminum oxide forms an airtight barrier, preventing the underlying aluminum from further oxidation. Aluminum is exposed when you tear the foil, but it (nearly instantly) oxidises and reforms the protective layer. This becomes an issue in bulk processing of aluminum for powder (for things like paint and some pyrotechnic compositions). If the aluminum is not "burped" in the process of breaking down the particles, the powder will absorb all of the oxygen in the container, and the newly exposed surface area will cease to oxidise. When the lid id opened, "poof!" all of the unoxidised Al is suddenly exposed to a supply of O2, and a fast, exothermic reaction takes place. Being a highly reactive metal in a finely powdered state, this is BAD, but I digress...
But will it cook a Jiffy Pop container 20' in diameter?
Do you own a car? A house? When certain things are purchased, there is an assumption that there will be maintenance. Why should software be any different? Especially when it is costing you nothing to perform this maintenance? No matter how extensive pre-release testing is, things can be overlooked. These bugs are things that were only discovered after millions of hours of play testing. For a company to perform this much testing pre-release, there would be a substantial increase in development cost and time. Would you like to wait an extra year to pay $100 for your next game?
Unfortunately, I don't see a band making more than a moderate regional success without the aid of a lebel. The industry is just too closed to outsiders. You won't get your album shelved in Sam Goody, Wal Mart, and the like without the aid of a high-powered record company. The only other option is to join a smallish, "indie" label. While you still won't make MTV (most likely), a good indie label will be able to get you some exposure in independant record stores, radio stations, and the like. Some idie labels even band together in loose organizations, and can manage to get more clout that way. With this setup, you might be able to get a regional distribution in major outlets, but you still won't make the billboard charts. Sad to say, but if you want to be a rock star, you still have to play the label's games. At least until I get my plan to revolutionize the record industry underway...
I would love to see an idea like this work. Widely available music at a low price has always been something I longed for (I am a musician, and tracking down rare old recordings and paying out the nose for them has always been a chore). However, as much as I hate to say it, this or any other "pay to play" service will not end music piracy by itself. Think about it, why are so many people willing to shell out $1-$2 for a cellular ringtone (which is about 10 seconds of mediocre midi), but there is still such a large population not willing to spend $1 for something off of Itunes? Because with cell-phones, there is no free alternative. With music, people have gotten used to leeching the newest pop hit off of Kazaa, no strings attached. It will take the eradication of the easily accessible pirate networks to make pay services the default source for online music.
I don't know if it is for the reasons cited in TFA, but this is certainly holding true for me. I'm studying for my LSATs (gulp... saturday!). When taking the practice tests, I do much worse (about ten points worth) when I am going against the clock. This isn't just due to running out of time (actually, I usually have some to spare). I think it's more about me thinking "Oh crap, I gotta finish this all in a half hour! I'd better take the first semi-correct answer before I check them all!" We'll see in a month or two how it works out.
Well, for one, if you left the piece of paper in your shirt when you did laundry, you're hosed (admittedly, ditto for the USB key, but I would think that would be less likely to go unnoticed). Also, with frequent key changes, you have to rewrite the piece of paper frequently. Besides the extra time it takes to re-copy all of your old passwords, you have the issue of mulitple papers lying around (perhaps you picked up the wrong copy), and disposal of old papers (digging through the trash is still the preferred method if ID theft).
Unfortunately, I have managed to catch a glimpse of said segway. The POLICE downtown in our little berg have been known to cruise around on these from time to time. I wonder if they have a little trailer to throw the "bad guys" in? Ah well, I guess this shows that the government is the richest "fad consumer" around!
It only took us a couple of months.
Maybe I'm missing something. Let's say that criminal #1 is keeping records of ill deeds on his pc. Then this announcement goes out that the govt. now has the power to install copware on your computer. Wouldn't all but the dumbest criminals (who would've been caught anyway) simply disconnect their box, and use a non-incriminating computer for internet? Or a firewall?
Unfortunately, the band is usually not the copyright owner. It is becoming standard business practice for labels to require that their bands hand over copyrights to all published songs.
skipping the pump and hooking directly into a low-flow water line? This would be the most expensive option (water bill), but eliminates the possibility of pump failure, and isn't reliable on ambient roomj temp (my water is quite cold when it comes out of the faucet, regardless of how hot the house is). Of course, if a hose leaks, a self-contained system would stop dripping when the reservoir was empty, while this would flood the whole house! Anyway, something to think about
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there laws against "predatory pricing"? Deliberately selling your product at a loss in order to undercut the competition, then raising the prices once your market share is big enough?
Cuckoo's Egg by Cliff Stoll. Not entirely relevant to today (describes tracking a hacker in the late 80s/early 90s), but a good read, and gives general ideas.
While you can get a better PC than that for under $600 right now, you miss out on one of the main reasons that the "great unwashed" are buying these PC's to begin with: internet. One of the main reasons for a family that doesn't already own a PC to get one is because internet access is becoming more and more of a convenience/necessity of life.
In an inexperienced user/internet-only situation, this looks to be a good solution. You can buy another PC for a similar price, but then you would have to add ISP charges on top of that. Plus, AOL is a name recognized by the public, which means that Grandma and Grandpa will trust them more.
Something to replace the tinfoil in my hat!
I agree that the hate crime laws are flawed. I also concede that self defense is not exactly in line with the argument at hand. There are still motivic factors that must be considered. Let me give another hypothetical:
Say I get arrested for murder, and that victim happens to be a black woman? Now, should there be a difference in my sentence if I did it because she was a woman, black, or perhaps because she had been tormenting me for the last 20 years? With the last possibility, I represent almost no danger to the remaining population, the second makes me a danger to a fairly large population, and the first makes me a threat to roughly half the world.
(shudder) All this hypothetical killing gives me the creeps!
No, I think he was trying to make the case that any crime is equally bad, regardless of motivation. If I murder you, it shouldn't matter if I murdered you because you were black, or because you read slashdot.
No, but I would argue that motive on a larger scale should make a difference. For example, I would say that you would be entitled to less punishment for killing me if, say, I had just gunned down your family and are coming for you, as opposed to blasting me because I happened to walk past you when you were having a bad day.
I hate lawyers as much as the next guy, but this is a good thing.
The current online music business model sucks a big fat one. If improvements were made (better availabiliy of new and non-pop artists, choise of file size including lossless, etc.) and the fee were changed to a per-month system, I think enough people would switch over and make it work. I would gladly pay $10 a month for unlimited downloads of lossless material (the EFF says $5, which is derived from the statistic that the average american spends $60 a year on CDs, I would recommend a higher amount, though, because I expect that people would download more music in this system than they would buy in a store).
Jeez, try to make a joke and get modded offtopic. Sorrrr-ry
Maybe this will get my PC up to spec for Doom 3.