Conversely, there does not seem to be much sympathy for people who _sell_ pirated songs or attempt to use them for some purely commercial purpose. The photographs' use here was as part of an advert. The copyright infringer therefore wanted to use the images as a way of attracting business. That's what I'd call a commercial purpose.
Pirate Bay uses music as a means of attracting people to their website. On their website they have adverts that they earn revenue from. The copyright infringer therefore wants to use the music as a way of attracting business. That's what I'd call a commercial purpose.
Perhaps you could explain the difference between these two cases? Cos I can't see it.
Record companies are managed by bean-counters who consider which record will make the most money. Sure, sometimes they do. And sometimes musicians record the music that will make the most money. Cos they have to, y'know, eat and pay the mortgage. And musicians like money too. So lots and lots of people like it and buy it (which was what those naughty bean-counters intended in the first place, bad bean-counters!) But if you don't like it you need to learn to listen to other stuff. How is your inability their problem?
Or not and you will never breed (which may be a good thing). Cool. Personal insults. Guess my argument is won.
Who said anything about the 1930's? Did you think I was saying we should all go back to listening to Jazz? Wow, way to miss the point. My mistake. I over-estimated your powers of comprehension.
Ask U2 or The Rolling Stones if they want to quit touring. Ask their fans. Yeah, because U2 and The Rolling Stones are very typical, average bands. If they can earn a living simply by touring then anyone can, what with them playing such eclectic music outside of mainstream tastes.
It's no great surprise that a fair percentage of the population break laws when they think they can get away with it and there's no obvious and immediate victim. People like free-stuff. People will jump through any number of hoops in order to justify why they're "not really" doing wrong. None of that is news and none of it is any reason to change the law.
It's said that 50% of drivers break urban speed limits. 20% to 65% of employees admit to various degrees of theft at work. Sounds like it's time to change those laws too?
Nope, you didn't. Apparently big brother (I'm guessing AC is male) thinks that his sister has more to fear from her parents accessing her computer, than anything else that she could be getting up to on the computer without their knowledge.
I'm also guessing that AC is an idiot who should never bring up children, at least until he learns some sense.
If I was their parent, the first time I found a computer locked off from my access in my 7 year olds room would be the last time it would be used. Learning security is a good thing, and 7 year olds love secrets. But not from their parents.
And I bet once she finds that none of the games in the shops work she'll be wanting Windows anyway.
Then along came Record Companies. Wrong. Then along came Records. It was the change in cheaply available technology that caused the change in the provision of music. Record companies were a logical and common sense response to this change. Musicians could make money by selling records, but had no interest or experience in manufacture, marketing or sales. Record Companies could do this, and, in the great and proud tradition of the western society they originated from, make money from it for themselves. Thereby allowing musicians to get on with making music.
Record Companies threw all these people out of work Wrong. The live musicians' business model was by-passed and supplanted by developments in technology. (That phrase sound familiar to you?) That's not the Record Companies fault. If anything they helped publicised music and allowed many people to hear music that they would otherwise have never heard. (Hey! Now that argument does sound familar!) But people simply didn't need live music half as much as the used to.
You seem to want to paint record companies as some big evil anomaly that must be destroyed. The facts are that Record Companies were a logical response to the technological and cultural needs of the time. No different from any other. Perhaps they have now had their day, but to pretend their existence was a big mistake and that music will be restored to a mythical golden age in their absence is ridiculous.
Bands don't make money from records anymore, they make if from shows. Like they used to. Yeah, that's a very cosy image. But a lot of people don't want to hear the music of the 1930s any more. Music has changed and diversified. Lots of music simply doesn't work in a live setting. Lots of people are unable or unwilling to go to live performances. Lots of musicians have a scarce and widely spread audience, getting them all in the one location for a performance is physically and economically impossible. So your brave new world of everything being financed from live performance is both retrogressive and unworkable.
Just think how useful this could be for your doctor. No more tedious working out what to prescribe you. Just type the diagnosis into your google page, refresh, and adsense will immediately deliver links to drugs that are just the job!!
And you get paid for the click-thrus! It's a win-win scenario and almost worth being ill for!
Make it look like an ordinary weather/GPS/comm satellite. So that's what they've been going wrong. Instead of dressing it in a dark cape with sunglasses, they want bright knitwear or a techie jumpsuit.
Cos that's what weather/GPS/comm satellites look like, right?
They're old and the people who know enough about computers to torrent don't care enough about them to download. Yeah, cos you need like a degree in Computing Science to install a torrent. It truly is the cutting edge of technological advancement. Doesn't it use quantum theory in parts?
Plus everyone over 30 is senile and were using chalkboards and quills while today's youngsters were inventing this new inter-web thing. They did this in-between inventing good music and sex. Aren't they clever?
why not just wipe the students internet usage records every week or so? Because the university keeps the logs for its own reasons and its own legal protection. It may come as a surprise to you, but the university network policies tend not to be driven by the need to ensure student anonymity while file-sharing music. They are used for other, academic, uses.
I don't understand why universities dont just 'loose' these records. I heard of a place that did this once. The records were running wild all over the hallways for days before they managed to round them all up again.
Depends on Company Policy
on
Ethics In IT
·
· Score: 1
Most of what defines IT 'Ethics' (or at least those that relate to purely IT issues) are defined by company policy. Some company policies state that users have no right to any privacy on email. Some companies practice complete lock-down of computers and teach users that the IT Administers really are god.
So the first point of reference is company policy. The only place "ethics" come it to it is the ask if these policies are written down (rather than made up as you go along to suit the situation) and do the staff know them? Cos if they don't know them you're involved in a form of deceit where they might think their email is private.
Of course, a company that is happy to deceive their staff and without written policies can find that a lack of ethics cuts both ways. The company itself can be done over by the IT staff who have been led to believe that anything goes.
But for non-techies, learning a new UI (particularly one that makes as much use of the terminal/command line as most Linux distros do) can be a major hassle. For non-techies, the UI is the computer. So if techies want to understand what an upheaval it can be; imagine learning a new operating system that works to three state bits, stores its configuration in jpegs, uses venn diagrams and tonal whistles instead of WIMP and communicates with hardware not by interrupts, but by a "alphabetical sort queue" principle.
So you fill up your laptop with generic rubbish that you can delete once you're through customs. Like 5 hours of video capture of you sitting on the plane. Or 10,000 copies of the Bill Of Rights.
Though I suppose they could look suspicious too. As could anything if you're paranoid enough.
The problem is already solved. DMVs also issue "state ID" which is valid for all purposes that a drivers license is used for. But if it isn't a drivers licence, will it perform the function of the "Enhanced Driver's Licence" proposed in the article? You can get many ID cards of many sorts from many places. If my "State ID" is adequate, will my library card also do?
Or will there be a "Non-driver's Enhanced Driver's Licence"? In which case, let us pretend no longer. You don't have a driver's licence, you have a national ID card that optionally and additionally operates as a driver's licence.
The problem is not the card, but the database that lies behind it.
Old style European ID schemes simply don't have this to the same degree, nor is there any attempt to cross reference the contents of these database with other repositories of information. The danger is that the ability to tie this information together can and will be abused, not just by the government but by any of the organisations who suddenly make it compulsory for you to share your ID with them before they will have anything to do with you.
The idea that your bank can cross reference your financial details with your medical details, just on a whim, without your knowledge or consent, should worry you. Supporters of the schemes say this sort of thing would be illegal, but experience tells us that they will happen, simply because its easy and possible.
And then there's all the problems that could occur should the data be inaccurate, or corrupted through identity fraud. Identity theft is easier with ID cards. All the criminal has to do is forge your card and they become you, gaining the benefits of all your data in the ID database, and all the data it can be cross referenced with. It's the ultimate "all eggs in one basket" scenario. Conversely; you either become a criminal, (because you and your ID in the database is one and the same thing as far as officials are concerned), or you become no-one. Wave good-bye to all your rights as a citizen, you don't own them, your "identity" owns them and you no longer own your "identity".
Simply put; the ID cards and database will become a very powerful resource and beneficial to everyone, except the individuals themselves. Only governments and institutions who like a neat and convenient handle to pull you about with have anything to gain from it. The scope for its misuse is massive.
I know drivers' licences are a very popular route for governments to introduce national ID schemes. Put pity the poor citizen who can't/doesn't drive. Will the end result of these be non-drivers effectively becoming non-citizens?
The artist is paid over and over again for "virtual performances" that don't involve any actual work I'm sorry, but unless you're getting your music on pay-per-listen you are talking rot. You buy the CD/MP3 once. You listen to it over and over again without any further payment.
What the artist is getting from others is none of your business.
Ok. Following you reasoning: I'm not willing to pay him for his music, so he doesn't deserve my money. Fine. He doesn't get your money. But you are not willing to pay for the music, yet still expect to be given it. That makes you a free-loader.
Following your reasoning: If he can't get me to pay for his music, then 0$ is what he deserves. Also fine. But you are not alone in the market. If he can't get anyone to pay then he stops making music and gets another job. No more music from him. Either he isn't any good, or is unfortunate to have a fan-base of free-loaders.
It's not hard to follow. If no-one pays the musician, then he stops making the music. If you are taking the music without paying then you are free-loading off those who are paying. Justifying not paying on the grounds that they're getting plenty from elsewhere is exactly the kind of self-serving bullshit free-loaders come up with.
Selling instances of a series of bits doesn't fit into the economic system we all live by. So what incentive are you going to give people to keep putting new "series of bits" together? Or are you a fan of random white noise?
No-one's pretending that there isn't a problem here, but just because people can easily breech copyright doesn't make it right. Pointing out a weaknesses in the system, and then using that as a justification for exploiting the weakness, is just the kind of self-serving bullshit free-loaders come up with.
Excuse me but who is demanding musicians anything at all? You are demanding they deliver a service for your pleasure, but not to expect anything back from you in return.
what argument can be made for justifying some of the large prices attaches to a series of bits? The same argument that justifies some of the large prices attached to a collection of plastic and tiny scraps of metal and silicon. Because some one has designed a way of putting them together in a way that people value. The constituent material is pretty irrelevant compared to the skill, time and effort involved in the production.
Last time I checked a song wouldn't cost you 1,000,000$. In fact it wouldn't even cost you 1$.
So what's your point? That the same song is getting sold to other people too? How is that any of your business? Would you refuse to pay your cop if you found out they earned 900$ that same day in stock investments?
What people "deserve" is what the market is willing to pay them. If you can get people to pay you 1,000,000$ for a day's work, any kind of work, then that is what you "deserve". Any other way of measuring what people "deserve" doesn't fit into the economic system we all live by. Demanding musicians to somehow live by a whole other set of rules is unreasonable and won't work. Either we all find a new way of measuring what people "deserve" (and good luck with that), or we stop being big babies and accept that many people will earn more than what we personally believe they "deserve".
I don't think it's fair to call Vista a bloated operating system. You look at the list of crud that this tool removes; that's not Operating System, that's application crud that should be optional in the install anyway.
Just because MS wants it to be part of the compulsory install (all the better to monopolise your computer and online profile) doesn't make it part of the operating system. I mean, come on, what makes MSN Installer part of an OS?
more than 850 albums were recorded as part of the challenge, a testament to what can be done by independent musicians without a label, without the RIAA, and often without a professional studio. Quantity != Quality. And their jukebox certainly is a testament to that.
Seriously, amateur musicians are recording this much all the time. This motley collection just demonstrates how much and why they're amateurs.
I have to give many more times that to scumbag corporations, who (on a lot of the music in question) long ago covered their costs and earned their profits, yet still charge me and the artist a premium for expenses, many of which no longer exist. The capitalist free-market system says; "Hi!, Where have you been all your life?"
What makes you think music corporations should or could work any differently from any other industry? No industry reaches a point where they have "earned their profits". Where is there the point that says "ok stop now, you've earned enough from that"?
Yup. IT Management is as much as dealing with people as it is with technology, and from a position of authority that changes the dynamics of all the working relationships you will already be use to. A significant proportion of your working day as an IT Manager will involve doing stuff you've never had to do before and may be stuff you're not any good at. And much of that is the kind of stuff that only comes with experience and maturity.
I'm not saying it's impossible for a 25 year old, but you really need another 10 years work & life experience.
Slashdot Mirror
Pirate Bay uses music as a means of attracting people to their website. On their website they have adverts that they earn revenue from. The copyright infringer therefore wants to use the music as a way of attracting business. That's what I'd call a commercial purpose.
Perhaps you could explain the difference between these two cases? Cos I can't see it.
It's no great surprise that a fair percentage of the population break laws when they think they can get away with it and there's no obvious and immediate victim. People like free-stuff. People will jump through any number of hoops in order to justify why they're "not really" doing wrong. None of that is news and none of it is any reason to change the law.
It's said that 50% of drivers break urban speed limits. 20% to 65% of employees admit to various degrees of theft at work. Sounds like it's time to change those laws too?
Because a 7 year old doesn't know enough to be able to tell when they are putting themselves in danger.
Because a 7 year old doesn't know what is best for their long-term educational/physical/mental/moral development.
Because a parent is legally responsible for ensuring the 7 year old's safety (and could end up in jail for neglecting it).
Because a parent is paying for the upkeep of the computer, child, house and everything in it.
Because every time someone suggests censoring or controlling the internet "for the children", the proper reply is; "that's their parents' job!"
Nope, you didn't. Apparently big brother (I'm guessing AC is male) thinks that his sister has more to fear from her parents accessing her computer, than anything else that she could be getting up to on the computer without their knowledge.
I'm also guessing that AC is an idiot who should never bring up children, at least until he learns some sense.
If I was their parent, the first time I found a computer locked off from my access in my 7 year olds room would be the last time it would be used. Learning security is a good thing, and 7 year olds love secrets. But not from their parents.
And I bet once she finds that none of the games in the shops work she'll be wanting Windows anyway.
You seem to want to paint record companies as some big evil anomaly that must be destroyed. The facts are that Record Companies were a logical response to the technological and cultural needs of the time. No different from any other. Perhaps they have now had their day, but to pretend their existence was a big mistake and that music will be restored to a mythical golden age in their absence is ridiculous. Bands don't make money from records anymore, they make if from shows. Like they used to. Yeah, that's a very cosy image. But a lot of people don't want to hear the music of the 1930s any more. Music has changed and diversified. Lots of music simply doesn't work in a live setting. Lots of people are unable or unwilling to go to live performances. Lots of musicians have a scarce and widely spread audience, getting them all in the one location for a performance is physically and economically impossible. So your brave new world of everything being financed from live performance is both retrogressive and unworkable.
No no no no no nooo. Not spam; adsense.
Just think how useful this could be for your doctor. No more tedious working out what to prescribe you. Just type the diagnosis into your google page, refresh, and adsense will immediately deliver links to drugs that are just the job!!
And you get paid for the click-thrus! It's a win-win scenario and almost worth being ill for!
Cos that's what weather/GPS/comm satellites look like, right?
Whenever anyone mentions England driving on the right, I think; "Good, won't be affecting the rest of us in the British Isles then."
Although it would make crossing the borders interesting.
Plus everyone over 30 is senile and were using chalkboards and quills while today's youngsters were inventing this new inter-web thing. They did this in-between inventing good music and sex. Aren't they clever?
Most of what defines IT 'Ethics' (or at least those that relate to purely IT issues) are defined by company policy. Some company policies state that users have no right to any privacy on email. Some companies practice complete lock-down of computers and teach users that the IT Administers really are god.
So the first point of reference is company policy. The only place "ethics" come it to it is the ask if these policies are written down (rather than made up as you go along to suit the situation) and do the staff know them? Cos if they don't know them you're involved in a form of deceit where they might think their email is private.
Of course, a company that is happy to deceive their staff and without written policies can find that a lack of ethics cuts both ways. The company itself can be done over by the IT staff who have been led to believe that anything goes.
Scared? Now you're getting the idea.
So you fill up your laptop with generic rubbish that you can delete once you're through customs. Like 5 hours of video capture of you sitting on the plane. Or 10,000 copies of the Bill Of Rights.
Though I suppose they could look suspicious too. As could anything if you're paranoid enough.
Or will there be a "Non-driver's Enhanced Driver's Licence"? In which case, let us pretend no longer. You don't have a driver's licence, you have a national ID card that optionally and additionally operates as a driver's licence.
The problem is not the card, but the database that lies behind it.
Old style European ID schemes simply don't have this to the same degree, nor is there any attempt to cross reference the contents of these database with other repositories of information. The danger is that the ability to tie this information together can and will be abused, not just by the government but by any of the organisations who suddenly make it compulsory for you to share your ID with them before they will have anything to do with you.
The idea that your bank can cross reference your financial details with your medical details, just on a whim, without your knowledge or consent, should worry you. Supporters of the schemes say this sort of thing would be illegal, but experience tells us that they will happen, simply because its easy and possible.
And then there's all the problems that could occur should the data be inaccurate, or corrupted through identity fraud. Identity theft is easier with ID cards. All the criminal has to do is forge your card and they become you, gaining the benefits of all your data in the ID database, and all the data it can be cross referenced with. It's the ultimate "all eggs in one basket" scenario. Conversely; you either become a criminal, (because you and your ID in the database is one and the same thing as far as officials are concerned), or you become no-one. Wave good-bye to all your rights as a citizen, you don't own them, your "identity" owns them and you no longer own your "identity".
Simply put; the ID cards and database will become a very powerful resource and beneficial to everyone, except the individuals themselves. Only governments and institutions who like a neat and convenient handle to pull you about with have anything to gain from it. The scope for its misuse is massive.
I know drivers' licences are a very popular route for governments to introduce national ID schemes. Put pity the poor citizen who can't/doesn't drive. Will the end result of these be non-drivers effectively becoming non-citizens?
What the artist is getting from others is none of your business.
It's not hard to follow. If no-one pays the musician, then he stops making the music. If you are taking the music without paying then you are free-loading off those who are paying. Justifying not paying on the grounds that they're getting plenty from elsewhere is exactly the kind of self-serving bullshit free-loaders come up with. Selling instances of a series of bits doesn't fit into the economic system we all live by. So what incentive are you going to give people to keep putting new "series of bits" together? Or are you a fan of random white noise?
No-one's pretending that there isn't a problem here, but just because people can easily breech copyright doesn't make it right. Pointing out a weaknesses in the system, and then using that as a justification for exploiting the weakness, is just the kind of self-serving bullshit free-loaders come up with. Excuse me but who is demanding musicians anything at all? You are demanding they deliver a service for your pleasure, but not to expect anything back from you in return.
Last time I checked a song wouldn't cost you 1,000,000$. In fact it wouldn't even cost you 1$.
So what's your point? That the same song is getting sold to other people too? How is that any of your business? Would you refuse to pay your cop if you found out they earned 900$ that same day in stock investments?
What people "deserve" is what the market is willing to pay them. If you can get people to pay you 1,000,000$ for a day's work, any kind of work, then that is what you "deserve". Any other way of measuring what people "deserve" doesn't fit into the economic system we all live by. Demanding musicians to somehow live by a whole other set of rules is unreasonable and won't work. Either we all find a new way of measuring what people "deserve" (and good luck with that), or we stop being big babies and accept that many people will earn more than what we personally believe they "deserve".
I don't think it's fair to call Vista a bloated operating system. You look at the list of crud that this tool removes; that's not Operating System, that's application crud that should be optional in the install anyway.
Just because MS wants it to be part of the compulsory install (all the better to monopolise your computer and online profile) doesn't make it part of the operating system. I mean, come on, what makes MSN Installer part of an OS?
Seriously, amateur musicians are recording this much all the time. This motley collection just demonstrates how much and why they're amateurs.
What makes you think music corporations should or could work any differently from any other industry? No industry reaches a point where they have "earned their profits". Where is there the point that says "ok stop now, you've earned enough from that"?
Yup. IT Management is as much as dealing with people as it is with technology, and from a position of authority that changes the dynamics of all the working relationships you will already be use to. A significant proportion of your working day as an IT Manager will involve doing stuff you've never had to do before and may be stuff you're not any good at. And much of that is the kind of stuff that only comes with experience and maturity.
I'm not saying it's impossible for a 25 year old, but you really need another 10 years work & life experience.