Mr Randi looks like a 16th century person that does not believe in radio waves because he cannot see them or measure them with the equipment he has. That is totally unscientific! Randi frequently has to explain to people who claim supernatural skills that he doesn't care how they claim they're doing it, just prove they can do it first. This frequently throws people, as they're so practised in talking up their claims, and have such elaborate delusions built up around them. They're not used to being asked to cut to the chase and prove it. So in your example, whether Randi believed in radio waves or not would be irrelevant. He would be asking for a demonstration of them in action, and only once that was provided would he be worrying about why he could not see or measure them.
Let's spell it out here; if there a no molecules of the supposed 'active' ingredient (which is an extremely dubious matter to begin with), then unless homoeopathy can demonstrate results by some other means, totally unknown to medical science, then the whole stuff is crap. And if there was demonstratable results by the means that homoeopathy suggests, then every single glass of plain tap water you consume would contain a cure for everything in equal effective quantities. Makes you wonder why anyone ever gets ill!
And we won't even start on the ridiculous shaking of solutions that's supposed to govern what magically occurs to the 'active' molecules at a quantum level. It's like mixing sand with a hydraulic digger and expecting wine glasses to emerge.
To debunk homeopathy, statistical and medical tests are required, and only quite recently some results have surfaced, albeit with contradictory conclusions I thought that results have been 'surfacing' for some time. And they all say that homoeopathy is nothing more than a placebo effect.
Under the circumstances, yes. Or we don't care. Tough.
What circumstances? Are you saying we're in a situation where the rules don't apply? Who decides that? Cos having the rules no longer counting can be a two edged sword.
how about I work towards a system where I CAN give them all the money by breaking the current one.
This doesn't fit with your later statement. If you're so determined to break the system you better have some idea what's going to replace it. What is it?
Even better the boycotters don't have to deal with the annoying side effect of most boycots: the inability to use a product.
It's usual for a principled stand to involve some kind of sacrifice on your part. Otherwise your motives can easily be questioned.
Most stuff I get is to replace cds that have gotten lost/stolen/etc over the years.
Nice. We'll add that to the list of excuses.
Not our job. In fact, if they just die, that would be great.
See my point above. If you break it it's up to you to a least have half an idea what's going to replace it.
Those were crap. I don't remember if I erased them or not, but that might explain why my HD is getting full.
See, the problem with throwing about excuses is that they have to be consistent. I thought most of the stuff you had was replacing stuff you'd already bought? Are you downloading music you already know you hate, or are you changing your story to suit the circumstances?
Actually, from Allofmp3.com, they were. They also came in the format of my choice.
Isn't it amazing the service you can offer when you're selling stuff that isn't yours, you aren't paying for, and not investing in?
I am too busy bother with CDs, you want me to go fussing around with DRM when I can just ignore it from the getgo?
If music meant that much to you, you would make time. Anyhow, I'm not defending DRM. It's crap.
yes, in my opinion they are too high. As a result I don't pay it, because it is within my power not to.
Ah, the 'I do it because it suits me and I you can't stop me' argument. Does this philosophy work in other aspects of your life too?
We ARE concerned about the effect that corporations have on our legal system, rights, and the rights of others.
If this is the case then I can totally understand your concern about the music industry, and the basic human right to getting the next Linkin Park CD for free. Let other multinational industries like Arms and Pharmaceuticals wait in line while we tackle the big guns first!
Please consider my lack of caring as a compassionate act to help this poor man get the hell out of his house.
My point was that some music doesn't work in a live gig scenario, and many artists are very unlikely to tour anywhere near me soon. So the idea that they can support themselves financially through touring is a non-starter. And it's a particularly dumb suggestion from people who are otherwise so sold on the internet being a great global village and market place. Given the option to them endlessly touring trying to scrape an audience and living together, or working in the studio, I know what I'd prefer they do. Not all musicians are the Rolling Stones.
Interesting idea. So you want a country to 'hold the stash' for you. One that doesn't care what the 'western world' says, but really wants to help the oppressed millions of the western world save money on DVDs. And preferably some place you don't have to live yourself, cos it would be a bit of a drag living in some backwater so isolated from world trade. Even it did have things like electric power and stuff.
Then there is a vocal (on this site) minority of people, who justify "sticking it" to "the system"
Yes, there's lots of ways of justifying it. But you're missing the prime motivation. People want things for free, and will jump through however many hoops it takes to come up with any excuse that makes it appear reasonable to them. So we get;
- It's not theft, it's only copyright infringement. (So that makes it ok?)
- The artists don't get all the money anyway. (So giving them none is better?)
- The RIAA are evil and don't deserve my money. (So boycott their product.)
- All modern music is garbage, so they don't deserve to get paid for it. (So why are you listening to it?)
- They don't 'get it', they need a new business model. (Ok, since you obviously are MBA expert, suggest one.)
- I bought a CD once after listening to copies I took off a p2p network. (And the 50 others you didn't buy?)
- The quality of MP3s sold aren't good enough for my highly attuned ear. (And the pirated versions are better? If you're that fussy, buy the CD.)
- DRM restricts my freedom. (DRM is trivial to bypass if it bothers you.)
- The prices aren't reasonable. (That can only ever be a matter of opinion. Others clearly have no problem.)
- I am very concerned about official USA interference in legal Russian trade practices. (Yeah, right. Don't make me laugh.)
- I support the artist by going to their live gigs. (I'll keep that in mind next time that Japanese ambient reclusive artist is touring my town.)
I'm afraid you, like most of the posters here, have totally missed the point.
No where is it indicated that the site actually provided any of the free movies it claimed to have. So no-one obtained anything off them, illegal or otherwise. The idea that the purpose of the site was to give people free downloads, and then prosecute them for the same, is obviously ridiculous and I can't believe anyone is seriously suggesting it. I also find it difficult to believe that they'd risk trying to build case of copyright infringement by breaching computer security & privacy laws. It would be a sure way of invalidating any possible legal action before you even start.
Far more likely that the intention of the site was to encourage the visitor, eager in their search for something for nothing, to contribute their existing downloads to the site's non-existent p2p network. This is what would scanned their computer. After agreeing to this they'd find that the site had actually nothing to offer other than "thanks for the scan of your computer, noob".
Got to love slashdot. Someone asks for a technical view and they get offered totally unqualified, free, legal commentary from someone who has 'scanned' TFA, and it's marked 'Insightful'.
$1 of every track they buy is going to middle men who aren't providing any service of value to them.
You're working on the assumption that AllOfMP3 would sell the same volume of tracks if the music companies 'middle men' weren't marketing the music for them. That's an expense that AllOfMP3 was getting for free. Basically their business model relied on someone else doing all the leg work, then stepping in to undercut the market.
I didn't say all new music is crap, just most of it.
Actually, I didn't think you said that at all. But guess what, new music has always been like that. Music companies have been constructing bands since Edison. People have been complaining things were better 'back in the day' when they were young since time began. The Top 40 has always been 90% lowest common denominator, and yet people just keep on buying it, for exactly that reason.
Music shouldn't be something that has an age range.
Well it does. Why should you expect a new song written by an angsty 18 year old to mean anything to you if you're 45?
If the music is good, it's good.
That's arguing in tiny circles. It's only 'good' if you like it, and part of what determines that is whether it means anything to you and your life, at your age. Of course there's plenty good music out there, but complaining that music companies are producing 'bad' music just demonstrates you're listening to the wrong music and looking in the wrong places. (Or are just getting to the age where you enjoy a good moan.:) )
This lands the copyrightholder with mauch higher standard of behavior than other regular business.
Does it? Any business sets out to maximize their profits within the law from their output, no matter what they produce. A bakery is given a monopoly on the sale of their bread, because the the state does not permit theft. You are given a monopoly on your labour because the state does not permit slavery. We all operate within the agreed laws on the understanding that everyone has a right to payment for their work. No-one's rights or obligations are any greater than any other's.
Copyright holders are actually in a much weaker position than producers of physical goods because it is so much easier for people to take their output without payment. (Thus allowing endless discussions on slashdot about how copyright infringement isn't theft, as if that makes it ok then.) So is it really surprising that they enforce this 'temporary monopoly' vigorously?
You're free to disagree with the method copyright ensures payment to the producers of music. But, as much as you hear frequent bleating about abuse of copyright and change of business model, you rarely see any practical alternatives suggested that is going to pay musicians to produce music and reward them on the same scale as any other successful business.
Prices for the very first CDs I bought were in the range of 10-20 UKP. Twenty years later they are in the range 7-15 UKP. In real terms that's a significant drop. It hasn't been a continual smooth fall, and there's been a few blips along the way, but it looks to me that cost have declined and a free market is in action.
The RIAA simply didn't like ROMS' rates and structures
AllOfMP3 was operating on a broadcasting licence. They were exploiting a loophole in Russian law and they knew it.
even though Russia, as a sovereign nation, has every right to set its own royalties
Indeed, but kind of irrelevant when we're talking about sales outside Russia. Russia has the right to do what it wishes, just as an industry has the right to say we don't care to do business with you on these terms. The point of the the news story here is that Russia has to decided if it wants to do business, it has to reach agreement.
True points, but are they relevant? You have to prove that a monopoly or cartel is in operation. The fact that CD prices (in real terms) have consistently fallen kind of suggests there isn't, and a free-market (or as close as you get in any actual economy) is in operation.
I don't like the idea of buying music online that can't be burned onto a CD as a back-up due to DRM controls
Well I don't know of a online site that doesn't allow burning onto a CD. Got any examples?
When I was younger, I almost always bought the newest albums, because the music was good, or at least I thought so.... I don't want to pay $15 for an album that is crap (which describes most, but not all, of new music today).
Congratulations, you have reached middle age. Next step - complaining that you can't make out the words. Did you think you were exempt from this? The problem here is not the music companies, it's that you are older and are still expecting a mainly youth-driven market to appeal to you. It's not that the album is crap, it's that it is not intended for you.
similar legitimate. And how is this going to achieved? AllOfMP3 was a business model based on zero costs, because they never paid anything to copy their output and had no investment costs. How is a legitimate service going to replicate this?
and prices were low enough. A subjective statement. What's 'low enough'? All prices in a free-market are the result of a compromise between producer and consumer, neither side gets free-reign to set the price.
perhaps sales would go up. Perhaps they would, but then if the prices are so low then perhaps profits would go down. No industry is interested in maximizing sales at the expense of profit, why should the music industry be any different?
You seem to have decided that the business case is solid because you've seen how Napster and AllOfMP3 businesses competed successfully. It's like expecting your local retailer to match the prices of the local fence.
When's the last time you tried to record something on paper using a pen for your own reading later?
Perhaps 2 mins ago. I don't produces pages of hand writing, but I
take notes and annotate all the time. I can't imagine anyone in a
desk job, or practically any job, not having to do this reasonably
frequently.
I think a lot of the problems people may have about this proposed
system is to do with the demise of cursive writing. And when I
say cursive I means straight-forward mixedcase handwriting. Not
the bizarre MIXTURE OF BLOCK
CAPITALS of differing sizes that many seem to struggle with.
The isp killed the site, not Exxon, they just filed a complaint.
Actually, that's not even a fact either. Well, not one anyone here can say. The article states; in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify..
It's a fair bet it was Exxon, but only the ISP or Exxon can state that as a fact.
Oh God, this is just so ridiculous a line of argument.
Hands up here one person who has sold on an MP3 then deleted the original. Let's not even start worrying about whether it's legal. C'mon. Let's get an idea of the size of this previously unheard of second-hand market in MP3s.
........ Anyone?.....
As I thought. No-one. So this nonsense whining about the dangers of your email address being passed onto some third party and thereafter onto the P2P world is one enormous pile of steaming BS. It's all hoopla designed to disguise the real issue that what people really wanted wasn't DRM free music at a higher quality (which was the previous excuse for pirating) at all, but free music for nothing. Wow. Who could see that coming??
I'm betting that even if Apple did remove these tags, it wouldn't be long before some other 'problem' came to light that stopped people buying their music. Convenient excuses aren't that hard to find if you're really looking for them.
Congratulations, you just proved your mind set makes it impossible for you to read anything that discusses GPL in anything less than the most glowing of terms without interpreting it as an outrageous criticism of it.
To spell it out for you; I was making no judgements on GPL, just observing that if/when it became the usual method of licensing, many of its most vocal supporters would become disillusioned with it and start championing some other. Not because of anything's changed, but because what they really need is not a method of licencing, but a cult outside the mainstream to follow. The details of the new alternative is pretty irrelevant, which is why I didn't make any serious attempt to define one.
And I have no idea what you're banging on about BSD. I guess every cult needs hate figures to unite against. Sorry to disappoint you, I ain't one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's spell it out here; if there a no molecules of the supposed 'active' ingredient (which is an extremely dubious matter to begin with), then unless homoeopathy can demonstrate results by some other means, totally unknown to medical science, then the whole stuff is crap. And if there was demonstratable results by the means that homoeopathy suggests, then every single glass of plain tap water you consume would contain a cure for everything in equal effective quantities. Makes you wonder why anyone ever gets ill!
And we won't even start on the ridiculous shaking of solutions that's supposed to govern what magically occurs to the 'active' molecules at a quantum level. It's like mixing sand with a hydraulic digger and expecting wine glasses to emerge. To debunk homeopathy, statistical and medical tests are required, and only quite recently some results have surfaced, albeit with contradictory conclusions I thought that results have been 'surfacing' for some time. And they all say that homoeopathy is nothing more than a placebo effect.
It's only liable if it isn't true.
Or even libel, dammit!
Interesting idea. So you want a country to 'hold the stash' for you. One that doesn't care what the 'western world' says, but really wants to help the oppressed millions of the western world save money on DVDs. And preferably some place you don't have to live yourself, cos it would be a bit of a drag living in some backwater so isolated from world trade. Even it did have things like electric power and stuff.
Good luck with that.
It's only liable if it isn't true.
The same way phishing sites catch anyone. There's always the period before it's widely known that the site isn't what it claims to be.
Isn't that what happened?
Then there is a vocal (on this site) minority of people, who justify "sticking it" to "the system"
Yes, there's lots of ways of justifying it. But you're missing the prime motivation. People want things for free, and will jump through however many hoops it takes to come up with any excuse that makes it appear reasonable to them. So we get;
- It's not theft, it's only copyright infringement. (So that makes it ok?)
- The artists don't get all the money anyway. (So giving them none is better?)
- The RIAA are evil and don't deserve my money. (So boycott their product.)
- All modern music is garbage, so they don't deserve to get paid for it. (So why are you listening to it?)
- They don't 'get it', they need a new business model. (Ok, since you obviously are MBA expert, suggest one.)
- I bought a CD once after listening to copies I took off a p2p network. (And the 50 others you didn't buy?)
- The quality of MP3s sold aren't good enough for my highly attuned ear. (And the pirated versions are better? If you're that fussy, buy the CD.)
- DRM restricts my freedom. (DRM is trivial to bypass if it bothers you.)
- The prices aren't reasonable. (That can only ever be a matter of opinion. Others clearly have no problem.)
- I am very concerned about official USA interference in legal Russian trade practices. (Yeah, right. Don't make me laugh.)
- I support the artist by going to their live gigs. (I'll keep that in mind next time that Japanese ambient reclusive artist is touring my town.)
And it doesn't even matter whether you signed up as a googlemail account, you can still use gmail.com as your address and your email still arrives.
All that's happened is that google can't advertise themselves as gmail in the uk.
I'm afraid you, like most of the posters here, have totally missed the point.
No where is it indicated that the site actually provided any of the free movies it claimed to have. So no-one obtained anything off them, illegal or otherwise. The idea that the purpose of the site was to give people free downloads, and then prosecute them for the same, is obviously ridiculous and I can't believe anyone is seriously suggesting it. I also find it difficult to believe that they'd risk trying to build case of copyright infringement by breaching computer security & privacy laws. It would be a sure way of invalidating any possible legal action before you even start.
Far more likely that the intention of the site was to encourage the visitor, eager in their search for something for nothing, to contribute their existing downloads to the site's non-existent p2p network. This is what would scanned their computer. After agreeing to this they'd find that the site had actually nothing to offer other than "thanks for the scan of your computer, noob".
Got to love slashdot. Someone asks for a technical view and they get offered totally unqualified, free, legal commentary from someone who has 'scanned' TFA, and it's marked 'Insightful'.
There should be lots to argue about.
I believe that's what lawyers do.
$1 of every track they buy is going to middle men who aren't providing any service of value to them.
You're working on the assumption that AllOfMP3 would sell the same volume of tracks if the music companies 'middle men' weren't marketing the music for them. That's an expense that AllOfMP3 was getting for free. Basically their business model relied on someone else doing all the leg work, then stepping in to undercut the market.
I didn't say all new music is crap, just most of it.
:) )
Actually, I didn't think you said that at all. But guess what, new music has always been like that. Music companies have been constructing bands since Edison. People have been complaining things were better 'back in the day' when they were young since time began. The Top 40 has always been 90% lowest common denominator, and yet people just keep on buying it, for exactly that reason.
Music shouldn't be something that has an age range.
Well it does. Why should you expect a new song written by an angsty 18 year old to mean anything to you if you're 45?
If the music is good, it's good.
That's arguing in tiny circles. It's only 'good' if you like it, and part of what determines that is whether it means anything to you and your life, at your age. Of course there's plenty good music out there, but complaining that music companies are producing 'bad' music just demonstrates you're listening to the wrong music and looking in the wrong places. (Or are just getting to the age where you enjoy a good moan.
This lands the copyrightholder with mauch higher standard of behavior than other regular business.
Does it? Any business sets out to maximize their profits within the law from their output, no matter what they produce. A bakery is given a monopoly on the sale of their bread, because the the state does not permit theft. You are given a monopoly on your labour because the state does not permit slavery. We all operate within the agreed laws on the understanding that everyone has a right to payment for their work. No-one's rights or obligations are any greater than any other's.
Copyright holders are actually in a much weaker position than producers of physical goods because it is so much easier for people to take their output without payment. (Thus allowing endless discussions on slashdot about how copyright infringement isn't theft, as if that makes it ok then.) So is it really surprising that they enforce this 'temporary monopoly' vigorously?
You're free to disagree with the method copyright ensures payment to the producers of music. But, as much as you hear frequent bleating about abuse of copyright and change of business model, you rarely see any practical alternatives suggested that is going to pay musicians to produce music and reward them on the same scale as any other successful business.
Prices for the very first CDs I bought were in the range of 10-20 UKP. Twenty years later they are in the range 7-15 UKP. In real terms that's a significant drop. It hasn't been a continual smooth fall, and there's been a few blips along the way, but it looks to me that cost have declined and a free market is in action.
What were the prices in Canada 20 years ago?
The RIAA simply didn't like ROMS' rates and structures
AllOfMP3 was operating on a broadcasting licence. They were exploiting a loophole in Russian law and they knew it.
even though Russia, as a sovereign nation, has every right to set its own royalties
Indeed, but kind of irrelevant when we're talking about sales outside Russia. Russia has the right to do what it wishes, just as an industry has the right to say we don't care to do business with you on these terms. The point of the the news story here is that Russia has to decided if it wants to do business, it has to reach agreement.
True points, but are they relevant? You have to prove that a monopoly or cartel is in operation. The fact that CD prices (in real terms) have consistently fallen kind of suggests there isn't, and a free-market (or as close as you get in any actual economy) is in operation.
Well I don't know of a online site that doesn't allow burning onto a CD. Got any examples?
When I was younger, I almost always bought the newest albums, because the music was good, or at least I thought so
Congratulations, you have reached middle age. Next step - complaining that you can't make out the words. Did you think you were exempt from this? The problem here is not the music companies, it's that you are older and are still expecting a mainly youth-driven market to appeal to you. It's not that the album is crap, it's that it is not intended for you.
similar legitimate. And how is this going to achieved? AllOfMP3 was a business model based on zero costs, because they never paid anything to copy their output and had no investment costs. How is a legitimate service going to replicate this?
and prices were low enough. A subjective statement. What's 'low enough'? All prices in a free-market are the result of a compromise between producer and consumer, neither side gets free-reign to set the price.
perhaps sales would go up. Perhaps they would, but then if the prices are so low then perhaps profits would go down. No industry is interested in maximizing sales at the expense of profit, why should the music industry be any different?
You seem to have decided that the business case is solid because you've seen how Napster and AllOfMP3 businesses competed successfully. It's like expecting your local retailer to match the prices of the local fence.
Perhaps 2 mins ago. I don't produces pages of hand writing, but I take notes and annotate all the time. I can't imagine anyone in a desk job, or practically any job, not having to do this reasonably frequently.
I think a lot of the problems people may have about this proposed system is to do with the demise of cursive writing. And when I say cursive I means straight-forward mixedcase handwriting. Not the bizarre MIXTURE OF BLOCK CAPITALS of differing sizes that many seem to struggle with.
From TFA; "Renaud doesn't think Dynahand is secure enough for protecting sensitive information, such as bank accounts or health records.
" It's an interesting idea, but clearly needs further work.
Apart from people probably not recognising their own handwriting
Are there really people that dumb or unfamiliar with their own writing?
Actually, that's not even a fact either. Well, not one anyone here can say. The article states; in reaction to a complaint whose source they will not identify..
It's a fair bet it was Exxon, but only the ISP or Exxon can state that as a fact.
Hands up here one person who has sold on an MP3 then deleted the original. Let's not even start worrying about whether it's legal. C'mon. Let's get an idea of the size of this previously unheard of second-hand market in MP3s.
As I thought. No-one. So this nonsense whining about the dangers of your email address being passed onto some third party and thereafter onto the P2P world is one enormous pile of steaming BS. It's all hoopla designed to disguise the real issue that what people really wanted wasn't DRM free music at a higher quality (which was the previous excuse for pirating) at all, but free music for nothing. Wow. Who could see that coming??
I'm betting that even if Apple did remove these tags, it wouldn't be long before some other 'problem' came to light that stopped people buying their music. Convenient excuses aren't that hard to find if you're really looking for them.
I'm afraid I didn't.
To spell it out for you; I was making no judgements on GPL, just observing that if/when it became the usual method of licensing, many of its most vocal supporters would become disillusioned with it and start championing some other. Not because of anything's changed, but because what they really need is not a method of licencing, but a cult outside the mainstream to follow. The details of the new alternative is pretty irrelevant, which is why I didn't make any serious attempt to define one.
And I have no idea what you're banging on about BSD. I guess every cult needs hate figures to unite against. Sorry to disappoint you, I ain't one of them.