"Interesting how he assumes that most people would want to download his music."
Or how you assume everyone has the same opinion as you?
"most people" != everyone
Problems with Weird Al:
- He's not funny
- His music, for the most part, is unlistenable dross.
Other than that, I'm sure he's a fine person. In the spirit of his hilarious use of reverse phsychology, ("Don't Download" when he actually really wants you to download, do you see what he's done there?!?) I am going to make the joke even funnier by not downloading what he says he doesn't want me to download and not buying his new CD. It's irony piled upon irony! How can that fail but be riotously funny? With just one inaction I have reached a peak of humour beyond anything Al's managed in decades of trying.
These people will have a choice between gaining literacy and skills, and maybe starting businesses to further their local economy, or gain literacy and skills to spam and scam once they learn that the rewards outweigh the risks for them.
How is this different from any new people anywhere in the world?
Or is it just all those shifty, foreign people in developing nations you suspect as criminals in the making?
Interesting fact: the US (the world's richest nation) accounts for the majority of all spam, at 23.2%. "These people" have more to fear from the the outside world than you do from them.
But of course you're right. Let's keep the internet safe for the gullible rich, and out of the hands of wily poor people who, as we all know, have no morals and want to take our money. Keep 'em backward and ignorant I say.
And how would you (ot the ISP) know if you have commited illegal file sharing? Just because someone claims so?
How does any company know when you breach a contract with them? Do you think every contract between two persons or organisations has to involve the police before it can be considered void? If you believe you are the victim in the contract being broken and have a case, then you go sue them. It's not a matter for criminal law.
Anyway, who better than your ISP to determine what activities you've been up to online? I don't imagine for a minute the ISPs are simply taking the BPI's word for it.
Good luck with that argument in front of legislators and the courts.
"We were told exactly how and where our service was being used to break both the law and our own contract, but rather than risk losing money we chose to ignore it. Criminal activity is good for our business."
You see any other industry relying on that? I can't think of a surer way of making sure your industry gets legislation slapped all over it. If you fail to police your own industry, legislators will do it for you.
Oh and did anyone else notice that if this happens then people are being punished without ever having seen a judge or even a police officer. No sworn in official will be involved just people from two companies. Welcome to the justice system of the 21st century.
Did you notice that the UAT of the ISP, that the people signed up to, forbids using the service for illegal file sharing? That these people are therefore in breach of a contract they have with the ISP? That therefore the ISP is within their rights to withdraw from that contract?
Welcome to the justice system of the 21st century.
Welcome to the notion of a legal contract, as has been since the 17th century. Where have you been?
Maybe drop half our syllables altogether like the Brits do?
You're arguing against your own point here. The Brits as a nation don't do anything, as the Brits have at least a dozen distinct accents and dialects that are all differ, far more than the variations within the US. So I don't know whose syllables you're talking about.
If they really cared about this fine they'd refuse to pay it and watch the uproar that would ensue when it became illegal to sell Windows in the EU.
You're funny. You think that Microsoft keeps all their assets and money in a big vault in the USA where the EU can't reach it. Do you think Microsoft only exists as a walled citadel in Redmond and a big delivery truck drives out every week with a 'Europe' sticker on its side? Do you think that once the EU is thwarted they will throw a huff and outlaw Microsoft products?
What's more likey, (meaning it's only slightly more likely than something that's never going to happen in a billion years) is that if MS doesn't pay, the EU would withdraw all legal protection from MS products and licences. Effectively make them free in the EU.
The point is that whoever is making the money, allofmp3.com is wildly successful, and would continue to be wildly successful at a considerably higher price point.
And that is unsupported speculation. Have you analysed the economics of the market? AllofMP3 is successful because of its licencing and pricing; i.e. none and ridiculously low.
The record industry needs to realize that it's more valuable to increase the number of dollars flowing into the system than it is to keep the price per song high
Again, speculation. How do you know this would happen? Have you make a study of the economics of the industry? Why is it more valuable? Who is it more valuable to?
The point is that the RIAA membership should try emulating allofmp3.com, rather than shutting it down.
How can you compare any industry with a rip-off that is selling something it does not own? How can any productive industry compete with that? Does it have to be spelt out? Allofmp3 has almost no costs of production, no marketing costs, no risks, no legal obligations, almost no employees and therefore virtually nil liabilities. How does any legal industry 'emulate' this?
I'm sure I'm not alone. Rather than shutting down AllOfMP3, the industry might want to pay attention to the hundreds of thousands of people who are actually spending on music and haven't done so in years.
Hundreds of thousands eh? People who haven't spent money on music in years? Do you have figures to back up these figures or are you just making them up?
As for the fact that AllOfMP3 is selling lots. Yeah, isn't it amazing how much money can be made selling something you don't own, haven't paid for and don't produce. Never mind the music industry, I'm sure there's lots of industries who'd fancy a go at this business model! You could sell anything for pennies and it's pure profit!
Sniping is the way to do it, not because it's the best way to conduct an auction (it isn't, for either the seller or the buyer) but because many of the bidders you're up against bid stupidly. If everyone bid sensibly and logically according to the system, and everyone believed that everyone else also bid sensibly and logically, there would be no point to sniping. But that's not how life works, for anything.
The only time not to snipe is when its simply not worth the effort ensuring you're online at the right time.
Zone Alarm has flagged this to me every day since I (reluctantly) installed "Genuine Advantage". Since I didn't need Microsoft's help in identifying my legitimate software in the first place, I certainly don't need it communicating with Microsoft everyday from then on. So it's staying blocked.
If it should have a fit and suddenly decide that I have a pirated OS then it's going to have to fret about it all on its little ownsome. (Well, that is until I dump it.)
You appear to be confusing volume of sales with maximised profit margin of profit. More sales does not necessarily mean more profit.
You also seem to think that you know more about the economics of the music industry than the industry itself. The price they have set for downloads is the price they believe they can maximise profits at. Why do you believe you know better?
Remember, the music industry is not in business to give you more music. It's in business to make money. If you don't like the thought of that then start the revolution and overthrow the capitalist system.
Ooh, impressive business talk. You must know lots about it. What business model do you suggest for an industry that discovers people would rather take their product for nothing, or buy it off someone else that has taken it for nothing? Just how does the industry remain viable and in business? Seriously, I'd be interested in hearing a "business model" that handles this without the use of litigation.
They also need to learn that CDs are no longer the preferred format people want to listen to their music in
You've done a survey that confirms this?
Of the few people I know
Ahh, you've done that kind of survey.
It makes way more sense to spend hundreds of millions of dollars greasing politicians hands and suing everyone instead of spending a few million to just design and implement a download system.
Hmmm, a download system you say. Like iTunes maybe? Or all the other legal download sites where you actually pay money to the people who produce the goods?
AllofMP3 is ripping off the producers of the music. Whether you want to justify this by pretending there are no other options, or it's because of the industry's supposed total ignorance of their own business and refusal to adopt a new model, or its only the big bad RIAA that are losing out, is up to you. But you're fooling no-one. Remember the years of bleating that went on when you couldn't download legally anywhere? "Adopt a new business model!" everyone cried. "We want to buy this legally!" they wailed. Well wake up guys, you've got what you wanted. But, amazingly, you're still not happy. You don't want the people who are still providing music for nothing (or so suspiciously cheap it must be dodgy) made to stop either. Why are you then surprised when it's suggested that all the objections and 'business model' talk is just BS thrown up to disguse the fact that what you really want is something for nothing.
Do a search on "Microsoft Word" and the topmost link is from a Google advertiser stating that you can obtain it for 99 cents by joining their P2P network. Naturally their website has the usual weaselly "do not breach copyright" waffle, but it amounts to diddly when the web page and Google advert is headed "Download Microsoft Word now"
You simply can't compare the prevalence of Windows zombies to that of Linux. The weak link is the user, as it is the user who either foolishly permits the malware to install on their computer or doesn't keep their virus definitions and patches up to date.
Now, keeping in mind the current market for Windows and Linux, which set of users do you think is most likely to be negligent with maintenance? The Linux user, who usually has a specific interest in computers, or the Windows user, who mostly doesn't care?
Make no mistake about it. If Linux was the mass-market OS of choice, installed on Joe Public's computer there would be just as large a percentage of Linux zombies. Why? Because Joe Public doesn't care. Joe Public is not going to spend 5 mins ensuring that their OS is up to date. Joe Public isn't going to think twice about installing software someone emailed them. And any OS can do as much as it can to stop it, but as long as Joe Public is clicking "Yes - Install 'Cute Puppies Screensaver'" zombies are going to be created.
The creator of a zombie network knows their target. It is the mass market, clueless Joe Public. They know that the average Linux user is not going to be half as easy to fool, so why bother attempting when there are so many easier targets?
More to the point, all a phishing site has to do is put up a little note;
"We're sorry, but our new picture verification is currently offline. Bank Of America apologies for the inconvenience this may cause, we are doing everything we can to fix it. In the meantime, please log on as you would normally without the picture. Thank you."
Easy. Picture verification security by-passed. Understanding customer ("These computers are always breaking, aren't they? Good job the website's still up though.") logs in.
Slashdot Mirror
Or how you assume everyone has the same opinion as you?
"most people" != everyone
Problems with Weird Al:
- He's not funny
- His music, for the most part, is unlistenable dross.
Other than that, I'm sure he's a fine person. In the spirit of his hilarious use of reverse phsychology, ("Don't Download" when he actually really wants you to download, do you see what he's done there?!?) I am going to make the joke even funnier by not downloading what he says he doesn't want me to download and not buying his new CD. It's irony piled upon irony! How can that fail but be riotously funny? With just one inaction I have reached a peak of humour beyond anything Al's managed in decades of trying.
You got data to back that up??
Speed alone doesn't kill, not going along with the normal traffic patterns does, go with the flow.
And the proof of that would be multiple vehicle pile-ups. The ultimate going with the flow.
Yeah. You know what I meant...
How is this different from any new people anywhere in the world? Or is it just all those shifty, foreign people in developing nations you suspect as criminals in the making?
Interesting fact: the US (the world's richest nation) accounts for the majority of all spam, at 23.2%. "These people" have more to fear from the the outside world than you do from them.
But of course you're right. Let's keep the internet safe for the gullible rich, and out of the hands of wily poor people who, as we all know, have no morals and want to take our money. Keep 'em backward and ignorant I say.
Wow, that must really cramp your style during those mammoth all-week browsing sessions!
Congratulations. You are now middle aged.
There's always good music out there, of all kinds, you're just looking in the wrong places.
(That's right, a file sharing network is the wrong place.)
You'd also find it hard to find many Jacobites in England, being Scottish.
How does any company know when you breach a contract with them? Do you think every contract between two persons or organisations has to involve the police before it can be considered void? If you believe you are the victim in the contract being broken and have a case, then you go sue them. It's not a matter for criminal law.
Anyway, who better than your ISP to determine what activities you've been up to online? I don't imagine for a minute the ISPs are simply taking the BPI's word for it.
"We were told exactly how and where our service was being used to break both the law and our own contract, but rather than risk losing money we chose to ignore it. Criminal activity is good for our business."
You see any other industry relying on that? I can't think of a surer way of making sure your industry gets legislation slapped all over it. If you fail to police your own industry, legislators will do it for you.
Did anyone else wonder why every time the BPI is mentioned in a slashdot story someone posts this exact same observation?
Did you notice that the UAT of the ISP, that the people signed up to, forbids using the service for illegal file sharing? That these people are therefore in breach of a contract they have with the ISP? That therefore the ISP is within their rights to withdraw from that contract?
Welcome to the justice system of the 21st century.
Welcome to the notion of a legal contract, as has been since the 17th century. Where have you been?
And yet they made the film you want to copy. Hmmmmm....
You're arguing against your own point here. The Brits as a nation don't do anything, as the Brits have at least a dozen distinct accents and dialects that are all differ, far more than the variations within the US. So I don't know whose syllables you're talking about.
You're funny. You think that Microsoft keeps all their assets and money in a big vault in the USA where the EU can't reach it. Do you think Microsoft only exists as a walled citadel in Redmond and a big delivery truck drives out every week with a 'Europe' sticker on its side? Do you think that once the EU is thwarted they will throw a huff and outlaw Microsoft products?
What's more likey, (meaning it's only slightly more likely than something that's never going to happen in a billion years) is that if MS doesn't pay, the EU would withdraw all legal protection from MS products and licences. Effectively make them free in the EU.
And that is unsupported speculation. Have you analysed the economics of the market? AllofMP3 is successful because of its licencing and pricing; i.e. none and ridiculously low.
The record industry needs to realize that it's more valuable to increase the number of dollars flowing into the system than it is to keep the price per song high
Again, speculation. How do you know this would happen? Have you make a study of the economics of the industry? Why is it more valuable? Who is it more valuable to?
The point is that the RIAA membership should try emulating allofmp3.com, rather than shutting it down.
How can you compare any industry with a rip-off that is selling something it does not own? How can any productive industry compete with that? Does it have to be spelt out? Allofmp3 has almost no costs of production, no marketing costs, no risks, no legal obligations, almost no employees and therefore virtually nil liabilities. How does any legal industry 'emulate' this?
Hundreds of thousands eh? People who haven't spent money on music in years? Do you have figures to back up these figures or are you just making them up?
As for the fact that AllOfMP3 is selling lots. Yeah, isn't it amazing how much money can be made selling something you don't own, haven't paid for and don't produce. Never mind the music industry, I'm sure there's lots of industries who'd fancy a go at this business model! You could sell anything for pennies and it's pure profit!
Sniping is the way to do it, not because it's the best way to conduct an auction (it isn't, for either the seller or the buyer) but because many of the bidders you're up against bid stupidly. If everyone bid sensibly and logically according to the system, and everyone believed that everyone else also bid sensibly and logically, there would be no point to sniping. But that's not how life works, for anything.
The only time not to snipe is when its simply not worth the effort ensuring you're online at the right time.
If it should have a fit and suddenly decide that I have a pirated OS then it's going to have to fret about it all on its little ownsome. (Well, that is until I dump it.)
You also seem to think that you know more about the economics of the music industry than the industry itself. The price they have set for downloads is the price they believe they can maximise profits at. Why do you believe you know better?
Remember, the music industry is not in business to give you more music. It's in business to make money. If you don't like the thought of that then start the revolution and overthrow the capitalist system.
Ooh, impressive business talk. You must know lots about it. What business model do you suggest for an industry that discovers people would rather take their product for nothing, or buy it off someone else that has taken it for nothing? Just how does the industry remain viable and in business? Seriously, I'd be interested in hearing a "business model" that handles this without the use of litigation.
They also need to learn that CDs are no longer the preferred format people want to listen to their music in
You've done a survey that confirms this?
Of the few people I know
Ahh, you've done that kind of survey.
It makes way more sense to spend hundreds of millions of dollars greasing politicians hands and suing everyone instead of spending a few million to just design and implement a download system.
Hmmm, a download system you say. Like iTunes maybe? Or all the other legal download sites where you actually pay money to the people who produce the goods?
AllofMP3 is ripping off the producers of the music. Whether you want to justify this by pretending there are no other options, or it's because of the industry's supposed total ignorance of their own business and refusal to adopt a new model, or its only the big bad RIAA that are losing out, is up to you. But you're fooling no-one. Remember the years of bleating that went on when you couldn't download legally anywhere? "Adopt a new business model!" everyone cried. "We want to buy this legally!" they wailed. Well wake up guys, you've got what you wanted. But, amazingly, you're still not happy. You don't want the people who are still providing music for nothing (or so suspiciously cheap it must be dodgy) made to stop either. Why are you then surprised when it's suggested that all the objections and 'business model' talk is just BS thrown up to disguse the fact that what you really want is something for nothing.
England is not surrounded by water. This disqualifies it from being an island.
Do a search on "Microsoft Word" and the topmost link is from a Google advertiser stating that you can obtain it for 99 cents by joining their P2P network. Naturally their website has the usual weaselly "do not breach copyright" waffle, but it amounts to diddly when the web page and Google advert is headed "Download Microsoft Word now"
Now, keeping in mind the current market for Windows and Linux, which set of users do you think is most likely to be negligent with maintenance? The Linux user, who usually has a specific interest in computers, or the Windows user, who mostly doesn't care?
Make no mistake about it. If Linux was the mass-market OS of choice, installed on Joe Public's computer there would be just as large a percentage of Linux zombies. Why? Because Joe Public doesn't care. Joe Public is not going to spend 5 mins ensuring that their OS is up to date. Joe Public isn't going to think twice about installing software someone emailed them. And any OS can do as much as it can to stop it, but as long as Joe Public is clicking "Yes - Install 'Cute Puppies Screensaver'" zombies are going to be created.
The creator of a zombie network knows their target. It is the mass market, clueless Joe Public. They know that the average Linux user is not going to be half as easy to fool, so why bother attempting when there are so many easier targets?
England isn't an island.
"We're sorry, but our new picture verification is currently offline. Bank Of America apologies for the inconvenience this may cause, we are doing everything we can to fix it. In the meantime, please log on as you would normally without the picture. Thank you."
Easy. Picture verification security by-passed. Understanding customer ("These computers are always breaking, aren't they? Good job the website's still up though.") logs in.