yes, if an mp3 is on mp3.com it was put there by the artist. the artist also gets a MUCH more generous cut of the sales. which is better, a big cut of small sales or a small cut of big sales? they're often about the same. and of course new artists find it easy to get on mp3.com and start making money right away whereas getting a record contract takes forever at a minimum and is no guarantee of making money.
mp3.com is what i see record stores being like in the future. cds are burned from music stored on hard drives when needed. just this cuts out a lot of the waste that helps jack up cd prices (no distribution costs, no returned cds, no bulky warehouses, no giant factories, etc.)
Please people, let's not even get into it here. Well AC, if you want a flame war why not at least post your email addy? But even as a troll you should have better manners than to use 50 line breaks.
But just to put up a thought on the off chance you might read and think about it.... artists have no moral right to be paid for recorded music. It's not based in the right to be free from harm, the right to free speech, the right to worship as you please. It's not based on any other human moral right. It's a consequence of some silly laws from a long time ago, and living in a democracy if we want to change it we will. Just like that. Because we want to. Regardless of what entrenched interests want. When musicians had to perform for a living there were very few superstars, but many more people who did music as a living without any expectation of superstardom. The money and power of the corporation has corrupted musical integrity. C'mon. Do you really think blink 182 or n'synch really like the music they make? Would they be doing it if they were struggling along?
Even on a structural level - if this is about artists 'rights' then the RIAA has no leg to stand on. In the book publishing world an author signs away the copyright for their work FOR A SINGLE PRINTING after which the rights revert to the writer. In the music industry this is not so. The copyright laws were originally targeted at book publishing. Clearly then, other situations where they're applied should follow the publishing model. Obviously in any moral sense the creation is the property of the creator, not the middlemen who are supposed to distribute the creation. This is all about preserving the need for middlemen. There is no longer any physical need for them. The whole industry seems to think that it has the right to continue to exist. There is no such right. If technology comes along to allow artists to directly get their music to audiences, then it is time for the record industry to die. They have sway with radio stations. Big whoop. They can get posters put up in record stores. Big whoop. They have no chance of even doing a decent job of using the internet for promotion of artists. That is their job isn't it? Promotion of artists and distribution of material? So where are they when they have no web presence to do promotions with and the record stores stop ordering preburned cds and start just burning them to order with a high quality burner off of a 1000 gig hd? Stuck using the law to force us to support a beast that legitimate market pressures and technological changes have rendered unprofitable.
They send cds to radio stations to be played for free. Thousands, all over, at some considerable expense. Sitting at home it's perfectly legal for you to tape record that song. Is it morally different when the transmission medium is fiber optic and phone line rather than radio waves? When you listen to shoutcast you hear what radio will sound like in the future. Made cheaply, customized to the taste of the listener, and for now based on mp3 technology. Why would they object to sending a free mp3 to someone on shoutcast or napster? A delivery method where the listeners do all the work and where the promotional cost is $0? Forget the court battles. Forget the spinmeisters trying to get you to start calling copyright infringement (a minor misdemeanor) piracy or theft (major felonies). The RIAA and their whole sytem are already dead. Just look out for the death rattles.
Grabbing copies of copyrighted music is not theft. It is not piracy. It is copyright infringement. Notice how when you hear copyright infringement you react differently than when you hear piracy or theft?
The record companies have been very successful in controlling this debate by inserting their terms into the discussion. Unnoticed, this introduces their memes and ideas. Theft is a felony. Piracy (though making a comeback in asia, is pretty much nonexistent around the us) is a felony. Copyright infringement is NOT a felony. Copyright infringement was not done by napster. Or by people who made their songs available. The only thing copyright prevents is 'making unauthorized copies without the permission of the copyright holder'. In the whole napster scenario - who was it who made the illegal copies? It was the people who clicked on the link and started the transfer. They were the only people who did anything to infringe copyright. They should be the only people who can be sued by the RIAA.
i almost never searched by artists name. i searched for words like techno, mix, remix, rare, b side, live, etc. Searching for any of those could turn up a match for the songs i had on there.
Excuse me, but have you ever heard of Vincent Van Gogh? The man sold one painting in his entire life. He begged money from his family to buy art materials. HE WAS NOT IN IT FOR THE MONEY! A financial incentive is not necessary, and is in fact actively destructive. If the only people who make music are people who enjoy doing it for the personal pleasure they derive from it - THEN WE WILL NEVER HAVE ANOTHER 'NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK' 'BACKSTREET BOYS' 'N'SYNC' OR BRITNEY SPEARS! Those are the types of people attracted by the money. Do you really think that even if he wasn't making any money from it that Carlos Santana would stop playing guitar?
I spend huge amounts of time making music. And you know what i do with it? I give it away for free. Or even worse i burn it onto cds i pay for and give it out to my friends. This is what anyone who actually cares about music does.
If you know how to play guitar you like to play to amuse your friends right? This is the purpose of music. <br><br> "What sickens me are the people who justify their actions by rationalizations like "music should be about the art, not about money." Well, to those people I say that it's nice of you to make the decision for the artist."<br> It's a value judgement. I make it. Making music is fun. People have made music for 10,000 years without any guarantee of compensation. Money has nothing to do with music. You have no right to make money from recorded music. Can you tell me where this right comes from? I've studied a lot of philosophy, a lot of writings on what rights are and how they are justified. You know, i don't see anywhere in the UN Declaration of Human Rights the right to make money from recorded music. <b>IT IS NOT A RIGHT!!!</b> It is the way things work under our current, outdated, legal system. If we don't like it we can change it. One of the ways to change it is massive non-compliance. Why did prohibition fail? Because everyone drank. Why will banning the trading of mp3s fail? Because everyone will trade them. Social forces decide what is acceptable. <br><br> A major point is this - there used to be folk music. Songs that didn't belong to anyone, that were sung by everyone. They were a part of our culture. They no longer exist except as scrtchy recordings in anthropologists basements. We have no more free music culture. The recording industry spent billions making sure it was eradicated. I'm sorry, but you can't change human nature. When i hum a madonna song, am i infringing her copyrights? well sorry, but it is a part of my culture and i will insist on owning it the way music used to owned by the people. <br> <br>
But every day napster is shut down they lose users to all the alternative services. If they're closed for a week, they can recover. But if it takes a month for them to get a judgement, and they win, and they re-open, they will then be totally dead. No one will use them, b/c everyone will have been forced to learn how tu use gnutella or opennap etc. So the injunction does cause immediate, direct harm. Their only value comes in market share. Cost them that and you trash any hopes of them ever making money.
How many people here would forgo considering other issues and be willing to vote as part of a bloc on this one issue? Napster had what... 20 million users?
Let's see with our usual rate of voter turnout that's probably enough people to guarantee a win for any candidate. I mean the gov't doesn't really have much impact on my daily life. Napster does. So if a candidate made a promised executive order restoring napster a part of his platform.....would you vote for him?
Can you imagine how the publishing companies would respond if we had never had libraries before and some one suggested that we accumulate these huge repositories of copyrighted material in convenient locations throughout the country where everyone could come and read whatever book or magazine they wanted? For free? As often as they like? With no compensation to the publishing company for additional readings?
Why they'd respond pretty much like the RIAA is now don'tcha think? Of course we've had public libraries for 7 decades now and we all see that they encourage the public good. But what happens when libraries catch up to the times and put everything on a hard drive? If they copy those few, random, crummy tapes they usually have and make them available as mp3s will the libraries get sued by the riaa?
Does anyone think this has a chance? I'll tell you right now i'll forget about my normal party affiliation and vote for anyone who promises to restore napster. Bush? Aren't you trying to make yourself look tech friendly? I'll even vote for satan himself (still talking about bush...) if he makes digital rights and fair use part of his platform. Anyone else?
Can you imagine how the publishing companies would respond if we had never had libraries before and some suggested that we accumulate these huge repositories of copyrighted material in convenient locations throughout the country where everyone could come and read whatever book or magazine they wanted? For free? As often as they like? With no compensation to the publishing company for additional readings?
Why they'd respond pretty much like the RIAA is now don'tcha think? Of course we've had public libraries for 7 decades now and we all see that they encourage the public good. People really, really forget that we live in a democracy. We don't live in 'capitalism'. We can pass whatever law we want. If we decide that local governments should buy one copy of every new album and put them all in the libraries, and that the record companies can only charge $.12 for those library cds then you know what? The record companies have no recourse. If we declare it illegal to buy copyrights from the artist to be held by a corporation then you know what? The record companies are out of luck. It doesn't matter what the law of today is. If we don't like it and don't think it adequately protects our rights we can change it. I'd like to see it become a campaign issue actually. Can you see the result if any of the major candidates promised to spend all their time pushing for new laws protecting napster? I think if nader announced he would do that (since he's the only one i believe at all) he could add a good 10 million voters to his side. Of course that would force the hands of the other candidates. See where I'm going? It is election time. There are 20 million angry, motivated people who will vote as a bloc on a single issue. We might even have more influence than the seniors.....
it would be one thing if the artists owned the copyrights. they don't. record companies wont sign anyone unless that person agrees to give up the copyright protection they are legally entitled to into the corporations hands.
why can't they use some sturdier glass in those damn screens? you know they cost $100 to replace?
i think that if you pay $100 for the screen the glass should really be tempered. there is structural glass that you can use to hold up roofs. these glass beams can hold like 14 tons. there is bulletproof glass for car windows. stuff that literally doesn't break when you put a shotgun up to it and fire. but the $100 piece of 2" x 2" glass in a palm shatters when bumping into something at 1/100 mph. i smell a rip off. i think palm makes its money in bogus service plans and screen replacements. they really need to put a hardier kind of glass in there and just charge more......
I had a palm. i became addicted. it replaced my actual neuronal memory. it was wonderful. i took it everywhere. i took it into clubs to get numbers, had it in my pocket, danced all night with it, no problems.
then one day i'm sitting at my desk. i lean over to pick up my bag. the palm falls off the desk, where i had it plugged in to synch up. crack. broken screen. but that's ok, the guy at office depot convinced me to buy a protection plan. i asked him what it covered. he said everything. he said it included droppping it in water, whatever. so i call them. nope, it doesn't cover any of that. so i look in the coverage of the unit, nope not under warranty.
look up palm.com and find a plan called 'one year screen replacement plan'. but now i'm wary. look at the fine print. nope, it doesn't cover having the palm fall off your desk. so i call palm and ask what it would cost to replace the screen. $100!!!!! wtf? it only costs $150 to buy a new one, including the case, the chip, the os, the pretty packaging, etc. but the screen costs $100 to replace.
so i refuse to pay that. now my brain no longer remembers how to remember. and i have no palm to do that with. maybe i'll get one of these cute new ones. or maybe with these coming out they'll drop the price of the IIIe to say....$95? Then i could go into business buying new palms and giving them to people, pretending i'm replacing the screen in their unit for $100. i cannot believe that it's impossible to buy protection saying that if it gets broken by dropping it that the screen will be replaced. you know 99% of the people buying these protection plans are buying them for that reason. it's not like i'm going to strt using the screen as a hammer because i have coverage on it. i still wouldn't wan the inconvenience on being without my palm, i'm not going to intentionally break it. but everyone i know with one has broken it at some point......
will be rather difficult to incorporate. we did not see the original screenplay translated into english when this played at theaters in america. neil gaiman (of sandman fame) did a rather extensive rewrite of the plot to make it more understandable to western audiences.
so i'm wondering, if you watch it in japanese with english subtitles, will you see a translation of the japanese words? or will you see the english words used by gaiman at that point in the movie? releasing a movie with essentially two different plots is kind of odd even for a feature loaded dvd.......
even better than the hoverboard
on
Quickiefest 2000
·
· Score: 1
did you check out the lightsabers? At http://www.futurehorizons.net/saber.htm . Also you can buy anti gravity ships. Oh my. And learn all about new age medicine. Hmm, yeah I'll really get on that hoverboard now......
Everyone here was pretty outraged a few weeks ago over a click thru agreement buried in a.exe file you had to run to see microsoft's specs for their proprietary 'enhancements' to the kerebos standard. I didn't pay much attention but it certainly sounds like one of the more egregious non-enforceable eula's i've ever heard of - those who used winzip, like everyone should, didn't even see this screen. so who did this and can supply the details to this crusader?
one nerd telling another nerd that he was incorrect in the terminology used to describe the taxonomy of his nerd-dom.
you go, dude. rock the nerd world. keep us in line and mandate that the popular, distributed evolution of our language must be in the hands of self-designated experts like yourself.
are you a big fan of the fat, sarcastic Star Trek fan/comic book owner on the Simpsons? I'll bet he would have used the 'proper' term, cracker.
why the fuck don't you look outside your nerd box and realize that things are what people call them, and that this applies even when people are dumb? if i'm listening to a tape in my portable cassette player, it's a fucking walkman even if it's not a sony. the copy machine is a xerox machine regardless of who makes it, or what xerox wants. hackers is the term used by the popular press to describe crackers so fucking deal with it. it's a nice broad term covering several species of nerds, from phone phreakers to web site graffitists so deal. I will not let this go - you do not get to define language. Society decides, wrongly or not.
>The problem -- the people they are prosecuting -- are the people who run the pirate servers.
if you make something i do illegal there should be some effort to prosecute me, shouldn't there? what if you apply this 'its ok because theyre not targeting home users, theyre just going after big-time guys' to murder? 'Well, you just killed one person so we're not gonna bother. Call us if you found a death cult.'
don't ever use the well they won't really apply this law reasoning to justify a law. if it can't be universally applied (due to economics or desire) then it shouldn't be a law. we already have civil laws against copyright infringement and breach of contract, we have no need for a criminal law that just rolls two civil crimes up together and says that the result is a felony.
Piracy is a combination of two things: 1: Copyright infringement. 2: Breach of contract (license). Now, copyright infringement and breach of contract are both civil crimes. I don't see how a law can legally be enacted which makes something a felony for violating civil laws. I don't think this law will hold up. The premise of the act (as shown by it's name) is that copyright infringment is theft (which is criminal). The premise seems to be that if you committ a gross enough civil infraction, it becomes criminal. What's next? Being thrown in the slammer for not paying your cable bill?
There is a reason we have civil versus criminal charges. It is grossly wrong to label you a felon - these are misdemeanor crimes.
What needs to be done is that new copyright laws need to be devised in light of technological changes.
All of these problems are due to the fact that we are trying to use 18th century property laws in what is about to be the 21st century. These laws worked fine for products like a bucket of grain, or a cart, or even a book. They dont work when the product is a collection of computer code.
The matter duplicator is an excellent example! If i had one, what would happen to the price of the mona lisa once i copied it? These laws do not adequately address duplicable objects, whether real or vitual.
I have opinions on the subject, but arguments should be held back until they convene a commission to come up with new copyright laws. And just so no one forgets - we're a democracy, not a free market. We can pass any damn law we want to, whether it helps the software companies or whether it drives every damn one of them out of business because we decide our right to copy is more important than their 'right' to force you to sign a legally binding contract to access the software that you HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR.
There is no other industry where you could purchase a product and then be denied use of it. If I bought a pig to eat and as i left the store the butcher came running up behind me to force me to sign a contract saying that i wouldn't let any of my friends have some pig (even after i was full), i would punch him in the nose! You have already purchased the product when you leave the store. The question is - do you own it? If i ripped it out of your hand most would consider it theft. But what was stolen? An opportunity to enter into a binding contract for a service? Can you sell an opportunity?
I'll bet I can find an illegal copy of something in 80% of american homes. It may just be a copy of "Lethal Weapon" that your friend copied for you, or a "Twisted Sister" tape you dubbed from your big brother years ago. But they are illegal.
Now the story i want to see isn't about some kid getting arrested for pirating software - there are so many toxic anti-youth memes floating around our society that people don't judge the story objectively. Imagine this case: 72 year old grandmother busted for illegal collection of 'Golden Girls' tapes. How would people react to this story? Imagine that nobody has ever been in trouble for illegal copies of videotapes. And then the feds (it's an interstate issue because she got the tapes from her sister in Illinois, a part of the "ring" the authorities hope to crack) kick in her door and haul her ass to jail.
Now, how many "It's illegal, the old bitch got what she deserved" kind of comments would follow that story? Remember, it's still a violation of copyright law, and the person is undeniably guilty. Why, she watched the FBI warning every time she popped in an illegal copy of Blanche's escapades!
The point of all the 'cruel and unusual' comments is simply this - nobody has ever been charged with the crime even though government officials can access mp3/warez sites as easily s anyone else, so any punishment is unusual. This is another example of a larger problem - laws that aren't generally enforced but which can be enforced whenever the gov't decides to take someone down.
For example, premarital sex is illegal in the District of Columbia. So if a cop felt like busting a drug dealer but he didn't have any legally admissable evidence, he could just wait around the guy's place until he hears the guy making out with his girlfriend. Boom, probable cause to believe a crime, sex, was taking place. Bust into the place, find drugs, send the guy to jail forever, drop charges against the girl.
Now with this law, if the gov't decides that they think you might be a part of some big bad hacker or child porn group, but they don't have any evidence, if you have a site that distributes aretha frnaklin mp3s (cuz you love aretha and sharing her with others is the only good thing you do) they can bust in, charge you, and seize all your computer equipment to look for other stuff.
Since this is a systemically violated law, until i see about 40,000 more arrests i will believe it be just another tool for the gov't to break into your private material whenever the whim hits them.
hey bud - i got one damn question for you - do you have any unregistered shareware on your computer at this minute? You goddam CRIMINAL!!
The law saying you have to pay for your shareware is the same as the law saying you can't give out free versions of copyrighted programs.
Do i pay for shareware? Hell no, i'm a criminal. Come and break down my door and have a trial and put me in jail at the taxpayer's expense for that $50 of unregistered software. Go ahead. But make sure you arrest EVERYONE who breaks the law. THAT INCLUDES THOSE OF YOU WHO TAPE MOVIES YOU RENT FROM BLOCKBUSTER!!! AND YOU PEOPLE WHO COPY AN ALBUM FOR A FRIEND. WE ARE ALL DEFINED AS CRIMINALS! OF COURSE THIS INCLUDES EVERYONE IN THE US!!!!
Slashdot Mirror
yes, if an mp3 is on mp3.com it was put there by the artist. the artist also gets a MUCH more generous cut of the sales. which is better, a big cut of small sales or a small cut of big sales? they're often about the same. and of course new artists find it easy to get on mp3.com and start making money right away whereas getting a record contract takes forever at a minimum and is no guarantee of making money.
mp3.com is what i see record stores being like in the future. cds are burned from music stored on hard drives when needed. just this cuts out a lot of the waste that helps jack up cd prices (no distribution costs, no returned cds, no bulky warehouses, no giant factories, etc.)
Please people, let's not even get into it here. Well AC, if you want a flame war why not at least post your email addy? But even as a troll you should have better manners than to use 50 line breaks.
But just to put up a thought on the off chance you might read and think about it.... artists have no moral right to be paid for recorded music. It's not based in the right to be free from harm, the right to free speech, the right to worship as you please. It's not based on any other human moral right. It's a consequence of some silly laws from a long time ago, and living in a democracy if we want to change it we will. Just like that. Because we want to. Regardless of what entrenched interests want. When musicians had to perform for a living there were very few superstars, but many more people who did music as a living without any expectation of superstardom. The money and power of the corporation has corrupted musical integrity. C'mon. Do you really think blink 182 or n'synch really like the music they make? Would they be doing it if they were struggling along?
Even on a structural level - if this is about artists 'rights' then the RIAA has no leg to stand on. In the book publishing world an author signs away the copyright for their work FOR A SINGLE PRINTING after which the rights revert to the writer. In the music industry this is not so. The copyright laws were originally targeted at book publishing. Clearly then, other situations where they're applied should follow the publishing model. Obviously in any moral sense the creation is the property of the creator, not the middlemen who are supposed to distribute the creation. This is all about preserving the need for middlemen. There is no longer any physical need for them. The whole industry seems to think that it has the right to continue to exist. There is no such right. If technology comes along to allow artists to directly get their music to audiences, then it is time for the record industry to die. They have sway with radio stations. Big whoop. They can get posters put up in record stores. Big whoop. They have no chance of even doing a decent job of using the internet for promotion of artists. That is their job isn't it? Promotion of artists and distribution of material? So where are they when they have no web presence to do promotions with and the record stores stop ordering preburned cds and start just burning them to order with a high quality burner off of a 1000 gig hd? Stuck using the law to force us to support a beast that legitimate market pressures and technological changes have rendered unprofitable.
They send cds to radio stations to be played for free. Thousands, all over, at some considerable expense. Sitting at home it's perfectly legal for you to tape record that song. Is it morally different when the transmission medium is fiber optic and phone line rather than radio waves? When you listen to shoutcast you hear what radio will sound like in the future. Made cheaply, customized to the taste of the listener, and for now based on mp3 technology. Why would they object to sending a free mp3 to someone on shoutcast or napster? A delivery method where the listeners do all the work and where the promotional cost is $0? Forget the court battles. Forget the spinmeisters trying to get you to start calling copyright infringement (a minor misdemeanor) piracy or theft (major felonies). The RIAA and their whole sytem are already dead. Just look out for the death rattles.
Grabbing copies of copyrighted music is not theft. It is not piracy. It is copyright infringement. Notice how when you hear copyright infringement you react differently than when you hear piracy or theft?
The record companies have been very successful in controlling this debate by inserting their terms into the discussion. Unnoticed, this introduces their memes and ideas. Theft is a felony. Piracy (though making a comeback in asia, is pretty much nonexistent around the us) is a felony. Copyright infringement is NOT a felony. Copyright infringement was not done by napster. Or by people who made their songs available. The only thing copyright prevents is 'making unauthorized copies without the permission of the copyright holder'. In the whole napster scenario - who was it who made the illegal copies? It was the people who clicked on the link and started the transfer. They were the only people who did anything to infringe copyright. They should be the only people who can be sued by the RIAA.
i almost never searched by artists name. i searched for words like techno, mix, remix, rare, b side, live, etc. Searching for any of those could turn up a match for the songs i had on there.
Excuse me, but have you ever heard of Vincent Van Gogh? The man sold one painting in his entire life. He begged money from his family to buy art materials. HE WAS NOT IN IT FOR THE MONEY! A financial incentive is not necessary, and is in fact actively destructive. If the only people who make music are people who enjoy doing it for the personal pleasure they derive from it - THEN WE WILL NEVER HAVE ANOTHER 'NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK' 'BACKSTREET BOYS' 'N'SYNC' OR BRITNEY SPEARS! Those are the types of people attracted by the money. Do you really think that even if he wasn't making any money from it that Carlos Santana would stop playing guitar?
I spend huge amounts of time making music. And you know what i do with it? I give it away for free. Or even worse i burn it onto cds i pay for and give it out to my friends. This is what anyone who actually cares about music does.
If you know how to play guitar you like to play to amuse your friends right? This is the purpose of music. <br><br>
"What sickens me are the people who justify their actions by rationalizations like "music should be about the art, not about money." Well, to those people I say that it's nice of you to make the decision for the artist."<br>
It's a value judgement. I make it. Making music is fun. People have made music for 10,000 years without any guarantee of compensation. Money has nothing to do with music. You have no right to make money from recorded music. Can you tell me where this right comes from? I've studied a lot of philosophy, a lot of writings on what rights are and how they are justified. You know, i don't see anywhere in the UN Declaration of Human Rights the right to make money from recorded music. <b>IT IS NOT A RIGHT!!!</b> It is the way things work under our current, outdated, legal system. If we don't like it we can change it. One of the ways to change it is massive non-compliance. Why did prohibition fail? Because everyone drank. Why will banning the trading of mp3s fail? Because everyone will trade them. Social forces decide what is acceptable. <br><br>
A major point is this - there used to be folk music. Songs that didn't belong to anyone, that were sung by everyone. They were a part of our culture. They no longer exist except as scrtchy recordings in anthropologists basements. We have no more free music culture. The recording industry spent billions making sure it was eradicated. I'm sorry, but you can't change human nature. When i hum a madonna song, am i infringing her copyrights? well sorry, but it is a part of my culture and i will insist on owning it the way music used to owned by the people.
<br>
<br>
But every day napster is shut down they lose users to all the alternative services. If they're closed for a week, they can recover. But if it takes a month for them to get a judgement, and they win, and they re-open, they will then be totally dead. No one will use them, b/c everyone will have been forced to learn how tu use gnutella or opennap etc. So the injunction does cause immediate, direct harm. Their only value comes in market share. Cost them that and you trash any hopes of them ever making money.
How many people here would forgo considering other issues and be willing to vote as part of a bloc on this one issue? Napster had what... 20 million users?
Let's see with our usual rate of voter turnout that's probably enough people to guarantee a win for any candidate. I mean the gov't doesn't really have much impact on my daily life. Napster does. So if a candidate made a promised executive order restoring napster a part of his platform.....would you vote for him?
Can you imagine how the publishing companies would respond if we had never had libraries before and some one suggested that we accumulate these huge repositories of copyrighted material in convenient locations throughout the country where everyone could come and read whatever book or magazine they wanted? For free? As often as they like? With no compensation to the publishing company for additional readings?
Why they'd respond pretty much like the RIAA is now don'tcha think? Of course we've had public libraries for 7 decades now and we all see that they encourage the public good. But what happens when libraries catch up to the times and put everything on a hard drive? If they copy those few, random, crummy tapes they usually have and make them available as mp3s will the libraries get sued by the riaa?
Does anyone think this has a chance? I'll tell you right now i'll forget about my normal party affiliation and vote for anyone who promises to restore napster. Bush? Aren't you trying to make yourself look tech friendly? I'll even vote for satan himself (still talking about bush...) if he makes digital rights and fair use part of his platform. Anyone else?
Can you imagine how the publishing companies would respond if we had never had libraries before and some suggested that we accumulate these huge repositories of copyrighted material in convenient locations throughout the country where everyone could come and read whatever book or magazine they wanted? For free? As often as they like? With no compensation to the publishing company for additional readings?
Why they'd respond pretty much like the RIAA is now don'tcha think? Of course we've had public libraries for 7 decades now and we all see that they encourage the public good. People really, really forget that we live in a democracy. We don't live in 'capitalism'. We can pass whatever law we want. If we decide that local governments should buy one copy of every new album and put them all in the libraries, and that the record companies can only charge $.12 for those library cds then you know what? The record companies have no recourse. If we declare it illegal to buy copyrights from the artist to be held by a corporation then you know what? The record companies are out of luck. It doesn't matter what the law of today is. If we don't like it and don't think it adequately protects our rights we can change it. I'd like to see it become a campaign issue actually. Can you see the result if any of the major candidates promised to spend all their time pushing for new laws protecting napster? I think if nader announced he would do that (since he's the only one i believe at all) he could add a good 10 million voters to his side. Of course that would force the hands of the other candidates. See where I'm going? It is election time. There are 20 million angry, motivated people who will vote as a bloc on a single issue. We might even have more influence than the seniors.....
it would be one thing if the artists owned the copyrights. they don't. record companies wont sign anyone unless that person agrees to give up the copyright protection they are legally entitled to into the corporations hands.
people are amazing. if you look up palm IIIe auctions on ebay right now you'll see the average price they're going for is like $210+.
yes that's right. way over the retail list price. on an auction site.
can anyone explain this to me?
why can't they use some sturdier glass in those damn screens? you know they cost $100 to replace?
i think that if you pay $100 for the screen the glass should really be tempered. there is structural glass that you can use to hold up roofs. these glass beams can hold like 14 tons. there is bulletproof glass for car windows. stuff that literally doesn't break when you put a shotgun up to it and fire. but the $100 piece of 2" x 2" glass in a palm shatters when bumping into something at 1/100 mph. i smell a rip off. i think palm makes its money in bogus service plans and screen replacements. they really need to put a hardier kind of glass in there and just charge more......
I had a palm. i became addicted. it replaced my actual neuronal memory. it was wonderful. i took it everywhere. i took it into clubs to get numbers, had it in my pocket, danced all night with it, no problems.
then one day i'm sitting at my desk. i lean over to pick up my bag. the palm falls off the desk, where i had it plugged in to synch up. crack. broken screen. but that's ok, the guy at office depot convinced me to buy a protection plan. i asked him what it covered. he said everything. he said it included droppping it in water, whatever. so i call them. nope, it doesn't cover any of that. so i look in the coverage of the unit, nope not under warranty.
look up palm.com and find a plan called 'one year screen replacement plan'. but now i'm wary. look at the fine print. nope, it doesn't cover having the palm fall off your desk. so i call palm and ask what it would cost to replace the screen. $100!!!!! wtf? it only costs $150 to buy a new one, including the case, the chip, the os, the pretty packaging, etc. but the screen costs $100 to replace.
so i refuse to pay that. now my brain no longer remembers how to remember. and i have no palm to do that with. maybe i'll get one of these cute new ones. or maybe with these coming out they'll drop the price of the IIIe to say....$95? Then i could go into business buying new palms and giving them to people, pretending i'm replacing the screen in their unit for $100. i cannot believe that it's impossible to buy protection saying that if it gets broken by dropping it that the screen will be replaced. you know 99% of the people buying these protection plans are buying them for that reason. it's not like i'm going to strt using the screen as a hammer because i have coverage on it. i still wouldn't wan the inconvenience on being without my palm, i'm not going to intentionally break it. but everyone i know with one has broken it at some point......
that is some horrible horrible.... yuck.
will be rather difficult to incorporate. we did not see the original screenplay translated into english when this played at theaters in america. neil gaiman (of sandman fame) did a rather extensive rewrite of the plot to make it more understandable to western audiences.
so i'm wondering, if you watch it in japanese with english subtitles, will you see a translation of the japanese words? or will you see the english words used by gaiman at that point in the movie? releasing a movie with essentially two different plots is kind of odd even for a feature loaded dvd.......
did you check out the lightsabers? At http://www.futurehorizons.net/saber.htm . Also you can buy anti gravity ships. Oh my. And learn all about new age medicine. Hmm, yeah I'll really get on that hoverboard now......
Everyone here was pretty outraged a few weeks ago over a click thru agreement buried in a .exe file you had to run to see microsoft's specs for their proprietary 'enhancements' to the kerebos standard. I didn't pay much attention but it certainly sounds like one of the more egregious non-enforceable eula's i've ever heard of - those who used winzip, like everyone should, didn't even see this screen. so who did this and can supply the details to this crusader?
man, what an inspiring sight
one nerd telling another nerd that he was incorrect in the terminology used to describe the taxonomy of his nerd-dom.
you go, dude. rock the nerd world. keep us in line and mandate that the popular, distributed evolution of our language must be in the hands of self-designated experts like yourself.
are you a big fan of the fat, sarcastic Star Trek fan/comic book owner on the Simpsons? I'll bet he would have used the 'proper' term, cracker.
why the fuck don't you look outside your nerd box and realize that things are what people call them, and that this applies even when people are dumb? if i'm listening to a tape in my portable cassette player, it's a fucking walkman even if it's not a sony. the copy machine is a xerox machine regardless of who makes it, or what xerox wants. hackers is the term used by the popular press to describe crackers so fucking deal with it. it's a nice broad term covering several species of nerds, from phone phreakers to web site graffitists so deal. I will not let this go - you do not get to define language. Society decides, wrongly or not.
loser is illiterate
did you somehow miss the posts from the accused explaining that he did not distribute files off of a web page?
or let me guess, you just skipped all the reading part and just posted your spew straight away, huh?
>The problem -- the people they are prosecuting --
are the people who run the pirate servers.
if you make something i do illegal there should be some effort to prosecute me, shouldn't there? what if you apply this 'its ok because theyre not targeting home users, theyre just going after big-time guys' to murder? 'Well, you just killed one person so we're not gonna bother. Call us if you found a death cult.'
don't ever use the well they won't really apply this law reasoning to justify a law. if it can't be universally applied (due to economics or desire) then it shouldn't be a law. we already have civil laws against copyright infringement and breach of contract, we have no need for a criminal law that just rolls two civil crimes up together and says that the result is a felony.
The problem is the law you were charged under.
Piracy is a combination of two things: 1: Copyright infringement. 2: Breach of contract (license). Now, copyright infringement and breach of contract are both civil crimes. I don't see how a law can legally be enacted which makes something a felony for violating civil laws. I don't think this law will hold up. The premise of the act (as shown by it's name) is that copyright infringment is theft (which is criminal). The premise seems to be that if you committ a gross enough civil infraction, it becomes criminal. What's next? Being thrown in the slammer for not paying your cable bill?
There is a reason we have civil versus criminal charges. It is grossly wrong to label you a felon - these are misdemeanor crimes.
first off you're stupid, i have no sympathy for you
breach of contract is a civil offence, not criminal
violating copyright laws is a civil offence, not criminal
he didn't fucking steal anything. he violated two rules, which we already have procedures for dealing with. The issue isn't the kid, it's the law
Thank you for your excellent post.
What needs to be done is that new copyright laws need to be devised in light of technological changes.
All of these problems are due to the fact that we are trying to use 18th century property laws in what is about to be the 21st century. These laws worked fine for products like a bucket of grain, or a cart, or even a book. They dont work when the product is a collection of computer code.
The matter duplicator is an excellent example! If i had one, what would happen to the price of the mona lisa once i copied it? These laws do not adequately address duplicable objects, whether real or vitual.
I have opinions on the subject, but arguments should be held back until they convene a commission to come up with new copyright laws. And just so no one forgets - we're a democracy, not a free market. We can pass any damn law we want to, whether it helps the software companies or whether it drives every damn one of them out of business because we decide our right to copy is more important than their 'right' to force you to sign a legally binding contract to access the software that you HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR.
There is no other industry where you could purchase a product and then be denied use of it. If I bought a pig to eat and as i left the store the butcher came running up behind me to force me to sign a contract saying that i wouldn't let any of my friends have some pig (even after i was full), i would punch him in the nose! You have already purchased the product when you leave the store. The question is - do you own it? If i ripped it out of your hand most would consider it theft. But what was stolen? An opportunity to enter into a binding contract for a service? Can you sell an opportunity?
We have had copyright laws for years.
I'll bet I can find an illegal copy of something in 80% of american homes. It may just be a copy of "Lethal Weapon" that your friend copied for you, or a "Twisted Sister" tape you dubbed from your big brother years ago. But they are illegal.
Now the story i want to see isn't about some kid getting arrested for pirating software - there are so many toxic anti-youth memes floating around our society that people don't judge the story objectively. Imagine this case: 72 year old grandmother busted for illegal collection of 'Golden Girls' tapes. How would people react to this story? Imagine that nobody has ever been in trouble for illegal copies of videotapes. And then the feds (it's an interstate issue because she got the tapes from her sister in Illinois, a part of the "ring" the authorities hope to crack) kick in her door and haul her ass to jail.
Now, how many "It's illegal, the old bitch got what she deserved" kind of comments would follow that story? Remember, it's still a violation of copyright law, and the person is undeniably guilty. Why, she watched the FBI warning every time she popped in an illegal copy of Blanche's escapades!
The point of all the 'cruel and unusual' comments is simply this - nobody has ever been charged with the crime even though government officials can access mp3/warez sites as easily s anyone else, so any punishment is unusual. This is another example of a larger problem - laws that aren't generally enforced but which can be enforced whenever the gov't decides to take someone down.
For example, premarital sex is illegal in the District of Columbia. So if a cop felt like busting a drug dealer but he didn't have any legally admissable evidence, he could just wait around the guy's place until he hears the guy making out with his girlfriend. Boom, probable cause to believe a crime, sex, was taking place. Bust into the place, find drugs, send the guy to jail forever, drop charges against the girl.
Now with this law, if the gov't decides that they think you might be a part of some big bad hacker or child porn group, but they don't have any evidence, if you have a site that distributes aretha frnaklin mp3s (cuz you love aretha and sharing her with others is the only good thing you do) they can bust in, charge you, and seize all your computer equipment to look for other stuff.
Since this is a systemically violated law, until i see about 40,000 more arrests i will believe it be just another tool for the gov't to break into your private material whenever the whim hits them.
hey bud - i got one damn question for you - do you have any unregistered shareware on your computer at this minute? You goddam CRIMINAL!!
The law saying you have to pay for your shareware is the same as the law saying you can't give out free versions of copyrighted programs.
Do i pay for shareware? Hell no, i'm a criminal. Come and break down my door and have a trial and put me in jail at the taxpayer's expense for that $50 of unregistered software. Go ahead. But make sure you arrest EVERYONE who breaks the law. THAT INCLUDES THOSE OF YOU WHO TAPE MOVIES YOU RENT FROM BLOCKBUSTER!!! AND YOU PEOPLE WHO COPY AN ALBUM FOR A FRIEND. WE ARE ALL DEFINED AS CRIMINALS! OF COURSE THIS INCLUDES EVERYONE IN THE US!!!!