Oh great. Here we go again. Making a mockery out of the role of the "big, evil" music companies. Did you forget that you probably wouldn't even want a lot of the music you buy if not for the record companies' marketing of the artists? This is just another thinly veiled attempt to justify pirating music: "Oh, publishers are obsolete they need to get with the program and find a way to profit off of people stealing music..."
I for one am not surprised. This is what happens when you let the corporations have free reigns. Just a few more mergers like this and you're not going to have any choice whatsoever in telecommunications. That's why we need more regulation in the interest of consumers: so we don't have to go back to the days of "we're the phone company, we don't have to care". I think it's time to abolish corporations too, while we're at it.
The Xbox 2 is going to be a good system though. Microsoft is going to implement some of their new technology in it, just like they did when they came out with the original Xbox. Keep in mind, these are the guys that came out with the whole.NET framework and created the world's most-used operating system. I see nothing but good things ahead.
They have every right to make rules regarding their website. It's their website after all. They can prohibit deep linking if they want to. It's just like me prohibiting smoking in my home.
People are always promoting Red Hat as an excellent open source business model, and now we find they're just as hooked on using copyright as Microsoft! Just goes to show you that Microsoft isn't doing anything wrong, they're just making good use of the rights that everyone - now, even open sourcers - believes they have!
Hate to break it to all you wide-eyeds, but major languages like German already have tenses that differentiate between information you believe to be true and information you're taking no stance on the reliability of. Example:
He said to me, Peter stole his wristwatch.
If you believe Peter stole his wristwatch:
Er hat mir gesagt, Peter hat seine Armbanduhr gestohlen.
If you want to take no stance:
Er hat mir gesagt, Peter habe seine Armbanduhr gestohlen.
Look to their media if you want to know what it would be like.
Spam-filtering simply doesn't work effectively enough to block the amount of spam that would make it unprofitable. And even if you could write a filter that blocks all of today's spam, spammers would just revise their messages to bypass them. Classic Incompleteness Theorem problem: any filter effective enough to be worthwhile can't admit all the mail you want and reject all that you don't.
Are you trying to imply that the RIAA is somehow not justified in its claims that downloaders on p2p services are hurting them? Let me explain the simple math for you: if you have a choice between "paying" and "not paying" for music, which will you do? Hm. That's a tough one. So obviously, OBVIOUSLY, it's going to hurt musicians when people can download. So yess, the RIAA has 100% legit claims of financial ruin.
it will be better than current free p2p filesharing networks because of that reason and because it will be legal, which allows corporations to better invest in ways to make it better.
It's different with Amazon's novel one-click system because their patent includes a precise way of securely storing and processing the data, and is therefore non-obvious. They did, after all, come up with it before others.
Yeah, do three good movies constitute grounds for a lifetime achievement award? (Yes, only three.) Aren't there a lot of other directors who made three movies and didn't dig up their franchises when their careers were going sour?
If you're referring to how you can have just the IP address (or whatever that string of numbers is that's used to access the site), you still need permission for one to be reserved just for your site and not for others.
Well, you already need permission from that company that handles domain names, so that's like a license to make a website. It's just that they choose not to put any regulations on content.
Why? It's not because I'm feeling guilty - I just know that the CD will likely outlast the hard drive, and it's just good sound back up policy.
But without the RIAA's enforcement of their IP rights, you would just buy a knock-off CD, and no money would go to the artists! It's because the RIAA sues downloaders that buying the CD helps the artists.
That doesn't necessarily follow. The analagous case would be that roads into the immediate area where the debate will take place should temporarily have checkpoints installed.
You and I must come from different groups of people. The internet has vastly increased the amount, and, from my perspective, the quality of the goods I purchase. My friends and I have bought things due to pop-up ads, believe it or not, and the internet is good at using the whole "people who bought this also liked" system, which has helped me make quality choices. So the internet can be used to reach people, just not in conventional ways.
Don't you have it backwards? Isn't it more like, the fewer sources of opinion there are in an area, the MORE dangerous regulation is, since there are fewer alternatives to go to?
Now that people can easily burn data to a whole DVD, there's really no limit to the digital thievery they can commit with their friends. It was bad with CD's, but think about what you can put on a DVD! Goodbye IP rights, hello massive digital piracy!
So, you prefer we go back to square one, with zero intellectual property rights? Why should anyone produce any great literature if others are just going to be able to get it for free? What's the incentive?
You're asking for a full-frontal assault on IP rights, and on culture for that matter.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, forgot I was using that username for that post.
Oh great. Here we go again. Making a mockery out of the role of the "big, evil" music companies. Did you forget that you probably wouldn't even want a lot of the music you buy if not for the record companies' marketing of the artists? This is just another thinly veiled attempt to justify pirating music: "Oh, publishers are obsolete they need to get with the program and find a way to profit off of people stealing music..."
I for one am not surprised. This is what happens when you let the corporations have free reigns. Just a few more mergers like this and you're not going to have any choice whatsoever in telecommunications. That's why we need more regulation in the interest of consumers: so we don't have to go back to the days of "we're the phone company, we don't have to care". I think it's time to abolish corporations too, while we're at it.
The Xbox 2 is going to be a good system though. Microsoft is going to implement some of their new technology in it, just like they did when they came out with the original Xbox. Keep in mind, these are the guys that came out with the whole .NET framework and created the world's most-used operating system. I see nothing but good things ahead.
They have every right to make rules regarding their website. It's their website after all. They can prohibit deep linking if they want to. It's just like me prohibiting smoking in my home.
People are always promoting Red Hat as an excellent open source business model, and now we find they're just as hooked on using copyright as Microsoft! Just goes to show you that Microsoft isn't doing anything wrong, they're just making good use of the rights that everyone - now, even open sourcers - believes they have!
Hate to break it to all you wide-eyeds, but major languages like German already have tenses that differentiate between information you believe to be true and information you're taking no stance on the reliability of. Example:
He said to me, Peter stole his wristwatch.
If you believe Peter stole his wristwatch:
Er hat mir gesagt, Peter hat seine Armbanduhr gestohlen.
If you want to take no stance:
Er hat mir gesagt, Peter habe seine Armbanduhr gestohlen.
Look to their media if you want to know what it would be like.
Spam-filtering simply doesn't work effectively enough to block the amount of spam that would make it unprofitable. And even if you could write a filter that blocks all of today's spam, spammers would just revise their messages to bypass them. Classic Incompleteness Theorem problem: any filter effective enough to be worthwhile can't admit all the mail you want and reject all that you don't.
Are you trying to imply that the RIAA is somehow not justified in its claims that downloaders on p2p services are hurting them? Let me explain the simple math for you: if you have a choice between "paying" and "not paying" for music, which will you do? Hm. That's a tough one. So obviously, OBVIOUSLY, it's going to hurt musicians when people can download. So yess, the RIAA has 100% legit claims of financial ruin.
What a stupic acronym. It's like it's short for Nipple Lactate.
it will be better than current free p2p filesharing networks because of that reason and because it will be legal, which allows corporations to better invest in ways to make it better.
This means you won't be able to steal music that artists worked so hard to produce and music companies worked so hard to distribute. Woe is you!
So where can I find one of these sites giving out free GTA:SA?
Just kidding yo.
Or, to put it another way, make only new mistakes.
It's different with Amazon's novel one-click system because their patent includes a precise way of securely storing and processing the data, and is therefore non-obvious. They did, after all, come up with it before others.
Yeah, do three good movies constitute grounds for a lifetime achievement award? (Yes, only three.) Aren't there a lot of other directors who made three movies and didn't dig up their franchises when their careers were going sour?
If you're referring to how you can have just the IP address (or whatever that string of numbers is that's used to access the site), you still need permission for one to be reserved just for your site and not for others.
Doesn't it warn the user before the battery dies? Of course, even if it did, the person is still stranded...
Well, you already need permission from that company that handles domain names, so that's like a license to make a website. It's just that they choose not to put any regulations on content.
Why? It's not because I'm feeling guilty - I just know that the CD will likely outlast the hard drive, and it's just good sound back up policy.
But without the RIAA's enforcement of their IP rights, you would just buy a knock-off CD, and no money would go to the artists! It's because the RIAA sues downloaders that buying the CD helps the artists.
That doesn't necessarily follow. The analagous case would be that roads into the immediate area where the debate will take place should temporarily have checkpoints installed.
You and I must come from different groups of people. The internet has vastly increased the amount, and, from my perspective, the quality of the goods I purchase. My friends and I have bought things due to pop-up ads, believe it or not, and the internet is good at using the whole "people who bought this also liked" system, which has helped me make quality choices. So the internet can be used to reach people, just not in conventional ways.
Don't you have it backwards? Isn't it more like, the fewer sources of opinion there are in an area, the MORE dangerous regulation is, since there are fewer alternatives to go to?
Now that people can easily burn data to a whole DVD, there's really no limit to the digital thievery they can commit with their friends. It was bad with CD's, but think about what you can put on a DVD! Goodbye IP rights, hello massive digital piracy!
So, you prefer we go back to square one, with zero intellectual property rights? Why should anyone produce any great literature if others are just going to be able to get it for free? What's the incentive? You're asking for a full-frontal assault on IP rights, and on culture for that matter.