true, but you shouldn't HAVE to turn off javascript...i think that's my point...at least with AOL, if you turn them off, you won't be missing out on anything else. i dunno...
while this lawsuit seems somewhat silly to me...i mean, most of us realize that this particular suit has little chance of doing anything but getting the ball rolling on a much larger issue at stake: advertising windows that pop up automatically. sure you can turn them off within AOL's fantasy world, but what happens when you accidentaly follow a link to a somewhat "shady" site? on occasion, you will be bombarded with 15 pop-up ad windows and other various types of pop-ups. beyond this they continue popping up quicker than you can close them. now i'll admit, you're not likely to come across this stuff unless you're searching for some obscure stuff, but still i for one get pretty ticked off during one of those deluges. so what does this AOL suit mean now?
while to an extent i agree that copyright laws in this country are stronger than necessary, many/. ers seem to be of the opinion that these laws are basically the equivalent of pure evil. i realize that, in making my next statement, i am also failing to provide the "plan" that i'd like to see suggested, but: if i am going to be inundated with discussion about copyright law (on either side of the argument) i would at least like to hear some constructive ideas about how to make our present situation better...criticism of the establishment's current system is valuable and productive, to a point, then it becomes annoying and perhaps even childish.
i don't know about anyone else, but i LOVE those really large boxes taking up space on my shelf at home or in at the office. who needs those pesky trees anyway?
but on a more serious note, our economy seems to be based almost as much on packaging (interpret the term "packaging" loosely) as it is based on the actual products (or lack there of)...i'm not a hardcore environmentalist, but how can we not see something wrong here?
Why has COPYLEFT entered the discussion? As I understand it, COPYLEFT applies to CODE. No musician gets upset about greater exposure, however the fact of the matter is that Music - Literature - Art...they do not serve the same kind of function as software. For example: One can customize a piece of software to suit their needs more appropriately than earlier versions. How can one change a piece of music and actually claim they made it better. The value rendered by listening to music is completely subjective. Therefore, we have to protect Intellectual Property and Copyright as they apply to the arts. I have written songs and if someone else received artistic acclaim, or money for them I would be pretty damned pissed. --- Copyleft does not belong in the discussion when we are talking about the free trade and exchange of artwork.
Slight amendment to this...i applaud Courtney for making such a bold statement.
I think we are missing a connection though...the sad fact is that the record companies take advantage of all of us. they only promote certain bands with the most marketable image, they overcharge listeners, while underpaying artists.
It is time for us to take matters into our own hands. go to shows...musicians fuck the labels hundreds of bands DIY. jump on the boat!!!
Being a half geek half musician makes me particularly sensitive to the issue of copyright infringement and intellectual property in regards to the wide scale trading of mp3 files.
On the one hand I feel that the real enemy is the record companies which have a monetary and legal stranglehold on the situation at hand.
On the other hand I am growing tired of techies who are completely insensitive to artists' positions --- if your software generated $100 mil. or more and you saw next to nothing in terms of compensation for your hard work, while at the same time you also know people are downloading it for free over the internet, you would have a right to be upset.
I think we know who the enemy is, but we have yet to find a way to attack record companies without hurting artists.
I think the bottom line here is...it's fine to stick it to the record companies, but there must be a means to compensate artists for their work. And don't tell me "anyone can write a hit record" because you wouldn't want to hear someone say "anyone can write killer code"
Slashdot Mirror
Go Go Gadget Legs!!!
true, but you shouldn't HAVE to turn off javascript...i think that's my point...at least with AOL, if you turn them off, you won't be missing out on anything else. i dunno...
while this lawsuit seems somewhat silly to me...i mean, most of us realize that this particular suit has little chance of doing anything but getting the ball rolling on a much larger issue at stake: advertising windows that pop up automatically. sure you can turn them off within AOL's fantasy world, but what happens when you accidentaly follow a link to a somewhat "shady" site? on occasion, you will be bombarded with 15 pop-up ad windows and other various types of pop-ups. beyond this they continue popping up quicker than you can close them. now i'll admit, you're not likely to come across this stuff unless you're searching for some obscure stuff, but still i for one get pretty ticked off during one of those deluges. so what does this AOL suit mean now?
while to an extent i agree that copyright laws in this country are stronger than necessary, many /. ers seem to be of the opinion that these laws are basically the equivalent of pure evil. i realize that, in making my next statement, i am also failing to provide the "plan" that i'd like to see suggested, but: if i am going to be inundated with discussion about copyright law (on either side of the argument) i would at least like to hear some constructive ideas about how to make our present situation better...criticism of the establishment's current system is valuable and productive, to a point, then it becomes annoying and perhaps even childish.
"we'd all love to see the plan" --- John Lennon
i don't know about anyone else, but i LOVE those really large boxes taking up space on my shelf at home or in at the office. who needs those pesky trees anyway?
but on a more serious note, our economy seems to be based almost as much on packaging (interpret the term "packaging" loosely) as it is based on the actual products (or lack there of)...i'm not a hardcore environmentalist, but how can we not see something wrong here?
the perfect gift for the geek/musician extraordinaire.
Why has COPYLEFT entered the discussion? As I understand it, COPYLEFT applies to CODE. No musician gets upset about greater exposure, however the fact of the matter is that Music - Literature - Art...they do not serve the same kind of function as software. For example: One can customize a piece of software to suit their needs more appropriately than earlier versions. How can one change a piece of music and actually claim they made it better. The value rendered by listening to music is completely subjective. Therefore, we have to protect Intellectual Property and Copyright as they apply to the arts. I have written songs and if someone else received artistic acclaim, or money for them I would be pretty damned pissed. --- Copyleft does not belong in the discussion when we are talking about the free trade and exchange of artwork.
Slight amendment to this...i applaud Courtney for making such a bold statement.
I think we are missing a connection though...the sad fact is that the record companies take advantage of all of us. they only promote certain bands with the most marketable image, they overcharge listeners, while underpaying artists.
It is time for us to take matters into our own hands. go to shows...musicians fuck the labels hundreds of bands DIY. jump on the boat!!!
Being a half geek half musician makes me particularly sensitive to the issue of copyright infringement and intellectual property in regards to the wide scale trading of mp3 files.
On the one hand I feel that the real enemy is the record companies which have a monetary and legal stranglehold on the situation at hand.
On the other hand I am growing tired of techies who are completely insensitive to artists' positions --- if your software generated $100 mil. or more and you saw next to nothing in terms of compensation for your hard work, while at the same time you also know people are downloading it for free over the internet, you would have a right to be upset.
I think we know who the enemy is, but we have yet to find a way to attack record companies without hurting artists.
I think the bottom line here is...it's fine to stick it to the record companies, but there must be a means to compensate artists for their work. And don't tell me "anyone can write a hit record" because you wouldn't want to hear someone say "anyone can write killer code"