"if you tell people that you're a music pirate, they won't think that you have a parrot and an eye patch"
That's true. But they *will think that you do something immoral, which is not -- in my opinion -- the case. If you insist that what you engage in is "unauthorized copying" and not "piracy" you can start having the conversation about why the copying is unauthorized, and (generally speaking) why it's *stupid that it is unauthorized.
If you just accept the label "pirate" you willingly allow yourself to be marginalized.
...so what's the prospect for making **AA officials and the congresspeople they've purchased stop calling unauthorized copying "theft", "piracy", etc.?
If (as the "content industry" would like us to believe) we do not ever actually "own" our music, but "license" it, then there can't be any such thing as a Music Pirte. It's more like Unlicensed Music Listener. Like an unlicensed driver. Your thoughts?
I've heard about how linux, the kernel, won't be licensed under version 3, so it wouldn't matter. But I'm really skeptical.
If the software owned by the FSF moves to GPLv3, will *any distributor of a complete OS be able to enter into a deal like the Novell/MS one? Does it really matter whether linuz remains v2 when so many critical components will be v3?
Thanks for that. If all goes well, then, the minor outlying stations will pretty-much have to start raising awareness of CC-licensed music or nothing at all.
It was wrong the whole time, but while it was (relatively) expensive to distribute tangible expressions of novel, it was the lesser of two evils. Pretty straightforward.
The fact that copyright was an unfortunately necessary compromise was obvious to the writers of the Constitution, e.g. TJ.
This is very much about right and wrong. It is wrong to try to prevent competition from people who have analyzed the market and the technological situation better than you have. It is wrong to pretend that something (creative output) is property in order to can prevent this competition. It is wrong to pretend that something (unauthorized copying) is theft in order to prevent this competition. It is wrong to pretend that a technology control measure (the DMCA) is a copyright protection law in order to prevent this competition. And so on and so on.
I, of course, didn't read all (115 pages of) the copyright board's actual statement from this month, but it seems like the $500 minimum-per-stream doesn't depend on whether the station uses ASCAP music or free (e.g. cc-licensed) music
"Radio Broadcasters propose that music-formatted stations pay a fee ranging from as little as $500 per annum for small stations in low revenue ranked markets to as much as $8,000 per annum for large stations in high revenue ranked markets"
The term "Creative Commons" is not grep'd in the document so I assume it didn't come up.
You make joke, but the logic is precisely the logic of the intellectual protectionists. Here they actually (finally) use the word "protect":
"Digital performance rights were originally granted to record companies in 1995, in part with the intention of protecting them against the possibility that digital transmissions could erode the sales of CDs."
All you libs who think "the free market" is going to sort out this mess should get current. This market hasn't been within 100 miles of free since the Depression.
"Currently, DVB standards are limited to getting TV signals to your house, but they do not limit what you do with those signals after they've entered the privacy of your home"
I agree we need a policy that whatever two consenting devices do in the privacy of *my #$^$#%ing house is their own business.
I don't actually watch anything other than Simpsons and Amazing Race, but pay attention to the point implied by EFF et. al.:
The reason TV sucks is because established "content providers" have a stranglehold on entry into the market, and will do anything (including, yes, make the Off switch illegal) to keep that hold.
Free the hardware platform for broadcast, and the possibilities for quality TV will explode
"One particularly scathing audit, released just as Campbell was taking over the agency, found CMS had paid improper expenses to contractors, failed to document the cost-cutting it claimed to have achieved and sometimes allowed contractors to start working before having a signed deal."
"Both the state and the public are concerned about security, and we did not feel comfortable taking on the risks associated with open source software at this time,"
It's obviously more about the fact that the baddie terrorists can get into your computer if you use F/OSS
If I said I was capable of customizing a Hyundai so that it outran a Maserati Bora, would you say "Hyundais can be just as fast as Maseratis". Yes? Would you be right? Sorta. But not where it counts
"90% of computer users who just want to check their e-mail, surf the web and write a few letters"
This is why it is *stupid as *hell for 90% of users to spend more than $400 on a computer and more than $0 on the software.
So how come the average price of a desktop is $700. "Vista-capable" ones probably average over $1000. Add $200 for MS software and you've got *almost *all of the market paying three times what any sensible person would pay.
"We have never, in the history of free software, despite everything that has been said by lawyers and flaks and propagandists on the other side - we have never forced anybody to free any code." http://www.geof.net/blog/2006/12/10/eben-moglen
Slashdot Mirror
Live Nation's technology is nor prior art for any patent that might be filed going forward
"what OS upgrade doesn't cause problems"
The last dozen or so that I did (all linux distros) were smooth, except the one where I tried to put gnewsense onto a 2GB hard drive...
"currently, the rights are to use the software in a way consistant with the GPL"
Sorry, I didn't get past this. Freedom 0 is "to run the program, for any purpose". It is utterly unambiguous.
"if you tell people that you're a music pirate, they won't think that you have a parrot and an eye patch"
That's true. But they *will think that you do something immoral, which is not -- in my opinion -- the case. If you insist that what you engage in is "unauthorized copying" and not "piracy" you can start having the conversation about why the copying is unauthorized, and (generally speaking) why it's *stupid that it is unauthorized.
If you just accept the label "pirate" you willingly allow yourself to be marginalized.
"says there's something wrong with x"
If you take that thing that it said and paste it -- prolly without quotes -- into your google search box, you'll be well on your way.
...so what's the prospect for making **AA officials and the congresspeople they've purchased stop calling unauthorized copying "theft", "piracy", etc.?
If (as the "content industry" would like us to believe) we do not ever actually "own" our music, but "license" it, then there can't be any such thing as a Music Pirte. It's more like Unlicensed Music Listener. Like an unlicensed driver. Your thoughts?
I've heard about how linux, the kernel, won't be licensed under version 3, so it wouldn't matter. But I'm really skeptical.
If the software owned by the FSF moves to GPLv3, will *any distributor of a complete OS be able to enter into a deal like the Novell/MS one? Does it really matter whether linuz remains v2 when so many critical components will be v3?
um, do you have a GUI for your kernel? What kernel are you using?
If ncurses counts as a GUI, doesn't linux have one? (make menuconfig)
... one that #$%#^s you instead of you #$^%ing it. Like in Soviet Russia.
Thanks for that. If all goes well, then, the minor outlying stations will pretty-much have to start raising awareness of CC-licensed music or nothing at all.
It was wrong the whole time, but while it was (relatively) expensive to distribute tangible expressions of novel, it was the lesser of two evils. Pretty straightforward.
The fact that copyright was an unfortunately necessary compromise was obvious to the writers of the Constitution, e.g. TJ.
This is very much about right and wrong. It is wrong to try to prevent competition from people who have analyzed the market and the technological situation better than you have. It is wrong to pretend that something (creative output) is property in order to can prevent this competition. It is wrong to pretend that something (unauthorized copying) is theft in order to prevent this competition. It is wrong to pretend that a technology control measure (the DMCA) is a copyright protection law in order to prevent this competition. And so on and so on.
File it right next to the $18 billion (or whatever this week'd ass-originated number is) in "losses" that the RIAA/MPAA attribute to piracy.
t m
Oh, and the $60 billion lost to "web video piracy" as per
http://www.havocscope.com/Counterfeit/webvideos.h
I, of course, didn't read all (115 pages of) the copyright board's actual statement from this month, but it seems like the $500 minimum-per-stream doesn't depend on whether the station uses ASCAP music or free (e.g. cc-licensed) music
"Radio Broadcasters propose that music-formatted stations pay a fee ranging from as little as $500 per annum for small stations in low revenue ranked markets to as much as $8,000 per annum for large stations in high revenue ranked markets"
The term "Creative Commons" is not grep'd in the document so I assume it didn't come up.
You make joke, but the logic is precisely the logic of the intellectual protectionists. Here they actually (finally) use the word "protect":
"Digital performance rights were originally granted to record companies in 1995, in part with the intention of protecting them against the possibility that digital transmissions could erode the sales of CDs."
All you libs who think "the free market" is going to sort out this mess should get current. This market hasn't been within 100 miles of free since the Depression.
paste 'em in here? Mine was blank and yr link gets me an error.
"Currently, DVB standards are limited to getting TV signals to your house, but they do not limit what you do with those signals after they've entered the privacy of your home"
I agree we need a policy that whatever two consenting devices do in the privacy of *my #$^$#%ing house is their own business.
I don't actually watch anything other than Simpsons and Amazing Race, but pay attention to the point implied by EFF et. al.:
The reason TV sucks is because established "content providers" have a stranglehold on entry into the market, and will do anything (including, yes, make the Off switch illegal) to keep that hold.
Free the hardware platform for broadcast, and the possibilities for quality TV will explode
"One particularly scathing audit, released just as Campbell was taking over the agency, found CMS had paid improper expenses to contractors, failed to document the cost-cutting it claimed to have achieved and sometimes allowed contractors to start working before having a signed deal."
E CTOR_ILOL-?SITE=ILROR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAUL T
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IL_CMS_DIR
It's not about productivity, obviously:
"Both the state and the public are concerned about security, and we did not feel comfortable taking on the risks associated with open source software at this time,"
It's obviously more about the fact that the baddie terrorists can get into your computer if you use F/OSS
If I said I was capable of customizing a Hyundai so that it outran a Maserati Bora, would you say "Hyundais can be just as fast as Maseratis". Yes? Would you be right? Sorta. But not where it counts
If they're spending anything, it's remaining a secret:
x tName=microsoft&NumOfThou=0&txt2006=Y&submit=Go!
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search_hp.asp?t
"90% of computer users who just want to check their e-mail, surf the web and write a few letters"
This is why it is *stupid as *hell for 90% of users to spend more than $400 on a computer and more than $0 on the software.
So how come the average price of a desktop is $700. "Vista-capable" ones probably average over $1000. Add $200 for MS software and you've got *almost *all of the market paying three times what any sensible person would pay.
Nobody has ever accidentally freed their code.
"We have never, in the history of free software, despite everything that has been said by lawyers and flaks and propagandists on the other side - we have never forced anybody to free any code."
http://www.geof.net/blog/2006/12/10/eben-moglen