Why not help them, and really prove that it can't be done
No matter what the results of this challenge, the industry would never admit that it can't be done. If technical means can not accomplish it, then they will employ strongarm legal tactics. Either way, personal freedoms will bow to corporate interests.
There is prior art. This patent was granted for a process that ties together a cookie, a button, and a database in such a way that has been done countless times before!!!!
Shouldn't corporation's be forced to play in a free market? Why do artificial barriers have to be put in place to protect a given business model. If a device comes along that pushes a business model into obsolecence, why can't we just let it be?
I don't believe that governments put a tax on refridgerators in order to subsidize ice-sellers. There comes a point when every industry will no longer be as important and/or as powerful as it once was. Governments may not be in place to force companies to act in the consumers' best interest, but it shouldn't be actively making it easier to deliver less product for more money.
much hotter than standard coffee (about 180 degrees instead of 140)
hmmm, was that put forth by ISO? I was unaware that it was illegal for McD's to sell coffee that was too hot. Thank God for that lawsuit, the world is such a better place because of it.
When that happens, sue your fans. They are the ones who are acting immorally. Sure Napster is one tool, but there are so many other tools (FreeNet, Scour, FTP, college intranets). You can't quantify a loss of profits to any of these tools any more than their defenders can quantify a gain of profits for the record industry. The only thing that can be proven is: USER A has your MP3 on his hard drive and USER A has no right to it.
AMD is being pragmatic. x86 doesn't inherently suck. x86 is not a bottleneck that is keeping the hardware industry back. It has taken a lot of heat recently, but its critics have other options.
How many libraries keep Penthouse and Hustler on the shelves? It's already off their shelves, so what's the big deal in keeping it off their computers as well?
Well, the big deal is that libraries are controlled locally. Communities develop their own standards for their libraries. Some communities may feel more strongly about free speech issues than others. The federal government has no business mandating filtering software.
One thing that I found about Naptser is it really REALLY sucked if you were looking for anything Indie or on a minor label.
That's true, but at least it was possible to find indie or minor label stuff. If I go to my local mall, what are my odds of finding ANY of that much less sampling it?
If you feel being ripped off then don't buy their records. No one is forcing you to do so.
And if people organize, that is a boycott... it is always voluntary
In either way; you are hurting them and still expect them to take your side? I call that being very naief.
If a group of people organize a boycott, the message being sent is that "You will not be getting our business because of X reason". If enough people believe in the cause for the impact to be felt, then change will happen. Otherwise we are a minority group with no CDs, where is the harm?
Ahh, but that choice isn't allways for them to make. People have contracts you know. And not all artists can afford to buy of these contracts.
I don't mean artists should jump ship and break contracts. They should be pressuring the RIAA to change their practices. If they can point to a boycott and say "Is this what I have signed my rights to you for?", then that will be the catalyst for change. The longer the animosity between the RIAA and the CONSUMER goes on, the more damage will be done to the artists. I don't see how a consumer boycott is bad but ripping off fans is good. Both are means to an end, which do you want?
Offcourse there is still the small problem of artists who will suddenly see their income drop because people want to hear 'm but now stop buying their CD's alltogether. Is this how you treat the artists?
All parties in this issue are looking out for their own interests exclusively. Users don't want to lose a service they enjoy, and the RIAA wants to preserve their industry. In both cases it is about their respective bottom lines. I don't believe either side is truely able to give enough of themselves to put the Artist first. The Artists will end up deciding the outcome. Right now the RIAA has them in hand, but perhaps if they felt the effects of a boycott, they would be more willing to break the chains that bind them.
I envision a model where I can download songs from a band's official website. The mass market will not care to deal with shady ftp searches, warez sites, or even morally (legally?) ambiguous peer to peer networks, if a simple and reliable method for direct purchase of an mp3. We need the artists to buy into this vision, hence the boycott.
But surely you want it to be made illegal to circumvent an access control device, be it some form of encryption or a defense system on your computer
So before the DMCA it was legal to use a descrambler to get free cable? Access control circumvention does not need to be illegal. A ruling in favor of DeCSS wouldn't mean that copyright infringement is ok.
Everyone knows that the signal/noise ratio here is very low and you have to wonder why cmdrtaco et. al. don't just get rid of the discussion area.
Without the discussion area, there isn't much to/. It'd be just some links and an occassional Katz article. I don't even mind the signal/noise ratio here so much, but the conversational tone got lost when stories started getting 200+ comments in under an hour. Perhaps keeping more stuff off the main page is the answer?
Didn't americans learn anything from the OJ Simpson case?
To be honest, I learned nothing new about our legal system from the OJ case. What has surprised me is the fact that big tobacco has been fairing so miserably in court lately. I know its a stretch to make the connection, but big business and deep-pockets can be beaten if people are vocal enough (or if enough people die) to make it politically beneficial for our Reps to be behind the cause.
Unfortunately IE5 is standard. It may not comply to some independant organisations standards but most of the internet use it and hence it is the standard.
I disagree with this view. This is definately not a case where the user can force a de facto standard. I don't care if 99% of the people are browsing with IE, it is on the developers to adhere to standards, or at least the lowest common denominator. There aren't that many killer IE-only features that are so worth using, that I would cut-off other browsers. It is up to web developers to take a stand against any one browser from monopolizing the web.
I think that the gripe people have is that the essay that followed the story didn't fit. If Jamie wanted to share that with the rest of us, he should have posted it as a comment and subjected himself to the offtopic moderations that were sure to follow.
Excellent point. This seemed to be one editorial hiding behind another. I don't even think the off-topic analogy really applies here either. The Government isn't saying 13 year olds can work in a slaughterhouse, but can't play this game. The restriction may not be a good thing, but it is a far cry from hipocracy.
The only people who would fight an IP law are people who want to pirate things. Sorry, it's the truth.
hmmm... I don't see a whole lot of truth in your statement. I don't want to pirate anything. I want to fight an unfair IP law. Whether you realize it or not, these laws grant new powers to big business and special interests at the expense of personal freedom. At what point in our history did our government start protecting business from the people instead of protecting the people?
Slashdot Mirror
No matter what the results of this challenge, the industry would never admit that it can't be done. If technical means can not accomplish it, then they will employ strongarm legal tactics. Either way, personal freedoms will bow to corporate interests.
I don't have to validate moderation performed by my peers, but I wonder why you didn't check the No +1 Bonus box for your post
There is prior art. This patent was granted for a process that ties together a cookie, a button, and a database in such a way that has been done countless times before!!!!
I don't believe that governments put a tax on refridgerators in order to subsidize ice-sellers. There comes a point when every industry will no longer be as important and/or as powerful as it once was. Governments may not be in place to force companies to act in the consumers' best interest, but it shouldn't be actively making it easier to deliver less product for more money.
hmmm, was that put forth by ISO? I was unaware that it was illegal for McD's to sell coffee that was too hot. Thank God for that lawsuit, the world is such a better place because of it.
If they win, the floodgates will open up. Even Bill will feel the pinch of lawsuits like this in every state.
When that happens, sue your fans. They are the ones who are acting immorally. Sure Napster is one tool, but there are so many other tools (FreeNet, Scour, FTP, college intranets). You can't quantify a loss of profits to any of these tools any more than their defenders can quantify a gain of profits for the record industry. The only thing that can be proven is: USER A has your MP3 on his hard drive and USER A has no right to it.
If the editors thought that their readers might find it interesting, YES.
AMD is being pragmatic. x86 doesn't inherently suck. x86 is not a bottleneck that is keeping the hardware industry back. It has taken a lot of heat recently, but its critics have other options.
It's nice to see the relative ease in which the transfer to AMD's new architecture will be made. I can't imagine that Intel will be so easy.
oops...can't spell, should be duel
No, that's akin to walking up to a commericial provider, slapping them in the face and challenging them to a dual. No backstabbing involved.
Well, the big deal is that libraries are controlled locally. Communities develop their own standards for their libraries. Some communities may feel more strongly about free speech issues than others. The federal government has no business mandating filtering software.
That's true, but at least it was possible to find indie or minor label stuff. If I go to my local mall, what are my odds of finding ANY of that much less sampling it?
And if people organize, that is a boycott... it is always voluntary
In either way; you are hurting them and still expect them to take your side? I call that being very naief.
If a group of people organize a boycott, the message being sent is that "You will not be getting our business because of X reason". If enough people believe in the cause for the impact to be felt, then change will happen. Otherwise we are a minority group with no CDs, where is the harm?
I don't mean artists should jump ship and break contracts. They should be pressuring the RIAA to change their practices. If they can point to a boycott and say "Is this what I have signed my rights to you for?", then that will be the catalyst for change. The longer the animosity between the RIAA and the CONSUMER goes on, the more damage will be done to the artists. I don't see how a consumer boycott is bad but ripping off fans is good. Both are means to an end, which do you want?
All parties in this issue are looking out for their own interests exclusively. Users don't want to lose a service they enjoy, and the RIAA wants to preserve their industry. In both cases it is about their respective bottom lines. I don't believe either side is truely able to give enough of themselves to put the Artist first. The Artists will end up deciding the outcome. Right now the RIAA has them in hand, but perhaps if they felt the effects of a boycott, they would be more willing to break the chains that bind them.
I envision a model where I can download songs from a band's official website. The mass market will not care to deal with shady ftp searches, warez sites, or even morally (legally?) ambiguous peer to peer networks, if a simple and reliable method for direct purchase of an mp3. We need the artists to buy into this vision, hence the boycott.
So before the DMCA it was legal to use a descrambler to get free cable?
Access control circumvention does not need to be illegal. A ruling in favor of DeCSS wouldn't mean that copyright infringement is ok.
Without the discussion area, there isn't much to /. It'd be just some links and an occassional Katz article. I don't even mind the signal/noise ratio here so much, but the conversational tone got lost when stories started getting 200+ comments in under an hour. Perhaps keeping more stuff off the main page is the answer?
To be honest, I learned nothing new about our legal system from the OJ case. What has surprised me is the fact that big tobacco has been fairing so miserably in court lately. I know its a stretch to make the connection, but big business and deep-pockets can be beaten if people are vocal enough (or if enough people die) to make it politically beneficial for our Reps to be behind the cause.
I disagree with this view. This is definately not a case where the user can force a de facto standard. I don't care if 99% of the people are browsing with IE, it is on the developers to adhere to standards, or at least the lowest common denominator. There aren't that many killer IE-only features that are so worth using, that I would cut-off other browsers. It is up to web developers to take a stand against any one browser from monopolizing the web.
Thank you for informing us Yanks what our rights are... we have been lacking that sort of insight for centuries now.
If anyone needs alternative types of fuel for cars, it's us British
How much gasoline does it take you to travel from one coast to the other on your island? Sorry for the rant (flame).
I think that the gripe people have is that the essay that followed the story didn't fit. If Jamie wanted to share that with the rest of us, he should have posted it as a comment and subjected himself to the offtopic moderations that were sure to follow.
Excellent point. This seemed to be one editorial hiding behind another. I don't even think the off-topic analogy really applies here either. The Government isn't saying 13 year olds can work in a slaughterhouse, but can't play this game. The restriction may not be a good thing, but it is a far cry from hipocracy.
hmmm... I don't see a whole lot of truth in your statement. I don't want to pirate anything. I want to fight an unfair IP law. Whether you realize it or not, these laws grant new powers to big business and special interests at the expense of personal freedom. At what point in our history did our government start protecting business from the people instead of protecting the people?