but the mantra seems to be there's little reason to upgrade unless you absolutely need the new features.
Isn't this just common sense that applies to any software? If it does everything you need and works well for you, don't upgrade. I don't care what software it is or how much it does or doesn't cost, I'm not upgrading if I don't need anything in the new version. No (sensible) person recommends you upgrade to the newest Linux kernel every time one is released if you have an old stable one that does exactly what you want perfectly. Why would MS Office be any different? The only reason to upgrade is new features. If you don't need the new features, you don't need to upgrade.
Man talk about FUD. Last time I checked, almost every single hole in windows was patched before an exploit was available. Every time I d/l a windows patch, it is for a hole that has yet to have an exploit in the wild. So why is it people scream about how MS fixes are so late?
And before anyone says it, most MS patches don't break anything. Yes, there have been some, but they are few and far between. Compare that to the BIND "patch" (I hesitate to call it that since it didn't do crap but work around Verisign) that broke certain configs. Everyone praises the BIND update for fixing what it broke, yet no one pointed out it shouldn't have broke anything to begin with.
Third party users are not potential viewers. The only people who can view the ads are users of th official client. And internet ads aren't based on number of potential viewers, they are based on either click-through or actual page loads. Third party clients never load the ads, which means they lose out on both counts. They get no money from the ads, as they are never loaded at all.
As for power users being the trendsetters, I ask why Windows is the OS of choice and AOL is the number 1 ISP is this is really true.
I don't see how nothaving extra people whogenerate no revenue hurts them. If people use the official MSN messenger client, their is advertising in it that makes them money to offset the cost of running the servers. If you are using a third party client, you are costing them money by using their servers and they are making no money in return from their client advertising. So they lose some power users who are costing them money, and you don't see the benefit of it?
People are always saying it isn't safe to install MS patches because they break things, but this case surely shows that it can happen in any OS or any environment (closed and open). Where are all the people screaming about how people shouldn't install patches until they have been out at least 6 months like they do with MS patches? And doesn't this make OSS patches as dangerous, since they obviously aren't being tested?
Microsoft offers for free Softwar Update Server, which lets you run your own update server. Just because you aren;t smart enough to use the tools that MS gives you doesn;t mean everyone else.
IE 5 has been replaced twice now, once by 5.5 and then again by 6. They offered patches for quite a while after this new version were available. Same with Media Player. Why would they support something 3 version old? No reasonable company does that.
How exactly would your father get online with any other OS? Last time I downloaded RH updates, there were about 30 of them. There are a lot of updates no matter what OS you run, and they all have to be downloaded. Patches are not an MS only problem, no matter what/. tells you.
I think the major problem is how patches are structured, i have no idea of how many and which patches i need to install because microsoft site is very confuse and there is always a new bug on the news.
How is Windows Update hard to understand? It scans your computer for you and tells you which patches you need to install. Security patches are listed as critical, other patches are listed under the "Windows" heading, and drivers by themselves. I can't think of a way to make it easier without removing the user completely.
Another is the way microsoft sells their OS, the version i bought on store is the same of one year ago. So just after install i need to download and install tons of patches, this is a problem while handling several machines (or several installs on the same one:). If i could download the latest version (which all patches included) and install it it wouldn't have that much problem
You don't want to update the OS when you install it, but you want to download the entire OS? I'm missing the sense in this. While it may be easier for you, it is not easier for the 99% of users who buy the product.
And there is another one ( i think that's the one i don't update:): A lot of security patches include a lot of unuseful (read heavy) stuff. I just want a patch to my system, i don't want more animations or a lot of tools that i won't use and will just bloath the code.
Examples are: MS WindowsMediaPlayer 6.x vs 7 and up, MSIexplorer 5.5 vs 6.x. I can't patch them, i need to install a new one (often the installing process says it's a patch but is just a install of a newer version).
Yes, they do stop supporting version after a point. No company continues to release patches to every version of software forever. Try getting patches for Red Hat 3.0, you can't do it. And when they have upgrades, they are clearly marked. I have never accidentally updated anything, as they are clearly marked as being the next version of the software.
No, I don't think it makes a big difference. If I rob a bank, but then give the stolen money to charity, should I get less of a fine? The issue is not whether I personally benefitted, it's whether you were injured by my actions. The idea behind copyright and the punishment for ignoring it is not to punish you for making money with my work, it's that I have the right to decide what happens with my work.
Also, it could be argued that P2P is a "profit" type system. Since the concept of P2P is that everyone shares so that all may benefit, it could be argued that you are being "paid" by being able to download copyrighted works from other people for free. It is a type of barter system, where you offer a copyrighted work so that you may get other copyrighted works without paying for them. The lack of money changing hands doesn't mean there isn't a benefit for the sharer.
The reason people pay for these things is that there is a perceived quality difference (whether there truly is depends on what you look at). If you ask people who drink bottled water, they think they are getting better quality water with a better taste than they can get from the tap (even though they aren't getting better quality, they think they are). Most people will take free software over pay software any day (see the number of people who pirate MS software), but they don't know enough about software to do this. They know they need MS Office, they have no clue that OpenOffice is almost as good and free. I think the legal P2P system will enjoy a huge popularity at first, and then slowly decline as people figure out that they can still get the stuff for free. Apple's iTunes, had something similar. At first they were doing gangbuster business, as people flocked to it, and now they are doing a much smaller amount of business (but still decent) as people are going back to P2P. At the same time, Kazaa didn't get hurt at all by iTunes.
But with the internet, everyone can be a publisher. While the penalties prevent one publisher from lifting work from another and republishing it, any kid on the internet with Kazaa can reach probably more people that either publishing company can individually. To say that Sony should be fined $100,000 because they stole EMI's music (or whatever example you want), but Billy who actually distibuted as much of the stolen music as Sony shouldn't be charged that much isn't right. I think the fines are too much, but the reason isn't that people should be fined less than publishing companies.
I always find it interesting when people site this article (and the rip-off article by Courtney Love) as the definitive "this is what happens". People dismiss what everything the RIAA has to say and anything they put out as "crap" and "marketting" yet there is one article, by one guy, who is a musician and he is a "definitive source"? He has as much to benefit from the whole thing as the RIAA, as he was on the other side of the equation. Why is he more credible for bitching about wanting more money for himself and others like him than the RIAA is for trying to get more money for themselves?
As with most things, the truth lies somewhere between the 2 points. The artists are at fault as well as the RIAA. Neither side is wholesome and pure, and both sides are greedy fucks going for the most money they can.
Actually, McDonald's doesn't charge you extra, the government does. The laws state that people eating in the restraunt are subject to sales tax (and all soft drinks are subject to sales tax, even if they are "to go"). Restraunts aren't making any money off that, the government is. And yes, they MUST pass the cost onto you. The tax is a tax on the consumer. It must be added to the total charge, even if they wanted to pay it for you (which I'm sure they don't) I don't think they could.
While there may still be uses for P2P without copying copyrighted files, it is safe to say that if there were no copyrighted files on P2P systems, there would be less than 1% of the users they now have. P2P without copyrighted files would be about as popular as gopher.
One thing to consider is that while it may not be a problem now, it may develop into one in the future. When MP#s first came out, the quality was not as good, and it was harder to download because most people were on dial-up. Now, the quality is better and a large number of people are on broadband, so d/ling a song is nothing. As broadband continues to expand and video codecs continue to evolve, it is imaginable that in 5 years a near perfect copy of a movie could be downloaded in under and hour. The MPAA is trying to put a stop to things now so they don't end up in the same place the RIAA is in 5 years.
This is ofcourse totally subjective but, it seems to me the general quality of music has decreased with time while movies have improved. I feel contempt when I watch MTV while I actually pay attention to movie trailers. I feel used by ("new") musicians while moviemakers entertain me.
This would be you aging and losing touch with the younger generation. If you ask anyone, at any point in history, they will tell you that things were better "before". Music in the 70s was not all great. Neither was music in the 60s or 80s. It was mostly crap whatever time you want to look at. The difference is that as time goes by, the horrible crap fades and the truly great stuff stays. Look at the top songs of any year and you will see the biggest load of crap that you are thankful you don't remember (top song of:1970-Close to You by The Carpenters, 1975-Mandy by Barry Manilow, 1979-Hot Stuff by Donna Summer, 1984-What's Love got to Do with It by Tina Turner). Music hasn't gotten worse, you've gotten older.
Do artists have much choice? The RIAA has the market so locked up that there is little room for competition. It is pretty close to being extortion. Do it our way or you'll be flipping burgers forever. On the other hand the Internet is giving artists a choice and I hope more of them are realizing that they don't need to sign with a major label to make a living doing what they love. They may not get rich as independents but if they're good they can make a decent living. So while you claim the RIAA has everything locked up, you admit that there are other opportunities? There have always been indy labels, or the ability to start your own. Ani Difranco is probably the biggest success story out there, and she did it completely independent from the RIAA. Why should we work to safeguard the greed of artists? Why is it wrong for the labels to try and make the most money they can, but okay for artists to sign away their rights to try and make the most money they can? If the artists weren't greedy, the labels wouldn't be able to get them to sign their life away.
I don't mind cd prices being high but again that is because the Internet gives me an alternative. I'll continue to download music instead of buying it until they lower cd prices. They can make threats until they go blue in the face and it won't change the fact that as long as they overcharge they'll be losing out on sales. I don't need to feel guilty about the artists because I can support them by going to concerts and buying t-shirts and posters and such. This whole thing is essentially consumers refusing to be ripped off. Since when does you not liking the price of something mean you can just take it? I don't like how much a BMW costs, so I'm going to steal one for the weekend (when they aren't using it) and then return it on Monday. They didn't lose anything, because they weren't using it and I wouldn't have bought one. In fact I told all my friends what a great car it is, so I helped them. Did I commit any less of a crime? The idea that taking something that doesn't belong to you (whether you call it theft, or copyright infringement or whatever) is okay because you don't like the price is just plain stupid. Not liking the price gives you the right not to purchase or use the item in question. If you take the object without paying for it, it is theft.
I'll also disagree that people can live without music. That is a dumb concept that I hear often. Music, movies, TV, artwork, etc may not be needed to stay alive but it is needed to keep our culture alive. Without exposure to such things people will go off on their own tangents and not unify in the building of our society. Shared artwork is part of shared experience and binds us together. It also seeds new ideas in other minds so that we can keep producing. So, in general, it's a bad idea to try to limit who can be exposed to our shared culture. But are CDs from the RIAA the only way to experience music? As much as people scream about the RIAA having music all locked up, I can go see a band any night of the week without the RIAA being involved at all. I can buy a CD without the RIAA being involved whenever I want. You do no have the right to force the RIAA to sell you something at a cost you like. If you don't like the cost, you don't buy it.
Re:Filesharing != Stealing
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
And filesharing isn't sharing at all. At best it is copying. Sharing means there is one object, and only party can use it at a time. This is copying, where every person gets a new copy and no one loses the use of their original copy. IF your going to bitch about precise definitions, please use ALL the correct terms, not just the ones that make your arguement look better.
Re:Birds of a feather
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Let's look at these "thefts, shall we.
They steal outright from musicians, in the form of low royalties or in the form of music copyrights. Which the artists willingly agree to. If you agree to give me your money, how is it theft? The artists know what they are getting into, and yet they still sign the contracts.
They steal outright from consumers, in the form of exorbitant prices for albums that are mediocre at best. Which, once again, the consumers agree to pay. If the prices were so incredibly exorbitant, then consumers would not buy the CDs. Music is not a necessity, people can live without it. Some people find the price for a "mediocre" CD (which just means one you don't like, apparently other people do like it, since they are willing to pay "exorbitant" prices for it) to be a fair price. This is shown by the fact that they are willing to pay for them.
They steal from the distributors, in the form of very low margin on CD sales. Last time I checked, the music industry has no say in the margins of distributors. They set their own margins. In fact, when the music industry tried to force distributors to set higher margins (which would keep place like Best Buy from selling CDs at cost and hurting the music only and small mom-and-pop shops), they were sued and lost.
I fail to see the RIAA stealing from anyone. They are doing what anyone in business does, they are taking what they can. If the artists would stop being so incredibly greedy and signing bad contracts because they think they might make billions of dollars, they wouldn't be locked into bad contracts. If the consumers really though the cost of a CD was outrageous, people wouldn't buy them.
It seems this would be an MIT mistake, not an RIAA mistake. I would assume the subpoena was for the person using the IP address x.x.x.x at X day and time. I am assuming MIT uses some kind of proxy server or NAT (something where every computer doesn't have a routable IP that the RIAA could get). MIT looked at their records and gave them a bogus name, because their tracking system sucks and is bogus. This says less about the RIAAs method of tracking and more about MITs method of tracking.
look I work, my time at work is for work, but there should be a level of privacy, even at work. I think it is reasonable for the work place to relize you have a life outside of work, and sometimes the to cross.
While I tend to agree with you in theory, you should have no expectation of privacy at work. Your employer shouldn't read through every email you send, but they certainly should have the ability to do so in needed. If they have a reason to check your email (if they think you are emailing company secrets for instance) then they certainly should be able to read your email and make sure you aren't doing it. A good privacy policy for a company involves them being able to view everything, and viewing nothing unless there is a problem.
Repeat after me: Copyright infringment != Stealing.
While I agree this is technically correct, may I point out that letting millions of people download perfect duplicates of your MP3, while you continue to have full use of your copy is not "sharing". If we are going to be rules lawyers about terminology, can we at least try and get all the terminology correct, not just that which helps the side we like.
But it is just as likely that he left a trojan or backdoor in the system.
You imply that just because he had the means to do so, it is just as likely that he did so.
But I have the means to do this. So do you. So does anybody else. Does that mean that we should be accused of altering files?
No, we have the means to potentially do it. I have never been into whatever system is pressing these charges (supposedly the NYT, but that is speculation). I could potentially change files, but first I would have to hack into their systems, which I haven't done. Lamo not only has the means to potentially do it, he has hacked into their systems, which means he could have done it.
Except we was in the systems and could have done anything while in there. Maybe he is a true "white hat" and didn't do anything bad and told them everything. But it is just as likely that he left a trojan or backdoor in the system. They can't tell what he did or didn't do, so they now have to not only secure their systems against whatever hacks he used to get in, but they have to scour everything on the system to make sure he didn't change any data or leave anything behind (and there is no way to tell whether he copied anything from the system).
While I agree with you, I think there should be some protection from wholesale copying of the database. I think what most companies are worried about is them spending thousands of dollars compiling the facts in the database, and once they put it online, someone comes along and just copies it for nothing. I remember claims about this with I think TV guide type websites. One company compiled the list and put it on their site (which was a revenue stream for them) and then another site just ripped the contents and put it on their site. I don't think the complaint is about other people having similar databases. They don't care if 2 people have the same phone number in their databases, they want to make sure no one steals their database and just reuses that instead of creating their own.
The problem is when someone important (a customer, a government) expects you to read a file in the locked-in format and you don't have MS Office. It's troublesome to convince your customers to save the files into HTML/CSV/TXT/whatever before sending them to you or publishing on the Web. So practically you have to pay for the MS Office licence to be compatible with everyone else. Hopefully this will change.
That isn't lock-in, that is someone sending you a file in a format you don't like. I've had people send me files in PDF when I needed a Word file, but that isn't lock-in either. If you are hired by a person or company to do a job, you need to make sure you accommodate them, and that includes using whatever they want for file (within reason). If they send you something in Word, you use Word because that is what the customer wants, not because MS has somehow now mysteriously "locked you into" Word. It's not MS's fault that someone you deal with uses Word and you don't want to. That's not lock-in, that's you now liking how businesses operate.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't this just common sense that applies to any software? If it does everything you need and works well for you, don't upgrade. I don't care what software it is or how much it does or doesn't cost, I'm not upgrading if I don't need anything in the new version. No (sensible) person recommends you upgrade to the newest Linux kernel every time one is released if you have an old stable one that does exactly what you want perfectly. Why would MS Office be any different? The only reason to upgrade is new features. If you don't need the new features, you don't need to upgrade.
Man talk about FUD. Last time I checked, almost every single hole in windows was patched before an exploit was available. Every time I d/l a windows patch, it is for a hole that has yet to have an exploit in the wild. So why is it people scream about how MS fixes are so late?
And before anyone says it, most MS patches don't break anything. Yes, there have been some, but they are few and far between. Compare that to the BIND "patch" (I hesitate to call it that since it didn't do crap but work around Verisign) that broke certain configs. Everyone praises the BIND update for fixing what it broke, yet no one pointed out it shouldn't have broke anything to begin with.
Third party users are not potential viewers. The only people who can view the ads are users of th official client. And internet ads aren't based on number of potential viewers, they are based on either click-through or actual page loads. Third party clients never load the ads, which means they lose out on both counts. They get no money from the ads, as they are never loaded at all.
As for power users being the trendsetters, I ask why Windows is the OS of choice and AOL is the number 1 ISP is this is really true.
I don't see how nothaving extra people whogenerate no revenue hurts them. If people use the official MSN messenger client, their is advertising in it that makes them money to offset the cost of running the servers. If you are using a third party client, you are costing them money by using their servers and they are making no money in return from their client advertising. So they lose some power users who are costing them money, and you don't see the benefit of it?
People are always saying it isn't safe to install MS patches because they break things, but this case surely shows that it can happen in any OS or any environment (closed and open). Where are all the people screaming about how people shouldn't install patches until they have been out at least 6 months like they do with MS patches? And doesn't this make OSS patches as dangerous, since they obviously aren't being tested?
Microsoft offers for free Softwar Update Server, which lets you run your own update server. Just because you aren;t smart enough to use the tools that MS gives you doesn;t mean everyone else.
/. tells you.
IE 5 has been replaced twice now, once by 5.5 and then again by 6. They offered patches for quite a while after this new version were available. Same with Media Player. Why would they support something 3 version old? No reasonable company does that.
How exactly would your father get online with any other OS? Last time I downloaded RH updates, there were about 30 of them. There are a lot of updates no matter what OS you run, and they all have to be downloaded. Patches are not an MS only problem, no matter what
How is Windows Update hard to understand? It scans your computer for you and tells you which patches you need to install. Security patches are listed as critical, other patches are listed under the "Windows" heading, and drivers by themselves. I can't think of a way to make it easier without removing the user completely.
Another is the way microsoft sells their OS, the version i bought on store is the same of one year ago. So just after install i need to download and install tons of patches, this is a problem while handling several machines (or several installs on the same one
You don't want to update the OS when you install it, but you want to download the entire OS? I'm missing the sense in this. While it may be easier for you, it is not easier for the 99% of users who buy the product.
And there is another one ( i think that's the one i don't update
Examples are: MS WindowsMediaPlayer 6.x vs 7 and up, MSIexplorer 5.5 vs 6.x. I can't patch them, i need to install a new one (often the installing process says it's a patch but is just a install of a newer version).
Yes, they do stop supporting version after a point. No company continues to release patches to every version of software forever. Try getting patches for Red Hat 3.0, you can't do it. And when they have upgrades, they are clearly marked. I have never accidentally updated anything, as they are clearly marked as being the next version of the software.
No, I don't think it makes a big difference. If I rob a bank, but then give the stolen money to charity, should I get less of a fine? The issue is not whether I personally benefitted, it's whether you were injured by my actions. The idea behind copyright and the punishment for ignoring it is not to punish you for making money with my work, it's that I have the right to decide what happens with my work.
Also, it could be argued that P2P is a "profit" type system. Since the concept of P2P is that everyone shares so that all may benefit, it could be argued that you are being "paid" by being able to download copyrighted works from other people for free. It is a type of barter system, where you offer a copyrighted work so that you may get other copyrighted works without paying for them. The lack of money changing hands doesn't mean there isn't a benefit for the sharer.
The reason people pay for these things is that there is a perceived quality difference (whether there truly is depends on what you look at). If you ask people who drink bottled water, they think they are getting better quality water with a better taste than they can get from the tap (even though they aren't getting better quality, they think they are). Most people will take free software over pay software any day (see the number of people who pirate MS software), but they don't know enough about software to do this. They know they need MS Office, they have no clue that OpenOffice is almost as good and free. I think the legal P2P system will enjoy a huge popularity at first, and then slowly decline as people figure out that they can still get the stuff for free. Apple's iTunes, had something similar. At first they were doing gangbuster business, as people flocked to it, and now they are doing a much smaller amount of business (but still decent) as people are going back to P2P. At the same time, Kazaa didn't get hurt at all by iTunes.
But with the internet, everyone can be a publisher. While the penalties prevent one publisher from lifting work from another and republishing it, any kid on the internet with Kazaa can reach probably more people that either publishing company can individually. To say that Sony should be fined $100,000 because they stole EMI's music (or whatever example you want), but Billy who actually distibuted as much of the stolen music as Sony shouldn't be charged that much isn't right. I think the fines are too much, but the reason isn't that people should be fined less than publishing companies.
As with most things, the truth lies somewhere between the 2 points. The artists are at fault as well as the RIAA. Neither side is wholesome and pure, and both sides are greedy fucks going for the most money they can.
Actually, McDonald's doesn't charge you extra, the government does. The laws state that people eating in the restraunt are subject to sales tax (and all soft drinks are subject to sales tax, even if they are "to go"). Restraunts aren't making any money off that, the government is. And yes, they MUST pass the cost onto you. The tax is a tax on the consumer. It must be added to the total charge, even if they wanted to pay it for you (which I'm sure they don't) I don't think they could.
While there may still be uses for P2P without copying copyrighted files, it is safe to say that if there were no copyrighted files on P2P systems, there would be less than 1% of the users they now have. P2P without copyrighted files would be about as popular as gopher.
One thing to consider is that while it may not be a problem now, it may develop into one in the future. When MP#s first came out, the quality was not as good, and it was harder to download because most people were on dial-up. Now, the quality is better and a large number of people are on broadband, so d/ling a song is nothing. As broadband continues to expand and video codecs continue to evolve, it is imaginable that in 5 years a near perfect copy of a movie could be downloaded in under and hour. The MPAA is trying to put a stop to things now so they don't end up in the same place the RIAA is in 5 years.
This is ofcourse totally subjective but, it seems to me the general quality of music has decreased with time while movies have improved.
:1970-Close to You by The Carpenters, 1975-Mandy by Barry Manilow, 1979-Hot Stuff by Donna Summer, 1984-What's Love got to Do with It by Tina Turner). Music hasn't gotten worse, you've gotten older.
I feel contempt when I watch MTV while I actually pay attention to movie trailers.
I feel used by ("new") musicians while moviemakers entertain me.
This would be you aging and losing touch with the younger generation. If you ask anyone, at any point in history, they will tell you that things were better "before". Music in the 70s was not all great. Neither was music in the 60s or 80s. It was mostly crap whatever time you want to look at. The difference is that as time goes by, the horrible crap fades and the truly great stuff stays. Look at the top songs of any year and you will see the biggest load of crap that you are thankful you don't remember (top song of
Do artists have much choice? The RIAA has the market so locked up that there is little room for competition. It is pretty close to being extortion. Do it our way or you'll be flipping burgers forever. On the other hand the Internet is giving artists a choice and I hope more of them are realizing that they don't need to sign with a major label to make a living doing what they love. They may not get rich as independents but if they're good they can make a decent living.
So while you claim the RIAA has everything locked up, you admit that there are other opportunities? There have always been indy labels, or the ability to start your own. Ani Difranco is probably the biggest success story out there, and she did it completely independent from the RIAA. Why should we work to safeguard the greed of artists? Why is it wrong for the labels to try and make the most money they can, but okay for artists to sign away their rights to try and make the most money they can? If the artists weren't greedy, the labels wouldn't be able to get them to sign their life away.
I don't mind cd prices being high but again that is because the Internet gives me an alternative. I'll continue to download music instead of buying it until they lower cd prices. They can make threats until they go blue in the face and it won't change the fact that as long as they overcharge they'll be losing out on sales. I don't need to feel guilty about the artists because I can support them by going to concerts and buying t-shirts and posters and such. This whole thing is essentially consumers refusing to be ripped off.
Since when does you not liking the price of something mean you can just take it? I don't like how much a BMW costs, so I'm going to steal one for the weekend (when they aren't using it) and then return it on Monday. They didn't lose anything, because they weren't using it and I wouldn't have bought one. In fact I told all my friends what a great car it is, so I helped them. Did I commit any less of a crime? The idea that taking something that doesn't belong to you (whether you call it theft, or copyright infringement or whatever) is okay because you don't like the price is just plain stupid. Not liking the price gives you the right not to purchase or use the item in question. If you take the object without paying for it, it is theft.
I'll also disagree that people can live without music. That is a dumb concept that I hear often. Music, movies, TV, artwork, etc may not be needed to stay alive but it is needed to keep our culture alive. Without exposure to such things people will go off on their own tangents and not unify in the building of our society. Shared artwork is part of shared experience and binds us together. It also seeds new ideas in other minds so that we can keep producing. So, in general, it's a bad idea to try to limit who can be exposed to our shared culture.
But are CDs from the RIAA the only way to experience music? As much as people scream about the RIAA having music all locked up, I can go see a band any night of the week without the RIAA being involved at all. I can buy a CD without the RIAA being involved whenever I want. You do no have the right to force the RIAA to sell you something at a cost you like. If you don't like the cost, you don't buy it.
And filesharing isn't sharing at all. At best it is copying. Sharing means there is one object, and only party can use it at a time. This is copying, where every person gets a new copy and no one loses the use of their original copy. IF your going to bitch about precise definitions, please use ALL the correct terms, not just the ones that make your arguement look better.
Let's look at these "thefts, shall we.
They steal outright from musicians, in the form of low royalties or in the form of music copyrights.
Which the artists willingly agree to. If you agree to give me your money, how is it theft? The artists know what they are getting into, and yet they still sign the contracts.
They steal outright from consumers, in the form of exorbitant prices for albums that are mediocre at best.
Which, once again, the consumers agree to pay. If the prices were so incredibly exorbitant, then consumers would not buy the CDs. Music is not a necessity, people can live without it. Some people find the price for a "mediocre" CD (which just means one you don't like, apparently other people do like it, since they are willing to pay "exorbitant" prices for it) to be a fair price. This is shown by the fact that they are willing to pay for them.
They steal from the distributors, in the form of very low margin on CD sales.
Last time I checked, the music industry has no say in the margins of distributors. They set their own margins. In fact, when the music industry tried to force distributors to set higher margins (which would keep place like Best Buy from selling CDs at cost and hurting the music only and small mom-and-pop shops), they were sued and lost.
I fail to see the RIAA stealing from anyone. They are doing what anyone in business does, they are taking what they can. If the artists would stop being so incredibly greedy and signing bad contracts because they think they might make billions of dollars, they wouldn't be locked into bad contracts. If the consumers really though the cost of a CD was outrageous, people wouldn't buy them.
It seems this would be an MIT mistake, not an RIAA mistake. I would assume the subpoena was for the person using the IP address x.x.x.x at X day and time. I am assuming MIT uses some kind of proxy server or NAT (something where every computer doesn't have a routable IP that the RIAA could get). MIT looked at their records and gave them a bogus name, because their tracking system sucks and is bogus. This says less about the RIAAs method of tracking and more about MITs method of tracking.
look I work, my time at work is for work, but there should be a level of privacy, even at work.
I think it is reasonable for the work place to relize you have a life outside of work, and sometimes the to cross.
While I tend to agree with you in theory, you should have no expectation of privacy at work. Your employer shouldn't read through every email you send, but they certainly should have the ability to do so in needed. If they have a reason to check your email (if they think you are emailing company secrets for instance) then they certainly should be able to read your email and make sure you aren't doing it. A good privacy policy for a company involves them being able to view everything, and viewing nothing unless there is a problem.
Repeat after me: Copyright infringment != Stealing.
While I agree this is technically correct, may I point out that letting millions of people download perfect duplicates of your MP3, while you continue to have full use of your copy is not "sharing". If we are going to be rules lawyers about terminology, can we at least try and get all the terminology correct, not just that which helps the side we like.
But it is just as likely that he left a trojan or backdoor in the system.
You imply that just because he had the means to do so, it is just as likely that he did so.
But I have the means to do this. So do you. So does anybody else. Does that mean that we should be accused of altering files?
No, we have the means to potentially do it. I have never been into whatever system is pressing these charges (supposedly the NYT, but that is speculation). I could potentially change files, but first I would have to hack into their systems, which I haven't done. Lamo not only has the means to potentially do it, he has hacked into their systems, which means he could have done it.
Except we was in the systems and could have done anything while in there. Maybe he is a true "white hat" and didn't do anything bad and told them everything. But it is just as likely that he left a trojan or backdoor in the system. They can't tell what he did or didn't do, so they now have to not only secure their systems against whatever hacks he used to get in, but they have to scour everything on the system to make sure he didn't change any data or leave anything behind (and there is no way to tell whether he copied anything from the system).
While I agree with you, I think there should be some protection from wholesale copying of the database. I think what most companies are worried about is them spending thousands of dollars compiling the facts in the database, and once they put it online, someone comes along and just copies it for nothing. I remember claims about this with I think TV guide type websites. One company compiled the list and put it on their site (which was a revenue stream for them) and then another site just ripped the contents and put it on their site. I don't think the complaint is about other people having similar databases. They don't care if 2 people have the same phone number in their databases, they want to make sure no one steals their database and just reuses that instead of creating their own.
The problem is when someone important (a customer, a government) expects you to read a file in the locked-in format and you don't have MS Office. It's troublesome to convince your customers to save the files into HTML/CSV/TXT/whatever before sending them to you or publishing on the Web. So practically you have to pay for the MS Office licence to be compatible with everyone else. Hopefully this will change.
That isn't lock-in, that is someone sending you a file in a format you don't like. I've had people send me files in PDF when I needed a Word file, but that isn't lock-in either. If you are hired by a person or company to do a job, you need to make sure you accommodate them, and that includes using whatever they want for file (within reason). If they send you something in Word, you use Word because that is what the customer wants, not because MS has somehow now mysteriously "locked you into" Word. It's not MS's fault that someone you deal with uses Word and you don't want to. That's not lock-in, that's you now liking how businesses operate.