I skimemd most of it, and it seemed pretty good, but there was a lot of opinion, and a few misleading parts. The only one that really stuck out was the part about "Linux only runs Linux executables". They then went on to list a slew of emulators that run on Linux. This is misleading at the least. Linux does only run Linux binaries, everything else is run by an emulator. Windows only runs Windows (and DOS) binaries. You can run emulators to run most everything else, but that doesn't mean Windows runs thoughs. In quite a few places the page seems almost like anti-FUD FUD, which is not good. Everyone knows Linux has some shortcoming, and to be taken seriously as telling the "truth" these should be pointed out as well.
Your correct, there is no way of blocking 100% of the sites correctly, but that doesn't mean nothing should be done. There are very few things that can be done 100% correctly without any error. Should we stop prosecuting people for crimes, since we can't catch everyone, and there will be times an innocent person is wrongfully convicted?
YES.
If someone is wrongfully convicted, the entire system needs to be overhauled or thrown out. The ends do NOT justify the means.
And yes, I'm fully aware of how many times the US injustice system has wrongfully convicted people because they are too poor/stupid to retain a good lawyer. My position on the future of the US justice system is therefore obvious.
This has to be one of the most uninformed things I have ever heard said. I hate to break the news to you, but there is absolutely nothing on the planet that is 100% reliable. You are always settling for as good as you can get. To say that anything that is not 100% perfect should be thrown out is to say we should throw out everything. What would your solution be to the US justice system, since it is so obviously flawed? What is the "perfect" system, whereas everyone will be caught, and not a single person will be jailed?
It's a public facility, and there's no more obligation to censor/filter material for minors than a magazine store that happens to sell copies of Playboy and Penthouse.
You mean all the places that put the magazines behind the counter so kids can't get to them? Or the companies that put the magazines in bags so kids can't read them? There are things that are acceptable in society and things that aren't, and having people under the age of consent having access to adult material is one that is unacceptable.
That said, IMHO there is no good technical solution in terms of blocking, whether by keyword or anything else. Witness the tens of commercial products that are rediculed by Peacefire on a frequent basis. For any blocking scheme, there will always be holes in the system, and also sites that are incorrectly blocked.
Your correct, there is no way of blocking 100% of the sites correctly, but that doesn't mean nothing should be done. There are very few things that can be done 100% correctly without any error. Should we stop prosecuting people for crimes, since we can't catch everyone, and there will be times an innocent person is wrongfully convicted? Sometimes, you have to get as close as you can and accept that. If you can block 50% of the porn sites, that is a good start. It's not like he's censoring the net as a whole, he's blocking sites for a private business, and they have every right to do that.
How do the Record Companies get Paid? This is still unfair to them.
Considering how many years labels have been selling CD's for far more than the cost of production and distribution, a scheme like this ought to even things out in a decade or so.
SO, when does the revelution against the cereal companies start? They are selling their cereal for a lot more than the cost of production and distribution. Face it, the record companies aren't doing anything that any other industry is doing. They are maximizing profits. The are shelling out a lot of money to make and advertise records, and they want to get a lot of money back for that investment. When you spend a lot, you expect to make a lot.
If you are spending time playing an old abandonware game, that is less time for you to be playing that new PS game, or Diablo2 or whatever game they just came out with. That is one of the biggest reason game companies are against abandonware.
As others have posted in this story, this seems a really silly argument. At any given moment, the endeavors which I am currently undertaking prevent me from doung countless other things. Nintendo should sue Sega for having a product that takes away possible Nintendo revenue by keeping people from playing Nintendo games. The recording industry should sue the publishing industry (or vice versa--the publishers were here first) for offering products that occupy people who might otherwise be purchasing CDs.
This is a great arguement except they don't have anything to do with these other projects. They do hold the copyright on games they created, so if they don't want to have the games they control out there for these reasons, they can. Think, you it be preferred (from the company's standpoint) that you keep playing the original SimCity, or buy the new version and play that? If you can't get the original, then if you want to play a version of SimCity, you need to go buy the new one. If you could get the old one for free, you might be settled with that, and not buy the new one. This way they don't have to keep competing against themselves. They will always have to compete against the "real" competition, but the don't have to compete against their own older products.
The difference is that nobody is being deprived of an income they wold otherwise have had.
The traditional argument against piracy is that the owner is being denied the payment for their property. In this situation, where the owner is refusing offers of payment, this is clearly not happening.
I can't say I'm really against abandonware, but there are some thing from the corporate side people seem to be forgetting. With all the different media out there right now (DVD, video, computers, video consoles, etc) most companies are competing for overall entertainment time, as well as directly against competitors. If you are spending time playing an old abandonware game, that is less time for you to be playing that new PS game, or Diablo2 or whatever game they just came out with. That is one of the biggest reason game companies are against abandonware.
Also, don't forget that some game companies release collection of old games every so often. Abandonware hurts these collections more than anything else. I could go and buy a collection of all the old King's Quest games, or I could get them for free...which is more likely to happen? Yes, this is a minority of the games, but it is still something that needs to be considered. While abandonware can be good, I can completely understand why many companies are against it, usually with at least some good reasons.
I can't say I like it, but then again, I can't say anything bad about it either. If you want something to be completely anonymous, then you have to deal with everything that comes with that. Sure, you can copy MP3s and warez and whatever else anonymously, but anyone else can use it anonymously to advertise as well. People seem to think that anonymous is great because they can break any law and copy anything they want and can't get touched, well, these people think the same thing. So you get ads with your warez and illegal MP3s, that is something that comes with being completely anonymous. I don't like it particularly, but what they are doing isn't any more wrong than copying software, movies or music on gnutella (which is primarily what it is used for). But that won't stop people from screaming about it because it may inconvience them while they get things they should pay for for free.
Attitude has nothing to do with law. What the policeman was asking him to do was surrender his rights, explicitly granted by the 4th amendment, not to be searched unreasonably. Under the circumstances, I would say it was totally reasonable, if not polite.
Everyone seems to be forgetting the big point in the story. He wasn't thrown in the wagon until he refused to give ID. They asked what was in his backpack and he told them they couldn't look (very rudely, but that is the basic facts). They then asked for ID, and he refused to show ID. This is when they arrested him. Asking for ID is by no means violating anyones rights. Someone who is dressed like Rambo, spouting off at everything the cops ask, and then refusing to give any ID adds up to reasonable suspicion in my book, figuring all the other things going on in the area. People expect the cops to by civil, and treat everyone kindly, and are surprised when they react to people who treat them badly. Most times, if you are civil to the cops, they will be civil to you. When you act like an ass (which this guy did) they will treat you like an ass.
I have seen this quote in nearly every article I've read about this situation, "The labels say they started the MAP policy in an effort to help smaller music retailers compete with chains such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Circuit City Stores Inc. They say smaller retailers do not have the option of offsetting losses from cut-price CD sales with sales of other products." It makes you say to yourself, "Awww..those nice big record companies were just trying to help out little record stores, that's sweet."
My question is, why were they doing this? Why would juggernauts like Sony and Warner Brothers do a damn thing to help out small stores at the expense of huge business partners like Wal-Mart? What was in it for them?
This is my question exactly. Everyone is screaming about this, but what exactly did the RIAA have to gain from this, except helping the smaller stores? The big chains were still buying CDs from them, and buying them at the same price as the mom and pop stores, so it definitely wasn't money they were looking for. Could it be they were trying to keep the small stores open because they offer more of a variety than the big chains?
The huge chains won't buy anything that isn't a huge hit (quick is what everyone is always complainign about, that they can't find anything except the big bands), but the smaller stores stock a wide variety of CDs. The record companies didn't gain anything from MAP policy, but the small stores did. SO why is everyone screaming about it, when the RIAA was trying to get some of the small musicians out there? I don't want to have to go to WalMart for all my CDs, because most anything I would buy wouldn't be available at WalMart.
DIY-code-freaks are what we call hackers (bidouilleurs in French).
For example, somebody who codes (preferably against ISO9xxx heavy standards) practical tools for his own needs.
If these tools could be used in order to gather illegaly copyrighted data, then, according to this article, the hacker could be considered as a pirate, or as a criminal.
I hate to say it, but I don't see this as a bad thing, as long as it doesn't go out of control. In RL there are things that you can't do or make, and it should be the same way on the Net. Lockpicking tools are illegal to possess unless you are a certified locksmith. You can't make a bomb, even if you don't plan on exploding it. If something is overwhelming used to break the law, then it should be illegal. Notice, I'm not saying anything that can be used to break the law should be illegal. But if the general purpose of something is to use it illegally, then it should be illegal. I could use a lockpick set to break into my house when I lock myself out. But 99.9% of the time it will be used for breaking into someone else's house. A crowbar will be used 99% of the time for construction, etc, so it would be legal. If I write a program that mailbombs someone, there is very little legitimate use for that, therefore it would be illegal.
In general, I agree that people should be responsible for how they use things, but if something has little legal use, then it should fall into the illegal category. If I build a nuclear weapon in garage, that's not okay, whether I plan on using it or not, and this same concept should be carried over to software.
This has to be one of the least useful things I've read on/. in a long time. A 2600 staffer gets arrested for something (they never do say what), bail is set at something they aren't sure of (and both guesses may be wrong), and he was walking down the street at the time of arrest (doing what? where was he walking? talking to whom?). So, in essense, some guy was arrested for possibly doing something and bail was set at something we're not sure of. Until there are a LOT more details, this story means basically nothing except a chance for Taco to get his views out to the/. crowd.
I think what everyone seems to be forgetting is that people have a right to censor. Everyone seems to think all censorware is bad, and that everyone on earth should be able to see anything anytime they want, but if I want to install SurfWatch on my computer at home, I have the right to do so. If someone wants to install Net Nanny on their computer so their kid doesn't look at porn, or hate groups, or whatever they don't agree with, they have that right. Businesses have a right to install it to keep the employees from surfing the web and not working. There are a lot of uses that you may not agree with, but are perfectly reasonable.
And, while they may not be 100% accurate (and depending on which ones you pick they are FAR less accurate) they do what they are supposed to do, which is help to keep kids (or whoever) away from things they shouldn't be looking at. I think they should have to reveal that they have 10% fake blocks (or whatever it is) but that doesn't mean they can't be used for anything. If they are used intelligently they could be a great tool (especially the one(s) with open block lists). There aren't evil anymore than DeCSS is evil because it can be used to do bad things. It's all in how you use it.
"Although I cannot stand the RIAA, the more I think about it something just seems wrong about Napster making a profit off of someone elses work.
If Napster was not doing this is for profit, then it would be an easier case for me. But with Napster doing this as a business, it seems fair that the record companies should get a cut; even if they don't really deserve any more money."
IMHO, they're not making a profit off other people's work. They're making a profit via investors for creating a useful and powerful tool. Napster doesn't have any banners, doesn't charge, etc. Of course they need money! How else would they keep servers used by 20 million people up and at a decent speed?
They may not be making money currently, but do you think all these VC guys are throwing money into Napster because they think it's a worthy cause? Napster has a plan to make money. What they are doing right now is getting users "addicted" to it, so when they do put banner ads or charge for it, a good portion of the people who already use it will keep using it. There is a lot better chance people will keep using Napster when they add ads/charge for it if they have been using it for months for free. I feel sorry for you if you really think Napster is doing all this out of the kindness of it's heart.
If it is decided that mere source code is illegal, then its propogation via T-shirt print is, sadly, as illegal. There's nothing special about T-Shirts, they're merely another medium.
I'm not sure if you simply missed the point, or if you're attempting to show that T-shirts are no different than electrons on a screen. In either case: the principal difference is that a T-shirt is something this judge (and ALL the American people, excluding the Amish, who probably don't frequent/. anyway) can identify with. Suddenly it's not "This piece of software is breaking our copyprotection, and is illegal", it's "This T-shirt is breaking our copyprotection, and is therefore illegal". This latter arguement sounds considerably more ludicrous, don't you think? Most people will, and if the judge supports the MPAA on this one, he's going to sound the same, to say nothing of the Congressmen who continue to support this law. And (hopefully) the voters might pay attention, and pick some less ludicrous people in the future... or at least that's what we want the politicians to think, so that they STOP the MPAA.
And because it can be put on a t-shirt makes it seem legal? It is illegal for me to give out government secrets, but if I print them on a t-shirt it's okay, because then it's a free speech issue? If my friend the FBI agent comes to my house, and accidently leaves his file marked "super secret government documents. Top secret! Do not show to anyone!" can I put it on a t-shirt and it's okay? No, because how something is distributed doesn't make a difference if the material being distributed is illegal.
Speech is protected, but not all speech is free. I think people seem to forget that there is speech that is NOT protected. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not protected. Threatening to kill the president is not protected. HEll, convincing other people to kill people is not protected (Manson never killed anyone, he just convinced everyone else to). Just because it's words doesn't mean it automatically rises above everything else in the world. Illegal is still illegal, whether it's written, spoken, compiled, printed, recorded, or built.
And I agree with you totally about writing music -- I write music too, and I don't do it 'cos I want to make money. I have a degree in something totally unrelated to music, and I can make a much better living than a musician. But I still write music, because I like it. But because I'm not interested in the money, and I'm not motivated because of the money, I probably will never get published by the major music publishers. And this is precisely the problem. There may be hundreds of talented artists out there whose music is much better than the "mainstream" stuff (and frankly, the so-called "mainstream" stuff is garbage in terms of musical content), but they will be despised by the music industry because they write music for the sake of music, and not for the money. And their works may never see daylight, and never appreciated.
This is exactly why smaller artists don't get a chance. You complain about how all the "mainstream" music is "garbage", and how they don't promote "real artists". I hate to break the news to you, but musical talent is not somethiung that can be measured. It's a tase. You don't like what's out now, so it's garbage and you are a "real artist" who will never get anywhere because people don't like what you are putting out. I don't like Christiana Agulara, but does that means that everything she puts out is crap? No, because some people think it's really good, and get a lot of meaning and enjoyment out of it, and THAT is what music is about. People think Napster is great because it opens up the world to smaller artists, and that is a benefit of Napster. But it also helps to close the door on emerging major label artist, but that's okay, because they aren't "real artists" anyway. Just because someone sells a million records doesn't make them great, but just because you don't like them doesn't make them "hacks" or "sellouts" or "crap". Popular music is called that because it is "popular". If you want to be a part of popular music, you have to be popular, and it's a shame most people think that as soon as you join the ranks of the "popular" bands, you automatically suck.
but if there is no real incentive for artists to create, they won't.
that's bullshit. Do you think my sister got a degree in vocal performance because that's where the money is? Hell no. She did it for the same reasons that, when i go home, i pick up my guitar and play. Sometimes they're songs i wrote, sometimes they're not, it doesn't matter. My sister and i both play/sing because it's in our hearts. Musical creation is a part of us, without it, we are incomplete. I don't have the illusion that i will ever become famous, or make a single dollar off of anything that i have written. And if you ask any REAL musician whether or not they'd still be playing if all music were free...and they'd give you a resounding "hell yeah!"
The good ones don't play to make money, they play to play. Music is not a means to an end. It is an end unto itself.
So what your saying is that if you want to make a living doing what you love (ie music) then your not a "REAL" msuician? Ask your sister if she would have gotten a degree in vocal performance if it was guaranteed that she would not be able to make money doing it. Chances are she would have gotten a degree in something and did music as a hobby. People wouldn't stop creating music completely if they couldn't make money doing it, but they wouldn't be able to put as much time and effort into it, because they need money to live. People can make a decent amounf of their living performing and recording right now (even if they are a small band who barely gets by). But if music is free, they can't spend as music time performing and recording, because that is time that they make no money at all. Music will never go away completely, but it insane tot hink it will stay the same no matter what happens.
How are older musicians supposed to make money? The same way my grandmother makes money. She saved when she was younger. She gets help from social security. Musicians are like any other profession...i certainly give them no special treatment.
SO making music is only worth doing if you're young? If you're old and can't tour don't bother, because you don't deserve to get paid, because you're old???
The Beatles can't tour any more since Lennon is dead, but surely the other three deserve money for the recordings? How will these be funded?
you DO realize that the beatles are some of the richest men in the UK don't you. Your argument here is moot because you assume that the remaining Beatles deserve money for work they did 30 years ago. I do not.
Okay, what about a band like the Monks? They made one album in the 60s that sold basically no copies. Then, just recently they have been rediscovered and their music is being bought and used in commercials. Do they deserve any money? Or because the music didn't sell immediately, they're just screwed?
Maybe i write a really good shell script for my company. Maybe i code a bit of C that is still being used by my company. 20 years from now does my company owe me a royalty if they're still using that script?
If you retain copyrights on the script, then yes. If you retain copyright on it, you can sell it to a different company and make more money off of it. If the company retains copyright on the script, then they can still sell it and make money from it. OR they can use it for free, because they own it. When you give away or sell your rights to something, then no, you don't get anything else for it. The person who owns it gets to make money from it. I don't really see how this has anything to do with anything, but hey, I answered it anyway.
What I wish they would do is stop selling CDs in the stupid way they have so far. Why are most of us interested in Napster, despite the lower sound quality of MP3? Because we don't want to pay $18+ for one or two songs we like off of an album. If the music industry were to get their act togeather and create a site where you could create your own CD containing ANY 60 minutes of music you wished, from whatever author, I think at least some of the demand for Napster would fade. Certainly a lot of the legitimate use would. Plus, they'd make more money. I think most of us would be willing to pay $3-$4 per song if we knew we were getting songs we liked. Yet I've never heard of them doing that. Is is power, or wanting to maintain an image, or what? If they let us sample songs from such a website, and then let us order a CD of exactly what we want, I think everyone would be better off. But then, that's just me.
If you think the music that is out now sucks, imagine what it would be like if this happened. No more full CDs, so the only thing that any music company would be interested in would be hit singles. That really great song that is on the CD, but is too long or too different to become a hit single? For get it, it's gone. Can't be sold. You can do maybe one or 2 songs that won't be radio hits, and hope people actually check them out, but a full album is just become a thing of the past, and that is something I don't want to see. I like the songs that don't get released to the radio, I like B-sides, and I don't want to see them disappear.
i mean, we have to explain these bands somehow -- take boy kicks girl, a punk rock band from i think maybe san jose who i stumbled across a couple months ago. really good, quality recordings, and they tour and don't have a contract with a major. so why do they do it? how do they do it? will they regret having done it if they don't get rich from it?
so, i mean, sure, i fully support the idea that artists should get paid for their work. i like the idea that people are making enough to make more music. but i think that there are a zillion counterexamples to any assertion that if bands can't get rich, there won't be any bands or any decent recordings. ( i don't think that you made this statement, btw, but i do think that it's part and parcel to the *AA's argument -- they don't care about teeny tiny little bands, thy care about their cash cows -- spears, sisqo, and limp bisquik).
The other thing to consider though is how many of these "small" bands would be doing ti if there wasn't a chance they could one day make a lot of money? Would the spend their lives on the road, making very little if any money, if they didn't think that one day they may "make it big"? Sure, some would, but I would guess that most of them wouldn't.
Most people who are in a band full-time are there because they believe they are good enough to eventually make a good living off of it. They love music and everything else, but they think they can make moeny, and that's why they do it. If you love making model airplanes, and just feel compelled to do it in your soul, are you going to quit your job and start making model airplanes every day? No way, because you realize you can't ever make enough money to support yourself doing that. If you take away the hope that people will get rich from making music, most people won't put as much effort into it, because they HAVE to have a backup plan, because they don't have the faith and hope that they have now that they can one day make it huge. In the end, it's always a matter of economics.
Re:Argh (Score:2) by Black Parrot on 04:03 PM July 13th, 2000 EST (User #19622 Info) > this all came from a single Tucows article
Someone on Linux Today suggested that it was a troll on Tucows to suckerpunch ZD. It would be hard to prove such a thing, but it was kind of funny to see the Tucows writer claim with a straight face that he got offers of free copies of Linux if he would gloss over its faults. I suspect that there is more here than meets the eye, and it will be interesting to see what the author says next.
Linux may be free, but Mandrake Linux isn't. Nor is Redhat, or any of the other commercial flavors. Sure, you can download them and get no support from them, etc, but that doesn't mean buying them isn't a good idea. You have a choice, a "free" copy that you take the time to download and you don't get any support from the company for, or the store-bought version that comes on a handy CD, most probably with a couple CDs worth of apps, and company support. One is obviously worth more than the other.
I don't see why something like this is so far-fetched. Every time a pro-MS review come out, everyone screams about how they bought the review, either with bribes, free software, or advertising dollars. With the new Linux companies, they could easily buy a review the same way. Just because it's a Linux company does't mean they can't do anything wrong. MS may be the biggest company to do those things, and the most popular to scream about, but they surely aren't the only one.
And it has. MP3 is the leading digital format. SDMI, Liquid, Music Clip, and all related encrypted formats are burnt-to-a-crisp toast. Napster has 20M users, very few of whom give a rat's ass about DMCA or other alphabet soup.
Why is MP3 the most popular format? Because you can get copyrighted songs for free. The other formats have copyright protection, so they aren't as popular because people will have to actually pay for the music. If I started scanning books and putting them online for free, my format would easily beat any other format where you had to pay for the book. Does that make it okay that people are getting books from me instead of paying for them? Stealing doesn't become right when it becomes popular.
That the RIAA and its members have chosen not to participate in this market, which is satisfying millions of users daily, is their own damn fault. Now that the market has passed them by, they're trying to get in the way.
And how are they supposed to participate in this market? By selling MP3s which one person buys and then distributes to everyone else? How do you make money doing that? Everyone says they want digital music, but they only want it in MP3 format. Why? Because what they really want is FREE digital music. As everyone's mother used to say, "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"
Everyone talks about how if music was available for download for "reasonable" prices they would pay for it. Yet it IS available at places like emusic.com, and they don't seem to be making the money they should. If everyone was willing to pay for all the new, smaller, non-major label musicians they find and "sample" over Napster, then I could buy into this theory, but as it is, people just want free music, and they have deluded themselves into thinking they have a right to take other people's hard work at no charge.
If the music industry (or small artists -- whoever) want to turn a buck off of downloadable music, I think selling individual songs is the better way to go about it. Charge more for the really popular tracks. But time and time again, people have shown that when you charge a fair price, many will cough up the $$ honestly. Many people dislike buying CDs because they get a song or two they like, and a bunch of filler crap.
Because by current thinking this method won't work. The huge claim is that Napster is used by people to sample music. then when they find something they like they go out and buy the CD. Now, if you download something of Napster you like, what are the chances you are going to go and pay $.25 to download the exact same thing from their web site? The people that sample music on Napster and then buy CDs (and I still don't think they are evn near a majority of users) do so because you get more than you had. You get a full CD, you get cover art and lyrics, you get a medium you can carry to work or put in your car, etc. If they don't get anything more than they already have for "sampling" purposes, they aren't going to go out and pay for it. Why should they, they already have it.
However, she did come out swinging on the side of MP3, saying it took control out of the hands of labels and "sucka VCs". What something like MP3 does (and what's really making the RIAA crap itself) is the possibility that they are no longer the gatekeepers. Finally, there is a format that can easily be distributed far and wide that the artists have control over.
This is where you're wrong, artists don't have control over MP3. Metallica is fighting Napster for this specific reason. The artist may have control over whether they sell MP3s, but they don't have control over people sharing MP3s (either legally bought ones, or ones ripped from CD). They can sell MP3s, but as soon as someone buys it, it goes on Napster and no one else has to buy it.
After all, they write and play the music; they're the ones that should have control over how it's distributed and sold, whether releasing some songs on MP3 as teasers, releasing back-catalogue MP3s for really cheap, or not using it at all. The point is, it's the artist's choice, and the artist's control, not some hairbrained exec that thinks they should get several times what "their" artists make.
After all, it should be the artists' choice, non? Some feel getting paid is an extra on top of being heard; for them, MP3 might be ideal. Others feel they should get paid for every song.
It's the artists' choice. The fact that they now have that choice is making some people very, very scared.
The fact of the matter is though that the artist doesn't have any choice. If someone wants to take your CD and rip it to MP3 and share it on Napster, you can't say no to that. That is what this is about. If you want to share your music via MP3, great. More power to you. But there is no way to not have your music shared. It gives the people who want to share a choice, and the people that don't want to share don't get a choice. Which seems a lot like it is now with record labels, only in reverse.
This is a bit of a rant beyond the AMD thingie, so bear with me.
There's a trend running through the industry. When linux programmers write *free* drivers for new hardware, oftentimes the manufacturer is very reluctant to support the OS. Sometimes the developers have to struggle to wrench out closed specs to write the drivers, and still the corporation sees it fit to at best ignore it. Oh, and by the way, this results in more of their products being sold.
Enthusiasts are the forerunners to new technology. Generally they are the first to embrace it and forecast where the industry is going. At the very least, they provide valuable feedback. Yet for some reason, the history of the computer industry has seen established companies simply ignore enthusiasts. This goes for mainframe makers who ignored the PC, *nix vendors which dismissed linux as a toy, and MS which dissed the internet as a useless fad. It may also be that the music industry is on this track by opposing mp3 fans instead of seeing where they are headed.
As a larger trend, when companies which started out in the garage lose touch with their roots and ignore enthusiasts, it might mean they crumble under their own weight. But in specific cases, I simply fail to understand why companies don't support them. For instance, linux today has millions of users, and yet when I go to logitech's page to see if their cordless mouse works with linux, there is NO info on it at all. I have to dredge thru deja.com to see if anyone has posted it. Why? Does logitech not see the benefit of spending a few thousand $ to hire someone to update their web site with info about linux? Or even if drivers are needed, can't they hire a couple of guys to write them? Even if a small fraction of the linux base buys their mice, they have made a good profit.
What am I missing here?
I agree that enthusiats really help decide where the market goes, but you have to remember that until something reaches the rest of the market, it is a very small niche product, that doesn't really count as far as revenue goes. Let's take the Logitech mouse example. Let's say there 500,000,000 computers in the US today. Of those, maybe 5% need a new mouse per year (and that's being REALLY generous). That's 25 million mice sold. Linux has maybe 5% (that's probably a little high, but it works)of the PC market, so that's 1,250,000 Linux users who need mice. OF these, maybe 40% will buy a Logitech mouse. That's 50,000 mice. And probably half of these people would be influenced by whether they are using drivers from Logitech, or ones that someone else has written and uploaded to FreshMeat. So that's 25,000 mice purchases that could be affect, out of 25 million mice (that's.1% of total mouse sales). If they make $5 in profit from each mouse, that is a total of $125,000 per year, which is nothing and probably just about what they would have spent to make the drivers.
People can talk about how companies support causes, but in the end, it all comes down to money. There is usually not any money to be made on the small enthusiasts market, until it is no longer an enthusiast's market.
And don't forget that the enthusiast market is wrong as often as it is right, so it's not really a sure gamble.
Email makes no difference in this situation. What's to stop you from printing all that material, taking it home, stuffing it a legally-protected, unsearchable envelope and mailing it out? Nothing. Yes, what you did is probably illegal. It still doesn't give the company the right to rip open every envelope coming out of YOUR mailbox.
Nothing is stopping you except the fact that taking out 5 boxes of documents may very well be noticed by someone. You simple can not stop everyone, but that doesn't mean you should make it easy for everyone either. I can send out every single document on our servers in 1 day. How long would it take me to print out every document and smuggle it out of here? Years, at the very least.
A company is not a human. It has no rights to privacy.
This is the silliest thing I've ever heard. So your saying I have the right to walk into any company and look at any records they keep? I can see any research done by a company, because they don't have any privacy? Companies have the right to keep things private as much as a person does.
Slashdot Mirror
I skimemd most of it, and it seemed pretty good, but there was a lot of opinion, and a few misleading parts. The only one that really stuck out was the part about "Linux only runs Linux executables". They then went on to list a slew of emulators that run on Linux. This is misleading at the least. Linux does only run Linux binaries, everything else is run by an emulator. Windows only runs Windows (and DOS) binaries. You can run emulators to run most everything else, but that doesn't mean Windows runs thoughs. In quite a few places the page seems almost like anti-FUD FUD, which is not good. Everyone knows Linux has some shortcoming, and to be taken seriously as telling the "truth" these should be pointed out as well.
YES.
If someone is wrongfully convicted, the entire system needs to be overhauled or thrown out. The ends do NOT justify the means.
And yes, I'm fully aware of how many times the US injustice system has wrongfully convicted people because they are too poor/stupid to retain a good lawyer. My position on the future of the US justice system is therefore obvious.
This has to be one of the most uninformed things I have ever heard said. I hate to break the news to you, but there is absolutely nothing on the planet that is 100% reliable. You are always settling for as good as you can get. To say that anything that is not 100% perfect should be thrown out is to say we should throw out everything. What would your solution be to the US justice system, since it is so obviously flawed? What is the "perfect" system, whereas everyone will be caught, and not a single person will be jailed?
You mean all the places that put the magazines behind the counter so kids can't get to them? Or the companies that put the magazines in bags so kids can't read them? There are things that are acceptable in society and things that aren't, and having people under the age of consent having access to adult material is one that is unacceptable.
That said, IMHO there is no good technical solution in terms of blocking, whether by keyword or anything else. Witness the tens of commercial products that are rediculed by Peacefire on a frequent basis. For any blocking scheme, there will always be holes in the system, and also sites that are incorrectly blocked.
Your correct, there is no way of blocking 100% of the sites correctly, but that doesn't mean nothing should be done. There are very few things that can be done 100% correctly without any error. Should we stop prosecuting people for crimes, since we can't catch everyone, and there will be times an innocent person is wrongfully convicted? Sometimes, you have to get as close as you can and accept that. If you can block 50% of the porn sites, that is a good start. It's not like he's censoring the net as a whole, he's blocking sites for a private business, and they have every right to do that.
How do the Record Companies get Paid? This is still unfair to them.
Considering how many years labels have been selling CD's for far more than the cost of production and distribution, a scheme like this ought to even things out in a decade or so.
SO, when does the revelution against the cereal companies start? They are selling their cereal for a lot more than the cost of production and distribution. Face it, the record companies aren't doing anything that any other industry is doing. They are maximizing profits. The are shelling out a lot of money to make and advertise records, and they want to get a lot of money back for that investment. When you spend a lot, you expect to make a lot.
As others have posted in this story, this seems a really silly argument. At any given moment, the endeavors which I am currently undertaking prevent me from doung countless other things. Nintendo should sue Sega for having a product that takes away possible Nintendo revenue by keeping people from playing Nintendo games. The recording industry should sue the publishing industry (or vice versa--the publishers were here first) for offering products that occupy people who might otherwise be purchasing CDs.
This is a great arguement except they don't have anything to do with these other projects. They do hold the copyright on games they created, so if they don't want to have the games they control out there for these reasons, they can. Think, you it be preferred (from the company's standpoint) that you keep playing the original SimCity, or buy the new version and play that? If you can't get the original, then if you want to play a version of SimCity, you need to go buy the new one. If you could get the old one for free, you might be settled with that, and not buy the new one. This way they don't have to keep competing against themselves. They will always have to compete against the "real" competition, but the don't have to compete against their own older products.
The traditional argument against piracy is that the owner is being denied the payment for their property. In this situation, where the owner is refusing offers of payment, this is clearly not happening.
I can't say I'm really against abandonware, but there are some thing from the corporate side people seem to be forgetting. With all the different media out there right now (DVD, video, computers, video consoles, etc) most companies are competing for overall entertainment time, as well as directly against competitors. If you are spending time playing an old abandonware game, that is less time for you to be playing that new PS game, or Diablo2 or whatever game they just came out with. That is one of the biggest reason game companies are against abandonware.
Also, don't forget that some game companies release collection of old games every so often. Abandonware hurts these collections more than anything else. I could go and buy a collection of all the old King's Quest games, or I could get them for free...which is more likely to happen? Yes, this is a minority of the games, but it is still something that needs to be considered. While abandonware can be good, I can completely understand why many companies are against it, usually with at least some good reasons.
I can't say I like it, but then again, I can't say anything bad about it either. If you want something to be completely anonymous, then you have to deal with everything that comes with that. Sure, you can copy MP3s and warez and whatever else anonymously, but anyone else can use it anonymously to advertise as well. People seem to think that anonymous is great because they can break any law and copy anything they want and can't get touched, well, these people think the same thing. So you get ads with your warez and illegal MP3s, that is something that comes with being completely anonymous. I don't like it particularly, but what they are doing isn't any more wrong than copying software, movies or music on gnutella (which is primarily what it is used for). But that won't stop people from screaming about it because it may inconvience them while they get things they should pay for for free.
Everyone seems to be forgetting the big point in the story. He wasn't thrown in the wagon until he refused to give ID. They asked what was in his backpack and he told them they couldn't look (very rudely, but that is the basic facts). They then asked for ID, and he refused to show ID. This is when they arrested him. Asking for ID is by no means violating anyones rights. Someone who is dressed like Rambo, spouting off at everything the cops ask, and then refusing to give any ID adds up to reasonable suspicion in my book, figuring all the other things going on in the area. People expect the cops to by civil, and treat everyone kindly, and are surprised when they react to people who treat them badly. Most times, if you are civil to the cops, they will be civil to you. When you act like an ass (which this guy did) they will treat you like an ass.
My question is, why were they doing this? Why would juggernauts like Sony and Warner Brothers do a damn thing to help out small stores at the expense of huge business partners like Wal-Mart? What was in it for them?
This is my question exactly. Everyone is screaming about this, but what exactly did the RIAA have to gain from this, except helping the smaller stores? The big chains were still buying CDs from them, and buying them at the same price as the mom and pop stores, so it definitely wasn't money they were looking for. Could it be they were trying to keep the small stores open because they offer more of a variety than the big chains?
The huge chains won't buy anything that isn't a huge hit (quick is what everyone is always complainign about, that they can't find anything except the big bands), but the smaller stores stock a wide variety of CDs. The record companies didn't gain anything from MAP policy, but the small stores did. SO why is everyone screaming about it, when the RIAA was trying to get some of the small musicians out there? I don't want to have to go to WalMart for all my CDs, because most anything I would buy wouldn't be available at WalMart.
For example, somebody who codes (preferably against ISO9xxx heavy standards) practical tools for his own needs.
If these tools could be used in order to gather illegaly copyrighted data, then, according to this article, the hacker could be considered as a pirate, or as a criminal.
I hate to say it, but I don't see this as a bad thing, as long as it doesn't go out of control. In RL there are things that you can't do or make, and it should be the same way on the Net. Lockpicking tools are illegal to possess unless you are a certified locksmith. You can't make a bomb, even if you don't plan on exploding it. If something is overwhelming used to break the law, then it should be illegal. Notice, I'm not saying anything that can be used to break the law should be illegal. But if the general purpose of something is to use it illegally, then it should be illegal. I could use a lockpick set to break into my house when I lock myself out. But 99.9% of the time it will be used for breaking into someone else's house. A crowbar will be used 99% of the time for construction, etc, so it would be legal. If I write a program that mailbombs someone, there is very little legitimate use for that, therefore it would be illegal.
In general, I agree that people should be responsible for how they use things, but if something has little legal use, then it should fall into the illegal category. If I build a nuclear weapon in garage, that's not okay, whether I plan on using it or not, and this same concept should be carried over to software.
This has to be one of the least useful things I've read on /. in a long time. A 2600 staffer gets arrested for something (they never do say what), bail is set at something they aren't sure of (and both guesses may be wrong), and he was walking down the street at the time of arrest (doing what? where was he walking? talking to whom?). So, in essense, some guy was arrested for possibly doing something and bail was set at something we're not sure of. Until there are a LOT more details, this story means basically nothing except a chance for Taco to get his views out to the /. crowd.
I think what everyone seems to be forgetting is that people have a right to censor. Everyone seems to think all censorware is bad, and that everyone on earth should be able to see anything anytime they want, but if I want to install SurfWatch on my computer at home, I have the right to do so. If someone wants to install Net Nanny on their computer so their kid doesn't look at porn, or hate groups, or whatever they don't agree with, they have that right. Businesses have a right to install it to keep the employees from surfing the web and not working. There are a lot of uses that you may not agree with, but are perfectly reasonable.
And, while they may not be 100% accurate (and depending on which ones you pick they are FAR less accurate) they do what they are supposed to do, which is help to keep kids (or whoever) away from things they shouldn't be looking at. I think they should have to reveal that they have 10% fake blocks (or whatever it is) but that doesn't mean they can't be used for anything. If they are used intelligently they could be a great tool (especially the one(s) with open block lists). There aren't evil anymore than DeCSS is evil because it can be used to do bad things. It's all in how you use it.
If Napster was not doing this is for profit, then it would be an easier case for me. But with Napster doing this as a business, it seems fair that the record companies should get a cut; even if they don't really deserve any more money."
IMHO, they're not making a profit off other people's work. They're making a profit via investors for creating a useful and powerful tool.
Napster doesn't have any banners, doesn't charge, etc. Of course they need money! How else would they keep servers used by 20 million people up and at a decent speed?
They may not be making money currently, but do you think all these VC guys are throwing money into Napster because they think it's a worthy cause? Napster has a plan to make money. What they are doing right now is getting users "addicted" to it, so when they do put banner ads or charge for it, a good portion of the people who already use it will keep using it. There is a lot better chance people will keep using Napster when they add ads/charge for it if they have been using it for months for free. I feel sorry for you if you really think Napster is doing all this out of the kindness of it's heart.
I'm not sure if you simply missed the point, or if you're attempting to show that T-shirts are no different than electrons on a screen. In either case: the principal difference is that a T-shirt is something this judge (and ALL the American people, excluding the Amish, who probably don't frequent
And because it can be put on a t-shirt makes it seem legal? It is illegal for me to give out government secrets, but if I print them on a t-shirt it's okay, because then it's a free speech issue? If my friend the FBI agent comes to my house, and accidently leaves his file marked "super secret government documents. Top secret! Do not show to anyone!" can I put it on a t-shirt and it's okay? No, because how something is distributed doesn't make a difference if the material being distributed is illegal.
Speech is protected, but not all speech is free. I think people seem to forget that there is speech that is NOT protected. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not protected. Threatening to kill the president is not protected. HEll, convincing other people to kill people is not protected (Manson never killed anyone, he just convinced everyone else to). Just because it's words doesn't mean it automatically rises above everything else in the world. Illegal is still illegal, whether it's written, spoken, compiled, printed, recorded, or built.
This is exactly why smaller artists don't get a chance. You complain about how all the "mainstream" music is "garbage", and how they don't promote "real artists". I hate to break the news to you, but musical talent is not somethiung that can be measured. It's a tase. You don't like what's out now, so it's garbage and you are a "real artist" who will never get anywhere because people don't like what you are putting out. I don't like Christiana Agulara, but does that means that everything she puts out is crap? No, because some people think it's really good, and get a lot of meaning and enjoyment out of it, and THAT is what music is about. People think Napster is great because it opens up the world to smaller artists, and that is a benefit of Napster. But it also helps to close the door on emerging major label artist, but that's okay, because they aren't "real artists" anyway. Just because someone sells a million records doesn't make them great, but just because you don't like them doesn't make them "hacks" or "sellouts" or "crap". Popular music is called that because it is "popular". If you want to be a part of popular music, you have to be popular, and it's a shame most people think that as soon as you join the ranks of the "popular" bands, you automatically suck.
that's bullshit. Do you think my sister got a degree in vocal performance because that's where the money is? Hell no. She did it for the same reasons that, when i go home, i pick up my guitar and play. Sometimes they're songs i wrote, sometimes they're not, it doesn't matter. My sister and i both play/sing because it's in our hearts. Musical creation is a part of us, without it, we are incomplete. I don't have the illusion that i will ever become famous, or make a single dollar off of anything that i have written. And if you ask any REAL musician whether or not they'd still be playing if all music were free...and they'd give you a resounding "hell yeah!"
The good ones don't play to make money, they play to play. Music is not a means to an end. It is an end unto itself.
So what your saying is that if you want to make a living doing what you love (ie music) then your not a "REAL" msuician? Ask your sister if she would have gotten a degree in vocal performance if it was guaranteed that she would not be able to make money doing it. Chances are she would have gotten a degree in something and did music as a hobby. People wouldn't stop creating music completely if they couldn't make money doing it, but they wouldn't be able to put as much time and effort into it, because they need money to live. People can make a decent amounf of their living performing and recording right now (even if they are a small band who barely gets by). But if music is free, they can't spend as music time performing and recording, because that is time that they make no money at all. Music will never go away completely, but it insane tot hink it will stay the same no matter what happens.
SO making music is only worth doing if you're young? If you're old and can't tour don't bother, because you don't deserve to get paid, because you're old???
The Beatles can't tour any more since Lennon is dead, but surely the other three deserve money for the recordings? How will these be funded?
you DO realize that the beatles are some of the richest men in the UK don't you. Your argument here is moot because you assume that the remaining Beatles deserve money for work they did 30 years ago. I do not.
Okay, what about a band like the Monks? They made one album in the 60s that sold basically no copies. Then, just recently they have been rediscovered and their music is being bought and used in commercials. Do they deserve any money? Or because the music didn't sell immediately, they're just screwed?
Maybe i write a really good shell script for my company. Maybe i code a bit of C that is still being used by my company. 20 years from now does my company owe me a royalty if they're still using that script?
If you retain copyrights on the script, then yes. If you retain copyright on it, you can sell it to a different company and make more money off of it. If the company retains copyright on the script, then they can still sell it and make money from it. OR they can use it for free, because they own it. When you give away or sell your rights to something, then no, you don't get anything else for it. The person who owns it gets to make money from it. I don't really see how this has anything to do with anything, but hey, I answered it anyway.
If you think the music that is out now sucks, imagine what it would be like if this happened. No more full CDs, so the only thing that any music company would be interested in would be hit singles. That really great song that is on the CD, but is too long or too different to become a hit single? For get it, it's gone. Can't be sold. You can do maybe one or 2 songs that won't be radio hits, and hope people actually check them out, but a full album is just become a thing of the past, and that is something I don't want to see. I like the songs that don't get released to the radio, I like B-sides, and I don't want to see them disappear.
so, i mean, sure, i fully support the idea that artists should get paid for their work. i like the idea that people are making enough to make more music. but i think that there are a zillion counterexamples to any assertion that if bands can't get rich, there won't be any bands or any decent recordings. ( i don't think that you made this statement, btw, but i do think that it's part and parcel to the *AA's argument -- they don't care about teeny tiny little bands, thy care about their cash cows -- spears, sisqo, and limp bisquik).
The other thing to consider though is how many of these "small" bands would be doing ti if there wasn't a chance they could one day make a lot of money? Would the spend their lives on the road, making very little if any money, if they didn't think that one day they may "make it big"? Sure, some would, but I would guess that most of them wouldn't.
Most people who are in a band full-time are there because they believe they are good enough to eventually make a good living off of it. They love music and everything else, but they think they can make moeny, and that's why they do it. If you love making model airplanes, and just feel compelled to do it in your soul, are you going to quit your job and start making model airplanes every day? No way, because you realize you can't ever make enough money to support yourself doing that. If you take away the hope that people will get rich from making music, most people won't put as much effort into it, because they HAVE to have a backup plan, because they don't have the faith and hope that they have now that they can one day make it huge. In the end, it's always a matter of economics.
(Score:2)
by Black Parrot on 04:03 PM July 13th, 2000 EST
(User #19622 Info)
> this all came from a single Tucows article
Someone on Linux Today suggested that it was a troll on Tucows to suckerpunch ZD. It would be hard to prove such a thing, but it was kind of funny to see the Tucows writer claim with a straight face that he got offers of free copies of Linux if he would gloss over its faults. I suspect that there is more here than meets the eye, and it will be interesting to see what the author says next.
Linux may be free, but Mandrake Linux isn't. Nor is Redhat, or any of the other commercial flavors. Sure, you can download them and get no support from them, etc, but that doesn't mean buying them isn't a good idea. You have a choice, a "free" copy that you take the time to download and you don't get any support from the company for, or the store-bought version that comes on a handy CD, most probably with a couple CDs worth of apps, and company support. One is obviously worth more than the other.
I don't see why something like this is so far-fetched. Every time a pro-MS review come out, everyone screams about how they bought the review, either with bribes, free software, or advertising dollars. With the new Linux companies, they could easily buy a review the same way. Just because it's a Linux company does't mean they can't do anything wrong. MS may be the biggest company to do those things, and the most popular to scream about, but they surely aren't the only one.
Why is MP3 the most popular format? Because you can get copyrighted songs for free. The other formats have copyright protection, so they aren't as popular because people will have to actually pay for the music. If I started scanning books and putting them online for free, my format would easily beat any other format where you had to pay for the book. Does that make it okay that people are getting books from me instead of paying for them? Stealing doesn't become right when it becomes popular.
That the RIAA and its members have chosen not to participate in this market, which is satisfying millions of users daily, is their own damn fault. Now that the market has passed them by, they're trying to get in the way.
And how are they supposed to participate in this market? By selling MP3s which one person buys and then distributes to everyone else? How do you make money doing that? Everyone says they want digital music, but they only want it in MP3 format. Why? Because what they really want is FREE digital music. As everyone's mother used to say, "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"
Everyone talks about how if music was available for download for "reasonable" prices they would pay for it. Yet it IS available at places like emusic.com, and they don't seem to be making the money they should. If everyone was willing to pay for all the new, smaller, non-major label musicians they find and "sample" over Napster, then I could buy into this theory, but as it is, people just want free music, and they have deluded themselves into thinking they have a right to take other people's hard work at no charge.
Because by current thinking this method won't work. The huge claim is that Napster is used by people to sample music. then when they find something they like they go out and buy the CD. Now, if you download something of Napster you like, what are the chances you are going to go and pay $.25 to download the exact same thing from their web site? The people that sample music on Napster and then buy CDs (and I still don't think they are evn near a majority of users) do so because you get more than you had. You get a full CD, you get cover art and lyrics, you get a medium you can carry to work or put in your car, etc. If they don't get anything more than they already have for "sampling" purposes, they aren't going to go out and pay for it. Why should they, they already have it.
This is where you're wrong, artists don't have control over MP3. Metallica is fighting Napster for this specific reason. The artist may have control over whether they sell MP3s, but they don't have control over people sharing MP3s (either legally bought ones, or ones ripped from CD). They can sell MP3s, but as soon as someone buys it, it goes on Napster and no one else has to buy it.
After all, they write and play the music; they're the ones that should have control over how it's distributed and sold, whether releasing some songs on MP3 as teasers, releasing back-catalogue MP3s for really cheap, or not using it at all. The point is, it's the artist's choice, and the artist's control, not some hairbrained exec that thinks they should get several times what "their" artists make.
After all, it should be the artists' choice, non? Some feel getting paid is an extra on top of being heard; for them, MP3 might be ideal. Others feel they should get paid for every song.
It's the artists' choice. The fact that they now have that choice is making some people very, very scared.
The fact of the matter is though that the artist doesn't have any choice. If someone wants to take your CD and rip it to MP3 and share it on Napster, you can't say no to that. That is what this is about. If you want to share your music via MP3, great. More power to you. But there is no way to not have your music shared. It gives the people who want to share a choice, and the people that don't want to share don't get a choice. Which seems a lot like it is now with record labels, only in reverse.
There's a trend running through the industry. When linux programmers write *free* drivers for new hardware, oftentimes the manufacturer is very reluctant to support the OS. Sometimes the developers have to struggle to wrench out closed specs to write the drivers, and still the corporation sees it fit to at best ignore it. Oh, and by the way, this results in more of their products being sold.
Enthusiasts are the forerunners to new technology. Generally they are the first to embrace it and forecast where the industry is going. At the very least, they provide valuable feedback. Yet for some reason, the history of the computer industry has seen established companies simply ignore enthusiasts. This goes for mainframe makers who ignored the PC, *nix vendors which dismissed linux as a toy, and MS which dissed the internet as a useless fad. It may also be that the music industry is on this track by opposing mp3 fans instead of seeing where they are headed.
As a larger trend, when companies which started out in the garage lose touch with their roots and ignore enthusiasts, it might mean they crumble under their own weight. But in specific cases, I simply fail to understand why companies don't support them. For instance, linux today has millions of users, and yet when I go to logitech's page to see if their cordless mouse works with linux, there is NO info on it at all. I have to dredge thru deja.com to see if anyone has posted it. Why? Does logitech not see the benefit of spending a few thousand $ to hire someone to update their web site with info about linux? Or even if drivers are needed, can't they hire a couple of guys to write them? Even if a small fraction of the linux base buys their mice, they have made a good profit.
What am I missing here?
I agree that enthusiats really help decide where the market goes, but you have to remember that until something reaches the rest of the market, it is a very small niche product, that doesn't really count as far as revenue goes. Let's take the Logitech mouse example. Let's say there 500,000,000 computers in the US today. Of those, maybe 5% need a new mouse per year (and that's being REALLY generous). That's 25 million mice sold. Linux has maybe 5% (that's probably a little high, but it works)of the PC market, so that's 1,250,000 Linux users who need mice. OF these, maybe 40% will buy a Logitech mouse. That's 50,000 mice. And probably half of these people would be influenced by whether they are using drivers from Logitech, or ones that someone else has written and uploaded to FreshMeat. So that's 25,000 mice purchases that could be affect, out of 25 million mice (that's
People can talk about how companies support causes, but in the end, it all comes down to money. There is usually not any money to be made on the small enthusiasts market, until it is no longer an enthusiast's market.
And don't forget that the enthusiast market is wrong as often as it is right, so it's not really a sure gamble.
Nothing is stopping you except the fact that taking out 5 boxes of documents may very well be noticed by someone. You simple can not stop everyone, but that doesn't mean you should make it easy for everyone either. I can send out every single document on our servers in 1 day. How long would it take me to print out every document and smuggle it out of here? Years, at the very least.
A company is not a human. It has no rights to privacy.
This is the silliest thing I've ever heard. So your saying I have the right to walk into any company and look at any records they keep? I can see any research done by a company, because they don't have any privacy? Companies have the right to keep things private as much as a person does.