Orwell would see this as "The Brotherhood"
on
EZTree Shuts Down
·
· Score: 1
Orwell was afraid of, and loathed Communism - which seems to be the goal of the FOSS information wants to be free set.
I disagree strongly. I think that the FCC controlling the radio, cable, and the RIAA trying to shut down services because it was used illegally despite the possible legal uses is more akin to the Orwellian world than those who want to resist this by sharing files online.
"Orwell would think the average slashdotter is a douchebag with his head up his ass, and he'd be right to think so."
I think you are one of the many who muis-understands the/. crowd because you have your head too far up the intestional track. Orwell would see the logical crowd at/., accept them and think of them as the equivilant to 1984's "Brotherhood", and the minority, those you feel as douches would be rejected.
Here's a clue, shitstain: nearly EVERYONE AGREES that copyright infringement is a form of theft, and that stealing from content creators is morally indefensible
Prove it. You said everybody agreees, where is the proof? Not everybody agrees, and saying that without proving it is just fucking stupid.
Nobody disputes this? What do you call this post and other posts, or your mod down as flamebait? "and that stealing from content creators is morally indefensible"? If they lost nothing, it isn't theft. Period.
"stole that intellectular property"?
on
EZTree Shuts Down
·
· Score: 1
Information dooesn't just "float around." EZTree stole that intellectual property, encoded it for transmission to you, and you downloaded it. EZTree certainly committed a crime.
"stole that intellectular property"?
Now you are not taking your own advice ("and never confuse legality with morality or illegality with immorality. The two concepts are, at best, weakly related.") here. You can NOT "steal" IP, unless you copy it off a website and delete the content. Anyways, the crime is copyright infringement. I really don't want to start THAT debate, but calling it anything else than what it really is just asks for trouble.
If we are saying that bands have a right to sell their own CDs, then there has to be some sort of a copyright on those CDs.
Duh!
CreativeCommons, or even standard copyright (preferably the first one) is easy to obtain, and BOTH are legally defendable.
Maybe the price of the CD has to be so low that it wouldn't be worth stealing... *SNIP*
If you are talking about downloading, why use euphimisms? Illegally downloaded, infringing copyright, downloading, even copying are accurate. The RIAA purposely uses euphimisms to make it seem worse than it really is, and to mislead us to believe that one crime (copyright infringement) and another (theft) are the same when legally and logically, they are not, despite the outsome oftentimes is the same, the process isn't.
It's called the Road Tax, and pays for the upkeep of the roads. This is different: you have to pay a tax for being a pain and cluttering up some of the busiest streets in the country.
I am head of a record label and distribution company. It's amazing how misinformed everyone is. A typical contract is for artists to get only 6% of the record sales. So of course everyone is going to say "Artists are SCREWED!!!"..... COMEON! Think about it. No artist would sign anything without a lawyer and a lawyer would not let an artist whom they represent to sign something they think is wrong. So how is it possible that this is far?
Maybe it has to do with misreading the print, or ocnfusing language in the contract?
Artists NEVER have been able to make an album and just sit on their couches and ride off of record sales. It wouldn't happen.
Look at Britney Spears, or other big-time millionare artists. Ok, so they made more than one album, but they are still filthy fucking rich.
How can a band be successful on the internet? YOU CAN'T. It's a LIE!
How the hell would you jnow? You ever tried it? It depends on how resourceful, skilled, and all out handy with tools the band is, it has been done, and with more tavenues and cheaper technology available, it will be done again.
Also artists think, "The label is trying to control me and my music". This is such BS. The label signs an artist because they are talented and feel they could pull it off.
Why is it that a band had to sue to release it's own music on the internet then? Why is it that the band can't promote it in it's own way? Why is it that the radio is very much closed off to indie artists? Control.
If I could, I was going to mod this as troll, but this had some very good points, so I decided against it. I think however these points you try to mark "BS over some claims are in themselves BS.
Slashdoters believe that in free access to anything to create as their right. If you starve, it is somehow your own fault. Yes, I am generalizing and there are exceptions. But on a whole, that is what Slashdoters support./BLOCKAUOTE
If you know you are generalizing, then why do it? I have seen less of that attitude around here lately, so stating such a thing is incorrect (as opposed to posting this comemnt 3 years ago, or so -_0) As a whole we support this motive? Well yes, it is the RIAA's fault for the piracy thing, but this is an attitude that slashdotters are not alone in.
What is the difference of the police, in order to track criminals, look into a car location database, posting cops on every street corner noting which cars go by, or simply ask bystanders if they have seen a car go by?
No difference whatsoever.
YES there is a difference, one is more reliable and quicker. -_0
What is wrong with using automobile black boxes to gather data about unsafe drivers so they can be prohibited from driving? After all, the government who owns the roads has the **DUTY** towards the public to make sure that they will not get killed by unsafe drivers while using the roads.
I didn't say there was anything wrong with keeping roads safe, but like others note, it all depends on how it is done. What if the divice is made so it can not tell the difference beween somebody crossing the double-yellow lines to avoid an accident, or to cut off cars?
Using your logic, being forced to put a license plate on your car is an invasion of your privacy.
No, I doubt our logic would ever say something like this in the first place. Where do those "using your logic" types get this kind of crap in the first place?
Driving is NOT a right, but a PRIVILEGE.
Privileges can be revoked if you abuse them.
I doubt we would disagree with you there.
People driving on PUBLIC roads have absolutely, positively NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY.
So if you were doing something legal that was supposed to be private, would you like to be looked into by people, or cameras being watched by people then? You say we have no expectation of privacy. I think this false. We expect under most circumstances yes this is true, but there are exceptions that should be taken into account.
With all the above said, there is nothing wrong, illegal, immoral and unethical to have the black boxes used to automatically ticket bad drivers. Aircraft have been thusly monitored for generations; if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.
There is BIG (no size puns intended) between a 65 - 100 ton aircraft that moves on the ground at 16 - 22mph, speeds down a runway at 175mph, and in the air at between 340 and 500/600mph.
The aircraft "Black Box" is used to track data while in operation, but I thought the contents were used heavily in emergency situations (plane crashes, mostly) as well, whereas this proposed addition to a car would be used to not only find the source of a car crash, but also try to find/punish people who commit crimes, which trouble me because there might be different circumstances, or maybe a faulty divice, which leads back to human error.
I hate it when somebody points out that there can be abuse, and others go "OMFG this isn't 1984 no big brother GET OVER it !111" ALL we are saying here so far is the possibility of abuse is there, and there have to be safegaurds against it for us to feel safer about it.
This is already in effect in London.
Its called the congestion charge [cclondon.com].
Whenever you enter the centre of London, your number plate is scanned, and you are sent a bill for your time there.
So you have to pay a tax for driving a car there? 0_0
Under the DMCA, however, unlicensed duplication has been reclassified as "theft" for legal purposes
IF this was true, then why do theft laws still not apply? Why aren't cops showing up to escort you away? And why oh why are pirates still being sued for copyright infringement instead of theft if this was in fact true?
Because theft was only redefined (for now) by the industries and corporations. The law to an extent still shows a difference bwteeen the two crimes.
If you want to take the honest approach it might be useful if you provide a log for your fans with detailed information how you spend your (music-related) time and what costs are involved. If they see exactly how much time you spent on your songs you might get more people to pay for them (at least in the beginning when your profit/hour is low).
I never though of it that way. Wow, that is some good thinking.
How many bands do you know that are extremely successful without a label?
Depends on how you define "successful", for some it is being rich, for others it is having alot of fans, for others it is both. IT IS SUBJECTIVE.
Now how many multimillionaires have been created with a label? [Oh wait, they don't exist, according to Slashdot Group Think]
WHERE did we say they don't exist, liar? POINT IT OUT! [Oh wait, YOU CAN'T because WE NEVER SAID IT. ]
A few multimillionaires have been created artifically with MAJOR labels. I don't know about the rest, or those on indie labels, but why does that matter, or have to do with this topic for that matter?
If you don't want to get ripped off, then a good entertainment attorney and a good agent.
A good attorney and some sort of copyright over work (CreativeCommons or otherwise) is good. An agent I think is needed only depending on how far YOU want to go. Public performances I think you would need it, but distibution, I dunno.
Among all of the talk about RIAA and Copyright laws is the bog question: So, what's a band supposed to do then to put food on the table if they can't charge for CDs?
Who said they CAN'T charge for CDs? (nobody)
All I have seen is people suggesting that they distribute some music free for a shot time, or a few free tracks, but if they sell albums, keep it at a friendly price, which I think doesn; sound like "can't sell CDs" to me.
"The simple fact is it's not as easy as you'd think"
Of course not easy and impossible are two different things. Yes labels might be needed to a point, and I would be very trusting to an indie lable to tell you the truth, but I think that eventually no lables will be needede. Sure you won't get your CD on store shelves as easily (it CAN happen), but there is always a will, and a way, and to get that way, you need a will of titanium steel.
1. Offer decent quality samples or one or two(more as I made more music) full tracks, ABSOLUTELY NO "Digital Rights Management" (DRM), it has proven itself to be nothing but a worthless, overcrackable piece of shit.
2. Price the individual songs, or singles, and full CDs at low prices.
- Single songs: $0.99 - $1.10
- "Singles" CD: $5
- "Full CDs": $7 - $10
3. Use a website to promote my stuff, try to get music on as many sites (pay-per, or free) as possible, including Dmusic.com, ITunes, Napster, etc.
4. If piracy helps you, truthfully show it. If piracy hurts, truthfully show it too. If they have both a negative and positive impact, hell, show that to your fans as well. Don't call them theives or robbers, or make analy incorrect analogies to compare to copyright infringement to. Don't go to making false "losses" clainms or do anything to make yourself look like a whiny baby. Show them that while you have a firm stance, it is truthful, and you can actually prove/back it up, unlike the **aa/BSA/MPAA/CRIA/ETC
The whole issue of P2P is still not settled. Under the spirit of the law, file sharing is illegal, but fair use is a loophole that hasn't been fully resolved
No, you are wrong. Sharing files that you don't have permission to share over P@P networks is illegal, sharing copyrighted works WITH permissions is still as far as I know legal, and so far the software for file-sharing is still legal.
At least we're spared the agonizingly convoluted and logically bankrupt arguments rationalizing the theft of intellectual property.
NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS GOOD.
Jesus christ, does everything agruing against the RIAA constitute the same bullshit remark?
"Theft of IP"? There is NO SUCH THING. The crime is copyright infringement, and only infringement. No theft laws are involved in a case like this, otherwise you would have a point.
Yes you can have a moral opinion (but remember, opinions and morals are subjective), but using quasi legal moral-based words is asking for trouble.
Yes, but by the same token I cannot steal your car just because in my opinion it "wasn't worth anything anyway."
Of course with copying digital files this doesn't apply for a simple reason. Theft laws and copyright laws differ (or in plainer terminology, copyright infringement is not theft!) because when stealing your car, you have deprived them of an object, or use of that object/property, whereas copying a file only risks reducing the potential for income.
This line of reasoning comes up often on Slashdot and it is based upon a flawed premise, namely that it is ok to steal something if one "wouldn't have bought it anyway".
I seriously don't think that this is a very often used line of thinking (I browse here often, it is used though I admit), and to call it "stealing" flies in the face of logic and law. Since the two acts of stealing a car and copying a file have different actions, and a slightly different outcome. A difference, might I add that the law has accepted for now.
I am in no way condoning copyright infringement, but these statements are irritating when talking about a legal topic for some reason.
Oh you can boot Linux but you won't be using it in any useful way. IIS will dominate the webservers in the world because their's will run on the "secure global information network".
Why not use "dummy" technology that doesn't actually control the networks or internet through this, but only gives the impression of it to the server (if that happens in the end of course)?
Am I the only one who sees the need for patent reform?
If such a thing was to come and change the patent system (I hope to GOD so in the near future), I think that patent reform should include diasllowing patents on things thant ANYBODY can do with ease, or generic items.
The vast majority of P2P piracy is nothing more than:
1.) People wanting stuff for free so they don't have to pay for it.
2.) People knowing what they do is ethically wrong, so they seek bad guys to shift blame to. "The RIAA made me do it!"
1), How do you know that is the exact mindset of the majority? Did you peek into their brains to figure it out, or just pull that smelly one out the rear end? I admit that not even I know the exact percentages, but there are many mindsets in the groups that download files off of P2P
2) Who the hell are you to tell US what is ethical, and unethical? This is subjective at most. Some people think downloading illegal files without permission is ethical, some don't, some even think that downloading files on P2P alltogether (with the artist's permission) is unethical! I believe however this "blame" if worded better can serve as justified civil disobedience.
It's like this guy I saw during lunch in high school years ago. He would jam his arm up the coke machine slot and work out a coke. Now, obviously it's not a digital copy so in this case, he really was taking something, but let's get real...
No, how about you take your own advice, because to me there are major logical and even legal differences between what the guy does, and downloading a file.
Sure there is a chance that the artist won't see the money, but who really knows? The infringer might go out and buy the CD, or a copy of the file on ITunes or Napster, maybe not, but trying to assume all infringers thing the same is pathetic, just plain pathetic.
I think your attempts to paint everybody who uses P2P networks as doing it fro the same reason and comming up with uncomparable situations to make the point is unreasonable and laughable at most.
1) a few unknown artists who support P2P as a tool for publicity.
2) a record exec and couple larger indie artists who begrudgingly accept that P2P is a reality.
Just because a few artists and companies were in this case or mentioned here, supporting P2P doesn't mean that there aren't more, or that they are the only ones.
Many artists on sites like Dmusic.com for example like file-sharing with their songs as well.
Seriously though how is it any different from Radio Play which also doesn't pay the Record companies but the original composers of the songs not the recording artists.
Individual users downloading via P2P pays no one.
The individual users pay nobody listening to the radio either.
Slashdot Mirror
"The simple fact is it's not as easy as you'd think" Of course not easy and impossible are two different things. Yes labels might be needed to a point, and I would be very trusting to an indie lable to tell you the truth, but I think that eventually no lables will be needede. Sure you won't get your CD on store shelves as easily (it CAN happen), but there is always a will, and a way, and to get that way, you need a will of titanium steel.
1. Offer decent quality samples or one or two(more as I made more music) full tracks, ABSOLUTELY NO "Digital Rights Management" (DRM), it has proven itself to be nothing but a worthless, overcrackable piece of shit. 2. Price the individual songs, or singles, and full CDs at low prices. - Single songs: $0.99 - $1.10 - "Singles" CD: $5 - "Full CDs": $7 - $10 3. Use a website to promote my stuff, try to get music on as many sites (pay-per, or free) as possible, including Dmusic.com, ITunes, Napster, etc. 4. If piracy helps you, truthfully show it. If piracy hurts, truthfully show it too. If they have both a negative and positive impact, hell, show that to your fans as well. Don't call them theives or robbers, or make analy incorrect analogies to compare to copyright infringement to. Don't go to making false "losses" clainms or do anything to make yourself look like a whiny baby. Show them that while you have a firm stance, it is truthful, and you can actually prove/back it up, unlike the **aa/BSA/MPAA/CRIA/ETC
Oh you can boot Linux but you won't be using it in any useful way. IIS will dominate the webservers in the world because their's will run on the "secure global information network". Why not use "dummy" technology that doesn't actually control the networks or internet through this, but only gives the impression of it to the server (if that happens in the end of course)?
Am I the only one who sees the need for patent reform? If such a thing was to come and change the patent system (I hope to GOD so in the near future), I think that patent reform should include diasllowing patents on things thant ANYBODY can do with ease, or generic items.