That's quite possibly the stupidest excuse for downloading music.
Consider instead that we were talking about cars. When you want to buy a car, do you go down to the lot and take the keys (***without*** the dealers permission of course) and take it for a test drive?
Only if you want to get arrested.
How is downloading music to "test-drive" it any different? You don't have the dealer/owner's permission. Sure, you may go out and buy the album afterwords (or the car from the previous example). But what's stopping you from just keeping it, hoping that no one saw you take it?
If you are going to download illegal music files, at least call it what it really is.... theft
I would think a little bit about how much money is going to be getting passed around before spouting off about how big or little of a deal this is. A rough estimate from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter#Book_Sa les) shows that the last HP book sold over 12 million hardbound copies alone. At $20-$25 that works out to be a lot of money for someone.
That's not even including the growth trends of the sales. 6.1 mil for the first, 7.1 the second, 7.6 the third, 8.9 the fourth, and 12.2 the fifth. Just imagine how many copies are going to be sold this time around. Not to mention movie and merchandising rights (or the paperbound copies).
Phoenix, I sure hope those titles are made up. Epiphany? Cats and Hats? Etc? Etc? Etc? Those were horrible names. HORRIBLE. I am sooooo happy he was lying. If he was telling the truth, I would've lost all faith I had in JKR.
Believe me, I would rather just use a different browser (one has security holes of its own. As much as the creators of firefox would like to believe they have the perfect browser, any major piece of software is going to have bugs.
The smart developers call these bugs... features:)
The truth is though, most people don't know about anything other then ie. Why else would it show up with more then 80% of the hits on the websites we run. People don't like change. They like ie because it works out of the box with Windows. No extra installing, no "scary" configurations, no extra work on their part. If you want to convince people not to use ie, don't post messages on/. discussing the various security holes involved with png images. Go out and convince MS to stop packaging it with their os. Make people have to do a little work to get on the internet. Maybe then they'll start to think a little about what they are doing.
Many of them?
Here is a small list (only the state senate) of the members and their respective schools:
FRED J. FIFE III - University of Utah
SCOTT D. McCOY - William Jewell College, George Washington University, and Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University
GENE DAVIS - LaSalle Extension University
PATRICE M. ARENT - University of Utah
ED MAYNE - University of Utah
MICHAEL G. WADDOUPS - Brigham Young University
KAREN HALE - University of Utah
CARLENE M. WALKER - Brigham Young University
L. Alma "Al" Mansell - University of Utah
D. CHRIS BUTTARS - Utah State University
HOWARD A. STEPHENSON - Brigham Young University
BRENT H. GOODFELLOW - University of Utah
MARK B. MADSEN - George Mason University
JOHN L. VALENTINE - Brigham Young University
PARLEY G. HELLEWELL - Utah Valley State College
CURTIS S. BRAMBLE - Brigham Young University, and University of Notre Dame
PETER C. KNUDSON - Utah State University
DAVID L. THOMAS - Brigham Young University
ALLEN M. CHRISTENSEN - Utah State University, Brigham Young University, and Weber State University
SCOTT K. JENKINS - Weber State College
SHELDON L. KILLPACK - Weber State University
GREGORY "S" BELL - Weber State University
DAN R. EASTMAN - Utah State University
DARIN G. PETERSON - Utah State University
LYLE W. HILLYARD - Utah State University
BEVERLY ANN EVANS - Utah State University
MIKE DMITRICH - College of Eastern Utah
THOMAS V. HATCH - Weber State University
JOHN W. (Bill) HICKMAN - Southern Utah University
That is hardly most. I am sure if you were to go through the house members, you would find similar numbers. People don't go to BYU to go into politics.
Also, at one of the major Universities in the state, BYU
If BYU was a publicly run University, then this would be relevant. Why does what a private university considers to be "adult content" even relevant in this discussion?
I think a form of trying something out is "basing your opinion on a source that you trust". No person is ever going to be able to try out every piece soft/hardware for any OS. The same applies to other circumstances (for instance, the fellow comparing it to a judge/legal-type person).
I too use both systems (one, significatnly more then the other... but I have more exposure then most). They do both have pro's and con's... wasn't I just arguing about this a day or two ago.
Isn't that exactly one of the points that the author of the article is complaining about Window's based computers???
From the article:
Windows is complex, trying to be everything to everyone.
Couldn't the same be said about internet browsers? I want a browser to do just that.... browse. I don't need it to fix my spelling, that's what my dictionary is for.
Having numerous computers, from all walks of life (Windows, Mac, several flavors of Linux). Each used for their specific purposes. When I want to sit down and play some Half Life or other games, it really doesn't make sense to have all macs or all linux boxes. However, when I want to play around with some audio or video editing, then the Macintosh is where it's at. Finally, who in their right mind would host any type of server on a Windows or Macintosh machine? Hence the Linux boxes.
Point being, there are all sorts of uses for each of the computer types out there. (well.... this turned into more of a rant then I had originally planned.. what are the three things you aren't supposed to talk about in polite company? religion, politics, and.... oh yes, os selection)
smugly pointed out that the number of copies of Windows sold this year will be more than all the Macintosh computers used worldwide
I think he meant to say "the number of security patches"...
But seriously though, if M$ has done their homework then there is a possiblity that they could get a number of things right. They didn't get as big as they are by consistently putting out bad software. Eventually people would have caught on if all of it had been crap.
If by an amendment to the federal constitution you mean something that says "The government can't and shouldn't define marriage to be the union of one man and one woman" then yes. However, I don't see why any reason for that to be necessary. Why does the government need to be involved with this on any level?
Thanks for the clarification. What I should have said was "legislation". I know where I live it was a consitutional amendment, but I wasn't entirely sure about the other 10 states.
At least they are making it easy for when they all get overturned for being unconsitutional. Rather then have to jump through hoops trying to undo laws and rewritting consitutions, we can hit all 11 in one fell swoop.
Do you understand the term "Intellectual Property"? How about "Copyright"? It would reason that you do, considering that you are posting in a topic specifically dedicated to it.
Just as a refresher, copyrights don't have to be about something physical. From http://www.copyright.gov/Copyright.gov:
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of "original works of authorship," including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
That means if you distribute any copyright musical piece, movie, or software program, without the consent of the owner, you are in violation. In shorter words... If you give away things you don't own, you are breaking the law.
It doesn't matter if you harm if phyiscally, that isn't a condition of the law. From the same site, the owner of the copyright has the exclusive right to:
To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
So keep telling your self that you are not doing anything illegal. But when the authorities come knocking at your door good luck explaining it to them.
I hate to nag, but this is absolutely the worst argument for downloading copyright material.
It's no different then stealing a car from your local car lot and then saying "I was only borrowing the car from your lot to see how I liked it". If you download something copyrighted (be it music, movies, or games) it is stealing no matter how you look at it.
Sorry, it was a poor attempt at sarcasm, way to early on a Saturday morning.
Simple logic from the masses: 1) NIN R0x0rs 2) Trent Reznor is NIN so he is c00l 3) Trent Reznor uses a Mac to mix his music 4) from (2) and (3) Macs must be cool!
Disclaimer: The author apologizes for the leet speek. It was simply used it for emphasis in portraying the "true" nature of NIN's younger fan base.
Another reason for all you Winblows users to switch a different os. If Mr. Reznor himself uses a mac....
On Topic. It would be nice to see more artists pulling "stunts" like this. I call it a stunt, because although I think it's a great idea, you don't see this kind of thing happening often. If you give your audience a chance to become part of your music, you will become all that much closer (no pun intended) with them.
It works particularly well in the case of NIN, simply because their music handles remixes so well. I have trouble seeing anyone other then Ben Folds performing a different rendition of "Tiny Dancer". You never know though, do you. Perhaps there is some music genius out there just waiting for the right opportunity.
Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with stores prohibiting unauthorized photography on their premises. But I don't think it has anything to do with the current "styles" on their shelves.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed :)
The better question, is who are you to decide if it's fair or not?
Consider instead that we were talking about cars. When you want to buy a car, do you go down to the lot and take the keys (***without*** the dealers permission of course) and take it for a test drive?
Only if you want to get arrested.
How is downloading music to "test-drive" it any different? You don't have the dealer/owner's permission. Sure, you may go out and buy the album afterwords (or the car from the previous example). But what's stopping you from just keeping it, hoping that no one saw you take it?
If you are going to download illegal music files, at least call it what it really is.... theft
I would think a little bit about how much money is going to be getting passed around before spouting off about how big or little of a deal this is. A rough estimate from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter#Book_Sa les) shows that the last HP book sold over 12 million hardbound copies alone. At $20-$25 that works out to be a lot of money for someone.
That's not even including the growth trends of the sales. 6.1 mil for the first, 7.1 the second, 7.6 the third, 8.9 the fourth, and 12.2 the fifth. Just imagine how many copies are going to be sold this time around. Not to mention movie and merchandising rights (or the paperbound copies).
If it were me in charge, I'd be steamed.
I didn't read all of the replies (all 32 pages of them), so I may be off on this, but I think the original poster fessed up.
o ard=245&topic=22104343&page=31
http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?b
Phoenix, I sure hope those titles are made up. Epiphany? Cats and Hats? Etc? Etc? Etc? Those were horrible names. HORRIBLE. I am sooooo happy he was lying. If he was telling the truth, I would've lost all faith I had in JKR.
fwiw
http://blogs.msdn.com/dmassy/archive/2004/08/05/2
Believe me, I would rather just use a different browser (one has security holes of its own. As much as the creators of firefox would like to believe they have the perfect browser, any major piece of software is going to have bugs.
The smart developers call these bugs... features :)
The truth is though, most people don't know about anything other then ie. Why else would it show up with more then 80% of the hits on the websites we run. People don't like change. They like ie because it works out of the box with Windows. No extra installing, no "scary" configurations, no extra work on their part. If you want to convince people not to use ie, don't post messages on /. discussing the various security holes involved with png images. Go out and convince MS to stop packaging it with their os. Make people have to do a little work to get on the internet. Maybe then they'll start to think a little about what they are doing.
Many of them?
Here is a small list (only the state senate) of the members and their respective schools:
FRED J. FIFE III - University of Utah
SCOTT D. McCOY - William Jewell College, George Washington University, and Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University
GENE DAVIS - LaSalle Extension University
PATRICE M. ARENT - University of Utah
ED MAYNE - University of Utah
MICHAEL G. WADDOUPS - Brigham Young University
KAREN HALE - University of Utah
CARLENE M. WALKER - Brigham Young University
L. Alma "Al" Mansell - University of Utah
D. CHRIS BUTTARS - Utah State University
HOWARD A. STEPHENSON - Brigham Young University
BRENT H. GOODFELLOW - University of Utah
MARK B. MADSEN - George Mason University
JOHN L. VALENTINE - Brigham Young University
PARLEY G. HELLEWELL - Utah Valley State College
CURTIS S. BRAMBLE - Brigham Young University, and University of Notre Dame
PETER C. KNUDSON - Utah State University
DAVID L. THOMAS - Brigham Young University
ALLEN M. CHRISTENSEN - Utah State University, Brigham Young University, and Weber State University
SCOTT K. JENKINS - Weber State College
SHELDON L. KILLPACK - Weber State University
GREGORY "S" BELL - Weber State University
DAN R. EASTMAN - Utah State University
DARIN G. PETERSON - Utah State University
LYLE W. HILLYARD - Utah State University
BEVERLY ANN EVANS - Utah State University
MIKE DMITRICH - College of Eastern Utah
THOMAS V. HATCH - Weber State University
JOHN W. (Bill) HICKMAN - Southern Utah University
That is hardly most. I am sure if you were to go through the house members, you would find similar numbers. People don't go to BYU to go into politics.
If BYU was a publicly run University, then this would be relevant. Why does what a private university considers to be "adult content" even relevant in this discussion?
I suppose I make up for 4-500 people who don't check it at all then...
You should ask M$ that question... they have been doing it for years (ba dum ching!)
I think a form of trying something out is "basing your opinion on a source that you trust". No person is ever going to be able to try out every piece soft/hardware for any OS. The same applies to other circumstances (for instance, the fellow comparing it to a judge/legal-type person).
I too use both systems (one, significatnly more then the other... but I have more exposure then most). They do both have pro's and con's... wasn't I just arguing about this a day or two ago.
Isn't that exactly one of the points that the author of the article is complaining about Window's based computers???
From the article:
Windows is complex, trying to be everything to everyone.
Couldn't the same be said about internet browsers? I want a browser to do just that.... browse. I don't need it to fix my spelling, that's what my dictionary is for.
Having numerous computers, from all walks of life (Windows, Mac, several flavors of Linux). Each used for their specific purposes. When I want to sit down and play some Half Life or other games, it really doesn't make sense to have all macs or all linux boxes. However, when I want to play around with some audio or video editing, then the Macintosh is where it's at. Finally, who in their right mind would host any type of server on a Windows or Macintosh machine? Hence the Linux boxes.
Point being, there are all sorts of uses for each of the computer types out there. (well.... this turned into more of a rant then I had originally planned.. what are the three things you aren't supposed to talk about in polite company? religion, politics, and.... oh yes, os selection)
I think he meant to say "the number of security patches"...
But seriously though, if M$ has done their homework then there is a possiblity that they could get a number of things right. They didn't get as big as they are by consistently putting out bad software. Eventually people would have caught on if all of it had been crap.
If by an amendment to the federal constitution you mean something that says "The government can't and shouldn't define marriage to be the union of one man and one woman" then yes. However, I don't see why any reason for that to be necessary. Why does the government need to be involved with this on any level?
I do hope your are joking, because I assume the person you are replying to was. Maybe I am just needing more sleep.
In the eyes of those states legislation, two girls is just as offensive (and unlawful) as two guys.
Thanks for the clarification. What I should have said was "legislation". I know where I live it was a consitutional amendment, but I wasn't entirely sure about the other 10 states.
At least they are making it easy for when they all get overturned for being unconsitutional. Rather then have to jump through hoops trying to undo laws and rewritting consitutions, we can hit all 11 in one fell swoop.
Would that be the same consumer market that passed anti-gay marriage laws in 11 different states last November?
Do you understand the term "Intellectual Property"? How about "Copyright"? It would reason that you do, considering that you are posting in a topic specifically dedicated to it.
Just as a refresher, copyrights don't have to be about something physical. From http://www.copyright.gov/Copyright.gov:
That means if you distribute any copyright musical piece, movie, or software program, without the consent of the owner, you are in violation. In shorter words... If you give away things you don't own, you are breaking the law.
It doesn't matter if you harm if phyiscally, that isn't a condition of the law. From the same site, the owner of the copyright has the exclusive right to:
So keep telling your self that you are not doing anything illegal. But when the authorities come knocking at your door good luck explaining it to them.
I hate to nag, but this is absolutely the worst argument for downloading copyright material.
It's no different then stealing a car from your local car lot and then saying "I was only borrowing the car from your lot to see how I liked it". If you download something copyrighted (be it music, movies, or games) it is stealing no matter how you look at it.
what sort of cowbell samples does GarageBand come with?
Not enough for my taste. Definitely not enough. Cause I got a fever... you know the rest.
Sorry, it was a poor attempt at sarcasm, way to early on a Saturday morning.
Simple logic from the masses:
1) NIN R0x0rs
2) Trent Reznor is NIN so he is c00l
3) Trent Reznor uses a Mac to mix his music
4) from (2) and (3) Macs must be cool!
Disclaimer: The author apologizes for the leet speek. It was simply used it for emphasis in portraying the "true" nature of NIN's younger fan base.
nin_garageband.sit
Another reason for all you Winblows users to switch a different os. If Mr. Reznor himself uses a mac....
On Topic. It would be nice to see more artists pulling "stunts" like this. I call it a stunt, because although I think it's a great idea, you don't see this kind of thing happening often. If you give your audience a chance to become part of your music, you will become all that much closer (no pun intended) with them.
It works particularly well in the case of NIN, simply because their music handles remixes so well. I have trouble seeing anyone other then Ben Folds performing a different rendition of "Tiny Dancer". You never know though, do you. Perhaps there is some music genius out there just waiting for the right opportunity.
Sorry, I had to.
Don't get me wrong, I have no problems with stores prohibiting unauthorized photography on their premises. But I don't think it has anything to do with the current "styles" on their shelves.
Even if they had cell phones, it would be the same problem as bringing in your monster, high-rez, digi cam. A camera's a camera (in their mind)
However, what's stopping someone, specifically a competitor, from just buying an article of GAP clothing and modeling theirs after it.
I could see them being paranoid about someone getting a camera inside their design offices though. That's where the real damage would be done.