I think they also want to make it clear to everybody that they are not paying for stolen goods. Perhaps if they tell everybody the drunken birthday boy story, people will not get a bad taste in their mouth when they hear that Gizmodo paid 5k to get access to that phone.
Being an amateur enthusiast photographer, I regularly upload my pictures directly to flickr, which applies the CC licence and then upload from there to Wikimedia, which is effectively Wikipedia. I have even found a number of my pictures that have worked their way into Wikipeida, which are licenced properlly and linked back to my flickr account by some complete stranger who was able to find my work on flickr.
Specifically the picture of Slash was mine taken at a show in NYC, with a small point and shoot.
This story of free photography is not new to me. People like me who take pictures because they enjoy doing so and enjoy the idea of licencing their pictures with the Creative Commons are becoming quite a hot topic with pros.
I just spent 2 weeks volunteering at Ottawa Bluesfest. As a volunteer i get free access to the entire festival. For starters this festival allows any camera for anybody, which is quite rare. I know NIN allows this on their last tour but i am not aware of any other festival that has relaxed camera policy. The only advantage as a volunteer I got was to sit backstage and talk to the photographers between sets. every picture I took was from general admission and not backstage or in the photo pit, which oddly enough was where i was a volunteer.
Their main complaint was that people like me were flooding the market with free "good enough" photographs. while there was no argument that their work was better. But I was permitted to stand in general admission for the entire set and shoot as long as i wanted, with this "machine gun" shooting strategy almost anyone can get a decent picture or 2, While the pro's were only permitted to shoot for 2 or 3 songs. Is this fair? I think so but that's another story.
The pro's I talked to were strongly against any free photography and every pro i talked to was sure to add "and stop using flickr" as part of the advice given.
Is this a market that will flip upside down, just like music sales..? Maybe Are the pro's stuck on the current path and unwilling to change..? For sure Will pros start giving pictures to Wikipedia..? Not the ones I Taked to. Do I love the fact that I am contributing to Wikipedia by providing better photographs..? Yes!
The Hindenburg being a mistake, and WTC being an attack.. very different feelings associated to each event. Then add all of the conspiracy theories, these evens are not even close to comparable.
Google is built on "waisting tallent" 20% of free time on side projects and such... If Google knew what was best for google they would tell their employees what to do.. instead they allow them to explore diffrent stuff and waist their time on new stuff...
Wow. I could not disagree with this more. Why can't you prove you are irreplaceable by becoming a great programmer/problem solver/team player rather than some fucknut that creates garbage that "just works".
This is awfully interesting... From TFA
University of Southern Mississippi, The Student Printz: History seems to show that anything done to stop files sharing will only create new methods and technologies to get around their controls. In light of that, should the middlemen (RIAA, et al) be thinking about ways to bring consumers what they want -- which they'll mostly end up getting in any case -- instead of futilely struggling to keep their finger in the dike, which ultimately only causes further public unhappiness with them?
Cary Sherman: History also shows that no matter what is done to stop bank robberies or shoplifting, some people will always find a way around those techniques. Does that mean we should simply give up and allow people to take what they should be paying for? Record companies ARE trying to give consumers what they want. Think of how music was available just a couple of years ago and how it's available now. You can buy an individual track, at any time of the day or night, and get it instantly on line. You can subscribe to services with a million-and-a-half tunes to choose from that you can listen to whenever you want, for an all-you-can-eat monthly fee.
Hrmmm Did he ever stop to think that if "Record companies ARE trying to give consumers what they want." Then the ratio of Illegal music downloads to Bank Robberies might be a little more consistent with what he is implying?
Companies need to realize that copy protection isn't a trade off. It's a limitation. And it's a limitation that most people don't want to bother with.
As a concerned member I did some research on DHMO and found the following facts
* Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
* Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
* Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
* DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
* Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
* Contributes to soil erosion.
* Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
* Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
* Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
* Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere.
* Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.
I say we try to stop these hydrogen fuel cells as soon as possible before more DHMO is produced.
Wow.. I disagree with what you have to say on so many levels although it's clear we both understand each other side and will never get further than that.
So I will try to make a point more on your "flawed" assumptions rather than your logic. Because I feel that you do have some interesting points that I do agree with and will now look forward to reading more of your posts
You make a point that the most popular music downloaded are billboard top hits, and you also say that you see here people posting that they download rare music. Now think about that for a second, maybe it's possible that the people you are preaching to here (general/. Public) do not download pop culture bullshit but rather interesting, creative and hard to get music, that you cant buy in stores.
I totally agree with your logic. But I believe you application is skewed. While I personally have only purchased 2 cd's in the past 5 years I assume I would be a hypocrite by stating this.
But the privilege to make prophet is not the argument here they are trying to say they have a right to tell us how we access the media they sell us. If they choose to sell media X (also we choose to BUY media X with the given rules they outline) then we should only be allowed to read type X with a special X reader.
Obviously I disagree but I wanted to outline that the "privilege" to make prophet is different from the right to not have "your" work illegally copied and distributed.
Slashdot Mirror
I think they also want to make it clear to everybody that they are not paying for stolen goods. Perhaps if they tell everybody the drunken birthday boy story, people will not get a bad taste in their mouth when they hear that Gizmodo paid 5k to get access to that phone.
Being an amateur enthusiast photographer, I regularly upload my pictures directly to flickr, which applies the CC licence and then upload from there to Wikimedia, which is effectively Wikipedia. I have even found a number of my pictures that have worked their way into Wikipeida, which are licenced properlly and linked back to my flickr account by some complete stranger who was able to find my work on flickr.
Specifically the picture of Slash was mine taken at a show in NYC, with a small point and shoot.
This story of free photography is not new to me.
People like me who take pictures because they enjoy doing so and enjoy the idea of licencing their pictures with the Creative Commons are becoming quite a hot topic with pros.
I just spent 2 weeks volunteering at Ottawa Bluesfest. As a volunteer i get free access to the entire festival. For starters this festival allows any camera for anybody, which is quite rare. I know NIN allows this on their last tour but i am not aware of any other festival that has relaxed camera policy. The only advantage as a volunteer I got was to sit backstage and talk to the photographers between sets. every picture I took was from general admission and not backstage or in the photo pit, which oddly enough was where i was a volunteer.
Their main complaint was that people like me were flooding the market with free "good enough" photographs. while there was no argument that their work was better. But I was permitted to stand in general admission for the entire set and shoot as long as i wanted, with this "machine gun" shooting strategy almost anyone can get a decent picture or 2, While the pro's were only permitted to shoot for 2 or 3 songs. Is this fair? I think so but that's another story.
The pro's I talked to were strongly against any free photography and every pro i talked to was sure to add "and stop using flickr" as part of the advice given.
Is this a market that will flip upside down, just like music sales..? Maybe
Are the pro's stuck on the current path and unwilling to change..? For sure
Will pros start giving pictures to Wikipedia..? Not the ones I Taked to.
Do I love the fact that I am contributing to Wikipedia by providing better photographs..? Yes!
you must be new here
Because the robot throwing the beer was not wasting power???
I don't think energy saving was on his list of priorities..
And there was a clever flap on the top of the fridge..
The Hindenburg being a mistake, and WTC being an attack.. very different feelings associated to each event. Then add all of the conspiracy theories, these evens are not even close to comparable.
yes yes.. It has been using the same name since 10.0
Don't froget to exclude the Newfies and their Beaumont-Hamel Memorial.
Google is built on "waisting tallent" 20% of free time on side projects and such... If Google knew what was best for google they would tell their employees what to do.. instead they allow them to explore diffrent stuff and waist their time on new stuff...
You still might catch them on the way down. Or in the extended wait in the lobby
Wow. I could not disagree with this more. Why can't you prove you are irreplaceable by becoming a great programmer/problem solver/team player rather than some fucknut that creates garbage that "just works".
Open Source Community Benefits...??anyone?
This is awfully interesting... From TFA
University of Southern Mississippi, The Student Printz: History seems to show that anything done to stop files sharing will only create new methods and technologies to get around their controls. In light of that, should the middlemen (RIAA, et al) be thinking about ways to bring consumers what they want -- which they'll mostly end up getting in any case -- instead of futilely struggling to keep their finger in the dike, which ultimately only causes further public unhappiness with them?
Cary Sherman: History also shows that no matter what is done to stop bank robberies or shoplifting, some people will always find a way around those techniques. Does that mean we should simply give up and allow people to take what they should be paying for? Record companies ARE trying to give consumers what they want. Think of how music was available just a couple of years ago and how it's available now. You can buy an individual track, at any time of the day or night, and get it instantly on line. You can subscribe to services with a million-and-a-half tunes to choose from that you can listen to whenever you want, for an all-you-can-eat monthly fee.
Hrmmm Did he ever stop to think that if "Record companies ARE trying to give consumers what they want." Then the ratio of Illegal music downloads to Bank Robberies might be a little more consistent with what he is implying? Companies need to realize that copy protection isn't a trade off. It's a limitation. And it's a limitation that most people don't want to bother with.
women are more auditory/
Or turn the volume up....
As a concerned member I did some research on DHMO and found the following facts
* Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
* Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
* Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
* DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
* Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
* Contributes to soil erosion.
* Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
* Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
* Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
* Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere.
* Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.
I say we try to stop these hydrogen fuel cells as soon as possible before more DHMO is produced.
Actually just got this link in an e-mail about 2 min ago.. Nintendo Choir
cheesy but well done
Infact ndiswrapper comes WITH SuSE.. great tool Espically when they added the 64bit support!!
is that not the point? no overlap means bigger customer base. if they had the same market there would not be much of a point other than monolopy.
Wow.. I disagree with what you have to say on so many levels although it's clear we both understand each other side and will never get further than that.
/. Public) do not download pop culture bullshit but rather interesting, creative and hard to get music, that you cant buy in stores.
So I will try to make a point more on your "flawed" assumptions rather than your logic. Because I feel that you do have some interesting points that I do agree with and will now look forward to reading more of your posts
You make a point that the most popular music downloaded are billboard top hits, and you also say that you see here people posting that they download rare music. Now think about that for a second, maybe it's possible that the people you are preaching to here (general
Remember spaceship one used knowledge and tech that NASA developed/figured out.
They were first to do it privately, not first ever.
If it's good enough for Slashdot.....
I wonder if the EM from the electronics would cause a problem with the magnetic swipes on credit cards and such...
Indeed if you check the e-mail they show the same name steve.Kerrison@hexus.net and steve@stevekerrison.com.. Redicilous
... something is fishy..
he even posts right here
There is a fantastic article on Wikipedia explaining how the network works along with a list of other clients and their platform.
Because the jump from not being able to download free music to shooting heroin is so close. COMMON...
I thought that the common assumption was all kids who listen to music already do drugs.
that's what i get for spellcheck and a quick proofread
I totally agree with your logic. But I believe you application is skewed. While I personally have only purchased 2 cd's in the past 5 years I assume I would be a hypocrite by stating this.
But the privilege to make prophet is not the argument here they are trying to say they have a right to tell us how we access the media they sell us. If they choose to sell media X (also we choose to BUY media X with the given rules they outline) then we should only be allowed to read type X with a special X reader.
Obviously I disagree but I wanted to outline that the "privilege" to make prophet is different from the right to not have "your" work illegally copied and distributed.