Assuming the person in question did not rip each file from CD and then upload it, what crime are they actually committing? The files on their PC were simply downloaded from an outside source - is it the duty of the person uploading to maintain a copyright notice with each file or is it the duty of the downloader to verify the status of each file they download?
If it is the duty of the downloader to verify the copyright of every item they download, where does this stop? Do I have to perform due dilligence when I log onto/.? If not, then surely the RIAA need to pursue the individual who originally uploaded each file and prove the extent to which it was spread.
Funnily enough http://www.kinderstart.co.uk/seems to be a valid site promoting a chain of nursery schools in the UK. It comes at the very top of google.co.uk's list when you search for "kinderstart". Google just seem to have downranked the US site because it's a junk link, providing no-one with any useful information, which is exactly what they should have done! Hope the suit gets thrown out and the judge orders them to pay Google's costs.
Definitely. As someone who recently switched (partly) to Linux for part of my final year project (easier network and serial i/o programming) the major problem has been getting packages to work, with every install of a new application taking hours. I know this is mainly to do with my lack of familiarity with the whole o/s, but the plethora of different help / faq sources with their many (often seemingly arcane) methods of acheiving the same end have made the transition harder. I am now coming to grips with my Fedora Core 4 box, but it has been a long journey that has put me behind in my project.
If there where a single establish Linux, which worked out of the box on standard hardware, many more people might be persuaded to make the change, especially with the cost / DRM nuisance of Windows Vista. It would also allow hardware manufacturers to write drivers which could reach a large enough portion of the market to be worthwhile. This would also make the use of Linux by a large PC manufacturer more likely: can you imagine Dell shipping a Linux PC if the customer had to spend a day configuring the graphics card before they could use it? It would be disastrous for their customer relations!
Very laudible in principle, however the practical reality is not quite so simple:
1. I want....'s new album/dvd/LP. Where can I get it? Most likely from the sole distributor in my country. I therefore have to accept whatever DRM comes with my chosen media. Of course, I could just not make my purchase but in the limit (DRM adopted by all major labels) I would have to rely on public radio / TV should I take this attitude. I could use a "grey" source for my purchases, such as allofmp3.com, but this is dangerously close to violating (3).
2. How many people actually record and distribute their own media? Enough to supersede the current radio / record label hegemony? Admittedly, new bands can use this to publicise their gigs etc, but in order to sell records they tend to need the publicity machine afforded by the established distributors. That said, even if bands gave their music away, a good number might still make a very good living touring, it just would be hard to establish a following unassisted.
3. Fair point, lost revenue due to piracy will drive publishers to DRM. DRM does not just prevent sharing though, in many cases it infringes fair use, which I guess is why no-one seems keen on it!
4. Fair point, although it relies on said candidates not joining the money as soon as they are elected, which seems dissappointingly common.
Perhaps a law mandating the explicit labelling (or equivalent) of products with DRM, detailing what measures have been taken and the restrictions on use, would be useful. It would allow consumers to make more considered purchases, in the light of (1) and provide those who don't adopt DRM with obvious added value for the consumer.
It seems to me that the touted benefits of either system (at least as far as films go) are outweighed by the drawbacks: using the carrot of high definition content to distract the consumer while both standards beat us all with the stick of DRM and inflated costs (you think that Blu-Ray or HD-DVD discs will be sold at the same price as DVDs????).
The only reason that I can see for upgrading (not that we will have the choice) would be if either standard better consumer value:
No more £60 box-sets (you'd never pay that for one disc - I reckon publishers will use the excuse of high definition etc to continue using multiple discs to cover TV series)
Use some of the spare capacity on the discs to back-up the data in other areas (hopefully making them more durable / resistant to scratches - no more skipping discs!)
I'm not against Blu-Ray or HD-DVD per se, as far as I'm concerned technology progression is a great thing, I just can't help thinking that either format will fail to benefit consumers as fully as it might.
Also, will either standard be available (soon) in an R/W format?
The problem with the Lagrange Points is that they really can only be controlled by one power at a time. They are tiny (infinitesimal?) points in space where the forces on an object due to the earth and another body (the sun or moon etc) cancel each other ; allowing an object placed there to maintain its position relative to the two bodies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_point/
Their precise location and size mean that it really is only possible for one space station to be at each point at any one time. Whoever builds at a Lagrange point first effectively owns it, as any other power trying to build there would first have to remove the existing station.
Incidently, having read the.pdf of the magazine, and speaking as someone who lives outside of the USA, I found the dogma of "control" of space and its use in future wars (will you guys ever get tired of them?) a truly terrifying insight into the minds of the US milirary-industrial machine...
Slashdot Mirror
Probably a stupid question, but...
Assuming the person in question did not rip each file from CD and then upload it, what crime are they actually committing? The files on their PC were simply downloaded from an outside source - is it the duty of the person uploading to maintain a copyright notice with each file or is it the duty of the downloader to verify the status of each file they download?
If it is the duty of the downloader to verify the copyright of every item they download, where does this stop? Do I have to perform due dilligence when I log onto /.? If not, then surely the RIAA need to pursue the individual who originally uploaded each file and prove the extent to which it was spread.
Funnily enough http://www.kinderstart.co.uk/seems to be a valid site promoting a chain of nursery schools in the UK. It comes at the very top of google.co.uk's list when you search for "kinderstart". Google just seem to have downranked the US site because it's a junk link, providing no-one with any useful information, which is exactly what they should have done! Hope the suit gets thrown out and the judge orders them to pay Google's costs.
Definitely. As someone who recently switched (partly) to Linux for part of my final year project (easier network and serial i/o programming) the major problem has been getting packages to work, with every install of a new application taking hours. I know this is mainly to do with my lack of familiarity with the whole o/s, but the plethora of different help / faq sources with their many (often seemingly arcane) methods of acheiving the same end have made the transition harder. I am now coming to grips with my Fedora Core 4 box, but it has been a long journey that has put me behind in my project.
If there where a single establish Linux, which worked out of the box on standard hardware, many more people might be persuaded to make the change, especially with the cost / DRM nuisance of Windows Vista. It would also allow hardware manufacturers to write drivers which could reach a large enough portion of the market to be worthwhile. This would also make the use of Linux by a large PC manufacturer more likely: can you imagine Dell shipping a Linux PC if the customer had to spend a day configuring the graphics card before they could use it? It would be disastrous for their customer relations!
Do you mean Micheal Moore?
Roger Moore would be rather more (sorry) double-O-360
Very laudible in principle, however the practical reality is not quite so simple:
1. I want ....'s new album/dvd/LP. Where can I get it? Most likely from the sole distributor in my country. I therefore have to accept whatever DRM comes with my chosen media. Of course, I could just not make my purchase but in the limit (DRM adopted by all major labels) I would have to rely on public radio / TV should I take this attitude. I could use a "grey" source for my purchases, such as allofmp3.com, but this is dangerously close to violating (3).
2. How many people actually record and distribute their own media? Enough to supersede the current radio / record label hegemony? Admittedly, new bands can use this to publicise their gigs etc, but in order to sell records they tend to need the publicity machine afforded by the established distributors. That said, even if bands gave their music away, a good number might still make a very good living touring, it just would be hard to establish a following unassisted.
3. Fair point, lost revenue due to piracy will drive publishers to DRM. DRM does not just prevent sharing though, in many cases it infringes fair use, which I guess is why no-one seems keen on it!
4. Fair point, although it relies on said candidates not joining the money as soon as they are elected, which seems dissappointingly common.
Perhaps a law mandating the explicit labelling (or equivalent) of products with DRM, detailing what measures have been taken and the restrictions on use, would be useful. It would allow consumers to make more considered purchases, in the light of (1) and provide those who don't adopt DRM with obvious added value for the consumer.
The only reason that I can see for upgrading (not that we will have the choice) would be if either standard better consumer value:
No more £60 box-sets (you'd never pay that for one disc - I reckon publishers will use the excuse of high definition etc to continue using multiple discs to cover TV series)
Use some of the spare capacity on the discs to back-up the data in other areas (hopefully making them more durable / resistant to scratches - no more skipping discs!)
I'm not against Blu-Ray or HD-DVD per se, as far as I'm concerned technology progression is a great thing, I just can't help thinking that either format will fail to benefit consumers as fully as it might. Also, will either standard be available (soon) in an R/W format?
The problem with the Lagrange Points is that they really can only be controlled by one power at a time. They are tiny (infinitesimal?) points in space where the forces on an object due to the earth and another body (the sun or moon etc) cancel each other ; allowing an object placed there to maintain its position relative to the two bodies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_point/
.pdf of the magazine, and speaking as someone who lives outside of the USA, I found the dogma of "control" of space and its use in future wars (will you guys ever get tired of them?) a truly terrifying insight into the minds of the US milirary-industrial machine...
Their precise location and size mean that it really is only possible for one space station to be at each point at any one time. Whoever builds at a Lagrange point first effectively owns it, as any other power trying to build there would first have to remove the existing station.
Incidently, having read the