"Rakoff said any positive impact of MP3's activities on the recording companies prior market in no way frees the defendants to "usurp a further market" by reproducing the plaintiffs' copyrighted works. "
So from this should I infer that the Recording Industry is planning on setting up shop doing something similar, but charging us? At least it wasn't said that they were usurping the existing mrket of CD's, because if I understand how the service works then you had to have a copy of the CD to listen to any of it's tracks.
I think it's high time the copyright laws that allowed this ruling to happen are revisited. How can we see this happen?
Is the fact that they continually use the term "piracy". I can't help but thinking that lawyers should be able to choose a more descriptive, and less loaded term for unauthorized copying/distrobution. Maybe RMS ought to drop them a note. OTOH it does seem very well written, and seems to deliver their point quite well.
I beleive your thinking of the SDMI and DMAT. (WARNING: That second link goes straight into the belly of the beast!) Read up there if you want to find out more of what the Music Industry has planned for us consumers.
I'm assuming that CDNOW got their mp3's off of a CD in order to distribute them. Here in my hand is an "Eminem" CD (it was in our lab's lost+found). On the CD itself is the following;
Unauthorized reproduction of this recording is prohibited by Federal law and is subject to criminal prosecution.
Now if CDnow is legally able to distribute mp3's to you, that means they have sought and won authorization from the record label (I'm guessing) or the distributer. However I'm pretty certain that this license does not get transferred to whomever downloads the mp3's. If that is not enough consider the following from the CDnow website Can downloaded music be copied or moved from one computer to another? It depends on whether the music you downloaded has copy protection. Some music is given away freely and may be copied or moved. Digital Music Downloads that you buy from CDNOW cannot be copied or moved to another computer.
So this would lead one to believe that if the clips are music that is given to you gratis then you can do with it as you wish. If you paid for these clips then no.
As I said before, I think that the copyright laws right now are pretty ridiculous, and I'm only pointing this out to underline that, and to make sure people know exactly what those licenses say, since the movie and record industries seem more apt to pursue them.
You have said repeatedly that your goal is to put napster out of business. This despite the fact that there are already alternatives to this (Gnutella) that seem to be so distributed as to render a lawsuit against one central artery useless (as there is none). There is a saying that the internet routes around censorship, and it appears that even if napster were to go completely away, the internet would route around this by completely cutting out the "middle man" you spoke of in your yahoo chat.
When this happens, will you then go after the individuals who are trading your songs?
I downloaded several.mp3 clips for metallica songs off CDNOW. These are apparently legal files. They are available in my.MP3 directory. If I'm blocked from Napster, will I have a right to challenge the bad detective work of Metallica's hired guns?
NO. CDnow is licensed to distribute those files, you are not licensed to distribute them. Kinda sucks, huh? When the previous story about Dr. Dre was on/. I downloaded a few seconds of a Dr. Dre file. I listened to the first few seconds, and quickly terminated the download (total crap!). If that file is still on my hard-drive, am I illegally distributing Dr. Dre's song?
As long as your file is not in the shared file's path, you are not distributing it. However, since you attempted piracy (ahoy matey!), we are forced to take you to court for copyright infringement. Our lawyers will be in touch.
Note- I totally agree with you about how ridiculous this shit is, but since you're asking, may as well answer:-)
But Metallica's actions don't seem to be geared towards legal precedents. They seem to be geared towards terrorizing young netizens, so that they are afraid to download music, no matter WHAT gets decided.
According to Metallica (the online chat) Their stated goal is to put napster out of business. Putting the fear of Lars into a bunch of youngsters is probably icing on th cake. I say good luck on Gnutella, opennap, anonymous ftp sites and the countless other distribution methods that are bound to spring up in the near future.
Apparently, in the court case that my.mp3.com recently lost, it's shown that you can't obtain someone elses fair use copy, even if you own an original. Of course the RIAA would like you to believe that you shuoldn't make mp3 copies of your works as fair use backup no matter what. Metallica said repeatedly in their online interview yesterday that they had no objections to the mp3 format in and of itself, I wonder for how long will they keep that position.
According to their Business and Licensing page, they are under the GPL (however they also sell other licenses). This is the distinction. The BSD license (The old one) requires the "noxious dvertising clause". Under the GPL you can feel free to remove any advertising or modify it in any way you like, so long as you provide source with any released binaries.
In either case, you could really do anything you wanted to, even change the advertising to microsoft.com if it's something you're only using on your own.
I don't think that would be so smart. Why give them an opportunity to say "Those evil music pirates did this!", when you can come in and actually make them look total morons.
Here's a suggestion for someone able to get into the chat.
"Metallica, how would you feel knowing that while there is small time piracy going on among your fans, there is much larger problem lurking? How would you react to know that there are large groups acting in areas where your music is otherwise unavailable to distribute your music for outrageous prices, depriving your fans of an opportunity to collect as much of it, and depriving you as a band of the profits you deserve?"
Give them ample time to stick feet in mouth...
"Because that's exactly what your label is doing."
...but now I prefer to think of the band as dead. Killed by a mishap in their own pyro effects on stage.
That pretty much sums up my feelings. I wrote (and I suggest everyone do this) my local rock station letting them know that every time I hear these knuckleheads I'm changing channels. I gave them a link to some of the recent coverage, and pointed out that this is a band that used to engourage bootlegging as a form of promotion. That band, I said will be sorely missed. As for these clowns on the radio now, I'd just as soon forget that they existed.
It's not ironic at all if you think about it. It's typical. Start hovering on some of the slashdot ads. There's actually a few that go through doubleclick, focalink, and perhaps more (those are the two I noticed recently)that I already have blocked in my hosts file on my home computer. There was a lot more info before bit-rot set in, over at the doubleclick sid. Interiot was the guy who did the digging, even wrote a bash script to dig through the pages here looking for doubledick ads.
While I respect the fact that the NYTIMES and Slashdot both do and will publish articles about protecting our privacy, and then leave us to discuss mongst ourselves, it bothers me greatly that I still have to submit to tracking on any machine I don't have admin or root access to:(
And I'm sure doubleclick doesn't mind too awful much advertising on privacy-issue articles, as I imagine those are the ones that get the most hits in the tecnology sections of online newspapers.
Try my "create your own adventure" thread here. I've been advertising in my.sig for 4-5 days now and have gotten about 3 people in on it, but I would like to see more people involved. There are a few guidelines, but it being a roll-your-own sid there's not much in the way of enforcement. Just creating a loosely joined story from sid to sid and seeing where it goes. If you land on an empty, create one! If the current story gets out of hand, has too much bitrot or just doesn't suit you create another one.
I was going to wait for a quickies article to post this but it does seem ontopic, considering that it's a completely interactive project with not only no (real) rules, but no real goal other than amusement and entertainment of ones self and others.
Anyway, I'll not make a habit of spamming the boards with it, just thought it might intrigue those still awake. Try it sometime, it's rather small at the moment, and post up if you like it. The sid is in my.sig and URL, and discussion of the stories/whatever happens at sid=adventure.
that * in the parent was meant to be a disclaimer at the bottom...I shameslessy stole that phrase from a post earlier up. It just sounded too damn cool:-)
Not a bad idea, except that I think the RIAA actually wants to see legalized MP3's fade into the night. Without companies acting as agents to assist people pursue their fair use*, the only thing left will be dirty, low-life music pirates! That's right, PIRATES. Storming the high seas and information highways and byways, waylaying unsuspecting artists of their gold and raping and pillaging helpless villages full of recording industry execs...
At least that will be the impression that they give once every trace of respectability is gone from music online. Remember noone ever got fired for buying a CD! FUD!
Anyway, my point is that they want us to pirate, at first. Sure they will lose some market share at first (after all they lost -15 billion-qaud-zillion last year alone), however once they convince every ISP out there that it's better to cease, desist and start harrassing their users rather than face a bag full of lawyers then it's pretty much curtains for everyone. Especially the independant artists that rely on the internet to get distrobution (even if there aren't that many now, why take the chance?)
Perhaps instead we should start grinding our own FUD-gears now. I already put up that picture off the paylars site here at work where napster and gnutella have been deemed inappropriate(read:will get your ass fired), and I think there are other things that we can do as a community to help. Take some of the posts here and Jon Katzize them, make a flyer and pass it out, especially at the Universities and all. It's probably too late to get napster re-legitimized, and perhaps it's actually better that way, however I think that the recording industry is doing more than going after pirates here. I think they want to paint everyone who ever listened to music on computer speakers with a beard, a peg-leg and a damn parrot on their shoulder.
Re:It's a single-use, non-transferrable license ..
on
MP3.com Loses In Court
·
· Score: 2
I've never used the beam-it service, so this may be a non point, but I assume they stream this stuff, no?
If I own a CD, and bring it over to your house, and put it in your player and play it, have I broken the law? If I make a backup tape of my CD (Which I'm assuming is still legal, although the audio home recording act made my head swim so I'm not sure)...ok anyway, I bring my legal backup to your place and play it for you, is that illegal? Mind you I haven't given you a copy of anything at all, just let you listen to it.
(again)From what I understand, my.mp3.com is streaming, so in essence aren't they just letting you listen to their fair use backup as opposed to giving you your very own copy?
Even if my friend kept saying "Play trak 7 again please" and I was stupid enough to sit their all day rewinding it for the bastard (even though he owns the damn *CD* and I know because I saw it!) I still don't think I've broken any laws.
If I am breaking the law, then I think it's time some people woke up and changed the laws around a little. Either way, the RIAA is trying to shut down a service that *technically* legal or not, is fairly legitimate. The whole idea is based on trying to make sure people have access to their music and not pirate it.
What is going to be left is pirat^H^H^H^H^Hunathorised copying on a massive scale, because hey, mp3's are easy, even if the RIAA does not like them. The tools are all out, and it will take some massive re-education of the masses to make them feel as if they are doing something wrong. The media already seem to be on this (not surprising). Who knows. All I know is that they seem to be out to wreck a perfectly nice way to share and promote music, and will happily throw the baby out with the bathwater if need be.
OTOH, I have a pet conspiracy (oh shit you can't spell conspiracy without "piracy"!)that the RIAA is looking to set up shop with something *just* like mp3.com, beam-it and everything. The difference; you'll be asked to pay for their service, and the unsigned artists who want promotion will have to sign some restrictive agreement.
(sorry if this here turned into a rant. Maybe should have broken it up into more posts, oh well. Like you, I'm trying to sort it all out) :-)
I'm emailing my local rock station right now. Apparently Metallica just released another song. I'm writing WJRR to let them know that every time they play a Metallica song, any era, I'm switching to a different station for at least one hour.
Even if you normally switch stations when you hear Metallica, write your radio stations and let them know this. Also email/write the sponsors of the radio stations. This is where Metallica fights for their marketshare, and if even a vocal few let the radio stations know that metallica=lost revenue they'll definately not get as much airplay as before.
Let them sue for all they want. We should make it worth their while.
RPM is basically a format for compressing the directory structure of the binaries you're trying to install, along with information about the requirements and versioning, which in theory makes sure that before you install a piece of S/W that you have all the prerequisite stuff in there. Most of the criticism of RPM seems to be that the package managers aren't always that nice (they'll lie about what they think you have/don't have on your system) and that the database where they store all this info crashes often.
It is supposed to be possible to install an RPM manager into a non Red-Hat system, however many people who use other distro's actually do so because they feel that among other things, the package formats for their distro are better (debian has a package manager who's users seem to love it, Slackware has one also but most of the other slackers I've seen prefer to untar, make, make install. to install their S/W).
There does exist a prgram that is supposed to convert RPMs to a.tar.gz file that you can simply unzip (in your root directory?) to install the files. I've always wound up just manually placing the binaries and symlinking until things seem to work when on my slackware. I think there may be more involved to converting RPMS to completely system/distro independant packages however.
Also there is the source distrobution issue. If a company releases a binary-only RPM, and there is no way to actually get at the source and change some things (like the location of libraries that other distros may have elsewhere) then it doesn't matter if you can get the binaries installed or not. They simply won't work right.
I think there are a number of ways it could benefit them financially, and in other ways as well.
If you market something as easier to use than windows (just like they put their online service as easier to use than ISPs) then there will be people trying it out. I talk to people everyday asking for help with an ISP, who can barely use a mouse, they're frustrated to tears, and generally don't react well when told to read the help files or documentation. These people would walk away from Windows in a second if someone would offer AOL-OS.
This instantly cuts out a number of non-blessed applications such as total-recorder, napster, and the like that could be used to cut into their associated companies' bottom lines. What is already ported over to Be could simply be made useless by disabling the ports they operate on.
With AOL-OS connecting to the net will never be easier. Just press "NET!" and you are instantly taken to the AOL frontpage. The fact that they have given you a closed-everything OS with very few outside apps that (that they don't approve of) that work, they have control over how you see the Internet, and the outside world through that. Forget doubleclick, AOL-OS will create and store a profile of you that will allow you to receive ads for whatever they feel you'll buy. By not being able to use AOL-OS with any other provider, and making it beyond point-and-drool, they'll slowly be able to turn their subscribers into their own demographic, the AOL-sheeple.
This may be somewhat far fetched, I'll admit. However the possibility is there to completely control a person's computing experience and exploit them totally and shamelessly. There are people now who would gladly trade all control over their experience to be able to send email without a hassle or having to remember a password.
1/2 rabid "kill kill kill" posts, and 1/2 "hey, let's at least talk to them first." posts
I think perhaps we need a new category for this sort of thing, something that will help diffuse these otherwise ugly occurrences.
I'd like to humbly propose we accept the suggestion made by suck.com, and use From the Jihad, Jihad dept. for news of GPL violations. They even have a cute little topic icon for us to use. Seriously, taken in such light it would be hard to justify some of the over-the-top responses that news like this seems to get.
I posted something similar a while back, only I ws thinking more of a sliding scale. Any 0 posts should be cut off at 10 lines by default, anything at -1 gets it at 5 lines. If it gets moderated up then make it add 5 or 10 lines for each point it gets moderated up. In your preferences you could adjust the sliding scale by X lines in either direction...
One other idea I had was a "SPAM" moderation category, specifically for the ^C^V people, the sex stories and also the complaint generator/filter folks, that implemented the above sliding scale, while leaving normally moderated posts the way they currently are handled.
OOG may have a hard time adjusting to the new server. Go there and try to post something all caps. It WON'T LET YOU. This post probably wouldn't make it past the "lameness filter" they've implemented (I tried with varying portions of the comment capsed and it won't let anything with more than like two words capsed through).
I hope they reconsider this one, as the moderators seem to take care of shouters pretty well, and the only person who seems to use all caps regularly is one of the funnier posters we have (IMO). Please, Rob, preserve the individualism that has made slashdot as fun to visit as it has been in the past, and at least give OOG a special dispensation or something:D
I've never messed with the actual boot loader, however the Ranish Partition Manager is one of the coolest partitining programs I've ever used. It does have the option to put in a custom boot loader. If anyone has any experience good or bad with it please let me know.
Slashdot Mirror
"Rakoff said any positive impact of MP3's activities on the recording companies prior market in no way frees the defendants to "usurp a further market" by reproducing the plaintiffs' copyrighted works. "
So from this should I infer that the Recording Industry is planning on setting up shop doing something similar, but charging us? At least it wasn't said that they were usurping the existing mrket of CD's, because if I understand how the service works then you had to have a copy of the CD to listen to any of it's tracks.
I think it's high time the copyright laws that allowed this ruling to happen are revisited. How can we see this happen?
Is the fact that they continually use the term "piracy". I can't help but thinking that lawyers should be able to choose a more descriptive, and less loaded term for unauthorized copying/distrobution. Maybe RMS ought to drop them a note. OTOH it does seem very well written, and seems to deliver their point quite well.
I beleive your thinking of the SDMI and DMAT. (WARNING: That second link goes straight into the belly of the beast!) Read up there if you want to find out more of what the Music Industry has planned for us consumers.
I'm assuming that CDNOW got their mp3's off of a CD in order to distribute them. Here in my hand is an "Eminem" CD (it was in our lab's lost+found). On the CD itself is the following;
Unauthorized reproduction of this recording is prohibited by Federal law and is subject to criminal prosecution.
Now if CDnow is legally able to distribute mp3's to you, that means they have sought and won authorization from the record label (I'm guessing) or the distributer. However I'm pretty certain that this license does not get transferred to whomever downloads the mp3's. If that is not enough consider the following from the CDnow website
Can downloaded music be copied or moved from one computer to another?
It depends on whether the music you downloaded has copy protection. Some music is given away freely and may be copied or moved. Digital Music Downloads that you buy from CDNOW cannot be copied or moved to another computer.
So this would lead one to believe that if the clips are music that is given to you gratis then you can do with it as you wish. If you paid for these clips then no.
As I said before, I think that the copyright laws right now are pretty ridiculous, and I'm only pointing this out to underline that, and to make sure people know exactly what those licenses say, since the movie and record industries seem more apt to pursue them.
You have said repeatedly that your goal is to put napster out of business. This despite the fact that there are already alternatives to this (Gnutella) that seem to be so distributed as to render a lawsuit against one central artery useless (as there is none). There is a saying that the internet routes around censorship, and it appears that even if napster were to go completely away, the internet would route around this by completely cutting out the "middle man" you spoke of in your yahoo chat.
When this happens, will you then go after the individuals who are trading your songs?
I downloaded several .mp3 clips for metallica songs off CDNOW. These are apparently legal files. They are available in my .MP3 directory. If I'm blocked from Napster, will I have a right to challenge the bad detective work of Metallica's hired guns?
/. I downloaded a few seconds of a Dr. Dre file. I listened to the first few seconds, and quickly terminated the download (total crap!). If that file is still on my hard-drive, am I illegally distributing Dr. Dre's song?
:-)
NO. CDnow is licensed to distribute those files, you are not licensed to distribute them. Kinda sucks, huh?
When the previous story about Dr. Dre was on
As long as your file is not in the shared file's path, you are not distributing it. However, since you attempted piracy (ahoy matey!), we are forced to take you to court for copyright infringement. Our lawyers will be in touch.
Note- I totally agree with you about how ridiculous this shit is, but since you're asking, may as well answer
But Metallica's actions don't seem to be geared towards legal precedents. They seem to be geared towards terrorizing young netizens, so that they are afraid to download music, no matter WHAT gets decided.
According to Metallica (the online chat) Their stated goal is to put napster out of business. Putting the fear of Lars into a bunch of youngsters is probably icing on th cake. I say good luck on Gnutella, opennap, anonymous ftp sites and the countless other distribution methods that are bound to spring up in the near future.
Apparently, in the court case that my.mp3.com recently lost, it's shown that you can't obtain someone elses fair use copy, even if you own an original. Of course the RIAA would like you to believe that you shuoldn't make mp3 copies of your works as fair use backup no matter what. Metallica said repeatedly in their online interview yesterday that they had no objections to the mp3 format in and of itself, I wonder for how long will they keep that position.
According to their Business and Licensing page, they are under the GPL (however they also sell other licenses). This is the distinction. The BSD license (The old one) requires the "noxious dvertising clause". Under the GPL you can feel free to remove any advertising or modify it in any way you like, so long as you provide source with any released binaries.
In either case, you could really do anything you wanted to, even change the advertising to microsoft.com if it's something you're only using on your own.
I thought it was "Rubber baby buggy bumpers". Oh wait, your's must be the extended version. My bad. Cheque's in the mail :-)
Of course it would be a pretty funny lawsuit to see happen;
Copyright infrengers vs. Napster.
I don't think that would be so smart. Why give them an opportunity to say "Those evil music pirates did this!", when you can come in and actually make them look total morons.
Here's a suggestion for someone able to get into the chat.
"Metallica, how would you feel knowing that while there is small time piracy going on among your fans, there is much larger problem lurking? How would you react to know that there are large groups acting in areas where your music is otherwise unavailable to distribute your music for outrageous prices, depriving your fans of an opportunity to collect as much of it, and depriving you as a band of the profits you deserve?"
Give them ample time to stick feet in mouth...
"Because that's exactly what your label is doing."
Feel free to reuse this any way you want.
...but now I prefer to think of the band as dead. Killed by a mishap in their own pyro effects on stage.
That pretty much sums up my feelings. I wrote (and I suggest everyone do this) my local rock station letting them know that every time I hear these knuckleheads I'm changing channels. I gave them a link to some of the recent coverage, and pointed out that this is a band that used to engourage bootlegging as a form of promotion. That band, I said will be sorely missed. As for these clowns on the radio now, I'd just as soon forget that they existed.
It's not ironic at all if you think about it. It's typical. Start hovering on some of the slashdot ads. There's actually a few that go through doubleclick, focalink, and perhaps more (those are the two I noticed recently)that I already have blocked in my hosts file on my home computer. There was a lot more info before bit-rot set in, over at the doubleclick sid. Interiot was the guy who did the digging, even wrote a bash script to dig through the pages here looking for doubledick ads.
:(
While I respect the fact that the NYTIMES and Slashdot both do and will publish articles about protecting our privacy, and then leave us to discuss mongst ourselves, it bothers me greatly that I still have to submit to tracking on any machine I don't have admin or root access to
And I'm sure doubleclick doesn't mind too awful much advertising on privacy-issue articles, as I imagine those are the ones that get the most hits in the tecnology sections of online newspapers.
Try my "create your own adventure" thread here. I've been advertising in my .sig for 4-5 days now and have gotten about 3 people in on it, but I would like to see more people involved. There are a few guidelines, but it being a roll-your-own sid there's not much in the way of enforcement. Just creating a loosely joined story from sid to sid and seeing where it goes. If you land on an empty, create one! If the current story gets out of hand, has too much bitrot or just doesn't suit you create another one.
.sig and URL, and discussion of the stories/whatever happens at sid=adventure.
I was going to wait for a quickies article to post this but it does seem ontopic, considering that it's a completely interactive project with not only no (real) rules, but no real goal other than amusement and entertainment of ones self and others.
Anyway, I'll not make a habit of spamming the boards with it, just thought it might intrigue those still awake. Try it sometime, it's rather small at the moment, and post up if you like it. The sid is in my
that * in the parent was meant to be a disclaimer at the bottom...I shameslessy stole that phrase from a post earlier up. It just sounded too damn cool :-)
Not a bad idea, except that I think the RIAA actually wants to see legalized MP3's fade into the night. Without companies acting as agents to assist people pursue their fair use*, the only thing left will be dirty, low-life music pirates! That's right, PIRATES. Storming the high seas and information highways and byways, waylaying unsuspecting artists of their gold and raping and pillaging helpless villages full of recording industry execs...
At least that will be the impression that they give once every trace of respectability is gone from music online. Remember noone ever got fired for buying a CD! FUD!
Anyway, my point is that they want us to pirate, at first. Sure they will lose some market share at first (after all they lost -15 billion-qaud-zillion last year alone), however once they convince every ISP out there that it's better to cease, desist and start harrassing their users rather than face a bag full of lawyers then it's pretty much curtains for everyone. Especially the independant artists that rely on the internet to get distrobution (even if there aren't that many now, why take the chance?)
Perhaps instead we should start grinding our own FUD-gears now. I already put up that picture off the paylars site here at work where napster and gnutella have been deemed inappropriate(read:will get your ass fired), and I think there are other things that we can do as a community to help. Take some of the posts here and Jon Katzize them, make a flyer and pass it out, especially at the Universities and all. It's probably too late to get napster re-legitimized, and perhaps it's actually better that way, however I think that the recording industry is doing more than going after pirates here. I think they want to paint everyone who ever listened to music on computer speakers with a beard, a peg-leg and a damn parrot on their shoulder.
I've never used the beam-it service, so this may be a non point, but I assume they stream this stuff, no?
If I own a CD, and bring it over to your house, and put it in your player and play it, have I broken the law? If I make a backup tape of my CD (Which I'm assuming is still legal, although the audio home recording act made my head swim so I'm not sure)...ok anyway, I bring my legal backup to your place and play it for you, is that illegal? Mind you I haven't given you a copy of anything at all, just let you listen to it.
(again)From what I understand, my.mp3.com is streaming, so in essence aren't they just letting you listen to their fair use backup as opposed to giving you your very own copy?
Even if my friend kept saying "Play trak 7 again please" and I was stupid enough to sit their all day rewinding it for the bastard (even though he owns the damn *CD* and I know because I saw it!) I still don't think I've broken any laws.
If I am breaking the law, then I think it's time some people woke up and changed the laws around a little. Either way, the RIAA is trying to shut down a service that *technically* legal or not, is fairly legitimate. The whole idea is based on trying to make sure people have access to their music and not pirate it.
What is going to be left is pirat^H^H^H^H^Hunathorised copying on a massive scale, because hey, mp3's are easy, even if the RIAA does not like them. The tools are all out, and it will take some massive re-education of the masses to make them feel as if they are doing something wrong. The media already seem to be on this (not surprising). Who knows. All I know is that they seem to be out to wreck a perfectly nice way to share and promote music, and will happily throw the baby out with the bathwater if need be.
OTOH, I have a pet conspiracy (oh shit you can't spell conspiracy without "piracy"!)that the RIAA is looking to set up shop with something *just* like mp3.com, beam-it and everything. The difference; you'll be asked to pay for their service, and the unsigned artists who want promotion will have to sign some restrictive agreement.
(sorry if this here turned into a rant. Maybe should have broken it up into more posts, oh well. Like you, I'm trying to sort it all out)
:-)
I'm emailing my local rock station right now. Apparently Metallica just released another song. I'm writing WJRR to let them know that every time they play a Metallica song, any era, I'm switching to a different station for at least one hour.
Even if you normally switch stations when you hear Metallica, write your radio stations and let them know this. Also email/write the sponsors of the radio stations. This is where Metallica fights for their marketshare, and if even a vocal few let the radio stations know that metallica=lost revenue they'll definately not get as much airplay as before.
Let them sue for all they want. We should make it worth their while.
RPM is basically a format for compressing the directory structure of the binaries you're trying to install, along with information about the requirements and versioning, which in theory makes sure that before you install a piece of S/W that you have all the prerequisite stuff in there. Most of the criticism of RPM seems to be that the package managers aren't always that nice (they'll lie about what they think you have/don't have on your system) and that the database where they store all this info crashes often.
.tar.gz file that you can simply unzip (in your root directory?) to install the files. I've always wound up just manually placing the binaries and symlinking until things seem to work when on my slackware. I think there may be more involved to converting RPMS to completely system/distro independant packages however.
It is supposed to be possible to install an RPM manager into a non Red-Hat system, however many people who use other distro's actually do so because they feel that among other things, the package formats for their distro are better (debian has a package manager who's users seem to love it, Slackware has one also but most of the other slackers I've seen prefer to untar, make, make install. to install their S/W).
There does exist a prgram that is supposed to convert RPMs to a
Also there is the source distrobution issue. If a company releases a binary-only RPM, and there is no way to actually get at the source and change some things (like the location of libraries that other distros may have elsewhere) then it doesn't matter if you can get the binaries installed or not. They simply won't work right.
I think there are a number of ways it could benefit them financially, and in other ways as well.
If you market something as easier to use than windows (just like they put their online service as easier to use than ISPs) then there will be people trying it out. I talk to people everyday asking for help with an ISP, who can barely use a mouse, they're frustrated to tears, and generally don't react well when told to read the help files or documentation. These people would walk away from Windows in a second if someone would offer AOL-OS.
This instantly cuts out a number of non-blessed applications such as total-recorder, napster, and the like that could be used to cut into their associated companies' bottom lines. What is already ported over to Be could simply be made useless by disabling the ports they operate on.
With AOL-OS connecting to the net will never be easier. Just press "NET!" and you are instantly taken to the AOL frontpage. The fact that they have given you a closed-everything OS with very few outside apps that (that they don't approve of) that work, they have control over how you see the Internet, and the outside world through that. Forget doubleclick, AOL-OS will create and store a profile of you that will allow you to receive ads for whatever they feel you'll buy. By not being able to use AOL-OS with any other provider, and making it beyond point-and-drool, they'll slowly be able to turn their subscribers into their own demographic, the AOL-sheeple.
This may be somewhat far fetched, I'll admit. However the possibility is there to completely control a person's computing experience and exploit them totally and shamelessly. There are people now who would gladly trade all control over their experience to be able to send email without a hassle or having to remember a password.
1/2 rabid "kill kill kill" posts, and 1/2 "hey, let's at least talk to them first." posts
:)
I think perhaps we need a new category for this sort of thing, something that will help diffuse these otherwise ugly occurrences.
I'd like to humbly propose we accept the suggestion made by suck.com, and use From the Jihad, Jihad dept. for news of GPL violations. They even have a cute little topic icon for us to use. Seriously, taken in such light it would be hard to justify some of the over-the-top responses that news like this seems to get.
Just a suggestion
I posted something similar a while back, only I ws thinking more of a sliding scale. Any 0 posts should be cut off at 10 lines by default, anything at -1 gets it at 5 lines. If it gets moderated up then make it add 5 or 10 lines for each point it gets moderated up. In your preferences you could adjust the sliding scale by X lines in either direction...
One other idea I had was a "SPAM" moderation category, specifically for the ^C^V people, the sex stories and also the complaint generator/filter folks, that implemented the above sliding scale, while leaving normally moderated posts the way they currently are handled.
OOG may have a hard time adjusting to the new server. Go there and try to post something all caps. It WON'T LET YOU. This post probably wouldn't make it past the "lameness filter" they've implemented (I tried with varying portions of the comment capsed and it won't let anything with more than like two words capsed through).
:D
I hope they reconsider this one, as the moderators seem to take care of shouters pretty well, and the only person who seems to use all caps regularly is one of the funnier posters we have (IMO). Please, Rob, preserve the individualism that has made slashdot as fun to visit as it has been in the past, and at least give OOG a special dispensation or something
I've never messed with the actual boot loader, however the Ranish Partition Manager is one of the coolest partitining programs I've ever used. It does have the option to put in a custom boot loader. If anyone has any experience good or bad with it please let me know.