I bought Blue Man Group's album, Audio , last month. It plays fine on my portable CD player, but put it in the CD-ROM drive, and it misbehaves. I can't even rip it. I have a license to make fair use copies of it, so presumably, if I can find MP3s of this album, aren't I entitled to download them?
THe problem is that not everyone is entitled
to download them. Sure, you'd probably have an argument if the files were only shared for those who had the album.
As for the "presumption of guilt" -- well, aren't the vast majority of Napster users guilty here ? I mean, you should be blaming the Napster mob for their disrespect for the law and for their enthusiasm for illegaly downloading material.
If the panhandler protocol is such a good model, then why doesn't anyone want to use it ? Why is it a model so frequently wished upon others, but so rarely wished upon oneself ?
I ask you, would you accept a position as (for example) a consultant, where your clients paid you arbitrary amounts, anonymously, out of "good will" ?
This has all the makings of a win-lose model, which is why the self centered Napster mob are so enthusiastic in their desire to see other people use that model, while they would never contemplate accepting such a silly compensation scheme in their own professional activity.
I would guess that they would target large scale offenders. BTW, "discrimination" is pretty hard to prove (especially if there's no discrimination except that against those who have no respect for the law)
Just because there is no reason for you to do so, doesn't mean there is no reason for me to do it. I might just want to test the speed of my network connection.
Remember, "reasonable suspicion". The above is possible, but highly improbable.
You're not using the SPP though. Moreover, noone wants to read books on-screen (maybe this will change -- when we have 300 DPI screens)
BTW, how much money do you get for the book ? And how much per copy ? (you can email me if you like, I'm just curious, considering writing a book some time)
I don't believe the company itself can violate criminal law. The reason is that the point (or at least a point) of becoming incorporated is that employees can hide behind the company if there are lawsuits. However, they can't do the same in criminal cases (and rightly so!) So if an employee violates criminal law acting on part of the company, they will probably be charged.
that it is "wrongful act or threat". There is no requirement that the threatened action be "unlawful.
I would have thought "wrongful act or threat" would imply "unlawful" (though not necessarily "criminal"). What's the difference between "wrongful termination" and "unlawful termination" ?
Agree to a pay cut or be fired. Sign this agreement to bathe my dog every week or be fired. Sign this agreement to work 80
hours per week or be fired.
I think those are all unlawful. Is it legal to reduce an employees pay without changing either their job or working hours ? Is it legal to require employees to bathe the boss's dog ? Is it legal to require employees to work 80 hour weeks ?
No, employment agreements do not count as "duress" (because the company are not obliged to give you a job, they would not be depriving you of any rights by not giving you a job). I think the issue is less clear though if you're asked to sign after you've already been working with the company for some time, though it's still not really duress.
Cut the partisan rubbish. Non-competes are not legal in some liberal states, including California. And it's bit the liberals who tend to favour employers over employees
If you don't want them browsing your files, then don't serve them !!! (DUH!) It's NOT "hacking into your computer" if you're serving the files, just as it's not "hacking into a computer" when you download packages off rpmfind.net.
It's funny how the SPP is untested. I wonder why ? Perhaps it's because the SPP is a model that everyone wants others to use, but they don't want to use it themselves. I mean, would you accept a consulting job where your clients anonymously tipped you out of "good will" when they "felt like it" ? Face it, no one's tested it because no one is stupid enough to want to use it, though there are some who are malicious enough to wish it upon others.
Why ? Because if the existing record companies are as inefficient as the slashbots claim, then someone who is more efficient could make a killing in the industry. That's why.
You've raised a good example -- and I'd like to point out that people do sometimes protest against even these laws (specifically on homosexuality) by writing confessions and turning themselves in, in an attempt to get arrested and make a statement about the absurdity of the law in question.
Everything you listed except for windows (which is a $cientlogist plot) started out as or builds upon significant academic, research work.
Depends on what you mean by "academic" and "research work". A lot of it took place at Bell Labs, Xerox-Parc, and Adobe -- not a University. None of it started out as GPL work, and none of it was licensed under something that RMS (or even ESR) would approve of. (and to this date, a lot of these things are semi-proprietary). BTW, add ssh to the list. (Yeah, I know there's a free copycat version but it didn't start out like that)
While I agree that a certain degree of openness helps (for example, making source available for peer review), I don't see any convincing arguments that OpenSource software is more innovative.
Now here's my challenge to you -- name at least 10 open source innovations, preferably GPL.
well the artists aren't being compensated anyhow..what percentage of recording artists ever see any profit from their work
The artists are being compensated if not very well. The RIAA model certainly works better than the Napster model where you just grab everything.
I agree that the record companies are a bunch of greedy thugs, but this in itself gives them more in common with the napsterite thugs than either party would like to admit. My take on it is that both sides are selfish thieving scumbags, it sort of reminds me of two school bullies fighting over a third kids lunch.
I hope the napster scumbags getlocked up and someone comes up with a better model (without cheating the artist) and the record companies all go out of business.
Proprietary, copyrighted data is more innovative and creative than free data? hardly
This comment is baseless, and IMO you are just airing your bias.
It's inevitable that a culture that encourages , rewards and values innovation will be more innovative. It's interesting to note a strong correlation between countries that enforce their copyright/IP laws and countries that innovate.
Examples of proprietary innovation ? UNIX, MacOS, Postscript/PDF, Windows, Smalltalk, C, C++, Java, gif, RSA and Plan 9 either are or began as proprietary inventions.
Most of the open source stuff plays copycat, though there are some exceptions.
Maybe it's time we revert to the practice of people producing art because they are compelled to, not because they are paid to
No one gets into art because it's profitable. It simply isn't. However, it'd be really nice if good artists could make themselves a reasonable living.
When artists are paid only on commission, or for a live performance. That is, they earn their living like the rest of us,
How many people with CS degrees work for commission only ? Artists do not enjoy a stable income, unlike other professionals.
And don't anyone spout that tired old line about how no one will create without getting paid to do so
A better way to put it is that someone has to pay with their resources for the creative works. For example, the author needs to invest time to develop the work. If the author is compensated for their time, they can manage more than a few spare hours after work here and there.
This doesn't in any way invalidate the free software movement. It's also true that free software authors can get more done if they have more time to spend on their work. However, ther eare more sources of corporate/academic sponsorship for developers.
Art is not an endeavor in which one should expect to "Earn a living". It is a gift which the artist willingly and lovingly shares with others.
Why should this not be true for any profession -- finance, economics, mathematics, software development, etc ? I'm sure anyone truly interested in these fields enjoys them and thinks that others should. But the fact that a profession is enjoyable doesn't mean that it is not worthy of financial reward. If you are a productive member of society, you should be rewarded for that, and this is true even if you enjoy your work.
Any artist who would give up his art because no one would pay for it, is most likely a very poor artist.
Any fan who doesn't think that artists are worthy of compensation is a very poor fan. BTW, artists who are not supported and have to work day jobs will obviously have less time for their art than full time artists, even if they enjoy it.
You seem to think that being an artist is like being a plumber or a software engineer
Why not ? Shouldn't software engineers create and design software just for the love of it ? Shouldn't the same logic apply to any profession that is moderately enjoyable ?
It is *NOT* morally incorrect to dload files from Napster - it is proven by the fact that their are *50 MILLION* Americans using Napster.
Who cares ? History if nothing else will tell you that it's actually very easy for 50 million people to be wrong. The fact that they might have good reason to be angry doesn't make them right either -- most communist uprisings in history also involved large numbers of people, who had good reason to be annoyed with the powers that be. But that doesn't mean they were right. An angry mob is rarely capable of behaving ethically, and the fact that those they rebel against are wrong does not make them right.
The problem is that it discourages innovation. It doesn't hurt the dealer so much as the inventor. I'm astounded by the lack of respect for innovation and creativity the slashdot herd have.
Slashdot Mirror
THe problem is that not everyone is entitled to download them. Sure, you'd probably have an argument if the files were only shared for those who had the album.
As for the "presumption of guilt" -- well, aren't the vast majority of Napster users guilty here ? I mean, you should be blaming the Napster mob for their disrespect for the law and for their enthusiasm for illegaly downloading material.
I ask you, would you accept a position as (for example) a consultant, where your clients paid you arbitrary amounts, anonymously, out of "good will" ?
This has all the makings of a win-lose model, which is why the self centered Napster mob are so enthusiastic in their desire to see other people use that model, while they would never contemplate accepting such a silly compensation scheme in their own professional activity.
50 million people wanted Al Gore to win the election.
I would guess that they would target large scale offenders. BTW, "discrimination" is pretty hard to prove (especially if there's no discrimination except that against those who have no respect for the law)
Remember, "reasonable suspicion". The above is possible, but highly improbable.
BTW, how much money do you get for the book ? And how much per copy ? (you can email me if you like, I'm just curious, considering writing a book some time)
I would have thought "wrongful act or threat" would imply "unlawful" (though not necessarily "criminal"). What's the difference between "wrongful termination" and "unlawful termination" ?
Agree to a pay cut or be fired. Sign this agreement to bathe my dog every week or be fired. Sign this agreement to work 80 hours per week or be fired.
I think those are all unlawful. Is it legal to reduce an employees pay without changing either their job or working hours ? Is it legal to require employees to bathe the boss's dog ? Is it legal to require employees to work 80 hour weeks ?
Cut the partisan rubbish. Non-competes are not legal in some liberal states, including California. And it's bit the liberals who tend to favour employers over employees
Maybe he's got a day job, where he's not payed under the SPP (-;
However, if they take you to court, they'd better at least listen to the files first.
If you don't want them browsing your files, then don't serve them !!! (DUH!) It's NOT "hacking into your computer" if you're serving the files, just as it's not "hacking into a computer" when you download packages off rpmfind.net.
Why ? Because if the existing record companies are as inefficient as the slashbots claim, then someone who is more efficient could make a killing in the industry. That's why.
Depends on what you mean by "academic" and "research work". A lot of it took place at Bell Labs, Xerox-Parc, and Adobe -- not a University. None of it started out as GPL work, and none of it was licensed under something that RMS (or even ESR) would approve of. (and to this date, a lot of these things are semi-proprietary). BTW, add ssh to the list. (Yeah, I know there's a free copycat version but it didn't start out like that)
While I agree that a certain degree of openness helps (for example, making source available for peer review), I don't see any convincing arguments that OpenSource software is more innovative.
Now here's my challenge to you -- name at least 10 open source innovations, preferably GPL.
The artists are being compensated if not very well. The RIAA model certainly works better than the Napster model where you just grab everything.
I agree that the record companies are a bunch of greedy thugs, but this in itself gives them more in common with the napsterite thugs than either party would like to admit. My take on it is that both sides are selfish thieving scumbags, it sort of reminds me of two school bullies fighting over a third kids lunch.
I hope the napster scumbags getlocked up and someone comes up with a better model (without cheating the artist) and the record companies all go out of business.
This comment is baseless, and IMO you are just airing your bias. It's inevitable that a culture that encourages , rewards and values innovation will be more innovative. It's interesting to note a strong correlation between countries that enforce their copyright/IP laws and countries that innovate.
Examples of proprietary innovation ? UNIX, MacOS, Postscript/PDF, Windows, Smalltalk, C, C++, Java, gif, RSA and Plan 9 either are or began as proprietary inventions. Most of the open source stuff plays copycat, though there are some exceptions.
No one gets into art because it's profitable. It simply isn't. However, it'd be really nice if good artists could make themselves a reasonable living.
When artists are paid only on commission, or for a live performance. That is, they earn their living like the rest of us,
How many people with CS degrees work for commission only ? Artists do not enjoy a stable income, unlike other professionals.
And don't anyone spout that tired old line about how no one will create without getting paid to do so
A better way to put it is that someone has to pay with their resources for the creative works. For example, the author needs to invest time to develop the work. If the author is compensated for their time, they can manage more than a few spare hours after work here and there. This doesn't in any way invalidate the free software movement. It's also true that free software authors can get more done if they have more time to spend on their work. However, ther eare more sources of corporate/academic sponsorship for developers.
Art is not an endeavor in which one should expect to "Earn a living". It is a gift which the artist willingly and lovingly shares with others.
Why should this not be true for any profession -- finance, economics, mathematics, software development, etc ? I'm sure anyone truly interested in these fields enjoys them and thinks that others should. But the fact that a profession is enjoyable doesn't mean that it is not worthy of financial reward. If you are a productive member of society, you should be rewarded for that, and this is true even if you enjoy your work.
Any artist who would give up his art because no one would pay for it, is most likely a very poor artist.
Any fan who doesn't think that artists are worthy of compensation is a very poor fan. BTW, artists who are not supported and have to work day jobs will obviously have less time for their art than full time artists, even if they enjoy it.
Why not ? Shouldn't software engineers create and design software just for the love of it ? Shouldn't the same logic apply to any profession that is moderately enjoyable ?
The radio station pays rolyalty to the record company, that's the difference. thanks for playing.
Who cares ? History if nothing else will tell you that it's actually very easy for 50 million people to be wrong. The fact that they might have good reason to be angry doesn't make them right either -- most communist uprisings in history also involved large numbers of people, who had good reason to be annoyed with the powers that be. But that doesn't mean they were right. An angry mob is rarely capable of behaving ethically, and the fact that those they rebel against are wrong does not make them right.