As I understand it, the *NIX equivalent of Access is Berkely DB. Small, lightweight, stores all its information in a single file. They've got 4 different versions depending on your needs and support pretty much any OS.
Re:Move the onus from the recipient to the sender.
on
IETF to Look at Spam
·
· Score: 1
I think HashCash does a much better job of moving the onus to the sender. It requires that the mail server sending the message burns a certain amount of CPU cycles. For messages sent to one or two recipients, the computations necessary to send the message are small and unobtrusive. For SPAM messages sent to a couple of hundred thousand people, the necessary CPU power to complete the calculations would be more costly than the revenue that the SPAM would generate.
It also has the advantage that it can be implemented into the SMTP protocol in such a way that individual admins could decide whether they only want to accept HashCashed messages. ISPs could decide to whitelist the servers they know are not open relays and have effective AUPs (other ISPs) so that they don't have to burn CPU cycles on their mail servers unnecessarily.
We have the same thing here in San Francisco (minus the non-working java applet, but with access from any Palm or web-enabled cell phone). It's only for a few of the most popular bus/metro lines, but there's been talk of expanding it system wide.
Well...since you brought up suggestions for implementation, I thought I'd throw out the quick-n-dirty implementation that I'm planning to make her life easier.
The requirements for my project are pretty simple since my mother only uses two forms in her billing (there are a myriad of other forms, but she doesn't see clients that necessitate the use of those forms).
So, my plan is to write a nice little palm app to handle the data entry component (easy to take to the office.) Then write a little "glue" component in C++ to use FDF to output PDFs which she can store instead of her word documents. Since creating PDFs basically solves all the nasty printing issues, it seemed like an easy way around a lot of the hassles that implementing it from scratch would entail.
If I were implementing a solution for a much more generalized segment of the psychological community, I might be inclined to include more database functionality like you suggested, but my mom doesn't need that. I might still use the FDF stuff...its pretty darn cool for anything that requires data be printed in a pre-defined format.
For a more specific idea, think about designing accounting software for a niche market.
As an example, my mother is a psychologist. She does her billing in Word (I've tried to teach her basic Excel, but it's a bit too complex for her). There are aparently software packages out there to help people like her do billing, but she says that her experience with them has be significantly less than positive. If there was a decent application out there that allowed her to manage her billing and print out the necessary forms, she and many other psychologists would probably pay at least a few hundred $s for a license.
I would start looking into niches where professionals (lawyers, doctors or other people with money) might need custom software (either accounting or otherwise.) Look at the current software (read user reviews, try it, etc) and see if you can find an area where you can produce something that is considerably better than what's available.
If they had had the money lost to the pirates they could've produced some good quality movies instead of the garbage cast upon us.
The poor quality of movies has nothing to do with lacking money. In point of fact, it is a new DRM solution that the MPAA is experimenting with. It's already been proven that DRM solutions applied to the finished product do not work (I won't rehash the DeCSS fiasco, but suffice it to say that it didn't work for the MPAA). They've therefore shifted to applying their DRM solution to the screenplay. They're hoping that the screenplay encoding format (known in some artistic circles as the "filmmaking process") will prove too difficult for the pirates to crack.
And it *does* to be working. Had the original script of "Mr. Deeds" been made into a movie, there would have been rampant piracy. However, I have yet to see a single pirated copy of "Mr. Deeds." No other DRM technology has yet proven this successful. Like it or not, you should expect to see more of this technology in the future.
However, the MPAA cannot relax yet. Hackers are said to be hard at work on cracking the screenplay encoding format. It's rumored that a fully functional, Keanu Reeves simulation already exists, though most believe that it is incapable of encoding any line other than, "Whoah!"
Maybe they should measure an operation based on something that is actually illegal...like, say, illegally copied CDs. The number of CD burners is about as relevant as the number of orange peels in their garbage can.
It's logic like that that allows the DEA to prosecute people for playing techno music and selling bottled water (something the DEA has officially classified as "Drug Paraphernalia")
I used to have a mild case of CTS. I could only go about an hour before typing would become too painful. My wrist position while typing is pretty much as bad as could possibly be imagined, so that probably had something to do with it.
Then I started climbing. Climbing builds insane amounts of finger and wrist strength. I can now support my entire body weight (which has decreased by 30 lbs too!) hanging from any one of my fingers.
And my CTS is gone. Entirely. I routinely go 8-10 hours of continual typing (yes, I am a programmer) without any pain whatsoever. And my wrist position is as bad as ever.
You do know that "on the order of $50/ea" means they cost between $5 and $500, right?
I didn't realize that. Aparently dictionary.com didn't either:
(quoting from link)
on the order of
1. Of a kind or fashion similar to; like: a house on the order of a mountain lodge.
2. Approximately; about: equipment costing on the order of a million dollars.
(end quote)
Yes, I do hypenate analretentive.;-)
It would appear that you forgot in this case;-) (maybe it was stolen along with the second 'h' in hyphenate)
Granted this was back during the boom period, but it wasn't that expensive. I think, in the quantity that they ordered, they were on the order of $50/ea.
Everyone associated with the LOTR films is cursed and I wish the same on whoever makes a Tintin film.
Not that you've seen the special features on the extended DVD, but Christopher Lee specifically talks about his meeting JRRT and receiving permission to play Gandalf if LotR was ever made into a movie. That might lead one believe that JRRT didn't necessarily take "...a lot of trouble to build a beautiful, complex world that cannot be duplicated on film." So while you don't feel that it can be well represented on screen, it most likely wasn't the opinion of JRRT.
Also, having seen the effort that Peter Jackson put into the films, I think he deserves some credit for bringing the story to a whole new generation who might never have read the books.
(And by the by...I can speak from experience that if you've read the books more than 10 times, you don't lose your own vision of the story by seeing the film).
[ Slashdotia ] Posted by CmdrTaco on 2002-11-14 20:00 from the how-the-hell-are-we-going-to-run-this-country dept. So now that we've suceded from the United States, we need some laws (trolling, spamming, windows-useing, corecting people's speling, etc). So here's your chance to have an impact. The top 10 moderated posts become law!
A lot of times manufacturers will require Windows because they don't want to have to support linux/mac users, not becuase their product will not work with those OSs. Go online and find out from users whether it will work with Linux.
For example, I recently purchase the 128MB Nike mp3 player (best form factor for exercising...the new philips one, not the sonicblue model). They claim that it is only compatible with Windows/Mac. However, all it does is represent itself as a Windows drive (haven't tried it on the mac). When I boot into linux, I just mount it the same way I'd mount a USB HD. Then you just copy the mp3s to it like you would any FS. You can't copy files off it (DRM, I guess), but otherwise it's a fully compliant external USB HD.
3. LCD's don't have that annoying screen refresh that gives people (me, anyway) an awful headache. Buy a decent monitor. I had that problem too, until I ditched my 3-year old CRT and got a KDS flat CRT. Notched the refresh rate up to about 75Hz and no more headaches.
It's not the head ache that concerns me, but the eye strain. After 8-10 of staring at a CRT (like I do at work), my eyes feel noticeably tired. However I can stare at my LCD at home for 15-20 hours on end without feeling any fatigue.
Also, text is markedly clearer on my LCD. I used to think that my CRT was perfectly clear, but once you see text on a good LCD, you'll realize that there is a big difference between even a high quality CRT.
Since staring at code for long periods of time is my livelihood, the $1000 investment for a high-quality LCD (Samsung 191T...quite a good LCD IMHO) was an easy one. They may not be for everyone, but if you spend substantial time in front of a computer and value your eye sight, you should probably think about getting one.
So how is their situation any better because the bill was blocked? Do you think the RIAA actually wanted this bill? Do you think the RIAA will now negociate in good faith to give webcasters a better deal?
The only reason the RIAA negociated this deal was for good PR (or lack of bad PR...the webcasters who would have benefitted from this spent a lot of effort rallying support against CARP). Now, with the bill killed, the RIAA gets to collect higher fees, kill off internet radio and not get blamed for it.
Meanwhile, small webcasters have managed to kill off the only ally that they had (medium-sized webcasters). Without the organized lobbying put forth by the medium-sized webcasters, nothing will get done and CARP will kill off internet radio.
D, band together with other small broadcasters and split the RIAA fee. So long as you source all of your material from a single location, you only have to pay once.
Oh and...if $500/year will "put you out of business", you were never "in business" to begin with.
The best trance stations on the internet went down because of this law.
I hope you're referring to the DMCA and not HR5469 (the one that Helms killed in the Senate). The latter would have kept DI on the air permanently and probably would have brought TTT back on the air (I'm sure he could have raised enough in donations to pay the proposed fees).
Everyone here seems to be under the misguided impression that killing this bill was a good thing because it didn't do enough to ensure that small webcasters could continue broadcasting. But people fail to realize that the alternative to this bill isn't likely to be a new bill. It'll most likely mean that CARP rates will go into effect (should SoundExchange choose to enforce them) and the stations that would have been able to be financially viable under the proposed bill, will no longer be.
The bill he killed would have allowed many mid-level webcasters to stay on the air. Now, it's only by the grace of the RIAA (SoundExchange) that they're allowed to do so. Helms is doing the RIAA's bidding under the guise of representing small webcasters.
Small Webcasters have been griping that this bill doesn't do enough for them and would rather see the entire webcasting industry destroyed rather than have part of it live on to continue the fight against the RIAA.
If helms was truly representing his constituents, he would be thinking about the hundreds of thousands of NC residents who listen to web radio rather a few confused and bitter webcasters who feel that they've been slighted by a process that was hopeless to begin with.
The responses to Rusty's letter all seem to be shortsighted, bitter and overly idealistic. They entirely miss the reality of the situation. Namely, it is: Come October 20th, the DMCA mandated fees decided by CARP will be due and no one but the largest webcasters (yahoo et al) will be able to afford it.
Killing HR5469 won't mean that both sides go back to the bargaining table to negociate a new deal. The RIAA had little reason to negociate HR5469 in the first place. They only did it because they saw it as a PR win due to the negative publicity stirred up by webcasters like SomaFM. Since webcasters came to the table with very little to offer the RIAA, HR5469 basically represents what the RIAA was willing to give up. If that means the smallest webcasters are SOL, then there was basically no posibility that they wouldn't be. Opposing the bill is basically just sour grapes that those large enough to be helped by HR5469 will be able to continue to operate legally.
Let me respond point by point to the letter posted above:
"What happened with HR 5469 directly affects EVERYONE is the webcasting community and to pretend otherwise is a joke."
This is true. While small webcasters will not be directly affected by HR5469, if the bill isn't passed, the mid-level webcasters without pockets deep enough to pay CARP fees will go away. Then who will be left to oppose the RIAA and fight for the small webcasters? No one. The RIAA will have no one left who is organized enough to lobby against them. Small webcasters like to make it seem like HR5469 is exactly what medium-sized webcasters wanted. This is completely false. There is specific language in HR5469 that says that that the agreement is *not* voluntary and has been forced upon them by the RIAA. HR5469 is a first step, but there might not be any further steps if it doesn't pass.
"But there is something horribly wrong with the FACT that what began as a private negotiation ended up being turned into a piece of legislation forced as a yolk around the necks of people who had no say in the matter."
On the contrary, the yoke you're feeling is the DMCA. You're free to ignore HR5469 completely if you so choose. The only difference HR5469 has is that it gives you the option of paying $500/year instead of the outlandish per listener charges imposed by CARP.
"I am tired of being asked as a member of the webcasting industry to accept something so horribly wrong just because some people think this deal was "the best they could get."
Ok, so you try getting something better from the RIAA. You hire a lawyer/lobbiest to negociate a deal. Saying that this isn't the best deal that could be gotten is disingenuous and assumes that there was good faith on the part of the RIAA to find a solution that would be acceptable to small webcasters. I think most of/. would agree that the RIAA has no interest in lowering the barrier to entry in this arena (or any arena where they are involved).
"To me it would be like being invited over to lunch and expecting to eat Chicken Salad - and then being served Chicken S**t. There might be a large portion of the webcasting community who can stomach that, but I can't."
On the contrary, you were told that you can eat the leftovers if you so choose. You're getting free food...it's entirely your choice whether to eat it or not. So you're hungry...but that isn't the fault of the people who gave you the leftovers.
"The RIAA never had any intention of dealing fairly, honestly and respectfully with the webcasting industry. Those that sat down privately to negotiate a deal for themselves did so in their own best interest and for their own individual reasons. I don't believe there was anything wrong with that."
Exactly. The RIAA has never intended to make it possible for very small webcasters to operate legally. The fact that the mid-level webcasters sat down and hammered out a deal with the RIAA that would allow them to continue to broadcast can only be seen as a good thing. For the most part, these webcasters are not faceless corporations who only care about their own existance. They are labors of love who will continue to fight for the rights of the smaller webcasters. To silence them will mean that there will be no one left to negociate with the RIAA.
"But when the self-serving agenda of a few becomes something that is foisted upon the community as a whole, then I cannot, must not and will not stand by and accept such an American Injustice."
Again, I challenge you to show that anything has or will be "foisted upon" you by HR 5469. You're free to go by the CARP regulations if you so choose. Please show how the agenda of the webcasters who negotiated this deal has hurt your situation (and you might try using an actual argument instead of just spouting rhetoric.)
"Just because people are claiming right now that HR 5469 in its present form will not really hurt the industry does not mean that is the truth. The only entity that HR 5469 helps is the RIAA and it is a sad truth that they care nothing about the industry they are destroying."
Fact: if HR 5469 does not pass, any webcaster that has any voice in Washington will stop broadcasting (aside from the large corporations unaffected by HR 5469.) You're right that the RIAA doesn't care. But shutting down the only people with a voice loud enough to make the RIAA take notice is misguided, short-sighted and foolish.
This whole "rift" in the webcasting community only helps the RIAA. Webcasters should be happy and support any measure that benefits any member of their community. To do otherwise only ensures the RIAA will get their way.
The uninformed would probably be saying that. But people who actually follow the XML specs would realize that MS has contributed a lot to the development of XML. IIRC, XSDs were Microsoft's idea and they're a big improvement over DTDs.
I would prefer that Microsoft participate in *more* standards decisions. I only have problems with Microsoft are when they decide to create their own proprietary and closed standard (SMB, Exchange, etc).
If standards are public, then everyone is free to compete on the implementations of those standards. If Microsoft ends up being the best at implementing the standard, then more power to them (and I would hope that people would buy their products). It's only when Microsoft prevents others from creating a competing implementation that I take issue.
It's pretty hard to pay ASCAP/BMI/CESAC fees with "community resources." If you think that Rusty doesn't leverage every connection he has, you're wrong.
If you'd subscribed to the mailing list that most webcasters are on, Rusty outlined a number of loopholes created by this bill. For example, you could band together with a few other small webcasters and split the $500 fee. As long as all the material is sourced at the same location, there is only one fee.
Like it or not, the group that lobbied for this bill tried to save its own neck. If you don't like the agreement, go lobby for your own bill...you're free to ignore this one.
I'd rather fight for a fair deal for everyone, not just the biggest of the little guys.
Great, then fight for it. Go negociate with the RIAA and make a deal. That's what these guys have done. They realized that the current deal only favored much larger webcasters. So they hammered out a deal that will keep them on the air. They fought hard for the provisions that they did get (it's not like the RIAA was eagerly hoping for all the stuff in the bill). And you get the benefits of all their hard work...after all, the bill is better than the CARP rates, right?
So what do you do? Do you thank them for working out a bill that actually allows you to continue broadcasting? (something the current rates do not) Do you go out and lobby for your own settlement? No. You whine that you can't get your way and try to ensure that others don't either.
On top of that, Rusty posted to the mailing list a long list of loopholes created by this bill that would allow you to keep broadcasting. Simply band together with other small broadcasters and you all get to split the $500 payment...suddenly you have the $250 minimum you keep whining about.
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand it, the *NIX equivalent of Access is Berkely DB. Small, lightweight, stores all its information in a single file. They've got 4 different versions depending on your needs and support pretty much any OS.
I think HashCash does a much better job of moving the onus to the sender. It requires that the mail server sending the message burns a certain amount of CPU cycles. For messages sent to one or two recipients, the computations necessary to send the message are small and unobtrusive. For SPAM messages sent to a couple of hundred thousand people, the necessary CPU power to complete the calculations would be more costly than the revenue that the SPAM would generate.
It also has the advantage that it can be implemented into the SMTP protocol in such a way that individual admins could decide whether they only want to accept HashCashed messages. ISPs could decide to whitelist the servers they know are not open relays and have effective AUPs (other ISPs) so that they don't have to burn CPU cycles on their mail servers unnecessarily.
We have the same thing here in San Francisco (minus the non-working java applet, but with access from any Palm or web-enabled cell phone). It's only for a few of the most popular bus/metro lines, but there's been talk of expanding it system wide.
More info here
Well...since you brought up suggestions for implementation, I thought I'd throw out the quick-n-dirty implementation that I'm planning to make her life easier.
The requirements for my project are pretty simple since my mother only uses two forms in her billing (there are a myriad of other forms, but she doesn't see clients that necessitate the use of those forms).
So, my plan is to write a nice little palm app to handle the data entry component (easy to take to the office.) Then write a little "glue" component in C++ to use FDF to output PDFs which she can store instead of her word documents. Since creating PDFs basically solves all the nasty printing issues, it seemed like an easy way around a lot of the hassles that implementing it from scratch would entail.
If I were implementing a solution for a much more generalized segment of the psychological community, I might be inclined to include more database functionality like you suggested, but my mom doesn't need that. I might still use the FDF stuff...its pretty darn cool for anything that requires data be printed in a pre-defined format.
For a more specific idea, think about designing accounting software for a niche market.
As an example, my mother is a psychologist. She does her billing in Word (I've tried to teach her basic Excel, but it's a bit too complex for her). There are aparently software packages out there to help people like her do billing, but she says that her experience with them has be significantly less than positive. If there was a decent application out there that allowed her to manage her billing and print out the necessary forms, she and many other psychologists would probably pay at least a few hundred $s for a license.
I would start looking into niches where professionals (lawyers, doctors or other people with money) might need custom software (either accounting or otherwise.) Look at the current software (read user reviews, try it, etc) and see if you can find an area where you can produce something that is considerably better than what's available.
If they had had the money lost to the pirates they could've produced some good quality movies instead of the garbage cast upon us.
The poor quality of movies has nothing to do with lacking money. In point of fact, it is a new DRM solution that the MPAA is experimenting with. It's already been proven that DRM solutions applied to the finished product do not work (I won't rehash the DeCSS fiasco, but suffice it to say that it didn't work for the MPAA). They've therefore shifted to applying their DRM solution to the screenplay. They're hoping that the screenplay encoding format (known in some artistic circles as the "filmmaking process") will prove too difficult for the pirates to crack.
And it *does* to be working. Had the original script of "Mr. Deeds" been made into a movie, there would have been rampant piracy. However, I have yet to see a single pirated copy of "Mr. Deeds." No other DRM technology has yet proven this successful. Like it or not, you should expect to see more of this technology in the future.
However, the MPAA cannot relax yet. Hackers are said to be hard at work on cracking the screenplay encoding format. It's rumored that a fully functional, Keanu Reeves simulation already exists, though most believe that it is incapable of encoding any line other than, "Whoah!"
Maybe they should measure an operation based on something that is actually illegal...like, say, illegally copied CDs. The number of CD burners is about as relevant as the number of orange peels in their garbage can.
It's logic like that that allows the DEA to prosecute people for playing techno music and selling bottled water (something the DEA has officially classified as "Drug Paraphernalia")
Rock Climbing (indoor or outdoor).
I used to have a mild case of CTS. I could only go about an hour before typing would become too painful. My wrist position while typing is pretty much as bad as could possibly be imagined, so that probably had something to do with it.
Then I started climbing. Climbing builds insane amounts of finger and wrist strength. I can now support my entire body weight (which has decreased by 30 lbs too!) hanging from any one of my fingers.
And my CTS is gone. Entirely. I routinely go 8-10 hours of continual typing (yes, I am a programmer) without any pain whatsoever. And my wrist position is as bad as ever.
this or this
You do know that "on the order of $50/ea" means they cost between $5 and $500, right?
;-)
;-) (maybe it was stolen along with the second 'h' in hyphenate)
I didn't realize that. Aparently dictionary.com didn't either:
(quoting from link)
on the order of
1. Of a kind or fashion similar to; like: a house on the order of a mountain lodge.
2. Approximately; about: equipment costing on the order of a million dollars.
(end quote)
Yes, I do hypenate analretentive.
It would appear that you forgot in this case
...was a GameBoy.
Granted this was back during the boom period, but it wasn't that expensive. I think, in the quantity that they ordered, they were on the order of $50/ea.
Everyone associated with the LOTR films is cursed and I wish the same on whoever makes a Tintin film.
Not that you've seen the special features on the extended DVD, but Christopher Lee specifically talks about his meeting JRRT and receiving permission to play Gandalf if LotR was ever made into a movie. That might lead one believe that JRRT didn't necessarily take "...a lot of trouble to build a beautiful, complex world that cannot be duplicated on film." So while you don't feel that it can be well represented on screen, it most likely wasn't the opinion of JRRT.
Also, having seen the effort that Peter Jackson put into the films, I think he deserves some credit for bringing the story to a whole new generation who might never have read the books.
(And by the by...I can speak from experience that if you've read the books more than 10 times, you don't lose your own vision of the story by seeing the film).
[ Slashdotia ] Posted by CmdrTaco on 2002-11-14 20:00
from the how-the-hell-are-we-going-to-run-this-country dept.
So now that we've suceded from the United States, we need some laws (trolling, spamming, windows-useing, corecting people's speling, etc). So here's your chance to have an impact. The top 10 moderated posts become law!
A lot of times manufacturers will require Windows because they don't want to have to support linux/mac users, not becuase their product will not work with those OSs. Go online and find out from users whether it will work with Linux.
For example, I recently purchase the 128MB Nike mp3 player (best form factor for exercising...the new philips one, not the sonicblue model). They claim that it is only compatible with Windows/Mac. However, all it does is represent itself as a Windows drive (haven't tried it on the mac). When I boot into linux, I just mount it the same way I'd mount a USB HD. Then you just copy the mp3s to it like you would any FS. You can't copy files off it (DRM, I guess), but otherwise it's a fully compliant external USB HD.
From the product page (http://www.storagebysony.com/cd-rw/product.asp?id =185)
Compatible Media:
CD-ReWritable (CD-RW)
CD-Recordable (CD-R)
CD-ROM
DVD-ROM
Note the absence of DVD-R
3. LCD's don't have that annoying screen refresh that gives people (me, anyway) an awful headache.
Buy a decent monitor. I had that problem too, until I ditched my 3-year old CRT and got a KDS flat CRT. Notched the refresh rate up to about 75Hz and no more headaches.
It's not the head ache that concerns me, but the eye strain. After 8-10 of staring at a CRT (like I do at work), my eyes feel noticeably tired. However I can stare at my LCD at home for 15-20 hours on end without feeling any fatigue.
Also, text is markedly clearer on my LCD. I used to think that my CRT was perfectly clear, but once you see text on a good LCD, you'll realize that there is a big difference between even a high quality CRT.
Since staring at code for long periods of time is my livelihood, the $1000 investment for a high-quality LCD (Samsung 191T...quite a good LCD IMHO) was an easy one. They may not be for everyone, but if you spend substantial time in front of a computer and value your eye sight, you should probably think about getting one.
No. .07 cents is CARP.
$500/year is what they would have had to pay under HR5469 (the bill that helms killed).
So how is their situation any better because the bill was blocked? Do you think the RIAA actually wanted this bill? Do you think the RIAA will now negociate in good faith to give webcasters a better deal?
The only reason the RIAA negociated this deal was for good PR (or lack of bad PR...the webcasters who would have benefitted from this spent a lot of effort rallying support against CARP). Now, with the bill killed, the RIAA gets to collect higher fees, kill off internet radio and not get blamed for it.
Meanwhile, small webcasters have managed to kill off the only ally that they had (medium-sized webcasters). Without the organized lobbying put forth by the medium-sized webcasters, nothing will get done and CARP will kill off internet radio.
Why not choose:
D, band together with other small broadcasters and split the RIAA fee. So long as you source all of your material from a single location, you only have to pay once.
Oh and...if $500/year will "put you out of business", you were never "in business" to begin with.
The best trance stations on the internet went down because of this law.
I hope you're referring to the DMCA and not HR5469 (the one that Helms killed in the Senate). The latter would have kept DI on the air permanently and probably would have brought TTT back on the air (I'm sure he could have raised enough in donations to pay the proposed fees).
Everyone here seems to be under the misguided impression that killing this bill was a good thing because it didn't do enough to ensure that small webcasters could continue broadcasting. But people fail to realize that the alternative to this bill isn't likely to be a new bill. It'll most likely mean that CARP rates will go into effect (should SoundExchange choose to enforce them) and the stations that would have been able to be financially viable under the proposed bill, will no longer be.
WTF???
The bill he killed would have allowed many mid-level webcasters to stay on the air. Now, it's only by the grace of the RIAA (SoundExchange) that they're allowed to do so. Helms is doing the RIAA's bidding under the guise of representing small webcasters.
Small Webcasters have been griping that this bill doesn't do enough for them and would rather see the entire webcasting industry destroyed rather than have part of it live on to continue the fight against the RIAA.
If helms was truly representing his constituents, he would be thinking about the hundreds of thousands of NC residents who listen to web radio rather a few confused and bitter webcasters who feel that they've been slighted by a process that was hopeless to begin with.
The responses to Rusty's letter all seem to be shortsighted, bitter and overly idealistic. They entirely miss the reality of the situation. Namely, it is: Come October 20th, the DMCA mandated fees decided by CARP will be due and no one but the largest webcasters (yahoo et al) will be able to afford it.
/. would agree that the RIAA has no interest in lowering the barrier to entry in this arena (or any arena where they are involved).
Killing HR5469 won't mean that both sides go back to the bargaining table to negociate a new deal. The RIAA had little reason to negociate HR5469 in the first place. They only did it because they saw it as a PR win due to the negative publicity stirred up by webcasters like SomaFM. Since webcasters came to the table with very little to offer the RIAA, HR5469 basically represents what the RIAA was willing to give up. If that means the smallest webcasters are SOL, then there was basically no posibility that they wouldn't be. Opposing the bill is basically just sour grapes that those large enough to be helped by HR5469 will be able to continue to operate legally.
Let me respond point by point to the letter posted above:
"What happened with HR 5469 directly affects EVERYONE is the webcasting community and to pretend otherwise is a joke."
This is true. While small webcasters will not be directly affected by HR5469, if the bill isn't passed, the mid-level webcasters without pockets deep enough to pay CARP fees will go away. Then who will be left to oppose the RIAA and fight for the small webcasters? No one. The RIAA will have no one left who is organized enough to lobby against them. Small webcasters like to make it seem like HR5469 is exactly what medium-sized webcasters wanted. This is completely false. There is specific language in HR5469 that says that that the agreement is *not* voluntary and has been forced upon them by the RIAA. HR5469 is a first step, but there might not be any further steps if it doesn't pass.
"But there is something horribly wrong with the FACT that what began as a private negotiation ended up being turned into a piece of legislation forced as a yolk around the necks of people who had no say in the matter."
On the contrary, the yoke you're feeling is the DMCA. You're free to ignore HR5469 completely if you so choose. The only difference HR5469 has is that it gives you the option of paying $500/year instead of the outlandish per listener charges imposed by CARP.
"I am tired of being asked as a member of the webcasting industry to accept something so horribly wrong just because some people think this deal was "the best they could get."
Ok, so you try getting something better from the RIAA. You hire a lawyer/lobbiest to negociate a deal. Saying that this isn't the best deal that could be gotten is disingenuous and assumes that there was good faith on the part of the RIAA to find a solution that would be acceptable to small webcasters. I think most of
"To me it would be like being invited over to lunch and expecting to eat Chicken Salad - and then being served Chicken S**t. There might be a large portion of the webcasting community who can stomach that, but I can't."
On the contrary, you were told that you can eat the leftovers if you so choose. You're getting free food...it's entirely your choice whether to eat it or not. So you're hungry...but that isn't the fault of the people who gave you the leftovers.
"The RIAA never had any intention of dealing fairly, honestly and respectfully with the webcasting industry. Those that sat down privately to negotiate a deal for themselves did so in their own best interest and for their own individual reasons. I don't believe there was anything wrong with that."
Exactly. The RIAA has never intended to make it possible for very small webcasters to operate legally. The fact that the mid-level webcasters sat down and hammered out a deal with the RIAA that would allow them to continue to broadcast can only be seen as a good thing. For the most part, these webcasters are not faceless corporations who only care about their own existance. They are labors of love who will continue to fight for the rights of the smaller webcasters. To silence them will mean that there will be no one left to negociate with the RIAA.
"But when the self-serving agenda of a few becomes something that is foisted upon the community as a whole, then I cannot, must not and will not stand by and accept such an American Injustice."
Again, I challenge you to show that anything has or will be "foisted upon" you by HR 5469. You're free to go by the CARP regulations if you so choose. Please show how the agenda of the webcasters who negotiated this deal has hurt your situation (and you might try using an actual argument instead of just spouting rhetoric.)
"Just because people are claiming right now that HR 5469 in its present form will not really hurt the industry does not mean that is the truth. The only entity that HR 5469 helps is the RIAA and it is a sad truth that they care nothing about the industry they are destroying."
Fact: if HR 5469 does not pass, any webcaster that has any voice in Washington will stop broadcasting (aside from the large corporations unaffected by HR 5469.) You're right that the RIAA doesn't care. But shutting down the only people with a voice loud enough to make the RIAA take notice is misguided, short-sighted and foolish.
This whole "rift" in the webcasting community only helps the RIAA. Webcasters should be happy and support any measure that benefits any member of their community. To do otherwise only ensures the RIAA will get their way.
The uninformed would probably be saying that. But people who actually follow the XML specs would realize that MS has contributed a lot to the development of XML. IIRC, XSDs were Microsoft's idea and they're a big improvement over DTDs.
I would prefer that Microsoft participate in *more* standards decisions. I only have problems with Microsoft are when they decide to create their own proprietary and closed standard (SMB, Exchange, etc).
If standards are public, then everyone is free to compete on the implementations of those standards. If Microsoft ends up being the best at implementing the standard, then more power to them (and I would hope that people would buy their products). It's only when Microsoft prevents others from creating a competing implementation that I take issue.
It's pretty hard to pay ASCAP/BMI/CESAC fees with "community resources." If you think that Rusty doesn't leverage every connection he has, you're wrong.
If you'd subscribed to the mailing list that most webcasters are on, Rusty outlined a number of loopholes created by this bill. For example, you could band together with a few other small webcasters and split the $500 fee. As long as all the material is sourced at the same location, there is only one fee.
Like it or not, the group that lobbied for this bill tried to save its own neck. If you don't like the agreement, go lobby for your own bill...you're free to ignore this one.
I'd rather fight for a fair deal for everyone, not just the biggest of the little guys.
Great, then fight for it. Go negociate with the RIAA and make a deal. That's what these guys have done. They realized that the current deal only favored much larger webcasters. So they hammered out a deal that will keep them on the air. They fought hard for the provisions that they did get (it's not like the RIAA was eagerly hoping for all the stuff in the bill). And you get the benefits of all their hard work...after all, the bill is better than the CARP rates, right?
So what do you do? Do you thank them for working out a bill that actually allows you to continue broadcasting? (something the current rates do not) Do you go out and lobby for your own settlement? No. You whine that you can't get your way and try to ensure that others don't either.
On top of that, Rusty posted to the mailing list a long list of loopholes created by this bill that would allow you to keep broadcasting. Simply band together with other small broadcasters and you all get to split the $500 payment...suddenly you have the $250 minimum you keep whining about.