I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
annoyed
Anything that helps customers enjoy TV, movies, or music is a target for lawsuits.
Too bad those aren't the kind of lawsuits that bother Republicans.
Ha, I have a replay TV and it's working fine.
I will not give up my TiVo without a major fight.
What ever happened to that quaint notion that the public own the airwaves? Why shouldn't we have the right to what we choose to watch?
You know technology scares these motherfuckers.
Thank you all for watching network television and parsing out the good bits for me to read about/watch. I can barely stand to look at it anymore, except for C-SPAN. And I'm tired of paying $20 a month for shitty Basic Basic Cable. Me love the internets.
At this point, if I were, say, Apple, I'd be just daring the industry to go after me on something like that.
You know, if Apple does pull off something like an iPod for TiVoesque tv/video, not only will Apple cement themselves as all things cool, but will also lead the way in figuring out a proper way (not perfect, mind you) in making sure everyone gets a fair shake in licensing. Akin with its Music Store. The brillance of it being, it allowed downloaders to get a bunch of music for cheap and without the guilt of ripping someone off. Artists got some money and exposure and the labels got paid.
Frankly, someone has to break through and come up with a fair and equitable video file trade system, and Apple doing it would be a sweet Mr. Middle Finger to all those Windows lovers who wrote off Apple in the early 90s.
This is an ancient, ancient, ancient fight.
I remember back in the days when we listened to vinyl records (remember then?), the RIAA constantly made noises about how making a cassette copy of a vinyl record that you owned was "theft."
So far, the consumers have always won. But it is annoying to have to fight the exact same battle every damn time a new piece of technology comes along.
One of the most ridiculous "features" that many (all?) mp3 player manufacturers have is that they prevent you from uploading mp3s from them back to a computer.
For iPods, download iPodrip. Allows you to upload contents of an iPod to your computer, rather than the Mac-to-iPod route that is native to the iPod. I use a Mac, so unsure if it works on PC, but it is sweet. Has a very user-friendly interface, making it easy to only upload certain albums, artists, whatever onto your computer.
(And, no, I don't work for them.)
Agreed, Atrios. God forbid the music industry try to cater to iPod users instead of fighting them (us) every step of the way. But think about it, the recording industry has fought every innovation - from 8 tracks to cassettes to CD-R and now mp3's. They'll never learn.
check out Sony's statement about why they aren't at the top of the personal MP3 player market:
Sony missed out on potential sales from MP3 players and other gadgets because it was overly proprietary about music and entertainment content, the head of Sony Corp's video-game unit acknowledged Thursday.
Ken Kutaragi, president of Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., said he and other Sony employees have been frustrated for years with management's reluctance to introduce products like Apple Computer Inc.'s iPod, mainly because the Tokyo company had music and movie units that were worried about content rights.
A lot of people are suggesting that with QuickTime for OS 10.4 supporting H.264, and with the Mac Mini, and with Sony showing up at MacWorld and announcing that together they would revolutionize video content, that Apple is gearing up to create a video version of iTunes Music Store.
We'll just have to wait and see. As an Apple fanboy, however, I can't cheer for any course that might result in them pissing off the *AAs.
Frankly, someone has to break through and come up with a fair and equitable video file trade system, and Apple doing it would be a sweet Mr. Middle Finger to all those Windows lovers who wrote off Apple in the early 90s.
Shhhh!! the windows guys get really upset.
(I'm with you though)
that Apple is gearing up to create a video version of iTunes Music Store.
Sweeeet!!
And if it makes Michael Dell cry, that's a bonus.
Thank you all for watching network television and parsing out the good bits for me to read about/watch. I can barely stand to look at it anymore, except for C-SPAN. And I'm tired of paying $20 a month for shitty Basic Basic Cable. Me love the internets.
I don't watch live TV anymore. It's all through my DVR.
Second, I don't see why we can't move beyond the broadcast model, and instead move to a bulk-ship concept, where people can download episodes when they are available instead of waiting for its slot at a certain date/time.
Imagine going to bed and waking up the next morning with your DVR already have downloaded the new episodes of Lost, The Daily Show and Veronica Mars as you slept because they were shipped over the nets at midnight.
You can either watch them there, or wait until later...opting to take it with on the bus, seeing Jon Stewart on your iScreen while you get to work.
Honestly. It would be quite cool.
Morons like the RIAA and the MPAA seem to be bound and determined to kill the goose that lays golden eggs, all because they are greedy Ferengi dweebs who think they can't possibly get enough money for hookers, booze, and blow, and their parasites off actually talented people to boot.
Eventually, these twits will create a backlash that destroys the concept of intellectual property through their overreaching to squeeze more money out of consumers who will be more than happy to spend money for convenience and their ability to choose.
The genie is out of the bottle, assholes, and all your lawyers can't put it back in.
If you want MP3 players that do not have rights managment check out Archos.
They have a 20 gig Mp3 player that is VERY competitvley priced.
I refuse to purchase an Mp3 player that wil not allow simple drag and drop of music files.
Ask your retailer before you buy. I believe the Rio players are drag and drop as well.
http://www.archos.com/products/
p...0669_specs.html
Someone at CNN has a sense of humour, go vote on the Quickvote (scroll down):
SpongeBob SquarePants is:
Promoting the acceptance of homosexuality
Promoting tolerance and diversity
Absorbent, yellow and porous
'Absorbent, yellow and porous' is winning.
"Anything that helps customers enjoy TV, movies, or music is a target for lawsuits."
Too bad those aren't the kind of lawsuits that bother Republicans. - kc
I remember reading somewhere that it isn't large tort awards that are the cost of lawsuits to society (and many of those large awards, even if overinflated, are somewhat deserved) but frivolous lawsuits which "tort reform" doesn't even address?
And why not? Who does most of the frivolous suing? Why ... big-shot corporate attorneys trying to earn their keep. I mean - these are the people who sued Fogerty for plagerizing his own work!
While I completely agree that the legal strategy of the content industries is a serious threat to innovation I think the idea that technology companies could defeat this by daring content companies to sue them is misguided. If technology companies forced content companies to take them to court, the technology companies would lose. This isn't a matter of justice, it's a matter of law, and the law is written in a manner which is tremendously favorable to copyright holders. The way to beat this isn't by fighting lawsuits...it's by changing the law. Until the focus moves from the lawsuits to the laws those suits are based on, anyone seeking to oppose the RIAA, MPAA and their fellow travellers will be limited to fighting tremendously expensive and ultimately ineffective defensive battles.
While I agree with the sentiments expressed, Apple is in an uniquely bad situation to "dare the industry to go after them", because they not only have a music player, but also an online store.
The music industry would (a) find it very easy to pull the plug on a large part of the store and (b) has contractual agreements with Apple that might very well commit Apple to a more restrictive code of conduct than other manufacturers who simply have to live within the scope of copyright law.
At the moment, despite the annoying upload limitations, Apple is enjoying a huge marketshare in online music and music player sales, so there is simply not a whole lot of upside for them in jeopardizing that business.
it would be a sweet Mr. Middle Finger to all those Windows lovers who wrote off Apple in the early 90s
A lot of us Windows Users are not Windows Lovers - but rather people who were unwilling to pay top dollar for an Apple that runs half the speed or less than an equally priced PC and also has less options in terms of software.
Once Apple drops its price - I will gladly go back to using one. However, at this time I am not spending twice a much for half the system.
Technology is a huge front for civil liberties. It is less about what you can do with what gadget and more of a system of control.
Example: Say you just got a nifty new server and a full T1 internet connection and you want to make a mail server. Soon you find out that your mail traffic to Yahoo and Hotmail accounts don't work unless you relay it threw your ISP. If your IP isn't on a white list it gets bounced. It is ment to control spam, but it is also a form of control on what should be an open system. I don't mean to sound paranoid, but when you consider other factors (the legal war against P2P for example) it is hard not to.
Shit...I always get this way after reading Neil Stephenson.
I refuse to purchase an Mp3 player that wil not allow simple drag and drop of music files.
This is a *little* short sighted. By requiring you to go through iTunes, Apple gets to peer at the metadata attached to your music, so that it can build a database. Lets you browse around much more efficiently, both with respect to time and to battery life (the database can be stored in NVRAM and you can leave the hard drive powered down).
John,
R@D@R and I are meeting up in West Seattle this Sunday at noon, interested?
John,
You are correct. I'm worn out by the evil protectors of all things media.
Points from a nerd:
Apple's "restrictions" on copying songs to/from an iPod are as unobtrusive as possible. While it'd be nice to see them say screw you to RIAA, I think they did a good job of seeming like they prevent copying without actually crippling their device.
Apple's FairPlay copy protection on iTunes songs sucks, but again is not as bad as it could be. I was just commenting today I don't buy as much music from the iTunes Music Store as I would like because others can't listen to it when I share it (in a non-copyable way) via iTunes for others in my office to listen to.
The computer and video game industries make more money per year than RIAA and MPAA, so it baffles me why technology companies are letting entertainment companies do all of the lobbying and buying of politicians. And shame shame shame on Democratic representatives and senators (Hollings and Lieberman come to mind) for putting corporate interests ahead of people.
Finally, Apple's iPod for video may be closer than you think. The Mac mini may look good next to your TV for a reason.
A lot of us Windows Users are not Windows Lovers - but rather people who were unwilling to pay top dollar for an Apple that runs half the speed or less than an equally priced PC and also has less options in terms of software.
Once Apple drops its price - I will gladly go back to using one. However, at this time I am not spending twice a much for half the system.
Fair enough. But I think it comes down to on whether you would less money and settle or invest the money in a machine you know you'll like.
And if it's price, then check out the Mac Mini.
As far as software goes, I have all I need for me, but then your needs might be different.
Nothing to do with television or technology, but -
I had an idea today:
From now on, whenever I happen to hear about ANY DEMOCRAT ANYWHERE doing something smart, honorable, courageous, etc., I will put a metaphorical dollar in a virtual jar...
Whenever one of MY Democratic officials (Senators, Rep, Gov, etc.) does something cowardly and/or otherwise despicable, I will take a dollar out.
Once a month, IF there is a positive balance, I'll contribute to the Dems...
Apple's FairPlay copy protection on iTunes songs sucks, but again is not as bad as it could be. I was just commenting today I don't buy as much music from the iTunes Music Store as I would like because others can't listen to it when I share it (in a non-copyable way) via iTunes for others in my office to listen to.
Well, there's always Hymn, although I gather that the latest version of iTunes (4.7.1) won't play Hymn-liberated files for some reason.
John Gillnity,
There has been much discussion regarding "lockign down" the internet in tech circles.
MIT's Technology Review magazine just had an article on the criminal/terrorisrt element of the internet.
I take this a warnining.
Once Apple drops its price - I will gladly go back to using one. However, at this time I am not spending twice a much for half the system.
See, that's just wrong. Clock speed isn't what you should be looking at.
All three of my Macs are plenty fast and I use several large programs (with big, fat files) simultaneously. I think the software issue is moot too. Unless you're a gamer, I can't think of any big commercial titles that aren't written for the mac.
Besides ease of use, there's the time issue. I spent no time at all on tech issues. None. OSX is so stable that both my desktop systems stay on continuously for weeks at a time, with no problems.
My time is expensive- IMHO it's worth the extra price for the extra productivity.
And if it's price, then check out the Mac Mini.
Ive checked out the Mac mini - several times. Since I have a home office the idea of something that powerful and small is a dream - but I will wait until I hear more. I remember the issues with the Cube and the software I use every day is the software that the Cube couldn't run.
There's also the issue of switching all my software. Ugh!
ARGH, can we please not make this Mac vs. PC? 
I've never seen that with MP3 players. Mine doubles as a flash drive and as a voice recorder. MP3 players really aren't just for MP3s anymore.
But then mine was made in china so what do they care about copyright?
All three of my Macs are plenty fast and I use several large programs (with big, fat files) simultaneously. I think the software issue is moot too. Unless you're a gamer, I can't think of any big commercial titles that aren't written for the mac.
Yup. When I was layout newspages a few years ago, my Mac handled Quark, Photoshop, and Word without a sneeze.
And I don't care that much about gaming.* That's why I have an Xbox.
*He says, tempted by World of Warcraft.
R@D@R and I are meeting up in West Seattle this Sunday at noon, interested?
surfdork
Surfdork. Dang, I'm in Bremerton all day on Sunday. :/ Sorry dudes.
Dr. Welby - God forbid this should become a mac vs pc thread but just so you know, the chip clock speeds for pc and mac aren't equivalents. The powerpc chip used in macs is risc architecture, and much faster than the ciscchips in pc's. Very roughly speaking you can double the clock speed for an equivalent, but since the chips in macs are optimized for specific tasks related to graphics, that won't apply across the board.
In general, the equivalent grade of machines are about the same speed.
Mnemosyne said:
"So far, the consumers have always won. But it is annoying to have to fight the exact same battle every damn time a new piece of technology comes along."
Mnemosyne is wrong. Napster was sued out of existence. So was AIMster. Individual users of peer to peer software are the targets of lawsuits which have the specific goal of shutting those networks down.
Of course, consumers have been losing ground to copyright holders in other areas than music. 2600 magazine was sued by Universal studios for distributing software that allowed people to play DVDs on Linux systems. Even our good friends at the Free Republic have been sued for their use of newspaper articles to demonstrate the media's perceived liberal bias.
Between the Supreme Court's decision which stated that VCRs are not illegal and the 9th circuit's decision which stated that distributors of Grokster are not liable for copyright infringement, consumers have suffered defeat after defeat at the hands of copyright holders.
See, that's just wrong. Clock speed isn't what you should be looking at.
Sorry, but Flash development on a Mac is awful. There are a lot of playback issues relating to speed. If 90% of my audience are using PC's, ive got to stick with the PC for now. Its gotten a lot better with OSX, but its still not perfect.
And yes, I am a gamer. So thats a big issue right there. Otherwise, the first comp I ever used with a Mac, and I do miss it.
To the moon, Haloscan, I swear!
I use windoze shit but I don't necessarily like it.
Having said that, the piss poor quality of MS products helps keep me employed.
Yes Apples don't have as many virus problems however they command a small share of the market and are practically non existent at the enterprise level.
You don't have apples in server farms (of course there are ALWAYS exceptions).
90% market share make a big farking target.
If Apple was in that position I guarantee you they would be havign virus problems etc. It is simply not worth it to hack Apple. With the same codign effort you can hit 10x more server if you attack windoze.
kat, loved it.
Promoting the acceptance of homosexuality
10%
11612 votes
Promoting tolerance and diversity
17%
19257 votes
Absorbent, yellow and porous
72%
79905 votes
Total: 110774 votes
Back to the old truth that businesses hate lawyers and frivilous lawsuits ...
... except for their own lawyers and frivilous lawsuits, without which they cannot do.
-- Stu
P.S. Is there any way we could initiate a class action suit against Haloscan for general sucktitude?
And yes, I am a gamer. So thats a big issue right there. Otherwise, the first comp I ever used with a Mac, and I do miss it.
Understood. I grew up in Consolevania, so I never got into PC-based gaming. There's a chasm whenever my PC-centric and I play Halo deathmatch on Xbox. He's so used to mouse-keyboard-fu whereas all my muscle memory is plugged into button arrangement and faux triggers.
Hey, here's trivia for you. Halo was originally designed to be a Mac game.
At this point, if I were, say, Apple, I'd be just daring the industry to go after me on something like that. Just pull it out of the next firmware release and see what they do.
Not if you were Apple. Apple is run by a guy who owns a movie studio.
If Apple was in that position I guarantee you they would be havign virus problems etc. It is simply not worth it to hack Apple. With the same codign effort you can hit 10x more server if you attack windoze.
surfdork | Email | Homepage | 01.21.05 - 2:38 pm | #
We've already overdone the OS wars here, but I have to pop in for this one point.
This argument has the excellent quality (for the person making it) of not being falsifiable. However, it's making a common error in that it assumes that all operating systems are inherently as secure as one another. The fact is that the *NIX permissions model is simply BETTER than the security that's been bolted onto Windows after the fact. And while Linux boxes are the easiest to hack of all, it's usually because their administrators don't know what they're doing. OS X ships in a highly secure configuration by default.
Ideally go with platform agnostic apps (ie web apps).
That is why MS is so protective of IE.
Who care what OS as long as you can run a browser and java (or the fucked MS ripoff .NET).
That is what XML etc are for, to build platform agnostic apps.
90% market share make a big farking target.
You can thank Bill Gates' vile licensing practices for that. Don Corlene was less subtle.
four legs good: I think the software issue is moot too. Unless you're a gamer, I can't think of any big commercial titles that aren't written for the mac.
It's not exactly moot, flg. Many of the titles I use are available for Mac, but how much does it cost me to re-license them for the Mac platform?
Some titles aren't available (Adobe Premiere Pro 1.5 being one), and while functional equivalents may be available, there's the re-learning curve to consider when changing software... not to mention s/w integration, in the case of the Adobe products.
.
You don't have apples in server farms (of course there are ALWAYS exceptions).
Ummm. We do. Sorry to be contrary. Hey, use what you want.
Did I hear a request for kitties?
Zachary, who is now an angel kittie, as a baby.
Atrios: check out the iRiver - you can download to and upload to the hard drive to your heart's content. Plays mp3/wav/ogg/wma. And comes with a radio, remote, and can record as well. Only thing I regret is not going for the 40 GB model. ^_^
linky
Zachary, who is now an angel kittie, as a baby.
Cute!
Everytime a p2p gets sued out of existence another one comes and takes it's place. Now they're going after bit torrent sites. Big deal. Although I do miss Suprnova.org.
The best reason to own a Mac is simply because nobody wastes their time trying to hack it. I am dying to see the Mac mini but kinda hoping it doesn't catch on, because if it does, someone might decide it's worth the effort to write nasty software for it.
As for making Michael Dell cry, it would be only fair. Most of his customers have hung up in tears after talking to his tech support.
Any other blogger, using Google's AsSense, getting flooded with pro Bush advertising that voids the provided filters?
I fondly remember the rousing refrain to Kid Creole & the Coconuts' "I Am": "Music belongs to the peeeee-ple." Indeed I still have it on vinyl.
I've always found copyright and patent laws fairly ridiculous, as if certain individuals "owned" ideas based on thousands of years of cumulative music, language and science. They shouldn't, and it's the same kind of egotistic thinking that encourages silly phrases like "self-made man." I'm on one level glad the Chinese have no respect for copyright (they're officially still fuming about Western porcelain), though I worry they'll respect it plenty the moment it's to their advantage (as happened in the US, a notorious pirate nation in the 19th century, as Dickens bitched on his tour here).
The better artists are all looking beyond copyright, though the crapmeisters want their bloody royalties with a vengeance. I saw Rob Thomas (of Matchbox 20, apparently unaware that he only sold records because teen girls thought he was cute) on Charlie Rose a few years ago insisting that he deserves money for his "original" compositions and the gov't should help him claim it by force. He used the word "original" without flinching and goddam Rose didn't giggle. The nerve.
IP laws are being written by the big content holders for their own benefit. The damage to the public is immeasurable -- witness how the landmark PBS documentary series on the civil rights movement, Eyes on the Prize can no longer be shown because it has fallen out of copyright.
It isn't a particularly glamorous cause, so unless the RIAA is going after some kid in Indiana like a pack of goons nobody pays any attention to it. But much like Crossfire, it's hurting America.
Steve Jobs has his own "minor" interest in the movie industry, Pixar. Along with dealing with many many companies to get the iTunes Music store going, which is not a money maker for Apple just a vehicle to sell iPods. Apple is not going to challenge the system. The best we could expect is for them to be innovative and find the best of both worlds.
The first problem here is greed. I'm all for creators being compensated, even generously. But how many millions and billions of dollars do you need? Why aren't there many different easy ways for me to backup my DVD, cd, mp3, video game collection, because, after all, the discs get scratched, files get lost. I mean, is their business model dependent on a few people buying multiple copies of a DVD, etc.? Or, do they think that many many people are prone to buying bootleg copies?
Eyes on the Prize can no longer be shown because it has fallen out of copyright.
Dude, that's absolutely wrong.
I agree that they are not the same out of the box and I agree that MS security model is and continues to be utter shit.
However that does not diminsh the fact less boxes = smaller target.
Attacks like buffer overruns etc are not necessarily linked to security.
If Apple had 90% market share you would see novel attacks on that base, attacks that would be tailored to exploit found weaknesses in Apples OS.
Ultimatley security depends on the user.
Most of his customers have hung up in tears after talking to his tech support.
That's what they get for consorting with the devil.
I really have no sympathy.
My time is expensive- IMHO it's worth the extra price for the extra productivity.
But then Atrios must be reaching in pretty deep to pay you to comment here as often as you do ... 
-- Stu
Let me just use this opportunity to showcase the way Dell operates:
http://forbes.com/technology/
fee...7082971897.html
If Apple had 90% market share you would see novel attacks on that base, attacks that would be tailored to exploit found weaknesses in Apples OS.
Agreed.
And I think that 90% wouldn't have been so high if Apple didn't force out Jobs inthe first place.
Just take a look at how Apple come back since Jobs returned. Obviously, Jobs didn't do everything, but it's still a good guy to have at the lead.
Attacks like buffer overruns etc are not necessarily linked to security.
If Apple had 90% market share you would see novel attacks on that base, attacks that would be tailored to exploit found weaknesses in Apples OS.
Ultimatley security depends on the user.
surfdork | Email | Homepage | 01.21.05 - 2:47 pm | #
True, but the buffer overruns are not my only concern. The security model of a Windows machine allows an ActiveX control with sufficient priveleges to execute shell commands, including format. When craziness like that is going on, it makes it a much simpler task--now all you need is an escalation-of-priveleges attack in an ActiveX control to do all kinds of damage.
ActiveX is one of the largest problems I have with windows (I have ActiveX disabled in IE on my desktop). Another is the integration of IE with the OS (I use firefox now).
If Apple had 90% market share you would see novel attacks on that base, attacks that would be tailored to exploit found weaknesses in Apples OS.
Maybe, there's no question that the native security on a Mac is superior. I think mac is quicker to respond to security issues as well.
My OS actually pops up and tells me if there's an update out there.
And that's all I'll say on macs for now. I should be using mine today for more than commenting.
OMG.
privilege
Ummm. We do. Sorry to be contrary. Hey, use what you want.
With all due rspect you ARE being contrary.
Like I said there are EXCEPTIONS.
Do you want me to pull data and links on market share, systems in use etc?
Heck why don't google gartner and look at their #'s?
Just because YOU like apple has no affect on the truth.
The truth is Windoze/Linux machines dominate server farms.
I invite you to counter this WITH FACTS.
I have made no POSITIVE value judgments regarding the quality of Windoze software, in fact the contraty, I have stated numerous times it stinks.
My opinion does not change the FACT that Apples are not prevalent in server farms.
Wow -
Zachary really was (and is, of course) an angel!
There has been much discussion regarding "lockign down" the internet in tech circles.
surfdork | 01.21.05 - 2:31 pm | #
I'm not sure it can be locked down. Those locking it down during the day are the same ones cracking it at night. Its all a big game.
while apple doesn't provide a feature in iTunes to get Mp3's FROM the iPod to Mac/pc, on a Mac you just need to open a terminal window and from the command line copy the files from the mounted ipod disk. Certainly not something the typical user may be able to negotiate, but those that want to get an mp3 off an iPod are not being stopped by apple at this time, apple's just not making it mouse-friendly.
As long as we're talking about products we wish were invented, when the hell are car stereo makers going to invent a stereo that accepts a direct plug-in from an iPod? That would really rule.
As long as we're talking about products we wish were invented, when the hell are car stereo makers going to invent a stereo that accepts a direct plug-in from an iPod? That would really rule.
Dave J. | Email | Homepage | 01.21.05 - 2:57 pm | #
A lot of the luxury cars are putting iPod dock connectors in. I'd settle for a simple fucking line in, so I don't need a radio/cassette adapter!
Has anyone heard about the new HD DVD's that are in the works. I heard that Sony and Phillips are going with different formats like they did with DVD's +R and -R. Why can't they just settle on a standard version and go with it?
They hate TiVo like they hated VCRs. It allows people to dodge the annoying parts of TV.
hey... Where's the cats? Isn't time for the Friday catblogging fix?
As long as we're talking about products we wish were invented, when the hell are car stereo makers going to invent a stereo that accepts a direct plug-in from an iPod? That would really rule.
BMW has something like that always, but as far as a standard plug-n-play, not yet.
you can ad hoc it tho.
The interesting thing is, most consumers have no interest in pirated versions.
They want the quality associated with the authentic. They want assurances that they're getting the authentic thing.
In the case of music, they might be very interested in playing just the tunes they want, not the ones they don't. This is why 'greatest hits' compilations tend to be successful. Likewise, they may want to listen to a compilation of the more obscure tunes of an artist as opposed to the hits, and burn their own. But if they had a hassel free way of doing so directly from the label, they might just go for it instead of burning their own.
The possibilities are there, but those wed to the old way of doing things are just not about to give up what they have. Certainly they don't want their role as middleman to change in any way. They don't want to share with artists or with consumers.
They're useless parasites, and they're unwilling to leave that role as long as their lawyers can protect them from cruel reality.
surfdork, dude, chill.
Like I said, use what you want. I'm not a techie person so I don't really care about servers.
They hate TiVo like they hated VCRs. It allows people to dodge the annoying parts of TV.
Smitty Werbenmanjensen | Email | Homepage | 01.21.05 - 2:59 pm | #
An AOL/TW exec was once embarassingly quoted as having opined that TV watchers who left the room or changed channels during commercial breaks were "stealing programming." No, douchenozzle, that's why I pay you like $90/mo.
Comment- Apple is scrambling to get a video store launched because Microsoft is working that angle already, and has inked quite a few deals so far. Been to a movie theater, there's that ad with all the movie people marching into someone's house, that's the MS initiative. Apple must get a video alternative out there to maintain their market share, they really push video/audio stuff as part of their consumer niche.
Also, going after BitTorrent is doomed to failure; it or a variation practically slated to become standard download technology for obvious reasons.
I posted in an earlier thread that if ya put thought to it, it seems like in the near future at least DVR will split television in two directions- a premium, On Demand super-DVR style, and a style with mandatory ads but cheaper / essentially similar. I mean, advertisers are making noises about mandatory advertisement alreayd, and since it's the status quo business model companies obviously want to hold onto it- when it changes substantially, the current big boys tend to lose out due to sheer inertia. Thus the push for mandatory advertisement viewing (ie NONESKIPPABLE). Ruckus raised over this will probably lead to the offering of an adskip or noads alternative. Well, that's my reasoning.
The other possibility- PRODUCT PLACEMENT. Ahhhhh!
A lot of the luxury cars are putting iPod dock connectors in. I'd settle for a simple fucking line in, so I don't need a radio/cassette adapter!
Yeah, I saw that. My friend sent me an email that was like "Dood, OMG teh car makers r putting in iP0d docks!!111!" and then I looked and the brands were Mercedes, Volvo, Infinity, etc. Whatever.
How hard is it to put, as you say, a goddam line in for the iPod? Those FM adapters are lame as hell...great when you're out in BFE, but get to a city (you know, where most people live) and it's static crazy. Argh!
Jeebus OF course it cant be locked down however I'm warning you that there is serious discussion regarding locking it down.
Now how many ISP's do you think it would take to say monitor 50% of internet traffic in the US?
Not many.
THERE ARE ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS.
China and Singapore are locked down and monitored.
Hubris is dangerous, don't assume that the internet will always be as open as it is now. We have to fight to keep it free.
this is a post that i have no frickin idea of how to comment upon.
in addition to being old,
Lurker commenting...one of my many enjoyable things about this site is how concerned posters are about their spelling errors.Where were folks like you when I was teaching?
I don't have a dog in this hunt; I still have cassettes and CDs.
Where are the kitties?
Well, I hate to be a defender of big bad business. But how exactly, if you are advocating unfettered and unregulated copying and downloading of material, do you plan to protect intellectual property rights?
I assume that some of the contributors to this site are developers of software or make their living through writing. If only the first copy of anything you created is the only one that you can be certain that will earn you money, then you are going to starve pretty quickly.
Copying music or video content you didn't pay for is theft. If I download a CD I didn't pay for or copy it from a friend it is no different than going into Tower Records and stuffing it into my pants and walking out. If some college kid has twenty thousand downloaded songs on his computer that he has not paid for, he deserves to go to jail. He is lucky to get off with a few thousand dollars in fines.
This is not to say that you don't have the right to make copies of music, videos, or television shows that you legetimately own for personal use. But copyright owners have every right to defend themselves from theft.
Eyes on the Prize can no longer be shown because it has fallen out of copyright.
WHAT????
One thing the recording industry can do is market actual talent and promote an actual scene.
You cannot pirate a live performance (Ok, you can find imposters in the music business) nor can you create a scene and expect even mid-term sales.
90% of all commercial music is crap. The pile you have to wade through just to find a few good tunes is fucking enourmous (Yeah! Rhapsody).
Without a scene to support the music, the benfit of sharing and recommendation is lost. The only way to wade through the crap and still eat is to "sample" the music.
I toss 80% of the music I listen to. I purchase the stuff I like, but I won't buy a pig in a poke. (Ever try to return an LP that sucked?) There's no radio left (in Dallas, anyway) and sharing is the only way left to hear a large volume of new music.
The Ashlee Simpsons of the world and the music industry can kiss my ass. Downloading and sharing music should be a win-win.
It's important for users to support the musicians they like (with $) and hopefully directly (at their web sites) and fuck the big companies, who only want you to eat shit anyway.
"The kids and their music is where it's at!"
I am chill AND I use what I want. That is not the question.
I stated that6 Windoze/Linux servers dominate server farms.
Is this incorrect?
That YOU have a mac server farm is irrelevent.
Please look at the thread and how you countered my statement.
I refuse to purchase an Mp3 player that wil not allow simple drag and drop of music files.
On my mac under I tunes, I can drag and drop songs from my Music library file(which consists of all MP3s on my hard drive) to my IPOD Folder or any of the IPOD playlists I have created. This is hardly as inconvienent as searching a 20 gig hard drive for the file that you just dragged and dropped.
I'm very picky about my spelling because I've been known to criticize others about it
Additionally, I think poor spelling (a) reflects badly on me when I do it, and (b) reflects a lack of respect for others on the site--just take some time and proofread!
It's maybe a little pedantic, but eh...
For those who miss Suprnova.org -
try torrentspy.com
Copying music or video content you didn't pay for is theft. If I download a CD I didn't pay for or copy it from a friend it is no different than going into Tower Records and stuffing it into my pants and walking out.
Really? When I download the music from someone, they lose the ability to play it?
You're behind the times if you don't understand that the concept of scarcity doesn't apply to digital content. If I can make an exact copy of something without damaging the original, then the supply of the original is infinite.
Alpine has an iPod control unit you can add to any Ai-Net compatible head unit, and then control your iPod directly from the car stereo knobs. Very nice, it's why I got an Alpine.
I am chill AND I use what I want. That is not the question.
I stated that6 Windoze/Linux servers dominate server farms.
Is this incorrect?
That YOU have a mac server farm is irrelevent.
Please look at the thread and how you countered my statement.
surfdork | Email | Homepage | 01.21.05 - 3:03 pm | #
Surfdork, I love ya, but you're being a dick. Let it go.
Eyes on the Prize can no longer be shown because it has fallen out of copyright.
WHAT????
TJ
That cannot be objectively true. If the copyright has lapsed, then it has become part of the public domanin and may be used without restriciton, iirc...
My opinion does not change the FACT that Apples are not prevalent in server farms.
surfdork 01.21.05 - 2:55 pm | #
Ha! My Novell box will smoke all ya'll bitches. What? Novell is Unix now? Fuck.
Copying music or video content you didn't pay for is theft.
Is running the song or scene from your own organic memory theft?
Because this is where this shit ultimately will lead, because those seeking to do so know no bounds to their greed. They are in effect working to kill the goose that lays golden eggs, and the concept of "intellectual property" is what they will eventually slay, because the backlash will be severe.
If I hum a tune in the office, is that a "public performance" that MUST be compensated by royalties?
Atrios, a couple of things regarding your comments on MP3 players:
1- Fortunately, there are third-party applications that allow you download your MP3 files back to your computer, like, say iPod Agent if you were to use one of them devices from, say... Apple.
2- Unfortunately, most manufacturers of MP3 players have approached the engineering of their devices in the fashion you described (USB or FireWire minidrive with a decoder and headphones). This can be said of the most expensive ones (like say, the iPod), which cost you a fortune yet they sound crappy.
Some competitors of the iPod are coming out with alternative devices (Rio, Creative Labs) that use good 24bit MP3 decoders and mini-amps with a much better audio range than the included in the white little gizmos.
The iPod has a great interface, though, so far undefeated by their competition. I wish they could just make them sound good (without having to buy extra expensive headphones on the side).
Freder--I don't plan to "protect intellectual copyrights," as you put it. It's not my job to protect an outdated legal fiction whose benefit to me is minimal at best. In any case the ghost of Sonny Bono is working overtime on your side.
Good artists and writers, motivated by a love of their work, will find ways to make a profit somehow, relying on ingenuity and the good will of their fans. The others--the hacks--can sell insurance for all I care, or better yet--I mean it--invent alternate energy sources for big bucks.
Is Freder a troll? I barely recognize the name and don't like feeding such.
Really? When I download the music from someone, they lose the ability to play it?
No, when you download music from someone without paying the originator, you deprive the artist of the income from his labor. The piece of plastic, paper, and aluminum you buy at Tower Records is not worth 14.99--it only costs a few cents to manufacture. You are paying for the content--those laser dechiperable pits in the aluminum shell.
When I write computer code it is completely worthless, it never even exists in a version that would be recognizable to a human. Yet people pay me money to produce it. And if they only paid me for it the first time it ran, I would be really pissed.
The fact is that the *NIX permissions model is simply BETTER than the security that's been bolted onto Windows after the fact.
The capabilities-based model of (post-NT) Windows is generally superior to the simple Unix/Linux permissions.
It's just that the Windows interface for security sucks in major ways and the defaults are a cruel joke.
Also, Unix/Linux comes with capabilities/access-lists, too (if you want them).
And while Linux boxes are the easiest to hack of all, it's usually because their administrators don't know what they're doing. OS X ships in a highly secure configuration by default.
Most major Linux distros ship securely (no insecure services enabled) per default.
Most major Linux distros ship securely (no insecure services enabled) per default.
Felix Deutsch | Email | Homepage | 01.21.05 - 3:25 pm | #
Admittedly, I installed my latest linux box about a year and a half ago (it's a file server) but it had more than 20 ports open by default... by contrast, my iBook, purchased at around the same time, had 0.
Is Freder a troll? I barely recognize the name and don't like feeding such.
No I'm not a troll.
I just happen to believe that intellectual property is not an "outdated legal fiction". Abused by corporations, yes. But the attitude that because something can be easily copied infinitely means that it is okay to do so is frankly wrong. People who create intangible things have as much right to have their creations protected as someone who builds a TiVo.
anyone can upload songs from a windows ipod just by changing their folder preferences to "show invisible folders." from then all the music is viewable in windows explorer, draggable and droppable.
the entire feature is really a fig leaf. as is itunes, which in the scheme of online music isnt even a dot on the radar screen. its basically a way for apple to remain lawsuit proof, by claiming they sell music online (sales are inconsequential to their bottom line) and protect copyright (with a ridiculously easy to circumvent process.)
Apple knows full well none of their customers intend to spend $20,000 filling up their ipods. they make all their money by selling the hardware to inventory shared files.
Matt is right. Apple would be nuts to piss off the music industry right now. The music industry has a lot of leverage over Apple that has nothing to do with lawsuits.
No, when you download music from someone without paying the originator, you deprive the artist of the income from his labor.
You presume the cd would have been bought if not downloaded which is false 9 times out of ten.
You are paying for the content--those laser dechiperable pits in the aluminum shell.
Actually, you are paying for the marketing. The content generator gets practically nothing.
The problem with intellectual property is that its on a collision course with broadband. Copyright law will become completely unenforceable, its simply a logical necessity.
If I were Apple, I would actually be somewhat wed to the content industry because of I-Tunes. You have to consider that more and more player/recorder manufacturers are or will be the same companies that manufacture the content (Sony's another good example).
No content refresher post--sorry
you want to tevo some good entertainment? Last of the Mississippi Jukes. on true ch.345, dishnetwork right now. This is how I catch a grip. Thankyou, bluesman
Freder, you've a point, but I think the problem is that the big corps' attitudes to IP are outdated - there needs to be a new model. And remember how many struggling artists give out demo tapes for free to people both inside and outside the music industry? Downloading might end up being the next means of doing so.
(Sony's another good example)
sony's a great example of a company with its head up its ass. 5 years of hoping mp3 would go away, then they are late to the party with overpriced equipment and their own dumb DRM laden standard. all because they are afraid ofcannibalising their own marketing-fat-laden music division.
I don't have a dog in this hunt; I still have cassettes and CDs.
Pfffffttttt...
I still have wax cylinders and the Edison gramophone.
Please look at the thread and how you countered my statement.
I didn't and I wasn't trying to. Just making the observation.
Peace and many kitties.
Here kitty, kitty, kitty
Here kitty, kitty....
Do I have to open a can of cat food to get the cats to appear? (It works at home...)
The people leading the charge on this aren't the artists: they're the middlemen who will be eventually cut out as technology passes them by. The imbalance created by recordings originally, where the live act was promotion for record sales, is now turning about where the records the promotion for the live act.
Also, I don't have problems with paying the creators of the work, but I do have problems paying the owners of the work, who are often motivated soley by endless, insatiable greed, the hallmark of the mindless monstrosity called the corporation.
Interesting little story: the University of Oregon every so often gets a "cease and desist" letter from the legal twits at MouseCorp over their use of Donald Duck as the school mascot, and they dust off the letter signed by Walt Disney giving them perpetual rights to do so. The reflexive greed of these monstrosities knows no bounds, and even their own history is forgotten in their goldlust.
These bastards would charge you for singing in the shower if they could. Look for a line item in Patriot III.
These bastards would charge you for singing in the shower if they could. Look for a line item in Patriot III.
worth noting that the dems are far worse offenders than the repubs in sponsoring corporate friendly intellectual property law. note the work of senators feinstein hollings and breaux in this regard.
The Eyes on the Prize comment is true -- it cannot be shown or sold or distributed anymore, not because its copyright has expired but because the usage agreements negotiated by the producers for the archival footage in the film have lapsed -- the filmmakers no longer have the rights to use the footage in the film.
It's criminal -- but a great reason for the someone to release an HD divx version online, illegally.
...I don't have problems with paying the creators of the work, but I do have problems paying the owners of the work, who are often motivated soley by endless, insatiable greed, the hallmark of the mindless monstrosity called the corporation.
Hear! Hear!
I still don't have TivoToGo. It's certainly a good thing I signed up with their "priority list", or I may never get it. Anyway, Tivo needs to do more to take advantage of the fact that it's always connected to a 3Mbps feed (at least in my house, and probably more of less that in a lot of other houses). Do stuff like let me look up movie info on IMDB. Get sports results or news headlines. Partner with networks to show live stats of sporting events. It doesn't really matter what they do, just do something to prove that they're aware that I've got broadband & I want to use it for more than just browsing. End of gripe. For now.
Warning! Geek Post Approaching!
Actually on a Mac it is fairly easy (with a bare minimum knowledge of UNIX) to rip the songs off of an iPod.
Make a directory called mp3s (or something) in your home directory. Then open the program Terminal (in the Applications/Utilities folder). At the prompt type in:
cp ../../Volumes/[Name of the iPod]/*/*/*.mp3 mp3s
(it might be /*/*.mp3 or /*/*/*/*.mp3, I don't have a iPod connector with me now to check the exact number of *'s). If you only want to do one or two music files change the *.mp3 to the name of the particular file (and repeat for each one you want).
The cp runs a UNIX program called copy, which basically works as cp (copy) x (file you want copied) y (where you want file copied to).
>sony's a great example of a company with its head up its ass. 5 years of hoping mp3 would go away, then they are late to the party with overpriced equipment and their own dumb DRM laden standard. all because they are afraid of cannibalising their own marketing-fat-laden music division.
Not only that, but Sony is such a behemoth of a company that feels confident enough it can set their own patent standards without much risk. They've been playing this gamble for years, even after the Betamax debacle.
Truth is, there are loads of money to be made when a company creates a standard they are able to impose on a market segment (like JVC's vhs, SONY's MiniDv, etc). Other companies have to pay for the licensing of the standard.
Sony is OBSESSED with imposing standards, and this obsession has led them, time and time again ,to lose valuable markets and customer trends. The MP3 example is probably the most obvious, but they do it in every area. They really think they can come up 5 or 6 years after the MP3 explosion and impose their own proprietary standard, when it doesn't offer users anything that MP3 itself can't do. At the same time, they were pushing big time cash into the high definition music CD, which has gone the way of Beta and the Minidisc. They just don't learn.
Notice Apple tried the same with AAC, and MS with WMA. They all are trying to create a market standard, but in my opinion it's a bit late. The MP3 format is good enough, and unless they can come up with anything radically different, they all should build on this standard. Anything else is a waste of time and investment.
...I don't have problems with paying the creators of the work, but I do have problems paying the owners of the work, who are often motivated soley by endless, insatiable greed, the hallmark of the mindless monstrosity called the corporation
Though we were offered deals on more than one occasion, our group never signed a record deal precisely because we wanted to remain the owners of our work. Well, that and the whole corruption thing. Did you know that record companies will sign an artist similar to one they already have and then refuse to release that newly signed artist's material just to avoid what they perceive as market dilution?
I don't get the appeal of TIVO. You buy an expensive machine and pay a monthly fee for the privilege of recording the crap that most of us are already paying a cable fee for. So what? You still have to fast-forward through ads, right? What is the benefit, other than loads of storage space (but a 47 minute show still takes 47 minutes to watch) and easier programming? The movies on non-premium cable are replete with ads and cut to ribbons. If you want the whole movie, you pay for "premium" cable like HBO. I say, $18 per month for Netflix and be done with it. Plus it has the added "lazy-shit" benefit.
I honestly don't see the attraction of TiVo myself...there is so little on TV that interests me in the least, now. I might be persuaded to watch a new episode of The Simpsons, but I can't motivate myself to leave the interactive world of the Internet for the passive world of televison. Besides, I've got seasons of them on DVD now, which I can watch at my leisure, and this is classic stuff that the current episodes often fail to live up to.
I haven't followed this argument closely, but it's pretty shocking to me to hear so many people rationalize theft; ie...the artist already is 'rich', the artist doesn't get the money anyway, only 'rich companies', we are being ripped off, so it's ok to steal back. So much rationalizing bullshit.
"Good artists and writers, motivated by a love of their work, will find ways to make a profit somehow, relying on ingenuity and the good will of their fans."
You are a fool. I'm an artist/craftsman/small biz owner. I'd wager I make about $8 an hour after taxes. Not all 'artists' make tons of money. (I've played music for beer, and often for nothing, so i can see where musicians are coming from)
This year I plan on making a film. I've invested tons of time and money in a camera, a computer and software to edit and burn dvd's. It will take a year of my 'free' time to create it, time that I could have made my normal fucking $8 an hour. All I hope is to recoup the costs of my equipment because the market is very limited.
I've investigated copyright issues surrounding the use of music for the soundtrack of this flick. It is Right and Just that I can not use someone else's labor/creative product without licensing it, just as it is Right and Just that people will pay me for my labor when this is done instead of making copy after copy of the dvd to avoid paying me.
No one, except the very rich/fortunate can work for nothing. At $8 an hour and loving what I do, I consider myself fortunate. But don't ever have the gall to think my labor, or the labor of others, should be 'free' for the taking just because you can find a way to rationalize theft.
FLG: beautiful boy!
I remember seeing an indie album named "Home fucking is killing the prostitution industry". A clear take off on those "home taping" stickers. My favorite were the punk rock cassettes with the record tab left on for the back side.
The digital copyright trichotomy:
Because a copy is by definition a perfect substitute, the market effect of an individual act of copying is indeterminate. It may displace a sale; it may have no effect on subsequent sales; it may stimulate a subsequent sale by the copyright holding firm. Ipso facto, copyright in a digital age is dead. Look for alternative models to compensate creativity.
I guess I should just assume that the camera, computer and software JDW's bought was stolen, just like he's assuming that others are "rationalizing theft".
For that matter, he's making me lose billions of dollars because I could have been inventing something truly great right now, but instead I'm posting to Eschaton.
"the attitude that because something can be easily copied infinitely means that it is okay"
Actually, some of us have the attitude that once we've bought something we do have the right to infinitely copy it for our own use.
If you want a secure job, try building houses for a living. Can't copy those.
No one, except the very rich/fortunate can work for nothing.
which is the root of the problem.
There is, frankly, in a society so wealthy as ours no excuse for demanding that people "work for a living" when "a living" could be provided to everyone as a basic right with little to no real, physical effort at all.
The problem is we have a shortage derived economic model still being used when shortages of basic life sustaning resources can only be artificially maintained to prop up the system.
"I guess I should just assume that the camera, computer and software JDW's bought was stolen, just like he's assuming that others are "rationalizing theft"."
Really? Are the excuses/rationalizations I posted NOT the ones given here and other places where this topic comes up?
I see now we've also addad some type of 'form' argument, ie...that work, by virtue of being in digital form, can or should not be governed by copyright. Just so I understand this: If I write a book in longhand, have it printed traditionally, no one can make copies of that without my permission...but...If I write the book on a computer and distribute/sell it on a cd or dvd, it can be copied and distributed for free because it's digital? Is that what people are arguing?
"If you want a secure job, try building houses for a living. Can't copy those."
Or build art museums, where no art can fill them because artists can't work for free.
You can import mp3s from your iPod using an applescript script. Google "import iPod Audio Files v1.8".
You can also use the command line to cd into the hidden directories and cp all the files you want. They're arranged a little screwily, though, so it's easier to use the applescript script.
What's with the claim that lawsuits killed ReplayTV? Like another poster above, my ReplayTV is working fine, too.
Most (almost all) of the cd cost goes to publicity/playola, ie customers are forced to subsidize the purchase of public airwaves for cd promotion. since the artist DOESNT get the money anyway its hard to understand why would be CD vendors continue to use the term theft with regard to CD's, which are simply one inefficient medium among many ways for a performer to get paid.
And the unenforceability of fixed medium song sales is simply a fact of life, not a moral statement. regardless of how many times you think people should be paid for writing and singing a song once, the technology to easily circumvent most IP laws are not going to go away. selling songs like widgets is over with, it's a fact of life you'd best get used to.
where no art can fill them because artists can't work for free.
the best art and literature known to civilization was produced for what amounts to free (or produced privately.) the very worst of each has been produced by the market and mass media.
Actually, some of us have the attitude that once we've bought something we do have the right to infinitely copy it for our own use.
Lefty
As an "artist" I'd agree with that. But it doesn't address the issue of when somebody uses that same technology to become, in effect, a bootleg distributor. I don't know what the answer is, though.
"Most (almost all) of the cd(cost of Tennis shoes) cost goes to publicity/playola, ie customers are forced to subsidize the purchase of (advertising)public airwaves for cd promotion."
So I can steal tennis shoes without consequence?
I really find it very hard to weep for all the starving artists who just want to sell a lot of cd's and be rich like britney spears, when what is preventing their success is not the 14-yr-old kazaa users but the FCC, the RIAA, the MPAA and the lawmakers conspiring to retain copyright and broadcast monopoly privileges, a position that is both anti consumer and anti-ART.
jdw, its nice to know you view your musical output like so many tennis shoes or bottles of coca cola. you must have an MBA and an MFA.
jdw, its nice to know you view your musical output like so many tennis shoes or bottles of coca cola. you must have an MBA and an MFA.
porbi
Straw man alert! Straw man alert!
You want to know why the big media companies are scared? It's not piracy.
Ages ago, recording companies were actually recording companies, with big studios and symphony orchestras and ace engineers, and you went to Hollywood and recorded your songs.
With the advent of MIDI, the Mac and the PC, and the home recording studio, they began to lose their grip on content production.
In the 90s, you could basically put together an entirely professional recording studio for the price of a Lexus. Today, make that a motorcycle.
And now, with the advent of broadband Internet, they've lost their distribution end as well. Whether legal or illegal, you no longer have to go to the record store to get the stuff.
So what are these media companies? What have they got?
1) Promotion
and
2) The Law.
Believe me, Sony/EMI/BMG are scared shitless of the day that a performer becomes a star purely by Internet buzz. On that day they become a licensing bureau for the old crap. Because who needs them? Record your music, post it to your site/license it to the online stores--Sony? what mean you by this word, Sony?
I'm in favor of DRM, btw--but I also think that copyrights should only have limited transference--that while the creator should have life plus x years, any secondary owner should have it restricted to the original 17 years.
Ripping off artists is wrong--but that wrongness should not be arbitrarily transferrable. If I pirate a Fats Waller mp3, who am I ripping off? Why shouldn't Fats Waller be public domain?
Matt Jordan , maybe the analogy isnt clear. for one thing selling music is not like tennis shoes because tennis shoes are a material product, whose theft necessarily involves someone else's deprivation. if there were a way to copy tennis shoes perfectly and for free, i would be arguing for that right as well.
but beyond that, music (or good music) is an artistic, not a commercial endeavor, and commercial appeals on behalf of "artists" are highly suspect to me. why aren't they suspect to you?
"the best art and literature known to civilization was produced for what amounts to free (or produced privately.)"
Perhaps. Some of it was produced by slaves, too. But behind the great art you'll see in museums is an artist(person) that has to make an income to survive. If Picaso had to sell art to live, or cutivate wealthy patrons to subsidize his work, that's his choice. It doesn't give anyone the right, however, to have stolen his work because they thought he should give it away(or because if he used today's technology to create his work it could be copied and distributed royalty-free)..unless that was his choice to do so.
pbg -
Well said.
We went through the same problem when radio came on line and started playing records. The solution then was BMI and ASCAP which monitors playlists (and live performances) and pays copyright owners accordingly. This is also why you generally don't hear them sing "Happy Birthday" at chain restaurants (because they don't want to have to pay the license fee). We have tried to come up with legislation over the last few years but it has basically sucked.
The big content providers, especially Disney, have a stranglehold on Congress, so a reasonable comprimise is not forthcoming. Disney has managed to get the copyright on Mickey Mouse extended several times--he should have been in the public domain about ten years ago.
And count me as one of those people who believes you should be able to copy purchased music as much as you want for personal use.
My solution to get around the copy protection--copy it onto a CD and then back onto the computer, works every time. But I shouldn't be telling you music thieves that.
"I really find it very hard to weep for all the starving artists who just want to sell a lot of cd's and be rich like britney spears"
See, that's the problem. YOU don't get to decide when Britanny or Lars or Gates any person has enough $ that you can take what is by law 'theirs'. You don't have to weep or buy their crap (God knows I ain't) but you can't decide for someone else what is 'enough' for them.
to have stolen his work
you again presume that reproduction is theft. reproduction deprives no-one of income. the notion of fixed medium intellectual property rights is exactly as old as wax cylinders and no older. you seem to think it is some kind of transcendent natural right, rather than an unnatural figment devised by a selfish, inefficient and unworthy industry.
My solution to get around the copy protection--copy it onto a CD and then back onto the computer, works every time. But I shouldn't be telling you music thieves that.
Freder, if you think that's the best way to get around DRM, you really have no idea what you're up against. Decentralized p2p servers do 100,000 times in traffic what apple could ever hope to sell. this isn't going away. it CAN'T be willed away by the courts.
jdw, its nice to know you view your musical output like so many tennis shoes or bottles of coca cola. you must have an MBA and an MFA.
Oh, that's nice. Pick on the guy because he's trying to make a living out of doing something he loves and other people enjoy.
All artists should starve so you can have free music. Sounds reasonable to me.
"you again presume that reproduction is theft. reproduction deprives no-one of income. the notion of fixed medium intellectual property rights is exactly as old as wax cylinders and no older. you seem to think it is some kind of transcendent natural right, rather than an unnatural figment devised by a selfish, inefficient and unworthy industry."
Who got the founding fathers to write into the constitution.
it CAN'T be willed away by the courts.
porbi
What crimes can be willed away by the courts? This is another straw man argument.
What crimes can be willed away by the courts? This is another straw man argument.
Most laws are somewhat enforceable. Anyone knowing the mechanics of decentralized p2p networking acknowledges the ultimate unenforceability of copyrights such as that applied to 3 minute songs. any more rich intellectual property needs serialization or a hardware dongle.
Tivo not needed here because..
- I'm not handing out all of that information about what I watch
- I'm not so lazy I have to pay a company to program a machine for me
Oh, that's nice. Pick on the guy because he's trying to make a living out of doing something he loves and other people enjoy.
bullshit. he's playing advocate for the britney spears of the world, defending a system that is inherently corrupt and anti-art and anti-consumer. And his shilling is cloaked in some ersatz artistic ethos that is total shit.
Income from live performances is inalienable. P2P networks are the best hope of free marketing for millions of worthy musicians. deal with it.
I assume that some of the contributors to this site are developers of software or make their living through writing. If only the first copy of anything you created is the only one that you can be certain that will earn you money, then you are going to starve pretty quickly.
Nonsense. The IT world has at least already solved this in some circles. I'm a technical writer. I damn sure do get paid only for the first copy of the (generally digital) documents I produce. After that, if people want to download it, upload it, install multiple copies of the software it goes with, print it out, wipe their ass with it...I don't care! The arrangement where I basically only get paid for the first copy is called "work-for-hire" in modern terms. In earlier days, they called it "patronage," and it worked just fine. One generally doesn't get "royalties" with certain kinds of art, so the key is to just keep getting repeat business, keep finding new patrons, and keep producing new stuff.
I'm not exactly anti-copyright, but on the other hand, I agree with the arguments about scarcity (ie. that if you take a digital copy of something, you haven't deprived anyone of anything), and, a funny thing I've noticed, is that "free samples" on my website (for instance) seem to get me a lot more custom than I would have if I had a purely pay-to-play model.
Taking that from documents to music, I haven't bought any actual CDs in years, partially because I don't have the money to spend $15-30 to get what might amount to one song that I like, and partially because the kind of stuff I like generally isn't available here.
(I kid you not. For instance, I love Israeli rock and pop, and you can't get that in London, Ontario. Even if people knew how to order it -- they don't -- they wouldn't bother, because the demand is small, and there aren't many record places that'll do foreign special orders from niche markets. However, I have a friend who keeps me supplied, and places like iuma.com provide free samples. Ifwhen I go to Israel, I'm buying CDs. Nuff said!)
Most laws are somewhat enforceable. Anyone knowing the mechanics of decentralized p2p networking acknowledges the ultimate unenforceability of copyrights such as that applied to 3 minute songs. any more rich intellectual property needs serialization or a hardware dongle.
porbi
Switching to the term "ultimate unenforceability" is a tacit admission that these laws are also "somewhat enforceable." By this logic, most laws are in fact "ultimately unenforceable." Sorry, but the strawman charge stands.
And Now I have to leave you all. Please have this problem solved when I get back.
Peace,
Matt
Who got the founding fathers to write into the constitution.
The founding fathers put it in to increase knowledge. Nowadays patent law is used to suppress new technologies that endanger the profits of old ones.
Switching to the term "ultimate unenforceability" is a tacit admission that these laws are also "somewhat enforceable."
They are 'somewhat enforceable'- by the vendor. Quark enforces their rights by requiring a dongle. Microsoft requires product registration. britney spears cant do these things because mass distribution of a low value product is the nature of pop music. it is feasible to copy a 3 minute britney spears song, whereas it is not feasible to copy serialized windows or a quark dongle (at all.) quark's market value derives from a higher order of sophistication and utility that makes people willing to pay 100's for an expensive hardware dongle, whereas spears' rigged market value derives from weak copyright laws and monopoly control of the airwaves.
nothing is stopping britney spears from selling her cds with a hardware dongle. the fact that she CANT and others CAN attests to their greater innate value.
"you seem to think it is some kind of transcendent natural right, rather than an unnatural figment devised by a selfish, inefficient and unworthy industry."
You still don't get it. If someone produces something in digital form(I'm thinking here of NTodd, who posts beautiful camera art on his wesbite)and protects those images thru copyright, it means that you can't copy his pics digitally and then sell them for your own profit. He has legal recourse if he chooses to excercise it....anymore then you can walk into a museum, take digital photos of Ansel Adams pics then come out with Porbi's Collected Works of Ansel Adams. It's his choice.
You are making the assumption/rationalization that I'm standing up for rich artists and corrupt industry, which is total bs as I'm standing up for neither.
The arguments to you basically boil down to:
Porbi gets to decide who has made enough money.
Porbi gets to decide what is art vs what is 'product'.
Porbi gets to decide who is corrupt and therefor ok to take from vs who isn't.
Porbi gets to declare that artists/writers/any manufacturer or creative or intellectual effort will produce things of greater worth if they do them without pay.
I reccomend the Neuros Audio computer to everyone. It plays mp3, wav, and ogg, it will record off of the line in or the fm receiver, and it also has an fm transmitter built in so you can listen in your car easily. You can pull songs off of it as easily as you put them on. The software and firmware are open source too, which leads to quick innovations as pitch control and looping for DJs, and all sorts of other neat things. Oh yeah, it costs less than an iPod too.
PBG got it. It's not about CD sales. It's about promotion channels.
It's only a matter of time before the next Elvis, the next Beatles, decides to screw the labels and self-market their own album. (And guess what, more than likely it's going to be in blog format, at least that's my guess). And that's going to open the floodgates. And the big 5 are going to be out of the loop, and out of business.
To the IP defenders, while I agree that artists should be allowed to make a living, we need to fight this stuff the same way we figh the GOP, or we're going to get creamed.
So what it comes down to...personally, I have demands. It's my culture, I'm ALLOWED to make demands.
#1. Open up the gates to non-commercial webradio
#2. Come up with a REAL Napster clone that people can pay for. You can watermark the files, to determine who gets what, but they have to be easily transferred MP3s/OGGs.
Unless the conglomerates are willing to open the doors to promotion and competition, I say revoke all their IP.
If Ntodd gives away his art, how could I be expected to sell it? nor are record companies complaining about sold bootlegs, merely "lost sales."
and I don't want to decide any of those things you say. I'm also not the one clogging up the courts with thousands of lawsuits against 14 yr olds.
i would prefer the public to decide them, which they cannot do under the current scheme of copyright trademark and patent law. if you think 'copyright violation' is tantamount to theft, then your position is against the natural and inalienable right to distribute information which is defined and defended in the constitution.
but as I said even intellectual property can be retained, without leaning on the court system and phony invented "rights". quark and microsoft do so already, with serial registration and dongles.
Well, let me see, how to put it shortl and exactly as it is?
Oh, I think I got it:
Intellectual property is theft.
i love my replay tv so much that I don't want to watch old tv anymore. no commercials, skip skip skip through to the parts you want to see. I love it dearly...
"It's only a matter of time before the next Elvis, the next Beatles, decides to screw the labels and self-market their own album."
There are already people that do this. I've bought dvd's from King Crimson and Bill Bruford, etc. KC has their own publishing/distibution etc they established in part to own their own work product.
Pretty cool, good music, cool people, and they ain't 'rich' despite decades of producing art. Now, is it ok for me to make boots of their dvd's to sell or give away to people too cheap to buy them? Or publish their data/work product for people to download for free without their permission? I say no. It's not up to me to decide they have enough money that I can rationalize stealing their work product, not can I rationalize their creative rights away by claiming that it's some esoteric 'construct' designed to make the rich richer, blahblahblah.
Nor is it up to me to say, ok the are cool people and I'll buy their stuff, but some people ain't that cool or are affilated with a megacorporation and so it's ok to get it for free.
Intellectual property is theft.
Just as someone holds the ridiculous copyright on 'happy birthday' someone else holds the patent for streaming video. that means any time you use a technology in any commercial way, you MUST pay this person royalties. hundreds of similar patents exists. Is it just that someone should be able to bring me to court for squatting early upon a generic technology or process, because of some patent clerks weak sense for "overbroadness" and prior art?
intellectual property should be the onus of the owner to defend, not the court system. it is a tax on innovation we all pay to the courts and the corporations.
Just to comment:
1) We shouldn't support products with annoying DRM; I bought my MP3 Jukebox from RCA, which markets it as a "portable hard drive and music player" - subtle difference in language there
2) Keep up with happenings in copyright land and fight for your rights at
http://www.hrrc.org
the Home Recording Rights Coalition
3) Be reasonable. Buy stuff if you've heard a sample and you like it. Give stuff away only if you're pretty sure the person wouldn't have bought it, but might after they hear some of it.
It's not really honest to upload entire albums and such to every one of your friends' PC's - that's the kind of thing that's gonna get everybody shut down eventually.
And do worry about the net being locked down - worry a lot. Watch out for "trusted compting", because business is starting to fall off on the Net as folks get disgusted with adware and spyware, and disconnect permanently to avoid further trouble. Forces are gathering to make a case that the whole thing should be controlled with PKI and certificates on *everything*. Throw in a scary little terrorism scenario for good measure (even if it's total BS) and the gummint', Dem or Repug, will
be all over the issue like a Chihuaha on a pork chop.
If you have time, please consider reading the following article by John Walker, the guy that founded Autodesk/Autocad:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/document...tal-imprimatur/
It's a scary read.
king crimson are highly unlikely to issue a subpoena for downloading their songs. it should tell you something that the folks leading the charge for the riaa are lawyers and not musicians (and the musicians involved are barely that.) dvds are not feasible to copy or distribute in bulk; when they are the notion that they are protected intellectual property will seem just as quaint, and kc will have to go back to performance for money, sorry.
Just as someone holds the ridiculous copyright on 'happy birthday' someone else holds the patent for streaming video. that means any time you use a technology in any commercial way, you MUST pay this person royalties.
Believe it or not, someone did write "happy birthday", and his heirs are entitled to royalties from the performances of that song. Now, as to the broader question as to the current state of patent and copyright law in this country and whether some of the patents and copyrights granted in this country have just gone way too far, I couldn't agree with you more. Apparently, there are a lot of patent examiners at the Patent and Trademark Office who are way out of their league when dealing with technology patents, trademarks and copyrights. Also, there has been a nasty trend recently of people applying for trademarks and copyrights for things they didn't create but just realized nobody else had. That is just wrong and should be stopped. But that doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the bath water.
.-.
Despair.com on a lark applied for and was granted a copyright on " :-( ". They were inspired by the idiot who actually got a patent on using a laser pointer as a cat toy. These kind of things should not be allowed.
By the way, Despair.com charges $5 for each use of :-{, although you can buy packs of 12 for $50. I think they got tired of the joke though, I can't find it on their website anymore.
Ever read the book by KC Constantine about the author who trashed libraries for giving his stuff away? Nutty nutty, but there is a point there, isn't there?
Tivo rules, and I really don't care that they know what I watch or what I fast forward through. Aggregated data like that can be useful and if it leads to more airings of Myrna Loy movies or the Brak Show then I'm cool with it.
ipodder is a program for PCs which allows one to copy files from the iPod to a computer. Quick and easy.
"king crimson are highly unlikely to issue a subpoena for downloading their songs. it should tell you something that the folks leading the charge for the riaa are lawyers and not musicians"
Uh, maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't. But as they are fuctioning as a company to protect artist's rights(their own and the artists that sign with them), I would think they would have some long discussions of such on the effect of the business and their artists livelihood.
A number of considerations may lead to their decision but it's their choice to protect their work and not yours.
As to your 'solution' of lost revenues being made up by touring. Why should people pay to see them live if they had to charge a lot of $ per ticket to make up for the loss of revenue from recordings? Since you seem to think music and art should be 'free', if everyone thought like you why even pay for a concert...it's just moving air molecules, and air is public and free...it belongs to all of us. Further, since I've paid for admission does that give me the right to record and sell their work product? After all, I bought a ticket....and it's just moving molecules.
I don't know what you do for a living, but if a portion of your livlihood is destroyed thru theft I don't think your best answer to that problem would be to move around the world trying to sell your products/service in person.
"dvds are not feasible to copy or distribute in bulk; when they are the notion that they are protected intellectual property will seem just as quaint,"
As far as I know, the technology to copy dvd exists, and there isn't anymore 'problems of distribution' then going to amazon.com and clicking a link.
You seem compelled to think that technology makes property rights obsolete. Using this logic, anyone with a crowbar and screw driver has the right to take my car or enter my house because screwdrivers and crobars exist.
How quaint.
Somehow I'm guessing that Shrub and the Republicans AREN'T going to propose sweeping tort reforms that would make it harder for enormous established tech companies to use the courts to stifle competition, using dubious theories about intellectual property rights.
""king crimson are highly unlikely to issue a subpoena for downloading their songs. it should tell you something that the folks leading the charge for the riaa are lawyers and not musicians""
There have been a number of musicians that have protested downloading, etc. They were widely mocked at the time, with the rationale for theft being that 'Lars has enough money(cars, houses, pussy), he can afford to give it to me for nothing. What an asshole! He should just tour more, but I'm not gonna go see that asshole.'
These same types will cite the coolness of the Dead for allowing taping, etc but if you ask them in the parking lot of the Dead Show why they aren't just giving away the macrobiotic soy burgers or acid they are selling, they'd have a lot of reasons for not doing so.
My 40-gig iRiver rocks. It plays multiple formats including ogg, allows me to move/copy any files to and from the player, and cooks me breakfast in the morning. (Uh...that last part may be a slight exaggeration.) It's the best electronics purchase I've made in the past ten years. I've been using it daily for the last year with no problems.
But TiVo is still pissing me off. "DIRECTV DVRs with TiVo are not TiVoToGo compatible." Not compatible? Let's be honest - you just don't want us to have this cool and desirable feature because we MIGHT copy perfect MPEG-2 files to our home computers and share them with others, you soulless corporate hacks.
JDW:
I can see where artists like you want to eat.
But the RIAA now goes after people who download stuff in the public domain. Furthermore, thanks to lobbying by Disney's Michael Eisner, the copyright laws that used to only last for seventy-five years have been kicked up a few decades.
Pretty soon, there won't BE such a thing as "public domain" any more.
My DH runs into this problem all the time. He's a fan of old-time music, and there are lots of old-time tunes that never made it out of the vinyl era (hell, lots of 'em never made it out of the 78 era!). But even though they're no longer under copyright, and even though they wouldn't be commercially viable to release on CD, the RIAA goes after anyone who tries to preserve this music by passing it around informally.
The people who think IP is bullshit are generally either kids or employees of some corporate/government behemoth. I bet that the serfs use to complain about the asshole city folk charging for _work_. I mean, a days' labor is a made up thing. A property deed is an imaginary construct. If I hide video cameras in your house and steal your privacy, you didn't lose anything tangible. What crap.
For Apple with a DVD burner, get:
-Mac the ripper (free)
-DVD2oneX (not free unless you download it off a p2p)
The rest is happy copying of DVDs from your rental shop or friends--and it creates region free DVDs. I love technology.
You seem compelled to think that technology makes property rights obsolete. Using this logic, anyone with a crowbar and screw driver has the right to take my car or enter my house because screwdrivers and crobars exist.
No. Technology will make many categories of intellectual property including 4 minute pop music songs obsolete. There are qualitative distinctions between intellectual and material goods you refuse to consider. Are you seriously comparing copying a book from the library to car theft? I guess my point about deprivation is lost on you. oh well.
And in any case the burden to defend intellectual rights should not fall on the state, but the copyright holder. caveat vendor.
There is also the interesting situation of giant corporations going after themselves.
Sony music is suing (or was suing) Sony electronics for CD-R burners.
How messed up is that?
A lot of people seem to take copyright and per-copy royalties for granted. Per-copy royalties exist because publishers have set up a system that allows them to dodge paying creators fairly for their work. They just want to pay a small cut of whatever they happen to make publishing the product of that work, and if that's too little, well, the creator is SOL. Publishers, not file-swappers, would like creators to work for free to reduce the risk of publishing. Creators, not file-swappers, are the chief victims of copyright and DRM regimes. File-swappers can generally afford to simply ignore copyright and crack/bypass DRM; creators cannot, because publishers won't let them. One creator in this thread says he would be pissed if he only got paid for the first copy, but I think he has it backwards - creators should be able to insist on being paid fairly for their work in creating the first copy. Apart from a few who are exceedingly greedy, they should be able to settle on a price for the value of their work, and that is the rightful price of the first copy. After that, they don't need to care how many filesharing networks their art/product ends up on. Being paid on the basis of work performed is probably somewhat less convenient than royalties, but it is the standard in which the vast majority of industries thrive, and to many it is not obvious that publishers should get special treatment in this regard. Modern copyright is indeed a construct of the publishing industry; it does not exist to protect artists, and even if it was originally intended to, it typically does not achieve that end in practice because publishers wield so much power in the contracting and lawmaking processes while few creators have sufficient legal clout to truly stand up for themselves. The ultimate evidence that copyright is implemented as an industrial construct and not a natural right is that artists can sign away their copyrights (see Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, in which John Fogerty was sued for creating a derivative work of a song he wrote). Furthermore, strict copyright laws present creators with the threat of inadvertently being "too inspired" by someone else's work, as George Harrison was with "My Sweet Lord". They curb retellings of powerful stories from new perspectives, the staple of Disney's celebrated classics. They tell a creator: "Be careful what you see, be careful what you hear, and be careful what you create, or you might end up in court".
To see creators defending this system is quite baffling.
It sounds to me like a lot of people think patent lawyers and litigators are stupid and don't have a reason to live.
I do not believe this. But if you want to see how much litigation is produced by business, as opposed to so-called frivolous personal injury lawsuits, ask the trial lawyers.
A lot of 'neat' stuff never makes it to the marketplace, and a lot of what does doesn't survive.
Does Bill Gates really deserve to be called an 'innovator'? I don't think he's really done anything since DOS, thirty years ago. And even that was substantially written by somebody else, if I understand correctly.
Gates's talents are in marketing, and in using legal resources to protect his business interests. This does nothing for new technology, but it does spread PC-based computers around the world.
And if Steve Jobs hadn't been such a butthead about marketing and licensing manufacturers to make MACs, a superior product would have made it to the global market in greater numbers. We'd all be using his computers--widely accepted as better in many respects than the IBM PC and its clones.
As it now stands, Jobs is lucky the Mac didn't go the way of the BetaMax.
And not because of lawsuits, either.
...from Sandisk. They are going to come out with a mp3 pkayer that kills apple on price
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
