Senate Majority Leader Takes On File Sharing 591
An anonymous reader writes "Colleges are up in arms — and the entertainment industry is ecstatic — over Sen. Harry Reid's plan to crack down on file sharing by students. Floor votes could be imminent." A commenter on the post said, "Unfortunately we are likely to see neither sense nor principle from the Democrats on this issue, as Hollywood is their biggest cash machine."
No way to combat filesharing (Score:5, Informative)
What do you want to do to avoid it? Log the IP addresses of people using it? People will start onion routing their packets, using also existing onion routers so you can't tell that an IP you got is actually a culprit. Also people will start using "private" trackers and networks more than they already do. To avoid packet identification through mandatory logging at ISPs, packets will get wrapped in other headers (HTTP offers itself due to being the perfect "noise" to duck into).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
People abusing the existing Tor system for Bittorrent is a bad enough problem, and I think it's indicative of where efforts like that are going to end up: the people who create Onion routing nodes aren't doing it so that script kiddies can download Warez or pirate movies, and the script kiddies who want to download Warez or movies aren't going to set up onion-routing nodes
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No way to combat filesharing (Score:5, Insightful)
The report talks about colleges enforcing illegal downloading, not P2P technology. It's funny that even a defender would confuse the two.
Re:No way to combat filesharing (Score:5, Insightful)
Simply: You can't. So what colleges will do (and already do) is to simply disallow any kind of P2P traffic altogether.
Re:No way to combat filesharing (Score:5, Funny)
Really? That's where I'm sending my kids, then :-)
Re: (Score:2)
If only there were more attempts at making laws to enforce illegal downloading.. or even making no download illegal. Assuming any actually are.. the complete lack of case law on anyone, ever, being sued or incarcerated for "illegal downloading" not being a good enough indication to some people.
Re:No way to combat filesharing (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you want to do to avoid it? Log the IP addresses of people using it? People will start onion routing their packets, using also existing onion routers so you can't tell that an IP you got is actually a culprit. Also people will start using "private" trackers and networks more than they already do. To avoid packet identification through mandatory logging at ISPs, packets will get wrapped in other headers (HTTP offers itself due to being the perfect "noise" to duck into).
The article does not say that P2P networks will become illegal which would be strange since there is nothing so fundamentally wrong with P2P computer networks that they have to be banned any more than there is a reason to ban hammers because they are occasionally used to murder people. Using P2P networks to distribute pirated multimedia content and pirated software is however illegal. Unfortunately, at the moment, the only really effective way to stop illegal sharing of pirated software and multimedia content over P2P networks is for educational institutions, government institutions, businesses and even ISPs to disable P2P completely. From my point of view this is unfortunate since I don't pirate software or media content, I cover most of my software needs with FOSS and purchase any additional software and what little multimedia content I use. The fact that people use things like Bittorent to distribute pirated material is unfortunate since it has made it impossible for me to download Linux distributions and other FOSS software that is distributed via Bittorrent when I am at work which has impacted my productivity as a worker. Until recently Linux distributions like Centos, for example, relied heavily on Bittorent for distributing their DVD ISO images and it's only recently that these became fairly widely available via FTP/HTTP. Distributing pirated material off P2P networks isn't a fundamental human right, it's not legal, it's something people are able to do because they can get away with and now draconian measures are being taken to kill off the distribution of pirated material over P2P networks to the huge inconvenience of those of us who use P2P for legitimate purposes. Another reason why this amendment is crap, apart from it's detrimental impact on the legitimate use of P2P, is because it singles out colleges when there are communities and institutions who are much worse than college students when it comes to distributing pirated content and software via P2P so to that extent I agree with you.
Just my €0.02.
Re:No way to combat filesharing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No way to combat filesharing (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me these are the practical questions that get lost in all the rhetoric.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No way to combat filesharing (Score:5, Insightful)
That just goes to show that if you put out a good product and don't abuse your customers too much, people will still pay for your stuff even if it is readily available for free.
That is the "business model shift" that both the RIAA and the MPAA need to make. They need to stop acting like they are entitled to success. They have to act like they are willing to work for it. This goes equally for AMC that thinks it can get away with showing commercials for some lame ass sitcom before Harry Potter 5.
The RIAA simply needs to stop being an ass. Admittedly, this may be impossible for them to do. They've been doing it for so long.
As I like to say: When it comes to ripping off artists, consumers really are amateurs compared to the labels.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No way to combat filesharing (Score:4, Interesting)
Because it is cheaper (time is money), quicker, easier to pay for it? It is a pain in the ass to look for movies, music, and games pirated online. It can take days to download an obscure movie using bitorrent, and even worse via p2p. Also, there is always a danger if you aren't downloading from a trusted source. Perhaps teenagers have more time than money, but for adults, if the media is priced competitively and it isn't crippled with DRM, it is just easier and simpler to pay.
The big problem is that media companies want to charge the same amount for a digital download as a CD or DVD, and they want to cripple it with DRM. They don't understand that the new media model will be on selling lots of diverse media for very very cheap, instead of selling a few over-hyped pieces of media for high prices.
Yeah, so I suppose ... (Score:4, Insightful)
You want some copyrighted lyrics? How about this, from The Who [thewho.net]:
Re:Yeah, so I suppose ... (Score:5, Interesting)
When the Democrats swept into power in Congress I listened to all the liberal commentators talking about how it was Good News and how Things Would Be Different Now and how the Bad Guys were out and the Good Guys were in. And I shook my head and thought of Mouseland.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:that's incrediby retarded (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is with the system: Duverger's law [wikipedia.org]. We have a two-party system because our voting method pushes us in that direction, and once you're down to two parties, it doesn't really matter who they are. They'll be subject to all the same influences as the Republicans and Democrats are now, because they'll be the only ones in power. An interest group that wants a favor will donate to the majority party; a group that's been slighted by the current government will donate to the opposition. It'll be the same thing we have now, with different letters after the names on TV.
If you really want to do something smart, do two things:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or how about term limitations on Congress and Senators and elimnination of life time tenure for judicial officials?
The constitution defines the states as owning the election process for its officials. It seems to me then that each state has the right to decide on term limits for their representatives (Congresspeople and Senators work for the state). So if enough people in a given state vote to limit terms for their reps they should be able to.
The founders of the country envisioned a part-time federal gov
I'm freakin' dyin' over here. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's fucked up. We need more choices.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking of which. If you care enough about politics.... Register Republican and vote Ron Paul in the republican primary.
He's the only politician that isn't a cat. He's voted no on everything from the Patriot Act, to the Iraq war, and from little things like giving government grants.
Now to be fair, he may not be the world's most brightest when it comes to technology, but many feel for the sure fact that he believe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) I never said the European system was better. I don't believe it is. "Glowingly?" I was being pretty dispassionate about the differences in our systems, I thought.
2) I believe everyone has the right to be represented in their government; even (and especially, given their minority status) the fringe lefties and right-wingers. The founding fathers felt the same way.
3) You said:
I disagree. I believe the real strength of our fed
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When was the last time you saw the Republicans or the Democrats actually do something that helped the common man instead of the corporations that pay for them to get back in office?
Look, it's common sense really. Imagine, for a moment, that you are a Congress-Person. You get a nice paycheck and your name on TV. Your mom is so proud. Now it's crunch time: you actually have to pass a law. You can go two ways on this. You can go one way, a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you know of anything else I can do to help bring about change I would be more than glad to hear it. But accusing me of helping to create a fascist state is not constructive, nor is it going to chan
Am I missing something? (Score:4, Insightful)
What you have said so far is that anyone who refuses to work with the system is helping it to break, and if you think the system is broken, there is no reason to try to work with it.
So what should someone who believes the system is broken do? I can't do nothing because that makes me a fascist, and I can't work within the system for to try and improve it because that makes me a hypocrite. The only options left, that I can see, are working outside the system by manipulating the vote, or a second revolution, which I am hesitant to initiate until all other options have been tried.
Is there another option I've missed? Or are you just argueing to argue now?
well (Score:3, Insightful)
Corporate political sponsorship (Score:5, Interesting)
Oblig. comment (Score:2)
Re:Normal democracy in a capitalist nation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite. During most of the XX century, more often than not, Washington managed to strike a balance between business interests and the interests of society as a whole - think of the cries of corporate outrage when recordable cassettes and VCRs came out, how it supposedly signaled the end of the world as we now it, etc, and how Washington stood its' ground, deeming the technology legal for public consumption.
However, since the advent of the internet, something snapped. Panicking, ignorant fossils (democrats and republicans alike) who think in terms of dump trucks and series of tubes and don't even know how to bookmark a page in their browsers, have now allowed a few major corporate players to determine, one insidious step at a time, how the internet should work and what constitutes fair use and theft, in the exact opposite direction of what used to be the norm.
A corporate iron grip on western culture is almost complete, on paper, on an unprecedented scale. And now, the do-nothing, good-for-nothing distinguished congressman from Nevada is giving us a glimpse of just who owns everything - those who own him. I am convinced that he is completely ignorant on american legal history of intellectual property and ownership.
*gasp* democrats can be evil? (Score:5, Insightful)
Raise your hand if you thought your congressman would listen to you.
Who would you listen to: a very small donor at best, or the group who bankrolled your campaign(especially the "care about the people" PR)?
Why is this shocking news? Hell as a former die hard repub, I've lost pretty much all faith in the nation and it's future
Re:*gasp* democrats can be evil? (Score:4, Insightful)
"In the last presidential election (2004), the richest 2% of Americans had TWO political parties representing their interests, while the other 98% had NO political parties representing their interests. And that 98% included all of the folks running around waving flags and saying 'I'm free, I'm free, I live in a democracy'"
You know we're in serious trouble wheh Michael Moore sounds (at least on this one occasion) like a beacon of reason
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I didn't, but largely because they're not supposed to. At least not if "listen to you" means "vote the way of the majority opinion of his constituents." We are not a democracy. We do not vote on issues. We elect people who vote on issues for us. If we want those votes to be bound to the majority will, let's just scrap the system and do a straight vote of all Americans. Or hell, I suppose a telephone survey of 1,200 random respondent
That is consequence of the one party system (Score:5, Insightful)
The politic system is rotten, third party can't win (even if they had more support, there are so many hurdles for an independent candidate to overcome), majors parties are in fact one, people are cattle and vote based on frivolous fads and superstitions instead of on important issues and past actions.
The "manifest destiny" ended up being a self defeating prophecy, U.S. people got so used to the idea that U.S. fate is to lead the world that forgot to care about their own house and get a decent leadership for themselves.
Sad... But Not Suprising (Score:3, Informative)
But I think the biggest points in the bill are the following. From the Article:
How can any viable and self-respecting college network do anything like this without crippling their network and expending an obscene amount of money and man-hours. Congress constantly proves themselves to be less that tech-savvy, and this extremely tall order is just more proof. And, more importantly, the last thing I need is another tuition increase to pay for it.
And secondly:
I think the
But, I don't really think it matters all that much, something like this is going to go into law eventually, I'm afraid.
A slightly premature story? (Score:2, Informative)
Sorry, not biting. Given the number of bills and amendments that do not pass, I think this narrowly escapes being described as FUD.
FUD, yes, but useful FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can't bring your party up to where people could vote for them with a clean conscience, you can at least bring the other party down and pretend that they're at the same level. Responses, if any, will be along the lines of "yeah, because Democrats are such angels, perfect in every way, and they always do what the people want" which is not what I said. I have long said that Dems and Repubs are about the same when it comes to pork spending, subservience to lobbyists, and general corruption (including legal but unethical stuff), but Repubs are essentially The Torture Party as far as I'm concerned. You don't have to impress me much to beat out The Torture Party.
If the Dems just run as the "We Think Habeus Corpus is Important" party, that's good enough for me, even with the usual complement of pork spending and knee-jerk overreaction that we always expect from congress. I wish Dems were better, but this equivocation where going after filesharers proves that the Dems are just as bad as the Republicans is a bit ridiculous. If torture, habeus corpus, and warrantless surveillance aren't part of the discussion about which party is better, at least right now, then we aren't really having a discussion.
A little matter of history? (Score:3, Informative)
Didn't the Democrats put 200,000 Japanese citizens in concentration camps during World War II?
Run MK-ULTRA, and numerous CIA / FBI abuses during the Cold War?
Allow J Edgar Hoover's FBI to amass data on US Citizens for almost 40 years?
Run illegal wiretaps throughout every Presidency since Truman?
The whole notion of Democrats having of moral superiority when it comes to civil rights has no historical basis in fact.
Our best hope would have been to
the distinction... (Score:2, Offtopic)
I can't vote against the people who interned the Japanese Americans, or pushed for MK-Ult
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait a minute (Score:3, Interesting)
Didn't Michelle Malkin write a book about how the concentration camps were a good thing? By golly, yes she did. [regnery.com] Title is "In Defense of Internment".
So one of the annointed few who is allowed to speak on behalf of the Republican party is running around the airwaves defending the japanese internment... Whereas the Democrats apologize for it whenever it's brought up.
It's examples like this which lead people to the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I think the Taguba report related items a bit more draconian. People have been beaten, burned, raped, sodomized with lightsticks
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I'm all liberal in my personal politics (socialism should temper capitalism, civil rights, etc), but I've been just as disappointed by Democrats as Republicans, if not more so. And as the adage goes, if you're not a Democrat when you're younger, you don't have a heart, and if you're not a Republican when you're older, you don't have a brain. I don't find it unrealistic that I might gravitate more to Republicans over the years.
In truth, really I hate parti
Not that anyone asked, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Call me cynical, but if a politician shows sense, they won't get enough of the conservative vote to ever get elected. And if they show principle, well, they're probably so lacking in even common sense to ever get liberal vote. So why should we expect either in any measurable form?
That trolling asside, from TFA:
Roads also facilitate theft. Roads also have police to patrol and set up roadblocks if necessary, that sort of thing. But funds are appropriated for such services. If one is to mandate that measures be taken to prevent intellectual property theft, one should provide a plan for funding of such an endeavor. It's not a universities fault that students steal any more than it is a construction worker's fault of someone later uses a road to facilitate a crime because the road happens to go past a bank.
At least, that's the way I see it.
Re: (Score:2)
If students are found to be illegally downloading/sharing content then they need to be tackled individually. The blanket approach that they are proposing is horribly intrusive. Effectively saying "A load of you are probably guilty of something so you're going to give us the money required to carry out random searches without actually trying separate the guilty from the innocent."
In other news, the parents of a child executed by the RIAA reacted with dismay on receivin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unsure (Score:5, Interesting)
I can understand that bittyrant does help spread the load of linux distributions but I don't understand why other university's and colleges can't implement this as well. How does it hurt people? I don't know why people are fighting so hard. The university's policy did not stop me from learning nor did it stop me from playing (if I had lived in halls) it just stopped activities which either used high amounts of bandwidth or could land the univeristy in legal trouble.
Then again with iPods, portable usb drives and the messenger share folders most students could share music/video if they wanted to and I did see people moving to these methods in my final year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't bother trying to point out the difference between a physical product and a copy, it just means you don't understand economics.
Okay, you are a moron. If it can be copied at zero cost, then the marginal production cost of that copy is $0. Especially since any movie that does not recoup its costs in the first weekend in theaters is called a commercial failure - thus the thousands of people have BEEN ALREADY PAID for the work they've done. So, zero-cost copies hurt their sales? Fuck them. They're getting paid. I pay for movie tickets, I download what I want to keep.
(And sometimes I buy a DVD on impulse, but it's pretty much guarantee
Re: (Score:2)
Now, the reasons people fight it so much is less along those ideas and more along the idea of they are entitled to the
The difference (Score:3, Interesting)
I found edinburgh didn't care too much about what you did so long as you stayed on JaNET, where they had 20Gb/s of bandwidth. You'd frequently find that you
democrats (Score:2)
Reporting to Hollywood (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A commenter writes... (Score:5, Funny)
stealing and theft (Score:2)
They are trying really hard to associate these terms with filesharing in a subversive way, just to make filesharing sound worse than it is. I think filesharing is a better term --> it's not called file-theft for a reason.
B.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly do you expect people to produce new content if the target market all steals it. People whine that all music is sanitized commercial crap, yet that is the music that *sells*. people who pirate stuff have no rights to whine about any content, because you are not part of the market, and therefore the market will not
Re: (Score:2)
So, to make a long-ish story short: Copying is not stealing. Copying is no
Re: (Score:2)
If you are interested in the product enough to download a pirate copy, you are by definition within the target market.
If you are in the target market and satisfy your need for it without payment, you have distorted the market.
products are made on the basis that a reasonable proportion of the target market will pay for the product, assuming a quality product.
The product has 100% up front fixed costs and zero marginal costs. You do not save the producer anything by cop
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides semantics, thieving has a much more negative association to it in the mind of the public than copying. I u
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Protecting IP is quite important I'd say. They're trying to push it here as well. However, whilst protecting you IP, you can still make it easy for a broad market to purchase rights to listen, read or watch such IP. For example, they could provide in several different formats, each with their own price (i.e. hardcovers and paperb
Re: (Score:2)
You have to be really delusional to think that copying content without paying for it is sustainable in the middle or long run. Content producers have to eat.
That thing about Hollywood is strictly horseshit (Score:5, Interesting)
Opensecrets [opensecrets.org] reports that the top industries donating to the DNC [opensecrets.org], based on contributions from PACs, Levin money donors, and individuals who self-identify their employer, are:
1. Retired ($7,389,597)
2. Lawyers/Law Firms ($3,250,708)
3. Securities & Investment ($2,301,530)
4. Real Estate ($1,570,877)
5. Education ($1,429,546)
6. Misc Finance ($1,176,402)
7. Business Services ($1,108,889)
8. Health Professionals ($1,044,045)
9. TV/Movies/Music ($1,042,810)
Thus the "industry" making the largest contributions to the DNC are retired individuals, contributing over $7 million to a total of about $37 million. The entertainment industry, which is presumably what the myth-entranced poster meant by "Hollywood", comes in 9th place with just about one measly million.
For the DCCC, which is responsible for elections in the House, it breaks down like this [opensecrets.org]:
1. Candidate Committees ($28,987,184)
2. Retired ($6,473,164)
3. Securities & Investment ($5,237,572)
4. Lawyers/Law Firms ($4,730,490)
5. Real Estate ($2,846,870)
6. TV/Movies/Music ($2,299,387)
So the top contributors to the general DCCC funds are, by far, the individual campaign committees (who of course must get their own contributors). "Hollywood" comes in sixth place with about $2 million out of a total of over $80 million.
For the DSCC, responsible for Senate campaigns, the picture is about exactly the same [opensecrets.org] as for the DCCC:
1. Candidate Committees ($10,312,550)
2. Lawyers/Law Firms ($9,989,631)
3. Securities & Investment ($7,938,319)
4. Retired ($6,967,505)
5. Real Estate ($4,864,610)
6. Misc Finance ($2,585,026)
7. TV/Movies/Music ($2,286,687)
This time, "Hollywood" comes in 7th place, again with about $2 million out of over $80 million.
However we much we may dislike what Harry Reid is doing, the claim about "Hollywood" and the Democrats is load of peanut butter. We need to get these reality-challenged conservative canards out of our public discussion; they certainly have no business of the front page of Slashdot.
Re:That thing about Hollywood is strictly horseshi (Score:2)
While that's strictly true (i.e. it's not the main source), it's certainly one of their main contributors, and far more so than the Republicans. You should do some comparisons between Republican vs. Democrat to understand the Hollywood/Democratic link. (All figures from the websites you linked to).
For example, the contribution of the TV/Movies/Music industry to the Democratic Party is considerably higher than the Republican Party ($6,045,582 vs. $2,434,205), and while the RNC and the DNC are very similar
Getting better (Score:3, Insightful)
You were getting close, but then you said:
Sorry, but the "Hollywood" cash contribution to Democrats is just too small to warrant the phrase "one of the main". It consistently comes in at something like 2.5%.
All right, this is indeed a true statement, and point well taken. While a couple of million
Not quite (Score:2)
Those were Open Secrets' numbers from 2006 (Score:2)
And incidentally, they're not "my" numbers, they are from Open Sec [opensecrets.org]
Would downloading an HTML file be file sharing? (Score:2, Insightful)
If a politician votes against me... (Score:2)
What a stupid, childish attitude. If you think that those who disagree with you politically are by-and-large stupid, evil, greedy and/or corrupt, it is a sure sign that you are simply too stupid to understand them.
GREAT!!!! Now is the time for us to.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Colleges require information to flow as freely as possible, so they depend on a fair amount of corner-cutting. No one really waits to get approval or check the copyright position before downloading something from the Wiki, for instance. If they were forced to, a college could not function.
So we need to spam the most righteous Bible Colleges with spurious DMCA takedown notices, and claim obscure copyright privileges over any communication we have with them.
Perhaps we could find encrypted streams passing between government buildings, and 'fake whistle-blow' to the RIAA that films are being passed on these links. Send copyrighted data to prominent supporters of the bill without the copyright message, and then get their systems turned over....
The possibilities are endless!!
Aside from the normal BS (Score:2)
As a libertarian, I've found both parties very willing to sell individual freedoms away. Aside from the war, which is so charged to prevent rational discourse, the Republicans were eager to sell out bankruptcy protections. The DMCA was passed by a unanimous vote in the Senate and signed by Clinton.
So for all you fanboys and fangirls, it's not related
Downloading on roommates port (Score:4, Interesting)
Republicans Gone Hollywood (Score:4, Insightful)
But is Hollywood "Democrats' biggest cash machine"? No. It's not the biggest source of money to the Democratic Party. I'd like to see some evidence to back up that Republican talking point, before it's promoted on the Slashdot front page.
And are Democrats really the "Hollywood Party"? Schwarzenegger, governor of California, is a Republican - and all Hollywood. Fred Thompson, a favorite of Republicans to run for president next year, is a Republican, a popular TV actor, and all Hollywood. Ronald Reagan, patron saint of the Republican Party, was nothing but Hollywood, after his career as B actor, culminating in roles as California governor, then US president. And of course Hollywood, the ultimate corporate media cash machine, prefers the Republican Party, which represents precisely Hollywood's values: corporate media, rich people, marketing appearance over substance, popularity contests determining power, the lot.
Hollywood is America. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are America. Pretending only Democrats are Hollywood, while Republicans are their real blockbusters, is not really "the American Way". It's the Republican Way. But it's just a made up story, projected on screens across America and the world.
This proposal has already been withdrawn (Score:4, Informative)
What ever happened to the library? (Score:4, Interesting)
Some school needs to get innovative and start up their own online media library which takes advantage of the super fast connections most campuses have and stream the media. They've tried partnering with commercial vendors but that doesn't seem to work as well as they'd hoped.
The music industry and movie industry and whomever else should be giving students access to as much music as they want.... they're only there for 4-5 years on average and after they graduate they are going to want to have the same type of access... but will have jobs and bank accounts to pay for it. Right now all they are doing is training them on how to use P2P and avoid getting caught.
Maybe they should limit internet access bandwidth to web and email ports but provide campusNet access to media servers with very fast connections. Make it really easy for students to access the legal stuff... then they'll only have to deal with the small minority who want to download *alternative* content. Even better, you could let students manage the content and create Channels. Let them create proposals for various formats and apply for budgets to buy the media for distribution to the rest of the campus. This would make the students appreciate the economics and would give them ownership which they will then defend against *pirates*.
Add to this and license Facebook servers and let students hook up their profiles with various channels, etc and build their cultural profile and talk about the latest whatever.
Free Media Downloads (Score:3, Interesting)
I go to Penn State. Well, this is good and all - our school used to give away free Napster downloads and now have moved to Ruckus. Well guess what? Every May, after finals, Napster disables your access to your downloads. You can't even stream anymore after the school year ends. And now that they've terminated their contract with Napster, the downloads do nothing at all. Not only that, but good luck getting those downloads to work in anything but Windows Media Player! My MP3s work on anything, including the reason most of it is digitized - to run on my XBox set-top box running XBMC.
So, at least Penn State isn't giving away free or discounted music downloads, they're giving free music rentals. Sorry, but getting a cable modem and using BitTorrent is, and probably always will be more convenient. Sorry, RIAA, you're still fucked.
This is Not Flamebait (Score:3, Interesting)
So let me get this straight. The savior party that promised to end the war in Iraq, fix the clusterfuck that is healthcare, stop the overreaching civil-rights grab at the hands of the Republicans are now so *busy* doing all those things that they have time to worry about protecting the mafIAA?
All I've seen come out of the Hill recently has been meaningless resolutions, pointless infighting and a lot of hot air.
I'm all in favor of recalling every fucking one of them and putting a big dent in the problem by passing a term-limit bill on ALL elected and appointed government officials. I mean, fuck it. If they weren't so worried about having a career in politics, they would focus more on doing the right thing for the good of the people. And the bad ones would probably get out of the game forever.
The goddamned democrats these days are every bit as worthless as the republicans.
ya rly! (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/story
In 2004 Presidential election 70% of the "Tinseltown" donations went to Democratic candidates.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:oh really? (Score:5, Informative)
Construction
2006 $16M (more than TV/Movies/Music)
2004 $20M (less)
Finance/Insurance/Real Estate
2006 $110M
2004 $140M
Health
2006 $36M
2004 $48M
Lawyers/Lobbyists
2006 $96M
2004 $150M
Misc. Business
2006 $57M
2004 $85M
Labor
2006 $57M
2004 $53M
Ideology/Single-Issue Money
2006 $98M
2004 $110M
So, according to these numbers, the Democrats have several bigger "cash machines" than Hollywood, even if you include the music industry in there. Your mind may stop being boggled now.
Here we go again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Listen, both the Democrats and Republicans are bought and paid for by special interest groups. You are only kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of the quote is not that the Republicans aren't corrupt - everyone knows they are. The Democrats, on the other hand, are supposedly "different".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Technology now allows anyone with minimal finance to create their own movies or music. What will happen, when the current colossus tumbles, is that you will experience more and better movies and music than you ever dreamed possible. Certainly, at the beginning there wi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
copyright holders are evil and file sharers are good, but at least try to appear more balanced.
I just bought a CD as a gift for my sister that I wanted to stick on the new mp3 player I wanted to give her for her birthday. I discovered that the CD *would not* play in the computer CDROM player, which prevents me from converting it to mp3. But it plays in a crappy standalone CD player, indicating DRM is involved
I look up the CD on the pirate bay and sure enough it's there and being seeded.
So from my simple experience (I listen to little music and rarely use mp3s) the copyright holder (warner music) re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
help yourself to a big bowl full of SHUT THE FUCK UP.
GOOD troll! (Score:2)
Reid may be able to make young people vote. (Score:3, Insightful)
Already, the Internet, open source, blogs, and file sharing carry a strong echo of the flower power generation. Their movement may have died down but some of their root concepts have sprung forward in time to shake the fou