Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43
  1. #21
    Originally posted here by deftones12
    haha thats funny...our government is gay when it comes to technology.
    wow, does that mean our government likes to relate with new developments?

    /me imagines George Bush sticking his thing in a male rj-45 port....

    honestly, when are people going to stop being so ignorant of using that term lightly? imo its just as bad as being racist indirectly, which is correctable, but not necessarily physically righteously punishable.


    as for the article, i dont see how that can be beneficial at all for the music industry, that will just bring tons of rebellious and VAST downloads like the poster said, via someone elses computer. AND stealth wise. It would never work. Thats like offering speed limits for everywhere of 20 mph (or something relative in kph, dunno the translation) . No one would follow them, but when one person gets caught they get their car destroyed. Yet still people will do it, and it wont stop. R - i - d - i - c - u - l - o - u - s Mr. Hatch, go ahead and try it

    Originally posted here by lumpyporridge
    out of the 20$ you spend on a cd (which cost pennies to manufacture) the artist gets less than a dollar , Go to a concert if you want to really support them.
    that my friend doesnt matter. 1 dollar with a million sold copies is fine with them

    The senator, a composer who earned $18,000 last year in song-writing royalties
    how cute.. taking it personal eh? Isn't there some law against that :P

  2. #22
    AO Security for Non-Geeks tonybradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    The industry was sued for price fixing and there was a settlement. Read here

    The problem was that it was sort of like when the USFL sued the NFL for intentionally blocking them from getting the network television and marketing access they needed to stay alive. The USFL won the case on principal and was awarded $1 as a settlement.

    In this case, I didn't even bother filing with a $20 max. I own over 400 CD's and have probably purchased over 600 and dumped the other 200. They should owe me a lot more than $20.

    out of the 20$ you spend on a cd (which cost pennies to manufacture) the artist gets less than a dollar , Go to a concert if you want to really support them.
    what about when 2-3 million copies are sold ...then the artist get his share too doesnt he/she ...he/she gets like 2-3 million....
    That is beside the point in my opinion. Even if the CD sells 5 million copies. Does the artist make $5 million- sure. Is that a lot of money by my standards- sure. Is the industry still making $17 per CD after manufacturing costs and paying the artist?? That is a LOT of profit margin.

    When Michael Jordan was with the Bulls and negotiating a $30 million deal (my numbers are not precise- just go with it) the press accused him of being a greedy son-of-a-bitch. They would write articles saying "who needs to make $30 million to play a kids game?". His response was that if him showing up on the court meant that the stadium was full and the owners of the Bulls made an extra billion or so in parking, concessions, ticket sales and merchandise- shouldn't he be entitled to a portion of that regardless of how ridiculously high we "normal" working people thought that number was??

    While the recording industry fights to make sure there are no illegal copies of their music being traded on the Internet and trying to introduce bills that allow them to hack you if you do- they also fight with many of their own artists who feel they are getting screwed.

    My all-time favorite artist is Prince. During the Napster debate he posted his own little article about the industry and his thoughts on Napster. Here is the whole long thing....

    4 The Love Of Music

    2 Very Different Approaches

    Real music lovers do not simply consume music. Real music lovers develop a special relationship with the works of the artists they like. At some point of their xploration of the music of a new artist, usually something "clicks" and triggers a whole process of discovery which involves wanting 2 hear everything the artist has ever put out (including b-sides, non-album contributions, etc.), wanting 2 hear it in the best possible conditions, wanting 2 hear live renditions of the music — and wanting 2 share this discovery with other people. They also feel that things like album packaging r an integral part of the musical experience, that the artwork, in so far as the artist has been involved in it, is an integral part of the artistic statement of a specific release and they want 2 own an original copy of it so that they can xamine it from all angles, in search of clues, or bits of in4mation which might enhance their understanding and appreciation of the music. On the other hand, some people just consume music. They want a copy of a song bcuz everyone else is in2 the song. They don't really care about top-notch sound quality, as long as it is more or less "CD quality." They don't really care about the rest of the contents of the album bcuz all they really like is the hit single that every radio station and music TV station is playing non-stop. They just want 2 b able 2 listen 2 the track over and over again until they wear it out, they effectively consume it — and then turn 2 something else. They r not really interested in music as an art 4m, but rather as a 4m of disposable entertainment —always looking 4 the latest hit which is going 2 displace the previous chart topper in their social environment, so that they r sure they stay "hip" 2 the latest trend. Those r 2 very different approaches 2 music. The trouble with the current system is that it is primarily designed 2 meet the needs of music consumers and not of music lovers. There is some overlap, of course, and sometimes real musicians enjoy a fair amount of commercial success which indicates that they r benefiting from the system designed 4 music consumers, that their music is not only appealing 2 music lovers, but also 2 music consumers. This is fine with them as long as they don't have 2 compromise their artistic integrity. Un4tunately, once u become part of the music consuming system, u have 2 obey very different rules and many artists r, understandably, not comfortable with this, which creates all kinds of tensions after they have xperienced a certain amount of commercial success.

    A Fundamental Hypocrisy

    The fundamental hypocrisy of the music industry (and of some artists) in the current debate over the MP3 4mat, Napster and other 4ms of online xchange of music is that they r talking about copyright, intellectual property and other such noble concepts when the only thing that they r actually trying 2 protect is the commercial value of their musical "product." It's indicative, 4 xample, that, in a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times, Time Warner President Richard Parsons would make comments such as these: An increasing number of young people don't buy albums, so we are not only losing that immediate revenue. They are also growing up with a notion that music is free and ought to be free. This statement deals with the relationship between music and the public from a purely commercial point of view. Nowhere in his statement is there any indication that what might happen with young people xchanging music is that they might develop a real appreciation of music in general and of certain artists in particular and turn out to b perfectly honest citizens who realize that artists should b compensated 4 their work and who will help make sure that they r. Nowhere is it mentioned that the fundamental reason y those "young people" r xchanging music online is that they r xcited about the music, that they r actually developing a sense of appreciation of what good music is. Bcuz, of course, record companies don't really want the public 2 like good music. They want it 2 buy whatever "product" they come up with, whether it's musically good or bad. Record companies don't really want young people 2 develop a sense of what good music is. Bcuz real music lovers don't consume music. They don't buy the latest chart topper just bcuz it's at the top of the charts. They don't really participate in that "system." They don't really generate significant revenue.

    A Growing Frustration

    What record companies don't really understand is that Napster is just one illustration of the growing frustration over how much the record companies control what music people get 2 hear — over how the air waves, record labels and record stores, which r now all part of this "system" that recording companies have pretty much succeeded in establishing, r becoming increasingly dominated by musical "products" 2 the detriment of real music. When the only way 2 acquire some funky song from the 1970s is 2 purchase some crappy, overpriced compilation put 2gether by the record company, with an ugly cover and a poor selection of 4gettable songs interspersed with a few gems, and when u don't even know whether the artist who recorded this funky song is actually getting any money from the sales of this compilation (which he is probably not even aware of), then it's no wonder that the real music lover will b interested in alternative ways of acquiring the song which might not involve purchasing the compilation from the record company. If the record company which owns the rights 2 that song would actually re-release the original album featuring the song, with the original cover design, at a reasonable price and with a clear indication that the artist in question is actually benefiting from this re-release, then it would be another story. But the record company won't do it, bcuz it's not commercially viable. So the real music lover looks 4 an MP3 of the song online, downloads it and burns it on2 a CD. He knows that he doesn't have a perfect copy of the song (MP3 is, after all, a sound 4mat which does involve a certain amount of loss in sound quality), and it is clear, in his mind, that if the original album is ever released under the above-mentioned conditions, he will purchase it, bcuz he wants 2 discover other, lesser known tracks by the artist that r not available online, bcuz he wants the best possible quality, bcuz he wants 2 xperience the original release in all its aspects (cover artwork, song selection, etc.) and bcuz he wants 2 compensate the artist 4 his work. But y should the music lover have 2 wait 5 years, 10 years or even longer until the record company condescends 2 re-releasing the original work of the artist? Y should the record company have such control over how he, the music lover, wants 2 xperience the music?

    A Cultural Dark Ages?

    But the record company doesn't really care about all this. All it cares about is that "kids" on the Internet r downloading MP3s of the one hit song on the latest crappy release they put out with a huge promotional campaign, hoping 2 sell 2 million copies of the album when there is actually only one decent song on it. They don't care about copyright infringement. They only care about lost sales. When asked about Napster and the legal issue of whether it is infringing copyrights or not, the same Time Warner xecutive states: I think this is a very profound moment historically. This isn't just about a bunch of kids stealing music. It's about an assault on everything that constitutes the cultural expression of our society. If we fail to protect and preserve our intellectual property system, the culture will atrophy. And corporations won't be the only ones hurt. Artists will have no incentive to create. Worst-case scenario: The country will end up in a sort of cultural Dark Ages. It is rather ironic that he would talk about "preserving our intellectual property system." Isn't he the president of a company which has continually ripped off artists of their rights 2 their own music by retaining ownership of the master recordings and doing whatever they please with them without the consent of the artist or without compensating him? Is this the "intellectual property system" he is trying 2 preserve? Does he really believe that the current system, where artists get such a small share of the benefits from the sales of their music, is such a great "incentive 2 create"? Does he really think that what motivates an artist 2 create is the fact that record company xecutives r making millions off his back when he barely manages 2 scrape by even after selling hundreds of thousands of copies of his album? It's a bit 2 easy 2 talk about an era of "cultural Dark Ages." The use of doom and gloom scenarios in the rhetoric of conservative, narrow- minded people is a well-known trick. What it really indicates is a lack of understanding of what's really at stake here. What motivates artists 2 create is artistic achievement, the feeling of having created something beautiful, and the ability 2 share this beauty with others. The notion of copyright was not invented by artists 2 protect themselves from honest individuals sharing their enthusiasm about their work. It was invented by artists 2 protect themselves from dishonest and hypocritical individuals and companies xploiting their work without their consent. 4 all we know, we might already b in a "cultural Dark Ages" where "music" has become synonymous with heaps of mindless musical "products" and real, authentic, inspired music has already been relegated 2 the fringes of society. And online music distribution might actually become a way 2 get out of this.

    The Evolution Will B Digitized

    The standards r still constantly evolving. New systems, new devices r constantly being developed as an alternative 2 the old ways of doing things and no one really knows the way things r going 2 evolve. But, from the point of view of the real music lover, what's currently going on can only b viewed as an xciting new development in the history of music. And, 4tunately 4 him, there does not seem 2 b anything the old record companies can do about preventing this evolution from happening. Yes, young people need 2 b educated about the fact that artists should b compensated 4 their work. But they don't need 2 b educated about how 2 hypocritically xploit artists by forcing them 2 participate in a system designed 2 sell product instead of sharing good music. Rather, they need 2 b educated about how the record companies have xploited artists and abused their rights 4 so long and about the fact that online distribution is turning in2 a new medium which might enable artists 2 put an end 2 this xploitation. And, by the look of things, this will happen without the help or understanding of record company xecutives.

  3. #23
    Antionline's Security Dude instronics's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Time to get a list of gov proxies to use

    Or just w00ted gov hosts. They will be messing up themselves at some point. Anyone who is stupid enough to attempt that will fall for it themselves. Ahh, greed and power.
    Ubuntu-: Means in African : "Im too dumb to use Slackware"

  4. #24
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003

    Fight real terrorism not music piracy

    They should stick to fighting real terrorism. It's more important. I can't say that they've had brilliant results doing that. But as many of you point out, they don't know who to try to nail with this foolish plan.

  5. #25
    AO Ancient: Team Leader
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Ok Guys and Gals: I was thinking about this last night and here, for your, (and the good Senator's), edification is the ultimate reason the stupid system would fall flat on it's face:-

    The Senator wants an automatic system that warns on the first two occassions and kills the box on the third. Ok, sounds unreasonable..... For it to work it is going to need some way of identifying the offender/offending PC. So, they are either going to have to digitally tag every computer's transmissions..... That won't work..... Privacy, privacy, privacy..... Or rely upon the IP address..... But a vast number of the machines out there are DHCP'ed their IP, heck some DSL subscribers have a new IP nearly every time..... So there is Johnny getting his second warning at IP and he disconnects..... reconnects and he has two more attempts..... But what is worse is that his old address is not discarded.... I could get it.... and, unbeknown to me I already have 2 strikes against me..... Out of curiosity I decide to D/L a song, (something I have never done.....), and WHAM my box explodes!!!!! Well..... that wasn't very nice was it.

    The good senator needs to learn about $h1t before he starts coming up with solutions for problems......

    The good Senator also needs to understand the fact that the law says "no hacking" and as such it must apply to all not just the masses with a select being few above the law for their own commercial gain.
    Don\'t SYN us.... We\'ll SYN you.....
    \"A nation that draws too broad a difference between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools.\" - Thucydides

  6. #26
    AO Ancient: Team Leader
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    I guess this really put a "flea up my @$$"...... I just posted the following on Senator Hatch's web site.


    I noted with interest your comments regarding an automated system that will "remotely destroy computers" of persons that attempt to download copyrighted materials from the internet and I have a few thoughts you might like to mull over.

    I will preface my comments by pointing out that I an an experienced Systems Administrator who has never downloaded copyrighted works from any location anywhere, nor do I have any intent to do so in the future. Should I wish to consume to someone's work I will go out and purchase it legally.

    Firstly, it is against the law to "crack" another's computer or any other similar device. If it is the law then I would suggest that the law applies to everyone not just the masses with an exception for those who wish to protect their own commercial interest. That is a legal issue and if you recall you swore an oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of this land upon taking your office. Your office does not grant you right to bend and/or amend those laws simply to suit yourself.

    Secondly, you are clearly not getting competent advice on matters of technology yet you suggest "solutions" to problems you obviously don't understand. There are so many ways around the system you suggest for those who wish to break the law that your suggested solution becomes merely an annoyance to them. You will contribute to a cycle that will drive the peer-to-peer networks deeper into the "back alleys" of cyberspace where the behavior will continue in a way you can no longer effectively detect or monitor it.

    Thirdly, the very way that the internet works and the methods by which people get connected to it would cause your system to consistently attack "innocent" parties who are attempting for the first time to download a copyrighted work. Imagine being a father who saves up for months to purchase a computer so his family benefit from the internet only to find on the first day that it is errantly destroyed by your system because his son wanted to "see what this MP3 stuff is all about". Ask your "technical" advisor about DHCP.

    Furthermore, in order for your system to be able to monitor and attack offenders it needs to be connected to the internet and visible to the whole world. How long do you think it will take the technically competent to discover and advertise their prescence? What do you think will happen to those advertised systems? They will come under such heavy attack from those people who you are trying to stop, from locations worldwide over which you have no legal jurisdiction that your systems will spend all their time running from their own attackers rather than having any effect on the problem you are trying to "solve". In short, your system will be an ineffective, very expensive waste of money that will, at best, punish the "innocent" far more than it will punish those whom you are trying stop.

    In closure, you do yourself a disservice when you publicly speak regarding complex issues about which you have little understanding. Information Technology and the transmission of data across the internet is an incredibly complex subject that requires the ability to grasp concepts that many in this world may never understand. As a leader in this country it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that leadership by being properly advised by competent technical staff on an issue before you make suggestions that, to those who do understand, are really rather laughable.


    [My name here]
    Manager of Information Systems
    I'll be interested to see if I get anything other than a "canned" response......
    Don\'t SYN us.... We\'ll SYN you.....
    \"A nation that draws too broad a difference between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools.\" - Thucydides

  7. #27
    Old Fart
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Hows this for the ultimate in hypocrisy???

    Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested Tuesday that people who download copyright materials from the Internet should have their computers automatically destroyed.

    But Hatch himself is using unlicensed software on his official website, which presumably would qualify his computer to be smoked by the system he proposes.

    The whole story.
    It isn't paranoia when you KNOW they're out to get you...

  8. #28
    AO Veteran NeuTron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    They will come under such heavy attack from those people who you are trying to stop, from locations worldwide over which you have no legal jurisdiction that your systems will spend all their time running from their own attackers rather than having any effect on the problem you are trying to "solve".
    Good Point

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    aint that some **** allen?


    The senator's site makes extensive use of a JavaScript menu system developed by Milonic Solutions, a software company based in the United Kingdom. The copyright-protected code has not been licensed for use on Hatch's website.

    "It's an unlicensed copy," said Andy Woolley, who runs Milonic. "It's very unfortunate for him because of those comments he made." ...

    now i know he didn't make the site but he is FULLY responsible for whats on it...guess the good senator should have moved out of the glass house before he started throwing stones

    those who know nothing of a subject shouldn't be make laws regarding it
    Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    nice letter Tiger Shark !!!!!!
    Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
    The international ban against torturing prisoners of war does not necessarily apply to suspects detained in America\'s war on terror, Attorney General John Ashcroft told a Senate oversight committee
    -- true colors revealed, a brown shirt and jackboots

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

We have made updates to our Privacy Policy to reflect the implementation of the General Data Protection Regulation.