Printable View
I guess I'm laughing. B) I never meant to imply that it was impossible to crash winxp pro, though its pretty damn hard. The operating system is stable as hell, since it was built based on the win nt platform. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Xanex@4 May 2003 - 13:01
did u know that 98se requires only 64megs to run like a dream, give it 128 and its laughing, XP requires 128 min, 256 for a dream and 512 for laughing.
Allright your forgettting about the RIAA
That article is filled with evil shit they want to do and are doing! :devil:
I've never seen them with so many (evil/illegal) different strategies.
I personally think some of the stuff that they say their testing has actually been implemented.
My comp has froze up on kazaa fpr no apparent reason.
Also I have had my internet connection go dead for no apparent reason while connected to kazaa.
You know ...your still online but unable to use the internet.
When this happens I have to go reboot my connection.
BASTARDS!
There probably reading these pages all the time!
Would'nt you if you were them?
If I were them, I'd be looking for bigger fish. This board is small potatos for the RIAA/MPAA. They won't get anywhere by attacking the leechers, they need to find the source of the problem. :o
The music industry and their RIAA toadies are involved in a number of tactics ... some new and some old. The oldest tactic seems to be working best in the conventional media ... namely, their P.R. campaign to equate the industry with "good" and sharing with "evil." And, the industry's biggest ally is the criminal justice system which, rather than protecting the public at large, has chosen to largely ignore the sins of the industry in exchange for what amounts to a cash-cow for state governments and lawyers.
For the particulars on that, read this post and some of the posts afterward.
The "new" tactics, as bad as they sound, have hit a major snag ... alluded to in the N.Y. Times article ShockAndAwe^i^ gave a link to. The industry wanted legislative blessing for these tactics and a legal umbrella of protection (limitation of civil damages) in case they hit the wrong target and were sued. That umbrella was tossed into the legislative garbage can (quote from N.Y. Times article follows):
Bottom-line? The industry's bark may be worse than its bite. These "new" tactics are only another scare tactic ... along with the mass instant-messages and lawsuits against a handful of P2P users to "make examples" of them -- with a wish of scaring off others. And, if they dare to employ these high-tech bites without lawsuit-cap protections, it'll only take one or two high-profile mistakes (which are bound to happen) to derail the process.Quote:
The industry has tried to seek legislative support for aggressive measures. Representative Howard L. Berman, Democrat of California, introduced a bill last fall that would have limited the liability of copyright owners for using tougher technical counterpiracy tactics to protect their works online. But the bill was roundly criticized by privacy advocates. "There was such an immediate attack that you couldn't get a rational dialogue going," said Cary Sherman, president of the recording industry association. He said that while his organization often briefs recording companies on legal issues related to what he calls "self help" measures, "the companies deal with this stuff on their own."
And as for the more extreme approaches, he said, "It is not uncommon for engineers to think up new programs and code them. There are a lot of tantalizing ideas out there — some in the gray area and some illegal — but it doesn't mean they will be used."
But, the industry's newest tactic may bear some fruit at first (the "carrot vs. stick" approach). By now, most people have heard of Apple's new "iTunes" scenario. The industry appears to be cautiously jumping on this bandwagon. Right now, the 99-cent-a-download service can only be used by Mac users (PC version coming in the future). And, their current catalog of selections is pretty bad. Still, even it the entire industry jumped onboard this service and PC users are let into it, I can see a problem in the future. Even Steve Jobs admits that the contracts he's signing are year-at-a-time contracts. If the service became popular, what do you suppose the RIAA would want come contract-renewal time? More money!!! 99 cents might turn into $1.99. And the more the cost goes up, the more the popularity of P2P would re-emerge. A self-defeating prophecy from the industry's angle.
Finally, in the P2P realm, the industry may have another obstacle to overcome ... the emergence of software that allows users to "mask" their origin IPs. In theory, one current P2P entity claims to include this ability in their software -- Filetopia (www.filetopia.org) -- located in Spain.
Very intellegently put!
mmm are you a lawer? <_<
You have definitely formed your opinion with many sources.
You sound like an analyist on Your World with Neil Cavuto. :D
God I love foxnews!
jibblers right - they need to go at the source and we all know what that is
That 99cent a song crap is crazy!
If you buy an entire cd from them that could add up and you don't get the liner notes and stuff.
RIPP OFF!
ShockAndAwe^i^,
Nope, not a lawyer. But I am a freelance writer, a former associate editor for a mystery magazine, and a former research editor for a market newsletter. So, I have some understanding of copyright and trademark issues.
The 99-cent-a-song idea does have merit, though. What good are liner notes on a CD if you have to pay $15-$25 for it ... and only like 2 or 3 songs on it (the others being "filler" songs you'll never listen to more than once or twice)? The "legit" services (Rhapsody, PressPlay, itunes) all address the "album concept" ripoff of the music industry ... allowing the "song-by-song" concept of downloading that made P2P popular. The problem? Current prices for these legit services won't last forever. And, the services know it. What we're seeing now is the loss-leader business tactic -- getting people sucked into the services with lowball costs ... then, gradually, start jacking up the price or making previously free services optional. It's already happened at Rhapsody. When they first started, you could get unlimited listening privileges to their entire catalog for only $4.95 a month. Now, the $4.95 tier only allows unlimited listening privileges to "online radio channels" where programming is predetermined. To get song-on-demand service, former $4.95 a month customers must now pay $9.95 a month.
In a way, it's really sad (to me, anyway). I honestly hoped Napster would evolve into a paid song-on-demand service where costs would be partially or wholly underwritten by online advertising. Had the RIAA embraced this concept early on, everyone would have been a winner -- cheap or free downloads for users -- advertising capital pumped into RIAA/artist coffers -- and advertisers with a captive audience. The RIAA held the golden key of opportunity in their hands and they pissed it away through heavy-handed control-freak policies of intimidation ... and every day, they're paying a price for it. On top of that, when the FTC and state attorneys general let the industry get away with highway robbery (keeping 65% of what they stole from music consumers), it turned a lot of people sour to the music-CD cartel and "legit" services selling their wares. Cheap or not, who'd want to do business with people selling the products of companies who'd cheated them and gotten away with it?
You may not be a lawyer, but I like the way you think. You are dead on for how the industry has worked to this point in time. They are absolutely busting a gut (and a few bank accounts) to try to shoe-horn today's digital reality into the old form. The overhead structure in the industry boggles the imagination. I have a stepson who is an artist, reknowned enough for some European and Japanese tours. He and his buds could not believe the numbers of people who have to be paid off, um, make a living, between the artists and the consumers. Everybody in the chain, and his brother, has a nephew who can't get a job anywhere else. So, the nephew gets hired - and his job is almost recession proof. Maybe, if the economic cycle should dip far enough, those nephews would get fired, but there'd be a lot of the little people, grips, extras, etc., who'd find their union hours limited before all those "nephews" fall off the payroll...
As the old saying goes, "There's many a slip between the cup and the counter."
Yep. BTW, some dirt around here is even older than you. :P
Hehe, I'm certain of it. One of the biggest misnomers about the file-sharing community is that it's populated exclusively by the 13-35 crowd. Frankly, I think baby boomers (and those older) populate the community in far greater numbers than most people would believe. It's just that the music industry is so riled with those downloading the latest Madonna crap or hip-hop sleaze that they're ignorant of people more interested in tunes by "Jimmy Gilmer & The Fireballs" or "Hoagy Carmichael" (snicker). Heck, just as an experiment, I logged on and did a search for "Winston Churchill" ... and a full page of people sharing his speeches popped up.Quote:
Yep. BTW, some dirt around here is even older than you.
Makes me wonder how many people using this software even know who he was, hehe.