Why Only Music? 255
The Importance of writes "Last week, Slashdot readers provided a number of answers to the question "What is Music?" in the context of compulsory licensing. Now LawMeme asks another question about compulsory licenses: Why Only Music? Many compulsory licensing schemes have been proposed to cover music alone, but most of the arguments in favor of a compulsory license for music apply equally as well to other media types. Millions share movies, P2P can't be stopped, the MPAA hasn't provided legitimate alternatives for what consumers want, etc. If music should have a compulsory license, why shouldn't movies, software, ebooks and other media also be covered by compulsory licenses?"
The moment.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The moment.... (Score:2, Funny)
Sadly, I have to inform you that as you've just made a wild and stupid-sounding threat that you'll never follow through on, you have violated the 'Intellectual Property' of SCO. The invoice is in the mail.
Re:The moment.... (Score:2)
Re:The moment.... (Score:2)
Re:The moment.... (Score:2)
Re:The moment.... (Score:2, Informative)
Go down to borders and see for yourself
Re:The moment.... (Score:2, Informative)
Your bill of sale take
Re:The moment.... (Score:2)
Re:The moment.... (Score:2)
Because (Score:3, Interesting)
It's bad enough music having it, how would you feel about the BAA (Book Association of America) sending you emails?
Re:Because (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Because (Score:3, Funny)
LMAO
Re:Because (Score:2)
Confused? (Score:2)
I didn't understand the post, and having tried to read the article I understand it even less.
OPEN SOURCE RECORD LABEL (Score:4, Interesting)
Granted most people look blank or think we must be insane to do this but we are experimenting with a new business model and it is very exciting!
And as we believe in the artists and they trust us because of our licensing freedom we think in the long term the relationship can only get stronger and more artists will want to join us.
Re:OPEN SOURCE RECORD LABEL (Score:2)
p.s. I'll be placing an order for a t-shirt this week... kudos to you for bucking the tren
Re:OPEN SOURCE RECORD LABEL (Score:2)
Bandwidth and cheap media. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bandwidth and cheap media. (Score:2)
No, you sneak a bill through now that is generic enough to cover video, when the MPAA isn't paying attention because you can't make use of it. When broadband catches up, the laws are already in place, and it is just a matter of convincing your congressmen to not change them, instead of fighting against a change they are making. With luck and congress's slow pace, by the time they get a bill through, people are so used to the current law that congress is not willing to piss off the voters.
Then again, giv
why buy only music (Score:2, Funny)
Hey (Score:2)
So why not just repeal the copyright laws? Why not repeal trademarks too? If you really want it all for free, then just repeal the law.
Of course that won't happen, because the reality is that there won't be any "it" to have for free without copyrights.
Without copyright and trademark law, 30% of the economy evaporates instantly.
Re:Hey (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and compulsary copyrights on everything creative sounds like a great idea. Lets just levy more taxes and use the revenue to support whatever art our federal government wants to support. Long live the NEA!!!
I'm not against copyrights, but I am against the perpetual extension of copyright terms. I'm also against labeling copyright infringement as theft - call it what it is - infringement. It's wrong, it's immoral, but the owner is not deprived of the work when it is illegally coppied.
Re:Nice Troll (Score:2)
Even governments and societies in the Renaissance had a notion of copyright. I believe the earliest English law specifically addressing the subject of copyright was passed in 1710, but long before then it was possible to bring a dispute over the right to publish a book, to court.
The classical scholars definitely dealt with issues of copyright, but they were limited to matters of recognition, and not ec
Yes, there are alternatives.... (Score:3, Interesting)
If everyone does it... (Score:2)
I, for one, welcome ou... just kidding. Up against the wall mother fudruckers!
Governing bodies? (Score:2, Funny)
The only one with enough money to do this would rather watch everyone suffer, since they can take the hit. Besides that, if you pirate Windows, having to use it is punishment enough.
Theft is not what anybody wants (Score:5, Insightful)
"...the MPAA hasn't provided legitimate alternatives for what consumers want..."
In my view, this statement is almost laughable. What's the purpose of it? To justify theft? That's a very, very slippery slope indeed.
Re:Theft is not what anybody wants (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course you are right, creating such a service may not be the main focus of the MPAA. But it s
Re:Theft is not what anybody wants (Score:2)
Re:Theft is not what anybody wants (Score:2)
Re:Theft is not what anybody wants (Score:2)
Exactly, plus "Why is P2P so successful?", because P2P offers all the 'advantages' you mentioned: it's free (almost), fast releases (sometimes even before theatre release), no DRM. Only negative aspect is the download speed. But with a good connection it doesn't matter if you let the donkey download for a day or two (assuming you are downloading a movie).
This is what the consumers already have, legal or not. And why should they use an inferior servi
Re:Theft is not what anybody wants (Score:2)
I see it as a very simple fact. Consumers don't want to be "music thieves", they want to have popular singles available on demand at a price they can afford. Since they can't get it legitimately -- having to buy the whole album for $15 or more instead -- they get it for free. But if they could get it easily, without overwhelming DRM, for (just say) $0.99, they usually would
Re:Theft is not what anybody wants (Score:2)
MPAA != RIAA
Re:Theft is not what anybody wants (Score:2)
Dunno which radio stations you listen to but most seem to rotate popular stuff about every 20 mins. Singles or the CD equiivalent are still available aren't they if not at 99c at least at less than $15. That's all they would have heard on the radio. plus they get a few remixes and maybe a video clip.
Personally I download to set up playlists of stuff I wouldn't buy but would like to hear as background rather than the dreck that
Re:Theft is not what anybody wants (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is the misconception, copyright violations are not theft. Copyright ownership is not an absolute right like property ownership is. Copyright is a comprimise struck by society with artists and writers. The purpose of compulsory licensing was to modify the compromise to maintain it's fairness. The MPAA and RIAA have no absolute right to control their members' creations. Neither do their members for that matter. If the MPAA does not live up to it's side of the compromise, we the people reserve the right to renegotiate.
No slippery slope, no theft. If we give in to the MPAA and RIAA or any of those extremists that say intellectual propery is the same as real property, then we are giving up our rights and heading down a slippery slope.
Re:Theft is not what anybody wants (Score:2)
Appeals to history (Score:2)
a) I would agree with Jefferson.
b) anything that applies to ideas should also apply to music/movies, since they are both "information" (a categorization that I doubt Jefferson would have agreed with).
c) 200 year old ideas are still likely to be relevant today.
-a
Re:Appeals to history (Score:2)
Speaking of stuff that's cast in stone, the bible is full of 2000+ year old ideas which are now hopelessly outdated.
-a
Re:Theft is not what anybody wants (Score:2)
Another big motivation I see are people wanting to see the movie as soon as possible. Again there is no good solution to this. Even if they had some sort of prerelease, people would still want it sooner than that. So lets go to the extreme - you put up everything for charge on the web, as soon as it is availble - the sc
Re:Theft is not what anybody wants (Score:2)
First lets do away with all these stupid taxes, then lets break down the MPAA and RIAA into their respective companies and ask each and every one of them to prove that their media is being stolen. Then lets find a way to prevent piracy or catch all these pirates. Arrr.
Or continue as we are, things seem to be working themselves out on their own. Before you
Re:Theft is not what anybody wants (Score:2)
In fact, the MPAA has NOT provided a legitimate alternative, nor are they ever likely to. If movie prices were not so outrageously high, you would not see people swapping them on P2P networks. Simple fact: movies are a total rip off and consumers have begun to grow wise to this. Go do some research for yourself. If movies went public domain the moment they left the thea
Re:Theft is not what anybody wants (Score:2)
It's an attestation to the fact that MPAA is an oligopoly that is engaging in price-fixing, anti-competitive behavior. If government is to "sponsor" MPAA and similar cartels (RIAA, etc.) then it is fair for people to complain about their activities.
Because MPAA is a cartel its members do not h
Re:Theft is not what anybody wants (Score:2)
Sure it is. If you come across my copyrighted photographs, poems, or music, you are completely and expressly welcome to share it. Copyrighted material, shared on P2P networks, utterly and irrevocably legal and justified.
Re:Justifying Theft (Score:2)
You know, this statement really makes me think.
Lots of people here on slashdot like to say, "It's not theft, it's copyright infringement." As if this minor difference in terms means much, as if I were to write a book and someone scanned each page then put it up on the internet, I wouldn't feel like I had been ripped off.
So why do we (as a community, culture, subculture,
Re:Theft is not what anybody wants (Score:2)
It should be a good lesson t
Why no compulsory licenses? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's their problem, and it doesn't come out of my pocket, amortized or not, period. This is not a socialism. Stop pretending.
How can this be lega.? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How can this be lega.? (Score:2, Insightful)
Really, I'd rather pay a few unnecessary cents on every data CD I burned if it meant I didn't have to deal with DRM, suponeas, bitching about sales figures etc etc etc...
Would it be right? No. Worth the cost? ...
Re:How can this be lega.? (Score:2)
Example: 1992 DAT-tax
http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/bad_laws/d
Re:How can this be lega.? (Score:2)
Example: 1992 DAT-tax
Yes, and witness the resulting dramatic success of DAT as a consumer audio medium.
Re:How can this be lega.? (Score:2)
No, it's not like that, because it's not a murder weapon.
The current way we run copyright isn't a natural law. It isn't required. We already use compulsory licensing for copyright in many cases. Cover songs, for example.
And the answer, to "how
Re:How can this be lega.? (Score:2)
"IF WE CHANGE THE LAW. That's how it can be legal. Jesus."
My academic work has exposed me to people from various cultures, whose attitudes about authority simply shock and frighten me.
There are a lot of people on this planet who are brought up in such a way as to actually believe that anything which is not mandatory, should be assumed to be forbidden.
If you do not have explicit permission to do a thing, you should feel guilty for doing it.
Incredible attitude. Utterly incompatible with free thought, and
Re:How can this be lega.? (Score:2)
I didn't mean to imply that knives were inherently associated with murder. I was just trying to say that the "crime" that they associate with blank CDs doesn't actually have to be a crime at all. Murder, on the other hand, must be a crime to maintain any kind of civil order.
I understand your complaint that blank CD users aren't necesarily duplicating other people's artwork. There aren't necessarily direct links between gas & cigarette taxes and
Re:How can this be lega.? (Score:2)
How (Score:2, Insightful)
For God's sake... (Score:2)
Chris Mattern
Defeating the stupid idiot lameness filter
Why RIAA wants compulsory licenses for music... (Score:3, Funny)
So that hearing-impaired people can hate them too...
(Sorry, had to be done
Re:Even if you don't hear ... (Score:2)
True, true. I was just being funny, but I remember a field trip back in elementary school. It was to one those small museums in an older (1800?) row house. It has these heavy dark beams which made up the hard wood flooring. They played an small organ which vibrated the entire room. The tour guide related a story where the kids from a school for the deaf had reacted strongly to the organ - she was confused at first since it was a musical demonstration. What she didn't realize was that the kids could s
Huh? (Score:2)
What exactly does that mean?
"Online" move distribution? Already sort of have that via PPV from the cable co. Granted, the service would be improved by providing more selections, but it's pretty good right now.
Rent the movie before I (maybe) buy it? Blockbuster is less than a mile from my house.
Own the movie and watch it as many times as I want? A quick trip to suncoast, or amazon.com takes care of that.
Am I missing som
Well, in regard to movies... (Score:2)
Compulsory License (Score:5, Informative)
If you were as confused as I was reading the article, check this out:
It gives a good overview of what "compulsory licensing" means:
I don't want the responsibility of music (Score:5, Interesting)
I like listening to music, but I don't want to worry about whether or not I'm legally allowed to rip it for myself.
I don't want to worry whether or not I'll have to disable autoplay in order to rip a CD. I don't want to worry whether or not I'm violating the DMCA if I say something, do something, or copy something.
I don't want to have to worry about whether or not the RIAA will come busting into my house because I've downloaded -- apparently -- legal MP3s from emusic.com. I don't want to worry whether or not they'll think they're illegal.
Art and enjoyment aren't supposed to be like this. I can go into a library, check out a book, read it, and return it. I can pick up a magazine, read it, put it back on the table.
I can go into coffee shop, read a paper, leave it on the table, and not worry about whether or not (a) my privacy has been compromised and (b) I'm doing something illegal. I can just go and do it.
Music is just not worth it. It's become larger than itself and owning it -- using it -- has become too much of a responsibility. I don't want to break the law, but I probably have. But I don't want to deal with worrying about whether or not I might have broken the law. I just want to listen to it. I could give a shit about DRM and licensing.
It's too much responsibility. I give up. The RIAA wins. I won't buy any more or listen to anymore.
There. You happy now, Craig? Hilary, you happy? Jack, maybe you wanna chime in about movies, too?
Go ahead.
The question should be, "Why Compulsory Licenses?" (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't accept that compulsory licences on music are a good thing, and I *know* they would be bad for software. Compulsory license regimes create a single large collection agency that gets to rake in money for doing nothing, and dole out money to every content creator in the related industry.
What if you write software and don't want to have all p
What people want... (Score:5, Insightful)
When I purchase some bit of media, do I *own* it, like we've all assumed for the last couple of centuries... or have I purchased the *rights* to use the content?
If I OWN the media in question, then it's mine. I can do whatever the hell I want with it, provided that I don't resell it, or try to claim it as my creation. If I buy a screwdriver, I have every right to use it as a hammer -- despite what the Hammer Consortium wants me to do! If I own a CD, then I have every right to turn it into mp3's and stick them on my hard drive using a non Microsoft-Endorsed OS if I like.
If, on the other hand, I'm purchasing the rights to USE the content, then the media is simply a delivery mechanism. I want the RIAA to mail me CD's of all the vinyl records I own, and the MPAA to mail me DVD's of all my video tapes. I'm willing to pay shipping, and a small reasonable fee to cover materials. Oh, and those CD's that got scratched, I want replacements for those too since they were supposed to last for 20 years.
The industry seems to think they can take the best of both worlds, so we don't really own anything at all. THAT is why I don't buy CD's anymore. It's bad enough to spend $15 on a disc which should cost about $7... but to then have it be unusable in half the players out there, and be told that if I rip it to mp3 format I'm considered a thief... one doesn't insult one's customers if one wishes them to remain customers.
I don't see much point to downloading full DVD's over the net... but downloading digitized TV shows that your local cable monopoly refuses to carry is useful, and downloading older rips of things that aren't available is very handy. If Paramount were to make Enterprise available for download at $2 an episode (or thereabouts), I'd be happy to grab it from the source and avoid the variable quality rips, and slow connections... but they don't. I see it as a natural evolution of asking someone to tape a show and mail it to you for the same reasons.
The problem with IP. (Score:4, Interesting)
You highlight an excellent problem with intangible assets. Specifically, how can a business survive (that is stay in business) when their livelyhood depends on the sale of intangible assets.
I think the correct answer to that question is "no, you don't own the rights to the music". What you do own, or more exactly what you have paid for is, a medium of delivery (CD, Vinyl, Super8, VHS, paper, etc.) and a limited personal use license. You should have the ability to make an archive copy of your product and enjoy unlimited, acceptable-use rights that are fully transferrable with ownership.
This is the scheme that businesses have developed to allow a business based on intangible assets to exist and have received legislative and judicial support in accordance with the practice. Essentially, the business owners are looking for a way to protect their existence as a business.
As it has been said before, the problem with Copyright law is that it is outdated. It was written when the concept of a computer or digital media, let alone the internet never existed. Now, we have technological means to easily supplant copyright restrictions. In the past the traditional distribution lines (suppy chains) for the copyrighted materials were easily regulated and were often cost prohibitive for an average individual to maintain. Now, everybody (nearly) has access to the internet and the freedom to upload/download whatever is available to them virtually unchecked. There is also an abundance of software equivalents to UPS, FedEx, DHL, and freight companies that are readily available for free (P2P software is an example) to "ship" your copyrighted/pirated material across the internet. Before the internet, you would need to go to a bookstore, a recordstore, or a movie theater to purchase/view copyrighted material. The pirates did not have a supply chain that was distributed enough to avoid detection, or large enough to provide to the masses. Essentially, the pirates had sales out of the trunk of their cars and only to a small subset of the population. There are/were of course examples of more sophisticated and organized pirate operations that functioned more as a business. The mafia in the U.S. and certain cadres of citizenry in Russia and China are good examples. The citizenry examples existed mainly due to the difference in copyright laws here in the U.S. and abroad. The problem of piracy didn't really begin to "show up on radar" until the following conditions were met.
I suspect that copyright law will be "revamped" that include restrictions that are adequate for our day and time and potentially, if the writers have any foresight, far into the future. Perhaps the better question to ask would be; "what should be copyrightable, and what should be public domain?". Perhaps societies view are changing on that question, and we should (at least here in the States) review what we consider to be acceptable to sell.
It's simple: (Score:2)
I have written fiction and software, so compulsory licensing for those media might involve other people telling me what to do, which is bad.
I hope that clears things up for everyone.
Tough Question? (Score:2)
No need for thought provoking ruminations here, folks. The answer is:
Because it's a fuckin' pain in the ass.
Because of incremental increases? (Score:2)
In a few years, maybe less, when bandwidth increases the movie studios will be moaning that their copyright is being widely impinged too, and they want a slice o
well gosh golly (Score:2)
seems similar to something i've said already [slashdot.org]
compulsory licenses for content-bad? (Score:2)
Nonetheless, there are unique aspects to each type of creative content. For example, music gains more value by repeated listening, while books or movies really only need to be read once (talking about fiction, not textbooks, etc).
(That is why, for example, I have suggested that a voluntary compensation model would see
My favorite quote (Score:2)
No, certainly not. Millions of people believe in ghosts and UFOs, that Elvis is alive, and that Windows is a great operating system. Let's take everything that millions do and make it valid! I'm writing my congressman right now about legalizing drunk driving.
Usage patterns (Score:2)
With a book, you can find OCR'd copies of just about anything in existance with a carefully worded Google search, and they only weigh a few meg at most. However, reading them then takes at least a few hours per book, and people likely will not read the same thing again for quite a while. Additionally, ma
Unbreakable Encryption in CD's... (Score:2)
(From biz.yahoo.com [yahoo.com])
Hilights problems with compulsory licensing (Score:4, Insightful)
One problem is in how money moves. Instead of dealing with the relatively straightforward counting of albums (or games, or DVD's) sold, you'd have to somehow measure files moving around the network. Since there's no way to accurately measure how files move around a p2p network(especially with encrypted networks like FreeNet), the division of money would be the subject of ongoing (legal) fighting. If people weren't fighting over the numbers, they'd be fighting over the formula used to split the money.
Then there's pricing. In a network where everything is the same price (free), how do you differentiate between low-value products cranked out for almost nothing and the huge, high-value productions? There are plenty of niches where the number of customers is small but people are willing to pay more (e.g. massive RPG's, enterprise software).
Another problem is that the total dollars for the music (etc.) business would be fixed, rather than fluctuating up and down based on people's desire for music (etc.). This means that there's less reward for making great music (i.e. the classics that grow the business). Instead, the winning strategy would be to crank out "OK" music as cheaply as possible to collect the guaranteed income.
Imagine a new game company introducing a great new game, Deer Hunter. That game created a new genre of game, selling through an entirely new distribution channel (cheap, simple games selling through grocery stores, etc.), which grew the game industry dramatically. In the compulsory licensing model, before launching the game they'd have to make sure that their new distribution model was counted properly, and that the proper accounting would be done. And even if they were a hit that doubled the size of the game business (which is what actually happened), instead of getting 100% more income into the industry, the new game would suck 50% of the fixed revenue from other companies, so they make 1/2 what they would have, and other companies whose "sales" didn't actually go down would lose 50% of their revenue.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Music is easy everything else is hard. (Score:2)
Movies, games and printed material suffers in ways that music does not on P2P networks. These things suffer to the point that they do not make an adequate replacement for the actual media.
Movies... where to begin. If you want them in a small download, small being defined at 700 megs or less, you have a quality hit that you must take. If
Down With Compulsory Licensing, PLEASE (Score:2)
What I want to see is an Open Proposal Network. I.e., a band proposes a new album. Fans fund production. After that, it becomes public domain. Most likely, bands would have to release some free samples to generate initial support, but this would be much more ideal. This same model could be used for GPL'd software. People could propose features, and it could be funded
Becuase any other way would be mad. (Score:4, Interesting)
We have come to a crux in our developement. Do we realize our best hope for survival is with eachother, stop fighting and start working and trusting eachother, or do we break up into nitpicky intrest groups and rip eachother apart? It's seeming a lot like the ladder of the 2, although most would prefer the primer of the 2 and go with the first one. The whole reason our goverment prosecutes [insert thing here] is becuase they don't trust them. I for one trust most people and most people trust me. We don't ened this bullshit. All they're trying to do with this is tear us up into little nitpicky groups and while we're all distracted by briteny spears' new album they'll fuck us over some more. When we finally awake, we'll find our headphones blank and useless, the computer moniter black, and the books in our houses turned to ashes. Read 1984, you'll get the idea of what I'm talking about.
If we give up free media now, we give up our human right to communicate and to freely share ideas. If we give that up, we lose our humanity. What makes a person robust is their experiences, their ideas, aspirations and ideas. Without stimulation in the form of books, beauty, music, logic, and others we won't be anything but sacks of useless robotic meat. I for one refuse to become like that, and I'll start blowing shit up before I let it happen as would most hackers.
I'm a fucking human dammit and I'm not going to just let you take away the ideas I thrive on. Fuck your system, fuck your way of thinking, and damn the lawers to hell who actually fight for this. I'd figure there'd be a point where any human would think "you know, mabye I'm going a little too far". These people are psychopaths, there seriously needs to be a mental condition for excessive greed so we can lock these assholes in a mental institution so they can't do anything to us.
It Has to Do With Performances (Score:2)
The cornered mouse will attack the cat (Score:2)
Controlling public consumption:
The MPAA can still control what theaters movies are shown in, which is where most of the public still sees movies. As P2P and Digital Radio replace analog radio stations, the RIAA can't control what music people listen to. If they can
But anything can be considered music... (Score:2)
Why Music, If you want to know. (Score:2)
The technology just supports the duplication of the art form better at this point ti
No solutions? (Score:2)
Give me a break. The motion picture industry has plenty of valid excuses for any problems in distribution, not the least of which is the massive file sizes in any electronic copy.
That said, you have distribution through purchase for little more and often less than music cds, rental for as little as a dollar, digital satellite and cable with 12 channels of HBO alone often in HDTV and 5.1 surround sound, on-demand pay per view fo
Why not ALL products? (Score:2)
Borrowing is a tremendous threat to our economy! Think of the jobs and profits that are lost because of lazy freeloaders who borrow things from other people instead of buying the
I hate to burst your bubble but... (Score:2)
Re:I hate to burst your bubble but... (Score:2)
Ok, so philo
Definition of a Compulsary License (Score:2)
A compulsary license has NOTHING to do with you downloading music, and compulsary licenses very rarely happen in fact for reasons that I will explain below.
A compulsary license most often deals with a compulsary mechanical license. This basically says that anyone can record any song, and pay the statutory mechanical rate (set by congress) which is currently 8 cents for songs less than 5 minutes, or 1.55 cents per minute if the song is longer than 5 minutes.
Re:Limitations of broadband (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Limitations of broadband (Score:2)
> download?
Less time than it takes to go to Blockbuster. Less gas, too.
Re:Limitations of broadband (Score:2)
>> take to download?
> Less time than it takes to go to Blockbuster.
> Less gas, too.
Not for me. I can bike to the nearest Blockbuster and back in about 20 minutes, using no gas, and that's a hell of a lot faster than my cable modem. Or I can just wait for the movie to show up in my mailbox if I use NetFlix.
Re:Limitations of broadband (Score:2)
Let's not get carried away:
2 Mbit/s == 2,097,152 bits/s == 262,144 bytes/s
DVD == 9,663,676,416 bytes
9 gigabytes / 2 megabits/s = 36,864 seconds
36,864 seconds == 614.4 minutes == 10.24 hours
I don't think a trip to Blockbuster takes you ten hours.
Re:Limitations of broadband (Score:2)
2) The original poster said DVD-quality. Transcoding to MPeg4 or DivX dramatically reduces size.
VCDs were thriving almost a decade ago. Compression/decompression technologies have since improved significantly, as has end-user processing power. A FoaF regularly downloads movies over broadband; takes him 15-20 min each. It takes me fifteen minutes just to get to a rental place, much less park, come back, deal with traffic, deal wit
Re:Limitations of broadband (Score:2)
Re:Limitations of broadband (Score:2)
One more point: the current "holy grail" of broadband to cable operators is Video on demand. Think Pay-per-view, except you choose which videos to watch, they start when you are ready, and are pausable/rewindable. Cable companies would love to replace your local blockbuster type store. They already have the ability to get video to your home, and most have a library of local programs (for the public access channel) that they can contribute. It isn't a big step to put all that content online so you can w
Re:Limitations of broadband (Score:2)
Re:Compulsory licensing would kill specialized SW (Score:2)
Re:why not licence breathing (Score:2)
Already done. And I'm happy to tell you that we have nothing to fear! In 1984 Richard Stallman passed a GPL'd gas in an effort to keep the atmosphere free permanently. It should have merged with the whole air-supply on earth by now. Shortly after that he had the idea to apply the same license to software. The rest is history...
Presentation Matters (Score:2)
Two, actually:
Chop your paragraphs up with the <p> tag; next paragraph is code for the previous paragraph:
And chop your lists up with the <br> tag, like so:
1. first item
2. second item
Code for this follows:
The "gift" part is a little sarcastic, but frankly I didn't read all of what you wrote because it was a big mass of words. I agree with you that the times they are a changin', though,
Re:Presentation Matters (Score:2)