Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> It's really stunning to me that everyone's picking nits and not actually 
>> commenting on the substance of what I'm saying.
> 
>   Maybe because nobody disagrees with the substance, and thus there are
> only the small details to pick about?-)

That would be cool. :-) In that case, it's probably best to start with "I 
agree with your main points, but..."  That's what I try to do, as I've 
noticed people get worked up if I don't say something like that at the start 
some time.

What's stunning is nobody seems to be able to shoot down the idea, since I 
haven't really thought it through very much. :-) I'd be stunned if there 
aren't fundamental flaws or missing but required features that this would 
disallow.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On 9-5-2009 17:23, somebody wrote:
much money they earn. This has caused a huge amount of protest here.
> 
> I cannot blame copyright holders for trying to protect their interests. It's
> the freeloaders that are ruining it for everybody.

In this context it is not clear which freeloaders you mean
- the persons that download music and movies that they can not afford now
- the persons that trick parliaments into giving money to the industry 
(i.d. themselves) with moving stories about the artists not getting 
paid. While making sure that almost none of that money will reach the 
artists as that would make another round of free money impossible.

;)

Post a reply to this message

On 9-5-2009 19:22, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> It's really stunning to me that everyone's picking nits and not 
>>> actually commenting on the substance of what I'm saying.
>>
>>   Maybe because nobody disagrees with the substance, and thus there are
>> only the small details to pick about?-)
> 
> That would be cool. :-) In that case, it's probably best to start with 
> "I agree with your main points, but..."  That's what I try to do, as 
> I've noticed people get worked up if I don't say something like that at 
> the start some time.
> 
> What's stunning is nobody seems to be able to shoot down the idea, since 
> I haven't really thought it through very much. :-) I'd be stunned if 
> there aren't fundamental flaws or missing but required features that 
> this would disallow.
> 
While I agree with your main points ;) it is a long time since I wrote 
communication protocols and I have never had to think about security on 
that communication line. ATM I don't have much free space left in my 
brain for new challenges, so I can not comment on the substance.

Post a reply to this message

On 9-5-2009 17:54, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>>   Oh, and get this: Even if you pay the tax in question, it will 
>> nevertheless
>> *still* be illegal to download eg. episodes of a TV show from the 
>> internet
> 
> Well,that's rather awful.  I read a study somewhere that estimated if 
> everyone in the USA paid $5/month, it would cover all the costs of the 
> music industry. I.e., that it wouldn't be unreasonable at all to get rid 
> of copyright and pay for music with a universal tax.  (Whether that's 
> good or not is of course debatable.)  I also don't think it covered the 
> movie industry, which would seem to have a different economic model.
> 
Wouldn't that mean that they get money no matter if they produced 
anything worthwhile?

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4A0### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 9-5-2009 17:23, somebody wrote:
> much money they earn. This has caused a huge amount of protest here.

> > I cannot blame copyright holders for trying to protect their interests.
It's
> > the freeloaders that are ruining it for everybody.
>
> In this context it is not clear which freeloaders you mean

I mean:

> - the persons that download music and movies that they can not afford now


as well as

- the persons that download music and movies that they can afford now

As for:

> - the persons that trick parliaments into giving money to the industry
> (i.d. themselves) with moving stories about the artists not getting
> paid. While making sure that almost none of that money will reach the
> artists as that would make another round of free money impossible.

they would not be able to do this if it were not for the freeloaders. Hence
the phrase " freeloaders that are ruining it for *everybody* ". It's the
same old story: Some break the law, everybody is made to pay the price
because they either protect the law breakers or are oblivious to it.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 08 May 2009 23:21:57 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> pan wrote:
>> What makes you guess that http://thepiratebay.org/ has been taken down?
> 
> The owners have been taken down. You don't need to actually shut down
> servers to put a crimp in things.

The owners are appealing their case, and the site is still active.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 09 May 2009 18:30:19 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:

> On Fri, 08 May 2009 23:21:57 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> pan wrote:
>>> What makes you guess that http://thepiratebay.org/ has been taken
>>> down?
>> 
>> The owners have been taken down. You don't need to actually shut down
>> servers to put a crimp in things.
> 
> The owners are appealing their case, and the site is still active.

Oh, and Darren, I should mention, I'm not missing your point, just not 
commenting on it yet.  I think you're probably right that decentralised 
search is probably in the future for this technology.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> The owners are appealing their case,

They still lost, and it's still only Sweden.  Even if they win, it's not 
going to be worth the hassle for people to run search sites if they're in it 
for the money instead of the fame.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> Wouldn't that mean that they get money no matter if they produced 
> anything worthwhile?

I don't remember the article suggesting how the money would be distributed. 
Only that it was a surprisingly reasonable small amount.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> I cannot blame copyright holders for trying to protect their interests. It's

	I can blame them for making me pay for other people's crimes. I can
also blame lawmakers, but that's a different story.


-- 
Isn't it counterproductive to have incandescent bulbs in a fridge?


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message