Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Wikipedia

Slashback: SCO, COPA, AllofMP3, Navier-Stokes, and More 144

Posted by kdawson
from the let's-all-go-to-court-and-listen-to-music dept.
Slashback tonight brings some clarifications and updates to previous Slashdot stories, including: IBM speaks about the SCO suit, another angle on COPA, AllofMP3 followups, Navier-Stokes solution withdrawn, a librarian's guided tour of Wikipedia, and the iPod's 5th anniversary. Read on for details.

IBM speaks about the SCO suit.. MasterOfGoingFaster brings to our attention Groklaw's detailed analysis and complete transcript of IBM's 10-point response to SCO's claims that Unix code showed up in Linux. From the article: "We've listened to SCO for more than three years tell its side of the story, and the media printed its every word. IBM, when asked to comment, invariably said nothing. Now it tells the court in detail how truly wronged it has been by The SCO Group, and why the court should bring this wrong to an end by granting IBM's motion for summary judgment on SCO's contract claims."

Another angle on COPA. segphault writes to point out an Ars Technica article that discusses in depth the ACLU-vs.-DoD COPA case. The article includes an interview with plaintiff Aaron Peckham, a free speech advocate and the creator of the popular Urban Dictionary web site. Peckham says that if the Internet censorship law were to go into effect, Urban Dictionary might have to shut down or move overseas.

AllofMP3 followups. Two pieces of news after Visa shut off AllofMP3.com. ColinPL writes, "According to Ars Technica, the IFPI lobbied Visa to reject payments from AllofMP3.com. The plan worked, and an IFPI spokesperson said the plug was pulled in early September. AllofMP3.com has resumed its public relations blitz, claiming Visa and MasterCard's decision to discontinue its relationship has no legal justification." And bjoeg writes, "Today Tele2 (a large Danish telco and ISP) received judgment from civil court to block their customers' access to AllofMP3.com. Tele2 has appealed the verdict, and for now access to the site is still open."

Navier-Stokes solution withdrawn. nherm writes, "So I finally decided to take a look at the solution of the millennium problem on the Navier-Stokes equation (previously discussed on Slashdot) and found that the entry on arXiv.org says 'This paper is being withdrawn by the author due to a serious flaw.' So I suppose that the rest of us still have a chance on it? From the arXiv.org page I found this interesting weblog entry with some comments on the issue, pointing to another weblog entry: 'I would not be surprised to learn later that her work, even if flawed, has led the way to helping solve this long-standing problem.'"

A librarian's guided tour of Wikipedia. tiltowait writes, "With the potential rise of Citizendium and the continued media circus surrounding Wikipedia's foibles, it's a good time to review the current state of Wikimania and consider what these disruptive technologies mean for the future of 'authoritative' information sources. If you've ever wanted for a general overview of Wikipedia or needed something to point to when asked, 'Wikipedia? Isn't that just a bunch of lies?' then the 1-hour screencast titled 'Why Wiki?' is for you. The online video is my perspective on the pros and cons of Wikipedia and how it stacks up to traditional publication formats."

The iPod's 5th anniversary. This one should perhaps be filed under "SlashWAYback." buddhaunderthetree writes, "Five years ago today Slashdot was introduced to the iPod and the reviews were mixed to say the least. CmdrTaco set the tone when he opined, 'No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.' Many of the 1044 comments that followed weren't much more enthusiastic. If anyone had dared to predict that in 5 years the iPod would have 70% of the mp3 player market, they would have been derided as an Apple zombie. Here's the original thread: Apple Introduces iPod."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Slashback: SCO, COPA, AllofMP3, Navier-Stokes, and More

Comments Filter:
  • by RhadamanthosIsChaos (857646) on Thursday October 26, 2006 @08:04PM (#16602966) Homepage
    Should be Here [slashdot.org]
  • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland&yahoo,com> on Thursday October 26, 2006 @08:06PM (#16602976) Homepage Journal
    slashdot has slashdotted itself.
    Can anyone get to that link?
  • The most TLAs in one article goes to this one - IBM, SCO, DoD & MP3 makes 4.
  • by Control Group (105494) on Thursday October 26, 2006 @08:24PM (#16603086) Homepage
    If some of the zealots/fanbois/doomsdayists/next-big-thingers would go back and read those comments. Then think about how melodramatic, self-righteous, and - most importantly - certain so many of the posters were, and how wrong and silly they look now.

    Then (and this is the hard part), they should THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND before they proclaim how their pet tech will take over the world, their hated enemy will crash and burn, everyone will be dead in ten years, etc.

    Seriously.

    Compare that discussion with pretty much any discussion these days on this site that runs more than 50 or so comments. Reads pretty much the same, doesn't it? Now, I suppose it's possible that this time, we're all much smarter, and our opinions really do dictate the way the world outside /. works... ...but odds are against it.

    (Never mind me, I'm old, I'm drinking, and I've been building blades via a RIB interface through an RDP connection all day)
    • by chrisb33 (964639) on Thursday October 26, 2006 @10:25PM (#16604022) Homepage
      Some of my favorite comments:

      "Agree with the article poster - Lame. Not only is this a lackluster MP3 unit (which by virtue of being firewire will be limited to Apple Mac owners), but it has virtually no UI wizardry that might define it as an Apple product.
      A total waste of time."

      "Unfortunately, Apple's ultimate goal is to get people to buy more Apple hardware. So it's not likely that Apple will be developing a PC version of iTunes. They want to keep their so-called advantages to Mac-only. Maybe, in the future, they will get one program on Windows to definitely support the iPod and release an SDK for other Mac and Windows apps to optionally support it. Remember, Apple makes more money on hardware sales, than on FireWire licenses. "

      "The LCD display is too small, it remains to be seen what the power consumption or usability of the backlight is, the four buttons (five, actually, I suspect) are likely insufficient, and probably rather modal. I dare not imagine how badly they've ginnied up the volume control. Apple's support for ID3 is woefully insufficient on iTunes and on iPod."

      "But it certainly isn't "groundbreaking" in any real sense.
      Remember, due to the rumors people were expecting something more like an apple PDA/mp3 player.
      Besides these devices will soon be illegal anyway with the SSSCA (or its offspring), and cds won't be rippable either. And we all know that therefore there will be no mp3s. Just look at how the RIAA managed to kill file-sharing by taking out Napster ;)"
      • by Cederic (9623)

        The thing is, the iPod (especially that initial release) was lame.

        It did have shitty battery life (and battery issues). It didn't have a PC version of iTunes. It wasn't groundbreaking.

        That it's been successful is due primarily to marketing, and because Apple did bring iTunes to the PC.

        Rather than deride the comments from Slashdot posters, consider whether the feedback provided was used by Apple to help make the product a success.
        • by mgblst (80109)
          Nice little insult - "primarily marketing" - which goes to show your obvious inability of undertanding why products are successful. The Ipod is winning because it is a well designed device, a lot easier to use than the other devices out there. It is also stylish. And it is well priced. These, together with marketing, helped the ipod become number 1.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Cederic (9623)

            Personally I think it's ugly, underspecced and overpriced. Thus its success to me must be because of its marketing, and its excellent integration with iTunes.

            There are more elegant, more capable and cheaper devices on the market. They don't have the marketing spend that the iPod does, they don't have the U2 tie-ins, they don't have the mindshare. People don't know whether they've got equivalent usability because they don't know the products exist. (The fact that Apple are transgressing against Creative pate
            • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

              by mgblst (80109)
              Don't mistake me for being defensive, I don't own an iPod, and unless someone buys me one, I never will. I also don't work at Apple, hold any shares in Apple, or own any products by Apple. I do admire what the ipod has done.

              Personally I think it's ugly, underspecced and overpriced.

              Why is this worth mentioning. You are not the market for the ipod, the whole world is the market for the ipod. What you think doesn't really matter.

              Thus its success to me must be because of its marketing, and its excellen
              • by drinkypoo (153816)

                Not everything can be marketing, there has to be something good there.

                Marketing works. That's why people use it. It's also, for example, why people bought more Ford Probes here in the US than the Mazda MX-6, even though they are basically the same car except the MX-6 is lighter and thus has superior acceleration and handling: probe has 164HP from a 2.5 liter V6 (pretty pathetic but not too horrible for the nineties) and weighs 2894 lb (curb weight) - while the MX-6 weighs 2775 lb. As a vague ballpark, e

    • by drinkypoo (153816)
      You should try to be aware that some of those pronouncements were attempts to create self-fulfilling prophecies. All those geeks who think that we are powerless would do well to remember DivX. If you know of that only as an MPEG4 video CODEC, then obviously this illustrates the power of the geek. If you can create sufficient hype amongst the people perceived as being "in the know" then you can sway public opinion because people really do look to us for our opinions on technology, period. You might think I'm
  • by CODiNE (27417) on Thursday October 26, 2006 @08:28PM (#16603128) Homepage
    Many of the 1044 comments that followed weren't much more enthusiastic.

    I just browsed through that original article (link was busted, had to google it since /. search is useless), and while floating around at 5 I saw 15 posts and most were actually positive about it. Sure there were plenty that dissed it, but the mods sure seemed to think it was a decent device that day. Unless you somehow imagine the Apple fanbois outnumbered the Apple-haters that day. Doubtful 5 years ago. Perhaps certain segments of the Slashdot community wagged their heads but I wouldn't say they were representative of the whole.
  • "buddhaunderthetree writes, 'Five years ago today Slashdot was introduced to the iPod and the reviews were mixed to say the least.'"

    So can we call this blurb 'Re-mixed Reviews?
  • AllofMP3 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NitroWolf (72977) on Thursday October 26, 2006 @08:31PM (#16603150) Homepage
    The fact that AllofMP3 is so wildly popular with the masses (heck, even my father and mother use it) should be a clear indication to artists and, god forbid, the music industry that DRM free, affordable, portable music is what people want... and they will pay for it, even if they are offered it for free via P2P.

    I stopped downloading music via P2P when I found AllofMP3, and I now pay for it happily. Save me the bullshit about it still being "theft" ad nasuem. The fact is, I am willing to pay for music at a reasonable price in a format I want. I am not willing to pay for music any other way. As such, if I am not able to pay for my music in the format I want, I won't buy it. There is absolutely NO loss of sale either way. I won't buy it if I can't get it the way I want it, period. End of story. This is not a negotiable point. The sooner the RIAA and the rest of the music industry gets this through their heads, the sooner they'll be raking in cash again as people flock to "legitimate" quality online music distribution.

    • by Llywelyn (531070)
      How much money doest the artist make per song sold via AllOfMp3.com?

      How much money does the label make per song sold?

      How many songs are actually sold? (Not just "wildly popular," what's an an actual estimate of the number)
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by QuantumG (50515)
        How much money doest the artist make per song sold via AllOfMp3.com?

        Who gives a shit? Seriously. Stop calling them "artists", they're not, they're musicians. Singing for a crust is not work. They have no divine right to be rich and famous. Jesus, this phenomona, the so-called "recording artist" is not even 100 years old. It was good while it lasted, but now it's over.

        • Re:AllofMP3 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by snuf23 (182335) on Thursday October 26, 2006 @09:59PM (#16603880)
          So if they are songwriters they aren't artists? They create creative works. Was J.S. Bach not an artist? Mozart?
          You're right they don't have a divine right to be rich and famous. Most of the artists I listen to are not rich or famous. If they are lucky they make enough to live off of selling records and touring but that's probably the minority. If I'm going to pay anything for a song I'd rather it went to feed the musician in hopes that they can continue to produce more music I like and don't end up leaving the industry.
          I certainly am not going to pay someone for just hosting a server full of mp3 files.

          • Re:AllofMP3 (Score:5, Insightful)

            by QuantumG (50515) <qg@biodome.org> on Thursday October 26, 2006 @11:40PM (#16604438) Homepage Journal
            Meh. Why not support local musicians? Ya know, people you can actually see and talk to. Copyright is just stupid, really really stupid. Imagine we could infinitely and cheaply copy food. We all had a kitchen in a box and we could download recipes from the Internet for it. No-one seems to mind that people copy recipes - they're not covered by copyright even. So now I'm imagining the chefs of the world getting mad that they're not getting a cut of people translating their recipes from books into Autocooker format. People used to buy their books cause they were really handy to have on a shelf in the kitchen, but now that a lot of people have got Autocookers they want digital recipes and once its digital people have a tendancy to share it more than they did when it was in dead tree format. The fact that now people with no cooking skills can sample some famous chef's food and will more than likely seek out that famous chef's restraunt and pay for a meal where before they wouldn't have, that's quietly ignored. The chefs form together into an alliance and lobby governments to extend copyright to cover recipes, just like the "recording artists" lobbied the government to extend copyright to cover audio recordings. Marketing takes over, and instead of what tastes good to you, everyone now wants to eat whatever their friends are eating. DRM protected recipes are sold by Apple. Techniques to circumvent DRM are outlawed. DRM is mandated. The price of Autocookers actually goes up when it should be going down. People all over the world continue to starve because, although Autocookers could solve world hunger they threaten the status quo.

            BTW, it's really annoying that I have to revert to science fiction to get across my point. Copyright on sound recordings is a relatively modern thing. Isn't it fair for society to be able to throw out something that we don't want anymore? It's not like you can claim that it's been this way for thousands of years. It was a nice experiment, the result is a restriction on speech, freedom and culture, let's move on!
            • Re:AllofMP3 (Score:5, Insightful)

              by snuf23 (182335) on Friday October 27, 2006 @12:36AM (#16604954)
              "Why not support local musicians? Ya know, people you can actually see and talk to."

              Why? Why, if I don't like the music they make? What do I care about seeing them and talking to them? How are they more worthy of my money versus someone who lives somewhere else in the world who's music I actually enjoy? I fail to understand why proximity should influence who I want to support.
              I'm not supporting DRM or copyright restrictions, I am supporting paying for music I enjoy in hopes that more such music will be produced. Is that hard to understand? The point is that the songwriter as the source of future music I enjoy is not generic and replaceable.
              I am in favor of direct payment, cutting out middle men and payment being optional. I have no problem with musicians needing to tour to make money (this is really how it currently works in terms of profits). I see no difference in buying music directly from the musician as I do from placing money in the hat of a street musician.
              • by QuantumG (50515)
                Well, what we were talking about was recording artists. Not song writers. Ya know, the people who get in front of a microphone once a year or so, hammer out a few tunes and then collect royalties for the next 150-200 years? Yeah, those guys.
                • by Lars T. (470328)
                  Oh, so you are jealous that people wouldn't pay a dime to hear you sing. Thanks for making that clear. Why don't you go to your employer and tell him to pay you what he really wants to pay you?
                • by NulDevice (186369)
                  Spoken like someone who doesn't actually do it.

                  Ever try recording an album? Even an album of other people's songs? It's not easy. Oh sure, it might be easy for someone like Paris Hilton, who barely even needs to show up for her vanity album, but for the other millions of musicians out there - singers, guitarists, keyboardists, drummers, whatever - it's a lot. of hard. frakkin. work. And for the most part, the only reward you ever see are $50 worth of royalties every year and the occasional good revie
                  • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                    by QuantumG (50515)
                    Calling singing/playing an instrument work is insulting to people who do real work for a living. You might as well claim that professional surfers work. Oh, it's so hard, have you ever tried it? Just because it takes effort, doesn't mean its work.
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by koreth (409849)
              No-one seems to mind that people copy recipes - they're not covered by copyright even.
              Oh really? [foodandwine.com]
              • by QuantumG (50515)
                Like Shakespeare's plays, classics such as French onion soup would belong to everybody. But a chef who came up with a new soup could copyright it and demand a licensing fee from anybody else who served it.

                God I hope that happens. Know why? Cause if the chef has to pay a licensing fee, that means the customer is going to have to pay a licensing fee, and that means this fancy new soup must be more expensive than the "classics". Game over. Crazy shit eh. Is this the end of capitalism? Is this it? Copyri
                • by ajs318 (655362)
                  Welcome to the New American Dream: Find a way to charge people money for something they had already been doing every day for free up to now, then sit on your fat ass and count the money coming in.

                  So here's an idea for you all: The Pet Name Registry. Wouldn't it be great if somebody had to pay you money if they wanted to call their pet dog Rover, or their pet rat Basil?
                  • by HTH NE1 (675604)
                    Wouldn't it be great if somebody had to pay you money if they wanted to call their pet dog Rover, or their pet rat Basil?

                    Is not rat, is Siberian hamster.
            • And then, just wait until microsoft finds out about the very lucrative market and puts out some FUD to attract client to their own locked-in standart-breaking format.
              Here comes MicroSoft Cuisine (tm) [davar.net] (classical joke from the "Microsoft ate Stacker" and "Microsoft ate Pen PC" era) :

              Microsoft Cuisine

              Monday, 10 AM -- Chicago, Illinois

              Start-up software developer Cuisine International announced CUISINENET, the first internetworking program to seamlessly integrate word and food processing. Called a breakthrough

              • by ajs318 (655362)
                Meanwhile, the BPAA (Bakery Products Association of America) launched a new campaign against home breadmakers, claiming that their users were robbing bakers of their livelihood. A hard-hitting video showed small independent village bakeries closing up their shops. Interestingly, no mention was made of the proportion of bread purchased from BPAA-affiliated supermarkets.

                Congresswoman Evan Smurr (D) tried to defuse the situation by proposing a levy on the sale of instant dried yeast, which would be colle
            • by s20451 (410424)
              For one thing, your analogy is (deliberately?) confused. You start out by talking about "food" (which is not copyable in the real world) and then end up talking about "recipes" (which are copyable in the real world). Even if all recipes were destroyed, and the occupation of "chef" was outlawed, people would not starve, because there would still be plenty of raw food ingredients to eat. So your line about the "status quo" is misleading and disingenuous.

              However, it's most ironic that with your analogy, you
              • by QuantumG (50515)
                Reverse engineering of food is about as practical as reverse engineering of software.

                Thanks for showing how ignorant you are on both.
            • by Sloppy (14984)
              Why not support local musicians? Ya know, people you can actually see and talk to.

              That really sad thing is that I know many local musicians, and guess what they want: to "get signed."

              • by QuantumG (50515)
                Yeah, that is sad. Too bad their goal isn't to make people happy, or to refine their craft.
            • by dargaud (518470)
              No-one seems to mind that people copy recipes - they're not covered by copyright even. So now I'm imagining the chefs of the world getting mad that they're not getting a cut of people translating their recipes from books
              You mean like this [boingboing.net] ? My wife is a chef and I find this insane.
          • by QuantumG (50515)
            Let me repeat what I said below up here: we're not talking about songwriters. The vast majority of "recording artists" are not songwriters. Bach composed, he didn't just play other people's stuff.

            • by snuf23 (182335)
              Actually in my first response I specifically asked you about songwriters. You made no response to initially suggest that you would treat them any differently. Would you? Why? The initial point was that copyright was outdated, why would you apply it to songwriters versus "recording artists"?
              The majority of bands I listen to write their own music. At least in the world of rock music that's common. Even so, I still don't understand why a singer or musician shouldn't be paid for even a version of a song. Should
          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            If I'm going to pay anything for a song I'd rather it went to feed the musician in hopes that they can continue to produce more music I like and don't end up leaving the industry.

            Then don't buy major label music. Nobody is getting more than half of the profit. The music industry picks anyone they think they can market regardless of actual talent (amazing what you can do with vocal processors these days) and they just throw them all at the market and see which ones stick. Those guys make some money, ever

            • by snuf23 (182335)
              Then don't buy major label music.

              Generally I don't. And I try to support bands that have gone the independant route. BUT what if for example, you like Weird Al. He's on a major label and has been able to make a living off it for many years. He has even let us know that he actually makes more money off a CD purchase than he does off of downloadble music (iTunes). Should you still not buy the album even though you know that the system is working well for him?
              Personally I'd just as soon mail him a check direct
      • English not your first language? You missed the entire point, which was:

        DRM free, affordable, portable music is what people want... and they will pay for it, even if they are offered it for free via P2P
    • Re:AllofMP3 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by quantaman (517394) on Thursday October 26, 2006 @09:03PM (#16603420)
      I stopped downloading music via P2P when I found AllofMP3, and I now pay for it happily. Save me the bullshit about it still being "theft" ad nasuem. The fact is, I am willing to pay for music at a reasonable price in a format I want. I am not willing to pay for music any other way. As such, if I am not able to pay for my music in the format I want, I won't buy it. There is absolutely NO loss of sale either way. I won't buy it if I can't get it the way I want it, period. End of story. This is not a negotiable point. The sooner the RIAA and the rest of the music industry gets this through their heads, the sooner they'll be raking in cash again as people flock to "legitimate" quality online music distribution.

      Sorry, I don't have a problem with people getting music via p2p, it's clearly non-commercial and there is a strong ethical argument that permits filesharing, but AllofMP3 is creating nothing original, there are merely profiting off of these works and giving no compensation to the authors (at least those in the west). As far as I'm concerned AllofMP3 deserves everything is has comming to it.

      If you really want to buy DRM free music and support our culture via the creative commons than there are options http://magnatune.com/ [magnatune.com].
      • Re:AllofMP3 (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday October 26, 2006 @10:05PM (#16603912) Journal
        The thing about AllOfMP3 that the recording industry hates is that it shows the what cost of distributing digital music is. Even if they don't pay anything to the artist, they do cover their own costs. I would happily pay 2-3 times the AllOfMP3 cost for DRM-free music, and now (because of AllOfMP3) I know that if the music industry wanted to they could do so and still make a profit.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Vadim Makarov (529622)
          Allofmp3's music used to be three times cheaper per MB two years ago. I guess it's their avoidance effort (offshore incorporation, lawyers, etc.) as well as some sort of financial insurance for such a relatively risky operation it has become, that make up the bulk of their distribution costs now.
        • by quantaman (517394)
          The thing about AllOfMP3 that the recording industry hates is that it shows the what cost of distributing digital music is. Even if they don't pay anything to the artist, they do cover their own costs. I would happily pay 2-3 times the AllOfMP3 cost for DRM-free music, and now (because of AllOfMP3) I know that if the music industry wanted to they could do so and still make a profit.

          P2p already shows the cost of distributing digital music can be essentially free when you exclude the costs of creating the med
          • No, AllofMP3 does show the actual cost of distribution, and it is real. The backend servers, recoding, tagging, and transmission all cost realy money and involve real dollars (okay, rubles). They have shown what the cost is if you are unhitched from the cartels pricefixing, and could sell music the way radio stations play music (that's my highly-untechincal understanding of how their licensing works).

            It seems to me if the recording industry really wanted to shut them down, they'd pony up the bucks to have
            • by h4rm0ny (722443)

              Putin is definitely no purist and money does talk. But the money wont go direct to Russia. It will actually go to US policy makers who will be pushing the case with the WTO that Russia needs to bring it's laws in line with the USA's in order to be part of it. And it will also be just part of the general media money pot along with movies and maybe software.

              Until then, it appears that it's actually legal.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by 1u3hr (530656)
        but AllofMP3 is creating nothing original, there are merely profiting off of these works and giving no compensation to the authors (at least those in the west). As far as I'm concerned AllofMP3 deserves everything is has comming to it.

        Weatern record companies don't collect money from AllofMP3 by choice, though it is offered. They are trying to force AllofMP3 out of business by painting them as pirates. True, the royalties wouldn't amount to much, but they're calculated on the same model as payment for pla

      • AllOfMP3 may not be creating the music, but they certainly do add value. They provide:
        • a simple but powerful web site with good organisation, fast searching, and easy ordering;
        • a huge range of different types of music, from ancient to stuff that's just been released;
        • basic metadata (track names, artist and album name, art thumbnail)
        • immediate low-quality (but listenable) previews of all tracks;
        • good clean rips;
        • many different audio formats, including lossless, and a wide selection of quality and bitrate f
        • by drinkypoo (153816)
          I sent AllOfMP3 ten bucks and tried to download three albums. I got one of them plus one song, and a bunch of tracks of the proper length but filled with nulls. I've sent them two support requests and the only time I've heard back was when they told me to send my request to a different email address. AllOfMP3 is a scam and they will not be seeing any more of my money.
      • by drinkypoo (153816)
        As far as I'm concerned AllofMP3 deserves everything is has comming to it.

        Really? Because from your post it seems like you don't think they deserve what's coming to them: big fucking piles of money.

    • by westlake (615356)
      The fact that AllofMP3 is so wildly popular with the masses (heck, even my father and mother use it)

      The population of the U.S. alone is 300 million. There are about 1 million unique Slashdot IDs.

      The Geek is rarely in a position to speak for the masses.

    • by garcia (6573)
      Please. 90%+ of allofmp3's users' motivation for using the service was the price. DRM is unknown to most people and the rest are too dense to care. People look at $9.99/album or $1.89 and pick the obvious choice.
      • Specify the country please. Last time I tried to register at the iTunes Music Store, they weren't willing to serve Russian customers at all (it was not possible to use a credit card with owner's address in Russia, as well as most other countries).
    • by rm999 (775449)
      "The fact is, I am willing to pay for music at a reasonable price in a format I want."

      Are you willing to go see a movie at the theater for 7 dollars? If not, does that justify buying it from a street peddler on DVD?
      Are you willing to pay 50 dollars a month to connect to the internet? If not, does that justify splicing your neighbor's cable?

      I could go on. I agree with you. I use allofmp3 too. But the fact is, with allofmp3, the money does NOT go to the artist, it does not go to the people who put up the risk
      • I can't believe that educated geeks like you two actually use(d) that one, when you know perfectly well that most artists/companies don't get a dime out of it (and so it's no better than filesharing, morally and legally - whatever that is) AND you'll be giving your credit card information to a dodgy russian company.
      • Are you willing to pay 20 bucks for a CD, including a 3 buck breakage fee, because the suppliers do price-fixing and hinder any form of free market? If copyright-infringement is stealing, cartel-formation is murder, the victim being the market. Why do you condone murder?
      • by NitroWolf (72977)
        Are you willing to go see a movie at the theater for 7 dollars? If not, does that justify buying it from a street peddler on DVD?
        Are you willing to pay 50 dollars a month to connect to the internet? If not, does that justify splicing your neighbor's cable?


        No and No.

        I am willing to pay $20 a month for Netflix, and I am willing to pay $30 a month for bandwidth, however.

        I could go on. I agree with you. I use allofmp3 too. But the fact is, with allofmp3, the money does NOT go to the artist, it does not go to th
    • by terminal.dk (102718) on Friday October 27, 2006 @02:29AM (#16605634) Homepage
      As the ISP said an effective block of allofmp3 would cost in excess of $15 mio, court actually listed a series of acceptable solutions to the problem.

      So Tele2 has now implemented one court suggestion, blocking www.allofmp3.com in DNS. They know, and IFPI knows, that it can easily be bypassed (hosts file, using DNS at another ISP, TOR etc).

      The judgement can have implications for all of EU, since the case has been run as en EU law case. So if the ISP loses the appeal, IFPI will use this to go to other countries to have ISPs shut down allofmp3.

      The most bad about all this is, that the content of allofmp3.com is not illegal in Russia where it is hosted, so you could say it is censorship.
    • by Alioth (221270)
      Try eMusic. No DRM, and it's actually LEGAL. They have pretty much every genre - but probably just not what the ClearChannel radio stations play to death (which is a good thing).
      • by h4rm0ny (722443)

        From what I can see of their website, they offer a subscription service. I don't want that. I want a store where I can go in and purchase exactly what I want.

        I also have to give them my credit card and sign up before I can even browse their catalogue. I have no idea if they will have what I want.
  • SCO, it's a race (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 26, 2006 @08:33PM (#16603160)
    Actually the IBM trial (not likely to be needed) has been put back so Novell can go first. When Novell started it was a slander of title case. Between Novell's counterclaims and SCO dragging Suse into it, the Novell case will decide who actually owns any copyrights that may actually exist. We also have the fact that Novell told SCO to drop their case against IBM, as the asset purchase agreement says they are entitled to do. The other thing is that Novell may get a freeze on all of the money that SCO has, immediately bankrupting SCO. So, a judgement in the Novell case is likely to moot most of the SCO v. IBM case.

    Bottom line: SCO v. IBM will never get to trial. My guess is that the bankruptcy trustee will give IBM and Novell everything they ask for. SCO is SO dead.
    • by swillden (191260) *

      Bottom line: SCO v. IBM will never get to trial. My guess is that the bankruptcy trustee will give IBM and Novell everything they ask for. SCO is SO dead.

      Which will be unfortunate, because it would really be nice to have some of IBM's counterclaims go to court and be ruled upon. The GPL hasn't received a real test in the US courts, which still allows some people to believe that it might not stand up. A ruling against SCO that finds that their actions made the GPL inapplicable to them and that they are

  • So long as there is even one image out there that is pornographic or offensive, there will be people who want to see it gone. And as long as there are people who want to see pornographic images gone, there will be polititians who promise to pass laws restricting or banning it in exchange for votes (and sheeple who will vote for them because of it).

    They will keep trying until they end up with a law that the courts dont reject (just like various state governments are going to keep trying anti-video-game legis
    • How do you define what should be blocked or restricted in a way that everyone can aggree on
      When was the last time anyone needed a definition everyone can aggree [sic] on to pass a law? Problem A is a complete non-problem.
  • by IamLarryboy (176442) on Thursday October 26, 2006 @08:54PM (#16603328)
    Shortly after I Visa shut off service for Allofmp3.com I discovered you can still pay with Visa it is just a pain. You buy an XROST Prepaid iCard with your Visa and apply the card to your account. It isn't too bad. This is more of a barrier to new users who are just curious. Existing users who love the service can just put in a $50 payment every few months.
    • by RLiegh (247921) *
      Isn't that how you always paid? I vaguely remember that you had to pay your monthly fee to a seperate pay-pal like agency who gave the funds over to allofmp3.

      On a related note; can you get around this and just use paypal?
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by bmantz65 (642864)
        Isn't that how you always paid? I vaguely remember that you had to pay your monthly fee to a seperate pay-pal like agency who gave the funds over to allofmp3. On a related note; can you get around this and just use paypal?


        Yeah, they used Chronopay I believe and it acted like Paypal. I use XROST too now for the workaround with my Visa, so Visa got no where on this ban.

    • I found that 'loophole' as well.

      I was annoyed that visa was acting as a judge, jury and policeman. in matters that just aren't their business. their business it to take a piece of the action. whether they like it or not ;)

      so yes, I bought xrost tokens. with my visa.

      I lost nothing but a little annoyance. but nothing was 'stopped' by this stunt.
  • Probably right (Score:2, Insightful)

    by siwelwerd (869956)
    Even if the paper was withdrawn, I'd venture that it's likely it will still lead to a correct proof. Even Wiles' proof of Fermat was originally flawed and had to be corrected.
  • Good thing I submitted the story on monday and got rejected
  • by IntergalacticWalrus (720648) on Friday October 27, 2006 @12:23AM (#16604834)
    DRM-crippled wireless. Less space than an iPod. Lame.
  • by KiahZero (610862) on Friday October 27, 2006 @01:19AM (#16605246)
    The Department of Defense doesn't have anything to do with COPA. Reno and Gonzales were Secretaries of Justice.

    Of course, the way things are going, we'll be fighting The War Against Titillation (living up to the acronym far better than the current iteration) and attacking rogue states for hosting WMAs (weapons of mass arousal).
  • by steelneck (683359) on Friday October 27, 2006 @06:09AM (#16606624)

    A lttle more on AllofMP3.

    A court in Kopenhagen (Fogderetten) has now delivered its verdict (Oktober 25 2006) between IFPI and the Danish ISP Tele2, where IFPI wanted to force Tele2 to block AllofMP3.

    This court verdict (21 pages PDF in Danish [www.dr.dk]) is quite suprising, not that it forces Tele2 to block access to Allofmp3.com, but rather how the verdict does it. Among other things the court says (transladed to english below):

    The court finds .... that also the temporary fixation of the work in the form of electronic impulses, that goes on in the routers while transmitting the data packets over the internet, is covered by the 2 in copyright law.

    This means that the court ruling finds that Tele2 are unlawfully making copies while routing their customers communication. So they are not directly forced to block information from Allofmp3.com, they are found to be making "pirate copies" when doing their job of directing communication on the internet, that is what a router does, and internet cannot function without it. This basicly means that this court has forbidden the internet in denmark, since an ISP can be held responsible for its customers communication. This goes also for modern mobile communication too, since a mobile phone also can be used to unlawfully communicate otherwise allredy published and not stamped with secrecy information. It is a lot like if the old telephone company had been held responsible for what its customers said on the phone. Tele2 has appealed this ruling.

    • that court is an idiot!

      routers 'making copies'?

      that's almost as bad as 'innernets is full of tubes'.

      sheesh.

      when you VIEW pictures, your pc stores 'copies'. I could go on, but its wasted here as you guys tend to 'get' that but obviously the court over there does not.

      oh god - save us from the 'full of pipes' techno-illiterate judges and people in position of power who know NOTHING about this new age and are poking sticks using old law themes that just don't apply anymore.

      btw, I can go down to the library and
  • MusicForMe cracks Allofmp3's music streaming service
  • My company gave me one. I bought a Creative for my girlfriend. The Creative's hardware interface is better, and it's trivial to transfer mp3's to it from the linux and bsd boxes. The iPod's interface is just annoying. A year later and I still have to think about how to get to a particular song. I've never learned how to delete files from it. amaroK and gtkpod can *sort* of work with it, if I don't transfer too many songs at once, and iTunes is one of the most needy, annoying, controlling pieces of sof

If bankers can count, how come they have eight windows and only four tellers?

Working...