There's a site that offers access to music online for free. Playlist.com, run by Project Playlist, Inc., claims over 37 Million users... That's a lot. None of them pay a cent for hundreds of thousands of songs. The RIAA, of course, sued back in May. Project Playlist is still running.
The Pirate Bay, a BitTorrent tracker based in sweden, serves over 100,000 daily users, providing access to an enormous amount of free, illegal content. The RIAA, MPAA, and EA games sued. The site still operates.
Both sites defend themselves from the law with one argument: "We don't GIVE them the music." This is true, to an extent. Both sites operate by linking the people with the music to the people who want it, and none of their servers contain illegal content.
Is this piracy on the websites' part? Not techically. Is it illegal? Yes- here's why: Conspiracy. It's the same reason getaway drivers go to jail, even if they didn't steal anything. These sites are instrumental in streamlining mass piracy on an unprecedented scale. (For example, AC/DC's new album, Black Ice, suffers about 10,000 downloads per hour)
So the remaining question is this: How do they get away with it? The answer was suddenly obvious: the numbers game. With the sites' legal protection currently locked in debate, there are just too many people involved. many of them are out of US (and by extension, the RIAA and MPAA) reach. And, to top it off, many have no idea that what they're doing is illegal. Playlist.com is similar in style to iTunes, which is considered legal. Nobody told them they were breaking the law. They just got free music. Facebook and MySpace support the site, and if anything makes a site legit, it's having facebook's endorsement.
So, while the lawyers keep billions of hypothetecal dollars in lockup, the music goes on.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
iMedia: 100 Years
Today I listened to “100 years”
For some reason, I was especially moved when I heard it... A song not of death, but a song of Life.
Live your life, enjoy it, you’ll only live it once.
| When your time comes... |
That doesn’t mean go crazy/ do anything; it begs you to understand that someday, tomorrow won’t be guaranteed. Someday, you’ll have to look back, facing the end of your life, and hold yourself accountable for what you made of it. That day, when you’re holding on, fighting for just another moment, clinging to/wishing for just another chance to live, to keep living, to make things right, to make the most of the time you squandered away. Learn now, that one day, you’ll have to defend to your harshest critic your life and what you made of it. Make sure you’re not making decisions today you’ll regret when it all comes together, when you look back….
“Fifteen, there’s still time for you. Time to live and time to choose…”
There’s time to make up, to live a life you’ll be proud of living when your time comes.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Leanne's blog looked at using words until the meaning fades out of them.
Leanne-
I felt like commenting on your thoughts on swear words.
A while ago, I read 1984, and I thought, "Isn't swearing similar to Newspeak? After all, I would be limiting my expression of a broad range of feelings to what... a dozen four-letter words? I don't think I like the idea.
That's not to say I don't swear at all, but only when the word really IS the right one- that is, I swear about as much as I would use a word like 'magenta,' which is quite specific in meaning.
If I didn't make a point of using the most specific word, these words WOULD lose meaning... So I do.
Hi Melanie!
I think part of the reason chocolate has a special place in society is a simple fact: Cocoa is a DRUG. A stimulant. Cocaine is made from it. Cocaine is highly concentrated and has other additives, but the same stuff that makes chocolate... chocolatey makes illegal drugs. Perhaps more than eating chocolates on valentines', people like getting high.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
359 Degrees: The Economy
First, note that I only claim up to 359 degrees of comprehension (if even that). I'm sure there's something I don't know.
All right. Let's start with the great depression, for history. Essentially, in a decade of economic growth, people developed a novel idea- investing "on margin." The thought was simple: you invest $100, and you can buy $1000 worth of stock. this was wonderful for most, for a time, because if your investment rose 10% (to a value of $1100) you didn't walk away with $110, you got $200! When stocks were going up, up, up, this was great. Many people made a lot of money. Then, the enevitable. Things slowed down. Stocks fell. And people were losing money they didn't have. Everyday people who invested $50 (a significant sum) were responsible for $450(an impossible sum). Some never even knew that this could happen at all, in a time of general ignorance about stocks. Still, corporations were treating leveraged capital like cash. The problem was, there was often no cash behind it. The average investor ended up bankrupt, but the truth was that there still wasn't any way to get the promised money. The rest is history.
In the last few years, the problem was a bit different, but also similar. With houses inflating everywhere, the hypothetical money in home equity was thought to be secure. In fact, investors were told that buying mortgages was a perfect investment. Even if the owner defaulted, the foreclosed house could still be sold, for instant cash. Take the money and buy the new owners mortgage, and you've got a perfect system.
This was true, until something crucial broke: reselling the homes. Due to unrelated economic factors (this is the part I admit ignorance to), demand for homes receded. If an owner declared bankruptcy, 250,000 in a house was just sitting there. the bank owned it, but now, they're not getting that 8% interest rate, and they can't shed the house. Banks that gladly paid cash for the "guaranteed" investment into less-than-qualified homeowners are not finding that the hypothetical money isn't worth dirt.
The Investors who put up the capital for this process find out that more and more of their money owns empty houses paying nothing rather than fat, juicy mortgages, and they pull out and take their money. The Investors decide that 100,000 in a foreclosed house is NOT as good (or better) than cash, and companies like Lehman Bros. find out that what they own doesn't cover what they borrowed to buy it, and when the creditors demand cash, they run out real quick. They promptly fold, and anyone still holding on to their devalued stock finds that their money, as well, isn't worth dirt.
This was one company. The Government doesn't want the great depression, but bigger, so they effectively agree to shoulder the burden of selling the houses, giving investors most, if not all of their "guaranteed" cash.
The hope is that when the houses start selling, the government will get its money back. If all of the sellable houses were to be sold for the prices of five years ago, the Government would actually make a lot of money, used to pay off the national debt.
Let's hope that happens!
All right. Let's start with the great depression, for history. Essentially, in a decade of economic growth, people developed a novel idea- investing "on margin." The thought was simple: you invest $100, and you can buy $1000 worth of stock. this was wonderful for most, for a time, because if your investment rose 10% (to a value of $1100) you didn't walk away with $110, you got $200! When stocks were going up, up, up, this was great. Many people made a lot of money. Then, the enevitable. Things slowed down. Stocks fell. And people were losing money they didn't have. Everyday people who invested $50 (a significant sum) were responsible for $450(an impossible sum). Some never even knew that this could happen at all, in a time of general ignorance about stocks. Still, corporations were treating leveraged capital like cash. The problem was, there was often no cash behind it. The average investor ended up bankrupt, but the truth was that there still wasn't any way to get the promised money. The rest is history.
In the last few years, the problem was a bit different, but also similar. With houses inflating everywhere, the hypothetical money in home equity was thought to be secure. In fact, investors were told that buying mortgages was a perfect investment. Even if the owner defaulted, the foreclosed house could still be sold, for instant cash. Take the money and buy the new owners mortgage, and you've got a perfect system.
This was true, until something crucial broke: reselling the homes. Due to unrelated economic factors (this is the part I admit ignorance to), demand for homes receded. If an owner declared bankruptcy, 250,000 in a house was just sitting there. the bank owned it, but now, they're not getting that 8% interest rate, and they can't shed the house. Banks that gladly paid cash for the "guaranteed" investment into less-than-qualified homeowners are not finding that the hypothetical money isn't worth dirt.
The Investors who put up the capital for this process find out that more and more of their money owns empty houses paying nothing rather than fat, juicy mortgages, and they pull out and take their money. The Investors decide that 100,000 in a foreclosed house is NOT as good (or better) than cash, and companies like Lehman Bros. find out that what they own doesn't cover what they borrowed to buy it, and when the creditors demand cash, they run out real quick. They promptly fold, and anyone still holding on to their devalued stock finds that their money, as well, isn't worth dirt.
This was one company. The Government doesn't want the great depression, but bigger, so they effectively agree to shoulder the burden of selling the houses, giving investors most, if not all of their "guaranteed" cash.
The hope is that when the houses start selling, the government will get its money back. If all of the sellable houses were to be sold for the prices of five years ago, the Government would actually make a lot of money, used to pay off the national debt.
Let's hope that happens!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)