ginginca

why would you spend 5g on upgrading computer parts, when you can spend less than half on a new equivalent system? Every single piece of equipment in there has got to be changed from the original, including power supply and case. The floppy could theoretically be that old... though it would have to be the 3.5 inch model, not the 5 incher, which seems to have been the rage those 20 years ago. Even a regular floppy would be broken or nearly so, simply because of wear and tear on mechanical parts. If you were truly on Vista, i imagine it was a pirated copy and you used an infected bios patch.

I saw (last year) on the wall of a computer store a photocopy of an advertisement for a state of the art system. It was a top brand name ... likely IBM. I think I should call him and get a copy of it if he still has it. It belongs in the "remember when" days.

 

I'll paraphrase ... but it was something along the following specs (though I might be missing a few):

 

The headline read something like: Lightning Speed from the lasted in the state of the art computers

 

Full Tower Case in IBM Beige

Motherboard & CPU - this is an XT class machine (before 286's)

Motherboard cache? perhaps it was 64K or 128K (if any)

Dual Floppy drives 3.5 and 5.25

20 Meg hard drive

512 K Ram

9600 Baud USR Modem

Sound Blaster Sound Card and 2 Speakers

Video card (likely had no on-board memory)

8-bit networking card (coax)

12" Monochrome Monitor

Keyboard

MS DOS (or PC DOS)

Word Perfect

Lotus 1 2 3

Dot matrix printer

 

Sale price: $8,000.

 

 

Think of the era for those of you who can remember ... this is before Windows 3.1. A mouse connected to a MAC, an Atari ST, etc.

 

Networking was only used in offices. What was that called ... "Arc" something? The one on this machine might have been token ring. Oh it's going back a while.

 

Look at these specs and consider yourself lucky next time you are frustrated with your PC.

 

 

But today ... even my four year old computer collects dust. I keep it only for parts.

 

My most expensive was a $5,000 laptop about 10 years ago. I still have it because it runs windows 98.

Perhaps the server is temporarily down? Lately lots have had thier sites down. If you have a asta sub domain then wouldn't asta page be like the parking page? If so then your server is just down or something and It'll pass.

I have had problems since the middle of April and my credits never went below zero. Sure I can understand a glitch. But this is almost four weeks now. And they had it back up at one point, for a few days only. Then suddenly it reverted back to not working.
A few times tech support has said: what exactly is the problem?

So I reply or post replies in the tickets. Eventually I get an automated email saying they are closing the ticket because I never responded. But there's an entire thread in there of what they typed, and what I typed.

I don't know how much more precise I could be by saying that it is completely down and that I did nothing. The symptoms are exactly what happened when my credits slipped below zero in the past.

But now my site is dead in the water. I'm sure I've even lost my google indexing by now.

Shouldn't at least some performers make it easier to obtain their music for educational/decent works more easier?

I have heard from some people that went through this process that was pretty detailed, in contracts etc. But the cost to use it wasn't all that high.

The simplest route though is to use Royalty-Free music, which has been published for this purpose.

ginginca, When you contact support, please be clear with your issue. There are more than a thousand reasons because of which mail stops responding. Please provide us with the error that you get, when you try to access your mail.

The hosting is NOT working anymore. When I go to my domain - I get the asta default page.

Check this out:

 

The hosting STILL isn't fixed.

 

But I did receive an email:

 

This message is regarding your Ticket ID #WIX-369947. We are changing the status of this ticket to 'Closed' as we have not received a response from you in 24 hours.

 

Subject: hosting errors

Department: Xisto - Support

Priority: Medium

Status: Open

 

If you have any further questions then do let us know.

 

Xisto Corporation

I had already logged in twice and posted a reply. I have no idea what they're talking about.

AND when I tried to email support, it bounced back to me.

Gingica your a woman I assume? It seems like it, only women value copyrights.

Look at the photo.

But as far as only women valuing copyrights? That's a generalization that isn't based on fact.

There's another law suit against YouTube: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6627135.stm

I'm sure it wasn't a woman who launched it.

As for radio stations, they may be a thing of the past (not yet but soon). In car television is becoming more and more popular and music videos are funner to watch

Predicting changes in technology and how we grasp them as a society is always fun and interesting.

 

However I don't know about you ... but my eyes are on the road when I drive.

 

Although listenership is DOWN in homes and has been for over two decades, there's no decline in drive-time radio. The only thing that decreases this, is CHOICE.

 

In other words, instead of 6 stations in one market, maybe now there's 10. And then there's the new digital satellite radio. That doesn't mean people aren't listening.

 

My daughter (6 yrs) watches movies in the back seat when we go on long trips. But other than that, we listen to the radio or CDs.

 

 

Back to copyrights. Although most of the comments in this thread are correct ... and YES mine are based on FACT ... there are some details to clear up.

 

I don't care whether you agree or whether you disagree. Copying copywritten programming (video or audio for example) IS against the law.

 

Youtube even states it. When you post a video ... they clearly say not to post it unless you are the copyright holder.

 

If you're a group of 12 year old girls at a slumber party and post a video recording of yourselves (onto youtube for example) singing a britney spears song you're actually breaking the law.

 

It means NOTHING whether you like the law or agree with it. Fact is ... the writer of that song is supposed to make royalties. And they receive no money when it posts illegally.

 

Take it a step further ... the 12 year old girls sing the same song with the CD playing in the background and then post it to Youtube. Now the artist is also out royalties. YES CASH MONEY.

 

But that's not commercial use, so it's not a big deal.

 

Here's an example of commercial use.

 

A business makes a video to promote their product or web site. And they use a U2 song in the background. That's copyright infringement. It's commercial use that is a much bigger issue.

 

Now if the generation of internet users that right now dominates youtube and myspace DON'T think this is against the law ... we have a big problem to deal with in the music business.

 

Musicians like to earn money too. Just because something is copyable doesn't make it RIGHT!

I went through hosting issues recently. And now I'm having them again.A few weeks ago my hosting account stopped working (industry-online.com) even though my credits had never dipped below 10.It took several days, but finally the problem was corrected except for email. That took about another 4-5 days to get that working.A couple of days ago it stopped working again. No site, and no email.I have already replied via email to the person who corrected the problem in the first place.Honestly, the hosting worked find for at least six months, and now these problems are not only coming up out of the blue, but are taking a long time to be dealt with.Just like the last time, my account credits never went below zero.Is anyone else having similar issues?

I'd rather see an official source confirming that.

Are you asking for me to prove that copyright laws are actual laws? Geez!

 

I have books on the subject and took two years of it a school.

 

What kind of proof would you like?

i think you argument is stupid how is putting a commercial on youtube going to harm the company? or a nusic video? we can watch music videos on tv. they play music on the radio.

Back to my previous post. Copyright law is law.

Why is it that people feel that they have the right to do what they want with music and videos?

I personally don't think HARM in terms of reputation is the problem. But financial harm ... absolutely. It's hard enough for creators of music and video to make it unless you're HUGE.

If you were a musician, selling music, and making your living from it, would you want people ripping you off and copying it for your friends and posting it all over the net?

Think about it.

For every song that is played on the radio the band makes royalties. When it is downloaded legally (such as itunes) the band makes a royalty.

When it is purchased in a store, the band makes a royalty.

I have no idea what you do for a living. But if you owned a McDonalds, would you want people coming in and just helping themselves to the food? Really it amounts to the same thing. But with digital products it is so easy to copy.

If you buy a book would you photocopy it for all your friends? No. Because it takes a lot of time, and you have to pay for each page you copy.

When you post something illegal on YouTube it costs you ZERO.

I'd like to see the copyright owners starting to go after the posters too. Attitudes have to change!

Youtubeand google are getting suede by Viacom

It doesn't surprise me at all. Copyright laws are still laws and subject to penalties when they are broken.

In Canada, IVF is highly regulated.You go by THEIR rules, or you go to another country.

But, honestly, I think that most of the copyright owners wouldn't be bothered.

Yep.

Better off spending your time on productive things rather than destructive things if you want to make money.

Still have the same problems.I have just sent an email.There are no sub-domains though. Just the main domain name.

1) refrain from making double posts. If your post is the last reply, you should always use the EDIT for your post (that's why we enabled this feature)

 

2) I am able to see your site without a problem. I see that you still have the default index page. Was your problem resolved between the time you posted and the time I made this post? If so, I believe the case is closed. When your hosting credit reaches ZERO your account automatically goes into suspension (not -0.01). You must bring your hosting credit back to above 4 and wait about 1 hour AFTER you achieved your minimum hosting credits to re-animate your hosting.

 

If you are the only one or region wise that cannot see your site, perhaps it's not the server's end but a localized matter. Please seek help with your ISP.

No the problem is not resolved unless someone blew away the hard drive and all my data including my email account are gone.

 

The site was working fine for many months (lets say around six or so), and then something happened last night which I never touched.

 

You mentioned something about when the credits go down to zero. Within the past week, they have not gone below ten. So that's not the problem either.

 

When I check my email, I'm getting an error message like it would be if my account was in suspension, or if the email account didn't work.

http://www.industry-online.com/

 

I didn't get below zero. It just stopped working through the night at some point. And it's been down ever since.

 

Someone PM'd me the email address to put in a support ticket, which I did.

 

But now it's saying the status of the ticket is closed.

 

Can someone help? I don't understand. It's been down since last night and my credits never went below 10.

Could just be down randomly, server down or updating or whatnot. I'd suggest just being patient and it will probably be back up soon. Mine has gone down before but is more often then not back up within 30 minutes.

http://www.industry-online.com/

I didn't get below zero. It just stopped working through the night at some point. And it's been down ever since.

I currently have over 10 credits, but my account isn't working as if my account had been depleted below zero. Help please?

Youtube is definitely a great source for viewing things on tv and other sources of entertainment.

I would imagine they're broken into segments? YouTube generally has 10 minute maximum per clip.

Some TV stations are starting to broadcast episodes the day after the show was aired, from their web site, for those that missed it.

Not really. The "service provider" clause of the DMCA and similar legislation indemnifies them against copyright infringement so long as they agree they will promptly remove the content upon notification of said infringement.

It's surprising that they aren't liable.

But here's what their site says:
To file a copyright infringement notification with us, you will need to send a written communication that includes substantially the following (please consult your legal counsel or see Section 512Š(3) of the Copyright Act to confirm these requirements):

1. A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
2. Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.
3. Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material. Providing URLs in the body of an email is the best way to help us locate content quickly.
4. Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.
5. A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
6. A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

I keep asking myself how they get away with this.

If my post sounds like a bit of a rant .... yes it is. And please comment all you want to about this. Here's the deal:

Youtube has terms & conditions. You can't post material that you don't own the copyright for. And as you post a new video, TWICE you have to say that you are not posting anything that you don't own the copyright to.

But why is it then ... that people post music videos (let's say Michael Jackson), and TV commmercials, and so forth where they clearly don't own the copyrights to?

And if Youtube monitors the content for "adult or unsuitable" content, then why is it that copywritten material is still on their site?

If it hasn't happened yet, I'm sure that people will start suing google. Especially since google has such deep pockets!

BTW ... one of my own Youtube videos:

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

I've never heard about this, having the mother the only rights to the embryos... And I don't see why. The father is no less a parent for not carrying a baby in his womb, and even up to the freezing stage, both parents have done exactly the same.

So there's no debate down the road. (In other words law suit.)

For example, it's not still regulated in any way the time an embryo should be kept. What if the parents die? and how many embryos should be kept after in-vitro fertilization? According to the medical association, the criopreservation avoids the disposal of non transferred pre-embryos and avoids multiple pregnancy. But then they call this state of pre-embryo until it is implanted in the motherâs womb, and from then on they call it embryo. Arenât they already human beings on their own right?

 

Link (in Spanish)

I have been through this. When you freeze embryos the mother has all rights and must make all decisions and sign before the freezing takes place. Nothing is left to chance. And take note ... if the mother dies ... it's HER wishes that prevail. Even if the father is still living.

Because of youtube there is free music and video for everyone to share and enjoy which woulcnt be there if there wouldnt have been sites like you tube,buying a cd obviously makes profit to user ,but i feel they should change strategy of earning as time goes thwey should ask for part of ads revenue on pages whereb there music is used ,though this is very difficult to implement ,but if possible this will be a very good thin g for the users as well as the music creators but the site owner should be ready to do it.

Radio stations, juke box operators, night clubs and other venues pay royalties to "performing rights organizations". It's an annual fee for most. This allows them to legally play copywritten, commercially recorded music. But if they don't pay their fees (to BMI, ASCAP, SOCAN etc), they have no legal right to play copywritten music.

The money is collected in each country by an agency, and then they split the funds between the registered members. The writers getting the most airplay get the most funds.

About 20 or more years ago a famous musician/recording artist (Bruce Springsteen I believe) was in a club and as it happens the band on stage was playing one of HIS songs. So he thought he'd have his lawyers check to make sure the club was paying their dues. They weren't up to date, so the recording artist sued the night club.

The recording artist won.

Most professionals that use music understand this principle. But home videos and most youtube videos aren't created by professionals.

On the internet, there's no such agency. And efforts to create one so far haven't worked. But there are hopes that some day someone will sort it out. But honestly ... do you think most web site owners are going to pay out music royalties? No. It would likely come down to the hosting companies. And if so ... you might have two kinds of web site hosts ... those that allow music ... and those who don't.

In the mean time, professional music creators lose billions from illegal use and illegal copying. And then there's piracy which is even worse!

"Google, in the announcement. "We believe that this relationship underscores Yahoo!'s respect for content owners and copyrights," he said, relating the popular view among Big Media that YouTube does not."
Google said this and yet they bought Youtube?

Not to mention the whole internet as a collective isn't uhh isn't fighting against You tube. (i think isn't is wrong)

In youtube's terms, you can't use illegal music. Problem is that most people don't understand exactly what that means, and neither do a lot of podcasters.

When you purchase a CD, you don't have the right to copy it to your computer, make a video with it, give away copies to friends, put it on a bit torrent site etc etc.

Do you really think you could create a commercial video game and use a Beatles song for the background music? Of course not.

But so many people just don't care. It's not the youtubes of the world that is the problem ... it's the users of the music. Sometimes it's ignorance, and sometimes they don't care at all that creators of music make their living from the sale of music.

Big Media on the other hand understands this. When ad agencies and radio stations create commercials (video, radio or otherwise) they understand copyrights, and will purchase music production libraries to solve the need for music.

Broadcast video has a whole additional set of mechanical rights called synchronization rights. When your song is played on television, the copyright owner will get a check in the mail.

When posting a youtube video with someone else's music you are breaking multiple copyright laws which affect the writer of the music as well as the performer (the band.)

The solution if you're doing this ... you need to buy Royalty-free music.