Slashdot Mirror

Now tell me, why is it okay for Steve Wozniak to be a "one-hit wonder" but not okay for an artist to be one? Just because computers sell faster than books?

Lol, computers DO not sell faster than books. They just cost less, because they provide less value.
Retail bookstores do roughly 16B in new sales each year, in the USA alone.
Assuming an average selling price of $30 per book, that's over 500 million books each year.
http://news.bookweb.org/news/4131.html

While only about 250 million PCs were sold during all of the 20 years from 1981 to 2000, long after the Apple II stopped generating any revenue.
http://www.c-i-a.com/pr0806.htm

Each participating state wants me to remit the collected sales tax to them separately. Why can't I send in one payment to my state and then they can make sure the money gets distributed fairly?

The use of certified (meaning expensive) tax software is required. If the program is "streamlined" why do I need $50,000 dollars worth of software to figure out how much tax to collect?

Each participating state wants the right to audit me. What happened to that whole "No taxation without representation thing?"

Product and service definitions are insane. For example, a Twix bar is a cookie but a Snickers bar is candy. In some states buying a Twix bar is tax free while a buying a Snickers bar is not.

It's a lot simpler to re-locate a rack of servers to a more tax friendly state than a brick and mortar retailer. But, hey, maybe re-locating to a small Caribbean island wouldn't be so bad?

"I'm not sure you should have weakened your assertion by saying "it effectively creates a trade cartel" rather than "it creates a trade cartel". The RIAA and MPAA definitely as as a "monopoly in restraint of trade", but since they aren't themselves engaged in trade, cartel seems the correct word."

Interesting. Trade organizations are so prevalent (there are tens and thousands of them) that I wouldn't have equated a trade group with a cartel. Would you consider the existence of the American Booksellers Association to define the book store industry as a cartel? Or the American Medical Association, or even the Epsom Salt Council?

I'm guessing that you wouldn't, so if there's a finer distinction that means that the existence of the BSA/RIAA/MPAA creates a trade cartel, but, say, the Game Manufacturers Association does not, can you please explain?

Here is a well-written article about licensing by BMI, ASCAP, etc.

Believe it or not, there are already exemptions in place for small business who simply play the radio in the background.

The following was provided to me by someone in the industry, specifically for me to post here, to answer this precise question. Chain stores are not a positive thing, and ultimately do NOT foster the capitalist/free market ideals that benefit them so much. Please read:

This article -- is very, very old (1999), but a number of the points the author wrote about then are very applicable when you're talking about online chain/mega stores. The sales tax issue is perhaps most interesting to bring up -- the purchase of, well, most everything online, with the exception of items from a business in one's state, or a business having a nexus in one's state, deprives the local community (sometimes city, more often county) of sales tax revenue. It is that revenue that pays for emergency services, roads, and schools, in many parts of the country.

And here's one of Richard Howorth's (a great person) articles:

Sadly, fraudulently representing yourself is protected speech under the First Amendment to the Constituion. The Nike case in California is the biggest test to this in a really long time.

I don't think things would be so different if corporations didn't have that right -- the actors, script writers, spammers, etc. working for corporations would still have the right to tell you lies, as individuals.

(OT TIME) What pisses me off is when the *cops* are allowed to misrepresent the truth. Like alleged sniper guy John Malvo not getting a lawyer because he asked "Do I get to see a lawyer?" and the cops said "No." Then he started singing like a bird. The judge ruled the testimony should be allowed, since Malvo didn't explicitly ASK for a lawyer -- he didn't say "Can I see a lawyer?" But it's clear from his question that his intent was to see a lawyer, and it's also quite clear that the cops knew they could play word games with him, because everyone wants this kid to fry so jurisprudence goes out the window. Hmmm I guess it does piss me off that the cops lie, but it pisses me off even more that it now has a big fat stamp of approval, at least in Virginia. What a crock -- what if someone who doesn't speak English well (Malvo perhaps) is detained and can't formulate the specific grammatically correct sentence to request a lawyer? Oh, wait, that person is probably a terrorist or illegal immigrant, nevermind.

So, I guess the overall arc of this post would be: don't come bitching about how horrible all these spammers are, they lie, hide behind secrecy etc. when that sort of behavior is exactly the same thing our legal system is doing with Malvo, and don't get me started on Ashcroft's tactics.

And, what's the fucking problem with spam in the first place. C'mon people, I have had the same HOTMAIL account for like five years, and for a LONG time my email was listed with each post on SlashDot. I still don't get that much spam, maybe five a day, and I'm not so freaking busy that I don't have the FIVE SECONDS it takes to delete them. What's that, you say? You run a mail server and the spam has got you down? Well, that's why your job is to run that mail server. If it were easy, they wouldn't have to go out and hire a specialist.

The parent post is correct as I understand the law. Here is a informative article that goes into more detail about what rights and fees a company may have relating to playing music or television on premises.

http://news.bookweb.org/news/534.html

The fees are broken down by square footage and number of speakers. A short example from the article:

"Let's take the example of a small bookstore, under 2,000 square feet. The store plays CDs through two speakers, and does not have live entertainment, does not sell CDs, nor does it have a café. This owner will pay an annual sum of $488 in licensing fees: $177 per year to ASCAP (which bases its basic annual fee on the number of speakers); $141 per year to SESAC (which bases its basic annual fee on square feet); and $170 per year to BMI (which bases its fees on square feet)."

• Barry Trotter harry potter parody article.
  
• gone with the wind judgment on parody.
  
• peta parody judgment
  
• copyright article
  

While the "Progress" resupply ship is critical to keep the station stocked with food and fuel, I've long questioned the whole concept of the "Soyuz" escape capsule.

It may sound heartless, but do we have nobody in this country (or any other) willing to explore like they did 100 years ago? Lewis and Clark didn't have an emergency return system... but that didn't keep them from exploring the Mississippi (though there aren't any alien guides this time around).

Another example. In the 1700s, Captain James Cook lost several men each time he journeyed to unknown lands -- sometimes to hostile natives, often to disease, and not infrequently to accident. In fact, his journeys blow NASA's whole idea of long-voyage "I love you, you love me" compatibility to pieces: Cook was a fair captain, but did not hesitate to use the whip when it was needed.

Another interesting note in Cook's explorations: Free (as in beer) Beer! According to an interview with Cook biographer Tony Horwitz on the local PBS station, the rotten conditions on board ship were made tolerable by the large quantities of strong beer in the hold. This led, of course, to some of the death-by-accident statistics (such as sailors falling off the "comfort seat" -- the gangplank with a hole in it for use as a toilet).

I don't mean to paint too drab a picture of future exploration, and I wouldn't want to see the whip making a return on board ship... but until we're willing to lose more than a half-dozen explorers in 40 years, we're not going to get anywhere.

Interesting, some company that I have absolutely no business relationship with (never bought anything, never registered) and whose site I just went to and searched on a book title is now going to start sending me checks.

Thanks Mr. Illuminati, this here internet thingy sure does rock!

* Sigh *

If it makes you feel any better, here's another link to the book from the publisher. In my opinion, the barnes and noble link has more info, but this link might be less offensive. If you really want my bookstore marketing plug, I say buy the book at one of these locations and help keep independent booksellers alive. Regardless of your interesting take on my motives, it really is a fantastic book and is worth a look.

Borders, Barnes&Nobels, Half priced books all get my business weekly but Amazon gets nothing from me.

According to the American Booksellers Association, the case is heading to trial on July 26. Tattered Cover has their own website, of course, but I can't find any reference to the pending legal action.

This is not, of course, the first time Tattered Cover has been involved in a constitutional battle. Back in 1985, in Tattered Cover, Inc. v. Tooley, 696 P.2d 780, they got part of Colorado's criminal code that criminalizes the display of sexually explicit materials struck down as violating the state's constitutional guarantee of free speech.

For us at least, its just a matter of wanting an equal playing field, not preferential treatment because we are a smaller business. And in reply to those that assume that the smaller stores will have higher prices, well, all I can say is we get a lot of traffic from bestbookbuys.combecause our prices are often the best - without a big advertising budget, this is one of the few ways we can get exposure.

March 18, 1998, Tarrytown, NY - The American Booksellers Association (ABA), on behalf of itself and more than 20 independent bookstores, announced today that it has filed an anti-trust lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Barnes & Noble and Borders. The suit alleges that these large, national chain stores are using their clout with publishers to obtain secret and illegal deals and preferential treatment. The lawsuit further claims that these illegal deals put independent bookstores at a serious competitive disadvantage and pose a threat to their survival and to the diversity of American bookselling. The suit contends that these illegal dealings come in many forms, including soliciting special discounts on both large and small orders, the granting of more favorable promotional advertising terms, threatening large returns to obtain extra discounts, and other illegal dealings. Further, the suit alleges that these activities violate a federal antitrust statute, the Robinson-Patman Act, passed in the 1930's to protect small and independent retailers from unfair competition by chain stores. According to lawyers for the plaintiffs, this is the first time a group of independent businesses and their trade association have used this anti-trust statute to fight back against large, national chain stores.

Cripes! Don't buy from Barnes & Nobles, the
Walmart of the book world. Support local booksellers (see BookWeb.org, the American Booksellers Association site) and libraries. An organization of independent booksellers serves effectively the same purposes and goals as Slashdot: peer equivalency, idea exchange, and independence.