Uh, no I don't think that's what was said at all. Care to elaborate, AC?
My concern is that in the last several posts above, several mention these clowns and then essentially:rolleyes:
Why mention them at all, and give them page-space and mind-share? That is what they live for; if you don't always agree with them, then why do their work for them? As our fearless leader often inappropriately chimes: "We don't want to embolden the enemy."
I think we should experiment on mice to save lives because I think people are more important than mice. The fact that there are too many people, living in an unsustainable fashion doesn't change that. For example, I don't think those people mentioned in the link above should be tortured in the exact same way they abused those animals they were "saving". Because they are (heartless, psychotic) people, not animals. I guess that organization would disagree with me about it's own members and so probably slaughtered them and left them in a dumpster somewhere. Since our relative value is the same as cockroach, and all.
If need a liver from a mouse to live, I'll thank the mouse. And take the liver.
Just to be clear, I'm a huge fan of downloads replacing physical media. No question.
What I have a problem with is this fake nuance of Universal executives saying, "Well, were going to try this-- give it an honest shot-- and then we'll decide." What a crock.
Is Universal committed to meeting the needs of its customers or not? Either they're providing the equivalent of a CD online or not. I think you have some great ideas for a future DRM-free world. But record companies aren't usually associated with the word "honestly". As posted above, I used to think they just wanted to manufacture data to justify DRM, but now I wonder if they don't want a permanent tax on personal computers, hard drives, and bandwidth like they do on CDs and CD recorders instead.
Well, I can respect your experience, though it is probably different than mine. For example, I made copies for my friends of every single CD or LP I or the library or my family had that I though was really cool. Of course, I was probably 10, and society didn't really seem to give a damn. I received the same in return. I think this resulted in a LOT of new CD buying as we all explore other works of these artists. None of these tapes were multi generation (all were taped directly from the source). All of them sounded great, and I seriously doubt if most people could tell the difference between a nice dolby metal tape and 128kbs mp3 off of p2p in a car under normal circumstances. I'm not saying that sneakernet was a fast or far reaching, but I fail to see an appreciable difference in my actions from downloading tracks from napster. Not that everything is identical either, but I resist this "wow, everything is totally new now" alarmist mindset that they are selling.
More importantly (since I wasn't really down with the "hair rock" or "country" on the radio 24/7 as my only exposure to new music -- actually in my home town it was more like "Poison or Randy Travis? Those are your choices. C'mon pick one.") trading tapes got me interested in buying music at all. Not only that, but I acquired a HUGE variety of tastes for different genres. I don't know how many CDs I've purchase since then, but last time I re-ripped my CDs at higher quality before shoving them back in the big box, there were well over 400. Without trading tapes, "grunge" would never have happened while I was in college, saving the major labels asses, because they creatively just thought to cram more poor quality electronica and hair rock down our throats. We apparently just wanted a break for a while. I digress.
The point is we are both just guessing when we speculate as to whether people just made mixed tapes for their own personal use. No one knows. No record companies care to measure that for a baseline. Because they don't care. They made off the cuff, insanely high guesstimates for losses for taping from radio, and were compensated accordingly. See SoundExchange and the internet radio fiasco, also basically part of the RIAA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundExchange That's way more profitable than finding out the truth. Just keep playing the victim if the cash keeps rolling it and society allows it! Seriously, why wouldn't they? "Heck, let's try that guessing thing again with downloading, maybe even get Apple and Microsoft to just pay us a set 10% for nothing!" Think I'm joking? They still tax blank CDs and CD recorders even when federal law has clarified that personal use copies are OK. Isn't whining and getting paid for it a much better deal that doing actual work?
What these guys are doing is the only sensible way to test the claims on both sides about DRM. I still disagree. DRM is a non-factor. They not are measuring anything meaningful, because nothing will have changed. If I want to DRM-free music on CD I can buy it. If I want to download DRM music, I can buy that. If I want to steal music through p2p that has had the DRM ripped off of it I can do that too. They aren't really even doing anything except setting up a scenario where they can blame poor sales on piracy if they choose to, with the illusion of authority from "research". And maybe cash in on that accusation yet again.
How about addressing the only problem that does hurt their bottom like, like bulk counterfeiting in China? WTF is this move going to change about that?
the RIAA exists just as much as your lawyer and/or union. OK. Yes it exists. But if I fund a legal team to continually harass people, and generally harm society, who should citizens complain to when they are fed up? A tape recorder at the law firm? Or me? Which would be more effective? Who is the source of the problem?
Not the legal team. If one member is disbarred, I'll just hire another. If I'm the RIAA, legal fees are a pittance to me. The probably aren't even a line item on my budget.
I take exception with the union example. I do not believe that the RIAA is a union of independent artists as they purport themselves to be by the standard English definitions of the worlds "independent" and "artists". As I understand it the RIAA is a legal attack dog for several top distribution giants, each of whom control the production of artists through contracts. These distribution labels have no other obligation or duty to the artists. So perhaps a union of giant labels? UGL?
Maybe I'm wrong, but the organization is so shady and secretive... let's take a look at their board of directors, shall we:
Huh. You know, it is the weirdest thing. I don't recognize a single name on that list as a popular recording artist, just "EMI, Sony, BMG, etc." Golly, I wonder if Marilyn Manson or the Rammstein guys voted for these "union leaders". Ahh, I'm guessing no.
...We might see more songs sold, though, since some people (like me) will turn to buying music online when there is no restriction on it anymore that limits my use in various devices of my choice... Excellent points, IMHO. But as for the statement above: wouldn't the net sales be the same? Assuming that you currently buy on CD what you would prefer to buy digitally? You aren't NOT buying music just because someone else hasn't ripped it for you, surely?
I don't really understand why it so offends the Major Music Labels that consumers want to buy CDs for the same $9.99 that they currently sell for, except give the labels back money for the cost of shipping, inventory, and packaging (it's not like the labels pay for ripping or bandwidth either)! Oooh, sounds terrible -- more profit margin for the executives... awww. Or they could, I don't know, give the artist a better cut... BWAHAHAHA! Just kidding, guys.
As the smart fellow said above (defining 'entrepreneur') this is all about tightening the grip of control. Not regaining lost ground, but having more control than they have ever had before. So far, it is working great for them.
What these guys are doing is the only sensible way to test the claims on both sides about DRM. Meh. Actually I think it was less time, but that really doesn't matter. Before the internet there were mixed tapes of CD or vinyl. Sneaker net is slower, but a million first generation cassette tapes of a CD still sounded just fine, and were just as legal/illegal as a million mp3s. Probably more damaging, really, as the music market was much smaller, and everyone thought making tapes for your friends was "awesome" (or perhaps "radical"). Anyone know how many 60 and 90 minute cassette tapes have been sold in history? I bet it's a lot. This has nothing to do with being sensible or "testing" anything.
Besides, do you remember back when distributing music was about... distributing MUSIC? Neither do I, I'm not old enough. Universal can sign and heavily promote a new Paris Hilton, Martha Stewart lovesong duet written by Michael Bolton for the next 5 months and they won't make a friggin dime. That would have nothing to do with "pirates", "ninjas", or anything else but incompetence of the management. But I'm pretty sure we'd hear it blamed on "piracy", aren't you?
If this is a "test" of anything it is how much BS the average consumer will choke down before puking.
The thing they don't get by leaving iTunesMS out of the deal is that you can still use iTunes (the program) once you have bought the DRM-free tracks (assuming they are mp3s or AAC) and load them on your pod and really, most people would be happy to do this. Oh I'm sure they get that. This was just a way to tell Steve Jobs that Universal gets to set the prices in Steve Jobs' store, not Steve. I mean, really, who does Apple think they are, the creators of a huge online digital music market? Puhleez! Oh and Universal will take a cut of that sweet iPod thing too. I'm sure Universal must have had something to do with it, because it has something to do with music. And we all know Universal owns all music ever to be created, right?
This has probably been posted a million times on slashdot, but we must repeat it until at least every slashdot person understands:
THERE. IS. NO. RIAA.
Not as such. It is a like shell company so that the major music labels don't get their hands (or label names) dirty whilst suing dead people, stalking 8 year olds, and extorting grandmothers that have never even seen a computer.
Universal IS the RIAA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_l abels may help. I seriously propose not buying in to the Sony, Warner, Universal, et al. game of hiding behind the word RIAA as if it is some, nebulous, vastly distantly related entity. It isn't. Substitute "major music label CEOs" for "RIAA". So for example this headline from Arstechnica: Judge greenlights RIAA to dig into man's past, employers
Should actually read: Judge greenlights Major Music Label CEOs to dig into man's past, employers
Those CEOs are people. They make the decisions. They are responsible. Normal people can get their heads around that and hold those people responsible for their actions, if they so choose. The RIAA is some faceless acronym, just another brick wall. As it is surely intended to be.
My thoughts exactly. To look at how it affects piracy rates, you need some way of measuring piracy. AFAIK they have nothing other than RSITDANTMUFG* numbers for what piracy levels may be. Come on, how can you ever hope to count downloads on the many P2P networks when the whole point of them is that they're decentralised? * RSITDANTMUFG = Random Stab In The Dark At Number That Make Us Feel Good Normally I'd agree completely, but aren't you starting to get the feeling that the people that run these giant media conglomerates just have a huge cigarbox in the boardroom for their cash? As in:
Suit 1: (opens box) "Hey, there used to be more cash in here! I want more!" Suit 2: "Oh noes! Why did the box stop making cash?!" Suit 1: "Maybe someone TOOK OUR CASH!" Suit 2: "Took... you mean, like... pirates?" Suit 1: (gasp) "Pirates! Yes, must be pirates! We must kill the pirates!" Janitor: "Hey, don't you guys actually make money from helping new artists distribute their music to a wider audience?" Suit 1: "Huh? Who are you? Someone throw him out... Now, let's vote, who wants to kill pirates and so the box makes more cash?" Suits 2,3: "Yay! More cash!"
Music companies have really just started waking up to why DRM is really bad, and it's nothing to do with their customers. . . . _That's_ why they are starting to drop DRM - they have finally come to the realisation that DRM is the trojan horse that will destroy them. Not piracy. FWIW I agree, but I'm sure Walmart & Co sweetened the deal with truckloads of sweet, nourishing cash.
you'll find it will save you a lot of time, hassle and resources Exactly! I'm not entirely sure HOW AMD will leverage that, but if all the business world ends up with OLPC type laptops/desktops that have low-power "exotic/embedded" processors, I'm pretty sure this build system will fully exploit features of any chips that come out of AMD. (except, perhaps for ATI chips);)
Of course, if those machines also run SUSE, well then logically you might as well use SUSE on the back end. Maybe on AMD... that is how I see business procurement agents thinking, anyway. Novell certainly needs the name exposure it has been seeking if they want to survive, Netware dominance was a looong time ago.
Idealistic, but not unrealistic. Personally, I think it'd be great if we all just got along, used Gentoo, and forgot about Micro... whats-its-name. I'd also like a pony. But why all the Novell hate?
A thing you may receive in the near future, unless Apple finally gets around to implementing better handling of "safe" file types and Apple Mail attachments in 10.5...
I think everyone has to admit that if Novell plays their cards right, they have a real shot at eventually winning a large portion of the enterprise desktop as well as the back end. IMHO. I like SUSE quite a bit, anyway. And I think AMD sees that a possible low-power platform win over Intel (those'll be harder and harder to come by).
As for MS... they think of Vista as their linux GUI, don't they?;) If I had that much money, I'd invest in ever competitor too... you never know.
BTW, made account to thank the OP for not linking to their blog about a magazine blurb about TFA. That gets old fast.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, no I don't think that's what was said at all. Care to elaborate, AC?
:rolleyes:
My concern is that in the last several posts above, several mention these clowns and then essentially
Why mention them at all, and give them page-space and mind-share? That is what they live for; if you don't always agree with them, then why do their work for them? As our fearless leader often inappropriately chimes: "We don't want to embolden the enemy."
I think we should experiment on mice to save lives because I think people are more important than mice. The fact that there are too many people, living in an unsustainable fashion doesn't change that. For example, I don't think those people mentioned in the link above should be tortured in the exact same way they abused those animals they were "saving". Because they are (heartless, psychotic) people, not animals. I guess that organization would disagree with me about it's own members and so probably slaughtered them and left them in a dumpster somewhere. Since our relative value is the same as cockroach, and all.
If need a liver from a mouse to live, I'll thank the mouse. And take the liver.
Yes, if you don't mind walking around with a mouse stapled to your chest.
(I hear that might be a turn of for the ladies... OTOH, you could do a killer 'Alien' impression.)
Just to be clear, I'm a huge fan of downloads replacing physical media. No question.
What I have a problem with is this fake nuance of Universal executives saying, "Well, were going to try this-- give it an honest shot-- and then we'll decide." What a crock.
Is Universal committed to meeting the needs of its customers or not? Either they're providing the equivalent of a CD online or not. I think you have some great ideas for a future DRM-free world. But record companies aren't usually associated with the word "honestly". As posted above, I used to think they just wanted to manufacture data to justify DRM, but now I wonder if they don't want a permanent tax on personal computers, hard drives, and bandwidth like they do on CDs and CD recorders instead.
More importantly (since I wasn't really down with the "hair rock" or "country" on the radio 24/7 as my only exposure to new music -- actually in my home town it was more like "Poison or Randy Travis? Those are your choices. C'mon pick one.") trading tapes got me interested in buying music at all. Not only that, but I acquired a HUGE variety of tastes for different genres. I don't know how many CDs I've purchase since then, but last time I re-ripped my CDs at higher quality before shoving them back in the big box, there were well over 400. Without trading tapes, "grunge" would never have happened while I was in college, saving the major labels asses, because they creatively just thought to cram more poor quality electronica and hair rock down our throats. We apparently just wanted a break for a while. I digress.
The point is we are both just guessing when we speculate as to whether people just made mixed tapes for their own personal use. No one knows. No record companies care to measure that for a baseline. Because they don't care. They made off the cuff, insanely high guesstimates for losses for taping from radio, and were compensated accordingly. See SoundExchange and the internet radio fiasco, also basically part of the RIAA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundExchange That's way more profitable than finding out the truth. Just keep playing the victim if the cash keeps rolling it and society allows it! Seriously, why wouldn't they? "Heck, let's try that guessing thing again with downloading, maybe even get Apple and Microsoft to just pay us a set 10% for nothing!" Think I'm joking? They still tax blank CDs and CD recorders even when federal law has clarified that personal use copies are OK. Isn't whining and getting paid for it a much better deal that doing actual work? What these guys are doing is the only sensible way to test the claims on both sides about DRM. I still disagree. DRM is a non-factor. They not are measuring anything meaningful, because nothing will have changed. If I want to DRM-free music on CD I can buy it. If I want to download DRM music, I can buy that. If I want to steal music through p2p that has had the DRM ripped off of it I can do that too. They aren't really even doing anything except setting up a scenario where they can blame poor sales on piracy if they choose to, with the illusion of authority from "research". And maybe cash in on that accusation yet again.
How about addressing the only problem that does hurt their bottom like, like bulk counterfeiting in China? WTF is this move going to change about that?
Not the legal team. If one member is disbarred, I'll just hire another. If I'm the RIAA, legal fees are a pittance to me. The probably aren't even a line item on my budget.
I take exception with the union example. I do not believe that the RIAA is a union of independent artists as they purport themselves to be by the standard English definitions of the worlds "independent" and "artists". As I understand it the RIAA is a legal attack dog for several top distribution giants, each of whom control the production of artists through contracts. These distribution labels have no other obligation or duty to the artists. So perhaps a union of giant labels? UGL?
Maybe I'm wrong, but the organization is so shady and secretive... let's take a look at their board of directors, shall we:
http://www.riaa.com/aboutus.php?content_selector=
Huh. You know, it is the weirdest thing. I don't recognize a single name on that list as a popular recording artist, just "EMI, Sony, BMG, etc." Golly, I wonder if Marilyn Manson or the Rammstein guys voted for these "union leaders". Ahh, I'm guessing no.
...We might see more songs sold, though, since some people (like me) will turn to buying music online when there is no restriction on it anymore that limits my use in various devices of my choice... Excellent points, IMHO. But as for the statement above: wouldn't the net sales be the same? Assuming that you currently buy on CD what you would prefer to buy digitally? You aren't NOT buying music just because someone else hasn't ripped it for you, surely?I don't really understand why it so offends the Major Music Labels that consumers want to buy CDs for the same $9.99 that they currently sell for, except give the labels back money for the cost of shipping, inventory, and packaging (it's not like the labels pay for ripping or bandwidth either)! Oooh, sounds terrible -- more profit margin for the executives... awww. Or they could, I don't know, give the artist a better cut... BWAHAHAHA! Just kidding, guys.
As the smart fellow said above (defining 'entrepreneur') this is all about tightening the grip of control. Not regaining lost ground, but having more control than they have ever had before. So far, it is working great for them.
Besides, do you remember back when distributing music was about... distributing MUSIC? Neither do I, I'm not old enough. Universal can sign and heavily promote a new Paris Hilton, Martha Stewart lovesong duet written by Michael Bolton for the next 5 months and they won't make a friggin dime. That would have nothing to do with "pirates", "ninjas", or anything else but incompetence of the management. But I'm pretty sure we'd hear it blamed on "piracy", aren't you?
If this is a "test" of anything it is how much BS the average consumer will choke down before puking.
This has probably been posted a million times on slashdot, but we must repeat it until at least every slashdot person understands:
l abels may help. I seriously propose not buying in to the Sony, Warner, Universal, et al. game of hiding behind the word RIAA as if it is some, nebulous, vastly distantly related entity. It isn't. Substitute "major music label CEOs" for "RIAA". So for example this headline from Arstechnica:
THERE. IS. NO. RIAA.
Not as such. It is a like shell company so that the major music labels don't get their hands (or label names) dirty whilst suing dead people, stalking 8 year olds, and extorting grandmothers that have never even seen a computer.
Universal IS the RIAA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_
Judge greenlights RIAA to dig into man's past, employers
Should actually read:
Judge greenlights Major Music Label CEOs to dig into man's past, employers
Those CEOs are people. They make the decisions. They are responsible. Normal people can get their heads around that and hold those people responsible for their actions, if they so choose. The RIAA is some faceless acronym, just another brick wall. As it is surely intended to be.
* RSITDANTMUFG = Random Stab In The Dark At Number That Make Us Feel Good Normally I'd agree completely, but aren't you starting to get the feeling that the people that run these giant media conglomerates just have a huge cigarbox in the boardroom for their cash? As in:
Suit 1: (opens box) "Hey, there used to be more cash in here! I want more!"
Suit 2: "Oh noes! Why did the box stop making cash?!"
Suit 1: "Maybe someone TOOK OUR CASH!"
Suit 2: "Took... you mean, like... pirates?"
Suit 1: (gasp) "Pirates! Yes, must be pirates! We must kill the pirates!"
Janitor: "Hey, don't you guys actually make money from helping new artists distribute their music to a wider audience?"
Suit 1: "Huh? Who are you? Someone throw him out... Now, let's vote, who wants to kill pirates and so the box makes more cash?"
Suits 2,3: "Yay! More cash!"
. . .
_That's_ why they are starting to drop DRM - they have finally come to the realisation that DRM is the trojan horse that will destroy them. Not piracy. FWIW I agree, but I'm sure Walmart & Co sweetened the deal with truckloads of sweet, nourishing cash.
And apparently regretted it ever since.
That is hilarious. Universal refuses to sign a contract, and will do business with Apple strictly "at will".
Oh the irony! The music giant that doesn't believe it should have to sign a contract just to get distributed.
Of course, if those machines also run SUSE, well then logically you might as well use SUSE on the back end. Maybe on AMD... that is how I see business procurement agents thinking, anyway. Novell certainly needs the name exposure it has been seeking if they want to survive, Netware dominance was a looong time ago.
Idealistic, but not unrealistic. Personally, I think it'd be great if we all just got along, used Gentoo, and forgot about Micro... whats-its-name. I'd also like a pony. But why all the Novell hate?
A thing you may receive in the near future, unless Apple finally gets around to implementing better handling of "safe" file types and Apple Mail attachments in 10.5...
I think everyone has to admit that if Novell plays their cards right, they have a real shot at eventually winning a large portion of the enterprise desktop as well as the back end. IMHO. I like SUSE quite a bit, anyway. And I think AMD sees that a possible low-power platform win over Intel (those'll be harder and harder to come by).
;) If I had that much money, I'd invest in ever competitor too... you never know.
As for MS... they think of Vista as their linux GUI, don't they?
BTW, made account to thank the OP for not linking to their blog about a magazine blurb about TFA. That gets old fast.
--
datapharmer, tragically nice sig.