Know Your Customer has not been officially implemented yet, and is being vigorously fought by the ACLU and other groups.
Addionally, Know Your Customer, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't require the bank to contact the customer if they see suspicious activity, it requires the bank to contact the Fed and the IRS.
So what's your problem? If we don't buy it, they don't make money, and hence, cannot continue to justify their predatory behavior. It's easy to blast the record industry for $17 CDs and the greed behind it, but if we (as a group of consumers) turn right around and pay $17 for a CD, we're nothing but hypocrites. A solution: Don't buy them, and don't pirate them.
No, it's just that I don't see why they should try to fight piracy so much. It gives them more exposure.
What's exposure without revenue? Granted, some people that listen to pirated music may end up buying it. But how many don't? If someone is really serious about supporting their favorite artist, paying for the music they listen to is one way to do it. Stealing from them isn't.
Imagine, for instance, that the artists make their money from tangible goods that come as a result of their popularity.. Selling concert tickets, T Shirts, Merchandising their craft.
Certainly, if I had a lot of music from an artist, I would want to support them in many ways, especially if I knew most of my money was going to him.
Please explain something...why is it that you don't feel like you should have to pay an artist for his/her music? If it doesn't provide enough value for you pay for it, what value lies in your desire to listen to it?
In its physical form, you're right - it's nothing but a bunch of 0's and 1's. But you've completely overlooked all the resources necessary to produce the music in the first place.
Ultimately, if good artists can sell a CD's worth of material over the net in MP3 format, charge about $5 per download, this is more than generous. Anyone who can't pay $5 for an MP3, doesn't really deserve to listen to it.
I'm no lawyer, but my understanding of trademarks is that a company is REQUIRED to vigorously pursue infringements on any trademark or they will lose it.
I'm no lawyer either, but this might make sense if the alleged offenders were actually trying to develop another commercial interest. If Archie Comics is going after a common name, why don't they finish the job and demand that all people named Veronica turn over their names as well.
This seems like just another redux in the technology industry. I personally don't think that $1 per port licensing fee is going to do any major damage, and in fact, this may be a very good thing over the long term.
Consider Adobe's attempt to control the use of Postscript. Not only is the language still the de facto standard for imaging, Adobe's selfishness resulted in MORE competition, as well as better and more affordable products. This happened because people (including Apple) got tired of paying Adobe's high licensing fees. Now we have TrueType as an alternate font technology, more affordable postscript-compatible printers, and VERY affordable access to the typefaces themselves. If Apple gets out of hand with its licensing fees, what will prevent some enterprising company from developing a product that is Firewire-compatible?
Yes, right along with the non-existent support (I'm talking about something as simple as the serial number). I actually had high hopes for StarDivision, but so far I've been totally underwhelmed.
There are a few problems with this reasoning. First, while it may cost next to nothing to reproduce a piece of software, consider the costs associated with its production:
1. Initial and ongoing development 2. Support 3. Sales/marketing 4. Distribution 5. Overhead
Just as there is value in the experience provided by a movie theater, software also provides value. Consider the difference between having to produce a hand-written report, complete with graphics, vs. firing up the word processor and doing it all digitally. Why is it more reasonable to pay $7.50 for a movie ticket (each time), than to compensate a company for the value provided by a software application that saves you a great deal of time, makes your job much easier, and enables you to produce something of much higher quality than you could manually?
If one builds a web site that gains a substantial following, any changes should *really* be considered carefully before their implementation. In a way, it's not that different from upgrading software - once people get used to the way it works, they're going to be upset if an "upgrade" means a whole new learning curve. Good design (especially with respect to an existing product) involves integrating enhancements with what's already there, not a complete remake.
Anyone managing a website like Freshmeat or Slashdot needs to decide if they're truly out to serve the web community, or if their motive is to build a testament to their own ego. It's an easy trap to fall into. If the emphasis is serving the web community, perhaps a more productive way to introduce changes of this magnitude is to have a small group of users test it first. If it gets good reviews, try it with a different group. If it gets good reviews a second time, the user community in general will probably be receptive. If it gets bad reviews, find out what's wrong, fix it, and then try again. This process may take longer, but the results will usually be much better.
Slashdot Mirror
Know Your Customer has not been officially implemented yet, and is being vigorously fought by the ACLU and other groups.
Addionally, Know Your Customer, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't require the bank to contact the customer if they see suspicious activity, it requires the bank to contact the Fed and the IRS.
So what's your problem? If we don't buy it, they don't make money, and hence, cannot continue to justify their predatory behavior. It's easy to blast the record industry for $17 CDs and the greed behind it, but if we (as a group of consumers) turn right around and pay $17 for a CD, we're nothing but hypocrites. A solution: Don't buy them, and don't pirate them.
Any takers?
Seriously...with all of the legal wrangling over domain names, I wonder if Apple will eventually pull the plug on this guy's domain name.
No, it's just that I don't see why they should try to fight piracy so much. It gives them more exposure.
What's exposure without revenue? Granted, some people that listen to pirated music may end up buying it. But how many don't? If someone is really serious about supporting their favorite artist, paying for the music they listen to is one way to do it. Stealing from them isn't.
Imagine, for instance, that the artists make their money from tangible goods that come as a result of their popularity.. Selling concert tickets, T Shirts, Merchandising their craft.
Certainly, if I had a lot of music from an artist, I would want to support them in many ways, especially if I knew most of my money was going to him.
Please explain something...why is it that you don't feel like you should have to pay an artist for his/her music? If it doesn't provide enough value for you pay for it, what value lies in your desire to listen to it?
In its physical form, you're right - it's nothing but a bunch of 0's and 1's. But you've completely overlooked all the resources necessary to produce the music in the first place.
Ultimately, if good artists can sell a CD's worth of material over the net in MP3 format, charge about $5 per download, this is more than generous. Anyone who can't pay $5 for an MP3, doesn't really deserve to listen to it.
I'm no lawyer, but my understanding of trademarks is that a company is REQUIRED to vigorously pursue infringements on any trademark or they will lose it.
I'm no lawyer either, but this might make sense if the alleged offenders were actually trying to develop another commercial interest. If Archie Comics is going after a common name, why don't they finish the job and demand that all people named Veronica turn over their names as well.
This seems like just another redux in the technology industry. I personally don't think that $1 per port licensing fee is going to do any major damage, and in fact, this may be a very good thing over the long term.
Consider Adobe's attempt to control the use of Postscript. Not only is the language still the de facto standard for imaging, Adobe's selfishness resulted in MORE competition, as well as better and more affordable products. This happened because people (including Apple) got tired of paying Adobe's high licensing fees. Now we have TrueType as an alternate font technology, more affordable postscript-compatible printers, and VERY affordable access to the typefaces themselves. If Apple gets out of hand with its licensing fees, what will prevent some enterprising company from developing a product that is Firewire-compatible?
Yes, right along with the non-existent support (I'm talking about something as simple as the serial number). I actually had high hopes for StarDivision, but so far I've been totally underwhelmed.
There are a few problems with this reasoning. First, while it may cost next to nothing to reproduce a piece of software, consider the costs associated with its production:
1. Initial and ongoing development
2. Support
3. Sales/marketing
4. Distribution
5. Overhead
Just as there is value in the experience provided by a movie theater, software also provides value. Consider the difference between having to produce a hand-written report, complete with graphics, vs. firing up the word processor and doing it all digitally. Why is it more reasonable to pay $7.50 for a movie ticket (each time), than to compensate a company for the value provided by a software application that saves you a great deal of time, makes your job much easier, and enables you to produce something of much higher quality than you could manually?
If one builds a web site that gains a substantial following, any changes should *really* be considered carefully before their implementation. In a way, it's not that different from upgrading software - once people get used to the way it works, they're going to be upset if an "upgrade" means a whole new learning curve. Good design (especially with respect to an existing product) involves integrating enhancements with what's already there, not a complete remake.
Anyone managing a website like Freshmeat or Slashdot needs to decide if they're truly out to serve the web community, or if their motive is to build a testament to their own ego. It's an easy trap to fall into. If the emphasis is serving the web community, perhaps a more productive way to introduce changes of this magnitude is to have a small group of users test it first. If it gets good reviews, try it with a different group. If it gets good reviews a second time, the user community in general will probably be receptive. If it gets bad reviews, find out what's wrong, fix it, and then try again. This process may take longer, but the results will usually be much better.