Not sure what point you were trying to make, but you sure did an excellent job of stating the RIAAs case succinctly. That being, if we control the distribution (as is our legal right) the files are potentially worth millions. When others distribute, the value drops (maybe not all the way to 0, but certainly lower than it was).
New technology is in no way replacing authors and publishers the way it replaced horse and buggy people. New technology may replace the printer, the paper and ink makers, the truck driver, and the retail store. None of those businesses have anything to do with copyright. What you are 'buying' from the author is a story, not a physical book. The value of the story does not change depending on the distribution method.
What is with these stupid 'not a viable business model' posts in every article about copyrights? Do authors write books? Yes. Do publishers publish them? Yes. Does the author get paid? Yes. Does the publisher make a profit? Yes. Hence, viable business model. The only non-viable business models are the ones where the costs exceed the revenues. Unfortunately, many/.ers seem to think that 'authors get paid, results get given away for free' is somehow a viable business model.
I don't know what you mean that bandwidth is not a physical limitation. It certainly is. A switch (for instance) will only operate so fast. Once it is saturated you are not going to jam any more data through it. So you must buy an additional switch, which is not free. You must install it. You must maintain it. Not free. The cost of the service contracts with your suppliers goes up. Not free.
I never said that anything is preventing ISPs from adding bandwidth (like Verizon). I just said that whether or not to add bandwidth is a business decision, not part of some conspiracy.
As for your point that market share and markets are steady, that is exactly the point. If customers are not demanding more bandwidth (ie by moving to another provider), what incentive is there to make the expenditure? Maybe the Verizon experiment will be successful, and other ISPs will follow. Or maybe it will fail, and they'll be glad they didn't waste their money.
During the 90s several large telcos (AT&T, Worldcom, etc) ceased to exist, in large part because they spent a ridiculous amount of money building up bandwidth for which there was no demand. The remaining ISPs are much more likely to wait for the demand, then do the buildup, rather than repeat that mistake.
I also don't understand what point you are trying to make the the highlighted phrase from the FCC. All that says is that blocking only certain types of traffic is bad. It says nothing at all about a blanket cap on bandwidth, as long as the cap is non-discriminatory.
Wow, is that tinfoil hat itchy? The reason for not building more bandwidth is simple: money.
ISPs, like all other businesses, do not exist to serve the customer, they exist to make money for the investors (entities that exist to serve the customer and not investors are charities, not businesses). Serving the customer is one way to achieve that goal. So is reducing cost. If an ISP sees that it's bandwidth capacity is being reached, it has a decision to make: add more capacity (cost) and increase the fees charged to customers, or limit how much capacity a customer can use. If it adds capacity and does not increase the fees, it is losing money, which is not what the investors want. If it adds capacity and increases the fee, it runs the risk that the bulk of it's customer base will leave for a cheaper ISP. Again it is losing money. If it caps the usage for a small percentage of it's users, some of them may leave. When those uses leave, the capacity they were using is available to add even more 'regular' customers, increasing the return to the investors.
In previous discussions it has been argued that today's power users are tomorrows average users. That may well be true. When the average person is using their connection for watching movies, etc they will support a fee increase for the additional capability they get. Until that time, they see no reason to pay more just so someone else can have what they want.
Your comparison to roads is not valid: roads are built with public funds, not private money. Everyone pays for the road through taxes whether they will ever drive on it or not.
Lastly, several cities with capacity problems are limiting how many people are in the city, by using 'congestion pricing' to limit how many people drive in the city.
Do you think mainframes are still using vacuum tubes? Mainframes are every bit as 'modern' as any other system. The only thing old about them is that they can still run programs written 40 years ago, without a recompile.
What really happens when the existing mainframe takes a hit is the backup datacenter in a different city takes over. If that datacenter was already running it's own workload, then additional processors are added to handle the new workload. Adding new processors is non-disruptive, and happens instantly. The switchover happens so fast that most likely no customer will even notice. When the machine is repaired/replaced the workload is switched back.
Customers do not have excess mainframe capacity sitting there doing nothing wasting energy, like they do with PCs. If a 'much smaller machine' would handle the workload, then a 'much smaller machine' is what they would use. Many, many businesses are using mainframes to run virtual workloads instead of using 'smaller machines' just for the energy savings alone.
Reckless and irresponsible is continually moving applications to flavor-of-the-week languages and systems. Continuing to use systems that have a 40 year track record of continuous improvement while maintaining 100% compatibility is hardly reckless and irresponsible.
That would be one weird migration - first, we will install a brand new (unstable) OS, then we will port our stable apps to it (more instability), then when all that is working we will move to unstable hardware.
Your laptop can meet or exceed the IO performance? How about the memory access performance? Your laptop has MTBF measured in decades? Or by 'every measurable way' do you mean simple CP performance? These machines are not about CP performance.
Not true. They test to make sure approved devices don't interfere, that is why they are approved. Other devices (including everything with a transmitter) are banned, because they might interfere.
You've got to be kidding, right? You think the president needs to have skills in all of the areas that are important to the citizens? That person does not exist. The skills that an executive (of anything, business or nation) needs to have are the ability to select delegates who are experts in specific fields, the ability listen to multiple views, the ability to make a decision, and the ability to implement the decision. Expecting a president to have 'skills' in tech, medicine, economics, finance, energy, science, military, environment, entertainment, etc is just ridiculous. Outside of the self-described experts on everything on/., that person does not exist.
Well, at least your number 3 is wrong. Cell phones are not allowed on planes because a few hundred phones simultaneously hopping from tower to tower at several hundred MPH wreaks havoc on the phone system. It is an FCC rule, not an FAA rule.
Where in the article does it say anything about not needing the corporate engine to succeed? In fact, since he says 'I am only supposed to tease this release' instead of 'I only want to tease this release', it sounds to me like he is still very much involved in the traditional model. The only thing that is new is he releasing tracks earlier. And note that the reason he wants to release earlier is so his tracks can be 'more topical', which sounds like a business decision to me. Lastly, he is releasing to iTunes, which is hardly non-corporate.
The only 'waste' that is being eliminated here is the actual pressing and transportation of disks, and the retailers. The other functions provided by the 'corporate engine' and still being provided. Things like access to studio time, recording engineers, marketing, and most importantly, the up-front money to give the artists the time they need to create the tracks.
I have yet to hear of the 'new model' that provides the money for the artists to be able to make the recordings, without the expectation of making the money back, with profit. When that model appears, and a majority of artists start using it, then you can talk about demonstrating changes.
Justices are not supposed to be experts on the things a case is about. A justice is supposed to be an expert on the law. It is up to the parties in the case to present their arguments in terms of the law - if the justice doesn't 'get it' it is the fault of the lawyers in the case, not the justice. If the justice makes a mistake as to the law, that is what appeals are for. Also, it is not up to the justice to say 'I hate SPAM, so it is illegal'. That is the job of the legislators. Finally, do you know what 'your peers' means? It does not mean someone of the same intellectual, social, or political leanings as you. It means ordinary people, as opposed to people representing the government. And that is what you ALWAYS get for a jury, in spite of your snide insinuations otherwise.
According to the Comcast FAQ, if you go over the limit you get a phone call asking you to not do that again. Do it again within 6 months and they terminate your service for a year. There are no extra charges. Now why would they do that? Because they don't really want you as a customer. Again, according to the FAQ, the average user tops out at 2-4G/month. So for the same 250GB bandwidth you are using, they could add around 100 more average users without impacting their system or spending more money. Even if there was an overage charge, it would not make up for the difference between what you are paying and what 100 more customers would be paying.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with RFID. Of course if you have someone on the inside who is corrupt, and the systems allow it, you can do anything. You don't need a forger, you can get them to give you a 'real' fake id. Just like you don't need to go to the trouble to steal someone's identity - just get someone in the bank to send all their money to you. Simple.
What's to figure out? It is probably just an unencrypted number that identifies your record in the database. When you cross the border it does a lookup and displays your photo and other info. Picture doesn't match? You don't get to cross. No point in faking the RFID.
You make the risk/reward ratio sound so lopsided towards risk that only stupid people would enter into one of these agreements. However, the fact is that for many years many people had ARMs and did not have a problem. Those people wound up with a house, probably worth far more than they paid for it.
So why did it work then, and not now? Because when the rate went up, they could either afford it because their income had also risen, or their property value went up and they could refinance.
And who says they did not understand ARMs or the implications thereof? They may have talked to many friends and family, read magazines, asked a financial advisor, etc, and they probably got the same information from all of them. Buy now or you will never be able to afford it, you're being stupid by paying rent and not building any equity, and don't worry about the rate - when it goes up you can always refi.
So to get to the current situation two things had to happen: income stopped rising for whatever reason, and property values fell because so many people were in the same position. If those two things were as easy to predict as you suggest, there must have been risk models at financial institutions with giant red lights flashing 'danger!'. But those institutions also missed those red lights, or we wouldn't be in the current mess. Gigantic financial institutions filled with MBAs and financial wizards didn't see this coming, but you think it is perfectly reasonable to expect homebuyers to see it?
The fact is, if people see their dream of homeownership vanishing, because prices are skyrocketing, and they are presented with an opportunity to own a home before it is too late, they are going to take it. That does not make them stupid, greedy, or any other derogatory term. It makes them human.
What kind of ridiculous argument is that? You're comparing art to water? Here's a hint: you need water to live (literally). Yes, people would pay an almost unlimited amount for water, if it's that or die. Art, on the other hand, is something you DESIRE, not NEED to have. I am unaware of a single case where an artist (or corporation) pointed a gun at someone and said 'purchase this art or you're dead'.
The only things that approach marginal cost are commodity items that people 'need' at some level. Everything else is by value. Why does a Lexus LS cost more than a Toyota Yaris? Why does a house in a nice neighborhood cost more than one in a bad neighborhood? Why does a Mac cost more than a PC? In each case it is because of perceived value to the purchaser.
On the one side we have the copyright holders. We'll call them big evil corporations. Big evil corporations that collectively employee millions of people. Millions of people who are getting paid. Millions of people who are buying food, shelter, etc. Millions of people who can donate to charity. Millions of people paying taxes. Millions of people who can buy stuff that other people make so they can also live. In addition to that, millions of other people have investments in those corporations, directly or indirectly.
On the other hand, we have the anti-copyright crowd, whose basic argument is 'we want free stuff, give it to us, whaaaaa'. What possible benefit to society is there from getting free NES games? What benefit is there from getting free Steamboat Willie movies? Yes, it might be nice to have, but certainly there is no measurable benefit.
As long as someone is willing to pay for something, or there is the potential for someone to pay for it, that thing has value. It does not matter if the thing is 'real' or 'imaginary'. Why should the value that is present in copyrights be artificially eliminated? What if that same logic was applied to other areas? You can go to school and learn a skill, but in 5 years you may no longer use that skill, by law. You may build a house with your own two hands, but in 15 years anyone who wants can move in with you, for free. As of today any currency printed before 2006 has no value. Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?
It seems to me that the IP haters always quote this line, but don't seem to grasp the concept. You seem to think that they are saying that the expiration of the right is what promotes progress. It is not. What is promoting progress is allowing people to profit off their discoveries, thereby giving them a motive to advance the science and useful arts. If the copyrights on the games in question had already expired, how is what this guy (or anyone else) is doing with the games advancing anything except his own profit?
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure what point you were trying to make, but you sure did an excellent job of stating the RIAAs case succinctly. That being, if we control the distribution (as is our legal right) the files are potentially worth millions. When others distribute, the value drops (maybe not all the way to 0, but certainly lower than it was).
New technology is in no way replacing authors and publishers the way it replaced horse and buggy people. New technology may replace the printer, the paper and ink makers, the truck driver, and the retail store. None of those businesses have anything to do with copyright. What you are 'buying' from the author is a story, not a physical book. The value of the story does not change depending on the distribution method.
What is with these stupid 'not a viable business model' posts in every article about copyrights? Do authors write books? Yes. Do publishers publish them? Yes. Does the author get paid? Yes. Does the publisher make a profit? Yes. Hence, viable business model. The only non-viable business models are the ones where the costs exceed the revenues. Unfortunately, many /.ers seem to think that 'authors get paid, results get given away for free' is somehow a viable business model.
I don't know what you mean that bandwidth is not a physical limitation. It certainly is. A switch (for instance) will only operate so fast. Once it is saturated you are not going to jam any more data through it. So you must buy an additional switch, which is not free. You must install it. You must maintain it. Not free. The cost of the service contracts with your suppliers goes up. Not free.
I never said that anything is preventing ISPs from adding bandwidth (like Verizon). I just said that whether or not to add bandwidth is a business decision, not part of some conspiracy.
As for your point that market share and markets are steady, that is exactly the point. If customers are not demanding more bandwidth (ie by moving to another provider), what incentive is there to make the expenditure? Maybe the Verizon experiment will be successful, and other ISPs will follow. Or maybe it will fail, and they'll be glad they didn't waste their money.
During the 90s several large telcos (AT&T, Worldcom, etc) ceased to exist, in large part because they spent a ridiculous amount of money building up bandwidth for which there was no demand. The remaining ISPs are much more likely to wait for the demand, then do the buildup, rather than repeat that mistake.
I also don't understand what point you are trying to make the the highlighted phrase from the FCC. All that says is that blocking only certain types of traffic is bad. It says nothing at all about a blanket cap on bandwidth, as long as the cap is non-discriminatory.
Wow, is that tinfoil hat itchy? The reason for not building more bandwidth is simple: money.
ISPs, like all other businesses, do not exist to serve the customer, they exist to make money for the investors (entities that exist to serve the customer and not investors are charities, not businesses). Serving the customer is one way to achieve that goal. So is reducing cost. If an ISP sees that it's bandwidth capacity is being reached, it has a decision to make: add more capacity (cost) and increase the fees charged to customers, or limit how much capacity a customer can use. If it adds capacity and does not increase the fees, it is losing money, which is not what the investors want. If it adds capacity and increases the fee, it runs the risk that the bulk of it's customer base will leave for a cheaper ISP. Again it is losing money. If it caps the usage for a small percentage of it's users, some of them may leave. When those uses leave, the capacity they were using is available to add even more 'regular' customers, increasing the return to the investors.
In previous discussions it has been argued that today's power users are tomorrows average users. That may well be true. When the average person is using their connection for watching movies, etc they will support a fee increase for the additional capability they get. Until that time, they see no reason to pay more just so someone else can have what they want.
Your comparison to roads is not valid: roads are built with public funds, not private money. Everyone pays for the road through taxes whether they will ever drive on it or not.
Lastly, several cities with capacity problems are limiting how many people are in the city, by using 'congestion pricing' to limit how many people drive in the city.
Do you think mainframes are still using vacuum tubes? Mainframes are every bit as 'modern' as any other system. The only thing old about them is that they can still run programs written 40 years ago, without a recompile.
What really happens when the existing mainframe takes a hit is the backup datacenter in a different city takes over. If that datacenter was already running it's own workload, then additional processors are added to handle the new workload. Adding new processors is non-disruptive, and happens instantly. The switchover happens so fast that most likely no customer will even notice. When the machine is repaired/replaced the workload is switched back.
Customers do not have excess mainframe capacity sitting there doing nothing wasting energy, like they do with PCs. If a 'much smaller machine' would handle the workload, then a 'much smaller machine' is what they would use. Many, many businesses are using mainframes to run virtual workloads instead of using 'smaller machines' just for the energy savings alone.
Reckless and irresponsible is continually moving applications to flavor-of-the-week languages and systems. Continuing to use systems that have a 40 year track record of continuous improvement while maintaining 100% compatibility is hardly reckless and irresponsible.
Or stay in the US where it is already illegal for employers and insurers to discriminate based on genetic information. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act makes that illegal.
That would be one weird migration - first, we will install a brand new (unstable) OS, then we will port our stable apps to it (more instability), then when all that is working we will move to unstable hardware.
Your laptop can meet or exceed the IO performance? How about the memory access performance? Your laptop has MTBF measured in decades? Or by 'every measurable way' do you mean simple CP performance? These machines are not about CP performance.
Not true. They test to make sure approved devices don't interfere, that is why they are approved. Other devices (including everything with a transmitter) are banned, because they might interfere.
You've got to be kidding, right? You think the president needs to have skills in all of the areas that are important to the citizens? That person does not exist. The skills that an executive (of anything, business or nation) needs to have are the ability to select delegates who are experts in specific fields, the ability listen to multiple views, the ability to make a decision, and the ability to implement the decision. Expecting a president to have 'skills' in tech, medicine, economics, finance, energy, science, military, environment, entertainment, etc is just ridiculous. Outside of the self-described experts on everything on /., that person does not exist.
That may well be, but even 1000s of phones spread out over a day is not much compared to 100s of phones on every plane.
Well, at least your number 3 is wrong. Cell phones are not allowed on planes because a few hundred phones simultaneously hopping from tower to tower at several hundred MPH wreaks havoc on the phone system. It is an FCC rule, not an FAA rule.
Where in the article does it say anything about not needing the corporate engine to succeed? In fact, since he says 'I am only supposed to tease this release' instead of 'I only want to tease this release', it sounds to me like he is still very much involved in the traditional model. The only thing that is new is he releasing tracks earlier. And note that the reason he wants to release earlier is so his tracks can be 'more topical', which sounds like a business decision to me. Lastly, he is releasing to iTunes, which is hardly non-corporate.
The only 'waste' that is being eliminated here is the actual pressing and transportation of disks, and the retailers. The other functions provided by the 'corporate engine' and still being provided. Things like access to studio time, recording engineers, marketing, and most importantly, the up-front money to give the artists the time they need to create the tracks.
I have yet to hear of the 'new model' that provides the money for the artists to be able to make the recordings, without the expectation of making the money back, with profit. When that model appears, and a majority of artists start using it, then you can talk about demonstrating changes.
Justices are not supposed to be experts on the things a case is about. A justice is supposed to be an expert on the law. It is up to the parties in the case to present their arguments in terms of the law - if the justice doesn't 'get it' it is the fault of the lawyers in the case, not the justice. If the justice makes a mistake as to the law, that is what appeals are for. Also, it is not up to the justice to say 'I hate SPAM, so it is illegal'. That is the job of the legislators. Finally, do you know what 'your peers' means? It does not mean someone of the same intellectual, social, or political leanings as you. It means ordinary people, as opposed to people representing the government. And that is what you ALWAYS get for a jury, in spite of your snide insinuations otherwise.
According to the Comcast FAQ, if you go over the limit you get a phone call asking you to not do that again. Do it again within 6 months and they terminate your service for a year. There are no extra charges. Now why would they do that? Because they don't really want you as a customer. Again, according to the FAQ, the average user tops out at 2-4G/month. So for the same 250GB bandwidth you are using, they could add around 100 more average users without impacting their system or spending more money. Even if there was an overage charge, it would not make up for the difference between what you are paying and what 100 more customers would be paying.
Is that something new? What makes you think that the government used to think security by obscurity was a good plan?
From IBM's OS/2 tokenring network driver. "Open error during physical insertion phase". Ouch!
Which has absolutely nothing to do with RFID. Of course if you have someone on the inside who is corrupt, and the systems allow it, you can do anything. You don't need a forger, you can get them to give you a 'real' fake id. Just like you don't need to go to the trouble to steal someone's identity - just get someone in the bank to send all their money to you. Simple.
What's to figure out? It is probably just an unencrypted number that identifies your record in the database. When you cross the border it does a lookup and displays your photo and other info. Picture doesn't match? You don't get to cross. No point in faking the RFID.
You make the risk/reward ratio sound so lopsided towards risk that only stupid people would enter into one of these agreements. However, the fact is that for many years many people had ARMs and did not have a problem. Those people wound up with a house, probably worth far more than they paid for it.
So why did it work then, and not now? Because when the rate went up, they could either afford it because their income had also risen, or their property value went up and they could refinance.
And who says they did not understand ARMs or the implications thereof? They may have talked to many friends and family, read magazines, asked a financial advisor, etc, and they probably got the same information from all of them. Buy now or you will never be able to afford it, you're being stupid by paying rent and not building any equity, and don't worry about the rate - when it goes up you can always refi.
So to get to the current situation two things had to happen: income stopped rising for whatever reason, and property values fell because so many people were in the same position. If those two things were as easy to predict as you suggest, there must have been risk models at financial institutions with giant red lights flashing 'danger!'. But those institutions also missed those red lights, or we wouldn't be in the current mess. Gigantic financial institutions filled with MBAs and financial wizards didn't see this coming, but you think it is perfectly reasonable to expect homebuyers to see it?
The fact is, if people see their dream of homeownership vanishing, because prices are skyrocketing, and they are presented with an opportunity to own a home before it is too late, they are going to take it. That does not make them stupid, greedy, or any other derogatory term. It makes them human.
What kind of ridiculous argument is that? You're comparing art to water? Here's a hint: you need water to live (literally). Yes, people would pay an almost unlimited amount for water, if it's that or die. Art, on the other hand, is something you DESIRE, not NEED to have. I am unaware of a single case where an artist (or corporation) pointed a gun at someone and said 'purchase this art or you're dead'.
The only things that approach marginal cost are commodity items that people 'need' at some level. Everything else is by value. Why does a Lexus LS cost more than a Toyota Yaris? Why does a house in a nice neighborhood cost more than one in a bad neighborhood? Why does a Mac cost more than a PC? In each case it is because of perceived value to the purchaser.
On the one side we have the copyright holders. We'll call them big evil corporations. Big evil corporations that collectively employee millions of people. Millions of people who are getting paid. Millions of people who are buying food, shelter, etc. Millions of people who can donate to charity. Millions of people paying taxes. Millions of people who can buy stuff that other people make so they can also live. In addition to that, millions of other people have investments in those corporations, directly or indirectly.
On the other hand, we have the anti-copyright crowd, whose basic argument is 'we want free stuff, give it to us, whaaaaa'. What possible benefit to society is there from getting free NES games? What benefit is there from getting free Steamboat Willie movies? Yes, it might be nice to have, but certainly there is no measurable benefit.
As long as someone is willing to pay for something, or there is the potential for someone to pay for it, that thing has value. It does not matter if the thing is 'real' or 'imaginary'. Why should the value that is present in copyrights be artificially eliminated? What if that same logic was applied to other areas? You can go to school and learn a skill, but in 5 years you may no longer use that skill, by law. You may build a house with your own two hands, but in 15 years anyone who wants can move in with you, for free. As of today any currency printed before 2006 has no value. Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?
It seems to me that the IP haters always quote this line, but don't seem to grasp the concept. You seem to think that they are saying that the expiration of the right is what promotes progress. It is not. What is promoting progress is allowing people to profit off their discoveries, thereby giving them a motive to advance the science and useful arts. If the copyrights on the games in question had already expired, how is what this guy (or anyone else) is doing with the games advancing anything except his own profit?