According to the article, he predicts sufficient fuel to reach an altitude of approximately 160k ft. (about 30 miles). Military protocol awards astronaut status above 60 miles, although 30, technically speaking, would put him at the very lower edge of what might be considered "space". So, the guy isn't going for anything even close to sub-orbital altitude, but even so, if he's successful, he'll have put himself a lot farther up than any other non-NASA employed civilian, and a heck of a lot higher than any current X-Prize contender.
This is the same argument used by pharmaceutical companies: "We have to charge hugely inflated prices for our products because of all the money we lose R&Ding drugs that don't work". If net profit margins weren't so obscenely high this argument might have some validity, but as it is the consumer is upcharged on successful commodities in order to pay for the company's R&D investment, despite the fact that overall the company reaps a net margin that is grossly out of balance with the amount of money spent on "unsuccessful" research. This analogy would certainly seem to apply to the music industry as well. In addition, the argument loses a lot of weight when you consider that, of the hundreds of "young" bands that are signed each year, most are unceremoniously dumped if their first album doesn't sell at least in the high six figures. Quick, easy and big profits seem to be the only motivating issue. The industry doesn't really seem to be interested in "developing" new artists so much as it is in turning them into money sponges, then squeezing them dry with the hopes that a few end up being big enough to endure numerous wringings.
But this is precisely why the Internet is rapidly becoming the medium of choice for the artists you list: it allows for immediate and direct dissemination of content to consumers, without the need for the "middlemen" (who in the actual world are necessary, but also a tremendous financial drain to the artist's profits). The Internet is providing opportunities for reaching audiences to which many artists traditionally did not have access. It is no longer necessary to have a recording contract with a major label to get your CD (or MP3) purchased and played by thousands of people. As throughput increases, the same will be true for video as well. Visual artists don't need to beg for showings or space; the website becomes their virtual gallery. And this is precisely why the RIAA and MPAA are so frightened: the Internet threatens to make obsolete the system which has been put in place by media corporations solely for their benefit (with only marginal benefit to the artists themselves). If an artist can produce, promote, sell and distribute their work totally on their own to a world-wide audience, which can then peruse the product without proprietary audio-visual hardware, then what need is there for recording companies or film distributers, et al?
The recommended tactic used by advocacy groups in this instance is to actually give the organization positive re-inforcement for finally coming around and doing the right thing. It doesn't mean you approve of or support the negative things they've done, but it does show them that you recognize their "change of heart" and leaves them with the realization that good actions will be encouraged. Of course, should they misbehave in the future, you have to repeat the process of punishment/reward, but if they're even reasonably intelligent, eventually they learn the lesson. The idea is to condition them to do "good" in the first place, rather than do "harm", then backpedal when the punishment becomes unbearable.
It is my understanding, based on the media reports of the settlement, that both sides have withdrawn their respective suits and countersuits "without prejudice", which essentially gives either side the option to reinstante their legal action at anytime in the future, should they so choose. So, you point is well taken. However, given the intense negative publicity, not to mention catastrophic stock devaluation Etoys has suffered, it hardly seems likely that they would do so. But, maybe they think people on the 'net have attention spans similar to that of their customers... CPC
Yes, it was a very well-executed piece of media virus, and I too was proud to serve! I think the one big lesson that was learned here (and one that as an artist, I am surprised to see similar communities continually RE-learning recently), is that a sufficiently large group of talented, creative people united for a common cause CAN have a tremendously positive impact! I think we are already beginning to see this energy spill over into the DVD/DeCSS situation, and it is my sincere hope that the community that was formed to support etoy.com will continue to exist, grow, thrive and seek out avenues to use this groundswell to make the internet a realm where the freedom to create will not be squashed. Semper Ars Chris Comte etoy.AGENT Capt._Yosarian
Slashdot Mirror
According to the article, he predicts sufficient fuel to reach an altitude of approximately 160k ft. (about 30 miles). Military protocol awards astronaut status above 60 miles, although 30, technically speaking, would put him at the very lower edge of what might be considered "space". So, the guy isn't going for anything even close to sub-orbital altitude, but even so, if he's successful, he'll have put himself a lot farther up than any other non-NASA employed civilian, and a heck of a lot higher than any current X-Prize contender.
This is the same argument used by pharmaceutical companies: "We have to charge hugely inflated prices for our products because of all the money we lose R&Ding drugs that don't work". If net profit margins weren't so obscenely high this argument might have some validity, but as it is the consumer is upcharged on successful commodities in order to pay for the company's R&D investment, despite the fact that overall the company reaps a net margin that is grossly out of balance with the amount of money spent on "unsuccessful" research. This analogy would certainly seem to apply to the music industry as well. In addition, the argument loses a lot of weight when you consider that, of the hundreds of "young" bands that are signed each year, most are unceremoniously dumped if their first album doesn't sell at least in the high six figures. Quick, easy and big profits seem to be the only motivating issue. The industry doesn't really seem to be interested in "developing" new artists so much as it is in turning them into money sponges, then squeezing them dry with the hopes that a few end up being big enough to endure numerous wringings.
But this is precisely why the Internet is rapidly becoming the medium of choice for the artists you list: it allows for immediate and direct dissemination of content to consumers, without the need for the "middlemen" (who in the actual world are necessary, but also a tremendous financial drain to the artist's profits). The Internet is providing opportunities for reaching audiences to which many artists traditionally did not have access. It is no longer necessary to have a recording contract with a major label to get your CD (or MP3) purchased and played by thousands of people. As throughput increases, the same will be true for video as well. Visual artists don't need to beg for showings or space; the website becomes their virtual gallery. And this is precisely why the RIAA and MPAA are so frightened: the Internet threatens to make obsolete the system which has been put in place by media corporations solely for their benefit (with only marginal benefit to the artists themselves). If an artist can produce, promote, sell and distribute their work totally on their own to a world-wide audience, which can then peruse the product without proprietary audio-visual hardware, then what need is there for recording companies or film distributers, et al?
The recommended tactic used by advocacy groups in this instance is to actually give the organization positive re-inforcement for finally coming around and doing the right thing. It doesn't mean you approve of or support the negative things they've done, but it does show them that you recognize their "change of heart" and leaves them with the realization that good actions will be encouraged. Of course, should they misbehave in the future, you have to repeat the process of punishment/reward, but if they're even reasonably intelligent, eventually they learn the lesson. The idea is to condition them to do "good" in the first place, rather than do "harm", then backpedal when the punishment becomes unbearable.
It is my understanding, based on the media reports of the settlement, that both sides have withdrawn their respective suits and countersuits "without prejudice", which essentially gives either side the option to reinstante their legal action at anytime in the future, should they so choose. So, you point is well taken. However, given the intense negative publicity, not to mention catastrophic stock devaluation Etoys has suffered, it hardly seems likely that they would do so. But, maybe they think people on the 'net have attention spans similar to that of their customers... CPC
Yes, it was a very well-executed piece of media virus, and I too was proud to serve! I think the one big lesson that was learned here (and one that as an artist, I am surprised to see similar communities continually RE-learning recently), is that a sufficiently large group of talented, creative people united for a common cause CAN have a tremendously positive impact! I think we are already beginning to see this energy spill over into the DVD/DeCSS situation, and it is my sincere hope that the community that was formed to support etoy.com will continue to exist, grow, thrive and seek out avenues to use this groundswell to make the internet a realm where the freedom to create will not be squashed. Semper Ars Chris Comte etoy.AGENT Capt._Yosarian