Yeah, I can scrape up a inexpensive meal by snipping coupons and shopping in the "dented and expired" aisle of the supermarket... Or I can go get a nice steak made for me at a resteraunt.
What's your point? Yes, things are always cheaper if you make them yourself. But some people don't want to spend the time, or the effort - or maybe they don't have the know how. Those people may be willing, even happy, to spend more.
Never assume everyone has the same needs and desires as you.
That's _your_ opinion. If people are willing to pay it, it's a fair price to them.
For example: if I just want some new song on my iPod (I actually don't have one, this is just hypothetical) to listen to when I jog, and my choice is $15 for the CD to get JUST the song I want, or $1 to just download it right to my iPod, then I'd say that the $1 price was a LOT fairer than the $15 price.
To me, the ability to buy JUST the song I want is the best part of this. I only listen to music in my car (on CDs or CDRs), and in my house (on my computer), so the weak DRM on the files won't affect me at all.
The worst of all this is why are people stupid enough to pay for music.
Maybe because people over the age of 16 understand that it takes work, time and money to make music, and would be happy to pay a fair price for a product delivered in a manner that they like?
For a small business, suddenly having to pay $1000 for something that used to be free _is_ a big expense. That's the price health coverage for one employee, or a nice workstation - for something that used to be free.
You could also use it to save work at computer labs on campus (many, if not most, campuses have WiFi now). When I was in college, I had coursework that I needed Jaz disks for, and the labs usually didn't have Jaz drives. Nowadays I'd use CD-Rs, but most labs probably don't have burners, so CD-Rs would only be good to bring your work TO the lab, not leave with it.
Right now I use a keychan USB drive to transfer files back and forth to work. If this wasn't too expensive and I could use it for other purposes, I'd consider it.
The two pieces of software don't work in the same way (XML vs MS' proprietary format), don't look the same, don't act the same, and don't have 100% compatibility between files saved in each app.
What makes you think the code is the same? You'd think if they shared code, none of the above would be an issue - or at least there would be areas of OpenOffice and MS Office that seemed very similar...
Beyond that, you can be sure that MS has examined OpenOffice for any copyright infringement already.
The others you mention may be clones of existing software, but the code is not guaranteed to be very similar. For example, you can say OpenOffice is a clone of MS Office, but the program works very differently, is laid out differently, etc... It's different enough that it's mildly annoying to transition from one to the other, because things you you expect to work in one may not operate in the same way in the other. Because of this, I doubt there is any code in common between those two apps, at least.
but to the topic, the money is fronted to the band, the band then is required to produce the tracks. how they produce the tracks is not related to the lable
This is not always true - it depends on the band's contract.
I disagree a bit about plots - because I like survival horror games, and they really ahven't changed much - people do buy some games for the story and atmosphere. I stopped playing Silent Hill 2 because someone spoiled the ending for me, for example.
I also disagree for FPS games. I don't think they will stagnate until they look real. For me, those games are fun because they are immersive. They imitate reality, but let you do things you can't really do. I'll continue to buy them as long as they keep making them more immersive. Once one comes out with an engine that is indistinguishable from movie footage or reality, then maybe I'll be satisfied.
You think the fact that people want what the big industry players are selling might have to do with the fact that they control this distribution and advertising channels?
However, it is ridiculous that there should be *any* loss at all; I've paid for the music, so I should be able to listen to it with any software I choose, without losing quality.
I felt the same way about my vinyl. It's ridiculous that there was a quality loss when I taped them to cassette.
Seriously, I'm not sure where this whole concept of "I am entitled to master-quality recordings that I can copy an infinite number of times" comes from. The fact that you can copy a digital version of a song with either zero or very little quality loss is actually quite new.
Relax. Not that long ago, you wouldn't have been able to copy music without a very LARGE loss of quality. Right now we are in a flux where the companies and the market are tugging back and forth.
Eventually the companies will provide what the market wants in a digital music product. This is just the first step.
Relax, dude - the comment I was responding to said nothing about sound quality, it was simply someone either who misunderstood what the grandparent said, or didn't understand that the AMS tops prices off at $9.99 for a single CD.
That said, the previews aren't 128kps AAC files, at least from what I heard, "dolt".
You didn't "make" anything. You recouped some of the expense of those CDs. If you bought them for $16 and sold them for $8, you ended up out $8 at the end of the day... As opposed to $10 from buying the album from the Apple Store.
Now, assumming some of those CDs only had one or two songs you wanted, had you only spent $1-2 to get those particular songs and not all the filler, you'd might be out even less buying your music in this manner.
I haven't used it, but the review I read said that a full CD on the Apple Music Store was $9.99, even if it had more than 10 tracks. I think that's what he means... That $10 from the AMS is less than if you bought it for $14.99 + shipping + tax from amazon.
If kids under 15 or so are playing the game, it's because their parents are either buying it, or not keeping tabs on their kids. If you are 10, you shouldn't be able drop $50 on something without your parents approving it.
And if they are borrowing it from a friend, the parents should be keeping up with their kids enough to notice - I mean, a PS2 is a DVD player. If a kid is borrowing GTA3 from a friend, they could just as easily borrow a XXX movie from a friend. Parents need to keep up with what their kids are up to.
So? I also remeber the part in Taxi Driver (spoiler alert) where Robert DeNiro shoots the fingers off the guy in the brothel and then himself gets shot in the neck, while he goes on a sadistic, violent rampage (which incidentally is reported by the news media as being heroic).
And that movie came out, what, in the mid-seventies?
The thing is - it wasn't intended for kids. And neither is GTA3.
They don't have to be happy about it. It's a parody. In fact, most of the comics that Penny Arcade does features other people's characters, or stores, or companies - should EB sue them when they depict EB employees as bumbling idiots, as PA has done in the past?
I use netflix because I always forget to return my movies. $40 a month to have 8 movies out at once is fine-sounding to me, since I used to rent about 8 movies a month anyway, but would end up paying 20-30 bucks in late fees each month.
Slashdot Mirror
Neuros is great I AM waiting for one.
That statement makes no sense. Don't you mean "Neuros LOOKS great, I AM waiting for one"?
After all, if you don't have one, you don't know for sure.
Yeah, I can scrape up a inexpensive meal by snipping coupons and shopping in the "dented and expired" aisle of the supermarket... Or I can go get a nice steak made for me at a resteraunt.
What's your point? Yes, things are always cheaper if you make them yourself. But some people don't want to spend the time, or the effort - or maybe they don't have the know how. Those people may be willing, even happy, to spend more.
Never assume everyone has the same needs and desires as you.
That's _your_ opinion. If people are willing to pay it, it's a fair price to them.
For example: if I just want some new song on my iPod (I actually don't have one, this is just hypothetical) to listen to when I jog, and my choice is $15 for the CD to get JUST the song I want, or $1 to just download it right to my iPod, then I'd say that the $1 price was a LOT fairer than the $15 price.
To me, the ability to buy JUST the song I want is the best part of this. I only listen to music in my car (on CDs or CDRs), and in my house (on my computer), so the weak DRM on the files won't affect me at all.
The worst of all this is why are people stupid enough to pay for music.
Maybe because people over the age of 16 understand that it takes work, time and money to make music, and would be happy to pay a fair price for a product delivered in a manner that they like?
Seriously? Wow... my employer paid $80 a month for me at my last job. I paid $60.
For a small business, suddenly having to pay $1000 for something that used to be free _is_ a big expense. That's the price health coverage for one employee, or a nice workstation - for something that used to be free.
A password?
You could also use it to save work at computer labs on campus (many, if not most, campuses have WiFi now). When I was in college, I had coursework that I needed Jaz disks for, and the labs usually didn't have Jaz drives. Nowadays I'd use CD-Rs, but most labs probably don't have burners, so CD-Rs would only be good to bring your work TO the lab, not leave with it.
Right now I use a keychan USB drive to transfer files back and forth to work. If this wasn't too expensive and I could use it for other purposes, I'd consider it.
I'm not talking just about OpenOffice and Microsoft.
But I was. In response to someone else.
But you don't know for sure, do you?
Well, let's see:
The two pieces of software don't work in the same way (XML vs MS' proprietary format), don't look the same, don't act the same, and don't have 100% compatibility between files saved in each app.
What makes you think the code is the same? You'd think if they shared code, none of the above would be an issue - or at least there would be areas of OpenOffice and MS Office that seemed very similar...
Beyond that, you can be sure that MS has examined OpenOffice for any copyright infringement already.
Show me one that isnt.
Uh, Apache.
All are clones of existing, proprietary code.
The others you mention may be clones of existing software, but the code is not guaranteed to be very similar. For example, you can say OpenOffice is a clone of MS Office, but the program works very differently, is laid out differently, etc... It's different enough that it's mildly annoying to transition from one to the other, because things you you expect to work in one may not operate in the same way in the other. Because of this, I doubt there is any code in common between those two apps, at least.
but to the topic, the money is fronted to the band, the band then is required to produce the tracks. how they produce the tracks is not related to the lable
This is not always true - it depends on the band's contract.
I disagree a bit about plots - because I like survival horror games, and they really ahven't changed much - people do buy some games for the story and atmosphere. I stopped playing Silent Hill 2 because someone spoiled the ending for me, for example.
I also disagree for FPS games. I don't think they will stagnate until they look real. For me, those games are fun because they are immersive. They imitate reality, but let you do things you can't really do. I'll continue to buy them as long as they keep making them more immersive. Once one comes out with an engine that is indistinguishable from movie footage or reality, then maybe I'll be satisfied.
You think the fact that people want what the big industry players are selling might have to do with the fact that they control this distribution and advertising channels?
However, it is ridiculous that there should be *any* loss at all; I've paid for the music, so I should be able to listen to it with any software I choose, without losing quality.
I felt the same way about my vinyl. It's ridiculous that there was a quality loss when I taped them to cassette.
Seriously, I'm not sure where this whole concept of "I am entitled to master-quality recordings that I can copy an infinite number of times" comes from. The fact that you can copy a digital version of a song with either zero or very little quality loss is actually quite new.
Relax. Not that long ago, you wouldn't have been able to copy music without a very LARGE loss of quality. Right now we are in a flux where the companies and the market are tugging back and forth.
Eventually the companies will provide what the market wants in a digital music product. This is just the first step.
Relax, dude - the comment I was responding to said nothing about sound quality, it was simply someone either who misunderstood what the grandparent said, or didn't understand that the AMS tops prices off at $9.99 for a single CD.
That said, the previews aren't 128kps AAC files, at least from what I heard, "dolt".
You didn't "make" anything. You recouped some of the expense of those CDs. If you bought them for $16 and sold them for $8, you ended up out $8 at the end of the day... As opposed to $10 from buying the album from the Apple Store.
Now, assumming some of those CDs only had one or two songs you wanted, had you only spent $1-2 to get those particular songs and not all the filler, you'd might be out even less buying your music in this manner.
Something to think about, anyway.
128kps AACs are supposedly way better than 128kps MP3s.
I haven't used it, but the review I read said that a full CD on the Apple Music Store was $9.99, even if it had more than 10 tracks. I think that's what he means... That $10 from the AMS is less than if you bought it for $14.99 + shipping + tax from amazon.
Yeah, and I heard 0.01% of people shoot themselves in the face because they were listening to Judas Priest, too...
If kids under 15 or so are playing the game, it's because their parents are either buying it, or not keeping tabs on their kids. If you are 10, you shouldn't be able drop $50 on something without your parents approving it.
And if they are borrowing it from a friend, the parents should be keeping up with their kids enough to notice - I mean, a PS2 is a DVD player. If a kid is borrowing GTA3 from a friend, they could just as easily borrow a XXX movie from a friend. Parents need to keep up with what their kids are up to.
So? I also remeber the part in Taxi Driver (spoiler alert) where Robert DeNiro shoots the fingers off the guy in the brothel and then himself gets shot in the neck, while he goes on a sadistic, violent rampage (which incidentally is reported by the news media as being heroic).
And that movie came out, what, in the mid-seventies?
The thing is - it wasn't intended for kids. And neither is GTA3.
Using free software *is* an agenda.
Wrong.
I use linux on my servers because it is more stable and easy to manage via a ssh shell.
I use OpenOffice because it's free and Office is not.
They don't have to be happy about it. It's a parody. In fact, most of the comics that Penny Arcade does features other people's characters, or stores, or companies - should EB sue them when they depict EB employees as bumbling idiots, as PA has done in the past?
I use netflix because I always forget to return my movies. $40 a month to have 8 movies out at once is fine-sounding to me, since I used to rent about 8 movies a month anyway, but would end up paying 20-30 bucks in late fees each month.