I think it was $100 per, I may have added some hyperbole to my post, but it's the point that counts, some concerts are ALREADY too expensive, like the Stones' last tour. Just imagine if the only way the industry was making $$$ was through concert tix...*shudder*
And as near as anyone can tell, the bands haven't been affected by Napster at all. Unless you can show me some real evidence to the contrary.
Well true, but regardless, they can spearhead the fight since it's their music being pilfered on the web via .
While I certainly agree that musicians deserve to be able to sell their work and make money from it, I think the current system does a terrible job of achieving this goal. It overcharges the consumer and underpays the artists. You can only expect people to go along with a moronic system for so long. If nothing is done about it, they'll do something about it themselves.
Yeah, that's true, but stealing IP in the form of music isn't the answer, it only screws the promotions people while the execs pull down their millions. Go after the execs, not the promotions people and the accountants.
Maybe they need to stop the hype and just let their music stand on its own.
Yeah, I agree, but apparently, they never know when the single is gonna go huge...so they sign everyone and then they're stuck selling everybody shitty muzak.
You haven't bought a cd lately have you? Prices don't go down. When an album debuts, that's the lowest price you're gonna see it hit, ever.
I do by CDs, I buy them relatively often, but for the most part I buy USED CDs. Heard of em? Most of them sell for cheap. And are of decent quality.
That's a different matter. Downloading music on Napster isn't necessarily stealing. Nor have I seen any indication that artists are being deprived of money or are making any less money because of Napster
It is stealing. You're acquiring IP you don't have the license for. It's theft, whether or not the RecCos got cash for it or not.
But in order to do that, you have to release the rights to the music to the public domain and that defeats the purpose you're trying to support. While it would be easy to use Gnutella/Napster/FreeNet to chart ratings to give crappy bands a chance, but it's still breaking copyright. So the industry CAN'T in good conscience support Gnutella/Napster/FreeNet because they are screwing them eight ways to Sunday. The industry pushes lame bands down our throat simply because nobody really knows who's gonna have that One Hit Single that the labels hope will force consumers into the Record Store.
I don't like the industry any more than you do, but I still, on a rare occasion, purchase CDs to reward the companies for publishing a record I like. A real rarity. But they still exist.
I think you bought the rights to the specific recording you bought. Now wait before you jump on me, it gets better. IANAL. It's like this. You bought it on tape. You could've hooked your tape player up to a computer, sucked it in in MP3 form, and washed the sound to create a better sound quality. You're in the gold my friend.
Lars is right tho. The band themselves don't have ANY control over the prices of the individual CDs their records company distributes to a vast number of retailers.
You say, well if they really care about their fans they can move off of that label to another...well, yes, but they need to make their bread. Personally, I'd love to see free music that's legal everywhere, but that's not gonna work if we want professional musicians (better than amateurs, I'm almost positive on this one) then we need to pay them for their work.
So lets give away their tunes to get people to concerts. Sure, then we can watch as concert ticket prices go MORE through the roof than they already are (my friend Dave paid more than $150 for Bruce Springsteen tickets...unreal).
The record industry spends millions on hyping up bands that may never make it. I spent a year as Music Director of a college station and I spent some serious quality time on the phone with Moose at The Syndicate, Nicole at VisionTrust, and Graham at SPECTRE not to mention a few. These guys were getting paid to promote bands that for the most part sucked. They didn't have to push the successful artists, mainly because they didn't need to. But the more they pushed, the more they got some underexposed bands out there (Lit when they were young, amongst others) and got them some record sales to try and recoup the millions lost promoting less known bands.
So CDs are expensive, DON'T BUY THEM. Listen to the radio instead until prices come down. Just because the FTC says that music is too expensive doesn't give you the right to go into Tower Records and walk out with their singles section. So don't go stealing it on Napster either.
Nice addendum to the whole dialog thingy. I disagree with the mac part, but that's okay. Linux is making it finally (I remember six months ago seeing games and stuff packaged for Linux, little penguin on the box and all.) My problem with making the browser "part of the shell" and insisting that it's all attached is that Netscape at the time was still selling products-in-a-box and not just downloadable stuff (they had to can that portion when they couldn't sell their stuff anymore). I think IE should have been an OPTION and not a requirement. That's my problem.
And what about their monopolistic business practices? They FORCED people to use IE to browse the web when Netscape was still selling their then viable product. They destroyed Java for their own uses, outside the license agreement. Back to the point. Are all these OSes application compatible? Certainly not MacOS/Windows. Does it have to be? No, but when you start to steal market share by less-than-scrupulous business practices (Apple and QuickTime, look into it) then you are trying actively to destroy others, and that IS illegal. And it's not marketing as much as it is saying, "you have no choice."
My point wasn't that Apple doesn't sell enough shit, my point is that NO ONE sells enough shit to make a difference against their juggernaut right now. Linux, in five years maybe, but aside from that.... Microsoft is at the point where they could buy just about whoever they wanted, fire their personnel, gut their libraries and push on. They need to be broken before they start really f'ing things up. As for Apple doing stupid things, I still love my PowerBook, I still love Final Cut Pro, and I really like DP 4. They'll make it.
And through the courts we can educate the citizens. It wasn't the ad campaigns that brought people to Win95. It was the lack of VIABLE options that is the problem. Worse off, Microsoft made it hard for these viable options to get their products out there. Sure FreeBSD has always been there, but out of 100 normal people (I'm not saying that people who use BSD variants are weird, I use one, I use OS X DP 4) how many know how to use it? Probably 1-5 IF YOU'RE DAMN LUCKY. I don't know my way around most of it.
You said: Just because the average consumer doesn't use these alternatives doesn't mean that they aren't there. Says WHO? If I walked into a computer store and said, I want to use another OS aside from Windows, the salesman would probably fall down and roll around on the floor laughing. The conversation would go like this: ME: I want a computer. Salesman: Ok, here's a nice IBM running Windows 95. ME: I don't like Windows, couldja sell me something else? Salesman: MUAHAHAHAHA *salesman spontaneously combusts leaving me covered in bits of spleen* ME: ick. Now I am generalizing, but hey, so does everyone else here, so why not. As for Monopolies, get off your horse, if someone has EVERY consumer, they have a monopoly, they can do what they please with supply cause demand will ALWAYS be there, if it's an inelastic good.
But here's my thing. Suppose Ford (god forbid) forced Chevy and all the other car makers into small market share. Even worse, Ford came into some proprietary knowledge by purchasing BMW and brainwashing their engineeers. Now suppose they make this great new car. Everyone buys this great new car simply because Ford had the market share. Now, if we wanted super speed, we had to buy a Chevy (hehehehe yeah right) or if we wanted the color orange we had to get a Hyundai (likely story:)). Now, since these cars were small market share, we can't find mechanics or gauges, or any of those important things that cars need. THAT's the problem. The inavailability of programs and such forces people to use Windows. Just try and buy Mac software at Fry's Electronics. It can't be done. Try finding good help for Macs at CompUSA. Can't be done. That's a monopoly thing.
We do live in a free market society and while it is the responsibility of the purchaser to make an "informed decision," it's the responsibility of the industry to provide a market in which freedom of computers AND operating systems are available to compete. And no, the average consumer DIDN'T have a choice. You bought a machine from CompUSA or someother trashy chain and it came with windows, so you used it. It's like reupholstering a couch, you can't install an OS without some degree of expertise, just ask my mom or my grandma. Some of us just bought Macs instead:) However, the degree of availability of software is a bit less than optimal...and that's the problem.
And yet you prove my point without my trying. You owned and maintained multiple machines. Does the average consumer do that? No. You owned and maintained multiple Operating Systems. Does the average consumer do that? No. The big thing about this trial is that they forced software on the unknowing public. The average consumer, caveat emptor not withstanding, need protection from monopolies like Microsoft, and that's where we're going. The knowledgeable people can always circumvent these problems, but we have trouble educating the masses, that's what the courts are there for.
How available were QNX, BeOS, Linux or FreeBSD to the average computer geek five years ago when this all hit the fan? The various flavors of Unix and Linux and whatever are recent developments in the scope of things (and still aren't fully fleshed out in terms of the depth of applications, utilities, games, etc and definitely weren't ready for it then.). You really DIDN'T have a choice then. Now, you definitely do. But not if you're anything but a basic user. The monopoly affects the basic consumer and that's the issue.
This story is from AppleInsider...the same people who perpetuated for years that an Apple branded Palm device was only months away...Let's take this tongue in cheek, we can't do anything to prove this, so I'd say that this is vaporware, and this coming FROM an AppleGeek.
I think the significance is that this could lead to a manned mission to Mars with a good surface habitat, and when you think about it, if they didn't have to carry a large quantity of oxygen for the time spent on the surface, that would decrease the payload weight. If you're concerned about some toxins, we're talking about *a* habitat working for at most a few months, the chances that this would "ruin" the atmosphere is negligible. So let's not let those enviro-hippyfreaks stop a mission because it might make some carbon monoxide.
What message do you send when you disobey laws? You say that you don't have the follow the book when you don't feel like it, basically. You feel a law is unfair, so you break it. Why not instead change the laws by the process of lobbying, etc.? Because it's tough? That's no excuse. If you feel you have a civic duty to change a law, do so through the channels, not by breaking laws.
Well said! I couldn't agree with you more. The more we take away incentives for creativity, the more we limit ourselves as a society, and as for civil disobedience, good point. We have to no "right to break the law" no "right to civil disobedience". We have the right to free speech and assembly, let us use that to change laws we find unjust. There are better ways than breaking the laws to change them.
Nope. Welcome to the anarchical nature of the international system. Where there is no governing body, each actor shall act in their own best interest. If that means that some countries might try and exercise laws beyond their control, they're welcome to try it, however, no country is required to respect their authority. Until there is an international internet authority (a scary thing, perhaps?) there will be no real laws applied to cross-border traffic that is worldwide.
Nor is the Internet YOURS to control, yet you believe yourself so arrogant to try and ban HIS viewpoint. If he voices his desire for a neutral (politically) internet, it's his right of free speech to says so, there's not a law against it. However, he does have the responsibility to defend his platform.
My explanation for the differences of laws across boundaries has to do with two things: societal structure and societal value systems. Traditionally, different cultures hold different things to be valuable. I may value freedom of speech over something else and you may value something over free speech. There will be different laws guaranteeing these things in each society. Laws are based on societal structure. Who makes the laws is responsible to the citizens he/she/they/it govern. It is up to the citizens to hold these lawmakers and lawmaking bodies responsible for the values that each holds dear.
As for your argument for homosexuality/slavery/segregation, those were laws yes, and they may have served their societies well (I doubt it). However, as societal value structures and norms change, so change the normative functions of laws (yes I'm a political science major). Now, to respond to what I'm sure you'll say about copyright being determined as wrong, I'd disagree. For the most part, people are happy with copyright laws. They're more angry at the record companies, resellers, artists, etc for driving up CD prices and their "rebellion" against the artists shows this, however it's not copyright they're angry at. Information is not free to create and often comes with great toil on the part of the artists.
I will agree that laws are mostly right and do not encompass good and evil for the most part, but they are good guidelines and if we teach our children to respect the law and hold responsible the lawmaker, we will have societies that are socially responsible. So if you have a problem with the law, bring your complaints forth to those who can do something about instead of breaking them in protest. The latter will only get you arrested.
This makes me angry. I respond to Sydney's flame and get marked as flamebait. But Sydney calls me "Dictionary Boy" and get's marked up to 2, Interesting? Oh please. Which one of you modded this one? Can I please ask what kind of $3 crack you are smoking? I stand up for the law and I get smacked down...fsking moderators.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it was $100 per, I may have added some hyperbole to my post, but it's the point that counts, some concerts are ALREADY too expensive, like the Stones' last tour. Just imagine if the only way the industry was making $$$ was through concert tix...*shudder*
And as near as anyone can tell, the bands haven't been affected by Napster at all. Unless you can show me some real evidence to the contrary.
Well true, but regardless, they can spearhead the fight since it's their music being pilfered on the web via .
While I certainly agree that musicians deserve to be able to sell their work and make money from it, I think the current system does a terrible job of achieving this goal. It overcharges the consumer and underpays the artists. You can only expect people to go along with a moronic system for so long. If nothing is done about it, they'll do something about it themselves.
Yeah, that's true, but stealing IP in the form of music isn't the answer, it only screws the promotions people while the execs pull down their millions. Go after the execs, not the promotions people and the accountants.
Maybe they need to stop the hype and just let their music stand on its own.
Yeah, I agree, but apparently, they never know when the single is gonna go huge...so they sign everyone and then they're stuck selling everybody shitty muzak.
You haven't bought a cd lately have you? Prices don't go down. When an album debuts, that's the lowest price you're gonna see it hit, ever.
I do by CDs, I buy them relatively often, but for the most part I buy USED CDs. Heard of em? Most of them sell for cheap. And are of decent quality.
That's a different matter. Downloading music on Napster isn't necessarily stealing. Nor have I seen any indication that artists are being deprived of money or are making any less money because of Napster
It is stealing. You're acquiring IP you don't have the license for. It's theft, whether or not the RecCos got cash for it or not.
But in order to do that, you have to release the rights to the music to the public domain and that defeats the purpose you're trying to support. While it would be easy to use Gnutella/Napster/FreeNet to chart ratings to give crappy bands a chance, but it's still breaking copyright. So the industry CAN'T in good conscience support Gnutella/Napster/FreeNet because they are screwing them eight ways to Sunday. The industry pushes lame bands down our throat simply because nobody really knows who's gonna have that One Hit Single that the labels hope will force consumers into the Record Store.
I don't like the industry any more than you do, but I still, on a rare occasion, purchase CDs to reward the companies for publishing a record I like. A real rarity. But they still exist.
I think you bought the rights to the specific recording you bought. Now wait before you jump on me, it gets better. IANAL. It's like this. You bought it on tape. You could've hooked your tape player up to a computer, sucked it in in MP3 form, and washed the sound to create a better sound quality. You're in the gold my friend.
Lars is right tho. The band themselves don't have ANY control over the prices of the individual CDs their records company distributes to a vast number of retailers.
You say, well if they really care about their fans they can move off of that label to another...well, yes, but they need to make their bread. Personally, I'd love to see free music that's legal everywhere, but that's not gonna work if we want professional musicians (better than amateurs, I'm almost positive on this one) then we need to pay them for their work.
So lets give away their tunes to get people to concerts. Sure, then we can watch as concert ticket prices go MORE through the roof than they already are (my friend Dave paid more than $150 for Bruce Springsteen tickets...unreal).
The record industry spends millions on hyping up bands that may never make it. I spent a year as Music Director of a college station and I spent some serious quality time on the phone with Moose at The Syndicate, Nicole at VisionTrust, and Graham at SPECTRE not to mention a few. These guys were getting paid to promote bands that for the most part sucked. They didn't have to push the successful artists, mainly because they didn't need to. But the more they pushed, the more they got some underexposed bands out there (Lit when they were young, amongst others) and got them some record sales to try and recoup the millions lost promoting less known bands.
So CDs are expensive, DON'T BUY THEM. Listen to the radio instead until prices come down. Just because the FTC says that music is too expensive doesn't give you the right to go into Tower Records and walk out with their singles section. So don't go stealing it on Napster either.
I read them...but then again I'm 21 and that makes me "old" by modern standards...The Flag over the Fort one is the best.
Nice addendum to the whole dialog thingy. I disagree with the mac part, but that's okay. Linux is making it finally (I remember six months ago seeing games and stuff packaged for Linux, little penguin on the box and all.) My problem with making the browser "part of the shell" and insisting that it's all attached is that Netscape at the time was still selling products-in-a-box and not just downloadable stuff (they had to can that portion when they couldn't sell their stuff anymore). I think IE should have been an OPTION and not a requirement. That's my problem.
Hate to break it to you, but the Mac people have official DVD software as well. Thanks for playing, here's your toaster.
And what about their monopolistic business practices? They FORCED people to use IE to browse the web when Netscape was still selling their then viable product. They destroyed Java for their own uses, outside the license agreement.
Back to the point. Are all these OSes application compatible? Certainly not MacOS/Windows. Does it have to be? No, but when you start to steal market share by less-than-scrupulous business practices (Apple and QuickTime, look into it) then you are trying actively to destroy others, and that IS illegal. And it's not marketing as much as it is saying, "you have no choice."
My point wasn't that Apple doesn't sell enough shit, my point is that NO ONE sells enough shit to make a difference against their juggernaut right now. Linux, in five years maybe, but aside from that.... Microsoft is at the point where they could buy just about whoever they wanted, fire their personnel, gut their libraries and push on. They need to be broken before they start really f'ing things up. As for Apple doing stupid things, I still love my PowerBook, I still love Final Cut Pro, and I really like DP 4. They'll make it.
And through the courts we can educate the citizens. It wasn't the ad campaigns that brought people to Win95. It was the lack of VIABLE options that is the problem. Worse off, Microsoft made it hard for these viable options to get their products out there. Sure FreeBSD has always been there, but out of 100 normal people (I'm not saying that people who use BSD variants are weird, I use one, I use OS X DP 4) how many know how to use it? Probably 1-5 IF YOU'RE DAMN LUCKY. I don't know my way around most of it.
You said: Just because the average consumer doesn't use these alternatives doesn't mean that they aren't there.
Says WHO? If I walked into a computer store and said, I want to use another OS aside from Windows, the salesman would probably fall down and roll around on the floor laughing. The conversation would go like this:
ME: I want a computer.
Salesman: Ok, here's a nice IBM running Windows 95.
ME: I don't like Windows, couldja sell me something else?
Salesman: MUAHAHAHAHA *salesman spontaneously combusts leaving me covered in bits of spleen*
ME: ick.
Now I am generalizing, but hey, so does everyone else here, so why not. As for Monopolies, get off your horse, if someone has EVERY consumer, they have a monopoly, they can do what they please with supply cause demand will ALWAYS be there, if it's an inelastic good.
But here's my thing. Suppose Ford (god forbid) forced Chevy and all the other car makers into small market share. Even worse, Ford came into some proprietary knowledge by purchasing BMW and brainwashing their engineeers. Now suppose they make this great new car. Everyone buys this great new car simply because Ford had the market share. Now, if we wanted super speed, we had to buy a Chevy (hehehehe yeah right) or if we wanted the color orange we had to get a Hyundai (likely story :)). Now, since these cars were small market share, we can't find mechanics or gauges, or any of those important things that cars need. THAT's the problem. The inavailability of programs and such forces people to use Windows. Just try and buy Mac software at Fry's Electronics. It can't be done. Try finding good help for Macs at CompUSA. Can't be done. That's a monopoly thing.
We do live in a free market society and while it is the responsibility of the purchaser to make an "informed decision," it's the responsibility of the industry to provide a market in which freedom of computers AND operating systems are available to compete. And no, the average consumer DIDN'T have a choice. You bought a machine from CompUSA or someother trashy chain and it came with windows, so you used it. It's like reupholstering a couch, you can't install an OS without some degree of expertise, just ask my mom or my grandma. Some of us just bought Macs instead :) However, the degree of availability of software is a bit less than optimal...and that's the problem.
And yet you prove my point without my trying. You owned and maintained multiple machines. Does the average consumer do that? No. You owned and maintained multiple Operating Systems. Does the average consumer do that? No.
The big thing about this trial is that they forced software on the unknowing public. The average consumer, caveat emptor not withstanding, need protection from monopolies like Microsoft, and that's where we're going. The knowledgeable people can always circumvent these problems, but we have trouble educating the masses, that's what the courts are there for.
Ever heard of LinuxPPC? If not, I've even seen Linux run on a phreakin iBook.
How available were QNX, BeOS, Linux or FreeBSD to the average computer geek five years ago when this all hit the fan? The various flavors of Unix and Linux and whatever are recent developments in the scope of things (and still aren't fully fleshed out in terms of the depth of applications, utilities, games, etc and definitely weren't ready for it then.). You really DIDN'T have a choice then. Now, you definitely do. But not if you're anything but a basic user. The monopoly affects the basic consumer and that's the issue.
This story is from AppleInsider...the same people who perpetuated for years that an Apple branded Palm device was only months away...Let's take this tongue in cheek, we can't do anything to prove this, so I'd say that this is vaporware, and this coming FROM an AppleGeek.
I think the significance is that this could lead to a manned mission to Mars with a good surface habitat, and when you think about it, if they didn't have to carry a large quantity of oxygen for the time spent on the surface, that would decrease the payload weight. If you're concerned about some toxins, we're talking about *a* habitat working for at most a few months, the chances that this would "ruin" the atmosphere is negligible. So let's not let those enviro-hippyfreaks stop a mission because it might make some carbon monoxide.
What message do you send when you disobey laws? You say that you don't have the follow the book when you don't feel like it, basically. You feel a law is unfair, so you break it. Why not instead change the laws by the process of lobbying, etc.? Because it's tough? That's no excuse. If you feel you have a civic duty to change a law, do so through the channels, not by breaking laws.
Well said! I couldn't agree with you more. The more we take away incentives for creativity, the more we limit ourselves as a society, and as for civil disobedience, good point. We have to no "right to break the law" no "right to civil disobedience". We have the right to free speech and assembly, let us use that to change laws we find unjust. There are better ways than breaking the laws to change them.
Nope. Welcome to the anarchical nature of the international system. Where there is no governing body, each actor shall act in their own best interest. If that means that some countries might try and exercise laws beyond their control, they're welcome to try it, however, no country is required to respect their authority. Until there is an international internet authority (a scary thing, perhaps?) there will be no real laws applied to cross-border traffic that is worldwide.
As for your argument for homosexuality/slavery/segregation, those were laws yes, and they may have served their societies well (I doubt it). However, as societal value structures and norms change, so change the normative functions of laws (yes I'm a political science major). Now, to respond to what I'm sure you'll say about copyright being determined as wrong, I'd disagree. For the most part, people are happy with copyright laws. They're more angry at the record companies, resellers, artists, etc for driving up CD prices and their "rebellion" against the artists shows this, however it's not copyright they're angry at. Information is not free to create and often comes with great toil on the part of the artists.
I will agree that laws are mostly right and do not encompass good and evil for the most part, but they are good guidelines and if we teach our children to respect the law and hold responsible the lawmaker, we will have societies that are socially responsible. So if you have a problem with the law, bring your complaints forth to those who can do something about instead of breaking them in protest. The latter will only get you arrested.
This makes me angry. I respond to Sydney's flame and get marked as flamebait. But Sydney calls me "Dictionary Boy" and get's marked up to 2, Interesting? Oh please. Which one of you modded this one? Can I please ask what kind of $3 crack you are smoking? I stand up for the law and I get smacked down...fsking moderators.