News flash -- this means that RIAA doesn't care about you. By definition, you are not their customer. Hell, you're not even close to their target demographic. Why would they care if you love/hate/support/boycott/praise/condemn them? You, personally, have absolutely zero impact on their bottom line.
Well, boycotting is more than an idividual thing. When I don't buy a CD, that also means I'm not part of the mass-hysteria that helps promote it. Concrete example: If I buy a CD, I might play it in the car with some friends (50% change they might say "Ooh, what's that?" and further 10% chance they might buy it).
Furthermore, as a non-customer, I decrease the value of their music by a very slight amount. All those slight amounts add up. It's not just selling CDs that matter. Say the entire Slashdot & geek community swears off music for enough time to loose awareness of what's popular. When it comes time for an advertising team to select a song to go with a new TV commercial that targets our demographic, there wouldn't be some 'hit' song that the RIAA can price-gouge them on. Instead, they can negotiate for a decent song that just plain sounds good (think of recent car commercial ads).
I'll bet that if you examined the record industry's revinue, that this lowering of mainstream music value in non direct-sales form could actually hurt them more.
Those with children:Try explaining to little Suzy why she can't have the latest Britney cd, or why you don't want her to go the movies because of your beliefs. I doubt she will care.
Agreed, although when I was a kid (in the 70's) my parents wouldn't allow me to watch Disney movies even though my friends all did, the same way I wasn't allowed to have a BB gun, a go-cart, or a mini-bike. That's just part of parenting -- setting limits on a child's activities. Unfortunately now I think parents are too afraid they'll somehow screw up their kids by not giving them everything they want.
So my advice (disclaimer: IANAParent) tell them hey can buy Britney when they can afford to buy it themself.
Disclaimer: I don't know more about this than what's in the article, but in my (shitty) neighborhood, there are tons of stores and gas stations that sell *blatently* riped off CD's and tapes (i.e.: you can see the dots of the dot-matrix printer used to make the CD cover). Hell, there's even an entire store a few blocks away that *only* sells copies.
I don't believe this has anything to do with mp3s, or the DMCA.
Maybe it's like the shaving razor thing: give away the razor, but charge a fortune for thblades. Maybe the school gives away laptops, but charges a ton for power, internet connection, etc...
Maybe if Bill Gates didn't have a monopoly over the OS market Apple would have more money to give to third world countries. Plus they could afford to give everyone a raise [spymac.com].
Maybe if Steve Jobs & co. didn't have a monopoly over the hardware that runs OS X, Microsoft wouldn't have such a large market share.
$15? What part of the country do you live in? I went to go buy a CD (my first in years, and not because of MP3s, but because I don't like music that much). Almost all the cd's I saw were $20.
You know, I worked in a record store during the intruduction of CDs. At the time they priced cd's roughly double the cost of records and tapes, to supposedly cover the lack in supply and demand. The promise was that as CDs replaced tapes and records, the price would be adjusted. Well, here we are, and not only has the price not gone down, it's increased beyond financial environmental factors (inflation, consumer price index, etc).
OK, you could record the song from the radio, but the quality would be crappy and most stations talk at the beginning of the song and fade another song into the end. If you listen to the radio, the station is paying the copyright holder for you.
What about XM radio. Digital perfection, no fade-in or fade-out.
This is yet another glimps into the minds of the entertainment industry's marketing people. The holy grail is pay-per-use consumer products, which unfortunately is a concept that is fairly new in capitalism, especially in the United States where property laws reflect mostly tangible goods. This helps to explain why companies and consumers are having so many problems with each other.
Anyway, the distribution methods look somethin like this, from most desirable (and most profitable) to least:
Pay-per-Use - Require consumer to pay for each experience (i.e.: theater movies, pay-per-view, arcade games)
Subscription - if pay-per-use isn't possible, require the user to pay a recurring subscription fee for access to the material (i.e.: cable)
Media Ownership - if subscription isn't possible, sell the media in a permanent form to the consumer.
Media ownership is of course the most desired for the consumer. It allows them to experience themusic/movie/etc whenever they want, trade or sell it to friends, etc. Of course it's the least profitable for the industry.
The problem media companies are facing is that, as technology matures, it's allowing consumers to use the media in any way they want. For example, using a Tivo to turn subscription-distributed media into owned permemant media.
What we're seeing now is the entertainment industry scrambling to use laws that were originally enacted to protect companies from each other, and bend them to try and keep consumers from using the media for which it wasn't originally intended.
Here's a hypothetical situation: In 15 years medical science progresses to the point where they fix eyesight with little nano machines. In the process they also give people the ability to record what they watch and play it back (kind of like a Tivo built-in to your head). Thus turning everything you experience into the potential for permenant media. What do you think the entertainment industry will do then? Legislate congress to make all medical nano devices capible of recording motion images be part of a digital rights management royalty payment system, and likely called something along the lines of the Digital Medical Device Copyright Act. That's if the entertainment industry is still alive in the same for it is today, which I doubt.
Of course/. editors chose to bury the mention of the retraction in Slashback, rather than posting it in it's own article, therefore letting all the people that skim headlines continue to think that the FBI is bugging all our libraries. Too bad many of them won't be exposed to posibility that the FBI isn't doing it.
The terrorists were able to falsify documents to get fake passports and drivers licenses. Library cards are by far the easiest piece of identity thing to fake. Do you really think that a terrorist that is here on an expired visa is going use his real ID (which either doesn't exist or isn't valid)?
"Oh, looks like Chuck U. Farly checked out another copy of 'How to bow up big buildings with farm chemicals.' Where does he live? 110 Up-Yours Infidel St., New York, NY? Book him, dan-o"
Meanwhile, somewhere on the other side of the country, little 4th grader Joey checks out 'How Power Plants Work" for a school project, and 10 minutes later the S.W.A.T. team is busting down his parent's door...
I wonder where our government will put the concentration camps.
-----
Re:PDF Files arn't easily modifiable... until....
on
Microsoft takes on PDF
·
· Score: 2
Until they simply decide it's in their (x-y-z) best interest to simply, say, raise the price of their products 100%! And they will always have a good (public) reason. In the back room, they're just interested in flooding the market with their SW and make sure it closes every other company. It's paranoid, I know... but if we're not careful, we'll end up with their knife up our throat, and we'll have nothing "else" to rely on... because we would have let them win, by not insisting on questionning the validity of their concern about SW development. IF we allow those companie$ (and not just M$), they can "buy" their way to monopoly and once established firmly, well... bye bye freedom of choice, see you in the next eon or two!
If they raise the prices 100%, I'd make an evaluation -- should I buy it or not. If I buy it, then it must've been worth that price. If I don't, then that gives a competitor the chance to start a business catering to me and other like myself.
The checks-and-balence that is free-market capitalism is that a company will sell something for as high as they can. Any higher, and the customer will either a) buy it, b) not buy any of the product, or c) buy a compeditor's product. A company doesn't want to charge so much that nobody will buy it, so they'll charge the highest price you're willing to pay. Even if there were no choice, yes, we're at the mercy of microsoft, but they couldn't dare charge more than we're willing to pay for their products, otherwise nobody would buy it.
Besides, left alone, if they did reach so-called monopoly status (i.e.: they are the only ones providing an Office product), and they jack up the prices, that sets up the perfect environment for competition to step in and create alternatives. The problem is, with anti-monopoly laws, this natural state is never reached. The justice department penalizes a sucessful company, and usually in the process conceedes to allow them to remain a monopoly if they play nice. This is usually known as regulation.
Cable companies were accused as being monopolies (only because there were few players and nobody got to the point where they were going to start competing for teratory). But the government stepped in, called them monopolies, and said "ok, we'll let you remain a monopoly as long as you regulate your rates." The government creates these artificial monopolies rather than let competition take it's natural course. It happened to the telecommunication industry, railway, etc..
Slashdot Mirror
This is awesome! Now, does anyone have a speech-to-text program that accepts ogg streams as input?
If you prefer using open standards route, then you might want to look at transfering the Linux src via the Carrier Pigeon Internet Protocol (CPIP) instead.
(Of ocurse you'd have to do something like ftp over cpip).
News flash -- this means that RIAA doesn't care about you. By definition, you are not their customer. Hell, you're not even close to their target demographic. Why would they care if you love/hate/support/boycott/praise/condemn them?
You, personally, have absolutely zero impact on their bottom line.
Well, boycotting is more than an idividual thing. When I don't buy a CD, that also means I'm not part of the mass-hysteria that helps promote it. Concrete example: If I buy a CD, I might play it in the car with some friends (50% change they might say "Ooh, what's that?" and further 10% chance they might buy it).
Furthermore, as a non-customer, I decrease the value of their music by a very slight amount. All those slight amounts add up. It's not just selling CDs that matter. Say the entire Slashdot & geek community swears off music for enough time to loose awareness of what's popular. When it comes time for an advertising team to select a song to go with a new TV commercial that targets our demographic, there wouldn't be some 'hit' song that the RIAA can price-gouge them on. Instead, they can negotiate for a decent song that just plain sounds good (think of recent car commercial ads).
I'll bet that if you examined the record industry's revinue, that this lowering of mainstream music value in non direct-sales form could actually hurt them more.
Those with children:Try explaining to little Suzy why she can't have the latest Britney cd, or why you
don't want her to go the movies because of your beliefs.
I doubt she will care.
Agreed, although when I was a kid (in the 70's) my parents wouldn't allow me to watch Disney movies even though my friends all did, the same way I wasn't allowed to have a BB gun, a go-cart, or a mini-bike. That's just part of parenting -- setting limits on a child's activities. Unfortunately now I think parents are too afraid they'll somehow screw up their kids by not giving them everything they want.
So my advice (disclaimer: IANAParent) tell them hey can buy Britney when they can afford to buy it themself.
Disclaimer: I don't know more about this than what's in the article, but in my (shitty) neighborhood, there are tons of stores and gas stations that sell *blatently* riped off CD's and tapes (i.e.: you can see the dots of the dot-matrix printer used to make the CD cover). Hell, there's even an entire store a few blocks away that *only* sells copies.
I don't believe this has anything to do with mp3s, or the DMCA.
lol!
It sure is. Tag lines are the modern day equivalent of bumper stickers :)
Fare the well, OS/2. We hardly knew ye.
Am I the only one that read the title as "Furry Road?"
This article is just a reminder of how wasteful people were back in the DOT COM boom days.
Agreed. I also hear there's warehouses filled with surplus nerf toys that have no buyers now.
Maybe it's like the shaving razor thing: give away the razor, but charge a fortune for thblades. Maybe the school gives away laptops, but charges a ton for power, internet connection, etc...
Oh good, the md5 hash for my /sbin/md5 binary matches the signature found on known-goods. Now I can sleep at night. oh, wait...
What's next? Open-sourced surgery? Open-sourced legal representation? Open-sourced sex!?!
Maybe if Bill Gates didn't have a monopoly over the OS market Apple would have more money to give to third world countries. Plus they could afford to give everyone a raise [spymac.com].
Maybe if Steve Jobs & co. didn't have a monopoly over the hardware that runs OS X, Microsoft wouldn't have such a large market share.
$15? What part of the country do you live in? I went to go buy a CD (my first in years, and not because of MP3s, but because I don't like music that much). Almost all the cd's I saw were $20.
You know, I worked in a record store during the intruduction of CDs. At the time they priced cd's roughly double the cost of records and tapes, to supposedly cover the lack in supply and demand. The promise was that as CDs replaced tapes and records, the price would be adjusted. Well, here we are, and not only has the price not gone down, it's increased beyond financial environmental factors (inflation, consumer price index, etc).
OK, you could record the song from the radio, but the quality would be crappy and most stations talk at the beginning of the song and fade another song into the end. If you listen to the radio, the station is paying the copyright holder for you.
What about XM radio. Digital perfection, no fade-in or fade-out.
I didn't see the entire movie, only clips. I tried learning for about a week once, but got frustrated and gave up.
Can you still speak Esperanto?
This is yet another glimps into the minds of the entertainment industry's marketing people. The holy grail is pay-per-use consumer products, which unfortunately is a concept that is fairly new in capitalism, especially in the United States where property laws reflect mostly tangible goods. This helps to explain why companies and consumers are having so many problems with each other.
Anyway, the distribution methods look somethin like this, from most desirable (and most profitable) to least:
Pay-per-Use - Require consumer to pay for each experience (i.e.: theater movies, pay-per-view, arcade games)
Subscription - if pay-per-use isn't possible, require the user to pay a recurring subscription fee for access to the material (i.e.: cable)
Media Ownership - if subscription isn't possible, sell the media in a permanent form to the consumer.
Media ownership is of course the most desired for the consumer. It allows them to experience themusic/movie/etc whenever they want, trade or sell it to friends, etc. Of course it's the least profitable for the industry.
The problem media companies are facing is that, as technology matures, it's allowing consumers to use the media in any way they want. For example, using a Tivo to turn subscription-distributed media into owned permemant media.
What we're seeing now is the entertainment industry scrambling to use laws that were originally enacted to protect companies from each other, and bend them to try and keep consumers from using the media for which it wasn't originally intended.
Here's a hypothetical situation: In 15 years medical science progresses to the point where they fix eyesight with little nano machines. In the process they also give people the ability to record what they watch and play it back (kind of like a Tivo built-in to your head). Thus turning everything you experience into the potential for permenant media. What do you think the entertainment industry will do then? Legislate congress to make all medical nano devices capible of recording motion images be part of a digital rights management royalty payment system, and likely called something along the lines of the Digital Medical Device Copyright Act. That's if the entertainment industry is still alive in the same for it is today, which I doubt.
Fortunately I live in a Neon/Argon atmosphere, so this shouldn't be much of a problem for me.
Unfortunately for you, living in a Neon/Argon atmosphere is now illegal under the DMCA, as it circumvents copyright protection.
Of course /. editors chose to bury the mention of the retraction in Slashback, rather than posting it in it's own article, therefore letting all the people that skim headlines continue to think that the FBI is bugging all our libraries. Too bad many of them won't be exposed to posibility that the FBI isn't doing it.
..
1 spread paranoia
2 steal underpants
3
4 profit
Can you recommend any online resources for anyone that wants to attempt some time exposure photography, especially for a noob (such as myself)?
Thanks!
why you throw chip?
New Jersey.
:)
Now that you mention it, I think they might've already made their decision
----
The terrorists were able to falsify documents to get fake passports and drivers licenses. Library cards are by far the easiest piece of identity thing to fake. Do you really think that a terrorist that is here on an expired visa is going use his real ID (which either doesn't exist or isn't valid)?
"Oh, looks like Chuck U. Farly checked out another copy of 'How to bow up big buildings with farm chemicals.' Where does he live? 110 Up-Yours Infidel St., New York, NY? Book him, dan-o"
Meanwhile, somewhere on the other side of the country, little 4th grader Joey checks out 'How Power Plants Work" for a school project, and 10 minutes later the S.W.A.T. team is busting down his parent's door...
I wonder where our government will put the concentration camps.
-----
Until they simply decide it's in their (x-y-z) best interest to simply, say, raise the price of their products 100%! And they will always have a good (public) reason. In the back room, they're just interested in flooding the market with their SW and make sure it closes every other company. It's paranoid, I know... but if we're not careful, we'll end up with their knife up our throat, and we'll have nothing "else" to rely on... because we would have let them win, by not insisting on questionning the validity of their concern about SW development. IF we allow those companie$ (and not just M$), they can "buy" their way to monopoly and once established firmly, well... bye bye freedom of choice, see you in the next eon or two!
If they raise the prices 100%, I'd make an evaluation -- should I buy it or not. If I buy it, then it must've been worth that price. If I don't, then that gives a competitor the chance to start a business catering to me and other like myself.
The checks-and-balence that is free-market capitalism is that a company will sell something for as high as they can. Any higher, and the customer will either a) buy it, b) not buy any of the product, or c) buy a compeditor's product. A company doesn't want to charge so much that nobody will buy it, so they'll charge the highest price you're willing to pay. Even if there were no choice, yes, we're at the mercy of microsoft, but they couldn't dare charge more than we're willing to pay for their products, otherwise nobody would buy it.
Besides, left alone, if they did reach so-called monopoly status (i.e.: they are the only ones providing an Office product), and they jack up the prices, that sets up the perfect environment for competition to step in and create alternatives. The problem is, with anti-monopoly laws, this natural state is never reached. The justice department penalizes a sucessful company, and usually in the process conceedes to allow them to remain a monopoly if they play nice. This is usually known as regulation.
Cable companies were accused as being monopolies (only because there were few players and nobody got to the point where they were going to start competing for teratory). But the government stepped in, called them monopolies, and said "ok, we'll let you remain a monopoly as long as you regulate your rates." The government creates these artificial monopolies rather than let competition take it's natural course. It happened to the telecommunication industry, railway, etc..