This makes me a little crazy... listen, its the Internet. It was created with our tax dollars initially and Congress determined that it would be free and unfettered, in the true Democratic sense.
It is not yours, you don't own it, and if you put something on to it it can and will be linked, and the information can and will be used in all sorts of ways.
It reminds me of the whole CueCat fiasco. Who the hell gave you permission to take your ball onto our ball field and then proceed to tell us what to do?!?! No one, so stfu and play along or get the hell out.
The Internet is being ruined by capitalists and entrepreneurs who have the mindset that if it ain't about making money it is worthless. That sort of 'put money as your God' mentality is what's reducing the Internet to Interactive TV, and the more Big Business gets congrefs to comply with that mentality (no that is NOT the American Way: Freedom is, not Consumerism), the less we enjoy the Freedoms God granted us in the form of the Founding Fathers.
No, I didn't read the article, heh, I just finished a hard day at work and I'm venting, er processing... and the dog's thinking (thank God it's not me again...)...
Don't laugh, but I actually believe that the two are not mutually exclusive. The economy was flying high because the internet was transforming business and personal transactions as it rapidly brought on the Informational Revolution. Congress at the time was determined to protect the freedom of the internet in its nascent state; recall how they almost unanimously voted to keep it tax-free for the first several years.
Well, one of the massive advantages of the internet, peer-to-peer informational trading, finally saw daylight with the advent of Napster; at this point in time ordinary people enjoyed power unprecedented in recent history, as interest in the internet soared. This power included the power to transform businesses overnight: some went up, some went down.
Reading these tea leaves, the RIAA determined to maintain its revenue stream free from the threat that the internet posed. They successfully sued Napster and got Congress to impose all sorts of restrictions on the free exchange of information. In addition, the FBI used the internet in an Unconstitutional but highly effective means, snooping over the web.
The combination of all these attacks on the free exchange of information (there are more, and I could go on, but will keep this short) nipped the New Economy in the bud; failed dot-coms with no business plan notwithstanding, the internet then became what it is today: interactive TV in which if something doesn't make money for somebody it's not useful. And so the promise that was the internet was to a large degree usurped by big business once they figured out what the internet was and how they could control it. When MS won it's battle in court, IMO that was the death's knell for the New Economy, because it proved that large consolidated and concentrated business enterprises will generally prevail over small, distributed operations.
Once that happened, the dot-coms fell like dominoes, taking the Clinton-era prosperity with them. No more New Economy, just the same old song and dance...
That's my theory of Economics, and I'm sticking with it!
IMHO, and this is kind of a radical idea, these guys are killing the promise that was the internet in order to preserve their antiquated revenue streams.
I believe that the time has come to admit that pure informationally-based industries cannot trump honest technological development, and that to try to do that requires a cop at every desk and putting each and every person at risk in this country.
I think that the AHRA (the Home Recording Act) should have been enough to satisfy even the most craven of executives.
The fact is that their business is teetering atop an archaic foundation and it needs to fall; they are in the buggy-whip manufacturing business, and Congress oughtta tell 'em that.
If we are to progess technologically, business needs to step out of the way here. Otherwise the net will be reduced to what it is rapidly becoming: interactive TV.
We see it, and Congress saw the promise soon after the dawn of the internet, during the explosion when they wanted to foster its development. They should never have stopped Napster, and they should 'just say no' to the campaign contributors and let information flow freely.
I wonder if Campaign Finance Reform will reduce this reactionary influence.
One thing I've noticed it that many ads today have this pokemon-quality seizure-inducing strobe effect so that you Can't ignore them, they are so annoying.
Imagine if they start doing that to TV commercials! I wonder (and I'm pretty sure the IBM ad here yesterday did the same alpha-blocking thing) if anyone has had a real seizure from one of these ads.
Can anyone tell me if any of these services can provide the rare bootlegs that I could get off Napster in the good not-so-old days?
I never did care for wasting bandwidth getting something I could get off the shelf at K^HWal-Mart; I was only ever interested in getting things I couldn't otherwise get, i.e., old Led Zeppelin bootlegs and stuff.
Something tells me those are gone for good *sigh*...
Welp, I'm downloading Kazaa, better keep this short...
I guess that my point is being obscured by my example. It is in fact true that the RIAA represents a cartel of sorts, just ask King Crimson's Robert Fripp or Courtney Love and Don Henley...
I suppose that what I am envisioning is the nightmare of Disney and Sony execs world-wide. All of the things you say are kind of true if it weren't for the stranglehold producers have on artists. But my point is (and by the way, to the extent that capitalists have a conscience I say "go ahead man, go for it") that if we really actualized the potential of the internet, businesses that can be wholly engulfed by this medium due to the fact that their product can be reduced to pure information streams would be radically transformed because the content would be free.
That is what would turn the industries on their ear.
Jacques Cousteau points out to us that a sign of a degraded ecology is loss of diversification of species. Well, I find parallels in software, movies, and music, where diversity is not celebrated. But thanks for the thoughtful treatise on capitalism at its best. I can't argue with what you said.
That is precisely the argument that the RIAA uses in court testimony to validate its continued existence, which the artists themselves claim is conspiratorial usury. My point is that this arose from a time when there was a great wall between the artist and his audience; it's a throwback to a simpler time. This no longer needs to be the case.
By the way, it is said that both BS and Eminem gained their popularity through the internet, and that it was after kids were downloading ther stuff like crazy that the execs pumped up the images. It's hard to imagine what things would be like without the pre-existing record industry moguls, but I suspect it would involve less hype.
The labels still do add value, but that's because the industry has not been completely turned on its ear by the internet. But it would have if Napster wasn't dragged down and killed.
Reaching for the fundamental bases of society, which he believes are economic, Marx defines a class by the relationship they share with the means of production. Therefore, not circular reasoning but definition distinguishes the Bourgeoisie from the Proletariat. This is not really a silly observation, because it uses the word "class" in a different way than you are using it. He never mentions the upper class, and the Bourgeoisie are the capitalists in his examples.
Yes, Marx believed that the proles were alienated because the economy is driven not by natural human need but by the profit motive. I contend that it was not the idea that killed people but the implementation of Communism by Stalin that killed people in Communist Russia. You forgot to mention 1796 France, in which class envy led to the Great Terror. Oh yeah, that was a result of the Enlightenment... sorry.
You're right about the trouble with Marx: I don't get a good feel for an alternative, and perhaps that's what all the Stalinist killing was really about. A regime that maintained its control of the people by brute force, because there was no pot of gold at the end of the Rainbow. But I am not sure that this is proof of the failure of Marxist ideas. See, the fact that, at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution capitalists were exploiting workers was a great example of the failure of capitalism. Sweatshops, child labor, and the other excesses of capitalism (see Dickens) at the time were indicators that this system should fail. Why didn't it? Government regulations!
But this is where it should be different! The proles of the world are now in possession of the means of production of information. This should eliminate the boundaries between the classes and end the alienation of the (consumers). But the means of production are kept from the people by law. I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm just saying that's what is.
The Marxist theory (pardon my typo) posits that the capitalist owns the 'ways and means'; this is why, for example, an inventor knows that merely inventing something does not in itself make him rich. If it's a piece of hardware, he knows that he will be killed in the marketplace because he cannot manufacture, distribute, advertise, and support his product all by himself. So he has to sell it to a company that can. This is Marx's observation.
If you don't see the relevance then you miss my point: the internet is sufficient to remove the edge that the capitalist once had because it lowers the threshhold so that everyman now possesses the 'ways and means' of (information) production.
Plus, I'm not arbitrarily 'down' on capitalism. The True capitalist would have gotten out of the music business 'cuz he saw the writing on the wall. But nowadays they opt to preserve their revenue stream by throwing money at Fritz Hollings to do their bidding and arrest transgressors of the DMCA and SSSI. Now I'm not saying that making it too easy to break the law to have the prosecution of that law a viable prospect is a good thing, I'm just saying that it is a natural consequence of the abilities inherent in the internet.
But, oh well, you're bored... perhaps I've typed too much...
Well, I see we are in violent agreement here. The only reason I used Britney was because it is a good example. See, music is pure information and so is a perfect internet target. That the DMCA and other legislation is being used to hold back the dam is the reason why the part of the internet that was supposed to turn that part of the economy upside down didn't. And what remains then is, yeah, not a whole lot more than the news, weather, stock quotes, and as you say 'relevant information.' But the web should have destroyed the traditional pyramidal economic structure for music, videos, and software. As another example, that's what the GNU GPL is about: you and I may profit a little bit from coding and selling software, but no central authority can maintain a revenue stream by holding those rights.
So, yah, I in no way expected the web to turn the whole "old" economy upside down, but it has transformed the information portions of the economy, and those that are almost pure information have lost their edge.
I didn't mean to rant... Britney was just an example.
My point: It's now cheap enough to record that the previous owner of that particular ways/means of production is now not the exclusive owner. The value he added is now diminished by the ubiquitousness of the internet. The same thing with advertising: dissemination of information is now virtually free inasmuch as one can make it available to everyone. This doesn't necessarily mean that it will get in front of eyeballs, but that may be rendered immaterial if the sole determinant of product value is true consumer choice, which could reign in a pure internet economy.
IMHO, the reason that the web failed to deliver its promise of turning the traditional pyramidal structure of our economy upside down is because the alternative structure - one of de-centralized authority, control, and profit accumulation - is anathema to capitalism. This suggests that capitalism is not, ultimately the most desired form of commerce.
Bear with me for a bit: Markist theory describes the capitalist as being the one who controls the ways and means of production; this puts him at the top of the pyramid since all goods and services flow only through him. He's a record company mogul who owns CD writers, and the only way you can get Britney Spears' latest offering is to buy it from him.
But the internet should have changed all of that. By enabling the cheap mass production of the goods and services (those that can be digitized, i.e., software and data), the 'ways and means of production' has become de-centralized and available to all. We can get BS's latest stuff off Napster now, so the record company mogul, who in reality adds no value to the music itself, has lost his vaunted position atop the production / distribution pyramid.
In an extrapolated and idealized from of this logical trend, the provider receives direct payment for services / goods and there is no capitalist controlling the flow. Basically, Britney's music is free, but you want to go see her show and you are willing to pay for a ticket to see her in person. The Britney Spears show is still a scarce commodity even though her music is not.
So, in a world that obeys the forces of nature, the capitalist realizes that he is in a dead business and must find work elsewhere, while the masses enjoy the intrinsic benefits of the internet: peer-to-peer sharing of massively produced content.
Unfortunately, the capitalist today is unwilling to submit to the inevitable and so finds it necessary to prop up his archaic revenue stream by having the behavior of the masses controlled through legislation (i.e., DMCA, SDMI, DRM, M.O.U.S.E.). The complaint of the capitalist is that this is necessary because the content providers do add value and without the hard-wired revenue stream they will lose the hierarchical structure (the pyramid) that makes them what they are and insures value in their product. That is, Disney would go out of business if everyone could just download Snow White off the internet.
So that's why we need Campaign Finance Reform in the Internet Era.
Yah, I wrote this at 7am before coffee... there are a few mistakes, grammatical and otherwise that I found once my eyes opened.
But I figured it was more important to 'fire one off' than be absolutely perfect. That would have taken more time, and my daughter would have been late for school.
As a concerned citizen and computer user, I found the verdict in the Microsoft
anti-trust trial reprehensibly one-sided and a disservice to the Cause of Justice in
America.
I urge you to reconsider the verdict. MS having control of the operating system
already gives them a monopoly on the desktop. Allowing them to leverage that
monopoly to give them unfair advantage in each and every (previously) competitive
market on the desktop really stifles innovation, no matter what Bill Gates and Steve
Ballmer say.
I actually believe that, in your zeal to protect and preserve entrenched businesses in
America you are killing the pioneer spirit of entrepreneureal endeavor, and so the
decision to kowtow and cave completely to Judge Penfield's decision, no matter
how emotional he became (I believe he was sorely tested) can only be construed as
political and Machievellian, in these jaded times.
A breakup of the company is the only viable solution. C'mon, Justice Department,
you had the courage to do it in the early 1900's, why can you not see the light now?
Please reconsider your terrible and biased decision in the interests of your true
consitiuency, the American people.
Thank You,
Michael Patrick Kenny and family
Where the Herd Goes
on
Browsing Alone
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
...it's cultural grazing. The herd, with the herd mentality, goes where it will, driven by forces that perhaps sociologists understand, perhaps not (inasmuch as they can't accurately predict trends). There isn't much that can be done about it, really; we are transitioning from an age in which our lifestyle was largely insular and the joining of the community was a 'big deal' to a time when the community is in constant touch and solitude becomes the big deal. We have created something of what we want; people often complain about the stark barren intellectual landscape of TV-land. This is due IMO to the fact that the bandwidth was limited to a handful of channels and tightly controlled by a dozen or so media moguls. Now information is largely free, but the battle over content and information has somewhat skewed the internet landscape to again degrade the experience (spam, DMCA issues, pop-up ads). Still, we prefer to put our energy, attention, and time into this thing, and not the other things, because it has something that we want.
One might lament the changing scenery, one might struggle to understand it, or one might try to resist being captured and carried away by it, but one thing is certain: it is here, it is where life is teeming right now, and you are either in or you are out.
Does the fish know that it's wet? That is, do we really care enough what the effect all these devices and the media they contain have on us that we are aware, that we take time to notice how we've changed? Or do we just swim with all the rest of the fish, changing direction here and darting there, avoiding the pitfalls and grabbing the scraps that float in front of us, unaware of what it is we are becoming because we are too busy becoming it?
Since we are sentient creatures, of course we have knowledge of what we are becoming, how we have changed. But the thrill of the new overtakes us. This is what's happening, and its human nature to join in the fray. There isn't really a problem here; it's just change.
Seems that Qwest is learning some other things from MS as well: This is from their Home DSL page, which was supposed to have something about how easy it is to switch to a different ISP according to the press clipping, but I didn't find it.
Seems like DSL providers are failing left and right. Is yours one of them? You don't want to take chances with your DSL. Qwest is a well-established national leader in broadband technology serving thousands of customers. You can count on us -- we're here to stay.
Soon all companies will spread FUD routinely! Like negative campaigns, FUD must work on stupid and brainwashed Americans because it's used so much. It is why I call anxiety the drug of choice for most Americans (just watch TV for an hour some day). But I digress!
What bothers me about this: Although some people say that MSN doesn't have a stronghold on the ISP market, their presence continues to increase. They are now the second largest ISP provider with 9%, after AOL, which has a whopping 33% [1].
But Microsoft isn't a monopoly. It's now metastasized into something much larger, as it has its tentacles into gaming, ISPs, aw, hell, you guys know the routine by now. And I'm not just spouting FUD. This is fact.
They also manufacture BST, the hormone used to produce more milk from cows. It's on their website.
I submitted this articleto Quorum a few days ago. You might find some of the links interesting.
Yes, I believe that a company that shows disregard for human life should be de-commissioned. Or their executives hung from a tree. Something like that.
It seems to me that we strive to create things that, if sucessful, become addictive. I think it's the nature of humans, to seek pleasure. That we can't control it is one of our great, tragic, and sometimes fatal weaknesses.
Hilary, MORALITY has NOTHING to do with this! Copyright is just an arrangement between the Government and the people to keep the creative juices flowing. Think of it in that way, please. I hate the morality argument. Just because you decided to put a bunch of money into something doesn't give it a higher spiritual weight. And just because something was legislated doesn't give it moral weight.
The law of the internet should prevail, or we will fail to see the promise that is the internet. It is like the law of the jungle: the situation has changed, and your industry is a dinosaur. You and your senatorial bed-mates really ought to open your eyes and see that. Or you dinosaurs will kill the New World.
The RIAA adds what value to an artist? Very little. It is Michael Stipes who writes the songs and creates the music. Picture an REM recording. Now take away the Rolling Stones ads and the jewel case and the Mtv promos. Now put the CD on your player and 'just hit play'. What do you hear? A very beautiful rendition of "Everyone Hurts".
See, the internet was Supposed to do away with no-value-added middle men who control the Ways and Means of Production (and Distribution), but those middle men with their campaign finance contributions are making legislators bend over backwards to accomodate them.
Now, the Natural Future of this - the result of a Natural Progression - is a world in which the promoters exist at mp3.com and the artists are debuted there and people either like them or don't. Their popularity is measured by number of unique downloads, but they make no revenue from their music per se. They make their money by selling the one scarce commodity that is left: their concerts.
Music becomes free, the Free Market dictates the price of the concerts, the artists make money through promoting their work themselves (they decide how much to pump into their shows and ticket prices subsidize that), and the only ones crying are members of the nefarious RIAA.
The real difference is in the distribution of wealth. There are less numbers of Rolling Stones (blockbuster megastars), but many more Harry Chapins (5,000 seat moderate successes).
My vision of economic freedom as brought to you by Al Gore.
I'm as old as NASA and I will be writing FORTRAN code as soon as I get off my ass and start my workday.
It's not about the language, it's about the analysis, and frankly, for straightforward engineering (heat transfer, aero, even simulation), there is not a more appropriate language.
It's nice not having to program windows and GUI's, but Real Analysis (TM).
Yah, I've been saying that since Napster. P2P was supposed to destroy the traditional pyramidal economy. Well, it's appaerntly just gonna take a little longer. But its hell watching them try to keep their little toe-holds, in't it?
So many laws and lawyers and schemes and provisions to hold back the dam!
Boys oughta just step aside and let the information river flow freely; some people might lose their 'free lunch', but the rest of the world will finally realize the promise that was the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
This makes me a little crazy... listen, its the Internet. It was created with our tax dollars initially and Congress determined that it would be free and unfettered, in the true Democratic sense.
It is not yours, you don't own it, and if you put something on to it it can and will be linked, and the information can and will be used in all sorts of ways.
It reminds me of the whole CueCat fiasco. Who the hell gave you permission to take your ball onto our ball field and then proceed to tell us what to do?!?! No one, so stfu and play along or get the hell out.
The Internet is being ruined by capitalists and entrepreneurs who have the mindset that if it ain't about making money it is worthless. That sort of 'put money as your God' mentality is what's reducing the Internet to Interactive TV, and the more Big Business gets congrefs to comply with that mentality (no that is NOT the American Way: Freedom is, not Consumerism), the less we enjoy the Freedoms God granted us in the form of the Founding Fathers.
No, I didn't read the article, heh, I just finished a hard day at work and I'm venting, er processing... and the dog's thinking (thank God it's not me again...)...
Don't laugh, but I actually believe that the two are not mutually exclusive. The economy was flying high because the internet was transforming business and personal transactions as it rapidly brought on the Informational Revolution. Congress at the time was determined to protect the freedom of the internet in its nascent state; recall how they almost unanimously voted to keep it tax-free for the first several years.
Well, one of the massive advantages of the internet, peer-to-peer informational trading, finally saw daylight with the advent of Napster; at this point in time ordinary people enjoyed power unprecedented in recent history, as interest in the internet soared. This power included the power to transform businesses overnight: some went up, some went down.
Reading these tea leaves, the RIAA determined to maintain its revenue stream free from the threat that the internet posed. They successfully sued Napster and got Congress to impose all sorts of restrictions on the free exchange of information. In addition, the FBI used the internet in an Unconstitutional but highly effective means, snooping over the web.
The combination of all these attacks on the free exchange of information (there are more, and I could go on, but will keep this short) nipped the New Economy in the bud; failed dot-coms with no business plan notwithstanding, the internet then became what it is today: interactive TV in which if something doesn't make money for somebody it's not useful. And so the promise that was the internet was to a large degree usurped by big business once they figured out what the internet was and how they could control it. When MS won it's battle in court, IMO that was the death's knell for the New Economy, because it proved that large consolidated and concentrated business enterprises will generally prevail over small, distributed operations.
Once that happened, the dot-coms fell like dominoes, taking the Clinton-era prosperity with them. No more New Economy, just the same old song and dance...
That's my theory of Economics, and I'm sticking with it!
IMHO, and this is kind of a radical idea, these guys are killing the promise that was the internet in order to preserve their antiquated revenue streams.
I believe that the time has come to admit that pure informationally-based industries cannot trump honest technological development, and that to try to do that requires a cop at every desk and putting each and every person at risk in this country.
I think that the AHRA (the Home Recording Act) should have been enough to satisfy even the most craven of executives.
The fact is that their business is teetering atop an archaic foundation and it needs to fall; they are in the buggy-whip manufacturing business, and Congress oughtta tell 'em that.
If we are to progess technologically, business needs to step out of the way here. Otherwise the net will be reduced to what it is rapidly becoming: interactive TV.
We see it, and Congress saw the promise soon after the dawn of the internet, during the explosion when they wanted to foster its development. They should never have stopped Napster, and they should 'just say no' to the campaign contributors and let information flow freely.
I wonder if Campaign Finance Reform will reduce this reactionary influence.
One thing I've noticed it that many ads today have this pokemon-quality seizure-inducing strobe effect so that you Can't ignore them, they are so annoying.
Imagine if they start doing that to TV commercials! I wonder (and I'm pretty sure the IBM ad here yesterday did the same alpha-blocking thing) if anyone has had a real seizure from one of these ads.
Hi, I don't have time to repeat this, but it bears repeating...
Here.
I invite your comments on the form that the new pay structure should take.
Congratulations, Commander Taco,
I wish you and your bride many many years of happiness and joy and lots of little tacettes running around the house.
Mike Kenny
Can anyone tell me if any of these services can provide the rare bootlegs that I could get off Napster in the good not-so-old days?
I never did care for wasting bandwidth getting something I could get off the shelf at K^HWal-Mart; I was only ever interested in getting things I couldn't otherwise get, i.e., old Led Zeppelin bootlegs and stuff.
Something tells me those are gone for good *sigh*...
Welp, I'm downloading Kazaa, better keep this short...
I guess that my point is being obscured by my example. It is in fact true that the RIAA represents a cartel of sorts, just ask King Crimson's Robert Fripp or Courtney Love and Don Henley...
I suppose that what I am envisioning is the nightmare of Disney and Sony execs world-wide. All of the things you say are kind of true if it weren't for the stranglehold producers have on artists. But my point is (and by the way, to the extent that capitalists have a conscience I say "go ahead man, go for it") that if we really actualized the potential of the internet, businesses that can be wholly engulfed by this medium due to the fact that their product can be reduced to pure information streams would be radically transformed because the content would be free.
That is what would turn the industries on their ear.
Jacques Cousteau points out to us that a sign of a degraded ecology is loss of diversification of species. Well, I find parallels in software, movies, and music, where diversity is not celebrated. But thanks for the thoughtful treatise on capitalism at its best. I can't argue with what you said.
That is precisely the argument that the RIAA uses in court testimony to validate its continued existence, which the artists themselves claim is conspiratorial usury. My point is that this arose from a time when there was a great wall between the artist and his audience; it's a throwback to a simpler time. This no longer needs to be the case.
By the way, it is said that both BS and Eminem gained their popularity through the internet, and that it was after kids were downloading ther stuff like crazy that the execs pumped up the images. It's hard to imagine what things would be like without the pre-existing record industry moguls, but I suspect it would involve less hype.
The labels still do add value, but that's because the industry has not been completely turned on its ear by the internet. But it would have if Napster wasn't dragged down and killed.
Reaching for the fundamental bases of society, which he believes are economic, Marx defines a class by the relationship they share with the means of production. Therefore, not circular reasoning but definition distinguishes the Bourgeoisie from the Proletariat. This is not really a silly observation, because it uses the word "class" in a different way than you are using it. He never mentions the upper class, and the Bourgeoisie are the capitalists in his examples.
Yes, Marx believed that the proles were alienated because the economy is driven not by natural human need but by the profit motive. I contend that it was not the idea that killed people but the implementation of Communism by Stalin that killed people in Communist Russia. You forgot to mention 1796 France, in which class envy led to the Great Terror. Oh yeah, that was a result of the Enlightenment... sorry.
You're right about the trouble with Marx: I don't get a good feel for an alternative, and perhaps that's what all the Stalinist killing was really about. A regime that maintained its control of the people by brute force, because there was no pot of gold at the end of the Rainbow. But I am not sure that this is proof of the failure of Marxist ideas. See, the fact that, at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution capitalists were exploiting workers was a great example of the failure of capitalism. Sweatshops, child labor, and the other excesses of capitalism (see Dickens) at the time were indicators that this system should fail. Why didn't it? Government regulations!
But this is where it should be different! The proles of the world are now in possession of the means of production of information. This should eliminate the boundaries between the classes and end the alienation of the (consumers). But the means of production are kept from the people by law. I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm just saying that's what is.
The Marxist theory (pardon my typo) posits that the capitalist owns the 'ways and means'; this is why, for example, an inventor knows that merely inventing something does not in itself make him rich. If it's a piece of hardware, he knows that he will be killed in the marketplace because he cannot manufacture, distribute, advertise, and support his product all by himself. So he has to sell it to a company that can. This is Marx's observation.
If you don't see the relevance then you miss my point: the internet is sufficient to remove the edge that the capitalist once had because it lowers the threshhold so that everyman now possesses the 'ways and means' of (information) production.
Plus, I'm not arbitrarily 'down' on capitalism. The True capitalist would have gotten out of the music business 'cuz he saw the writing on the wall. But nowadays they opt to preserve their revenue stream by throwing money at Fritz Hollings to do their bidding and arrest transgressors of the DMCA and SSSI. Now I'm not saying that making it too easy to break the law to have the prosecution of that law a viable prospect is a good thing, I'm just saying that it is a natural consequence of the abilities inherent in the internet.
But, oh well, you're bored... perhaps I've typed too much...
Well, I see we are in violent agreement here. The only reason I used Britney was because it is a good example. See, music is pure information and so is a perfect internet target. That the DMCA and other legislation is being used to hold back the dam is the reason why the part of the internet that was supposed to turn that part of the economy upside down didn't. And what remains then is, yeah, not a whole lot more than the news, weather, stock quotes, and as you say 'relevant information.' But the web should have destroyed the traditional pyramidal economic structure for music, videos, and software. As another example, that's what the GNU GPL is about: you and I may profit a little bit from coding and selling software, but no central authority can maintain a revenue stream by holding those rights.
So, yah, I in no way expected the web to turn the whole "old" economy upside down, but it has transformed the information portions of the economy, and those that are almost pure information have lost their edge.
I didn't mean to rant... Britney was just an example.
My point: It's now cheap enough to record that the previous owner of that particular ways/means of production is now not the exclusive owner. The value he added is now diminished by the ubiquitousness of the internet. The same thing with advertising: dissemination of information is now virtually free inasmuch as one can make it available to everyone. This doesn't necessarily mean that it will get in front of eyeballs, but that may be rendered immaterial if the sole determinant of product value is true consumer choice, which could reign in a pure internet economy.
IMHO, the reason that the web failed to deliver its promise of turning the traditional pyramidal structure of our economy upside down is because the alternative structure - one of de-centralized authority, control, and profit accumulation - is anathema to capitalism. This suggests that capitalism is not, ultimately the most desired form of commerce.
Bear with me for a bit: Markist theory describes the capitalist as being the one who controls the ways and means of production; this puts him at the top of the pyramid since all goods and services flow only through him. He's a record company mogul who owns CD writers, and the only way you can get Britney Spears' latest offering is to buy it from him.
But the internet should have changed all of that. By enabling the cheap mass production of the goods and services (those that can be digitized, i.e., software and data), the 'ways and means of production' has become de-centralized and available to all. We can get BS's latest stuff off Napster now, so the record company mogul, who in reality adds no value to the music itself, has lost his vaunted position atop the production / distribution pyramid.
In an extrapolated and idealized from of this logical trend, the provider receives direct payment for services / goods and there is no capitalist controlling the flow. Basically, Britney's music is free, but you want to go see her show and you are willing to pay for a ticket to see her in person. The Britney Spears show is still a scarce commodity even though her music is not.
So, in a world that obeys the forces of nature, the capitalist realizes that he is in a dead business and must find work elsewhere, while the masses enjoy the intrinsic benefits of the internet: peer-to-peer sharing of massively produced content.
Unfortunately, the capitalist today is unwilling to submit to the inevitable and so finds it necessary to prop up his archaic revenue stream by having the behavior of the masses controlled through legislation (i.e., DMCA, SDMI, DRM, M.O.U.S.E.). The complaint of the capitalist is that this is necessary because the content providers do add value and without the hard-wired revenue stream they will lose the hierarchical structure (the pyramid) that makes them what they are and insures value in their product. That is, Disney would go out of business if everyone could just download Snow White off the internet.
So that's why we need Campaign Finance Reform in the Internet Era.
Yah, I wrote this at 7am before coffee... there are a few mistakes, grammatical and otherwise that I found once my eyes opened.
:)
But I figured it was more important to 'fire one off' than be absolutely perfect. That would have taken more time, and my daughter would have been late for school.
But you're right...
This better work, heh...
Title: "Please Break Them Up"
To Whom It May Concern,
As a concerned citizen and computer user, I found the verdict in the Microsoft
anti-trust trial reprehensibly one-sided and a disservice to the Cause of Justice in
America.
I urge you to reconsider the verdict. MS having control of the operating system
already gives them a monopoly on the desktop. Allowing them to leverage that
monopoly to give them unfair advantage in each and every (previously) competitive
market on the desktop really stifles innovation, no matter what Bill Gates and Steve
Ballmer say.
I actually believe that, in your zeal to protect and preserve entrenched businesses in
America you are killing the pioneer spirit of entrepreneureal endeavor, and so the
decision to kowtow and cave completely to Judge Penfield's decision, no matter
how emotional he became (I believe he was sorely tested) can only be construed as
political and Machievellian, in these jaded times.
A breakup of the company is the only viable solution. C'mon, Justice Department,
you had the courage to do it in the early 1900's, why can you not see the light now?
Please reconsider your terrible and biased decision in the interests of your true
consitiuency, the American people.
Thank You,
Michael Patrick Kenny and family
...it's cultural grazing. The herd, with the herd mentality, goes where it will, driven by forces that perhaps sociologists understand, perhaps not (inasmuch as they can't accurately predict trends). There isn't much that can be done about it, really; we are transitioning from an age in which our lifestyle was largely insular and the joining of the community was a 'big deal' to a time when the community is in constant touch and solitude becomes the big deal. We have created something of what we want; people often complain about the stark barren intellectual landscape of TV-land. This is due IMO to the fact that the bandwidth was limited to a handful of channels and tightly controlled by a dozen or so media moguls. Now information is largely free, but the battle over content and information has somewhat skewed the internet landscape to again degrade the experience (spam, DMCA issues, pop-up ads). Still, we prefer to put our energy, attention, and time into this thing, and not the other things, because it has something that we want.
One might lament the changing scenery, one might struggle to understand it, or one might try to resist being captured and carried away by it, but one thing is certain: it is here, it is where life is teeming right now, and you are either in or you are out.
Does the fish know that it's wet? That is, do we really care enough what the effect all these devices and the media they contain have on us that we are aware, that we take time to notice how we've changed? Or do we just swim with all the rest of the fish, changing direction here and darting there, avoiding the pitfalls and grabbing the scraps that float in front of us, unaware of what it is we are becoming because we are too busy becoming it?
Since we are sentient creatures, of course we have knowledge of what we are becoming, how we have changed. But the thrill of the new overtakes us. This is what's happening, and its human nature to join in the fray. There isn't really a problem here; it's just change.
Seems like DSL providers are failing left and right. Is yours one of them? You don't want to take chances with your DSL. Qwest is a well-established national leader in broadband technology serving thousands of customers. You can count on us -- we're here to stay.
Soon all companies will spread FUD routinely! Like negative campaigns, FUD must work on stupid and brainwashed Americans because it's used so much. It is why I call anxiety the drug of choice for most Americans (just watch TV for an hour some day). But I digress!
What bothers me about this: Although some people say that MSN doesn't have a stronghold on the ISP market, their presence continues to increase. They are now the second largest ISP provider with 9%, after AOL, which has a whopping 33% [1].
But Microsoft isn't a monopoly. It's now metastasized into something much larger, as it has its tentacles into gaming, ISPs, aw, hell, you guys know the routine by now. And I'm not just spouting FUD. This is fact.
Here... try this
this
You're Welcome!
They also manufacture BST, the hormone used to produce more milk from cows. It's on their website.
I submitted this articleto Quorum a few days ago. You might find some of the links interesting.
Yes, I believe that a company that shows disregard for human life should be de-commissioned. Or their executives hung from a tree. Something like that.
The Game
It's the only one I ever watched.
It seems to me that we strive to create things that, if sucessful, become addictive. I think it's the nature of humans, to seek pleasure. That we can't control it is one of our great, tragic, and sometimes fatal weaknesses.
I'll say one more thing:
Hilary, MORALITY has NOTHING to do with this! Copyright is just an arrangement between the Government and the people to keep the creative juices flowing. Think of it in that way, please. I hate the morality argument. Just because you decided to put a bunch of money into something doesn't give it a higher spiritual weight. And just because something was legislated doesn't give it moral weight.
The law of the internet should prevail, or we will fail to see the promise that is the internet. It is like the law of the jungle: the situation has changed, and your industry is a dinosaur. You and your senatorial bed-mates really ought to open your eyes and see that. Or you dinosaurs will kill the New World.
This will never happen, but!
The RIAA adds what value to an artist? Very little. It is Michael Stipes who writes the songs and creates the music. Picture an REM recording. Now take away the Rolling Stones ads and the jewel case and the Mtv promos. Now put the CD on your player and 'just hit play'. What do you hear? A very beautiful rendition of "Everyone Hurts".
See, the internet was Supposed to do away with no-value-added middle men who control the Ways and Means of Production (and Distribution), but those middle men with their campaign finance contributions are making legislators bend over backwards to accomodate them.
Now, the Natural Future of this - the result of a Natural Progression - is a world in which the promoters exist at mp3.com and the artists are debuted there and people either like them or don't. Their popularity is measured by number of unique downloads, but they make no revenue from their music per se. They make their money by selling the one scarce commodity that is left: their concerts.
Music becomes free, the Free Market dictates the price of the concerts, the artists make money through promoting their work themselves (they decide how much to pump into their shows and ticket prices subsidize that), and the only ones crying are members of the nefarious RIAA.
The real difference is in the distribution of wealth. There are less numbers of Rolling Stones (blockbuster megastars), but many more Harry Chapins (5,000 seat moderate successes).
My vision of economic freedom as brought to you by Al Gore.
I'm as old as NASA and I will be writing FORTRAN code as soon as I get off my ass and start my workday.
It's not about the language, it's about the analysis, and frankly, for straightforward engineering (heat transfer, aero, even simulation), there is not a more appropriate language.
It's nice not having to program windows and GUI's, but Real Analysis (TM).
Yah, I've been saying that since Napster. P2P was supposed to destroy the traditional pyramidal economy. Well, it's appaerntly just gonna take a little longer. But its hell watching them try to keep their little toe-holds, in't it?
So many laws and lawyers and schemes and provisions to hold back the dam!
Boys oughta just step aside and let the information river flow freely; some people might lose their 'free lunch', but the rest of the world will finally realize the promise that was the internet.