I really don't see why all TV shows aren't released Globally at this point? Why does the TV and movie industry insist on living in the past when it was possible to delay a series or movie as long as desired when that obviously doesn't work any more? It may had made sense at one time to wait for a better price before releasing a series to another market, but with the BT and other P2P networks, it is too easy to bypass the bureaucracy, even if it is not strictly legal to do so.
The quicker the entertainment industry accepts the way things are and competes in the real world, the better off they will be. The RIAA has fought the battle against p2p for over eight years now, and things are just getting worse for them. THe MPAA has some time -- movie downloads are bigger (especially HD) and one still cannot beat the bandwidth of Netflix or the local rental store. Forget DRM and work on making your product easy to get and easy to use. IMHO P2P is not really free, there is a cost (time and bandwidth) to get stuff off of BT or any other p2p service. Give me an cheap, timely, easy, and DRM-free way to get that new episode of Doctor Who, and I won't need p2p. Continue down the current road, and p2p will still be the best value.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 500 GB USB drive. Even a burned DVD can hold around 4 GB of music/video/software. Another possibility is an ad-hoc wireless network or a wireless router not hooked to the internet. Never underestimate the ability of college students to solve a problem like this.
The ironic thing is that this may end up being a problem in the third world. Up until now, Microsoft products have been easy enough to pirate (even XP), that it has been adapted and used all around the world. If Vista can make piracy extremely difficult, then MS has a problem. The average Joe in the US, Canada, or EU, can afford $200 to $400 for a copy of Vista, but in China or India, that price will not fly. It sounds like MS is already running into this situation due to the announcement of the $3 bundled version of XP.
I think Vista will ultimately succeed, but only after a lot of pain for Microsoft.
Meanwhile, I have upgraded the Ubuntu partition on my laptop to 7.04, and I am liking what I am seeing so far. My laptop has Ubuntu and XP pro on it, and I have no reason (right now) to look at Vista.
The main reason that the x86 Windows platform dominates today is the it was originally brought out and supported by IBM. Up until August of 1981, the biggest winners in the computer market were Apple (Apple II), Tandy / Radio Shack (TRS Model III and IV), Commodore (VIC 20), and TI-99/4. A large portion of the Business and Education markets used Apple or Tandy machines, while all four were well represented in the home computer market.
Once IBM introduced the IBM-PC, things changed. Businesses started buying PCs because they were IBM -- "no one ever got fired for buying IBM". Bill Gates was smart in that he licensed PC-DOS to IBM instead of selling it to them, so when Compaq came out with the first PC compatible machine with a reversed engineered BIOS, Gates was able supply them with MS-DOS. By the mid to late '80s, the IBM PC and PC compatible machines took over the business world, ending Tandy's dream of being the big business computer source. Apple introduced the Lisa, then Mac, and ended up a big player in the education and graphics markets. Intel won big with the 8088, 8086, 80286, then 80386. Microsoft won because it smartly kept control over DOS and was able to build up its business. IBM would continue to be a big winner in the market until the 1990's, when it made several blunders including the attempting to regain total control of the market through the Micro Channel architecture, and the fallout with Microsoft over OS/2. By this time, PC compatible machines had enough market clout to allow Microsoft to split off their relationship with IBM and begin their domination of the market starting with Windows 3.0.
Intel continued the domination of the x86 platform with the 486, then the Pentium series. Other companies developed x86 clones, but Intel continued to dominate until AMD provided some real competition. Apple continued to use Motorola processors until it eventually decided to convert to the x86 platform. Of course, while Bill Gates and Windows built up their domination of the computer OS world with Windows, there was this little Computer Science x86 UNIX hobby OS written by some College student somewhere in Finland that would grow to be a major thorn in Bill Gates' side....
My knee-jerk reaction is to say that Google should win, put I think this case needs to be looked at closer -- this is a good example of the future meeting the past.
On Google's side:
They are complying with the DMCA takedown notices. The problem is, as soon as one takedown is done, another copy goes up under another title or user name. It is like playing whack-a-mole.
Not all of the content is simply copies of content available on the air. I have seen some well done "Music Videos" (i.e. Clips from different movies/TV shows set to various songs) and some interesting stuff like the (fake) Titanic II film promo.
YouTube video is low quality. I would rather watch a full TV show on a real TV set rather than YouTube.
Google is in business to make money.
On Viacom's side:
The material does belong to them. Having to keep issuing takedown notices is a pain in the ass, and takes up a lot of time and money.
From Jim Louderback, also of PC Mag - Jim's Column - Providers such Viacom have agreements with Cable and Satellite providers stating that only x% of their programming can be on line (x is typically 10% or less), so having all of this video online could open them up to breach of contract.
They are in the business to make money.
On My Side:
It is good to have access to content without a lot of restrictions. Like it or not, content put out by Viacom, the RIAA, et. al. becomes part of our culture, and should not be totally locked up. The problem is, where should the line be drawn? I think Viacom should allow clips and derived content, but I can understand wanting to keep some sort of control over it.
I want as much content as possible for as little money as possible (I already pay for Internet and Satellite, so I have access to most of the Viacom channels)
Solutions?
So what is the best solution? There has to be some happy medium where everyone can get at least some of what they want. The RIAA has been fighting p2p for at least seven years now, and has nothing to show for it but declining revenues and increasing hatred by the public. Why would Viacom and/or Google want to end up in the same boat? If Viacom wins, they will look as greedy as the RIAA and the public will find other places to post content. If Google wins, Viacom et. al. will just lobby for changes in the DMCA, which already stinks enough as it is. So what to do --
1. Settle this suit by Google offering Viacom a reasonable payment to cover posting of material. At the resolution that YouTube uses, neither Viacom or the Cable/Satellite industry should suffer. Most people would rather watch shows on a nice TV instead of a small YouTube window.
2. Figure out a way to end the content wars once and for all. This includes the RIAA's ongoing war against p2p and along with the YouTube crap that is going on also. It is time to quit suing and put the Lawyers to work actually doing something constructive for once in their lives -- fixing copyright so that it works in the Internet era. This may involve a small monthly fee along with my DSL bill -- I wouldn't mind paying $5 to $10 per month to allow for legal p2p downloads, YouTube viewing, etc. Forget DRM -- it just penalizes your customers and doesn't stop "piracy" anyway.
The market has changed, and resisting change isn't working. It is time to quit trying to turn back the clock, and time to move forward. The VCR didn't kill the Movie Industry (quite the opposite -- take that Jack V), quit bitching and get to work. Otherwise, Viacom, the RIAA, et. al. will end up committing slow suicide.
Ballmer seems to be doing a good job of shooting off his mouth lately. First he says that Vista sales aren't where they should be due to Piracy. A few days later Bill Gates comes out and says that he is pleased with the sales of Vista. I tend to believe Bill on this one, yes upgrade sales of Vista are vastly down from when XP came out, but sales of new PCs are up -- numbers that make sense since Vista has been touted as running better on new hardware.
Now this -- I can see Microsoft taking the path that will profit them (in their opinion) the most. Software patents have not been that good for Microsoft, and I can see them feeling that they are better off without them. I'm sure that the lawyer in this case didn't decide to do this on his own -- the suits at Microsoft have changed direction. Ballmer should spend less time throwing chairs like Bobby Knight and spend more time seeing what is going on. Just my humble opinion.
Don't forget you can also rent movies either from a store or via Netflix. If you rent a movie that sucks, you are only out the amount of the rental, so it is not a big deal. If it is a movie you want to keep, then you can go down to the store and pick it up for around $20. The music industry in their infinite wisdom, got the laws changed to make renting CDs illegal, so that eliminates one way of previewing music. In addition, radio is so lame that it is almost useless for finding new tunes.
The RIAA keeps shooting themselves in the feet and then wonders why they are hobbling. It is easier to blame P2P then to look themselves in the mirror.
Do what Canada did. Once the Loonie (One Dollar Coin) and Twonie (Two Dollar Coin) was in circulation, they stopped making the $1 and $2 bills (I'm not sure what the time frame between introduction of the coin and the end of bill production was since I'm a Yank). The bills in circulation were allowed to remain in circulation until they were pulled due to wear and tear (I believe the average life of a dollar bill is about 18 months -- I would guess that the Canadian dollar bill's life was about the same). Over time the $1 and $2 bills disappeared and the coins took their place.
That is what we need to do in the U.S. if we want the dollar bill to go away. As long as there is a choice, we will continue to use the bill. Allowing the dollar bill to naturally disappear not only makes the transaction easier, but allows bills that are found later to still be used (I believe that the Canadian Dollar bill I have in my drawer is still legal tender).
Pennies and nickels are different since they are metal and not paper. Dates would have to be set for banks to begin pulling them out of circulation since the life of a coin can be decades instead of months. I'd say pull them after a certain date, but keep the coin as legal tender so that coins can be redeemed as they are found.
We have had to deal with this in our business -- converting Dollars or Euros to Swiss Francs. Francs only go down to the 0.05 level, while the Dollar and Euro both go down to the 0.01 level. In our business (gift cards) the conversion rule was below 0.025 rounded down to 0 while 0.025 up to 0.05 rounded up to 0.05 (rinse and repeat for other values).
What this means is if a customer from the E.U. comes into a Swiss store and buys an item for 9.95 Francs and the amount of cash on his card (issued in the E.U. and stored as Euros) is converted to 9.926 Francs (before rounding), the customer would have enough money on the card to complete the purchase and the merchant would be credited 9.95 Francs. In this case, the gift card issuer would lose a little bit of money in the transaction, but they would only lose up to the value of 0.025 Francs per transaction. Of course, if the conversion was a little over, they would gain up to 0.025 Francs, so in the end it would mostly even out.
We could drop the penny and follow the same basic rules for sales tax. If the amount of the purchase after tax is less than 0.025, round down, if it is between 0.025 and 0.05, round up (again, rinse and repeat for other values). This would mean that a purchase that comes to $4.47 would be charged $4.45 while a purchase for $4.48 would be charged $4.50.
Requiring the same rule for cash or electronic transactions would keep everything consistent, although I suppose you could allow EFT, Gift Card, and Credit Card transactions to go to the $0.01 level while only using the $0.05 rule for cash. That would make accounting a bookkeeping more difficult and open up opportunities for fraud.
I like living in a society ruled by laws as long as the laws are reasonable. Right now the current copyright and IP laws are broken -- they are just not working and the "content industry" keeps trying to "fix" it by passing ever more stringent laws and stronger DRM. Not only is this not working thus far, but is only contributing to the problem. Bad laws undermine the whole system of law and order; just look at Prohibition, the drug war, the 55 mph speed limit in the U.S., and the current copyright wars as examples.
There has to some kind of solution to the copyright that restores the balance between customers and creators, and passing more bad laws is NOT the answer. It is now going on 8 years since Napster appeared and new laws, lawsuits, and whining by the *AA's hasn't changed a thing. I think it is time to quit trying to put the genie back in the bottle and get on with coming up with something that everyone can live with.
I wonder if Bill even considers WGA to be DRM in his mind. After all, you can copy a Windows XP install disk (I imagine it is the same for Vista) all you want, so the Windows disk is not, in his mind, copy protected. WGA and activation are required to use Windows, but it is not required to install it. In most people's minds, this is DRM, but I could see where Bill Gates might really believe that this is not the case when it comes to Microsoft products since there is no "copy protection" on the actual media.
Pennies were 95% copper until they changed the composition to copper coated zinc in 1982 (I think the 1983 penny was the first year they actually made pennies with the new mix). Dimes, Quarters, Half-Dollars and (I think) Dollars were silver until 1964. That is why you don't normally see any dimes or quarters from before the '60s in your change.
I guess the problem I have (at least in my own mind) is when does income in a virtual world become real. Should a business owned by an American in a virtual world like Second Life be the same (for tax purposes) as a business owned by an American in, for example, Canada. A business in Canada would be subject to Canadian taxes and U.S. taxes (I do not own a business in Canada and IANAL), so I'm not sure what all of the laws are, but a good Accountant or Tax lawyer would know.
If a Second Life business is taxable, how is the official exchange rate determined? Is it whatever Linden Lab says it is, and what happens if your business is taxed by a Second World "government?" Do the same rules apply as taxes payed to Revenue Canada ? Let's get even more exotic. What if I "live" in a Star Wars game world and run a business there? Do I need to declare the income from my business on Tatooine to the IRS? Do I get to deduct bribes payed to Jabba, taxes payed to Coruscant, and who decides the exchange rate of Imperial Credits to the U.S. Dollar? Can I pay my taxes in Imperial Credits, or must take the money out of the game world (if that is permitted) and pay in U.S. Dollars (or write a check in U.S. dollars and hope that the Imperial Credit stays stable.
I'm not trying to be an ass here, but I think that these are real questions that would need to be answered if the IRS decides to go in this direction.
I know that there are serious businesses in Second Life, but if the IRS decides to tax unconverted income (that is income that remains in Linden Dollars and not U.S. Dollars), a whole new can of worms in opened and rules must be made. I have no problem paying income tax (or capital gains) on money taken out of a virtual world, but I do have a problem with the IRS extending their jurisdiction into the virtual worlds themselves.
If I understand the article correctly, assets gained in a game would be taxable, even if they are never converted into "real" money. If I had a Second Life business that made 1 million Linden Dollars in a year, then I would be taxed at whatever the U.S. Dollar to Linden Dollar rate is, even if I never take the "money" out of Second Life. To me this is ridiculous -- that would be like me being required to pay taxes on properties won in a Monopoly Game. I may own the whole board, but that does not translate to any wealth in real life.
A better example might be the stock market. Stock in XYZ company that I bought for $10,000 may be worth $100,000 today, but I am only taxed on those "gains" if I sell the stock. After all, who is to say that the stock won't be worth $5,000, or even nothing if the company goes belly up. I think the same should apply with game worlds -- as long as the "money" stays in the game world it should not be taxable, but once the "money" is converted to real money or "real" goods and services, then tax is due. After all, if I have a million Linden dollars in Second Life and the Linden would go out of business (not saying that this is likely, but just as an example), then my million Linden dollars would be a valuable as Enron stock.
I can understand taxing businesses in these worlds that make "real" money, but I think it is a real slippery slope taxing "game" money made in an online world unless the profits are taken outside of the game world.
Backwards compatibility isn't the problem -- forwards compatibility is. For example, when Office 97 came out, it had an updated.doc format from Word 95 and Word 6.0 (last version of Word for Windows 3.1). Office 97 would open a document with the older word format with no problem, but companies using Office 95 could not open documents created with Office 97. The end result was the forced upgrade to Office 97 to be able to do business. Now, I don't think there were any major document format changes from Office 97 to Office 2003, so there were less pressure to upgrade.
One problem we have run into is that there are differences between Access 2000 and Access 2003. Access 2003 will open an Access 2000 database with no problem, but those still running Access 2000 cannot open an Access 2003 database. That left our company with 2 choices -- use Access 2000 for development or convert everyone to Access 2003. We are developing in Access 2000 for now, but all new desktops and laptops are getting XP Pro and Office 2003 Professional.
The original poster is correct -- in a certain way. Russia cannot pass whatever laws it wants if it wants to be part of the international community. In this case, the Russian government has determined that joining the WTO better serves the country than allowing allofmp3.com to continue selling music. Since they have to play by the WTO's rules to play, that is what they decided to do. There are many talented people in Russia, and I'm sure that played a part in the decision along with other economic benefits. There was also a little arm twisting going on, but even though Russia may not be the 800 lb. gorilla that the Soviet Union was back in the day, it still is a fairly large gorilla and could have fought back if wanted to.
This is one lesson I fear that the U.S. is going to have to learn in the (near?) future. We may be the only 800 lb. gorilla right now, but other gorillas (China, the E.U.) are getting bigger by the day, and who says the U.S. will remain as big as it is now? In the end, no nation can afford to be isolated too long. Russia chose to play nicely instead of being a bully.
You are right. 25 years ago would bring us to around the time of Iranian Hostage Crisis (started Nov. 4, 1979, ended when Reagan took office in 1981). At that time, most news came from Radio, the TV Network News, or newspapers. CNN was just getting started (June 1, 1980 was the launch date), and Nightline with Ted Koppel grew out of the nightly updates on things in Tehran.
By 1990, CNN was firmly in place and we got to see Desert Shield become Desert Storm live on TV. That was something -- one minute they were talking to the correspondent in Baghdad and everything was quiet, the next minute (as they were talking to him), all hell broke loose. Instant coverage by satellite was now possible.
The World Trade Center Bombing and the Branch Dividian fire in Waco in 1993 were the last major events before to occur before the WWW took off. By Oklahoma City, the web was mature enough to serve as an information source. TV and the web now give us almost instant information on what is happening -- more information that we can handle sometimes. Back in High School, Ted Koppel was our main source of up to the minute information, now I can browse cnn.com, the BBC, even Al Jazeera. There may be some information overload, but it is nice to be able to get other views of what is going on.
I think complete elimination of copyrights would be as bad as the current system where copyright keeps getting extended 20 more years every 20 years (Bono Act) and the hated DMCA and DRM. There has to be a middle ground where people (I won't say consumers) can get easy and open access to works while the creator can make a living. Requiring registration in order to get copyright registration is a first step. Compulsory licensing for non-profit uses may be a second step.
For example, I have seen some excellent amateur Doctor Who videos set to pop music songs on YouTube. With current copyright law everyone loses -- the video, while well done and enjoyable to watch is technically illegal and neither the BBC or musicians get a cent. I would be willing to pay say $5 to $10 dollars a month extra (collected by my Internet provider) into a fund that would allow videos like that to be legal (and the artist(s) compensated). It would also be nice to be able to fire up my favorite p2p software (legally) and have a share of the fund go to the creator of the song, TV program, or Movie that I downloaded.
I realise that there is a lot of negotiation, planning, and work that would have be done before such a scheme would work, but it would be nice to see everyone win for once. The current system is badly broken, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the answer.
This is exactly the reason why they should have never ended copyright registration. If the Government still required registration in order for a work to be protected under copyright, then it would be easy to track who owns it. Require renewal every 14 years -- if the copyright is not renewed, then the work passes into the public domain after a 1 year grace period. This would make it easy to track down the rights holder(s). If there are multiple holders (i.e. recording artist, music writer, and lyricist), then they could all be listed or the copyright contact could be an agent.
Registration of copyrights would solve Google/YouTube's problem and would also solve the problem of abandoned works. If the work isn't important enough to register, then it should be fair game.
I have already quit using MS Office at home -- I had a copy of Office 2000 on my desktop computer, but didn't bother to reinstall it after I replaced the hard drive and re-installed XP. Open Office went on it instead. We have 4 computers at home (my desktop, my laptop, my Daughter's desktop, and her laptop), and buying MS Office for all of these machines would be insanely expensive, so instead of pirating MS Office, I installed Open Office on all four machines. The price is right, and I have no worries about pirated software.
Open Office works great for everything we do. My Daughter writes her papers for school with it, I keep spreadsheets for bills and other stuff using it, and it all works without a hitch. If I do need to use MS Office for something, my work computer has it installed.
I can see MS Office losing market share if it continues with the Genuine Advantage crap. MS products will still dominate (at least for the time being) in the work place, but I can see open source becoming popular in the home. Vista will most likely still be dominate because it will come standard with new PCs, but that could change down the line.
Damn, I wish I had mod points today. This is the most insightful post that I have seen on this subject thus far. Google didn't spend over a billion dollars for You Tube without some kind of game plan, and this makes perfect sense.
That's the way to encourage adaption of open source software. Most people are of the mind "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" when it comes to things (never mind that Windows is broken in many ways, many people are comfortable with it).
In this case, open source is filling a need -- namely we need a decent word processing program that doesn't cost a fortune, and Open Office fits the bill. Your law student friends were happy, so OSS has some new friends. Who knows, Open Office may eventually come the word processing program of choice at your law school. Software that is free (as in beer), good, and legal -- the perfect combo for someone in school.
I have Open Office, the Gimp, CDex, and FireFox on all of the PCs in our house. My 15 year old Daughter uses OO for her school papers -- it sure beats pirating or putting out a bunch money for MS Office.
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't see why all TV shows aren't released Globally at this point? Why does the TV and movie industry insist on living in the past when it was possible to delay a series or movie as long as desired when that obviously doesn't work any more? It may had made sense at one time to wait for a better price before releasing a series to another market, but with the BT and other P2P networks, it is too easy to bypass the bureaucracy, even if it is not strictly legal to do so.
The quicker the entertainment industry accepts the way things are and competes in the real world, the better off they will be. The RIAA has fought the battle against p2p for over eight years now, and things are just getting worse for them. THe MPAA has some time -- movie downloads are bigger (especially HD) and one still cannot beat the bandwidth of Netflix or the local rental store. Forget DRM and work on making your product easy to get and easy to use. IMHO P2P is not really free, there is a cost (time and bandwidth) to get stuff off of BT or any other p2p service. Give me an cheap, timely, easy, and DRM-free way to get that new episode of Doctor Who, and I won't need p2p. Continue down the current road, and p2p will still be the best value.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 500 GB USB drive. Even a burned DVD can hold around 4 GB of music/video/software. Another possibility is an ad-hoc wireless network or a wireless router not hooked to the internet. Never underestimate the ability of college students to solve a problem like this.
The ironic thing is that this may end up being a problem in the third world. Up until now, Microsoft products have been easy enough to pirate (even XP), that it has been adapted and used all around the world. If Vista can make piracy extremely difficult, then MS has a problem. The average Joe in the US, Canada, or EU, can afford $200 to $400 for a copy of Vista, but in China or India, that price will not fly. It sounds like MS is already running into this situation due to the announcement of the $3 bundled version of XP.
I think Vista will ultimately succeed, but only after a lot of pain for Microsoft.
Meanwhile, I have upgraded the Ubuntu partition on my laptop to 7.04, and I am liking what I am seeing so far. My laptop has Ubuntu and XP pro on it, and I have no reason (right now) to look at Vista.
The main reason that the x86 Windows platform dominates today is the it was originally brought out and supported by IBM. Up until August of 1981, the biggest winners in the computer market were Apple (Apple II), Tandy / Radio Shack (TRS Model III and IV), Commodore (VIC 20), and TI-99/4. A large portion of the Business and Education markets used Apple or Tandy machines, while all four were well represented in the home computer market.
Once IBM introduced the IBM-PC, things changed. Businesses started buying PCs because they were IBM -- "no one ever got fired for buying IBM". Bill Gates was smart in that he licensed PC-DOS to IBM instead of selling it to them, so when Compaq came out with the first PC compatible machine with a reversed engineered BIOS, Gates was able supply them with MS-DOS. By the mid to late '80s, the IBM PC and PC compatible machines took over the business world, ending Tandy's dream of being the big business computer source. Apple introduced the Lisa, then Mac, and ended up a big player in the education and graphics markets. Intel won big with the 8088, 8086, 80286, then 80386. Microsoft won because it smartly kept control over DOS and was able to build up its business. IBM would continue to be a big winner in the market until the 1990's, when it made several blunders including the attempting to regain total control of the market through the Micro Channel architecture, and the fallout with Microsoft over OS/2. By this time, PC compatible machines had enough market clout to allow Microsoft to split off their relationship with IBM and begin their domination of the market starting with Windows 3.0.
Intel continued the domination of the x86 platform with the 486, then the Pentium series. Other companies developed x86 clones, but Intel continued to dominate until AMD provided some real competition. Apple continued to use Motorola processors until it eventually decided to convert to the x86 platform. Of course, while Bill Gates and Windows built up their domination of the computer OS world with Windows, there was this little Computer Science x86 UNIX hobby OS written by some College student somewhere in Finland that would grow to be a major thorn in Bill Gates' side....
[smartass]Freddie and Queen ain't Heavy Metal.[/smartass]
My knee-jerk reaction is to say that Google should win, put I think this case needs to be looked at closer -- this is a good example of the future meeting the past.
On Google's side:
They are complying with the DMCA takedown notices. The problem is, as soon as one takedown is done, another copy goes up under another title or user name. It is like playing whack-a-mole.
Not all of the content is simply copies of content available on the air. I have seen some well done "Music Videos" (i.e. Clips from different movies/TV shows set to various songs) and some interesting stuff like the (fake) Titanic II film promo.
YouTube video is low quality. I would rather watch a full TV show on a real TV set rather than YouTube.
Google is in business to make money.
On Viacom's side:
The material does belong to them. Having to keep issuing takedown notices is a pain in the ass, and takes up a lot of time and money.
From Jim Louderback, also of PC Mag - Jim's Column - Providers such Viacom have agreements with Cable and Satellite providers stating that only x% of their programming can be on line (x is typically 10% or less), so having all of this video online could open them up to breach of contract.
They are in the business to make money.
On My Side:
It is good to have access to content without a lot of restrictions. Like it or not, content put out by Viacom, the RIAA, et. al. becomes part of our culture, and should not be totally locked up. The problem is, where should the line be drawn? I think Viacom should allow clips and derived content, but I can understand wanting to keep some sort of control over it.
I want as much content as possible for as little money as possible (I already pay for Internet and Satellite, so I have access to most of the Viacom channels)
Solutions?
So what is the best solution? There has to be some happy medium where everyone can get at least some of what they want. The RIAA has been fighting p2p for at least seven years now, and has nothing to show for it but declining revenues and increasing hatred by the public. Why would Viacom and/or Google want to end up in the same boat? If Viacom wins, they will look as greedy as the RIAA and the public will find other places to post content. If Google wins, Viacom et. al. will just lobby for changes in the DMCA, which already stinks enough as it is. So what to do --
1. Settle this suit by Google offering Viacom a reasonable payment to cover posting of material. At the resolution that YouTube uses, neither Viacom or the Cable/Satellite industry should suffer. Most people would rather watch shows on a nice TV instead of a small YouTube window.
2. Figure out a way to end the content wars once and for all. This includes the RIAA's ongoing war against p2p and along with the YouTube crap that is going on also. It is time to quit suing and put the Lawyers to work actually doing something constructive for once in their lives -- fixing copyright so that it works in the Internet era. This may involve a small monthly fee along with my DSL bill -- I wouldn't mind paying $5 to $10 per month to allow for legal p2p downloads, YouTube viewing, etc. Forget DRM -- it just penalizes your customers and doesn't stop "piracy" anyway.
The market has changed, and resisting change isn't working. It is time to quit trying to turn back the clock, and time to move forward. The VCR didn't kill the Movie Industry (quite the opposite -- take that Jack V), quit bitching and get to work. Otherwise, Viacom, the RIAA, et. al. will end up committing slow suicide.
Your call guys.
Rant over.
Ballmer seems to be doing a good job of shooting off his mouth lately. First he says that Vista sales aren't where they should be due to Piracy. A few days later Bill Gates comes out and says that he is pleased with the sales of Vista. I tend to believe Bill on this one, yes upgrade sales of Vista are vastly down from when XP came out, but sales of new PCs are up -- numbers that make sense since Vista has been touted as running better on new hardware.
Now this -- I can see Microsoft taking the path that will profit them (in their opinion) the most. Software patents have not been that good for Microsoft, and I can see them feeling that they are better off without them. I'm sure that the lawyer in this case didn't decide to do this on his own -- the suits at Microsoft have changed direction. Ballmer should spend less time throwing chairs like Bobby Knight and spend more time seeing what is going on. Just my humble opinion.
Don't forget you can also rent movies either from a store or via Netflix. If you rent a movie that sucks, you are only out the amount of the rental, so it is not a big deal. If it is a movie you want to keep, then you can go down to the store and pick it up for around $20. The music industry in their infinite wisdom, got the laws changed to make renting CDs illegal, so that eliminates one way of previewing music. In addition, radio is so lame that it is almost useless for finding new tunes.
The RIAA keeps shooting themselves in the feet and then wonders why they are hobbling. It is easier to blame P2P then to look themselves in the mirror.
Do what Canada did. Once the Loonie (One Dollar Coin) and Twonie (Two Dollar Coin) was in circulation, they stopped making the $1 and $2 bills (I'm not sure what the time frame between introduction of the coin and the end of bill production was since I'm a Yank). The bills in circulation were allowed to remain in circulation until they were pulled due to wear and tear (I believe the average life of a dollar bill is about 18 months -- I would guess that the Canadian dollar bill's life was about the same). Over time the $1 and $2 bills disappeared and the coins took their place.
That is what we need to do in the U.S. if we want the dollar bill to go away. As long as there is a choice, we will continue to use the bill. Allowing the dollar bill to naturally disappear not only makes the transaction easier, but allows bills that are found later to still be used (I believe that the Canadian Dollar bill I have in my drawer is still legal tender).
Pennies and nickels are different since they are metal and not paper. Dates would have to be set for banks to begin pulling them out of circulation since the life of a coin can be decades instead of months. I'd say pull them after a certain date, but keep the coin as legal tender so that coins can be redeemed as they are found.
We have had to deal with this in our business -- converting Dollars or Euros to Swiss Francs. Francs only go down to the 0.05 level, while the Dollar and Euro both go down to the 0.01 level. In our business (gift cards) the conversion rule was below 0.025 rounded down to 0 while 0.025 up to 0.05 rounded up to 0.05 (rinse and repeat for other values).
What this means is if a customer from the E.U. comes into a Swiss store and buys an item for 9.95 Francs and the amount of cash on his card (issued in the E.U. and stored as Euros) is converted to 9.926 Francs (before rounding), the customer would have enough money on the card to complete the purchase and the merchant would be credited 9.95 Francs. In this case, the gift card issuer would lose a little bit of money in the transaction, but they would only lose up to the value of 0.025 Francs per transaction. Of course, if the conversion was a little over, they would gain up to 0.025 Francs, so in the end it would mostly even out.
We could drop the penny and follow the same basic rules for sales tax. If the amount of the purchase after tax is less than 0.025, round down, if it is between 0.025 and 0.05, round up (again, rinse and repeat for other values). This would mean that a purchase that comes to $4.47 would be charged $4.45 while a purchase for $4.48 would be charged $4.50.
Requiring the same rule for cash or electronic transactions would keep everything consistent, although I suppose you could allow EFT, Gift Card, and Credit Card transactions to go to the $0.01 level while only using the $0.05 rule for cash. That would make accounting a bookkeeping more difficult and open up opportunities for fraud.
I like living in a society ruled by laws as long as the laws are reasonable. Right now the current copyright and IP laws are broken -- they are just not working and the "content industry" keeps trying to "fix" it by passing ever more stringent laws and stronger DRM. Not only is this not working thus far, but is only contributing to the problem. Bad laws undermine the whole system of law and order; just look at Prohibition, the drug war, the 55 mph speed limit in the U.S., and the current copyright wars as examples.
There has to some kind of solution to the copyright that restores the balance between customers and creators, and passing more bad laws is NOT the answer. It is now going on 8 years since Napster appeared and new laws, lawsuits, and whining by the *AA's hasn't changed a thing. I think it is time to quit trying to put the genie back in the bottle and get on with coming up with something that everyone can live with.
There was only 1 box that I "hacked" during my honeymoon...
I wonder if Bill even considers WGA to be DRM in his mind. After all, you can copy a Windows XP install disk (I imagine it is the same for Vista) all you want, so the Windows disk is not, in his mind, copy protected. WGA and activation are required to use Windows, but it is not required to install it. In most people's minds, this is DRM, but I could see where Bill Gates might really believe that this is not the case when it comes to Microsoft products since there is no "copy protection" on the actual media.
Pennies were 95% copper until they changed the composition to copper coated zinc in 1982 (I think the 1983 penny was the first year they actually made pennies with the new mix). Dimes, Quarters, Half-Dollars and (I think) Dollars were silver until 1964. That is why you don't normally see any dimes or quarters from before the '60s in your change.
I guess the problem I have (at least in my own mind) is when does income in a virtual world become real. Should a business owned by an American in a virtual world like Second Life be the same (for tax purposes) as a business owned by an American in, for example, Canada. A business in Canada would be subject to Canadian taxes and U.S. taxes (I do not own a business in Canada and IANAL), so I'm not sure what all of the laws are, but a good Accountant or Tax lawyer would know.
If a Second Life business is taxable, how is the official exchange rate determined? Is it whatever Linden Lab says it is, and what happens if your business is taxed by a Second World "government?" Do the same rules apply as taxes payed to Revenue Canada ? Let's get even more exotic. What if I "live" in a Star Wars game world and run a business there? Do I need to declare the income from my business on Tatooine to the IRS? Do I get to deduct bribes payed to Jabba, taxes payed to Coruscant, and who decides the exchange rate of Imperial Credits to the U.S. Dollar? Can I pay my taxes in Imperial Credits, or must take the money out of the game world (if that is permitted) and pay in U.S. Dollars (or write a check in U.S. dollars and hope that the Imperial Credit stays stable.
I'm not trying to be an ass here, but I think that these are real questions that would need to be answered if the IRS decides to go in this direction.
I know that there are serious businesses in Second Life, but if the IRS decides to tax unconverted income (that is income that remains in Linden Dollars and not U.S. Dollars), a whole new can of worms in opened and rules must be made. I have no problem paying income tax (or capital gains) on money taken out of a virtual world, but I do have a problem with the IRS extending their jurisdiction into the virtual worlds themselves.
If I understand the article correctly, assets gained in a game would be taxable, even if they are never converted into "real" money. If I had a Second Life business that made 1 million Linden Dollars in a year, then I would be taxed at whatever the U.S. Dollar to Linden Dollar rate is, even if I never take the "money" out of Second Life. To me this is ridiculous -- that would be like me being required to pay taxes on properties won in a Monopoly Game. I may own the whole board, but that does not translate to any wealth in real life.
A better example might be the stock market. Stock in XYZ company that I bought for $10,000 may be worth $100,000 today, but I am only taxed on those "gains" if I sell the stock. After all, who is to say that the stock won't be worth $5,000, or even nothing if the company goes belly up. I think the same should apply with game worlds -- as long as the "money" stays in the game world it should not be taxable, but once the "money" is converted to real money or "real" goods and services, then tax is due. After all, if I have a million Linden dollars in Second Life and the Linden would go out of business (not saying that this is likely, but just as an example), then my million Linden dollars would be a valuable as Enron stock.
I can understand taxing businesses in these worlds that make "real" money, but I think it is a real slippery slope taxing "game" money made in an online world unless the profits are taken outside of the game world.
Backwards compatibility isn't the problem -- forwards compatibility is. For example, when Office 97 came out, it had an updated .doc format from Word 95 and Word 6.0 (last version of Word for Windows 3.1). Office 97 would open a document with the older word format with no problem, but companies using Office 95 could not open documents created with Office 97. The end result was the forced upgrade to Office 97 to be able to do business. Now, I don't think there were any major document format changes from Office 97 to Office 2003, so there were less pressure to upgrade.
One problem we have run into is that there are differences between Access 2000 and Access 2003. Access 2003 will open an Access 2000 database with no problem, but those still running Access 2000 cannot open an Access 2003 database. That left our company with 2 choices -- use Access 2000 for development or convert everyone to Access 2003. We are developing in Access 2000 for now, but all new desktops and laptops are getting XP Pro and Office 2003 Professional.
The original poster is correct -- in a certain way. Russia cannot pass whatever laws it wants if it wants to be part of the international community. In this case, the Russian government has determined that joining the WTO better serves the country than allowing allofmp3.com to continue selling music. Since they have to play by the WTO's rules to play, that is what they decided to do. There are many talented people in Russia, and I'm sure that played a part in the decision along with other economic benefits. There was also a little arm twisting going on, but even though Russia may not be the 800 lb. gorilla that the Soviet Union was back in the day, it still is a fairly large gorilla and could have fought back if wanted to.
This is one lesson I fear that the U.S. is going to have to learn in the (near?) future. We may be the only 800 lb. gorilla right now, but other gorillas (China, the E.U.) are getting bigger by the day, and who says the U.S. will remain as big as it is now? In the end, no nation can afford to be isolated too long. Russia chose to play nicely instead of being a bully.
You are right. 25 years ago would bring us to around the time of Iranian Hostage Crisis (started Nov. 4, 1979, ended when Reagan took office in 1981). At that time, most news came from Radio, the TV Network News, or newspapers. CNN was just getting started (June 1, 1980 was the launch date), and Nightline with Ted Koppel grew out of the nightly updates on things in Tehran.
By 1990, CNN was firmly in place and we got to see Desert Shield become Desert Storm live on TV. That was something -- one minute they were talking to the correspondent in Baghdad and everything was quiet, the next minute (as they were talking to him), all hell broke loose. Instant coverage by satellite was now possible.
The World Trade Center Bombing and the Branch Dividian fire in Waco in 1993 were the last major events before to occur before the WWW took off. By Oklahoma City, the web was mature enough to serve as an information source. TV and the web now give us almost instant information on what is happening -- more information that we can handle sometimes. Back in High School, Ted Koppel was our main source of up to the minute information, now I can browse cnn.com, the BBC, even Al Jazeera. There may be some information overload, but it is nice to be able to get other views of what is going on.
I think complete elimination of copyrights would be as bad as the current system where copyright keeps getting extended 20 more years every 20 years (Bono Act) and the hated DMCA and DRM. There has to be a middle ground where people (I won't say consumers) can get easy and open access to works while the creator can make a living. Requiring registration in order to get copyright registration is a first step. Compulsory licensing for non-profit uses may be a second step.
For example, I have seen some excellent amateur Doctor Who videos set to pop music songs on YouTube. With current copyright law everyone loses -- the video, while well done and enjoyable to watch is technically illegal and neither the BBC or musicians get a cent. I would be willing to pay say $5 to $10 dollars a month extra (collected by my Internet provider) into a fund that would allow videos like that to be legal (and the artist(s) compensated). It would also be nice to be able to fire up my favorite p2p software (legally) and have a share of the fund go to the creator of the song, TV program, or Movie that I downloaded.
I realise that there is a lot of negotiation, planning, and work that would have be done before such a scheme would work, but it would be nice to see everyone win for once. The current system is badly broken, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not the answer.
This is exactly the reason why they should have never ended copyright registration. If the Government still required registration in order for a work to be protected under copyright, then it would be easy to track who owns it. Require renewal every 14 years -- if the copyright is not renewed, then the work passes into the public domain after a 1 year grace period. This would make it easy to track down the rights holder(s). If there are multiple holders (i.e. recording artist, music writer, and lyricist), then they could all be listed or the copyright contact could be an agent.
Registration of copyrights would solve Google/YouTube's problem and would also solve the problem of abandoned works. If the work isn't important enough to register, then it should be fair game.
I have already quit using MS Office at home -- I had a copy of Office 2000 on my desktop computer, but didn't bother to reinstall it after I replaced the hard drive and re-installed XP. Open Office went on it instead. We have 4 computers at home (my desktop, my laptop, my Daughter's desktop, and her laptop), and buying MS Office for all of these machines would be insanely expensive, so instead of pirating MS Office, I installed Open Office on all four machines. The price is right, and I have no worries about pirated software.
Open Office works great for everything we do. My Daughter writes her papers for school with it, I keep spreadsheets for bills and other stuff using it, and it all works without a hitch. If I do need to use MS Office for something, my work computer has it installed.
I can see MS Office losing market share if it continues with the Genuine Advantage crap. MS products will still dominate (at least for the time being) in the work place, but I can see open source becoming popular in the home. Vista will most likely still be dominate because it will come standard with new PCs, but that could change down the line.
Bullet through vest! Was too slow.
Damn, I wish I had mod points today. This is the most insightful post that I have seen on this subject thus far. Google didn't spend over a billion dollars for You Tube without some kind of game plan, and this makes perfect sense.
That's the way to encourage adaption of open source software. Most people are of the mind "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" when it comes to things (never mind that Windows is broken in many ways, many people are comfortable with it).
In this case, open source is filling a need -- namely we need a decent word processing program that doesn't cost a fortune, and Open Office fits the bill. Your law student friends were happy, so OSS has some new friends. Who knows, Open Office may eventually come the word processing program of choice at your law school. Software that is free (as in beer), good, and legal -- the perfect combo for someone in school.
I have Open Office, the Gimp, CDex, and FireFox on all of the PCs in our house. My 15 year old Daughter uses OO for her school papers -- it sure beats pirating or putting out a bunch money for MS Office.