One of the deals is with WENN to sell celebrities' pictures, specifically. However, the adjusted ToS does indeed essentially mean they can sell Joe Schmoe's pictures just as well.
That said... one part of TwitPic dude's blog statement rings very true. A lot of media are simply taking pictures and videos off the interwebs - be that TwitPic and YouTube or quasistevesdomain.com - and publish them in newspapers, in magazine articles, broadcast them on TV, etc.
If you're lucky they'll add a source:TwitPic / source:YouTube (which of course mean absolutely nothing as it doesn't identify the user at all) / source:quasistevesdomain.com .
I say "if you're lucky", because if you catch media doing this and try to point out that you retain the copyrights to that picture (not so on TwitPic anymore, not so for ages on YouTube, but certainly so on quasistevesdomain.com ) and would like to talk about their licensing the picture appropriately... oh boy. Unless you already have a lawyer ready that can spell things out for them directly, you're going to hear from their legal department on how you should be *glad* they used your picture/video, how it can bring you exposure, and how you should leverage that exposure to gain business. Just how that business should be gained when the next media company is also just going to use your picture/video is not entirely clear.
But, then again, I suppose that is very much in line with music / movie downloaders telling artists that they should be happy that they're downloading because it helps spread the word. Or something.
You'll get students that want to play with 3DSMax or something but can't really swing the $3,500 asking price so they'll download it. That is NOT a lost sale, if it was impossible to copy, they'd simply do without because they haven't the money.
Students can get student discounts - especially if their area of education actually deals with e.g. 3D content production.
But more importantly - every time somebody downloads 3ds Max "to play with", that means they may -not- be downloading, for example, Blender to play with. Or any other free or cheap 3D graphics application.
I wish people who 'defend', or rather 'excuse', so-called pirates using whatever argument they come up with this time would use that energy to instead promote other, affordable, solutions.. as the companies/people behind those solutions are ultimately who get hurt by piracy more than the companies behind the major multi-thousand dollar pirated product.
The Netherlands has such a system on standard text messages. The broadcasting agency in question simply selects what region to broadcast an SMS-alert to, and all cellphones within that region (basically the ones currently registered to given towers) get the SMS if the user signed up for the type of alert in question (though some can override, i.e. in case of major disaster.. say a chlorine spill).
Before the text messages, they used a different system - the SMS-cell broadcast channels. Many older phones are capable of receiving these, but most users aren't signed up for the channels in question. Many newer phones don't even offer an interface to this anymore. Hence the switch to SMS. Most of the channels are also not used by providers in NL. They figured out that they could get more money by offering information for-pay, or letting for-pay SMS operators pay them, than giving the information for free. I.e. current local time, weather, etc. The only one that seems to be consistently available is channel 050; area code. Even though NL hardly has area code segmentation anymore, and certainly not for cellphones, it's still reported, and crossing into some other municipality does cause a cell broadcast notification on my older phone.
Long story short - why do they want a separate chip, exactly?
But they're not customers. They're consumers of the type who offer zero compensation for the consumption; freeloaders.
When it comes to music, you're wrong. The academic research suggests that people that share heavily tend to buy more music.
Going to have to address that rebuttal in two parts.
There's two assumptions you're making as a result of that research.
The first one is a misapplication to what I said about people who consume a product, and don't pay, while payment is the social contract on the table for the product, being Freeloaders of said product. You can then argue high and low about statistics showing X, or personal experience showing Y - it doesn't change their freeloading of the product in question unless you modify the parameters such that the person does pay for it; which rather defies the argument.
The second is an assumption in the research. People who download are more likely to purchase. But the devil is in the details. Downloads are more likely to be purchasers of media (music, movies) than people who don't download. However, people who download media are probably more likely to be consumers of said goods in the first place. Somebody who downloads a movie every night is probably an avid movie viewer to begin with. They're already more likely to be purchasing DVDs/Blu-Rays/going to the theater.
The questions that should be asked and answered is 1. whether the same people purchase more or less than before they started their downloading in absolute numbers and 2. as a percentage of their downloads - with the first being relevant to the discussion (i.e. does the industry gain purchases from them directly, or lose them, due to their downloading) and the second being more academic in nature (the whole doesn't-mean-I-would've-bought-it-if-I-couldn't-have-downloaded-it argument, which is plenty solid).
So to apply the above to your statement:
Films may be different, but everyone I know that admits to downloading films also buys them.
Your sentence construction is ambiguous. Are you saying they buy every film they download, or are you saying that of the N people who download M movies, N people also buy X movies where X <= M?
For every movie that they watch, but don't purchase (or rent, or otherwise consume without the requested compensation for the form of viewing involved): they are freeloading.
There's more content available than it's possible to view in a lifetime. There's more content available than most people can afford to buy.
So people use popularity metrics to determine what to watch, and buy as much as they can afford. If they download a little more, that hasn't stopped them being a customer,
But for the product that they download, but do not remit the due compensation, they are not a customer. They're a consumer. See earlier post.
it hasn't led to lower total revenues for the industry,
That depends on the other argument of whether or not they would have purchased it if they couldn't have downloaded it. Note that I'm in no way pulling MPAA-math where every download = lost sale. But I'm also not inclined to think that every download != lost sale. Some of those downloads would, inevitably, have been sales. Similarly, some downloads lead to sales that otherwise would not have been made. Figuring out which amounts to exactly what is an impossible task.
Note also that this only applies per-individual. If you're talking about the entire industry, then you could well argue that revenues are steady, or up, but then I'd also argue that there's an increasing population, and especially an increasing population with the means to consume entertainment on a level far beyond that of, say, 10 years ago. Which has no bearing on individual situations which should be assessed, well, individually.
What really irks me, is that they'll try to sue these people into paying rather than engaging them as customers.
But they're not customers. They're consumers of the type who offer zero compensation for the consumption; freeloaders.
They're potential customers - but how do you get a 'pirate' to become a customer?
MPAA, here's an idea, instead of sending notices to ISPs about someone stealing a movie, how about you work with ISPs to send the downloader a link to pay for the movie instead.
Well that's excellent, but isn't that basically saying that if you get caught, you get a chance to purchase the movie after the fact, no harm no foul? Where is the deterring factor in that? Either I torrent the movie and nothing happens, or I torrent the movie and I'll have to purchase it at its current going rate. I'll be torrenting, then. The only deterrent in there is with regard to torrenting a whole bunch of movies. 20 movies at, say, $11.99, is still about $240. But why would I be torrenting 20 movies at the same time?
Give the option to rent or buy it, and play with the price until you find a sweet spot these el cheapo's are willing to fork over.
Now you're making it even more attractive to torrent. Now I either don't get caught, or if I get caught, I pretty much get to name my price! Well, I'll let them play with the price until it hits, hmm.. *pinkie to mouth*..one dollar...cent! People who buy the movies at $11.99 are clearly fools in this scenario; they should torrent instead and then legally buy the movie far below the SRP - maybe not for $0.01, but how about $2?
At which point all those fools will clue up and tell the movie companies that they have no interest in buying the $11.99 product if people who break the law are rewarded by being able to purchase it for $2, and demand that they, too, be able to purchase it for $2.
Or is that pretty much your entire plan - that the studios should just make movies available for the $2 to everyone? Which would only take partial care of the cost issue (remember, I wanted the movie for $0.01, so $2 is 200 times too expensive for my taste), and does nothing to address availability, convenience, etc.
So back to the whole making 'pirates' pay whatever they like.. what if you end up in a situation where a wise guy like me comes along and says $0.01, which is clearly not feasible. Say the studio wants to go no lower than e.g. $5. What then? Do they still get to sue the people who choose not to pay said $5?
Threatening them with lawsuits because it seems like a great way to set an example hasn't worked thus far, why keep beating this dead horse then?
Thus my last question answered.
So now we've got the following options: - Purchase at full price, and you're an idiot. - Torrent and don't get caught. - Torrent, get caught, and pay $5. - Torrent, get caught, don't pay anyway because the dead-horse-flogging argument means you ultimately don't run any risk.
Conclusion under the system you propose: Torrent away, as there is near-zero* incentive not to do so.
( * You might want a physical product. Presumably the pay-after-caught option doesn't mean you get the physical product mailed to you. If it does, then s/near-zero/zero. )
Judging by the negative reactions already, I wonder.. what should SONY do?
Right now they're offering all sorts of stuff that usually isn't offered at all. You get a small post on a website or in (a) major newspaper(s) at best that tells you there was a breach, oopsie, and go contact your credit card issuer if you think that's a Bad Thing.
But clearly doing more than most other businesses do, isn't good enough.
So what should SONY do?
Viable options only, please. "Die in a fire" and "pay me $1M" and such I'm gonna guess aren't viable - solid arguments as to why they would be are welcomed nevertheless, they might yield a +5 Funny if nothing else.
While a particular group may have been responsible for the data theft
[Joe Downloader] it's not theft. It's copyright infringement.
There would still have been privacy implication
[Joe NoSuchThingAsPrivacyOnTheNet] people shouldn't complain that when they put information on a third party network that said information can become public.
less appealing to hackers
[Joe HackerVsCracker]... ffs not this again.
Slightly more on-topic: SONY may be in no small part culpable, but they're not responsible for the breach and dissemination of the data. Whoever made their way into their systems, is.
SONY is also handling this much better than I had expected. Paying for people to replace their CCs? Head honchos publicly showing humility with a deep bow? Offering a free time of premium content + free days for every day that the network is down?
Usually you're lucky if you catch a small ad in a major newspaper where the company says 'my bad' and recommends you contact your credit card issuer.
nobody in the media has noticed that Osama chose to hide out in a city named after a British colonial overlord
Seriously? Maybe you should change your venue of media. It was explicitly mentioned on the Dutch news in several of the first few news broadcasts on Monday morning.
Checking Google News, I'd say there's also plenty of other media that spent 30 seconds on Wikipedia or something to find out a little historical background on the town; http://www.google.com/search?q=Abbottabad+"james+abbott"
TomTom asks users if they would like to share 'anonymous' (since leaving place X and returning there every weekday is kinda indicatory) traffic information with TomTom in order to improve services. The fine print says that TomTom can also make this information available to 3rd parties.
One of those 3rd parties is a research company. They take datasets and provide condensed reports based on them.
One of the reports they generated revealed either A. where people were speeding or B. simply what speed people were driving. Not individual users - just a breakdown of numbers. N data points, X% of those N > 120kph, Y% between 100kph and 120kph, etc.
This report is what the police apparently use to decide that if every day there's 1,000 people going 140 where they're only supposed to go 100 (arguments of whether 140 is safe etc. is another story), they should place some speed traps there.. be that to make a safer situation, as a cashcow, or simply because they felt like annoying the speeding drivers.
That's it. There wasn't a direct line from TomTom to the police. In addition, that same information is used by the government to determine if perhaps an extra lane should be added, or whether the speed limit should actually be increased (it's usually environment/noise regulations that limit roads to a certain speed).
Now TomTom, pretty much pandering to their audience (the ones that download speed trap location POI's being pretty much the majority) by saying they're going to adjust the terms of use of the datasets so the police couldn't do what they did anymore.
I have no idea how TomTom thinks they're gonna do that, given that they have no direct relationship with the police -and- the data can be used for perfectly good things as well. Tell the research company they can only sell on the distilled information to the government if they include a clause that the police can't use this information to place speed traps? What if one of the research companies simply dumps the average speed on major roads as a picture or google maps data on the internet. Now what - that picture/google maps information needs a clause saying "If you're a cop, you can't use this information"?
Hence the 'pandering to their audience'. There's pretty much nothing they could actually do to halt the use of information for purposes that their customers aren't too keen on, other than simply not selling the data at all.
The signing happens on a separate chip. This means that all you actually need to get a fictional piece of graphics to be signed is to fake being the device's sensor. This is well beyond the capabilities of the average Joe - but certainly not beyond technical capabilities.
The signing method itself being cracked, of course, puts the ability to get any image signed into the hands of said average Joe.
Your one-liner omits the all-important part that separates it from the iOS (and Android) issue:
Microsoft did stress is that if location services are disabled on the phone, then any and all location information, including the device IDs, is no longer sent to the company.
The question ars should have asked Microsoft is whether enabling GPS and -disabling- location services through WiFi and cell towers is possible and whether doing so will also prevent location information to be sent to their servers.
Note that for WiFi and cell tower positioning to work, you almost have to send the basic information to a server as the alternative is to download a database of wifi hotspot IDs and cell tower IDs ahead of time and let apps correlate against that. That works okay for a small region - not so much for e.g. the entire continental United States. I would be very surprised if iOS and Android used the latter model.
Pretty much a non-story there except for also sending the DeviceID along. Though odds are that if you're essentially communicating with microsoft's servers and their services, the DeviceID isn't the only identifying metric; unless it were open to anything making a query.
And yes, these kinds of things are necessary in a smartphone.
Remind us again how storing location information (no matter how crude and how irregularly sampled) for extended periods of time, is necessary in a smartphone?
Let's take what you're saying and apply it to the actual situation.
You use your phone to send your conversations with people over the air through a series of third party servers -and- your phone stores some of these conversations as 8kHz 8bit.wav files in a location that is not normally accessible and you are not made aware of, for a period no less than several months.
You wouldn't find that a little bit odd at the very least, apparently unnecessary and wasteful, and perhaps slightly - if not completely - wtf-worthy?
Your example for GPS specifically sucks because with GPS, there is no transmission of data to servers. The GPS module gets signals from the satellites and uses that to determine where it is just then. I can turn GPS on or off. I can -choose- to use it, or not use it. Typically, unless I instruct the device to do so, it also doesn't log the location information. I say typically because obviously there do exist devices that are specifically made for that purpose. I don't think the iPhone counts as one, though.
Everybody saying 'Android does this too' (ignoring the differences) or saying it's not so bad because it's your own phone, it's inaccurate, and on the desktop you can enable encryption, are oblivious to the simple question: why log this at all? I've seen no reasonable answer to this as of yet - merely speculation for targeted advertising, but that's all it is; speculation.
Apple should have said what this really is about: Your iDevice can't determine its position by using the MAC addresses of nearby WiFi points unless Apple knows the locations of those WiFi points. And Apple's servers can't tell your iDevice where it is right now, unless the iDevice gives them the information that Apple's servers need to determine the location of your iDevice.
Wait. the iDevice needs to tell the Apple Servers where it was days, weeks, even months ago... in order for the Apple Servers to tell the iDevice where it is?
There's three main schools of thought for enviromentalism
1. the nutty Gaia-worshiping dirty hippies (who believe many crazy things against science)
2. the Greenwashing Corporation Movement (pretending to be environmental to save money on dyes, water, etc., while diverting attention from the crazy Gaia-worshipers)
3. and the enlightened self-interest people.
bias? what bias?
I fall into the latter camp.
As somebody else has already said.. of course you do *pat pat*.
But I don't think you actually do. I think you fall into category number two. Let's re-state the gist of it: pretending to be environmental to save money
Now let's look at your claims:
I think global warming is a real problem.
Alright! Admitting there's a problem is the first step.
I also won't give up driving a car
Nobody says you have to - though some may take issue with the 'gas guzzler' type. Clearly driving a car can be a necessity.
and biking to work (which is a 5.5 hour drive in my car, twice a month),
Bit of a grammar fail there. I'm going to guess that you meant you won't be biking to work, rather than not giving that up. A 5.5 hour drive to work is a bit much. Even a 9-5 job would be pretty much undoable. But you say it's only twice a month, so I suspect this is a far cry from a 9-5 job.
or taking public transportation, or any of the other nonsensical things that hippies suggest we should do for Earth day.
I'm pretty sure the hippies - be they dirty or otherwise - suggest people take the bike or public transport, when feasible, every day. Not just on Earth day. Clearly, it's not feasible for you to bike to work. But when you need a pack of batteries, do you take the car 10 blocks down the road to a store, or do you get on the bike? That's the type of thing where taking a bike is feasible. I also presume that public transport can't take you to work those 2 times a month, or that you have personal issues with the mode of transport (U.S. buses are quite different from the ones in Western Europe, and I'd think twice about being in a Greyhound for 5.5 hours, too.)
But I don't, you know, hate the environment. I go backpacking a lot, never litter, and so forth.
Well there's a bit of a difference between hating the environment and going out of your way to take care of the environment. Backpacking may be enjoying the environment, but it doesn't do much for the care of said environment other than park services and the like tending to hiking routes.. but that's park services, and not you. Similarly, I'm glad you don't litter. But when you see litter, do you pick it up and put it in a trashbin? If all you do is 'not litter'.. again, that's not doing much for the environment at all.
This covers the pretending to be environmental clause of category 2. You're not actually being environmental, but you like to suggest that you are by not going out of your way to affect said environment negatively.
But I put solar on my home solely for economic reasons (the CO2 reduction is just gravy) - if I can generate power myself at half the rate PG&E charges me, why shouldn't I do it?
And this doesn't really need a detailed exposition. This is the to save money clause of category 2 and overlaps with the earlier clause. You're not doing anything for the environment, you're doing it for the money. You say it yourself, 'the CO2 reduction is just gravy'.
To top it off, Bill, your Shaka Energy Plan is all about having zero individual, personal, responsibility (let the energy companies figure it out) or burden (won't raise energy rates). In your own words, why shouldn't you support such a plan ( having slapped your name on it aside;) ).
If you like it watch it. If you don't like it don't watch it. If many people like it there will be more of it. If not, then not.
If only everyone thought that level-headed. Instead, some people are ready to declare war on (stereoscopic) 3D, citing a myriad of reasons (technical, psychological, medical) why -they- don't like it. And because -they- don't like it, nobody else should either.
Example: the article cited. "Why People Should Stop Being Duped By the 3D Scam".
I know it's not actually 3D (though it has information on 3 spatial dimensions). I know the picture is slightly fuzzier (I've got sub-par optics in front of my eyes). I know it's slightly dimmer (either due to shutters or due to polarization). But on several movies, I have still very much enjoyed it.
According to people like Jason Hiner, I'm being duped. I'm buying into a scam. And, depending on interpretation, I'm not very smart (because 'a lot of smart people' are avoiding 3D). Therefore, I shall not have a 3D movie. I shall not have a 3D TV. I am not allowed that form of entertainment because -they- believe I shouldn't.
I, and most people who enjoy 3D to whatever extent, however don't take such a hard-line stance. I don't say that Jason Hiner must only be fed 3D movies. That the only TVs he should be able to buy must be 3D. If nothing else, I tell people like Jason Hiner that if they do not like the 3D version, find a theater that screens the 2D version. If you don't want to watch the 3D version on your 3D TV, turn off the 3D feature (better with active shutter type, as polarized screens will still be in place for the passive type).
Everything about 3D enables both myself, and him, to receive entertainment in the way we both enjoy. Going the other way around, however, is lacking. He even says as much himself.
The only reasonable argument he has for '3D is affecting my entertainment' is in how movies are directed. Avoidance of fast cuts or fast action that is all over the screen. Last I knew, that was one of the main complaints about 'action' movies of late.. that cuts were split seconds apart, and there was so much action on screen that the scene itself fails to impress because people are confused about what is going on. Almost seems like how 3D affects production would be a benefit, then.
Fortunately, even if he doesn't buy into that argument, there are still plenty of 2D-from-the-get-go movies being made as well; some of which specifically because the director felt that its story was -better- told in 2D.
I'm not about to tell that director that it would be better in 3D. Please don't let Jason Hiner be so pretentious as to think that he can tell directors that movies would be better in 2D. Let the directors decide for the movie, and the audience decide for the viewership.
That said.. if stereoscopic 3D is killed off once more (the role of vocal detractors not further examined), I won't particularly shed a tear over it. I like it, and I would miss it, but I could do without it. I'm doing without surround sound as it is. I could probably go back to b/w (greyscale) movies and still be entertained even if it's played back in YouTube quality 240p.
actually, a much LARGER array of software vendors, feel free to count how many large makers already have iOS software designed for students of all levels
and how many -vendors- are they selling through?
I have no issue with the program because the iPad 2 is, quite probably, the best platform to do this with, for all the reasons you mentioned (which was my "and why you should love it" part of the argument).
But each and every one of those kids - short of the ones looking to jailbreak the thing - are going to have to go through Apple for.. well, pretty much everything.
Say what you wish about alternative platforms - but even with Microsoft's offering you could get your software from Microsoft or from the local computer store; and neither Microsoft nor the device manufacturer (say, HP) saw so much as a cent from those additional purchases let alone that they had a say over them.
As far as the pledge of allegiance goes - you're not required to recite it. But that's pretty off-topic anyway.
On an even more off-topic note: "It's been 51 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment." I guess I'll hit the Submit button in the morning, then. Wouldn't want to post-flood Slashdot, now would we. So now it's morning and there's an invalid form key. Geeze. Posting here was easier when I was an AC.
I can pull up GPS tracks that state my car was stationary at Amundsen-Scott, or that it was doing Mach 8 over Libya. That alone makes it inadmissable 'as is'.
You'd need a GPS unit that is certified tamper-proof, that has been calibrated, have the calibration report, make sure it's recent, get some engineer or otherwise authoritative figure from the manufacturer to vet for the device, etc. Essentially the same stuff the cops need to have if you challenge e.g. a laser/radar measurement.
The reason this guy's defense worked is because he used the local government's own 'evidence' against them. Whether that evidence was actually relevant to the speeding charges or not is debatable - the judge seems to think it is, and I can understand a layman to expect it to be as well.
I've seen that video before and find it ridiculous. It proves nothing since they are not simulating real world conditions. Going the speed limit does not cause those problems, lining up and deliberately blocking all lanes does.
But if they were driving at the speed limit - be that 55mph or 70mph - then they wouldn't be blocking anything.
Think for a moment what blocking would mean; somebody behind that row who is going faster than they are. If they are going the speed limit, then that means whoever they're blocking is actually going over the speed limit.
A row of cars driving at the speed limit thus wouldn't be a problem. ( Short of emergency services, in case they can't drive on the shoulder or there is no shoulder to drive on. )
However, it does become a problem if certain traffic flows are expected to pass a certain stretches of the road in a certain amount of time. Traffic light timing might depend on traffic making it from A to B in 30 seconds, for example, so that by the time the last of that traffic hits point B, it opens traffic at point A up again. But if for that 30 seconds the cars should be going around 70mph, and the speed limit is actually 55mph.. well then the traffic will take 42 seconds to get from A to B. But at 30 seconds the traffic is opened at point A again, while point B gets closed - so some traffic doesn't make it through. Slowly but surely, traffic on that stretch of road builds up, until it's completely gridlocked.
Which, of course, is exactly how too-low speed limits should be combated. Driving fast anyway and getting a ticket just means you're feeding somebody's revenue. Driving the speed limit and getting traffic locked up, requiring the local government to go send out cops to figure out why traffic is locked up, direct traffic, and listen to the talking heads on the local channels complaining of all the time and money lost by businesses due to the locked up traffic... that will get them to re-think those speed limits.
total train wreck that was the Charlize Theron version of "Aeon Flux"
Perhaps I'm biased for having watched the movie first, and the TV 'cartoon' series second. But I found the latter to be a far greater trainwreck.
Between the inconsistent drawing and the artist's desire to draw wriggling tongues from a myriad of characters, there's the death of Aeon Flux. The multiple deaths of Aeon Flux, I should say. I'm not sure what I watched, but I'm sure glad it was only about $10 when I picked it up out of a bargain bin.
Not excusing the movie for its obvious flaws, but at least something coherent was roughly built around the 'universe' set up in the series.
What I was talking about was already pointed out by others while I was typing my post - but seeing as I have to wait half an eternity to post another comment, the following didn't get included 15 minutes ago:
Right. 250GB. Gigabyte. That's what I get for even double-checking by reading the blog post:
Good: Comcast just announced the ultrafast, ultra-broadband "Extreme 105" 105 Mbit/sec
Bad: It put a data cap on the service of 250 Gbit per month
250Gigabyte cap does result in 5 hours. On the other hand, it also results in a 250Gigabyte cap.
That's not 8 BD movie tips. That's 62 BD movie rips.
Now I really don't understand what the fuss is about and I stand by my earlier statement... if you want that 24/7, no cap, get a dedicated line.
And given that there is this posting frequency limit... I know perfectly well how people use their connections. People who watch YouTube all day long or fully use their Netflix account - not just piracy. I get that. But for those people, perhaps a lower speed account with a higher cap (or 'fair use policy' type cap) would be more appropriate?
250Gbit / 105Mb/s = "about five hours worth of full-bandwidth use". Since when?
250,000,000,000
105,000,000
250,000b / 105b/s ~= 2381s
2381s / 60s/m ~= 40m
Either one of the numbers is wrong or his math is way off.
Not that this paints a prettier picture.
Then again:
250Gbit / 8bit/byte = 31,250,000,000
Who downloads 31Gb per month but doesn't get a dedicated line for the purposes?
Well I can guess who - but even a typical blu-ray rip (not an ISO) is what.. 4GiB? That's still about 8 such movies in a month if you're into that sort of thing.
If you really need the bandwidth -and- lack of cap.. get a dedicated line. This offer seems to be for people / small business who might need a high burst rate for certain things (i.e. on the phone, need to send a 50MB file being referenced, don't want to wait 2 minutes on the phone for receipt, etc.) but wouldn't typically hit the cap.
As long as these caps are clearly advertised.. who cares?
It takes all of a couple minutes to open an account on Slashdot
Very well - done.
That being said you're sounding a bit like a troll to me.
I'm not sure how that changes now that there's a username and UID to go with the posts - a subject you didn't address, either as pertaining to myself or pertaining to you, despite feeling so strongly about it - but okay.
On to the meat of the post...
I don't think you read this entire thread or you'd find the answer to your "question" in there.
I'm not sure why you're putting quotes there. It's a fairly straightforward question: Under what terms would you pay - not possibly pay, but would pay - for music? See previous posts for full details.
You said you gave the answer to that question in (a) reply/replies to other comments. Slashdot's discussion system does odd things now that I have an account, so I went through your posting history instead.
In #35832174 you point out that the current approach of trying to tighten laws by - or have laws written for - the music industry is just pissing people off. This has no bearing on my question.
In #35832142 you point out that the music industry isn't changing fast enough. You also suggest that artists no longer need to go through record labels, that you have no problem with centralized distribution channels, but that you don't want what's currently happening and that is that said distribution channels are trying to squeeze every penny out of every little thing. This might have bearing on my question - but there's no details, so I can't be certain.
In #35832034 you suggest that the music industry would love for radio to be moved to a subscription model and point out that this is already failing with regard to satellite radio. No bearing on my question. Unless part of the answer to my question is "free to receive radio". But in the same post you conclude that with the ability of people having a library of music as large as an average radio station on their iPod, they're not too inclined to be listening to radio in the first place. So I don't know about that one.
In #35832002 you point out that you tend not to buy new CDs where a portion of the money would go to the RIAA. You tend to buy used CDs instead. However, if it can't be found used, you'll sometimes buy new. You'd also buy new if more artists would sell directly. This largely has bearing on my question - which I already pointed out in my previous comment. Your answer is that you'd be more inclined to buy from artists directly. But this is only part of the equation. Would you buy from those artists if they only sold their music in DRM'd WMA? I'd hazard a guess and say 'no' based on a later comment. That's why I asked you specifically under what terms you'd pay for the music. If "must be sold by artist directly" is one of those terms, that's great. I'm all for it. But is that the only term? Your original post made mention of "the formats we want", which this doesn't address at all.
In #35831974 you do lay out some additional terms that would certainly go against the DRM idea, as noted above. That specific post seems to take me back a decade or so - I'm pretty sure every CD can now be neatly ripped to MP3 and distributed across all of those platforms without any additional cashflow to the RIAA as a result. But, again - "no DRM" - a term already mentioned above.
There's two more posts where you attack ACs mostly for being AC that don't contain any additional information.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the deals is with WENN to sell celebrities' pictures, specifically. However, the adjusted ToS does indeed essentially mean they can sell Joe Schmoe's pictures just as well.
This was my submission with a few more links:
http://slashdot.org/submission/1575674/TwitPic-to-start-selling-users-pictures
That said... one part of TwitPic dude's blog statement rings very true. A lot of media are simply taking pictures and videos off the interwebs - be that TwitPic and YouTube or quasistevesdomain.com - and publish them in newspapers, in magazine articles, broadcast them on TV, etc.
If you're lucky they'll add a source:TwitPic / source:YouTube (which of course mean absolutely nothing as it doesn't identify the user at all) / source:quasistevesdomain.com .
I say "if you're lucky", because if you catch media doing this and try to point out that you retain the copyrights to that picture (not so on TwitPic anymore, not so for ages on YouTube, but certainly so on quasistevesdomain.com ) and would like to talk about their licensing the picture appropriately... oh boy. Unless you already have a lawyer ready that can spell things out for them directly, you're going to hear from their legal department on how you should be *glad* they used your picture/video, how it can bring you exposure, and how you should leverage that exposure to gain business. Just how that business should be gained when the next media company is also just going to use your picture/video is not entirely clear.
But, then again, I suppose that is very much in line with music / movie downloaders telling artists that they should be happy that they're downloading because it helps spread the word. Or something.
You'll get students that want to play with 3DSMax or something but can't really swing the $3,500 asking price so they'll download it. That is NOT a lost sale, if it was impossible to copy, they'd simply do without because they haven't the money.
Students can get student discounts - especially if their area of education actually deals with e.g. 3D content production.
But more importantly - every time somebody downloads 3ds Max "to play with", that means they may -not- be downloading, for example, Blender to play with. Or any other free or cheap 3D graphics application.
I wish people who 'defend', or rather 'excuse', so-called pirates using whatever argument they come up with this time would use that energy to instead promote other, affordable, solutions.. as the companies/people behind those solutions are ultimately who get hurt by piracy more than the companies behind the major multi-thousand dollar pirated product.
The Netherlands has such a system on standard text messages. The broadcasting agency in question simply selects what region to broadcast an SMS-alert to, and all cellphones within that region (basically the ones currently registered to given towers) get the SMS if the user signed up for the type of alert in question (though some can override, i.e. in case of major disaster.. say a chlorine spill).
Before the text messages, they used a different system - the SMS-cell broadcast channels. Many older phones are capable of receiving these, but most users aren't signed up for the channels in question. Many newer phones don't even offer an interface to this anymore. Hence the switch to SMS.
Most of the channels are also not used by providers in NL. They figured out that they could get more money by offering information for-pay, or letting for-pay SMS operators pay them, than giving the information for free. I.e. current local time, weather, etc. The only one that seems to be consistently available is channel 050; area code. Even though NL hardly has area code segmentation anymore, and certainly not for cellphones, it's still reported, and crossing into some other municipality does cause a cell broadcast notification on my older phone.
Long story short - why do they want a separate chip, exactly?
Going to have to address that rebuttal in two parts.
There's two assumptions you're making as a result of that research.
The first one is a misapplication to what I said about people who consume a product, and don't pay, while payment is the social contract on the table for the product, being Freeloaders of said product.
You can then argue high and low about statistics showing X, or personal experience showing Y - it doesn't change their freeloading of the product in question unless you modify the parameters such that the person does pay for it; which rather defies the argument.
The second is an assumption in the research. People who download are more likely to purchase. But the devil is in the details. Downloads are more likely to be purchasers of media (music, movies) than people who don't download. However, people who download media are probably more likely to be consumers of said goods in the first place. Somebody who downloads a movie every night is probably an avid movie viewer to begin with. They're already more likely to be purchasing DVDs/Blu-Rays/going to the theater.
The questions that should be asked and answered is 1. whether the same people purchase more or less than before they started their downloading in absolute numbers and 2. as a percentage of their downloads - with the first being relevant to the discussion (i.e. does the industry gain purchases from them directly, or lose them, due to their downloading) and the second being more academic in nature (the whole doesn't-mean-I-would've-bought-it-if-I-couldn't-have-downloaded-it argument, which is plenty solid).
So to apply the above to your statement:
Your sentence construction is ambiguous. Are you saying they buy every film they download, or are you saying that of the N people who download M movies, N people also buy X movies where X <= M?
For every movie that they watch, but don't purchase (or rent, or otherwise consume without the requested compensation for the form of viewing involved): they are freeloading.
But for the product that they download, but do not remit the due compensation, they are not a customer. They're a consumer. See earlier post.
That depends on the other argument of whether or not they would have purchased it if they couldn't have downloaded it. Note that I'm in no way pulling MPAA-math where every download = lost sale. But I'm also not inclined to think that every download != lost sale. Some of those downloads would, inevitably, have been sales. Similarly, some downloads lead to sales that otherwise would not have been made. Figuring out which amounts to exactly what is an impossible task.
Note also that this only applies per-individual. If you're talking about the entire industry, then you could well argue that revenues are steady, or up, but then I'd also argue that there's an increasing population, and especially an increasing population with the means to consume entertainment on a level far beyond that of, say, 10 years ago. Which has no bearing on individual situations which should be assessed, well, individually.
But they're not customers. They're consumers of the type who offer zero compensation for the consumption; freeloaders.
They're potential customers - but how do you get a 'pirate' to become a customer?
Well that's excellent, but isn't that basically saying that if you get caught, you get a chance to purchase the movie after the fact, no harm no foul?
Where is the deterring factor in that? Either I torrent the movie and nothing happens, or I torrent the movie and I'll have to purchase it at its current going rate. I'll be torrenting, then. The only deterrent in there is with regard to torrenting a whole bunch of movies. 20 movies at, say, $11.99, is still about $240. But why would I be torrenting 20 movies at the same time?
Now you're making it even more attractive to torrent. Now I either don't get caught, or if I get caught, I pretty much get to name my price! Well, I'll let them play with the price until it hits, hmm.. *pinkie to mouth* ..one dollar...cent!
People who buy the movies at $11.99 are clearly fools in this scenario; they should torrent instead and then legally buy the movie far below the SRP - maybe not for $0.01, but how about $2?
At which point all those fools will clue up and tell the movie companies that they have no interest in buying the $11.99 product if people who break the law are rewarded by being able to purchase it for $2, and demand that they, too, be able to purchase it for $2.
Or is that pretty much your entire plan - that the studios should just make movies available for the $2 to everyone? Which would only take partial care of the cost issue (remember, I wanted the movie for $0.01, so $2 is 200 times too expensive for my taste), and does nothing to address availability, convenience, etc.
So back to the whole making 'pirates' pay whatever they like.. what if you end up in a situation where a wise guy like me comes along and says $0.01, which is clearly not feasible. Say the studio wants to go no lower than e.g. $5. What then? Do they still get to sue the people who choose not to pay said $5?
Thus my last question answered.
So now we've got the following options:
- Purchase at full price, and you're an idiot.
- Torrent and don't get caught.
- Torrent, get caught, and pay $5.
- Torrent, get caught, don't pay anyway because the dead-horse-flogging argument means you ultimately don't run any risk.
Conclusion under the system you propose: Torrent away, as there is near-zero* incentive not to do so.
( * You might want a physical product. Presumably the pay-after-caught option doesn't mean you get the physical product mailed to you. If it does, then s/near-zero/zero. )
Skipping is Magnificent!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YsJ186p17U#t=0m20s
Judging by the negative reactions already, I wonder.. what should SONY do?
Right now they're offering all sorts of stuff that usually isn't offered at all. You get a small post on a website or in (a) major newspaper(s) at best that tells you there was a breach, oopsie, and go contact your credit card issuer if you think that's a Bad Thing.
But clearly doing more than most other businesses do, isn't good enough.
So what should SONY do?
Viable options only, please. "Die in a fire" and "pay me $1M" and such I'm gonna guess aren't viable - solid arguments as to why they would be are welcomed nevertheless, they might yield a +5 Funny if nothing else.
[Joe Downloader] it's not theft. It's copyright infringement.
[Joe NoSuchThingAsPrivacyOnTheNet] people shouldn't complain that when they put information on a third party network that said information can become public.
[Joe HackerVsCracker] ... ffs not this again.
Slightly more on-topic: SONY may be in no small part culpable, but they're not responsible for the breach and dissemination of the data. Whoever made their way into their systems, is.
SONY is also handling this much better than I had expected. Paying for people to replace their CCs? Head honchos publicly showing humility with a deep bow? Offering a free time of premium content + free days for every day that the network is down?
Usually you're lucky if you catch a small ad in a major newspaper where the company says 'my bad' and recommends you contact your credit card issuer.
Seriously? Maybe you should change your venue of media. It was explicitly mentioned on the Dutch news in several of the first few news broadcasts on Monday morning.
Checking Google News, I'd say there's also plenty of other media that spent 30 seconds on Wikipedia or something to find out a little historical background on the town;
http://www.google.com/search?q=Abbottabad+"james+abbott"
Repost indeed.
Also, just to recap the actual events...
TomTom asks users if they would like to share 'anonymous' (since leaving place X and returning there every weekday is kinda indicatory) traffic information with TomTom in order to improve services. The fine print says that TomTom can also make this information available to 3rd parties.
One of those 3rd parties is a research company. They take datasets and provide condensed reports based on them.
One of the reports they generated revealed either A. where people were speeding or B. simply what speed people were driving. Not individual users - just a breakdown of numbers. N data points, X% of those N > 120kph, Y% between 100kph and 120kph, etc.
This report is what the police apparently use to decide that if every day there's 1,000 people going 140 where they're only supposed to go 100 (arguments of whether 140 is safe etc. is another story), they should place some speed traps there.. be that to make a safer situation, as a cashcow, or simply because they felt like annoying the speeding drivers.
That's it. There wasn't a direct line from TomTom to the police. In addition, that same information is used by the government to determine if perhaps an extra lane should be added, or whether the speed limit should actually be increased (it's usually environment/noise regulations that limit roads to a certain speed).
Now TomTom, pretty much pandering to their audience (the ones that download speed trap location POI's being pretty much the majority) by saying they're going to adjust the terms of use of the datasets so the police couldn't do what they did anymore.
I have no idea how TomTom thinks they're gonna do that, given that they have no direct relationship with the police -and- the data can be used for perfectly good things as well. Tell the research company they can only sell on the distilled information to the government if they include a clause that the police can't use this information to place speed traps?
What if one of the research companies simply dumps the average speed on major roads as a picture or google maps data on the internet. Now what - that picture/google maps information needs a clause saying "If you're a cop, you can't use this information"?
Hence the 'pandering to their audience'. There's pretty much nothing they could actually do to halt the use of information for purposes that their customers aren't too keen on, other than simply not selling the data at all.
The signing happens on a separate chip. This means that all you actually need to get a fictional piece of graphics to be signed is to fake being the device's sensor. This is well beyond the capabilities of the average Joe - but certainly not beyond technical capabilities.
The signing method itself being cracked, of course, puts the ability to get any image signed into the hands of said average Joe.
Your one-liner omits the all-important part that separates it from the iOS (and Android) issue:
The question ars should have asked Microsoft is whether enabling GPS and -disabling- location services through WiFi and cell towers is possible and whether doing so will also prevent location information to be sent to their servers.
Note that for WiFi and cell tower positioning to work, you almost have to send the basic information to a server as the alternative is to download a database of wifi hotspot IDs and cell tower IDs ahead of time and let apps correlate against that. That works okay for a small region - not so much for e.g. the entire continental United States. I would be very surprised if iOS and Android used the latter model.
Pretty much a non-story there except for also sending the DeviceID along. Though odds are that if you're essentially communicating with microsoft's servers and their services, the DeviceID isn't the only identifying metric; unless it were open to anything making a query.
Remind us again how storing location information (no matter how crude and how irregularly sampled) for extended periods of time, is necessary in a smartphone?
Let's take what you're saying and apply it to the actual situation.
You use your phone to send your conversations with people over the air through a series of third party servers -and- your phone stores some of these conversations as 8kHz 8bit.wav files in a location that is not normally accessible and you are not made aware of, for a period no less than several months.
You wouldn't find that a little bit odd at the very least, apparently unnecessary and wasteful, and perhaps slightly - if not completely - wtf-worthy?
Your example for GPS specifically sucks because with GPS, there is no transmission of data to servers. The GPS module gets signals from the satellites and uses that to determine where it is just then. I can turn GPS on or off. I can -choose- to use it, or not use it. Typically, unless I instruct the device to do so, it also doesn't log the location information. I say typically because obviously there do exist devices that are specifically made for that purpose. I don't think the iPhone counts as one, though.
Everybody saying 'Android does this too' (ignoring the differences) or saying it's not so bad because it's your own phone, it's inaccurate, and on the desktop you can enable encryption, are oblivious to the simple question: why log this at all? I've seen no reasonable answer to this as of yet - merely speculation for targeted advertising, but that's all it is; speculation.
Wait. the iDevice needs to tell the Apple Servers where it was days, weeks, even months ago... in order for the Apple Servers to tell the iDevice where it is?
That makes absolutely no sense.
bias? what bias?
As somebody else has already said.. of course you do *pat pat*.
But I don't think you actually do. I think you fall into category number two. Let's re-state the gist of it:
pretending to be environmental to save money
Now let's look at your claims:
Alright! Admitting there's a problem is the first step.
Nobody says you have to - though some may take issue with the 'gas guzzler' type. Clearly driving a car can be a necessity.
Bit of a grammar fail there. I'm going to guess that you meant you won't be biking to work, rather than not giving that up.
A 5.5 hour drive to work is a bit much. Even a 9-5 job would be pretty much undoable. But you say it's only twice a month, so I suspect this is a far cry from a 9-5 job.
I'm pretty sure the hippies - be they dirty or otherwise - suggest people take the bike or public transport, when feasible, every day. Not just on Earth day. Clearly, it's not feasible for you to bike to work. But when you need a pack of batteries, do you take the car 10 blocks down the road to a store, or do you get on the bike? That's the type of thing where taking a bike is feasible.
I also presume that public transport can't take you to work those 2 times a month, or that you have personal issues with the mode of transport (U.S. buses are quite different from the ones in Western Europe, and I'd think twice about being in a Greyhound for 5.5 hours, too.)
Well there's a bit of a difference between hating the environment and going out of your way to take care of the environment.
Backpacking may be enjoying the environment, but it doesn't do much for the care of said environment other than park services and the like tending to hiking routes.. but that's park services, and not you.
Similarly, I'm glad you don't litter. But when you see litter, do you pick it up and put it in a trashbin? If all you do is 'not litter'.. again, that's not doing much for the environment at all.
This covers the pretending to be environmental clause of category 2. You're not actually being environmental, but you like to suggest that you are by not going out of your way to affect said environment negatively.
And this doesn't really need a detailed exposition. This is the to save money clause of category 2 and overlaps with the earlier clause. You're not doing anything for the environment, you're doing it for the money. You say it yourself, 'the CO2 reduction is just gravy'.
To top it off, Bill, your Shaka Energy Plan is all about having zero individual, personal, responsibility (let the energy companies figure it out) or burden (won't raise energy rates). In your own words, why shouldn't you support such a plan ( having slapped your name on it aside ;) ).
If only everyone thought that level-headed. Instead, some people are ready to declare war on (stereoscopic) 3D, citing a myriad of reasons (technical, psychological, medical) why -they- don't like it. And because -they- don't like it, nobody else should either.
Example: the article cited. "Why People Should Stop Being Duped By the 3D Scam".
I know it's not actually 3D (though it has information on 3 spatial dimensions). I know the picture is slightly fuzzier (I've got sub-par optics in front of my eyes). I know it's slightly dimmer (either due to shutters or due to polarization). But on several movies, I have still very much enjoyed it.
According to people like Jason Hiner, I'm being duped. I'm buying into a scam. And, depending on interpretation, I'm not very smart (because 'a lot of smart people' are avoiding 3D). Therefore, I shall not have a 3D movie. I shall not have a 3D TV. I am not allowed that form of entertainment because -they- believe I shouldn't.
I, and most people who enjoy 3D to whatever extent, however don't take such a hard-line stance. I don't say that Jason Hiner must only be fed 3D movies. That the only TVs he should be able to buy must be 3D. If nothing else, I tell people like Jason Hiner that if they do not like the 3D version, find a theater that screens the 2D version. If you don't want to watch the 3D version on your 3D TV, turn off the 3D feature (better with active shutter type, as polarized screens will still be in place for the passive type).
Everything about 3D enables both myself, and him, to receive entertainment in the way we both enjoy.
Going the other way around, however, is lacking. He even says as much himself.
The only reasonable argument he has for '3D is affecting my entertainment' is in how movies are directed. Avoidance of fast cuts or fast action that is all over the screen. Last I knew, that was one of the main complaints about 'action' movies of late.. that cuts were split seconds apart, and there was so much action on screen that the scene itself fails to impress because people are confused about what is going on. Almost seems like how 3D affects production would be a benefit, then.
Fortunately, even if he doesn't buy into that argument, there are still plenty of 2D-from-the-get-go movies being made as well; some of which specifically because the director felt that its story was -better- told in 2D.
I'm not about to tell that director that it would be better in 3D. Please don't let Jason Hiner be so pretentious as to think that he can tell directors that movies would be better in 2D. Let the directors decide for the movie, and the audience decide for the viewership.
That said.. if stereoscopic 3D is killed off once more (the role of vocal detractors not further examined), I won't particularly shed a tear over it. I like it, and I would miss it, but I could do without it. I'm doing without surround sound as it is. I could probably go back to b/w (greyscale) movies and still be entertained even if it's played back in YouTube quality 240p.
and how many -vendors- are they selling through?
I have no issue with the program because the iPad 2 is, quite probably, the best platform to do this with, for all the reasons you mentioned (which was my "and why you should love it" part of the argument).
But each and every one of those kids - short of the ones looking to jailbreak the thing - are going to have to go through Apple for.. well, pretty much everything.
Say what you wish about alternative platforms - but even with Microsoft's offering you could get your software from Microsoft or from the local computer store; and neither Microsoft nor the device manufacturer (say, HP) saw so much as a cent from those additional purchases let alone that they had a say over them.
As far as the pledge of allegiance goes - you're not required to recite it. But that's pretty off-topic anyway.
On an even more off-topic note:
"It's been 51 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment." I guess I'll hit the Submit button in the morning, then. Wouldn't want to post-flood Slashdot, now would we.
So now it's morning and there's an invalid form key. Geeze. Posting here was easier when I was an AC.
and best of all, it teaches the kids all about vendor lock-in and why they should love every aspect of it.
They'll be laughed right out of court.
I can pull up GPS tracks that state my car was stationary at Amundsen-Scott, or that it was doing Mach 8 over Libya. That alone makes it inadmissable 'as is'.
You'd need a GPS unit that is certified tamper-proof, that has been calibrated, have the calibration report, make sure it's recent, get some engineer or otherwise authoritative figure from the manufacturer to vet for the device, etc. Essentially the same stuff the cops need to have if you challenge e.g. a laser/radar measurement.
The reason this guy's defense worked is because he used the local government's own 'evidence' against them. Whether that evidence was actually relevant to the speeding charges or not is debatable - the judge seems to think it is, and I can understand a layman to expect it to be as well.
But if they were driving at the speed limit - be that 55mph or 70mph - then they wouldn't be blocking anything.
Think for a moment what blocking would mean; somebody behind that row who is going faster than they are. If they are going the speed limit, then that means whoever they're blocking is actually going over the speed limit.
A row of cars driving at the speed limit thus wouldn't be a problem.
( Short of emergency services, in case they can't drive on the shoulder or there is no shoulder to drive on. )
However, it does become a problem if certain traffic flows are expected to pass a certain stretches of the road in a certain amount of time. Traffic light timing might depend on traffic making it from A to B in 30 seconds, for example, so that by the time the last of that traffic hits point B, it opens traffic at point A up again.
But if for that 30 seconds the cars should be going around 70mph, and the speed limit is actually 55mph.. well then the traffic will take 42 seconds to get from A to B. But at 30 seconds the traffic is opened at point A again, while point B gets closed - so some traffic doesn't make it through. Slowly but surely, traffic on that stretch of road builds up, until it's completely gridlocked.
Which, of course, is exactly how too-low speed limits should be combated. Driving fast anyway and getting a ticket just means you're feeding somebody's revenue. Driving the speed limit and getting traffic locked up, requiring the local government to go send out cops to figure out why traffic is locked up, direct traffic, and listen to the talking heads on the local channels complaining of all the time and money lost by businesses due to the locked up traffic... that will get them to re-think those speed limits.
Perhaps I'm biased for having watched the movie first, and the TV 'cartoon' series second. But I found the latter to be a far greater trainwreck. Between the inconsistent drawing and the artist's desire to draw wriggling tongues from a myriad of characters, there's the death of Aeon Flux. The multiple deaths of Aeon Flux, I should say. I'm not sure what I watched, but I'm sure glad it was only about $10 when I picked it up out of a bargain bin. Not excusing the movie for its obvious flaws, but at least something coherent was roughly built around the 'universe' set up in the series.
What I was talking about was already pointed out by others while I was typing my post - but seeing as I have to wait half an eternity to post another comment, the following didn't get included 15 minutes ago:
Right. 250GB. Gigabyte. That's what I get for even double-checking by reading the blog post:
250Gigabyte cap does result in 5 hours. On the other hand, it also results in a 250Gigabyte cap.
That's not 8 BD movie tips. That's 62 BD movie rips.
Now I really don't understand what the fuss is about and I stand by my earlier statement... if you want that 24/7, no cap, get a dedicated line.
And given that there is this posting frequency limit... I know perfectly well how people use their connections. People who watch YouTube all day long or fully use their Netflix account - not just piracy. I get that. But for those people, perhaps a lower speed account with a higher cap (or 'fair use policy' type cap) would be more appropriate?
250Gbit / 105Mb/s = "about five hours worth of full-bandwidth use". Since when? 250,000,000,000 105,000,000 250,000b / 105b/s ~= 2381s 2381s / 60s/m ~= 40m Either one of the numbers is wrong or his math is way off. Not that this paints a prettier picture. Then again: 250Gbit / 8bit/byte = 31,250,000,000 Who downloads 31Gb per month but doesn't get a dedicated line for the purposes? Well I can guess who - but even a typical blu-ray rip (not an ISO) is what.. 4GiB? That's still about 8 such movies in a month if you're into that sort of thing. If you really need the bandwidth -and- lack of cap.. get a dedicated line. This offer seems to be for people / small business who might need a high burst rate for certain things (i.e. on the phone, need to send a 50MB file being referenced, don't want to wait 2 minutes on the phone for receipt, etc.) but wouldn't typically hit the cap. As long as these caps are clearly advertised.. who cares?
Very well - done.
I'm not sure how that changes now that there's a username and UID to go with the posts - a subject you didn't address, either as pertaining to myself or pertaining to you, despite feeling so strongly about it - but okay.
On to the meat of the post...
I'm not sure why you're putting quotes there. It's a fairly straightforward question:
Under what terms would you pay - not possibly pay, but would pay - for music?
See previous posts for full details.
You said you gave the answer to that question in (a) reply/replies to other comments. Slashdot's discussion system does odd things now that I have an account, so I went through your posting history instead.
In #35832174 you point out that the current approach of trying to tighten laws by - or have laws written for - the music industry is just pissing people off.
This has no bearing on my question.
In #35832142 you point out that the music industry isn't changing fast enough. You also suggest that artists no longer need to go through record labels, that you have no problem with centralized distribution channels, but that you don't want what's currently happening and that is that said distribution channels are trying to squeeze every penny out of every little thing.
This might have bearing on my question - but there's no details, so I can't be certain.
In #35832034 you suggest that the music industry would love for radio to be moved to a subscription model and point out that this is already failing with regard to satellite radio.
No bearing on my question. Unless part of the answer to my question is "free to receive radio". But in the same post you conclude that with the ability of people having a library of music as large as an average radio station on their iPod, they're not too inclined to be listening to radio in the first place. So I don't know about that one.
In #35832002 you point out that you tend not to buy new CDs where a portion of the money would go to the RIAA. You tend to buy used CDs instead. However, if it can't be found used, you'll sometimes buy new. You'd also buy new if more artists would sell directly.
This largely has bearing on my question - which I already pointed out in my previous comment. Your answer is that you'd be more inclined to buy from artists directly. But this is only part of the equation. Would you buy from those artists if they only sold their music in DRM'd WMA? I'd hazard a guess and say 'no' based on a later comment. That's why I asked you specifically under what terms you'd pay for the music. If "must be sold by artist directly" is one of those terms, that's great. I'm all for it. But is that the only term? Your original post made mention of "the formats we want", which this doesn't address at all.
In #35831974 you do lay out some additional terms that would certainly go against the DRM idea, as noted above. That specific post seems to take me back a decade or so - I'm pretty sure every CD can now be neatly ripped to MP3 and distributed across all of those platforms without any additional cashflow to the RIAA as a result.
But, again - "no DRM" - a term already mentioned above.
There's two more posts where you attack ACs mostly for being AC that don't contain any additional information.
Posts earlier than thos