I strive for accuracy. The licence may appear to be a tax, and have many things in common with it, but from a legal point of view, it is different in much the same way as the BBC is a public body, not a governmental body. Don't pay it and you won't be charged with tax evasion. You will be charged with not paying your TV licence. It's remarkably similar, but calling it a tax is technically incorrect.
As for compulsory, that's just hyperbole. There's a compulsory fee for buying groceries. It's called the price.
Music Industry: We want DRM. Steve Jobs: You got it. Hey, it only works with iPods as well. Isn't product tying great! Music Industry: Can we have more control over our product? Steve Jobs: Nope. Music Industry: Oh. Uhm... We'll leave Steve Jobs: No you won't. Music Industry: Oh. Ummm can you open up Fairplay. This will mean there's some competition and we can afford to ditch you. Steve Jobs:: Nope. Why would I ever do that? Music Industry: We'll make you look like the bad guy. Steve Jobs: You can try. I made downloadable music viable, produce the gadget all the cool kids want and I don't sue children and old ladies. Not only that, but I can plausibly blame all your troubles on you.
Actually, I think you could. The dish would work as a wok (whether it works so well as a dish afterwardss is another matter), and there has to be something that would heat up some oil.
Most of these are unsigned bands. Bands are unsigned, or signed to an obscure label for any of 3 reasons:
1. They're rubbish.
2. They don't want to sell out.
3. They're too damn original for the major labels to take a risk.
Types 2 and 3 are probably very worthwhile. They're greatly outnumbered by type 1.
Don't be too ready to dismiss this. Politicians want votes. Not money. Money is just a means to an end.
Because of the DMCA, a lot of intelligent people have become increasingly political, and represent a substantial voting block. On top of this, big corporations sueing poor people has led to quite a lot of people becoming a little negative about copyright. In the past copyright hasn't affected the ordinary guy too much. Now it looks like it might.
The EU is completely incorruptable. Not because the politicians are honest. Just that there are so many politicians to bribe, and they're all on such huge expense accounts that even Microsoft can't afford to buy enough of them.
Evolution is a vague term describing a general collection of more specific processes and subprocess whereby organisms will - amongst other things - reproduce, mutate, adapt over a number of generations, and on occasion branch and form new species. Evolution is a bit too vague.
So they have a strategy of unknown risk and reward, and they're quite happy to go about it if someone else takes the risk but doesn't benefit from the reward.
Here's my counter proposal. I'll pay the upfront cost. I get to choose how much I charge. My cut is double what they pay Apple.
No it wasn't. The tapes weren't as long. When VHS was released, Btamax could only handle 60 minute tapes.
and the PS3 has been a huge success for Sony in one regard - it got a lot of BluRay players in the hands of consumers
True. And this is probably why Sony were son insitent on the Blu-Ray drive. But it's too soon to call. The PS3 may not be successful enough, and the recent sales my just be a blip. Once the players go down to below the cost of a PS3, we may see another reversal if consumers prefer HD-DVD for whatever reason.
You mean everything would automatically be copyrighted or you have a system to automatically pay license fees?
Everything is automatically copyrighted anyway. I don't have such a system. This does not mean such a system would be impossible to produce. Have an open standard for bittorrent that tracks downloads, and lets you choose whether to pay or not. Encourage a society where people pay what they feel is due.
We also need cold fusion reactors and artificial intelligence machines with the brain power of millions of humans, but I don't think those technologies are going to be available either.
But people are working to devlop them. I propose that the media cartels take some of the money they're using for lobbying, and spend it instead on a workable copyright royalties system that is acceptable to people who want to download.
Such a system would be too invasive on privacy and costly.
Maybe an honour system could be made to work. Maybe there's another way. I'm not willing to give up on an idea just because the solution isn't immediately obvious.
Again this would be feasibly impossible to fix with technology since DRM can't tell whether the existing company is out of business or if it is public domain.
True. Technology is not the solution. It's never been the solution. The only thing that technocolgy can do (and it does this very well) is distribute copies far and wide. But the last point is mainly an academic freedom, and academics are willing and happy to play be the rules, as long as the rules are fair.
Perhaps these schemes are unworkable. I'd like to toy with some reasonably fair processes that may not be workable than our current unfair system that definitely isn't workable. I think we could come up with something, which may not be perfect, but is ann acceptable compromise to both sides. But we have to agree what is acceptable. The adversarial process we have at the moment isn't helping anyone.
We must come up with an internet friendly copyright system. Whatever the rights and wrongs, a network that allows eseemless copying does change the landscape a little.
We need:
Compulsory licencing (it's not like anyone has any real choice in whether files are copied anyway).
Some mechanism whereby creators are compensated for each copy.
A distinction between large scale commercial copying and small scale private copying.
Extra consumer rights for copying of pout of print works.
This is actually a pretty corporate biased set of rules, and there would be practical problems. Many people will object to paying a fee per commercial download, even if the privacy and owner identification issues are solved. But I submit this as a starting point. It does allow consumers to have large scale access to a vast collection of works, and ensure compensation for creators.
shot of a grave-looking police officer saying, "In this case we didn't find drugs or weapons, but it's not uncommon for us to find other contraband."
Or to put it another way, these people are completely innocent of all crimes related to drugs or weapons. Of course, by putting it this way, there's a clear implication that these people are somehow connected to the illegal drugs trade.
We know full well you don't really care about DRM, except where it interferes with iPod sales. We like copy protection because it makes us rich, and lets face it, we're pretty good at it. So if you're really committed to consumer flexibility and keeping the record industry happy, and not just playing them against each other, talk to us because we can probably come up with something that does the job.
A small additional point (and this does depend on where you're driving). Electric cars don't burn fuel when waiting at the lights, and have additional gains from regenerative braking. This makes them especially good city cars.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. Paint stripes on a horse and it still isn't a zebra, even if you can't tell the difference.
They put you (or rather your address) on a list if you don't have a television at all.
I strive for accuracy. The licence may appear to be a tax, and have many things in common with it, but from a legal point of view, it is different in much the same way as the BBC is a public body, not a governmental body. Don't pay it and you won't be charged with tax evasion. You will be charged with not paying your TV licence. It's remarkably similar, but calling it a tax is technically incorrect.
As for compulsory, that's just hyperbole. There's a compulsory fee for buying groceries. It's called the price.
It's a licence fee. The money goes to the BBC. Not the government. And you don't have to own a TV, so you don't have to have a licence.
If I develop a patented technology, I should be allowed to price it anyway I like.
Why do you think that?
You should be rewarded, certainly. But why should you be allowed such absolute control over the technology to the detriment of your customers?
Music Industry: We want DRM.
Steve Jobs: You got it. Hey, it only works with iPods as well. Isn't product tying great!
Music Industry: Can we have more control over our product?
Steve Jobs: Nope.
Music Industry: Oh. Uhm... We'll leave
Steve Jobs: No you won't.
Music Industry: Oh. Ummm can you open up Fairplay. This will mean there's some competition and we can afford to ditch you.
Steve Jobs:: Nope. Why would I ever do that?
Music Industry: We'll make you look like the bad guy.
Steve Jobs: You can try. I made downloadable music viable, produce the gadget all the cool kids want and I don't sue children and old ladies. Not only that, but I can plausibly blame all your troubles on you.
Yup. It's the law. Any post pointing out an error must have at least one error itself.
True:) But even then there's a lower limit to quality. It's amazing just how bad you can get if you look.
That should be Teraflops. Flops is Floating-point operations per second, so always has an s on the end even if singular.
Actually, I think you could. The dish would work as a wok (whether it works so well as a dish afterwardss is another matter), and there has to be something that would heat up some oil.
Most of these are unsigned bands. Bands are unsigned, or signed to an obscure label for any of 3 reasons:
1. They're rubbish.
2. They don't want to sell out.
3. They're too damn original for the major labels to take a risk.
Types 2 and 3 are probably very worthwhile. They're greatly outnumbered by type 1.
Don't be too ready to dismiss this. Politicians want votes. Not money. Money is just a means to an end.
Because of the DMCA, a lot of intelligent people have become increasingly political, and represent a substantial voting block. On top of this, big corporations sueing poor people has led to quite a lot of people becoming a little negative about copyright. In the past copyright hasn't affected the ordinary guy too much. Now it looks like it might.
Well, I can't. Even a bat doesn't have sensitivity past the 100KHz range.
The EU is completely incorruptable. Not because the politicians are honest. Just that there are so many politicians to bribe, and they're all on such huge expense accounts that even Microsoft can't afford to buy enough of them.
Evolution is a vague term describing a general collection of more specific processes and subprocess whereby organisms will - amongst other things - reproduce, mutate, adapt over a number of generations, and on occasion branch and form new species. Evolution is a bit too vague.
So they have a strategy of unknown risk and reward, and they're quite happy to go about it if someone else takes the risk but doesn't benefit from the reward.
Here's my counter proposal. I'll pay the upfront cost. I get to choose how much I charge. My cut is double what they pay Apple.
Betamax was superior to VHS
No it wasn't. The tapes weren't as long. When VHS was released, Btamax could only handle 60 minute tapes.
and the PS3 has been a huge success for Sony in one regard - it got a lot of BluRay players in the hands of consumers
True. And this is probably why Sony were son insitent on the Blu-Ray drive. But it's too soon to call. The PS3 may not be successful enough, and the recent sales my just be a blip. Once the players go down to below the cost of a PS3, we may see another reversal if consumers prefer HD-DVD for whatever reason.
You mean everything would automatically be copyrighted or you have a system to automatically pay license fees?
Everything is automatically copyrighted anyway. I don't have such a system. This does not mean such a system would be impossible to produce. Have an open standard for bittorrent that tracks downloads, and lets you choose whether to pay or not. Encourage a society where people pay what they feel is due.
We also need cold fusion reactors and artificial intelligence machines with the brain power of millions of humans, but I don't think those technologies are going to be available either.
But people are working to devlop them. I propose that the media cartels take some of the money they're using for lobbying, and spend it instead on a workable copyright royalties system that is acceptable to people who want to download.
Such a system would be too invasive on privacy and costly.
Maybe an honour system could be made to work. Maybe there's another way. I'm not willing to give up on an idea just because the solution isn't immediately obvious.
Again this would be feasibly impossible to fix with technology since DRM can't tell whether the existing company is out of business or if it is public domain.
True. Technology is not the solution. It's never been the solution. The only thing that technocolgy can do (and it does this very well) is distribute copies far and wide. But the last point is mainly an academic freedom, and academics are willing and happy to play be the rules, as long as the rules are fair.
Perhaps these schemes are unworkable. I'd like to toy with some reasonably fair processes that may not be workable than our current unfair system that definitely isn't workable. I think we could come up with something, which may not be perfect, but is ann acceptable compromise to both sides. But we have to agree what is acceptable. The adversarial process we have at the moment isn't helping anyone.
We need:
- Compulsory licencing (it's not like anyone has any real choice in whether files are copied anyway).
- Some mechanism whereby creators are compensated for each copy.
- A distinction between large scale commercial copying and small scale private copying.
- Extra consumer rights for copying of pout of print works.
This is actually a pretty corporate biased set of rules, and there would be practical problems. Many people will object to paying a fee per commercial download, even if the privacy and owner identification issues are solved. But I submit this as a starting point. It does allow consumers to have large scale access to a vast collection of works, and ensure compensation for creators.That's a perfectly reasonable argument in favour of a standardised ID card.
Why do you need biometrics and a centralised database costing seeral billion for that?
Certainly an interesting point, but surely you would have to prove damage of some sort for them to claim.
USe a parody as fair use defence.
The argument is that the game is so dull and tedious, that you need to use a computer to play it for you to save you the effort.
shot of a grave-looking police officer saying, "In this case we didn't find drugs or weapons, but it's not uncommon for us to find other contraband."
Or to put it another way, these people are completely innocent of all crimes related to drugs or weapons. Of course, by putting it this way, there's a clear implication that these people are somehow connected to the illegal drugs trade.
We know full well you don't really care about DRM, except where it interferes with iPod sales. We like copy protection because it makes us rich, and lets face it, we're pretty good at it. So if you're really committed to consumer flexibility and keeping the record industry happy, and not just playing them against each other, talk to us because we can probably come up with something that does the job.
A small additional point (and this does depend on where you're driving). Electric cars don't burn fuel when waiting at the lights, and have additional gains from regenerative braking. This makes them especially good city cars.