except this is one proprietry format against another. When buying a portable music player you have to consider which service you prefer. If you get your music from iTunes, you are forced to only ever use an iPod, even if something much much better comes along.
People aren't lazy. They just don't like expending effort when there's no need to. According to basic accountancy, this should be a better mechanism for some people.
Some people watch as few as one movie per month. For these people, a service like Netflix is simply not worth the cost. So they use ordinary video shops. Other people simply find paying for a service something they don't want to do. Netflix is therefore useless for them. So we're selling to people who rent on a per DVD basis.
If you rent on a per DVD basis, which is more convenient for you? Going to the store and returning a disc, or not Going go the store and returning a disc? Given the choice between those two options, why choose the one that's marginally more effort?
Which is more convenient? Being able to rent a disc to watch at some time in the future, with no extra cost to you if you wait a whole month, or renting a disc that you have to watch that night?
The problem is that the public don;t see this as a rental. They see it as a purchase, and cionsumers don't like paying for somethign with artificial restrictions.
# Music magazines: no more sky-high ad prices paid by major labels
# MTV: no more $100k videos gracing their airwaves
No... I think these would remain. Perhaps artists will start self-promoting, but that will mean a lot of them will just hire a PR company to promote for them. If a company promotes a lot of artists, it won't be long before they start soliciting, and even manufacturing band to promote. Essentially we'll be back where we were before.
The music companies want on-line services to work because CD sales are declining and they need a replacement.
No. they want CD sales to stop declining.
Artists will sign with whoever gives them the most money. Go to Apple and see how much of an upfront payment you'll get.
Perhaps Apple will spot aniche in the market and cut out the middle man if online music sales become the most popular means of buying music.
Download sales are already taking off and unless you've been asleep you can't miss the fact that more deals are being done every week. If they didn't want these services to survive why are they doing the deals?
Because they feel trapped. They realise their customers want downloaded music. If they don't sell it to them, their potential customers will simply download it anyway. They choose the best deal for themselves.
If they want all the profit themselves, why aren't they selling direct?
Are you suggesting they don't want all the profit for themselves? The problem is, they simply don't have the brand strength to do this. iTunes succeeds because it offers music from everyone. iTunes has market recongnition. Most people don't know who the publisher of their CDs are. Nor do they care. They're certainly not going to go to several different music download sites. And they've never sold direct. The industry isn't set up to do this. They've always sold through record stores.
Yes, the RIAA uses the courts to intimidate people, but so do plenty of organizations and people. It's not what I think of when I hear the word racketeering however. I think of someone in the mob or a corrupt businessman threatening your well-being. Not someone taking you to court for potentially stealing from them (and breaking the law).
I'm sure I heard about people attempting to use RICO to stop mass suits before (One of the satellite organisations suing people who bought a card reader). I haven't heard of it succeeding. The legal system seems to have an opinion of itself for being flawless, even though winning a lawsuit is expensive, losing a lawsuit can lead to losses that are totally disproportionate to the damage done, and the mere threat of legal action can be used to intimidate.
There are reasons to protect with copyright other than preserving profit.
Perhaps the transit authority wants to make sure that all sources of the information are kept up to date. If they let anyone distribute it they can't be sure people will have an up to date map. If they insist people licence it then at least they can control this.
There are other potential problems as well. They simply avoid any issues by clamping down on all copying with no exceptions.
As far as I understand it (I may be wrong), Apple is offering 95c per copy of a song.
Each record company is free to accept or reject this price. However, if the whole RIAA decided to reject it en masse, then this would be considered price fixing i.e. anti-competitive behaviour by a cartel. The record industry has been burnt by this before for overpricing CDs. The same could apply to Apple, but it's less of a clear case since there isn't really any barrier preventing them from opening their own music store, and competing directly with iTunes.
Interestingly, Apple is now using the record industry's tactics against them. For years, the record industry's position has been that people aren't obliged to buy a CD. they have a choice of paying the money or going without. Now Apple is offering exactly the same deal.
Is the problem that you could do whatever you wanted in the past with that content, and now that the owner is technically capable of excerising their right to control the distribution of their works it isn't fair?
Yes.
I had certain legal rights before. I still have certain legal rights. The broadcast flag may prevent me from excercising some of these rights. I quite like these rights.
Dual format is a possibility. Given that they'll use similar technology for tracking the disc, similar compression algorithms, and even the same frequency laser, and the basic mechanics are going to be the same - most likely including the physical disc dimensions, it shoudn't be too hard to develop a drive that works with both formats.
Give each country's NHS the authority to override intellectual property privileges {they aren't "rights" by any stretch of the imagination} in respect of any potentially life-saving device or drug.
But would we have a problem that this would discourage life saving medication?
It's the way the legal system works. Not the way justice works. Judges will always be swayed by emotion. They're human after all.
If the law was based on justice, then the RIAA could have sued, and would have been awarded reasonable costs plus the probable value of the songs copied.
So? You think all artists should starve and do everything out of the goodness of their hearts? Why shouldn't they be self-interested, let alone selfish?
That's not really what I was getting at. I have no problem with them getting rewarded for their work. I just have an issue with the implication that they should have such absolute control. For example, I want a copy of an out of print book. I can't get it. Who is benefitting from it's unavailability? Not me. Not the author. People who bought copies when it was in print might get value from its perceived uniqueness, but why is their right to uniqueness greater than my right to enjoyment?
Even if it's the author who wants to keep it to himself and not share it. How is it hurting him if it is shared? He's only lost this "uniqueness". I simply don't see any reason why he should expect this as a right. I think that society granting him rights gives him an obligation to share it.
As an artist, I decide how I want to whore my creations -- not you.
Bullshit1 If you don't want people "stealing" it, then don't publish. Keep it to yourself and get all the pleasure that gives you from it.
Society generously gives you certain limited rights to encourage you to share it with us. the "uniqueness" is just selfishness. A piece of art can be shared with the world for virtually no cost. It's still the same piece of art whether one person or a million people have it.
Actually, it's possible that the court overstepped its authority, but would any judge want to issue such a judgement against a 13 year old who, quite honestly, is hardly a reckless tearaway. Any sane judge is going to be more lenient towards the kid than the multi-million dollar trade organisation.
Yes. But I thought I'd arbitrarily redifine those rights as privileges.
It's a form of humourous political commentary I'm working on called satire. I'll let you know how it works out but it's not looking too promising right now.
Slashdot Mirror
except this is one proprietry format against another. When buying a portable music player you have to consider which service you prefer. If you get your music from iTunes, you are forced to only ever use an iPod, even if something much much better comes along.
Don't ypou love vendor lock-in.
Most popular is not always the best.
Not going to happen.
The BBC sells these shows to networks in other countries. They're not going to be interested unless they have exclusivity.
People aren't lazy. They just don't like expending effort when there's no need to. According to basic accountancy, this should be a better mechanism for some people.
Some people watch as few as one movie per month. For these people, a service like Netflix is simply not worth the cost. So they use ordinary video shops. Other people simply find paying for a service something they don't want to do. Netflix is therefore useless for them. So we're selling to people who rent on a per DVD basis.
If you rent on a per DVD basis, which is more convenient for you? Going to the store and returning a disc, or not Going go the store and returning a disc? Given the choice between those two options, why choose the one that's marginally more effort?
Which is more convenient? Being able to rent a disc to watch at some time in the future, with no extra cost to you if you wait a whole month, or renting a disc that you have to watch that night?
The problem is that the public don;t see this as a rental. They see it as a purchase, and cionsumers don't like paying for somethign with artificial restrictions.
# Music magazines: no more sky-high ad prices paid by major labels
# MTV: no more $100k videos gracing their airwaves
No... I think these would remain. Perhaps artists will start self-promoting, but that will mean a lot of them will just hire a PR company to promote for them. If a company promotes a lot of artists, it won't be long before they start soliciting, and even manufacturing band to promote. Essentially we'll be back where we were before.
The music companies want on-line services to work because CD sales are declining and they need a replacement.
No. they want CD sales to stop declining.
Artists will sign with whoever gives them the most money. Go to Apple and see how much of an upfront payment you'll get.
Perhaps Apple will spot aniche in the market and cut out the middle man if online music sales become the most popular means of buying music.
Download sales are already taking off and unless you've been asleep you can't miss the fact that more deals are being done every week. If they didn't want these services to survive why are they doing the deals?
Because they feel trapped. They realise their customers want downloaded music. If they don't sell it to them, their potential customers will simply download it anyway. They choose the best deal for themselves.
If they want all the profit themselves, why aren't they selling direct?
Are you suggesting they don't want all the profit for themselves? The problem is, they simply don't have the brand strength to do this. iTunes succeeds because it offers music from everyone. iTunes has market recongnition. Most people don't know who the publisher of their CDs are. Nor do they care. They're certainly not going to go to several different music download sites. And they've never sold direct. The industry isn't set up to do this. They've always sold through record stores.
It's not, and never has been a choice between Microsoft and Open Source. Especially for music.
The entire record industry could switch to Apple, and find that most of the software they need already exists.
Dude, I don't think we own those properties.
I believe what the comment was referring to was whether we should be policed by our DVD players.
However, we own a copy of the data on the disc.
This is different from owning the rights, but it is still ownership, and as owners of copies, we have the right to use them in any legal manner.
1. Choose a name that has no associated domain. 2. Register the domain. 3. Change your company name. 4. ??? 5. Profit.
I believe the game theory solution is loser pays winner a multiple of their own costs (with a basic minimum for plaintiff as counsel).
Yes, the RIAA uses the courts to intimidate people, but so do plenty of organizations and people. It's not what I think of when I hear the word racketeering however. I think of someone in the mob or a corrupt businessman threatening your well-being. Not someone taking you to court for potentially stealing from them (and breaking the law).
I'm sure I heard about people attempting to use RICO to stop mass suits before (One of the satellite organisations suing people who bought a card reader). I haven't heard of it succeeding. The legal system seems to have an opinion of itself for being flawless, even though winning a lawsuit is expensive, losing a lawsuit can lead to losses that are totally disproportionate to the damage done, and the mere threat of legal action can be used to intimidate.
There are reasons to protect with copyright other than preserving profit.
Perhaps the transit authority wants to make sure that all sources of the information are kept up to date. If they let anyone distribute it they can't be sure people will have an up to date map. If they insist people licence it then at least they can control this.
There are other potential problems as well. They simply avoid any issues by clamping down on all copying with no exceptions.
As far as I understand it (I may be wrong), Apple is offering 95c per copy of a song.
Each record company is free to accept or reject this price. However, if the whole RIAA decided to reject it en masse, then this would be considered price fixing i.e. anti-competitive behaviour by a cartel. The record industry has been burnt by this before for overpricing CDs. The same could apply to Apple, but it's less of a clear case since there isn't really any barrier preventing them from opening their own music store, and competing directly with iTunes.
Interestingly, Apple is now using the record industry's tactics against them. For years, the record industry's position has been that people aren't obliged to buy a CD. they have a choice of paying the money or going without. Now Apple is offering exactly the same deal.
When did they ever do that?
Between January 29th and Febrary 3rd 1972. They decided it wasn't for them.
It's a geek website.
If you can't convert from Kilometres to furlongs in your head, we don't want you here.
Is the problem that you could do whatever you wanted in the past with that content, and now that the owner is technically capable of excerising their right to control the distribution of their works it isn't fair?
Yes.
I had certain legal rights before. I still have certain legal rights. The broadcast flag may prevent me from excercising some of these rights. I quite like these rights.
Dual format is a possibility. Given that they'll use similar technology for tracking the disc, similar compression algorithms, and even the same frequency laser, and the basic mechanics are going to be the same - most likely including the physical disc dimensions, it shoudn't be too hard to develop a drive that works with both formats.
Give each country's NHS the authority to override intellectual property privileges {they aren't "rights" by any stretch of the imagination} in respect of any potentially life-saving device or drug.
But would we have a problem that this would discourage life saving medication?
It's the way the legal system works. Not the way justice works. Judges will always be swayed by emotion. They're human after all.
If the law was based on justice, then the RIAA could have sued, and would have been awarded reasonable costs plus the probable value of the songs copied.
So? You think all artists should starve and do everything out of the goodness of their hearts? Why shouldn't they be self-interested, let alone selfish?
That's not really what I was getting at. I have no problem with them getting rewarded for their work. I just have an issue with the implication that they should have such absolute control. For example, I want a copy of an out of print book. I can't get it. Who is benefitting from it's unavailability? Not me. Not the author. People who bought copies when it was in print might get value from its perceived uniqueness, but why is their right to uniqueness greater than my right to enjoyment?
Even if it's the author who wants to keep it to himself and not share it. How is it hurting him if it is shared? He's only lost this "uniqueness". I simply don't see any reason why he should expect this as a right. I think that society granting him rights gives him an obligation to share it.
As an artist, I decide how I want to whore my creations -- not you.
Bullshit1 If you don't want people "stealing" it, then don't publish. Keep it to yourself and get all the pleasure that gives you from it.
Society generously gives you certain limited rights to encourage you to share it with us. the "uniqueness" is just selfishness. A piece of art can be shared with the world for virtually no cost. It's still the same piece of art whether one person or a million people have it.
Indeed. This was pretty heavy handed of the RIAA.
Actually, it's possible that the court overstepped its authority, but would any judge want to issue such a judgement against a 13 year old who, quite honestly, is hardly a reckless tearaway. Any sane judge is going to be more lenient towards the kid than the multi-million dollar trade organisation.
Perhaps Linux needs to switch to a more Windows like development process:)
Evil when they're owned by big companies. Good when they're owned by little people and infringed by big companies:)
Yes. But I thought I'd arbitrarily redifine those rights as privileges.
It's a form of humourous political commentary I'm working on called satire. I'll let you know how it works out but it's not looking too promising right now.