And to the content industry, I will never buy or rent, or watch your content on these terms. You will be replaced by artists who do not insist on such things.
Or you will be replaced by consumers who accept these things...
While the casinos might not want to let every detail out, they certainly want people to know if they have impressive anti-cheating capabilities. The casinos would prefer you didn't do X in the first place than catch you doing X, and if you're aware that they can catch you doing X, they've solved a lot of their problem right there...
This is pretty standard language for a 10Q, basically you outline all your risks, and you try to be comprehensive, so that, if you do end up losing a court case around Harmony, shareholders don't coming running, screaming that they weren't informed about the risks.
While I'm certainly not going to go out there and defend Fox News as "fair and balanced," it's a paragon of journalistic virtue compared to Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera's open about its biases, no doubt about it, but let me ask you this - after hours and hours of footage of Palestinians killed and injured in Israeli raids, how much coverage do you think Israelis killed by Palestinian bombers get? Not so much.
While the wisdom of the US invasion of Iraq can certainly be debated, as can the actual position of average Iraqis on it, thinking that you'll get the full picture on these questions from _either_ Fox News or Al Jazeera is bordering on folly.
You make it sound like having someone to blame is a bad thing, or not a reasonable reason to make a purchase. Having a point of contact that's _responsible_ for the product you've purchased, and where you can go if you have a problem, has real value. Would you rather purchase a stereo from Best Buy or from a street vendor?
Well, my my, aren't we superior. Thanks for making me aware of my sheeple status (and not one of the elite with "even a little common sense"). Had it not been for your insightful comment, I would have continued to be under the delusion that I had in fact read Tolkien, Lewis, Pullman, Dahl, and Pratchett, and still liked the Harry Potter books. I guess I should go out and buy some new books, since a lot of those that appear to be sitting on my shelves must be figments of my "pathetic" imagination.
This is thoughtful, well-reasoned, and insightful. It strikes a reasonable balance between the rights of the owners of content and the rights of the consumers of that content. It's also well-written and correctly spelled.
Who are you, and what the hell are you doing on Slashdot?
Actually, I think it's more along the lines of you going to Target, and when you walk up to a product display, calling a friend and saying "I'm looking at toothpaste, and then having that friend say "hey, you can get that cheaper at WalMart." Remember, the software in question in on the user's computer, presumably at the user's request. If the software _isn't_ there at the user's request, it's the user who has the cause of action against the software provider, not the seller of a competing product, since that vendor doesn't have a right to have their messages heard by the user.
In our city, of the 2 top revenue generating civic agencies, were... 1) the police department 2) the transit system
Why does it seem I was the only one to think that it was really wrong for these "public services" to turn a profit?
There's a big difference between generating revenue and turning a profit. I severely doubt that the police department generates enough in fines for the city to cover the cost of policing, or that the public transport system collects enough in fares to cover its operating and capital costs - if it did, it would be a first.
"Recent rulings showed that they now have the power of taking away your homes!"
The gov't has always had this power (well, at least since the 5th Amendment was ratified in December 1791). The gov't may take private property for "public use," so long as it pays "just compensation." The debate this year was around the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London, upholding the actions of a local gov't which used its eminent domain powers to transfer property from one private holder to another, as part of a local redevelopment project.
"I can't think of any EU state other than Belgium that doesn't have a colonialist, imperialist or otherwise expansionist past. Europe had a very violent middle-ages."
I think there are a few people in the Congo (fewer than there otherwise would be) who might disagree with this assertion about Belgium...
In your case, you'll be able to continue to have Earthlink. Time Warner is required to allow Earthlink access based on terms agreed to as a condition of the AOL/Time Warner merger.
Except for a VERY small number of cases (mostly subdivisions), cable is _not_ a monopoly by law. For the vast majority of local cable franchises, the franchise agreement is explicitly NOT exclusive - other providers are welcome to build networks and offer service. The problem is, nobody wants to. The economics of the cable business are such that, one provider will make good money - add a second provider, and both lose money. You need at least 40+% penetration of homes to justify the costs of building the network, and a secondary provider is highly unlikely to capture that many customers.
While I was surprised by the 9-0 ruling, the end result isn't that shocking. Essentially, the Court ruled that, if you sell or market a product/service, and the key point of your marketing plan is that the product enables users to do something illegal, you can be held liable for the results of their actions.
Before we get into a discussion of "but is Ford liable for drunk driving," this isn't the same thing. If Ford marketed their new model, the "Boozemaster LE," which had IR sensors built into the headlights that made it easier to home in on pedestrians when you're drunk, then yes, they would be liable.
Sony won the Betamax case because they were pitching their product based on its non-infringing uses - Grokster lost because the basis of their value proposition was the infringing uses.
Suicide rate for divorced men is 30%? According to the Census Bureau, about 10% of the US adult population (or approx 20 million people) are divorced (and haven't remarried). If we assume a 50/50 male/female split, that's about 10 million divorced men.
According to the CDC, 30,622 people killed themselves in 2001, or approximately 0.01% of Americans. If we assume ALL suicides were divorced men, we'd get only about 0.3% of divorced men killing themselves in any given year. Clearly, that metric is off by at least two orders of magnitude.
This means that the sheeple are either knowingly buying DRM'd music files or don't care enough to know that the files are DRM'd and that their use (and possibly their usable life) is limited.
Or, they know and decide that it's still worth it. I know full well the restrictions Apple places on the music I download, and the risks (obsolescence, license corruption, etc. etc.) associated with iTunes. I use it anyway. You may disagree with my weighting of the costs and benefits of the service, but don't assume out of hand that I don't understand those costs and benefits.
MSFT net income in 3Q05 (calendar 1Q05) was $2.56 billion. $8.9 million / $2.56 billion is 0.00347 * 90 days in the quarter is 0.312 days, or about 7.5 hours.
I for one will not be happy until we passengers are sedated in the terminal, packed in bubble-wrap, loading into the plane like cargo, and revived with a stiff drink at the destination.
Frankly, this sounds like a notable improvement on coach.
Um, no. While the Secret Service's original focus was on counterfeiting (as well as dignitary protection), its mission was expanded in the 80s and early 90s to include investigating fraud against/attacks on the US financial system as a whole, not just the creation of false currency. http://www.secretservice.gov/financial_crimes.shtm l
"Commerical interests have no "this isn't how it should be" claim to stake. They're the Jonnys-come-lately online, and they *still* have to learn how to adjust."
This would be fair, if these "commercial interests" were seeing their content online voluntarily. They didn't bring, for example, copies of their movies to the net. Others did. Criticizing the "commercial interests" for not "adjusting" to the presence of their content on the net is like telling someone who was abducted and dragged to a party by force that his conduct at the party isn't fitting in well with the other guests.
You can also work on legislation, and lobby Congress to get it passed. Every special interest group (and you're certainly part of some, we all are) drafts proposed legislation, and tries to get Congress to pass it, or at least use it as a model for what eventually does get passed.
"When cable was rolled out in communities, the local municipalities gave monopolies to the cable companies."
Actually, they didn't. Virtually no local cable franchises have exclusivity provisions. Cable is an _effective_ monopoly, since building a second network in an area where one already exists rarely makes economic sense; witness RCN's bankruptcy. Companies _choose_ not to overbuild each other, but they could if they wanted to.
I saw nothing in his post that led me to that conclusion."
How about:
"I would prefer to support my artists, but if it's not feasible, I have no particular qualm with stealing. By "not feasible", I mean that overpriced and DRMed music is not feasible, when I can obtain the same music for free, sans DRM, in just a few moments of effort."
He's clearly not saying "The CDs are too expensive, so I download individual songs from iTunes." He's saying "I don't want to pay the asking price for music, so instead of going without, I'm just going to download it from Grokster/Limewire/etc. and not pay."
Slashdot Mirror
And to the content industry, I will never buy or rent, or watch your content on these terms. You will be replaced by artists who do not insist on such things.
Or you will be replaced by consumers who accept these things...
While the casinos might not want to let every detail out, they certainly want people to know if they have impressive anti-cheating capabilities. The casinos would prefer you didn't do X in the first place than catch you doing X, and if you're aware that they can catch you doing X, they've solved a lot of their problem right there...
This is pretty standard language for a 10Q, basically you outline all your risks, and you try to be comprehensive, so that, if you do end up losing a court case around Harmony, shareholders don't coming running, screaming that they weren't informed about the risks.
While I'm certainly not going to go out there and defend Fox News as "fair and balanced," it's a paragon of journalistic virtue compared to Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera's open about its biases, no doubt about it, but let me ask you this - after hours and hours of footage of Palestinians killed and injured in Israeli raids, how much coverage do you think Israelis killed by Palestinian bombers get? Not so much.
While the wisdom of the US invasion of Iraq can certainly be debated, as can the actual position of average Iraqis on it, thinking that you'll get the full picture on these questions from _either_ Fox News or Al Jazeera is bordering on folly.
You make it sound like having someone to blame is a bad thing, or not a reasonable reason to make a purchase. Having a point of contact that's _responsible_ for the product you've purchased, and where you can go if you have a problem, has real value. Would you rather purchase a stereo from Best Buy or from a street vendor?
Well, my my, aren't we superior. Thanks for making me aware of my sheeple status (and not one of the elite with "even a little common sense"). Had it not been for your insightful comment, I would have continued to be under the delusion that I had in fact read Tolkien, Lewis, Pullman, Dahl, and Pratchett, and still liked the Harry Potter books. I guess I should go out and buy some new books, since a lot of those that appear to be sitting on my shelves must be figments of my "pathetic" imagination.
This is thoughtful, well-reasoned, and insightful. It strikes a reasonable balance between the rights of the owners of content and the rights of the consumers of that content. It's also well-written and correctly spelled.
Who are you, and what the hell are you doing on Slashdot?
Actually, I think it's more along the lines of you going to Target, and when you walk up to a product display, calling a friend and saying "I'm looking at toothpaste, and then having that friend say "hey, you can get that cheaper at WalMart." Remember, the software in question in on the user's computer, presumably at the user's request. If the software _isn't_ there at the user's request, it's the user who has the cause of action against the software provider, not the seller of a competing product, since that vendor doesn't have a right to have their messages heard by the user.
and farmers, and the AARP, and...
In our city, of the 2 top revenue generating civic agencies, were...
1) the police department
2) the transit system
Why does it seem I was the only one to think that it was really wrong for these "public services" to turn a profit?
There's a big difference between generating revenue and turning a profit. I severely doubt that the police department generates enough in fines for the city to cover the cost of policing, or that the public transport system collects enough in fares to cover its operating and capital costs - if it did, it would be a first.
"Recent rulings showed that they now have the power of taking away your homes!"
The gov't has always had this power (well, at least since the 5th Amendment was ratified in December 1791). The gov't may take private property for "public use," so long as it pays "just compensation." The debate this year was around the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London, upholding the actions of a local gov't which used its eminent domain powers to transfer property from one private holder to another, as part of a local redevelopment project.
"I can't think of any EU state other than Belgium that doesn't have a colonialist, imperialist or otherwise expansionist past. Europe had a very violent middle-ages."
I think there are a few people in the Congo (fewer than there otherwise would be) who might disagree with this assertion about Belgium...
You're right, I stand corrected.
In your case, you'll be able to continue to have Earthlink. Time Warner is required to allow Earthlink access based on terms agreed to as a condition of the AOL/Time Warner merger.
Except for a VERY small number of cases (mostly subdivisions), cable is _not_ a monopoly by law. For the vast majority of local cable franchises, the franchise agreement is explicitly NOT exclusive - other providers are welcome to build networks and offer service. The problem is, nobody wants to. The economics of the cable business are such that, one provider will make good money - add a second provider, and both lose money. You need at least 40+% penetration of homes to justify the costs of building the network, and a secondary provider is highly unlikely to capture that many customers.
While I was surprised by the 9-0 ruling, the end result isn't that shocking. Essentially, the Court ruled that, if you sell or market a product/service, and the key point of your marketing plan is that the product enables users to do something illegal, you can be held liable for the results of their actions.
Before we get into a discussion of "but is Ford liable for drunk driving," this isn't the same thing. If Ford marketed their new model, the "Boozemaster LE," which had IR sensors built into the headlights that made it easier to home in on pedestrians when you're drunk, then yes, they would be liable.
Sony won the Betamax case because they were pitching their product based on its non-infringing uses - Grokster lost because the basis of their value proposition was the infringing uses.
Suicide rate for divorced men is 30%? According to the Census Bureau, about 10% of the US adult population (or approx 20 million people) are divorced (and haven't remarried). If we assume a 50/50 male/female split, that's about 10 million divorced men.
According to the CDC, 30,622 people killed themselves in 2001, or approximately 0.01% of Americans. If we assume ALL suicides were divorced men, we'd get only about 0.3% of divorced men killing themselves in any given year. Clearly, that metric is off by at least two orders of magnitude.
This means that the sheeple are either knowingly buying DRM'd music files or don't care enough to know that the files are DRM'd and that their use (and possibly their usable life) is limited.
Or, they know and decide that it's still worth it. I know full well the restrictions Apple places on the music I download, and the risks (obsolescence, license corruption, etc. etc.) associated with iTunes. I use it anyway. You may disagree with my weighting of the costs and benefits of the service, but don't assume out of hand that I don't understand those costs and benefits.
7.5 hours, not 7.5 days.
MSFT net income in 3Q05 (calendar 1Q05) was $2.56 billion. $8.9 million / $2.56 billion is 0.00347 * 90 days in the quarter is 0.312 days, or about 7.5 hours.
I for one will not be happy until we passengers are sedated in the terminal, packed in bubble-wrap, loading into the plane like cargo, and revived with a stiff drink at the destination.
Frankly, this sounds like a notable improvement on coach.
Um, no. While the Secret Service's original focus was on counterfeiting (as well as dignitary protection), its mission was expanded in the 80s and early 90s to include investigating fraud against/attacks on the US financial system as a whole, not just the creation of false currency. http://www.secretservice.gov/financial_crimes.shtm l
"Commerical interests have no "this isn't how it should be" claim to stake. They're the Jonnys-come-lately online, and they *still* have to learn how to adjust."
This would be fair, if these "commercial interests" were seeing their content online voluntarily. They didn't bring, for example, copies of their movies to the net. Others did. Criticizing the "commercial interests" for not "adjusting" to the presence of their content on the net is like telling someone who was abducted and dragged to a party by force that his conduct at the party isn't fitting in well with the other guests.
You can also work on legislation, and lobby Congress to get it passed. Every special interest group (and you're certainly part of some, we all are) drafts proposed legislation, and tries to get Congress to pass it, or at least use it as a model for what eventually does get passed.
"When cable was rolled out in communities, the local municipalities gave monopolies to the cable companies."
Actually, they didn't. Virtually no local cable franchises have exclusivity provisions. Cable is an _effective_ monopoly, since building a second network in an area where one already exists rarely makes economic sense; witness RCN's bankruptcy. Companies _choose_ not to overbuild each other, but they could if they wanted to.
">Therefore: You're going to get it illegally.
I saw nothing in his post that led me to that conclusion."
How about:
"I would prefer to support my artists, but if it's not feasible, I have no particular qualm with stealing. By "not feasible", I mean that overpriced and DRMed music is not feasible, when I can obtain the same music for free, sans DRM, in just a few moments of effort."
He's clearly not saying "The CDs are too expensive, so I download individual songs from iTunes." He's saying "I don't want to pay the asking price for music, so instead of going without, I'm just going to download it from Grokster/Limewire/etc. and not pay."