It's this "offshore" quality that gives it its advantage.
This is what I don't get in the British structure. They (AOL) are not offshore. They are right there physically doing their thing. Why does the government in Britain give this advantage to foreign companies?
A friend of mine's american company has a sales office in London. Since they are "not based" in Britain they are exempt from paying VAT on the advertising they buy. This, obviously, gives them tremendous advantage over the local London company selling the same service who pays the VAT.
In the U.S. companies collect sales tax if they have a "presence" in the state. Again, I just don't understand the loophole being given to "foreign" companies at the expense of local companies.
I do not understand this aspect of VAT in Britain. Whereby a company, like AOL, is not "based" in the country therefor no VAT. But they do have a "presence" and are thereby a local company in that sense. Why the tax break? Why the advantage (and it is a huge advantage) over the local businesses?
There was a time, long, long ago when the music business was based almost exclusively on the sale of sheet music. This attitude is a holdover from this era, circa 1910. Today the easy availabilty of lyrics makes the performance of a given song more likely and ultimately enhances the value of the copyright. Who buys sheet music for lyrics anymore? These people should find another gig. Oh, and if the true lyrics of Louie, Louie are posted could someone post them here.
I am not arguing a right to broadband as in free. I pay a lot for it now. And yes I've lived through droughts and know about, and cooperate with restrictions on water use. Much of what you say is true. But, you are taking unusual events, like droughts, or little used/known phone deals to make your point(s.) I was trying to make a general argument that, as citizens, we have a right to demand, from those we grant monopoly status a level of service. Regarding telcom and cable broadband delivery, the most important issue currently (to me), is that we can attach the devices and operating sytems of our choice on our side of the pipe. So that we may use all of the internet as we see fit. Multiple devices do not necesarily mean we even use more of the pipe. It just may be a matter of convenience. (kitchen computer vs bedroom) I even think the providers may do themselves a disservice by beating down usage. Afterall, I could go read a book instead of responding on slashdot if I began to find surfing too restricted.
As with anything else, you are buying a service from someone -- they might have conditions on that service, and if you violate it, they have the right to refuse you service. [ie, the 'no shoes, no shirt, no service' thing at most fast food establishments...
I don't believe the food establishment example holds up here.
The cable company where I live was established as a monopoly by the city. (another discussion) Being a monopoly carries obligations that businesses like restaurants simply don't have. One of these obligations, for cable internet providers, should be an unrerestricteded pipe. i.e. Like water. You should have the use of as many faucets as you may need and with any plumbing you may want to use.
Bandwidth usage metering is an option for them (and is probably coming) but, it is interesting that a similar business, telecom, does not meter usage. Why? Because, in the long run, it must be more profitable not metering and restricting usage. Also, how can a cable company meter internet service when they do not meter television?
What this country needs is an IURB (internet users rights bill.) Putting to rest a lot of the abuses beginning to arise and are exemplified by the Super-DMCA bills.
I hope you are wrong. The governor of Tennessee, Phil Bredesen, is very computer literate and can understand the issues here as well as most people on/. We will see how this goes. BTW The bill stipulates the expected cost to the state of Tennessee as follows:
"Estimated Fiscal Inpact: Increase State Expenditures - $14,900/Incarceration Assume one additional Class D felony conviction and one additional Class E felony conviction each year." Available here. click on the live SB2013 link for the pdf.
Somewhat OT but I wonder how profit/loss numbers look for local tv sites. Having the ability to promote their sites, at no cost, gives them an advantage over other local internet businesses and startups that is basically insurmountable. Furthermore, one could argue the advantage is unfair, since they are a licensed oligopoly. Looking forward, as more (ultimately all) local stations are allowed by the FCC to be purchased by the networks, the virtual iron-grip of big business on the dissimination of even local news becomes apparent. Not a good trend in my opinion.
According to the post, the SSN was not intended to be an ID number, but has gradually evolved into one. (Anyone who can post a reference to confirm this would be appreciated. I Googled around for a while but could only find references that equated SSN with ID)
I'm so old that my SS card actually says in writing beneath my signature:
"For Social Security And Tax Purposes-Not For Identification"
In fact a number of years ago (10?) I had a casual conversation with a fellow who made his living sueing companies that required him to provide his SS #. How? He showed me a copy of a federal law (from about 1972)that made the minimum penalty for this action $1000.00 for each instance. According to him the judge had no choice but to find in his favor. I wonder when and if that law was rendered null.
A corporation who distributes flawed merchandise or software has every right to tell me to be quiet.
I strongly disagree with this concept of licensing, legal or eula restrictions preventing a citizen from speaking his/her mind about what is (generally) a consumer product. A "free society" that cannot freely discuss the products and services it purchases and uses is not a free society.
This is not about the artists. It never has been. It is about the five corporations that control the radio space and the retail shelf space. They do not want to lose control of their golden goose.
"There is no income from the royalties, so artists in China record single songs for radio play instead of albums for consumers,''
If you only have one shot at airplay you cut the song that is most hit-worthy. Your best song... not filler. The "10 song" album, as a product, is simply the result of technology i.e. when the lp format arrived (after the 78rpm and 45rpm) record companies/artists needed to fill the space with songs. Mostly crap. Very few artists/writers can put together great albums. Especially the ones signed for their breast size. But with technology today we don't need the delivery/distribution of a disc with one or two good tracks and the rest filler. Technically we can DL the best individual efforts, find what we like and burn it. Technology shift has killed the prepackaged 10 song album. It is up the music industry to find creative-entrepenurial ways to make money. It's not up to us to support their old business model. Today we are back to the single model. I don't want to buy 10 songs for the 1 song I want. I want a convenient checkout and burn kiosk environment. Where I can assemble the music I want for a fair low price. (And the price should be low because quality recording is becoming low cost and trivial.)
Corporate sponsorship of kiosks could make the product free. You know like the Miscosoft kiosk with dull silly boy bands and the Linux kiosk would be cool stuff and Budweiser could have light tasteless product (but funny ads) and Guinness would have the dark and heavy sounds... and so on. (of course in this view it looks like the big companies still win)
that someone finally did this. The catch 22 the software vendor and the retailer put the consumer in is IMHO illegal. i.e. the retail store agrees to carry the software with the license inside that states if terms are not agreeable then return it to the store. But the store knowingly has a policy that refuses to refund the money. This is a conspiracy to screw the customer and is shameful. It would be interesting to know if the software vendors actually will not allow returns of opened software. If so they are going to pay. It is odd that no state attorney general that I know of has pursued this... yet. But that $50,000,000,000.00 M$ has in the bank sure could solve a lot of states budget woes.
I too find the lack of primarily video applications a drag. I am surprised we have not yet seen one of the hardware producers from Indonesia/Orient develop or aid in a serious multimedia OS app and as a result move millions of laptops and desktops with it. Just a matter of time though.
It occurs to me that if euro-recording companies produced the no longer copyrighted product in Mexico; could they not bring it to the US with no restrictions because of NAFTA?
Why is the Secret Service involved in the business problems of the music business? As a division of the U.S.Treasury their mandate covers currency counterfeiting and for non-apparent but historic reasons the protection of the President, Vice President and their family members. Read their beginnings, history and mandates here. Is RIAA recorded music the new currency? Is Hillary Rosen the new president? I don't think so!
I am glad to hear " patents are not to be granted for previously off line processes that are merely submitted as internet automated inventions." Wonder how this applies to the PanIP patent on ecommerce Afterall an online catalog using text and graphics is no different in any way than the Sears Roebuck catalog of TWO CENTURIES AGO.
I have no M$ accounts so I have not seen the user agreements. But what do your terms of service say regarding the privacy of your life? Will M$ be selling all your sensitive data? Will they be sharing it with partners who will sell it? Will they lay low now and accumulate a mass of customers and then in a "security patch" change the TOS to include selling your data? Knowing who you call.What you say and write. What you buy.Where you live. How much money you receive and spend.Where you are right now as we speak.This data is a marketer and politician's and dictator's dream If we the people do not take control of this now the $40 Billion Bill has in the bank will look like chump change in a few years.And we will live under the MWO.[Microsft World Order]
Uh... Don't think Germany is asian. Remember this slashdot article
As Germany goes so goes the EU. And the EU is or will be the largest world economy. Japan is currently the second largest national economy.(IIRC)
It makes perfect sense for governments to turn their backs on private/U.S. software and embrace open software solutions. The economic impact for M$ will ultimately be severe. I think it is in the U.S. economic interest to promote open source and or competitive alternatives to the M$ monopoly. So that we [speaking as a usian (tm) of course] remain competitive.
And that is why the recent court decision r.e. M$ is a tragedy for all concerned.
Since it is well known that movies never make a profit. Through enron style accounting etc. Mr Lee should simply sue his own lawyers for allowing him to enter into a contract of never-will-be-seen royalties. Lee probably has a better chance there because his lawyers are either incompetent idiots or secret studio employees.
they are suggesting strict requirments on only using approved tax packages.
This will be a nightmare of additional expense and work for the small online business person. The number of vendors on-line will consolidate rapidly, moving to models like ebay or yahoo. Or WAL-MART.
If the states care about their small entrepeneurs the inevitable tax should be collected once by the "home" state. Sure would make it simpler.-
A remedy should "effectively pry open to competition a market that has been closed by [a] defendant['s] illegal restraints." Ok. But what about the ill gotten gains of over $40 billion that M$ sits on? This money was made illegally. Yet they get to keep it all. Gives them a tremendous advantage in the market place, no? This decision only puts restraints on the future and offers no punishment for their illegal actions. Is this typical in a case like this? In this column, Jim Seymour wroteJackson's repeated findings of "predatory" action by Microsoft, through its monopoly, will strengthen considerably the hand of the DOJ in seeking severe penalties. So why no severe penalties? Hell, I would argue they have no penalties. (of course I recognize there was an election in 2000.)
Slashdot Mirror
It's this "offshore" quality that gives it its advantage.
This is what I don't get in the British structure. They (AOL) are not offshore. They are right there physically doing their thing. Why does the government in Britain give this advantage to foreign companies?
A friend of mine's american company has a sales office in London. Since they are "not based" in Britain they are exempt from paying VAT on the advertising they buy. This, obviously, gives them tremendous advantage over the local London company selling the same service who pays the VAT.
In the U.S. companies collect sales tax if they have a "presence" in the state.
Again, I just don't understand the loophole being given to "foreign" companies at the expense of local companies.
I do not understand this aspect of VAT in Britain. Whereby a company, like AOL, is not "based" in the country therefor no VAT. But they do have a "presence" and are thereby a local company in that sense. Why the tax break? Why the advantage (and it is a huge advantage) over the local businesses?
There was a time, long, long ago when the music business was based almost exclusively on the sale of sheet music. This attitude is a holdover from this era, circa 1910.
Today the easy availabilty of lyrics makes the performance of a given song more likely and ultimately enhances the value of the copyright. Who buys sheet music for lyrics anymore? These people should find another gig.
Oh, and if the true lyrics of Louie, Louie are posted could someone post them here.
I am not arguing a right to broadband as in free. I pay a lot for it now. And yes I've lived through droughts and know about, and cooperate with restrictions on water use.
Much of what you say is true. But, you are taking unusual events, like droughts, or little used/known phone deals to make your point(s.)
I was trying to make a general argument that, as citizens, we have a right to demand, from those we grant monopoly status a level of service.
Regarding telcom and cable broadband delivery, the most important issue currently (to me), is that we can attach the devices and operating sytems of our choice on our side of the pipe. So that we may use all of the internet as we see fit.
Multiple devices do not necesarily mean we even use more of the pipe. It just may be a matter of convenience. (kitchen computer vs bedroom)
I even think the providers may do themselves a disservice by beating down usage. Afterall, I could go read a book instead of responding on slashdot if I began to find surfing too restricted.
As with anything else, you are buying a service from someone -- they might have conditions on that service, and if you violate it, they have the right to refuse you service. [ie, the 'no shoes, no shirt, no service' thing at most fast food establishments...
I don't believe the food establishment example holds up here. The cable company where I live was established as a monopoly by the city. (another discussion) Being a monopoly carries obligations that businesses like restaurants simply don't have. One of these obligations, for cable internet providers, should be an unrerestricteded pipe. i.e. Like water. You should have the use of as many faucets as you may need and with any plumbing you may want to use.
Bandwidth usage metering is an option for them (and is probably coming) but, it is interesting that a similar business, telecom, does not meter usage. Why? Because, in the long run, it must be more profitable not metering and restricting usage. Also, how can a cable company meter internet service when they do not meter television?
What this country needs is an IURB (internet users rights bill.) Putting to rest a lot of the abuses beginning to arise and are exemplified by the Super-DMCA bills.
I hope you are wrong. The governor of Tennessee, Phil Bredesen, is very computer literate and can understand the issues here as well as most people on /. We will see how this goes.
BTW The bill stipulates the expected cost to the state of Tennessee as follows:
"Estimated Fiscal Inpact:
Increase State Expenditures - $14,900/Incarceration
Assume one additional Class D felony conviction and one additional Class E felony conviction each year."
Available here. click on the live SB2013 link for the pdf.
Jail could put a damper on surfing, eh?
Somewhat OT but I wonder how profit/loss numbers look for local tv sites. Having the ability to promote their sites, at no cost, gives them an advantage over other local internet businesses and startups that is basically insurmountable. Furthermore, one could argue the advantage is unfair, since they are a licensed oligopoly.
Looking forward, as more (ultimately all) local stations are allowed by the FCC to be purchased by the networks, the virtual iron-grip of big business on the dissimination of even local news becomes apparent.
Not a good trend in my opinion.
According to the post, the SSN was not intended to be an ID number, but has gradually evolved into one. (Anyone who can post a reference to confirm this would be appreciated. I Googled around for a while but could only find references that equated SSN with ID)
I'm so old that my SS card actually says in writing beneath my signature: "For Social Security And Tax Purposes-Not For Identification"
In fact a number of years ago (10?) I had a casual conversation with a fellow who made his living sueing companies that required him to provide his SS #. How? He showed me a copy of a federal law (from about 1972)that made the minimum penalty for this action $1000.00 for each instance. According to him the judge had no choice but to find in his favor. I wonder when and if that law was rendered null.
A corporation who distributes flawed merchandise or software has every right to tell me to be quiet.
I strongly disagree with this concept of licensing, legal or eula restrictions preventing a citizen from speaking his/her mind about what is (generally) a consumer product. A "free society" that cannot freely discuss the products and services it purchases and uses is not a free society.
This is not about the artists. It never has been. It is about the five corporations that control the radio space and the retail shelf space.
They do not want to lose control of their golden goose.
"There is no income from the royalties, so artists in China record single songs for radio play instead of albums for consumers,''
If you only have one shot at airplay you cut the song that is most hit-worthy. Your best song... not filler. The "10 song" album, as a product, is simply the result of technology i.e. when the lp format arrived (after the 78rpm and 45rpm) record companies/artists needed to fill the space with songs. Mostly crap. Very few artists/writers can put together great albums. Especially the ones signed for their breast size. But with technology today we don't need the delivery/distribution of a disc with one or two good tracks and the rest filler. Technically we can DL the best individual efforts, find what we like and burn it.
Technology shift has killed the prepackaged 10 song album. It is up the music industry to find creative-entrepenurial ways to make money. It's not up to us to support their old business model.
Today we are back to the single model. I don't want to buy 10 songs for the 1 song I want. I want a convenient checkout and burn kiosk environment. Where I can assemble the music I want for a fair low price.
(And the price should be low because quality recording is becoming low cost and trivial.)
Corporate sponsorship of kiosks could make the product free. You know like the Miscosoft kiosk with dull silly boy bands and the Linux kiosk would be cool stuff and Budweiser could have light tasteless product (but funny ads) and Guinness would have the dark and heavy sounds... and so on. (of course in this view it looks like the big companies still win)
that someone finally did this. The catch 22 the software vendor and the retailer put the consumer in is IMHO illegal. i.e. the retail store agrees to carry the software with the license inside that states if terms are not agreeable then return it to the store. But the store knowingly has a policy that refuses to refund the money. This is a conspiracy to screw the customer and is shameful. It would be interesting to know if the software vendors actually will not allow returns of opened software. If so they are going to pay.
It is odd that no state attorney general that I know of has pursued this... yet. But that $50,000,000,000.00 M$ has in the bank sure could solve a lot of states budget woes.
I too find the lack of primarily video applications a drag. I am surprised we have not yet seen one of the hardware producers from Indonesia/Orient develop or aid in a serious multimedia OS app and as a result move millions of laptops and desktops with it.
Just a matter of time though.
What I want to know is how does one obtain a single letter domain. i.e. x ???
It occurs to me that if euro-recording companies produced the no longer copyrighted product in Mexico; could they not bring it to the US with no restrictions because of NAFTA?
Just a thought. Any knowledgeable comments?
Why is the Secret Service involved in the business problems of the music business? As a division of the U.S.Treasury their mandate covers currency counterfeiting and for non-apparent but historic reasons the protection of the President, Vice President and their family members.
Read their beginnings, history and mandates here.
Is RIAA recorded music the new currency? Is Hillary Rosen the new president?
I don't think so!
I am glad to hear " patents are not to be granted for previously off line processes that are merely submitted as internet automated inventions." Wonder how this applies to the PanIP patent on ecommerce Afterall an online catalog using text and graphics is no different in any way than the Sears Roebuck catalog of TWO CENTURIES AGO.
I have no M$ accounts so I have not seen the user agreements. But what do your terms of service say regarding the privacy of your life? Will M$ be selling all your sensitive data? Will they be sharing it with partners who will sell it? Will they lay low now and accumulate a mass of customers and then in a "security patch" change the TOS to include selling your data?
Knowing who you call.What you say and write. What you buy.Where you live. How much money you receive and spend.Where you are right now as we speak.This data is a marketer and politician's and dictator's dream If we the people do not take control of this now the $40 Billion Bill has in the bank will look like chump change in a few years.And we will live under the MWO.[Microsft World Order]
Uh... Don't think Germany is asian. Remember this slashdot article As Germany goes so goes the EU. And the EU is or will be the largest world economy. Japan is currently the second largest national economy.(IIRC)
It makes perfect sense for governments to turn their backs on private/U.S. software and embrace open software solutions. The economic impact for M$ will ultimately be severe. I think it is in the U.S. economic interest to promote open source and or competitive alternatives to the M$ monopoly. So that we [speaking as a usian (tm) of course] remain competitive.
And that is why the recent court decision r.e. M$ is a tragedy for all concerned.
Since it is well known that movies never make a profit. Through enron style accounting etc. Mr Lee should simply sue his own lawyers for allowing him to enter into a contract of never-will-be-seen royalties.
Lee probably has a better chance there because his lawyers are either incompetent idiots or secret studio employees.
they are suggesting strict requirments on only using approved tax packages.
This will be a nightmare of additional expense and work for the small online business person. The number of vendors on-line will consolidate rapidly, moving to models like ebay or yahoo. Or WAL-MART. If the states care about their small entrepeneurs the inevitable tax should be collected once by the "home" state. Sure would make it simpler.-
A remedy should "effectively pry open to competition a market that has been closed by [a] defendant['s] illegal restraints."
Ok. But what about the ill gotten gains of over $40 billion that M$ sits on? This money was made illegally. Yet they get to keep it all. Gives them a tremendous advantage in the market place, no?
This decision only puts restraints on the future and offers no punishment for their illegal actions.
Is this typical in a case like this?
In this column, Jim Seymour wrote Jackson's repeated findings of "predatory" action by Microsoft, through its monopoly, will strengthen considerably the hand of the DOJ in seeking severe penalties.
So why no severe penalties? Hell, I would argue they have no penalties.
(of course I recognize there was an election in 2000.)
Ponder Poindexter's world here. The logo is red meat for the conspiracy guys. Lots of interesting programs too.
You make a very good point. As much as I would like to see M$ lose their grip, a patent on code within code is a lousy way to go.
Fuck You, Asshole. And when you get back to work in the cafeteria in Redmond, tell your friends to fuck off too!