We don't give a market away to somebody. Instead, we pit two or more in heated competition. We make them earn their pay. It's tough love but we as consumers are obligated to crack the whip. Whip their backs. Now we've failed our obligation in the market. But we can always change it...
Jefferson gave us "for limited times". And we chucked it in the gutter. You'll ask your grandchildren "what do you want to be when you grow up?" If they say "processor designer", you have to say "No, no. GOD makes our processors. What else would you like to make?"
Take it to the limit - zero production cost and zero distribution cost. There's still the marketing job getting the talent above the noise. And those in control of the media will always set the price of the content based not on operating costs but simply on their ability to exercise control. If the content is freely distributed the control is lost. That's why the record cartel is suing to keep its control. If it loses control of the record medium, it will fall back to the radio, TV, big screen, magazines and live performance. The cartel will seek to grow or preserve all the control it can because control itself is the real asset in the game. Print/TV/radio won't go away so they'll always have that. And if the cost of those media went to zero the prices would still be set based on control - if the cartel has full control, it charges whatever it can razzle dazzle the consumer into paying. If the cartel is broken up, then competitive pressure might force the price down. If the print/TV/radio went away, which they won't, then the cartel would control only the live performances and charge whatever it can razzle dazzle up, but still would have no relation to the actual performance costs. If the artists get smart, they will take control away from the cartel, and force the government to reorganize the industry to supply marketing services, keeping each artist's content under the artist's control, to be released into the public domain on the artist's death. Then, we can finally see the costs related to the effort required. This is assuming the government prevent s the artists from forming a cartel and committing collusion against consumers, and prevents the marketeers from forming a cartel and committing collusion against the artists. Current dogma allows collusion but refuses to admit it because it thinks the current scheme maximizes economic output which it thinks maximizes human progress & contentment, which is true only as long as the public is kept un-enlightened. Current dogma figures this is safest cuz they want to preserve the general concept of power structures - afraid of anarchy, probably.
Most users would rather have NO filename extension, and not worry about formats at all.
It isn't necessary for non-techie users to know about file formats - the necessity arises only to support the bogus institution of indefinite monopolies via indefinite copyright. With time limited copyright, only the newest, fanciest formats remain proprietary for any length of time during which a format is read only by its proprietary application program. When it gets commoditized, it goes into the public domain, it gets supported depending on its popularity and the user only needs to think about more specialized formats which the masses never have to bother with.
Those users who complain are forgetting that the software is a means to an end. There's a task to be done and they should note how the software streamlines it. It's also possible for software developers, documenters and instructors to forget the purpose. This creates more grief for the end user. We accomplish tasks much more efficiently whe we focus on the end. For example, if you want a crash course in ice skating, play hockey. This also goes for ice skate designers, documenters, instructors.
If the constitution permits laws passed that stretch key terms such as "limited times" out of proportion, that only calls for an amendment to prevent that stretching, by banning the development of meta-governments, e.g. the corporate government that currently governs the civil government.
All I know about Mandrake is that I ordered the CDROM Mandrake Linux for PPC past August, and after the promised two week shipping period when it hadn't shipped, I cancelled the order by phone and got Yellow Dog Linux, which I'm perfectly happy with. Then a month later, Mandrake's charge showed up on my credit card. I just had my card company cancel the payment. I'm disappointed in experiencing this sort of thing within the Linux community.
You're right that people need to get out and support bands, and you're right that Napster would simply replace one hegemony with another hegemony.
But this is not about who's king of the hill. A new distribution infrastructure has been in place now for 8 years and the music industry has failed to utilize it for consumer benefit. Consumers want to put a quarter in the jukebox containing every song ever recorded and choose a song and hear it. Uncle Sam's holy corporations ain't making that happen. That's the issue.
Corporations are running amok. The founding fathers intended that corporate power be limited. Re-implement the intent of the founding fathers, and you solve the RIAA problem, the Microsoft problem, and most other corporate power abuse issues.
If X isn't getting any sales then try X/2. Probably they are afraid this will wipe out their paper media sales. The business schools apparently teach paranoia of lowering prices without considering the public benefits. The public benefit is the government's responsiblity and with corporate control of government, it's inhibited, thus the power of the internet remains largely unrealized. Eventually the private will yeild to the public and we'll have micropayments. As for subscriptions - large subscriptions invites power abuse, therefore unsustainable, but micro-subscriptions are sustainable.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't give a market away to somebody. Instead, we pit two or more in heated competition. We make them earn their pay. It's tough love but we as consumers are obligated to crack the whip. Whip their backs. Now we've failed our obligation in the market. But we can always change it...
Jefferson gave us "for limited times". And we chucked it in the gutter. You'll ask your grandchildren "what do you want to be when you grow up?" If they say "processor designer", you have to say "No, no. GOD makes our processors. What else would you like to make?"
Take it to the limit - zero production cost and zero distribution cost. There's still the marketing job getting the talent above the noise. And those in control of the media will always set the price of the content based not on operating costs but simply on their ability to exercise control. If the content is freely distributed the control is lost. That's why the record cartel is suing to keep its control. If it loses control of the record medium, it will fall back to the radio, TV, big screen, magazines and live performance. The cartel will seek to grow or preserve all the control it can because control itself is the real asset in the game. Print/TV/radio won't go away so they'll always have that. And if the cost of those media went to zero the prices would still be set based on control - if the cartel has full control, it charges whatever it can razzle dazzle the consumer into paying. If the cartel is broken up, then competitive pressure might force the price down. If the print/TV/radio went away, which they won't, then the cartel would control only the live performances and charge whatever it can razzle dazzle up, but still would have no relation to the actual performance costs. If the artists get smart, they will take control away from the cartel, and force the government to reorganize the industry to supply marketing services, keeping each artist's content under the artist's control, to be released into the public domain on the artist's death. Then, we can finally see the costs related to the effort required. This is assuming the government prevent s the artists from forming a cartel and committing collusion against consumers, and prevents the marketeers from forming a cartel and committing collusion against the artists. Current dogma allows collusion but refuses to admit it because it thinks the current scheme maximizes economic output which it thinks maximizes human progress & contentment, which is true only as long as the public is kept un-enlightened. Current dogma figures this is safest cuz they want to preserve the general concept of power structures - afraid of anarchy, probably.
Most users would rather have NO filename extension, and not worry about formats at all.
It isn't necessary for non-techie users to know about file formats - the necessity arises only to support the bogus institution of indefinite monopolies via indefinite copyright. With time limited copyright, only the newest, fanciest formats remain proprietary for any length of time during which a format is read only by its proprietary application program. When it gets commoditized, it goes into the public domain, it gets supported depending on its popularity and the user only needs to think about more specialized formats which the masses never have to bother with.
Those users who complain are forgetting that the software is a means to an end. There's a task to be done and they should note how the software streamlines it. It's also possible for software developers, documenters and instructors to forget the purpose. This creates more grief for the end user. We accomplish tasks much more efficiently whe we focus on the end. For example, if you want a crash course in ice skating, play hockey. This also goes for ice skate designers, documenters, instructors.
If the constitution permits laws passed that stretch key terms such as "limited times" out of proportion, that only calls for an amendment to prevent that stretching, by banning the development of meta-governments, e.g. the corporate government that currently governs the civil government.
All I know about Mandrake is that I ordered the CDROM Mandrake Linux for PPC past August, and after the promised two week shipping period when it hadn't shipped, I cancelled the order by phone and got Yellow Dog Linux, which I'm perfectly happy with. Then a month later, Mandrake's charge showed up on my credit card. I just had my card company cancel the payment. I'm disappointed in experiencing this sort of thing within the Linux community.
You're right that people need to get out and support bands, and you're right that Napster would simply replace one hegemony with another hegemony. But this is not about who's king of the hill. A new distribution infrastructure has been in place now for 8 years and the music industry has failed to utilize it for consumer benefit. Consumers want to put a quarter in the jukebox containing every song ever recorded and choose a song and hear it. Uncle Sam's holy corporations ain't making that happen. That's the issue. Corporations are running amok. The founding fathers intended that corporate power be limited. Re-implement the intent of the founding fathers, and you solve the RIAA problem, the Microsoft problem, and most other corporate power abuse issues.
If X isn't getting any sales then try X/2. Probably they are afraid this will wipe out their paper media sales. The business schools apparently teach paranoia of lowering prices without considering the public benefits. The public benefit is the government's responsiblity and with corporate control of government, it's inhibited, thus the power of the internet remains largely unrealized. Eventually the private will yeild to the public and we'll have micropayments. As for subscriptions - large subscriptions invites power abuse, therefore unsustainable, but micro-subscriptions are sustainable.