Do you not realize that what they intend to do is jack up the price of any new release to $1.99 per song. And there justification for that price will be the fact that we already pay $2.50 for a bloody ringtone and that we're getting a better product for $0.50 less.
1) Start signing bands on a 50/49 cent split. (OMG...can you imagine it, artists getting more money than the label for a change)
2) File a lawsuit on behalf of the artists...that said artists only negotiated "analog" recording distribution rights. That none of the old contracts covered digital distribution. And that all of the artists retain the rights to their digital distribution, including the right to negotiate a digital distribution contract.
(Think about it, a) the common people would support it as I would buy a lot more music at $0.99/song if I knew the artists actually benefited. b) think of how many artists would support such a move? big names too like "Paul McCartney"... As many artists were screwed over big time. Even big name artists saw very small percentages of their songs. This would allow Paul McCartney to regain ownership of his music (for digital distribution only). RIAA would still retain the analog rights (but we all know that's a dying medium). And with RIAA pushing so much legislation distinguishing the difference between Analog and Digital (DMCA) there may in deed be enough cause for a court to decide in Apple's favor especially if 90% of the artists and consumers are in favor of it as well.
RIAA would find themselves the owner of an extinct business model. Left with a rotting carcass...
Apple makes what, $0.29 out of $0.99, the artist gets maybe $0.10. That means that the record labels get $0.60 for doing jack-crap. In truth, I support variable pricing. The record labels should forego some of their pennies and let the oldies retail for $0.50.
Re:Anyone else wondering the following?
on
Pixar For Sale?
·
· Score: 1
Oh I agree...
I think they should change the profile to a wide profile...and put the slider/wheel/etc on the back
Now, let me get this straight. Copyright violations hold up to $150,000 fine for each occurrence, right? This is what "RIAA" and the record labels have been threatening 12 yr olds in court with for the past few years.
The SONY rootkit was installed on how many computers? Am I correct here...in that the LAME project should potentially be able to sue SONY corp $150,000 for each violation. (Sounds like LAME might become the best funded open source project!)
Or do our laws only apply to the powerful? the rich? the mega-company? And if that is the case WHY should I give a damn about infringing on copyrights if they don't protect me as well?
Guess what.... I have !@#$% Windows in my house. Apple has !@#$% Windows in their OS. Funny thing, when Apple sued Microsoft they were told they could not protect the right because it was a common name.
Once again, it just goes to show the biggest guy wins. And once again it shows how moronic Intellectual Property rights are.
"It's pretty disturbing that such an obviously slanted article summary was posted here without the editors even bothering to check the facts."
As if this were a first. Oh my...or is it just a rare occurrence of you being on the opposite side of the slant?
Anyone else wondering the following?
on
Pixar For Sale?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Apple = Steve Jobs Pixar = Steve Jobs
Why not Video iPod and downloadable "Pixar" films. Especially as it seems when you look at the list of travel movies a family brings with them for the kids - Pixar films tend to top the list.
So the ability to download Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Monster's Inc, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles could be a boon for iTunes AND add additional sales for those movies.
(In truth, I think Steve Jobs is better off waiting a few more movies and buying Disney. *lol*)
I swear, it's crud like this that makes me want to walk into Circuit City with a hammer and smash all the copies.
Look at the manager any say...."send them back to SONY...explain to them that installing of viral code is illegal" because it's pretty well known that "illegal" only applies to "us - the individuals" and NOT large corporations. Because they "purchased" the laws...therefore, they do not have to abide by them.
But let me point out to you the $60/month I pay for broadband. $40+$20 for a telephone line I never use (thanks to my much better cell phone) because you make it required to have a phone line. So perhaps the check you received from me should ring a bell, mother.
See you've already been paid...
(the truth, it's time for the telcos to realize that "landline phones" are outdated technology and soon will cease to exist and that their true market is in broadband internet connectivity and that they need to add more and more services. OMG...they can't build an infrastructure and sit on their butts for 40 yrs without upgrading technology like they did with "ye ol' telephone". Now they need to re-invest some of the $$$ they earn into new technology so that in 10 yrs my DSL is 10mbit and not 1mbit. OMG....they have to spend money!
I had a similar experience on a much smaller scale, with a paper RPG and a GM.
We were starting a campaign of "Heroes Unlimited" (a super-hero role-playing game). It was my first game and due to inexperience I was "assigned" my super-powers by the GM.
1. Elasticity (think plastic man) 2. Chameleon (think ability to change color and sticky ability that allows climbing walls and such)
At first I was like, these suck....I'd never pick such powers. Chameleon, perhaps but elasticity. "Plastic Fantastic Men" were always my least favorite super-heroes. But then I tried to think of a character. And I realized something. Chameleon was the power to change color, but it did not state you had to blend into your environment. This small little point opened up an entire new world of idea - and instantly a character formed and was born in my head! I would be... (in deep monotone Tick like style)
"Saltwater Taffy Man"
(think about it, colorful, sticky, and stretchty...it so fit)
Now, I wanted the character to be non-lethal (the children's super-hero) and to use non-lethal weapons. But the GM refused as they were too expensive. And gave me a list of weapons to choose from...all of which were lethal. So I could not afford a mere tranquilizer gun (due to an over inflated price) and had to suffice myself after much debate with two.45 magnums.
Well, the campaign began and we were put up against this massive dragon. Which after a few rounds of combat lay slain at my hands. I simply had stretched my arms repeatedly to point blank range (earning quad damage with my two.45 magnums) and do to my agility and chameleon ability the dragon failed to hit me. The end result, my "paciful character" forced to be a gun-toting here slew the GM's "uber-dragon" in mere moments creating an extremely frustrated & pouty GM.
My point, had the GM just bent a little in order to facilitate character development over hard fast rules things would have gone differently.
The U.N. is not a governing body. It is an assembly for discussion.
The U.N. grants voting rights to dictatorships and democracies alike. Making the vote of one man equivalent to all of Australia. Why should I accept government by an entity that has a much lower rights status than my own nation? why should Europe? why should Australia?
What we really need is a new global entity which requires a bare minimum constitutional/charter protected democractic structure and human rights level in order to be eligable to vote. Any nation could participate in discussion but only those who give their masses an ability to affect decisions and protects their citizens rights should be eligable to vote.
Otherwise, I believe the United States should keep the internet under their control (as it was originally a DARPA (Department of Defense) project for national security (created to establish a decentralized communication system). Until an entity which guarantees equivalent or greater protections as the United States' Constitution does for it's citizens I see no point in relinquishing control.
If it is really a big issue, the U.N. should consider investing in a new internet. Heck, build it from the ground up and fix some of the major problems in the current one. (Be nice to eliminate spoofing). They could call it "NewNet"...and I am sure within time, if it is the better mousetrap, it will supplant the current internet and this issue will become moot.
I don't know about you all, but I am really, really, really getting sick of IP rights. I see abuse after abuse after abuse....and very little valid use or even in the cases which are valid I greatly question the need.
Sure...it's all supposed to help protect the artists/innovators, the little guys....but in most cases I do not see this happening. And right now there seems to be a complete lack of common sense among the legal systems.
Innovation stifled by patents and fairly lame ones at that....
I become more and more convinced that we need to eliminate the intellectual property laws in order for mankind to prosper. They are merely another form of slavery. Not physical, but mental slavery.
Considering how many "mini-Vans" & "SUVs" I see on the highways with TV screens and kids watching them in back. Yes, I can imagine the ability to record a bunch of kids cartoons and bring them with you on the vacation drive could be very advantageous to parents who don't want to buy tons of DVDs.
"granted an injunction banning the sale of BlackBerry devices in the United States and forcing Research in Motion to stop providing e-mail services to all American customers except government account holders."
I think BlackBerry if they are forced to stop providing service should in fact STOP providing service to government account holders. Why make an exception. Sure, maybe there will be a potential for critical issues to arise due to government reliance on Blackberries. If so, it just points out the silliness of patents enforced in such manner.
First off, Patents should only be available for new technology. NOT new business models or simply a "task". A patent should not be granted for "online auctions". But if someone were to come up with a specific device that allowed for "online auctions" to be conducted in a certain manner. That might be patentable. But these broad patents are silly.
I mean, I should file a patent on "flying car" sure I can't make one, I have no technology...but as soon as someone invest billions of dollars to successfully build a flying car I can sue them and stop production until they pay me my 40% due royalty. !@#$% ???
They had a problem with analog...but lost that battle in the courts. They figured it was a different time, and "digital" gave them an excuse to re-open the matter. They paid a lot of money $$$ for congressional support and gained major advances in accumulating more control.
Analog quality versus Digital quality is a "red herring"...
What does quality have to do with "copyrights". Ring tones were was less quality than the actual songs. RIAA attacked those as well...did they not?
The difference, is that BMI/SESAC/ASCAP only collect royalty rights for "public" performances:
Karaoke bars, music in the mall, nightclubs, churches, etc.
And "public performance" is distinctly detailed. For example: most would think a wedding would require payment. Right, the DJ is playing before people. Thus public! However, wedding receptions are in fact "private" events. Therefore, they do not require a royalty.
They may be just as harsh as RIAA in collecting but they at least have a much more fair basis than RIAA. And for that reason I have much less problem with their royalty system. (Though I do believe there should be a single payment point.)
Slashdot Mirror
Do you not realize that what they intend to do is jack up the price of any new release to $1.99 per song. And there justification for that price will be the fact that we already pay $2.50 for a bloody ringtone and that we're getting a better product for $0.50 less.
1) Start signing bands on a 50/49 cent split. (OMG...can you imagine it, artists getting more money than the label for a change)
2) File a lawsuit on behalf of the artists...that said artists only negotiated "analog" recording distribution rights. That none of the old contracts covered digital distribution. And that all of the artists retain the rights to their digital distribution, including the right to negotiate a digital distribution contract.
(Think about it, a) the common people would support it as I would buy a lot more music at $0.99/song if I knew the artists actually benefited. b) think of how many artists would support such a move? big names too like "Paul McCartney"... As many artists were screwed over big time. Even big name artists saw very small percentages of their songs. This would allow Paul McCartney to regain ownership of his music (for digital distribution only). RIAA would still retain the analog rights (but we all know that's a dying medium). And with RIAA pushing so much legislation distinguishing the difference between Analog and Digital (DMCA) there may in deed be enough cause for a court to decide in Apple's favor especially if 90% of the artists and consumers are in favor of it as well.
RIAA would find themselves the owner of an extinct business model. Left with a rotting carcass...
- The Saj
Apple makes what, $0.29 out of $0.99, the artist gets maybe $0.10. That means that the record labels get $0.60 for doing jack-crap. In truth, I support variable pricing. The record labels should forego some of their pennies and let the oldies retail for $0.50.
Oh I agree...
I think they should change the profile to a wide profile...and put the slider/wheel/etc on the back
Now, let me get this straight. Copyright violations hold up to $150,000 fine for each occurrence, right? This is what "RIAA" and the record labels have been threatening 12 yr olds in court with for the past few years.
The SONY rootkit was installed on how many computers? Am I correct here...in that the LAME project should potentially be able to sue SONY corp $150,000 for each violation. (Sounds like LAME might become the best funded open source project!)
Or do our laws only apply to the powerful? the rich? the mega-company? And if that is the case WHY should I give a damn about infringing on copyrights if they don't protect me as well?
Guess what.... I have !@#$% Windows in my house. Apple has !@#$% Windows in their OS. Funny thing, when Apple sued Microsoft they were told they could not protect the right because it was a common name.
Once again, it just goes to show the biggest guy wins. And once again it shows how moronic Intellectual Property rights are.
"It's pretty disturbing that such an obviously slanted article summary was posted here without the editors even bothering to check the facts."
As if this were a first. Oh my...or is it just a rare occurrence of you being on the opposite side of the slant?
Apple = Steve Jobs
Pixar = Steve Jobs
Why not Video iPod and downloadable "Pixar" films. Especially as it seems when you look at the list of travel movies a family brings with them for the kids - Pixar films tend to top the list.
So the ability to download Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Monster's Inc, Finding Nemo, The Incredibles could be a boon for iTunes AND add additional sales for those movies.
(In truth, I think Steve Jobs is better off waiting a few more movies and buying Disney. *lol*)
I swear, it's crud like this that makes me want to walk into Circuit City with a hammer and smash all the copies.
Look at the manager any say...."send them back to SONY...explain to them that installing of viral code is illegal" because it's pretty well known that "illegal" only applies to "us - the individuals" and NOT large corporations. Because they "purchased" the laws...therefore, they do not have to abide by them.
- The Saj
But let me point out to you the $60/month I pay for broadband. $40+$20 for a telephone line I never use (thanks to my much better cell phone) because you make it required to have a phone line. So perhaps the check you received from me should ring a bell, mother.
See you've already been paid...
(the truth, it's time for the telcos to realize that "landline phones" are outdated technology and soon will cease to exist and that their true market is in broadband internet connectivity and that they need to add more and more services. OMG...they can't build an infrastructure and sit on their butts for 40 yrs without upgrading technology like they did with "ye ol' telephone". Now they need to re-invest some of the $$$ they earn into new technology so that in 10 yrs my DSL is 10mbit and not 1mbit. OMG....they have to spend money!
- The Saj
So long as it was an expansive selection..
Should have become SlashDotTaco
I had a similar experience on a much smaller scale, with a paper RPG and a GM.
.45 magnums.
.45 magnums) and do to my agility and chameleon ability the dragon failed to hit me. The end result, my "paciful character" forced to be a gun-toting here slew the GM's "uber-dragon" in mere moments creating an extremely frustrated & pouty GM.
We were starting a campaign of "Heroes Unlimited" (a super-hero role-playing game). It was my first game and due to inexperience I was "assigned" my super-powers by the GM.
1. Elasticity (think plastic man)
2. Chameleon (think ability to change color and sticky ability that allows climbing walls and such)
At first I was like, these suck....I'd never pick such powers. Chameleon, perhaps but elasticity. "Plastic Fantastic Men" were always my least favorite super-heroes. But then I tried to think of a character. And I realized something. Chameleon was the power to change color, but it did not state you had to blend into your environment. This small little point opened up an entire new world of idea - and instantly a character formed and was born in my head! I would be... (in deep monotone Tick like style)
"Saltwater Taffy Man"
(think about it, colorful, sticky, and stretchty...it so fit)
Now, I wanted the character to be non-lethal (the children's super-hero) and to use non-lethal weapons. But the GM refused as they were too expensive. And gave me a list of weapons to choose from...all of which were lethal. So I could not afford a mere tranquilizer gun (due to an over inflated price) and had to suffice myself after much debate with two
Well, the campaign began and we were put up against this massive dragon. Which after a few rounds of combat lay slain at my hands. I simply had stretched my arms repeatedly to point blank range (earning quad damage with my two
My point, had the GM just bent a little in order to facilitate character development over hard fast rules things would have gone differently.
I myself sometimes question whether such is a "right" or a dutiful "responsibility" of any good citizen. ;)
The U.N. is not a governing body. It is an assembly for discussion.
The U.N. grants voting rights to dictatorships and democracies alike. Making the vote of one man equivalent to all of Australia. Why should I accept government by an entity that has a much lower rights status than my own nation? why should Europe? why should Australia?
What we really need is a new global entity which requires a bare minimum constitutional/charter protected democractic structure and human rights level in order to be eligable to vote. Any nation could participate in discussion but only those who give their masses an ability to affect decisions and protects their citizens rights should be eligable to vote.
Otherwise, I believe the United States should keep the internet under their control (as it was originally a DARPA (Department of Defense) project for national security (created to establish a decentralized communication system). Until an entity which guarantees equivalent or greater protections as the United States' Constitution does for it's citizens I see no point in relinquishing control.
If it is really a big issue, the U.N. should consider investing in a new internet. Heck, build it from the ground up and fix some of the major problems in the current one. (Be nice to eliminate spoofing). They could call it "NewNet"...and I am sure within time, if it is the better mousetrap, it will supplant the current internet and this issue will become moot.
- The Saj
I don't know about you all, but I am really, really, really getting sick of IP rights. I see abuse after abuse after abuse....and very little valid use or even in the cases which are valid I greatly question the need.
Sure...it's all supposed to help protect the artists/innovators, the little guys....but in most cases I do not see this happening. And right now there seems to be a complete lack of common sense among the legal systems.
blah....that was a perfectly good technical pun....no sense of humor :P
Innovation stifled by patents and fairly lame ones at that....
I become more and more convinced that we need to eliminate the intellectual property laws in order for mankind to prosper. They are merely another form of slavery. Not physical, but mental slavery.
wait,....
;)
you mean "It's a Joke" form factor
Depends on quality. My guess is the newer PVRs likely utilize USB 2.0 but some of the compatible models are equipped with 1.x
That's still not too bad as you can simply dock it and start the transfer.
Because, I'd also like to use it as an achive for my photos. I use a DSLR. I can shoot 4gigs of photos (JPGs) in a single days shooting.
I have over a thousand CDs.
And well, just having my favorite movies would fill up such a unit quickly.
Considering how many "mini-Vans" & "SUVs" I see on the highways with TV screens and kids watching them in back. Yes, I can imagine the ability to record a bunch of kids cartoons and bring them with you on the vacation drive could be very advantageous to parents who don't want to buy tons of DVDs.
"granted an injunction banning the sale of BlackBerry devices in the United States and forcing Research in Motion to stop providing e-mail services to all American customers except government account holders."
I think BlackBerry if they are forced to stop providing service should in fact STOP providing service to government account holders. Why make an exception. Sure, maybe there will be a potential for critical issues to arise due to government reliance on Blackberries. If so, it just points out the silliness of patents enforced in such manner.
First off, Patents should only be available for new technology. NOT new business models or simply a "task". A patent should not be granted for "online auctions". But if someone were to come up with a specific device that allowed for "online auctions" to be conducted in a certain manner. That might be patentable. But these broad patents are silly.
I mean, I should file a patent on "flying car" sure I can't make one, I have no technology...but as soon as someone invest billions of dollars to successfully build a flying car I can sue them and stop production until they pay me my 40% due royalty. !@#$% ???
Balogne...
They had a problem with analog...but lost that battle in the courts. They figured it was a different time, and "digital" gave them an excuse to re-open the matter. They paid a lot of money $$$ for congressional support and gained major advances in accumulating more control.
Analog quality versus Digital quality is a "red herring"...
What does quality have to do with "copyrights". Ring tones were was less quality than the actual songs. RIAA attacked those as well...did they not?
The difference, is that BMI/SESAC/ASCAP only collect royalty rights for "public" performances:
Karaoke bars, music in the mall, nightclubs, churches, etc.
And "public performance" is distinctly detailed. For example: most would think a wedding would require payment. Right, the DJ is playing before people. Thus public! However, wedding receptions are in fact "private" events. Therefore, they do not require a royalty.
They may be just as harsh as RIAA in collecting but they at least have a much more fair basis than RIAA. And for that reason I have much less problem with their royalty system. (Though I do believe there should be a single payment point.)