Re:Good for the RIAA. This is capitalism at work.
on
RIAA's Nasty Easter Egg
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
So if I want your credit card and social security numbers and you refuse to sell them to me at a price I deem reasonable, it's my duty to steal them from you?
Metallica's (well E/M Ventures, the corporation that their label, their management, and the members of the band own the shares in) already getting c.$0.40 for tracks. $4.00 per CD divided by 10-14 tracks per CD.
Their live-music download operation gets them $9.95 for 128-kbit MP3 show (20 tracks, counting "Kirk Doodle #1", etc., so $0.50 per track or $0.08 per minute) or $12.95 for a FLAC show ($0.65 per track, $0.11 per minute). Of course, there's server and bandwidth costs associated with this, but assuming that it costs 3 times as much to send a FLAC as an MP3, $0.40 per track is reasonable.
Metallica has rejected iTMS and a couple of similar services for three reasons:
cost structure would actually mean less money
having every song available separately ruins the sanctity of the art of the album
DRM software and platform restrictions limit the ability of their fans to hear the music
I wouldn't be too surprised if one or more defense contractors is subcontracting work to Pakistan or some other place where there's a decent number of people who might have an interest in damaging the US or could be paid to have such an interest.
Ask any plaintiff's attorney. If the case goes to trial, the odds are very much against the plaintiff winning.
The objective of the plaintiff's attorney is thus not to win at trial but to convince the defendant that pushing the case to trial is not worth it and settle.
More often than not, the defendant in this case is a corporation. Cf. the breast implant class actions of ten years ago. Dow Corning etc. would have almost certainly won at trial (the evidence demonstrating liability was and is virtually nonexistent). However, they realized that it would cost billions to fight it in court, so paying a settlement would be the better deal.
What I propose is some form of loser pays. How's this for a novel idea: have each legal team submit a weekly summation of how much they're claiming in legal costs that week. At the end of the trial, the figures are totaled. The percentage of jurors that found for the defendant determines the percentage of the total cost paid by the plaintiff and vice-versa. Thus, if it's 8-4 in favor of the defendant, then the plaintiff has to foot 2/3 of the total legal cost for both sides, with the defendant footing the remainder.
Per the RIAA definitions, I've bought nine new CDs in 2003 (the most since 2000 for me):
Metallica, St. Anger (excellent album; the title track is the only bad song)
Queensryche, Tribe (better than St. Anger at blending traditional $BAND's music with nu-metal, but of not the same level of uniform quality)
Rush, In Rio (best live album I've ever heard)
Rush, Hold Your Fire (filling out my Rush collection; already had in compressed digital format)
Rush, Signals (ditto)
Rush, A Farewell to Kings (ditto)
Rush, Chronicles DVD + Moving Pictures CD (ditto)
[In Rio, being three CDs counts as three sales for RIAA purposes]
I am at the stage where I'll buy any studio or live release from artists that have been of a consistently high level of quality. Other than that, I'm not that interested.
In most states, that information is required by law to be publicly available. I could walk into any Tax Assessor's office in the US and get what's on that page in a few minutes (depending on how many people are in front of me in line):
The parcel layout
Who owns the parcel (as per the deed)
Hell, the assessed valuation of the parcel isn't even published on the web! I'd actually have to go down to the Assessor's office to get that information (at least in this case).
Comcast Sports Net (the Baltimore-Washington-NoVa version, not the Philly version) is available on DirecTV. The crappy excuse for a channel called CN8 is not available on DirecTV, though.
Small cable cos are in no danger, as they generally don't share markets with Comcast.
Dish is in the dangerous position. DirecTV is harder to cut off, because if Comcast tries to cut DirecTV out, News Corp. will cut Comcast out of Fox News, Fox Sports Net, and network-owned affiliates. If Comcast in northern New Jersey, Connecticut, and Eastern Massachusetts loses Fox coverage of the Red Sox and Yankees in the ALCS while DirecTV buys ads in the various local newspapers saying, "You can't see the Red Sox square off against the Yankees on Comcast. Here are bars that subscribe to DirecTV that can show the games. Subscribers to Charter Cable, RCN, Cablevision, Time Warner Cable, DirecTV and other television providers are not affected." Comcast would lose a million homes easily from this. Playing hardball with Rupert Murdoch has not, historically, been a winning proposition.
Dish, however, has no content portfolio to use against its competition as a bargaining chip. Conversely, there are content providers who have no distribution portfolio. This is why I'd expect to see, assuming the Disney deal goes through, GE (NBC) and Viacom (CBS) to buy Cox and Dish.
Should you need a CS degree to design automobile software, space shuttle software, large distributed programs, the next generation networking protocols, etc.? Yes, but you should probably have a masters/phd or a lot of proven experience in addition.
The purpose of a CS degree has been lost on me
You answered your own question before you asked it. What is the pre-req for getting an MS in CS? Why, it's a bachelor's degree, preferably in some field at least related to CS!
I'm a bloke, we're supposed to like naked women, we're born like that! We like naked women as soon as we're pulled out of one; halfway down the birth canal we're already enjoying the view! Look, it is the four pillars of the male heterosexual psyche. We like: Naked Women, Stockings, Lesbians, and Sean Connery best as James Bond, because that's what being a boy is....Look, I want to spend the rest of my life with the woman at the end of that table there, but that does not stop me wanting to see several thousand more naked bottoms before I die, because that's what being a bloke is. When man invented fire, he didn't say "Hey, let's cook!" He said "Great! Now we can see naked bottoms in the dark!" As soon as Caxton had invented the printing press, we using it to make pictures of, hey! Naked bottoms! We have turned the internet into an enormous international database of naked bottoms. So you see, the story of male achievement through the ages, feeble though it may have been, has been a story of our struggle to get a better look at your bottoms.
There's a few gangs based in Eastern Europe that are using Windows machines infected with viruses/worms to DDoS gambling sites unless $5,000/month in protection money is paid up.
The mental midget known as Mark Maughan, who has only been a member of his local CPA association for about a year, is just out to get some easy cash by trying to make it more expensive for Google to fight him in court. CPAs normally make ass-loads of money, so I guess he must be really crappy at his job if he needs the money this badly.
Of course DRM will entrench the fat cats, possibly to a greater degree than they are entrenched now.
However, ending piracy voluntarily would end the advantage that the fat cats get over the skinny kittens from piracy.
DRM will not be that draconian. Everybody but the mental midgets at the RIAA realizes that pissing off the customers enough for them to decide to go elsewhere. As long as the DRM allows a certain amount of leeway, consumers will continue to lap it up.
However, OSS won't become dominant unless and until piracy is eradicated. Freedom doesn't matter to most users (for all the pontificating about the draconian EULAs that you read on Slashdot, Microsoft et al are smart enough to know not to be too draconian on the common man). The only valid arguments for OSS that remain are quality and price (which are combined into value).
The quality argument is difficult to assess, and it varies from program to program. GIMP is still fairly far from Photoshop. OSS GUIs are playing leapfrog with Windows (KDE/GNOME have the lead on XP at the moment, but the next revision of Windows will likely see Windows retake the lead in that competition) and are probably somewhat behind OS X. And even quality won't necessarily beat an entrenched base, due to market inertia.
That leaves price. If OSS costs nothing, but so does pirated software, then it's a push, so the value judgement is deferred to quality, with inertia playing a role.
Now, if all of a sudden, everybody was forced to buy Office at full-price, OpenOffice would gain so much traction in the marketplace, it would likely be at parity with Office in a year and have hegemony in the market thereafter.
Wow, you've convinced me, by posting an article by a supporter of Pat Buchanan...
Keep in mind that tariffs are a discretionary, indirect tax. The consumer can choose to buy the import or the domestic good, and therefore refuse to pay the tariff.
Only a simpleton argue that. What happens to the price of domestic goods when you artifically raise the price of the competition? Unless you're living in a fantasy-land, the domestically produced goods will increase in price as a direct result of the tariff. In effect, whether or not you buy the imported good, you're paying the tariff; the only difference is whether it goes to the government or gets absorbed as extra profit.
The Smoot-Hawley tariff pre-dated the stock market crash, and therefore could not have caused it
[then two paragraphs later...]
one recalls that Smoot-Hawley was not enacted until more than 8 months after the October, 1929 collapse, it is hard to conceive how it could have led to the Great Depression
Having trouble making up your mind, eh?
Regardless, a recovery was well underway at the time the tariff was enacted. The 1929 crash touched off little more than a moderate, though sharp (when the amount of time is taken into account) recession. Smoot-Hawley was enacted, and the steepest slide came, pushing the Depression to its greatest depths in 1931. The reason is simple: by increasing prices (the aim of all tariffs, stated or unstated), Smoot-Hawley decreased demand. In a time of prosperity, this decrease in demand generally does not have a significant effect, as there's still enough demand left to keep things going. But in a situation where demand is decreased somewhat already (as happens after a stock market crash), decreasing demand even more is the road to disaster.
This is strictly conjecture, but assuming that the recovery of early 1930 continued, by 1932, the economy would have recovered to prosperity. The steepest job losses, GDP decline, and so forth occured.
A perfect storm of factors (a balanced budget, over-leverage in the stock market, etc.) came together to lay the groundwork for the initial recession. The Smoot-Hawley tariff pushed the recession over the edge, doing damage that even tariff rollback could not fix immediately.
Slashdot Mirror
So if I want your credit card and social security numbers and you refuse to sell them to me at a price I deem reasonable, it's my duty to steal them from you?
Metallica's (well E/M Ventures, the corporation that their label, their management, and the members of the band own the shares in) already getting c.$0.40 for tracks. $4.00 per CD divided by 10-14 tracks per CD.
Their live-music download operation gets them $9.95 for 128-kbit MP3 show (20 tracks, counting "Kirk Doodle #1", etc., so $0.50 per track or $0.08 per minute) or $12.95 for a FLAC show ($0.65 per track, $0.11 per minute). Of course, there's server and bandwidth costs associated with this, but assuming that it costs 3 times as much to send a FLAC as an MP3, $0.40 per track is reasonable.
Metallica has rejected iTMS and a couple of similar services for three reasons:
I wouldn't be too surprised if one or more defense contractors is subcontracting work to Pakistan or some other place where there's a decent number of people who might have an interest in damaging the US or could be paid to have such an interest.
Ask any plaintiff's attorney. If the case goes to trial, the odds are very much against the plaintiff winning.
The objective of the plaintiff's attorney is thus not to win at trial but to convince the defendant that pushing the case to trial is not worth it and settle.
More often than not, the defendant in this case is a corporation. Cf. the breast implant class actions of ten years ago. Dow Corning etc. would have almost certainly won at trial (the evidence demonstrating liability was and is virtually nonexistent). However, they realized that it would cost billions to fight it in court, so paying a settlement would be the better deal.
What I propose is some form of loser pays. How's this for a novel idea: have each legal team submit a weekly summation of how much they're claiming in legal costs that week. At the end of the trial, the figures are totaled. The percentage of jurors that found for the defendant determines the percentage of the total cost paid by the plaintiff and vice-versa. Thus, if it's 8-4 in favor of the defendant, then the plaintiff has to foot 2/3 of the total legal cost for both sides, with the defendant footing the remainder.
Purchase a medium-size sports sedan, such as the Cadillac CTS or the forthcoming Cadillac STS.
I think we have a new winner for most idiotic post on Slashdot....
Per the RIAA definitions, I've bought nine new CDs in 2003 (the most since 2000 for me):
[In Rio, being three CDs counts as three sales for RIAA purposes]
I am at the stage where I'll buy any studio or live release from artists that have been of a consistently high level of quality. Other than that, I'm not that interested.
In most states, that information is required by law to be publicly available. I could walk into any Tax Assessor's office in the US and get what's on that page in a few minutes (depending on how many people are in front of me in line):
Hell, the assessed valuation of the parcel isn't even published on the web! I'd actually have to go down to the Assessor's office to get that information (at least in this case).
Not only is it one of the most extensible window managers around (being written in a lisp dialect), it also cuts trees underwater!*
*: Julienne fries and sex toy attachments sold separately
Presumably loss of domain...
Hey, it worked in the Cold War... ;o)
Comcast Sports Net (the Baltimore-Washington-NoVa version, not the Philly version) is available on DirecTV. The crappy excuse for a channel called CN8 is not available on DirecTV, though.
Small cable cos are in no danger, as they generally don't share markets with Comcast.
Dish is in the dangerous position. DirecTV is harder to cut off, because if Comcast tries to cut DirecTV out, News Corp. will cut Comcast out of Fox News, Fox Sports Net, and network-owned affiliates. If Comcast in northern New Jersey, Connecticut, and Eastern Massachusetts loses Fox coverage of the Red Sox and Yankees in the ALCS while DirecTV buys ads in the various local newspapers saying, "You can't see the Red Sox square off against the Yankees on Comcast. Here are bars that subscribe to DirecTV that can show the games. Subscribers to Charter Cable, RCN, Cablevision, Time Warner Cable, DirecTV and other television providers are not affected." Comcast would lose a million homes easily from this. Playing hardball with Rupert Murdoch has not, historically, been a winning proposition.
Dish, however, has no content portfolio to use against its competition as a bargaining chip. Conversely, there are content providers who have no distribution portfolio. This is why I'd expect to see, assuming the Disney deal goes through, GE (NBC) and Viacom (CBS) to buy Cox and Dish.
Silly poster, tits are for chicks!
Though I suppose it would be cool to be able to kill Lazenby...
Though I just have Opera open with no windows.
The mouse named Pam had 3AAAAAAAAA's...
From Coupling's season one episode, "Inferno":
...and haven't noticed any problems. Why is this advised against?
There's a few gangs based in Eastern Europe that are using Windows machines infected with viruses/worms to DDoS gambling sites unless $5,000/month in protection money is paid up.
And let's not forget SCO...
The mental midget known as Mark Maughan, who has only been a member of his local CPA association for about a year, is just out to get some easy cash by trying to make it more expensive for Google to fight him in court. CPAs normally make ass-loads of money, so I guess he must be really crappy at his job if he needs the money this badly.
Libel requires intent only if the figure in question is a public figure.
Of course DRM will entrench the fat cats, possibly to a greater degree than they are entrenched now.
However, ending piracy voluntarily would end the advantage that the fat cats get over the skinny kittens from piracy.
DRM will not be that draconian. Everybody but the mental midgets at the RIAA realizes that pissing off the customers enough for them to decide to go elsewhere. As long as the DRM allows a certain amount of leeway, consumers will continue to lap it up.
However, OSS won't become dominant unless and until piracy is eradicated. Freedom doesn't matter to most users (for all the pontificating about the draconian EULAs that you read on Slashdot, Microsoft et al are smart enough to know not to be too draconian on the common man). The only valid arguments for OSS that remain are quality and price (which are combined into value).
The quality argument is difficult to assess, and it varies from program to program. GIMP is still fairly far from Photoshop. OSS GUIs are playing leapfrog with Windows (KDE/GNOME have the lead on XP at the moment, but the next revision of Windows will likely see Windows retake the lead in that competition) and are probably somewhat behind OS X. And even quality won't necessarily beat an entrenched base, due to market inertia.
That leaves price. If OSS costs nothing, but so does pirated software, then it's a push, so the value judgement is deferred to quality, with inertia playing a role.
Now, if all of a sudden, everybody was forced to buy Office at full-price, OpenOffice would gain so much traction in the marketplace, it would likely be at parity with Office in a year and have hegemony in the market thereafter.
Wow, you've convinced me, by posting an article by a supporter of Pat Buchanan...
Only a simpleton argue that. What happens to the price of domestic goods when you artifically raise the price of the competition? Unless you're living in a fantasy-land, the domestically produced goods will increase in price as a direct result of the tariff. In effect, whether or not you buy the imported good, you're paying the tariff; the only difference is whether it goes to the government or gets absorbed as extra profit.
[then two paragraphs later...]
Having trouble making up your mind, eh?
Regardless, a recovery was well underway at the time the tariff was enacted. The 1929 crash touched off little more than a moderate, though sharp (when the amount of time is taken into account) recession. Smoot-Hawley was enacted, and the steepest slide came, pushing the Depression to its greatest depths in 1931. The reason is simple: by increasing prices (the aim of all tariffs, stated or unstated), Smoot-Hawley decreased demand. In a time of prosperity, this decrease in demand generally does not have a significant effect, as there's still enough demand left to keep things going. But in a situation where demand is decreased somewhat already (as happens after a stock market crash), decreasing demand even more is the road to disaster.
This is strictly conjecture, but assuming that the recovery of early 1930 continued, by 1932, the economy would have recovered to prosperity. The steepest job losses, GDP decline, and so forth occured.
A perfect storm of factors (a balanced budget, over-leverage in the stock market, etc.) came together to lay the groundwork for the initial recession. The Smoot-Hawley tariff pushed the recession over the edge, doing damage that even tariff rollback could not fix immediately.