I think the one group who depises the interent more than the music industry is the direct marketing industry. This is because people are slowly becoming aware of how much 'personal' information is available for a price.
Up until 2 years ago, Chase sold credit card balance information. The DMV in all but 2 states sells your address (which you have to change w/in 10 days of a move). Stores like LL Bean, EMS, etc. sell your purchasing habits.
But what is the harm? They don't personally know you and the information is just one bit of data in a terrabyte database. In effect, it's still private. On the flip side, it lowers prices to consumers. Instead of buying expensive TV advertising, a direct marketer can buy just a targetted list. Lower costs to producers mean lower prices for consumers.
What's the real difference between someone who finds something cool and a label in your view? You say that you trust certain people's choices because they have made cool recommendations in the past, and that those people should be compensated for their coolness. How is this different from the Blue Note label, or all of the Indie labels out there? They find good talent early and promote it.
Your discussion seems to hinge on the idea that the labels are somewhat inefficient at bringing quality acts to you. At the same time, you don't want to go out and find quality acts yourself. An efficient way in your system is to have a machine make sophisticated recommendations based on yours and others' purchasing behaviors. Well, check out Amazon, they do that already.
I think that the real answer all of the wrongs of capitalism is to stop consuming. The reason why McDonalds (insert any multi-national) replaced your local diner (insert any local equivalent) is because you don't go to your local diner.
the idea is credited to Thomas Friedman, a columnist of the NYT and author of The Lexus and the Olive Tree. He addresses both exceptions to the rule, one being the civil war in Yugoslavia.
He discusses the main reason why this occurs and that is you wouldn't kill your business partner.
It's actually a really good book about the globalization of corporations and what he sees as a counter-force of the globalization of individuals and activism. Globalization puts General Motors in Mexico as well as environmental and work standards. Nike has China make it shoes, but universities won't buy slave labor made equipment. The same forces that drive McDonalds to Japan, puts Thai food in your town.
AOL has to open its IM if users can video-conference. If AOL IM is the protocol that enables Playstation users to play each other, does that count? Presumably, if one user sees the likeness/character of another user, that would be videoconferencing?
Not all parents are going to be able to check what their kids are viewing. Compare this to a parent who doesn't need to know how to fix their car to prevent their kid from driving it. Tools need to be provided to allow the parent to prevent the viewing of inappropriate material.
It seems from the article that a significant consumer of filtering software will be corporate customers. A better solution is to prevent employees from seeing inappropriate material than firing them after the fact. It also prevents liability.
You would have to guess that a good amount of all music exists somewhere in some form of tradable mp3 format, including most stuff produced in the last 3 years. This seems like a rather lo-tech fix. Why didn't they come up with this before?
Anyway, this is just a sign of more things to come. A lot of people complain about how good things used to be, when you could 'borrow' CD's easily. You have to imagine that there will be some point where publishers will have complete control over their copyrights. Try looking at what that might look like. The article from this thread raises some interesting points:
---More subtly, the Sims Online will allow players to bookmark retail objects. For instance, if you see a cool chair at someone's house, you bookmark it. If you buy the chair, a commission flows back to the person from whom you bookmarked it, and the person from whom they bookmarked it, as well as the creator of that object. This motivates people to buy expensive stuff and throw parties. It also makes it economically attractive to buy one of every chair in the Sim universe and open a Chairs "R" Us showroom. Imagine a world where you could earn an Amazon-style affiliate commission for every product on your homepage - it makes retail into a massively multiplayer game.---
If you apply this, then the copyrights look more interesting. Also, music becomes more interesting. There is not only an emotional incentive to find and listen to good music, there is a subtle financial one.
I've often thought about this idea for TV and the internet, and I wonder if it will work. I doubt it for a couple of reasons. First, it is the most active and higher income users who will subscribe for this service. So, you knock out the significant part of your inventory and lower the value of what's left.
To look at the numbers is interesting. Suppose Salon sells its inventory on average $30 CPM (Cost per thousand) and they have 4 different ads per page (1 top left, 1 top middle, 1 top right, 1 below the top nav). That means for a user who sees 5 pages a week (2 stories * 2.5 pages/story * 4 ads/pages * 50 wks/yr = 1000 ads/yr), Salon breaks even. The active user who sees more than 2/stories a week is worth more to Salon than $30. They've already done this and probably aren't making a $30 but you see where this goes.
Look at TV, say you have a $100 CPM (cost per thousand viewers, 1 viewer = $0.10) for a show like "Friends." There are probably fifteen 30 sec ads during the show. So the viewer is worth $1.50 ($0.10 per viewer * 15 ads). Would you pay $1.50/show for Friends? For all the other shows on TV? Once again, any person who subscribes is going to be the exact audience an advertiser is looking for, so an advertiser will pay less for the rest of the inventory.
It doesn't really make sense for the publisher to charge the consumer directly. As much as it sucks, advertisements provide us with content.
What does it say about the issue of racism that/.ers jump to defend Microsoft?
The real case hasn't even been in court yet. The only information about the case is the suit claim broken into soundbites. If the case has no merit, it will be thrown out.
BTW, Racism does exist in corporate America, just look at Texico, Arbee's, Coca-Cola, Avis, etc.
I think the reason why you feel a bit more secure with public hate material is because you are not French. Your morals are different and should be. If you don't agree, don't live there; well, you don't. The global economy doesn't give Americans the right to impose our standards on everybody else (though the means are there).
Slashdot Mirror
Up until 2 years ago, Chase sold credit card balance information. The DMV in all but 2 states sells your address (which you have to change w/in 10 days of a move). Stores like LL Bean, EMS, etc. sell your purchasing habits.
But what is the harm? They don't personally know you and the information is just one bit of data in a terrabyte database. In effect, it's still private. On the flip side, it lowers prices to consumers. Instead of buying expensive TV advertising, a direct marketer can buy just a targetted list. Lower costs to producers mean lower prices for consumers.
Your discussion seems to hinge on the idea that the labels are somewhat inefficient at bringing quality acts to you. At the same time, you don't want to go out and find quality acts yourself. An efficient way in your system is to have a machine make sophisticated recommendations based on yours and others' purchasing behaviors. Well, check out Amazon, they do that already.
I think that the real answer all of the wrongs of capitalism is to stop consuming. The reason why McDonalds (insert any multi-national) replaced your local diner (insert any local equivalent) is because you don't go to your local diner.
He discusses the main reason why this occurs and that is you wouldn't kill your business partner.
It's actually a really good book about the globalization of corporations and what he sees as a counter-force of the globalization of individuals and activism. Globalization puts General Motors in Mexico as well as environmental and work standards. Nike has China make it shoes, but universities won't buy slave labor made equipment. The same forces that drive McDonalds to Japan, puts Thai food in your town.
AOL has to open its IM if users can video-conference. If AOL IM is the protocol that enables Playstation users to play each other, does that count? Presumably, if one user sees the likeness/character of another user, that would be videoconferencing?
I believe the rule is to buy low and sell high. Many have the same painful memory in March 2000 with Amazon, Cisco, etc.
It's already happened. Time Warner blocked Disney's ABC channel last May.
Not all parents are going to be able to check what their kids are viewing. Compare this to a parent who doesn't need to know how to fix their car to prevent their kid from driving it. Tools need to be provided to allow the parent to prevent the viewing of inappropriate material. It seems from the article that a significant consumer of filtering software will be corporate customers. A better solution is to prevent employees from seeing inappropriate material than firing them after the fact. It also prevents liability.
Watch World Cup soccer for Sony Playstation with the computer against itself. The AI is there, we just need the mechanics.
You would have to guess that a good amount of all music exists somewhere in some form of tradable mp3 format, including most stuff produced in the last 3 years. This seems like a rather lo-tech fix. Why didn't they come up with this before?
Anyway, this is just a sign of more things to come. A lot of people complain about how good things used to be, when you could 'borrow' CD's easily. You have to imagine that there will be some point where publishers will have complete control over their copyrights. Try looking at what that might look like. The article from this thread raises some interesting points:
---More subtly, the Sims Online will allow players to bookmark retail objects. For instance, if you see a cool chair at someone's house, you bookmark it. If you buy the chair, a commission flows back to the person from whom you bookmarked it, and the person from whom they bookmarked it, as well as the creator of that object. This motivates people to buy expensive stuff and throw parties. It also makes it economically attractive to buy one of every chair in the Sim universe and open a Chairs "R" Us showroom. Imagine a world where you could earn an Amazon-style affiliate commission for every product on your homepage - it makes retail into a massively multiplayer game.---
If you apply this, then the copyrights look more interesting. Also, music becomes more interesting. There is not only an emotional incentive to find and listen to good music, there is a subtle financial one.
I've often thought about this idea for TV and the internet, and I wonder if it will work. I doubt it for a couple of reasons. First, it is the most active and higher income users who will subscribe for this service. So, you knock out the significant part of your inventory and lower the value of what's left.
To look at the numbers is interesting. Suppose Salon sells its inventory on average $30 CPM (Cost per thousand) and they have 4 different ads per page (1 top left, 1 top middle, 1 top right, 1 below the top nav). That means for a user who sees 5 pages a week (2 stories * 2.5 pages/story * 4 ads/pages * 50 wks/yr = 1000 ads/yr), Salon breaks even. The active user who sees more than 2/stories a week is worth more to Salon than $30. They've already done this and probably aren't making a $30 but you see where this goes.
Look at TV, say you have a $100 CPM (cost per thousand viewers, 1 viewer = $0.10) for a show like "Friends." There are probably fifteen 30 sec ads during the show. So the viewer is worth $1.50 ($0.10 per viewer * 15 ads). Would you pay $1.50/show for Friends? For all the other shows on TV? Once again, any person who subscribes is going to be the exact audience an advertiser is looking for, so an advertiser will pay less for the rest of the inventory.
It doesn't really make sense for the publisher to charge the consumer directly. As much as it sucks, advertisements provide us with content.
The enemy of you enemy is your friend. Wouldn't the logical conclusion of protecting lyracists right also have shut down napster?
Current schedules say that digital televisions will be phased in by 2006. http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyN ews/digital_tv010110.html
What does it say about the issue of racism that /.ers jump to defend Microsoft?
The real case hasn't even been in court yet. The only information about the case is the suit claim broken into soundbites. If the case has no merit, it will be thrown out.
BTW, Racism does exist in corporate America, just look at Texico, Arbee's, Coca-Cola, Avis, etc.
I think the reason why you feel a bit more secure with public hate material is because you are not French. Your morals are different and should be. If you don't agree, don't live there; well, you don't. The global economy doesn't give Americans the right to impose our standards on everybody else (though the means are there).