This is just an observation, but does anyone else have any ideas on how this will go?
Possible scenario:
More companies will join on the bandwagon of detecting copyright infringments and developing software in order to 'catch' illegal distributions of mp3's (and eventually movies, books, etc.)
In an effort to circumvent these copyright detectors and to cause them all sorts of headaches including legal problems users will begin to distribute false files. This will include incorrect naming of files, substituting junk and garbage as copyrighted material and such. If it truly is illegal to accuse you of a copyright violation, as a form of protest, some people will begin to pawn junk files as a political movement. Others will simply continue to pawn them off because they either think it is funny, dont care, or feel if they get shafted why not someone else.
This will then cause tons of garbage to exist out there as chaff. Users end up getting garbage a majority of the time from filetrading services. It becomes somewhat of a game for users who attempt to avoid detection yet continue to distribute.
P2P would seem to have some interesting times ahead, or would they be worse times?
Jeez, another/.'r who wants to flame and say something funny about Tom and Nicole.
Tetrahedron's costs have nothing to do with Publisher integrity and more to do with GREED. The idea behind academia publishing is freedom of research. People who write articles for a publisher do not get paid for the article (I've been published 7 times and IEEE never paid me for what I wrote, my university paid me.) And these articles are peer reviewed, usually submitted for conferences which are paid for by the attendees and the author's themselves.
So basically you are saying that these publishers have a right to charge incredibly huge prices to protect their journalistic integrity? I think that's taken care of by the peer review (which itself is already paid for by the conference fees). What it all boils down to greed. It has nothing to do with journalistic integrity. Can you point out an article which was published that broke a publisher's career? (Academic community only please, we'll leave the tabloids out of this.)
And give it up over Tom and Nicole. The rumor has it they are both gay anyway and that was a marriage of convience. No wonder it didn't work out.
Sales drop(?) for the media comapany but readership is drastcially up. But the media company is not making less money on more readers. A new business model needs to be made to keep the media company in business, otherwise the media company will stop printing the widely read item and everyone will be pissed.
How much money does a publishing house need? When dealing with physical media, there is a cost associated with the paper, the binding, the manual labor involved in producing it. But with digital media, about the only thing required is the computer to distribute the copies and someone to spell check (which I don't think even gets done that often.) Digital copies should have VERY LOW publishing costs. This means the profit margin is higher on a book, doesn't it? Shouldn't that higher profit margin offset a library who buys 1 copy yet can allow 30 users to read it at once?
Slashdot Mirror
Possible scenario:
More companies will join on the bandwagon of detecting copyright infringments and developing software in order to 'catch' illegal distributions of mp3's (and eventually movies, books, etc.)
In an effort to circumvent these copyright detectors and to cause them all sorts of headaches including legal problems users will begin to distribute false files. This will include incorrect naming of files, substituting junk and garbage as copyrighted material and such. If it truly is illegal to accuse you of a copyright violation, as a form of protest, some people will begin to pawn junk files as a political movement. Others will simply continue to pawn them off because they either think it is funny, dont care, or feel if they get shafted why not someone else.
This will then cause tons of garbage to exist out there as chaff. Users end up getting garbage a majority of the time from filetrading services. It becomes somewhat of a game for users who attempt to avoid detection yet continue to distribute.
P2P would seem to have some interesting times ahead, or would they be worse times?
Tetrahedron's costs have nothing to do with Publisher integrity and more to do with GREED. The idea behind academia publishing is freedom of research. People who write articles for a publisher do not get paid for the article (I've been published 7 times and IEEE never paid me for what I wrote, my university paid me.) And these articles are peer reviewed, usually submitted for conferences which are paid for by the attendees and the author's themselves.
So basically you are saying that these publishers have a right to charge incredibly huge prices to protect their journalistic integrity? I think that's taken care of by the peer review (which itself is already paid for by the conference fees). What it all boils down to greed. It has nothing to do with journalistic integrity. Can you point out an article which was published that broke a publisher's career? (Academic community only please, we'll leave the tabloids out of this.)
And give it up over Tom and Nicole. The rumor has it they are both gay anyway and that was a marriage of convience. No wonder it didn't work out.
How much money does a publishing house need? When dealing with physical media, there is a cost associated with the paper, the binding, the manual labor involved in producing it. But with digital media, about the only thing required is the computer to distribute the copies and someone to spell check (which I don't think even gets done that often.) Digital copies should have VERY LOW publishing costs. This means the profit margin is higher on a book, doesn't it? Shouldn't that higher profit margin offset a library who buys 1 copy yet can allow 30 users to read it at once?