Musicians don't sign RIAA contracts, they sign contracts with the record labels. And why wouldn't they, given the state of the music industry today?
Unfortunately, the state of the music industry has been such that for the average artist to even think of releasing an album on to the world stage, a record deal with a label was absolutely necessary. The labels control the industry and decide who and what is in and out on a particular day.
This is in the process of changing in a big way, and the labels don't like it.
Many arguments have been made lately that artists would be much better off without the record labels if they simply released their work to the Internet and made their living by touring and selling merchandise. Of course, the record labels and by extension, the RIAA, want to maintain the status quo, hence the demonisation of sharing music via the Internet and the somewhat desperate legal tactics designed to ward off what some would say is an imminent change in the way the entire music industry works.
So, while artists these days may continue to sign contracts 'of their own volition' without knowing any better, I'm quite certain that they would be much happier and more prosperous in the New Music Industry - Coming Soon...
I agree, $521,000,000 USD certainly isn't much when you consider that, when planning the downfall of Netscape, Microsoft would most probably have factored in at least $1,000,000,000 USD for lost patent battles... I mean, seriously, who believes that Microsoft doesn't knowingly violate patents and just simply budget for the inevitable settlement, or at worst, loss such as this? It's part of the business plan, and has been since the beginning.
'Propperly' is actually spelt 'Properly'. I thought that that was what he meant to correct in the first place and thought the recursion comment was hilarious!
You are right, you can't buy support from a company that doesn't exist, however, you also can't receive commercial support from a company that doesn't exist anymore.
Remember that this support is required for 10 years.
I think that the odds are greater that community support will still be available in 8-10 years time.
3GB is NOTHING. Your average webpage is around 100K. You use about 50M for an hour of gaming. The streaming video that features prominantly in almost every broadband commercial will take much more than that. Game demos, streaming music, all of the reasons to use broadband.
Telstra provides a number of unmetered sites for their 3GB capped users, including gaming servers, game demo downloads, 24 hour video music (thebasement.com.au), even the latest Linux and Free/Net/OpenBSD distros are available for unmetered download. If Optus are not planning a similar system, I would be looking at switching to GASP Telstra for my broadband service. Sounds like they offer for free just what you want from broadband. By the way, I too was pissed when Telstra introduced the 3GB limit, but I find by using the free sites on offer, especially GameArena (for my Linux downloads) I have no problem staying under the limit.
I have a great deal of trouble believing that technology such as this, no matter how cheap to manufacture, would cost only $50. What this kind of storage capacity would be worth to most people will dictate the cost, not the price or ease of manufacture.
Let them test for genetic flaws, but not until one very important prerequisite is met...
A genetic modification to correct the flaw must be readily available.
I think that the main reason this is so unfair is that we have no way of fixing the genetic 'mistakes' inherited at conception. If I have the ability to correct a flaw in my genes and choose not to, then I don't see it as being much of an injustice to be denied insurance because of it.
Slashdot Mirror
IMNSHO, the new site is so inferior to the old site that the title should read "G4TechTV - Stay Connected - Please?"
Just dig out your copy of Starship Titanic - surely every self respecting geek has one...
:)
You did keep the 3D glasses didn't you?
Musicians don't sign RIAA contracts, they sign contracts with the record labels. And why wouldn't they, given the state of the music industry today?
Unfortunately, the state of the music industry has been such that for the average artist to even think of releasing an album on to the world stage, a record deal with a label was absolutely necessary. The labels control the industry and decide who and what is in and out on a particular day.
This is in the process of changing in a big way, and the labels don't like it.
Many arguments have been made lately that artists would be much better off without the record labels if they simply released their work to the Internet and made their living by touring and selling merchandise. Of course, the record labels and by extension, the RIAA, want to maintain the status quo, hence the demonisation of sharing music via the Internet and the somewhat desperate legal tactics designed to ward off what some would say is an imminent change in the way the entire music industry works.
So, while artists these days may continue to sign contracts 'of their own volition' without knowing any better, I'm quite certain that they would be much happier and more prosperous in the New Music Industry - Coming Soon...
I agree, $521,000,000 USD certainly isn't much when you consider that, when planning the downfall of Netscape, Microsoft would most probably have factored in at least $1,000,000,000 USD for lost patent battles...
I mean, seriously, who believes that Microsoft doesn't knowingly violate patents and just simply budget for the inevitable settlement, or at worst, loss such as this?
It's part of the business plan, and has been since the beginning.
'Propperly' is actually spelt 'Properly'. I thought that that was what he meant to correct in the first place and thought the recursion comment was hilarious!
According to Stephen Hawkings Brief History of Time,
Actually, I believe that it means "to search for on the Internet"...
as in, "Hang on, I'll just google for it"
You are right, you can't buy support from a company that doesn't exist, however, you also can't receive commercial support from a company that doesn't exist anymore.
Remember that this support is required for 10 years.
I think that the odds are greater that community support will still be available in 8-10 years time.
I'm a Tasmanian
:)
So you have two heads?
3GB is NOTHING. Your average webpage is around 100K. You use about 50M for an hour of gaming. The streaming video that features prominantly in almost every broadband commercial will take much more than that. Game demos, streaming music, all of the reasons to use broadband.
Telstra provides a number of unmetered sites for their 3GB capped users, including gaming servers, game demo downloads, 24 hour video music (thebasement.com.au), even the latest Linux and Free/Net/OpenBSD distros are available for unmetered download.
If Optus are not planning a similar system, I would be looking at switching to GASP Telstra for my broadband service. Sounds like they offer for free just what you want from broadband.
By the way, I too was pissed when Telstra introduced the 3GB limit, but I find by using the free sites on offer, especially GameArena (for my Linux downloads) I have no problem staying under the limit.
I have a great deal of trouble believing that technology such as this, no matter how cheap to manufacture, would cost only $50. What this kind of storage capacity would be worth to most people will dictate the cost, not the price or ease of manufacture.
Let them test for genetic flaws, but not until one very important prerequisite is met... A genetic modification to correct the flaw must be readily available.
I think that the main reason this is so unfair is that we have no way of fixing the genetic 'mistakes' inherited at conception. If I have the ability to correct a flaw in my genes and choose not to, then I don't see it as being much of an injustice to be denied insurance because of it.