but it is always important to examine things that may have a severe moral affect on society
I'd love to examine it. Problem is, once you outlaw stem-cell research, there's no real reason to continue the examination. I dislike the religious right for trying to force the issue so soon, when so few Americans understand what they have to gain and what they stand to lose.
If you believe, then, that embryos deserve the same rights as a child, what else can you do but "force your beliefs" on those who are killing them?
Damn straight. And if you believed that wearing plaid or practicing judaism was a bad thing, what else could you do but force your beliefs on those who do that sort of thing?
Course, it probably wouldn't earn you a lot of thanks. You'd be internally consistent and justified, but the people around you would be every bit as justified in hating your guts.
The worst thing about this is that people see it as such a self-defeating decision. Real, suffering human lives could be saved using this technology, by sacrificing an single-celled organism with no nervous system.
So I don't really blame the religious right for being consistent to their beliefs. I do blame them for having arbitrary beliefs, for the way they utilize their clout to give a relatively small group a disproportionately large voice, and for taking advantage of people's relative ignorance about the subject to force the issue before Americans have really had a chance to consider what's at stake.
(Those who are biased against the religious sometimes seem to take a particular glee when something like this doesn't pan out.)
And those who are opposed to a certain point of view oftentimes point to bogus science to bolster their positions. What worries me is that even if this doesn't really pan out, the anti-stem-cell research lobby will still point to it as though scientists are 'deliberately' murdering embryos in the face of a viable alternative.
It's the inverse of your statement. The public has so learned to distrust anyone who takes a controversial stand as though they're driven by some sort of ideological purpose, that we sometimes view scientists as so motivated (though they may not be.)
I'd take issue with the inclusion of the London Millennium Bridge; that wasn't so much a failure of software, but a flawed model, that failed to take into account the effects of swaying pedestrians
With modern computer equipment, a lot of people get screwed.
Or, that is, a lot of banks and merchants get screwed. Last I checked, I wasn't liable for any mysterious charges that showed up on my bill. When the CC companies feel that a more secure system will protect their profits, they'll implement it.
The DMN has a registration system in place, just like the New York Times. If they don't trust referers, they can just use cookies and check the access log to insure that the reader visits the front page before diving into the articles. Presumably they already log accesses anyway, or they wouldn't bother with the registration.
They could also use customized, expiring links, which is a pretty straightforward solution.
I'll defend to the death, the rights of a content creator, to control how s/he chooses to redistribute their content.
They do have the right to control how they redistribute their content. They can simply avoid handing it out to any browser that requests a particular article. Instead, they can redirect them to the front page unless they're sure that the reader has already visited it.
The case here is more like if you xeroxed page 37 and posted it on telephone poles all over town with your business's phone number on it.
Here is a link to a Dallas Morning News article. Notice how it clearly displays the "Dallas Morning News" logo at the top left of the screen? And how there's advertising on it that's presumably earning revenue for the DMN? No, this is nothing like your analogy.
Also, I notice that some of the paper's pages require a registration to view. So presumably this newspaper has the technological capability to intercept readers coming into their site and determine what content to serve them.
I really don't care whose DNA Celera uses in their projects. What's a little nervous-making is the fact that this company so easily and blithely ignored the recommendations of their donor advisory board. Sort of makes you think that, just perhaps, private companies "ethics boards" and other mechanisms that are supposed to reassure the public, might not be much good.
If this revelation leads us a step closer to Federal regulation of just about everything to do with Genetic technology, you can thank this guy.
Re:early tivo adopters not adopting HDTV early
on
TiVo Series 2 Review
·
· Score: 1
All good points. In fact, my cable box's power went out this morning, so I know what you're talking about. On the other hand, that's the first time it's happened in months. But I live in NYC-- I suppose if I still lived in the country, power outages'd play a bigger role in my life.
The 3-digit thing is a pain. On the other hand, digital cable boxes in general are slow to tune. The answer is to use the Program Guide to channel surf. I was surprised at how quick I got used to that.
The IR dongles also have good sticky-stuff on them. Mine are latched pretty solidly onto the cable box, so I don't worry about my dogs knocking them off. If that doesn't work, there's always duct tape. A little bit inconvenient, but only a couple of minutes worth of work.
Time-Warner is coming next wednesday to install an HDTV cable box. Now that's going to be an installation hassle.
Re:Because Tivo is made up of people that "get it"
on
TiVo Series 2 Review
·
· Score: 1
Don't forget one other important point:
I don't mind people seeing what I watch (aggregated by zip code or age group, at least), if it means I can tell the networks which shows I like and which ones I hate. In fact, I sort of wish that the thumbs up/down information was wired directly back to the networks' headquarters.
It might not put an end to bad TV, but it'd certainly make better targetted bad TV.
(Incidentally, I doubt that current Tivo statistics are of much use to anyone who isn't specifically targeting the early-adopter techy-geek market. That doesn't mean the information is totally useless, or will always remain so.)
Re:early tivo adopters not adopting HDTV early
on
TiVo Series 2 Review
·
· Score: 1
I hadn't really thought about it that way, but lack of easy recordability is my biggest reason for not getting digital cable or an HDTV.
Digital cable is perfectly recordable. Sure, there's no direct digital input to Tivo, but the quality loss isn't too bad-- particularly if, as in my case, your analog channels are none too clear.
If that's not good enough, the DirectTivos record MPEG directly off of the satellite feed (no D/A-A/D conversion). That would, of course, require that you buy a dish.
... Then they can have a story about how much they are hyped. And then they can have a story about how there used to be stories about viruses and how they died down and now they've come back.
And then when some virus comes along and really does wreak havoc, they'll write stories excoriating the media for not taking the threat seriously.
... But it's truly one of the most cracked legal opinions. I've ever heard of. For instance, read the following snippets of copyright law and case law used to justify the decision:
The Copyright Act defines "copies" as: material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. (17 U.S.C. 101.)
...
A work is "fixed" in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.
And from Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Int'l, Inc., 594 F. Supp. 617, 621 (C.D.Cal. 1984), which held that copying programs to ROM was not necessary for their use because the programs could have been copied to RAM:
RAM can be simply defined as a computer component in which data and computer programs can be temporarily recorded. Thus, the purchaser of [software] desiring to utilize all of the programs on the diskette could arrange to copy [the software] into RAM. This would only be a temporary fixation. It is a property of RAM that when the computer is turned off, the copy of the program recorded in RAM is lost.
On first reading of those snippets, it would almost seem as though the justices were arguing that RAM copies should not be protected by copyright law. Somehow they come to the exact opposite conclusion.
The court first argues that the act of logging into a computer or looking at the operator logs can be termed "perceiving" the RAM copy of the software. This may be so, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around this conclusion because of its implications. If it's the RAM copy that you perceive when you run a piece of software-- rather than the copy on the disk-- then is free distribution of software on magnetic disks not prohibited by copyright law, because the information on the disk can't be perceived without being loaded into RAM? If loading a disk into RAM creates a separate copy, then it would seem that the original disk copy can never be "perceived", and is therefore not eligible for copyright protection. My head spins.
The upshot of this opinion almost seems to be that you're not in the wrong if you redistribute unlicensed software on disk without ever loading it, or if you're caught with unlicensed software on an unplugged computer. In other words, you can stash all the Warez you like as long as nobody ever catches me with any "perceivable" copies (ie, turn your computer off before the FBI busts in).
They then argue that the Apple Computer case provides precedent for their argument, as it uses the term "fixation" to refer to a copy in RAM-- even though the spirit of that opinion was to differentiate between "permanent" copies like those on burned onto ROM chips which can be protected by copyright law, and "temporary" copies like the one in RAM. Though on first read the Apple case might seem to be a perfect piece of case law supporting the legality of temporary RAM copies, the 9th circuit instead focuses on the term "temporary fixation" (declining to interpret this as equivalent to "transitory"), though this in fact seems to be the exact use the law itself was designed to protect! If by "transitory copies", the legislators were not referring to RAM copies, then what were they referring to?
All in all, I begin to understand why people have such little confidence in the viability of any decision coming out of the 9th circuit.
PS I posted this to the other thread by accident. Sorry.
But it's truly one of the most cracked legal opinions I've ever heard of.
For instance, read the following snippets of copyright law and case law used to justify the decision:
The Copyright Act defines "copies" as: material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. (17 U.S.C. 101.)
...
A work is "fixed" in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.
And from Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Int'l, Inc., 594 F. Supp. 617, 621 (C.D.Cal. 1984), which held that copying programs to ROM was not necessary for their use because the programs could have been copied to RAM:
RAM can be simply defined as a computer component in which data and computer programs can be temporarily recorded. Thus, the purchaser of [software] desiring to utilize all of the programs on the diskette could arrange to copy [the software] into RAM. This would only be a temporary fixation. It is a property of RAM that when the computer is turned off, the copy of the program recorded in RAM is lost.
On first reading of those snippets, it would almost seem as though the justices were arguing that RAM copies should not be protected by copyright law. Somehow they come to the exact opposite conclusion.
The court first argues that the act of logging into a computer or looking at the operator logs can be termed "perceiving" the RAM copy of the software. This may be so, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around this conclusion because of its implications. If it's the RAM copy that you perceive when you run a piece of software-- rather than the copy on the disk-- then is free distribution of software on magnetic disks not prohibited by copyright law, because the information on the disk can't be perceived without being loaded into RAM? If loading a disk into RAM creates a separate copy, then it would seem that the original disk copy can never be "perceived", and is therefore not eligible for copyright protection. My head spins.
The upshot of this opinion almost seems to be that you're not in the wrong if you redistribute unlicensed software on disk without ever loading it, or if you're caught with unlicensed software on an unplugged computer. In other words, you can stash all the Warez you like as long as nobody ever catches me with any "perceivable" copies (ie, turn your computer off before the FBI busts in).
They then argue that the Apple Computer case provides precedent for their argument, as it uses the term "fixation" to refer to a copy in RAM-- even though the spirit of that opinion was to differentiate between "permanent" copies like those on burned onto ROM chips which can be protected by copyright law, and "temporary" copies like the one in RAM. Though on first read this decision might seem to be a perfect piece of case law supporting the legality of temporary RAM copies, the 9th circuit instead focuses on the term "temporary fixation" (declining to interpret this as equivalent to "transitory"), though this in fact seems to be the exact use the law itself was designed to protect! If by "transitory copies", the legislators were not referring to RAM copies, then what were they referring to?
All in all, I begin to understand why people have such little confidence in the viability of any decision coming out of the 9th circuit.
Re:Saw something similar about EULAs in general
on
GPL's Strength
·
· Score: 1
Ah, but what happens if you are getting the source code in your purchase?
Not a damn thing. You just can't redistribute it until you accept the terms of the GPL.
Why would your employer want to use passport to authenticate who you are? Passport just requires a password. The current method of a Social Security number and a valid drivers license works much better.
A decade ago my home state's drivers license was a thin piece of card with your name, birthdate and simple identifying information on it. Now it's a laminated, computer generated masterpiece that requires me to stand in front of a digital camera and have my picture placed into a computerized database every few years.
A few decades back, folks probably thought that simple card was more than sufficient. Why, they might have asked, would we ever need to take a picture of every driver and ID-card applicant in the state? How the heck would we deal with all those pictures and all that film, anyway? Nowadays, of course, the technology's a little more advanced, and state officials can get a mugshot of the vast majority of the state population right on their computer.
So you're right, MS Passport is kludgy and doesn't provide for proper authentication. It's easy to fake and requires only a password. But all of that will change, if it became a Federally mandated system. Just look at the developments in biometrics going on now... All of that stuff is going to find its way into your life at some point in the near future.
I fully support a system that requires all users to read the entire EULA, by monitoring their scroll bar usage and ensuring that they take a certain amount of time before hitting the "Accept" button. They could present the EULA one sentence at a time. Or perhaps they could even provide a little multiple-choice quiz at the end.
If the company failed to take these actions and allowed the user to click through anyway, they could rest assured that their EULA would be unenforceable. That would certainly shorten EULAs fast.
If the software is valuable enough to run 270,000 systems, compensate the company fairly.
That's a great point. So one wonders, was Oracle compensated fairly for the actual use CA will put the product to? Or were they compensated far too much?
but it sucks having to do it over some dangerous wingnuts' propaganda...
We don't need Freedom of Speech protections to protect Aunt Helen's "I love puppies!" website. We don't need them to protect Ed Jones's "The Taliban suck" page. The wingnuts are the people testing the bounds of free speech, and they're the ones who let us know how much of it we can count on.
Some argue that people like this are actually a threat to speech, by inciting the government to crack down so regularly. Personally, I take the opinion that your average government would simply attempt to regulate even less controversial speech-- things like
"steal music" or "this politician sucks"-- if they didn't have the wingnuts to keep them constantly tied up in court.
PS I realize we're talking about a private company, in a country without all of the free speech protections of the US. Nonetheless, speech protections are important to us all, and should be fought for no matter where they're threatened. Particularly on the net, where one country's silly laws can potentially be applied to everyone on the planet.
Besides, the price of music CDs has nothing to do with the physical medium
You're right, but in the wrong way. For one thing, record labels regularly deduct "breakage fees" from the artist's share of the pie, even though this is largely a leftover from the days of the LP, and the fees are completely bogus and out of proportion.
Once upon a time the production of the physical medium did account for a significant portion of an album's price. This was particularly true when the medium was vinyl, and when CDs were new and expensive to produce. As manufacturing prices dropped, it would have been reasonable to see some corresponding drop in CD prices. This didn't happen. In fact, CD prices increased significantly.
All of this would make sense if you accept the notion that recording and production costs ate up the difference, but they didn't. It might make a little bit of sense if you imagine that the discrepancy is going into marketing, and although some of it is, it's not enough to account for the price increases.
The simple fact is that CD production and distribution is controlled by a very small number of companies who have worked very hard to prevent serious talent-grabbing or price competition from undercutting an excellent profit-manufacturing industry. Consequently, nearly all facets of the recording-to-retail process suffer from inefficiencies and greed. Take a look at some of the recent price-fixing lawsuits filed by the Federal Government, or some of the hyper-restrictive clauses and exorbitant fees charged back to artists.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd love to examine it. Problem is, once you outlaw stem-cell research, there's no real reason to continue the examination. I dislike the religious right for trying to force the issue so soon, when so few Americans understand what they have to gain and what they stand to lose.
Damn straight. And if you believed that wearing plaid or practicing judaism was a bad thing, what else could you do but force your beliefs on those who do that sort of thing?
Course, it probably wouldn't earn you a lot of thanks. You'd be internally consistent and justified, but the people around you would be every bit as justified in hating your guts.
The worst thing about this is that people see it as such a self-defeating decision. Real, suffering human lives could be saved using this technology, by sacrificing an single-celled organism with no nervous system.
So I don't really blame the religious right for being consistent to their beliefs. I do blame them for having arbitrary beliefs, for the way they utilize their clout to give a relatively small group a disproportionately large voice, and for taking advantage of people's relative ignorance about the subject to force the issue before Americans have really had a chance to consider what's at stake.
And those who are opposed to a certain point of view oftentimes point to bogus science to bolster their positions. What worries me is that even if this doesn't really pan out, the anti-stem-cell research lobby will still point to it as though scientists are 'deliberately' murdering embryos in the face of a viable alternative.
It's the inverse of your statement. The public has so learned to distrust anyone who takes a controversial stand as though they're driven by some sort of ideological purpose, that we sometimes view scientists as so motivated (though they may not be.)
Groovy. Then we can go back to worrying about all of the extra embryos manufactured in Fertility clinics like we did before this became an issue.
Or not thinking about it at all, as the case will probably be.
Pedestrians were also asked not to sway anymore.
Or, that is, a lot of banks and merchants get screwed. Last I checked, I wasn't liable for any mysterious charges that showed up on my bill. When the CC companies feel that a more secure system will protect their profits, they'll implement it.
They could also use customized, expiring links, which is a pretty straightforward solution.
They do have the right to control how they redistribute their content. They can simply avoid handing it out to any browser that requests a particular article. Instead, they can redirect them to the front page unless they're sure that the reader has already visited it.
Here is a link to a Dallas Morning News article. Notice how it clearly displays the "Dallas Morning News" logo at the top left of the screen? And how there's advertising on it that's presumably earning revenue for the DMN? No, this is nothing like your analogy.
Also, I notice that some of the paper's pages require a registration to view. So presumably this newspaper has the technological capability to intercept readers coming into their site and determine what content to serve them.
If this revelation leads us a step closer to Federal regulation of just about everything to do with Genetic technology, you can thank this guy.
The 3-digit thing is a pain. On the other hand, digital cable boxes in general are slow to tune. The answer is to use the Program Guide to channel surf. I was surprised at how quick I got used to that.
The IR dongles also have good sticky-stuff on them. Mine are latched pretty solidly onto the cable box, so I don't worry about my dogs knocking them off. If that doesn't work, there's always duct tape. A little bit inconvenient, but only a couple of minutes worth of work.
Time-Warner is coming next wednesday to install an HDTV cable box. Now that's going to be an installation hassle.
I don't mind people seeing what I watch (aggregated by zip code or age group, at least), if it means I can tell the networks which shows I like and which ones I hate. In fact, I sort of wish that the thumbs up/down information was wired directly back to the networks' headquarters.
It might not put an end to bad TV, but it'd certainly make better targetted bad TV.
(Incidentally, I doubt that current Tivo statistics are of much use to anyone who isn't specifically targeting the early-adopter techy-geek market. That doesn't mean the information is totally useless, or will always remain so.)
Digital cable is perfectly recordable. Sure, there's no direct digital input to Tivo, but the quality loss isn't too bad-- particularly if, as in my case, your analog channels are none too clear.
If that's not good enough, the DirectTivos record MPEG directly off of the satellite feed (no D/A-A/D conversion). That would, of course, require that you buy a dish.
One line of code? With Microsoft Visual Basic .NET you can do it with only half a line! With SOAP compatability.
And then when some virus comes along and really does wreak havoc, they'll write stories excoriating the media for not taking the threat seriously.
The court first argues that the act of logging into a computer or looking at the operator logs can be termed "perceiving" the RAM copy of the software. This may be so, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around this conclusion because of its implications. If it's the RAM copy that you perceive when you run a piece of software-- rather than the copy on the disk-- then is free distribution of software on magnetic disks not prohibited by copyright law, because the information on the disk can't be perceived without being loaded into RAM? If loading a disk into RAM creates a separate copy, then it would seem that the original disk copy can never be "perceived", and is therefore not eligible for copyright protection. My head spins.
The upshot of this opinion almost seems to be that you're not in the wrong if you redistribute unlicensed software on disk without ever loading it, or if you're caught with unlicensed software on an unplugged computer. In other words, you can stash all the Warez you like as long as nobody ever catches me with any "perceivable" copies (ie, turn your computer off before the FBI busts in).
They then argue that the Apple Computer case provides precedent for their argument, as it uses the term "fixation" to refer to a copy in RAM-- even though the spirit of that opinion was to differentiate between "permanent" copies like those on burned onto ROM chips which can be protected by copyright law, and "temporary" copies like the one in RAM. Though on first read the Apple case might seem to be a perfect piece of case law supporting the legality of temporary RAM copies, the 9th circuit instead focuses on the term "temporary fixation" (declining to interpret this as equivalent to "transitory"), though this in fact seems to be the exact use the law itself was designed to protect! If by "transitory copies", the legislators were not referring to RAM copies, then what were they referring to?
All in all, I begin to understand why people have such little confidence in the viability of any decision coming out of the 9th circuit.
PS I posted this to the other thread by accident. Sorry.
For instance, read the following snippets of copyright law and case law used to justify the decision:
And from Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Int'l, Inc., 594 F. Supp. 617, 621 (C.D.Cal. 1984), which held that copying programs to ROM was not necessary for their use because the programs could have been copied to RAM: On first reading of those snippets, it would almost seem as though the justices were arguing that RAM copies should not be protected by copyright law. Somehow they come to the exact opposite conclusion.The court first argues that the act of logging into a computer or looking at the operator logs can be termed "perceiving" the RAM copy of the software. This may be so, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around this conclusion because of its implications. If it's the RAM copy that you perceive when you run a piece of software-- rather than the copy on the disk-- then is free distribution of software on magnetic disks not prohibited by copyright law, because the information on the disk can't be perceived without being loaded into RAM? If loading a disk into RAM creates a separate copy, then it would seem that the original disk copy can never be "perceived", and is therefore not eligible for copyright protection. My head spins.
The upshot of this opinion almost seems to be that you're not in the wrong if you redistribute unlicensed software on disk without ever loading it, or if you're caught with unlicensed software on an unplugged computer. In other words, you can stash all the Warez you like as long as nobody ever catches me with any "perceivable" copies (ie, turn your computer off before the FBI busts in).
They then argue that the Apple Computer case provides precedent for their argument, as it uses the term "fixation" to refer to a copy in RAM-- even though the spirit of that opinion was to differentiate between "permanent" copies like those on burned onto ROM chips which can be protected by copyright law, and "temporary" copies like the one in RAM. Though on first read this decision might seem to be a perfect piece of case law supporting the legality of temporary RAM copies, the 9th circuit instead focuses on the term "temporary fixation" (declining to interpret this as equivalent to "transitory"), though this in fact seems to be the exact use the law itself was designed to protect! If by "transitory copies", the legislators were not referring to RAM copies, then what were they referring to?
All in all, I begin to understand why people have such little confidence in the viability of any decision coming out of the 9th circuit.
Not a damn thing. You just can't redistribute it until you accept the terms of the GPL.
How much bandwidth do you think your cellphone is using? It's a lot less than 128K. The real issue limiting VoIP use is QoS, including latency.
Now, video-phone technology is certainly being limited by the limits on upstream bandwidth. But the market for that has so far been pretty limited.
A decade ago my home state's drivers license was a thin piece of card with your name, birthdate and simple identifying information on it. Now it's a laminated, computer generated masterpiece that requires me to stand in front of a digital camera and have my picture placed into a computerized database every few years.
A few decades back, folks probably thought that simple card was more than sufficient. Why, they might have asked, would we ever need to take a picture of every driver and ID-card applicant in the state? How the heck would we deal with all those pictures and all that film, anyway? Nowadays, of course, the technology's a little more advanced, and state officials can get a mugshot of the vast majority of the state population right on their computer.
So you're right, MS Passport is kludgy and doesn't provide for proper authentication. It's easy to fake and requires only a password. But all of that will change, if it became a Federally mandated system. Just look at the developments in biometrics going on now... All of that stuff is going to find its way into your life at some point in the near future.
If the company failed to take these actions and allowed the user to click through anyway, they could rest assured that their EULA would be unenforceable. That would certainly shorten EULAs fast.
Yes, I've never understood why the states/federal gov't never feels compelled to pay interest on the money it "borrows" through withholding.
They certainly have no problem charging you interest if you're late paying them.
That's a great point. So one wonders, was Oracle compensated fairly for the actual use CA will put the product to? Or were they compensated far too much?
We don't need Freedom of Speech protections to protect Aunt Helen's "I love puppies!" website. We don't need them to protect Ed Jones's "The Taliban suck" page. The wingnuts are the people testing the bounds of free speech, and they're the ones who let us know how much of it we can count on.
Some argue that people like this are actually a threat to speech, by inciting the government to crack down so regularly. Personally, I take the opinion that your average government would simply attempt to regulate even less controversial speech-- things like "steal music" or "this politician sucks"-- if they didn't have the wingnuts to keep them constantly tied up in court.
PS I realize we're talking about a private company, in a country without all of the free speech protections of the US. Nonetheless, speech protections are important to us all, and should be fought for no matter where they're threatened. Particularly on the net, where one country's silly laws can potentially be applied to everyone on the planet.
You're right, but in the wrong way. For one thing, record labels regularly deduct "breakage fees" from the artist's share of the pie, even though this is largely a leftover from the days of the LP, and the fees are completely bogus and out of proportion.
Once upon a time the production of the physical medium did account for a significant portion of an album's price. This was particularly true when the medium was vinyl, and when CDs were new and expensive to produce. As manufacturing prices dropped, it would have been reasonable to see some corresponding drop in CD prices. This didn't happen. In fact, CD prices increased significantly.
All of this would make sense if you accept the notion that recording and production costs ate up the difference, but they didn't. It might make a little bit of sense if you imagine that the discrepancy is going into marketing, and although some of it is, it's not enough to account for the price increases.
The simple fact is that CD production and distribution is controlled by a very small number of companies who have worked very hard to prevent serious talent-grabbing or price competition from undercutting an excellent profit-manufacturing industry. Consequently, nearly all facets of the recording-to-retail process suffer from inefficiencies and greed. Take a look at some of the recent price-fixing lawsuits filed by the Federal Government, or some of the hyper-restrictive clauses and exorbitant fees charged back to artists.