So don't get cocky. Stay humble and keep listening to your customers. If you do, you can extend your time on top for a while.
hmm, listen to yourself, o.k. got it.
Maybe his purpose was to focus this statement on the Enterprise Linux crowd, which RHVALC are doing, but I seriously doubt they are the ones that flamed him and I would hope they are already focused on their customers.
I can only scratch my head in confusion at the brash new netizens who are leading the way to a freer, more open world where information is traded freely because I'm also part of the greedy corporate infrastructure
man, I relly wish/. hadn't been corporate sanitized. I guess you can't help it when you have stockholders.
resistance is futile, third quarter earnings WILL continue as planned, why use Linux to watch DVD, Windows works fine, anyone who points out flagrant flaws in a system is a dissident, send them to re-Ned-ucation.
How sad is it that Suck has, by far, the best article on this subject so far? Pointing out the real problem, IP, the people who should fix it, the "dot coms", and the reason they won't, money.
How can you properly protect against many DOS attacks?
How can you properly protect yourself against real world vandalism? Vigilance, monitoring, and prosecution. We just need another generation to grow up and realize, by being taught from a young age, that these antics do nothing but hurt in the long run. What we have is a generation of kids and young adults who have no moral framework for their activities on the Internet. It has also empowered the disenfranchised (*cough*) to make their voices heard both far and wide.
Anyway, you can't stop them through normal means, here's the offical word (from over two years ago)
Exactly, UCITA makes software authors liable for their software (which is why proponents say it's fair), however EULA are allowed to override this situation and make the software *Installer* legally responsible for the installation. Unless you add a lawyer-researched EULA to your GPLed product you have just become totally liable for anything it does. This also allows another barrier (DMCA) to reverse-engineering (just include a clause in the EULA), which stabs Linux in the heart.
UCITA, the DVD-CSS, RIAA. On one side you have large companies dealing in products that the Internet devalues incredibly, since distrubution and reproduction move to zero. These are MS(NBC),AOL/TW,All Movie Companies(including Disney/ABC/UPN(?)),the RIAA (including Sony), etc. If you include iCrave that adds sports franchises and ALL media signal distributors.
Why are these people fighting? Because something has come along to replace them. All of them. This thing is called the Internet. The only way to stop it is to control it. The only way to do that is to legislate it. The only way to do that is to lobby and minimize public awareness.
Do any networks or major media providers have ANY reason to publicize these issues? No, none at all, although any Hacker story helps to stir up anti-Net FUD. Which furthers the goals stated above.
Talk to your friends, your family, your representatives, help them to understand what is happening and why. It's about control, it's about money, it's NOT about the consumer.
Great to hear from you! Thanks for writing us at Fox News. We want you to know that we appreciate your comments and questions and we've forwarded them to the right people.
In the meantime, we'd love to send you a FREE GIFT from Fox News and invite you to sign-up for our weekly email newsletter.
To get your FREE GIFT or to sign up for the newsletter, go to http://www.foxfan.com
If you cannot access our web page, you can still get the FREE GIFT and newsletter by calling Fox News Viewer Services at (888) 369-4762. Please mention that you would like the free gift and/or the email newsletter.
Best regards!
Fox News Viewer Services
Fuck 'em.
Yes, I do think fucking media companies is what they should get for trying to pass off bots as caring, breathing people, and then try to sell me something.
(the free gift is more marketing, don't ya love 'em)
dunno I emailed 'em about the troll infestation the other day, Hemos' reply goes like this....
We've been looking at a number of solutions, but more to the point, the next couple weeks are going to have some majorly cool anti-Troll weapons. yes, the arms race will accelerate, but that's the nature of things - and we'll beat them off for a while.
They just have to hold them off till May (then they go home from school)
if you haven't read the Fox article, I suggest you do. It's pathetic. This is my e-mail
Subject: Bad, Bad Fox
To whom it may concern (and somebody better read this)
One of your web pages http://www.foxnews.com/vtech/021400/hack.sml, contains extremely erroneous information. The quote "Several experts, however, said the disruption was almost certainly a hack. The experts said it would have been impossible for anyone to give a false answer for Clinton without deliberately bypassing chat room security measures. " is totally incorrect. I suggest you take a look at the explanation (http://www.boredom.org/cnn/), talk to those experts again (I'd avoid the AntiOnline crackpots) and quickly amend your story.
To contend that this attack has ANY relation to the recent denial of service attacks is ludicrous. I'd expect such sensationalism from NBC, but I hoped you guys were above it.
If this story is left as is I will discontinue my Fox.com or Fox News Channel patronage, as I cannot condone such shabby fact checking.
Wah
Actually I used my real name, but whatever. This story is HORRIBLE, it ties the CNN "hack" (a hack only in the sense (def #5) we would use) to the recent DDoS (with an interesting bit about the Bank's secret Don't Ask Don't Tell pact), and finally to some kid changing grades on report cards. The kid's explanation. "I did it to show them I could."
no kidding, if I found a woman who liked Quake that much...doing something you love with someone you love is rarely wrong (although Natural Born Killers jumps to mind).
In order to maintain his products value he needs regulation.
hence the DMCA, do you wonder if Jack, being in Washington and all, had anything to do with its passying?
Can anyone here think of a good way to license movies over the internet that works with the MPAA system?
First off, you need to realize that an Internet distrubution system most likely will NOT support 10 freakin' 30+ million dollar movies a week. No system should. If you don't think that Hollywood is already out of control (Waterworld!?!), then this solution won't make sense (I wonder how much they spent on the DMCA?). However, what the Internet will support is massive parallel distrubution (i.e. Napster) and, someday, ubiquitous presence across socioeconimc barriers. The trick is to leverage the public in to doing your job for you.
So what does that leave? Yep, you guessed it movie theatres. See it on the big screen or wait a couple years and see it at home. A couple years!!! what! Movies come out on video in a matter of months now, but that's because there is a home market. Uh, oh I just scared you. The home market changes just a bit in this plan, you add an -ing to it. Home marketing. The industry needs to do what Domino's has done, use personal property as a means of distrubution. Who does your promotion? I do. Why? 'Cause I love your movies and want my friends to see them. Who does your distrubtion? I do. Why? 'Cuase I love your movies and want my friends to see them.
You see, the studios have painted themselves into a corner by making their product so available. Now consumers are considered having "seen" a movie, even if it's one their 13 inch. What the industry should move to is a more classis approach, control your content in the only forum now possible, the theatres. You make it valuable by controlling scarcity. You do that by not publishing it publicly (which is what VHS, DVD are) until it's full value has been realized, I'm propsing two years. It is then used as good will, brand building, marketing, that can be freely distributed in the home market(ing). The movies sare distributed digitally from the company's web site after logging in and giving your demo and working e-mail. This allows cross-promotion of that new movie, as well as extremely valuable consumer data.
Woah, you're saying, give up the home market? Yep, because it's not worth fighting for. To create any type of secure format viewing area will lead to countless battles like this, each one alienating more and more consumers. Also because it can't be won. The Internet makes control of digital media impossible (or at the very least economically, politically, socially difficult), realzie this and try to go back to what first made seeing movies great, the Motion Picture Theatre Experience (oh yeah, and making good movies).
So what happens. A new movie comes out, people like it, they tell their friends. The friends now have a choice, pay to see it now, or wait (years) to see it later. Some friends wait, some don't. Those that wait see the movie two years later, realize how cool it was, that this company/director/actor makes good movies, and later pays to see the movie in the theatre. Did I mention ticket prices go up? During this time the friends have also been watching tons of free movies (since network TV still sucks in the future) and are then that much more likely to see a hit movie at the theatre.
The other thing. Persecute the shit out of piraters. Now it's easy. One if they're selling movies, everyone know they're cheating and since movies are free anyway, why buy 'em (that's cut out the demand, which is always a better plan than attacking supply). If they are viewing them and them haven't been "released" yet, they are obviously *stolen* and worthy of prosecution. I think that would simplify things tremendously.
Yes, this whole thing is drastic and half-baked. But it focuses on using the technology and existing rules to reach a suitable settlement. I don't have a full business plan worked out, but there will always be money to be made in good movies, but not on a per copy basis. Per seat, yes, but only if that seat is valuable. Fighting the tide of the 'Net will NOT work. Most of us already see its power and are working/advocating keeping it as open and free as possible. The only way any licensing system will work is to remove that freedom or obliterate privacy, two things I won't stand for. There ya have it, butcher at will.
Make the price reasonable and people will gladly purchase the real deal.
On the other hand, keep prices unreasobable, charge more for an unnecessary scrambler, sue poeple who watch your movies, and people will gladly violate laws to fight you.
If they want a separate box for everything then they will get a separate box for everything.
They *don't* want a seperate box for everything. Most don't even know what *everything* comprises. I dunno, this whole appliance craze seems to have its foundations in marketing, not in useful products. I wouldn't want one and I think most of this stuff is too confusing to appeal to the public at large ("You mean I can listen to the radio over the Internet with this?" "Yes" "Do I nee it to do that?" "No" "Then why should I use it?" "Convenience" "But I don't listen now, how will this make it more convenient") Too much too soon, the same reason why 90% of the companies that went public last year will fold the moment their employees vest and jump ship.
almost as many as the computer it tries to replace. Is there *any* gained functionality of one of these things over using my PC, and its "bigger than 2 watt" speakers?
Finally, a thread that looks forward. Reading Mr. Valenti's statement about his purpose here "The principle occupation [of the MPAA] is to make sure that American movies move freely and unhobbled around the world," you'd think he'd listen to his own points "But if it was on the Net, 6 billion people would have access to it."
The problem here is that they want to make money the old fashioned way in media, licencing it and selling it directly. That's not going to work. It works fine when the natural way for it to be distributed backs this up (i.e. The producer makes a physical copy, trucks it to me, I buy a copy, there is a media cost, on which I pay a small mark-up), but that's not the way distrubtution works now (i.e. I am already paying for the physical media and distrubution system, (bandwidth and diskspace), all the physical costs are mine) so all I am paying for is a license. But they don't make much money on the license, at least not when compared to the mark-up they get after coupling it with hard media, so the idea is not to sell it that way.
Unfortunately I don't see a need to buy a CD, or a video, or any hard media, BECAUSE I DON'T NEED TO. The market forces have changed. So where is the value? They can't sell hard goods, so they have to sell soft. Suffice it to say, that they value they get from their media should not be the face value of the stuff its printed on (which I already paid for and won't again), but the value they get from the attention paid to they media. By maximizing distrubution and its ease, they will be able to leverage this attention for profit, all the while paying no distrubution and minimal advertising (if they have a good prouct) costs.
Unfortunately before this can happen they 1) need to realize that fighting/sueing consumers isn't in their best interest and 2) realize that their old networks are not worth what they once were and, basically, get with the times.
No it won't be easy, but having an entire new medium appear that makes value disappear is not something most companies deal with on a regular basis.
The unfortunate part is Valenti's close ties to the Gov't. I have no doubt he had a HUGE hand in crafting the DMCA, as well as getting it to pass.
They are an industry, they want to get paid. Controlling the way content is distributed is the only way to maintain profitibility when content can be easily duplicated and distributed.
Which brings us to the crux of the problem for both ther MPAA and the RIAA, the Internet. Both industries have spend the better part of the century building distrubution networks to leverage their position. Now, a new technology has arrived that has totally undermined their entire operation. I don't need their multi-billion dollar network to see movies or listen to music, nor do I need to subsidize it or their profits. Because I don't need them, I don't want to pay for them. I'm all for paying for good media, but why pay highway robbery prices when there is no need for the highway?
Slashdot Mirror
thanks for making my point.
--
a bit more...
So don't get cocky. Stay humble and keep listening to your customers. If you do, you can extend your time on top for a while.
hmm, listen to yourself, o.k. got it.
Maybe his purpose was to focus this statement on the Enterprise Linux crowd, which RHVALC are doing, but I seriously doubt they are the ones that flamed him and I would hope they are already focused on their customers.
--
I can't. I'm disenfranchised.
/. hadn't been corporate sanitized. I guess you can't help it when you have stockholders.
fine, then just shut up.
I can only scratch my head in confusion at the brash new netizens who are leading the way to a freer, more open world where information is traded freely because I'm also part of the greedy corporate infrastructure
man, I relly wish
resistance is futile, third quarter earnings WILL continue as planned, why use Linux to watch DVD, Windows works fine, anyone who points out flagrant flaws in a system is a dissident, send them to re-Ned-ucation.
--
go visit etoy.com and shut up. I'll read who I want.
--
How sad is it that Suck has, by far, the best article on this subject so far? Pointing out the real problem, IP, the people who should fix it, the "dot coms", and the reason they won't, money.
How can you properly protect against many DOS attacks?
How can you properly protect yourself against real world vandalism? Vigilance, monitoring, and prosecution. We just need another generation to grow up and realize, by being taught from a young age, that these antics do nothing but hurt in the long run. What we have is a generation of kids and young adults who have no moral framework for their activities on the Internet. It has also empowered the disenfranchised (*cough*) to make their voices heard both far and wide.
Anyway, you can't stop them through normal means, here's the offical word (from over two years ago)
--
Exactly, UCITA makes software authors liable for their software (which is why proponents say it's fair), however EULA are allowed to override this situation and make the software *Installer* legally responsible for the installation. Unless you add a lawyer-researched EULA to your GPLed product you have just become totally liable for anything it does. This also allows another barrier (DMCA) to reverse-engineering (just include a clause in the EULA), which stabs Linux in the heart.
--
actually it's pretty simple.
UCITA, the DVD-CSS, RIAA. On one side you have large companies dealing in products that the Internet devalues incredibly, since distrubution and reproduction move to zero. These are MS(NBC),AOL/TW,All Movie Companies(including Disney/ABC/UPN(?)),the RIAA (including Sony), etc. If you include iCrave that adds sports franchises and ALL media signal distributors.
Why are these people fighting? Because something has come along to replace them. All of them. This thing is called the Internet. The only way to stop it is to control it. The only way to do that is to legislate it. The only way to do that is to lobby and minimize public awareness.
Do any networks or major media providers have ANY reason to publicize these issues? No, none at all, although any Hacker story helps to stir up anti-Net FUD. Which furthers the goals stated above.
Talk to your friends, your family, your representatives, help them to understand what is happening and why. It's about control, it's about money, it's NOT about the consumer.
--
karma?
--
ditto
--
...
Hi -
Great to hear from you! Thanks for writing us at Fox News. We want you
to know that we appreciate your comments and questions and we've
forwarded them to the right people.
In the meantime, we'd love to send you a FREE GIFT from Fox News and
invite you to sign-up for our weekly email newsletter.
To get your FREE GIFT or to sign up for the newsletter, go to
http://www.foxfan.com
If you cannot access our web page, you can still get the FREE GIFT and
newsletter by calling Fox News Viewer Services at (888) 369-4762. Please mention that you would like the free gift and/or the email newsletter.
Best regards!
Fox News Viewer Services
Fuck 'em.
Yes, I do think fucking media companies is what they should get for trying to pass off bots as caring, breathing people, and then try to sell me something.
(the free gift is more marketing, don't ya love 'em)
--
aaah.
--
dunno I emailed 'em about the troll infestation the other day, Hemos' reply goes like this....
We've been looking at a number of solutions, but more to the point, the next couple weeks are going to have some majorly cool anti-Troll weapons. yes, the arms race will accelerate,
but that's the nature of things - and we'll beat them off for a while.
They just have to hold them off till May (then they go home from school)
--
?
--
wish we could put ours to sleep.
--
if you haven't read the Fox article, I suggest you do. It's pathetic. This is my e-mail
Subject: Bad, Bad Fox
To whom it may concern (and somebody better read this)
One of your web pages http://www.foxnews.com/vtech/021400/hack.sml, contains extremely erroneous information. The quote "Several experts, however, said the disruption was almost certainly a hack. The experts said it would have been impossible for anyone to give a false answer for Clinton without deliberately bypassing chat room security measures. " is totally incorrect. I suggest you take a look at the explanation (http://www.boredom.org/cnn/), talk to those experts again (I'd avoid the AntiOnline crackpots) and quickly amend your story.
To contend that this attack has ANY relation to the recent denial of service attacks is ludicrous. I'd expect such sensationalism from NBC, but I hoped you guys were above it.
If this story is left as is I will discontinue my Fox.com or Fox News Channel patronage, as I cannot condone such shabby fact checking.
Wah
Actually I used my real name, but whatever. This story is HORRIBLE, it ties the CNN "hack" (a hack only in the sense (def #5) we would use) to the recent DDoS (with an interesting bit about the Bank's secret Don't Ask Don't Tell pact), and finally to some kid changing grades on report cards. The kid's explanation. "I did it to show them I could."
--
no kidding, if I found a woman who liked Quake that much...doing something you love with someone you love is rarely wrong (although Natural Born Killers jumps to mind).
--
In order to maintain his products value he needs regulation.
hence the DMCA, do you wonder if Jack, being in Washington and all, had anything to do with its passying?
Can anyone here think of a good way to license movies over the internet that works with the MPAA system?
First off, you need to realize that an Internet distrubution system most likely will NOT support 10 freakin' 30+ million dollar movies a week. No system should. If you don't think that Hollywood is already out of control (Waterworld!?!), then this solution won't make sense (I wonder how much they spent on the DMCA?). However, what the Internet will support is massive parallel distrubution (i.e. Napster) and, someday, ubiquitous presence across socioeconimc barriers. The trick is to leverage the public in to doing your job for you.
So what does that leave? Yep, you guessed it movie theatres. See it on the big screen or wait a couple years and see it at home. A couple years!!! what! Movies come out on video in a matter of months now, but that's because there is a home market. Uh, oh I just scared you. The home market changes just a bit in this plan, you add an -ing to it. Home marketing. The industry needs to do what Domino's has done, use personal property as a means of distrubution. Who does your promotion? I do. Why? 'Cause I love your movies and want my friends to see them. Who does your distrubtion? I do. Why? 'Cuase I love your movies and want my friends to see them.
You see, the studios have painted themselves into a corner by making their product so available. Now consumers are considered having "seen" a movie, even if it's one their 13 inch. What the industry should move to is a more classis approach, control your content in the only forum now possible, the theatres. You make it valuable by controlling scarcity. You do that by not publishing it publicly (which is what VHS, DVD are) until it's full value has been realized, I'm propsing two years. It is then used as good will, brand building, marketing, that can be freely distributed in the home market(ing). The movies sare distributed digitally from the company's web site after logging in and giving your demo and working e-mail. This allows cross-promotion of that new movie, as well as extremely valuable consumer data.
Woah, you're saying, give up the home market? Yep, because it's not worth fighting for. To create any type of secure format viewing area will lead to countless battles like this, each one alienating more and more consumers. Also because it can't be won. The Internet makes control of digital media impossible (or at the very least economically, politically, socially difficult), realzie this and try to go back to what first made seeing movies great, the Motion Picture Theatre Experience (oh yeah, and making good movies).
So what happens. A new movie comes out, people like it, they tell their friends. The friends now have a choice, pay to see it now, or wait (years) to see it later. Some friends wait, some don't. Those that wait see the movie two years later, realize how cool it was, that this company/director/actor makes good movies, and later pays to see the movie in the theatre. Did I mention ticket prices go up? During this time the friends have also been watching tons of free movies (since network TV still sucks in the future) and are then that much more likely to see a hit movie at the theatre.
The other thing. Persecute the shit out of piraters. Now it's easy. One if they're selling movies, everyone know they're cheating and since movies are free anyway, why buy 'em (that's cut out the demand, which is always a better plan than attacking supply). If they are viewing them and them haven't been "released" yet, they are obviously *stolen* and worthy of prosecution. I think that would simplify things tremendously.
Yes, this whole thing is drastic and half-baked. But it focuses on using the technology and existing rules to reach a suitable settlement. I don't have a full business plan worked out, but there will always be money to be made in good movies, but not on a per copy basis. Per seat, yes, but only if that seat is valuable. Fighting the tide of the 'Net will NOT work. Most of us already see its power and are working/advocating keeping it as open and free as possible. The only way any licensing system will work is to remove that freedom or obliterate privacy, two things I won't stand for. There ya have it, butcher at will.
--
And be reminded, moral articulation against capitalistic oppretion bought the indian nation it's coffin
links?
--
Make the price reasonable and people will gladly purchase the real deal.
On the other hand, keep prices unreasobable, charge more for an unnecessary scrambler, sue poeple who watch your movies, and people will gladly violate laws to fight you.
--
If they want a separate box for everything then they will get a separate box for everything.
They *don't* want a seperate box for everything. Most don't even know what *everything* comprises. I dunno, this whole appliance craze seems to have its foundations in marketing, not in useful products. I wouldn't want one and I think most of this stuff is too confusing to appeal to the public at large ("You mean I can listen to the radio over the Internet with this?" "Yes" "Do I nee it to do that?" "No" "Then why should I use it?" "Convenience" "But I don't listen now, how will this make it more convenient") Too much too soon, the same reason why 90% of the companies that went public last year will fold the moment their employees vest and jump ship.
--
watched it Saturday, great flick.
and I must say, although Nat was petrified a couple of times, there was no nudity to be found (thank god, she was like 13)
--
watched it Saturday, great flick.
--
This little thing has a lot of features...
almost as many as the computer it tries to replace. Is there *any* gained functionality of one of these things over using my PC, and its "bigger than 2 watt" speakers?
--
Finally, a thread that looks forward. Reading Mr. Valenti's statement about his purpose here "The principle occupation [of the MPAA] is to make sure that American movies move freely and unhobbled around the world," you'd think he'd listen to his own points "But if it was on the Net, 6 billion people would have access to it."
The problem here is that they want to make money the old fashioned way in media, licencing it and selling it directly. That's not going to work. It works fine when the natural way for it to be distributed backs this up (i.e. The producer makes a physical copy, trucks it to me, I buy a copy, there is a media cost, on which I pay a small mark-up), but that's not the way distrubtution works now (i.e. I am already paying for the physical media and distrubution system, (bandwidth and diskspace), all the physical costs are mine) so all I am paying for is a license. But they don't make much money on the license, at least not when compared to the mark-up they get after coupling it with hard media, so the idea is not to sell it that way.
Unfortunately I don't see a need to buy a CD, or a video, or any hard media, BECAUSE I DON'T NEED TO. The market forces have changed. So where is the value? They can't sell hard goods, so they have to sell soft. Suffice it to say, that they value they get from their media should not be the face value of the stuff its printed on (which I already paid for and won't again), but the value they get from the attention paid to they media. By maximizing distrubution and its ease, they will be able to leverage this attention for profit, all the while paying no distrubution and minimal advertising (if they have a good prouct) costs.
Unfortunately before this can happen they 1) need to realize that fighting/sueing consumers isn't in their best interest and 2) realize that their old networks are not worth what they once were and, basically, get with the times.
No it won't be easy, but having an entire new medium appear that makes value disappear is not something most companies deal with on a regular basis.
The unfortunate part is Valenti's close ties to the Gov't. I have no doubt he had a HUGE hand in crafting the DMCA, as well as getting it to pass.
--
They are an industry, they want to get paid. Controlling the way content is distributed is the only way to maintain profitibility when content can be easily duplicated and distributed.
Which brings us to the crux of the problem for both ther MPAA and the RIAA, the Internet. Both industries have spend the better part of the century building distrubution networks to leverage their position. Now, a new technology has arrived that has totally undermined their entire operation. I don't need their multi-billion dollar network to see movies or listen to music, nor do I need to subsidize it or their profits. Because I don't need them, I don't want to pay for them. I'm all for paying for good media, but why pay highway robbery prices when there is no need for the highway?
--