I have no quarrel with Taiwan. I consider it a country, and from what I can tell it's a fine place to be. Heck I even play golf with the coach of the ping pong team, and if he's any indication of Taiwanese people, well, they're OK with me.
If it were perfectly legal download copyrighted music/video, then what reason would anyone have to pay for it?
People pay for lots of things they don't have to. It's free to go run in the park, yet people pay to join a gym and use the treadmill. Because it's convenient and well presented. People go to restaurants and pay a premium for someone else to cook and serve them.
The point at which I would pay to download music is definitely well above zero. It's also definitely well below 99 cents a song. And that's the real problem that the RIAA et al refuse to see.
How much money does the RIAA spend on these crusades? Maybe if they spent a little less they could lower prices. Nothing combats piracy better than a low price.
Maybe half a dozen a day? Though the he percentage that interests me is pretty high. Much higher than here. But you don't get many comments, and that's what I like best about slashdot. Despite all the silliness, there are still good, insightful posters on most every topic.
Well, I believe his point was that it certainly can't be a virus. There's no way it could be compatible with any hosts, unless of course one subscribes to the Intelligent Design notion, in which case even though it has not evolved in this environment it could be compatible.
Assuming you can't do what I did, which is live in a Spanish speaking country, I suggest the audio series by Michel Thomas. I didn't listen to it until after I'd learned Spanish, so it's a little bit hard to fully judge the value, but listening to it now it seems to be quite good.
Thomas is an interesting guy. A Polish born Jew, he landed in a Nazi concentration camp, from which he eventually managed to escape. He speaks at least a half-dozen languages, and when he made his way to the US he started his language learning courses.
It's a bit odd, learning from a guy teaching his fourth (or so) language using his third, but he does it very well.
As the bullet gains altitude (as it flies vertically up) its lateral velocity is less than needed to keep pace with the target below
it's not traveling in a vacuum. The air is also rotating. And the bullet does not get very far away, relative to the size of the Earth. So maybe not a troll, but not particularly valid either.
I don't understand this. I've never played either version of the game, so maybe I'm just missing something obvious, but it sounds like they basically threw out the old game and put a new one in its place. So why not have both? Why alienate such a large group of people. It's a virtual world - you can have more than one.
The music industry business model is broken. It's always gone after the easy money - promote to young people who are most likely to make impulse buys based on superficial appeal rather than the substance. And charge a lot, because if you "have" to have it, you have to have it.
So now that the easy pickings are instead spending their money elsewhere, they have trapped themselves and are left with no market at all. All they have is a broken machine that depends on facts that are no longer true. So now they ought to reinvent the business, aiming toward a variety of quality acts that produce reasonable revenue at reasonable prices, but they can't get themselves to do it. What they had was so juicy that it's difficult to abandon. So like an addict they try to force it to continue to be, and won't stop until they hit rock bottom. At that point a new and functional model will emerge.
Tiered pricing, supply-and-demand pricing (hey economist guy: the supply is unlimited!) or any other fancy pricing scheme that requires people to pay more than 99 cents per song doesn't work.
Of course it does. Tiered pricing is good for everybody. Places that tiered pricing is in effect tend to be the most efficient markets. It drives prices towards their natural balance. Let the bottom prices fall to where they may, and the top prices rise, and everybody wins.
What's crazy is trying to set 99 cents as the bottom. Clearly there is an enormous market for lesser priced music. There are thousands and thousands of bands that would love to sell their music, even if the true market price for it is only pennies. At 99 cents they are completely shut out of the market. So they lose and you lose. They have to go get jobs, and you never hear their music.
I'm guessing part of the reason was that the article didn't yet exist the first time that comment was posted. This poster appears to have simply plagiarized in order to gain karma and promote his website, and may not actually care about the subject or any replies to the post.
they've created a product that billions of people LIKE using.
Nearly every non-technical person I know who has a computer is running Windows. But I can't think of a single one of them who has ever said to me that they LIKE using it. They all seem to tolerate it, and assume that when things go wrong that it's probably their fault and that's just the way it is with computers.
The one person I know who last year ditched his Windows box for a Mac now can't stop talking about how much he enjoys using it.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no quarrel with Taiwan. I consider it a country, and from what I can tell it's a fine place to be. Heck I even play golf with the coach of the ping pong team, and if he's any indication of Taiwanese people, well, they're OK with me.
People pay for lots of things they don't have to. It's free to go run in the park, yet people pay to join a gym and use the treadmill. Because it's convenient and well presented. People go to restaurants and pay a premium for someone else to cook and serve them.
The point at which I would pay to download music is definitely well above zero. It's also definitely well below 99 cents a song. And that's the real problem that the RIAA et al refuse to see.
Is Taiwan able to sign? Is it recognized by enough countries?
How much money does the RIAA spend on these crusades? Maybe if they spent a little less they could lower prices. Nothing combats piracy better than a low price.
Maybe half a dozen a day? Though the he percentage that interests me is pretty high. Much higher than here. But you don't get many comments, and that's what I like best about slashdot. Despite all the silliness, there are still good, insightful posters on most every topic.
Technocrat. Not a lot of users, though.
Well, I believe his point was that it certainly can't be a virus. There's no way it could be compatible with any hosts, unless of course one subscribes to the Intelligent Design notion, in which case even though it has not evolved in this environment it could be compatible.
Thomas is an interesting guy. A Polish born Jew, he landed in a Nazi concentration camp, from which he eventually managed to escape. He speaks at least a half-dozen languages, and when he made his way to the US he started his language learning courses.
It's a bit odd, learning from a guy teaching his fourth (or so) language using his third, but he does it very well.
it's not traveling in a vacuum. The air is also rotating. And the bullet does not get very far away, relative to the size of the Earth. So maybe not a troll, but not particularly valid either.
What everybody else said, let them know. But do it with a letter. A real one. That still makes a big difference.
Good points. Thanks.
I don't understand this. I've never played either version of the game, so maybe I'm just missing something obvious, but it sounds like they basically threw out the old game and put a new one in its place. So why not have both? Why alienate such a large group of people. It's a virtual world - you can have more than one.
So now that the easy pickings are instead spending their money elsewhere, they have trapped themselves and are left with no market at all. All they have is a broken machine that depends on facts that are no longer true. So now they ought to reinvent the business, aiming toward a variety of quality acts that produce reasonable revenue at reasonable prices, but they can't get themselves to do it. What they had was so juicy that it's difficult to abandon. So like an addict they try to force it to continue to be, and won't stop until they hit rock bottom. At that point a new and functional model will emerge.
And several industry leaders were quoted as saying "...and of course the problem can't be that the price is too high. Don't be ridiculous!"
What, do they have sand in the bottom?
He doesn't say that. Not even close. And he uses OS X, not 9. What he's saying is that it could be better and cleaner than it is.
Of course it does. Tiered pricing is good for everybody. Places that tiered pricing is in effect tend to be the most efficient markets. It drives prices towards their natural balance. Let the bottom prices fall to where they may, and the top prices rise, and everybody wins.
What's crazy is trying to set 99 cents as the bottom. Clearly there is an enormous market for lesser priced music. There are thousands and thousands of bands that would love to sell their music, even if the true market price for it is only pennies. At 99 cents they are completely shut out of the market. So they lose and you lose. They have to go get jobs, and you never hear their music.
Parent is a blatant plagiarist.. See also this other example from earlier today.
I see your post is moderated +5, Totally Wrong.
Oh wait, that says "insightful," not "totally wrong." My mistake.
I thought it seemed strangely familiar, but this guy actually found the original.
I'm guessing part of the reason was that the article didn't yet exist the first time that comment was posted. This poster appears to have simply plagiarized in order to gain karma and promote his website, and may not actually care about the subject or any replies to the post.
You mean Microsoft is caused by viruses?
Cute. One of the (very) few good Soviet Russia jokes I've seen.
I didn't mean to imply that I thought *nobody* liked it. I mean, there are people who like to eat glass. ;-)
(I'm kidding. Surely there are more happy Windows users than there are glass-eaters.)
Nearly every non-technical person I know who has a computer is running Windows. But I can't think of a single one of them who has ever said to me that they LIKE using it. They all seem to tolerate it, and assume that when things go wrong that it's probably their fault and that's just the way it is with computers.
The one person I know who last year ditched his Windows box for a Mac now can't stop talking about how much he enjoys using it.