Also, I haven't met anyone this year who would willingly purchase one. I haven't been looking, but I haven't met anyone.
Nor have I. Even among the people I work with in the industry. That is the truly outrageous thing about the whole situation. Everyone knows that that readers are hostile to the idea. Unfortunatley, Microsoft is proving that you can force whatever you want down customers throats if you limit their options. So, publishers are pushing ahead to a model that only benefits them by increasing their control over their content and the revenue it generates.
As much as I hate to say it, I must admit that the creation of the content is where it's true cost lays. Most readers/listeners/software users judge the value by the media is is distributed on. This, obviously is not an accurate perception, as it does not account for the cost of producing the content.
What I do have a problem with is the control issue. I would pay the same price for an eBook as a paperbook if I could use it in the same ways. The convenience of portablilty, and searchablilty would make up for not reducing the price. However, this "service" nonesense significantly degrades the value of the product to me. If I can't copy it or recoup my costs by transferring it when I no longer need it, I won't pay the same prices.
Am I missing something? Never in my life would I visit a site called FarmClub. Even if someone told me it was a music site, it would never occur to me that it had any music worth listening to.
Okay, maybe those songs where cats and dogs meow and bark Christmas carols.
How would you feel if you produced a hit one day, it's played everywhere, but instead of a lot of money, you only receive a few pats on the back?
Just fine because I am not a greedy slacker who thinks that I should be able to coast for life on the work of a few weeks or months, however hard.
Please show me one hit of late that is not entirely derivative of earlier works. That would be an accomplishment worthy of a lot of money. Everything else is just a re-shuffle of someone elses ideas, and rarely worth more than a pat on the back.
Artists have a perfectly legitimate way of making a living. Performing. If they want to make good money, they should hit the road and earn it. Give people something that can't be duplicated.
Therefore the publishing industry is hanging on to that role as hard as they can, trying to keep their buggy-whip in the pre-automotive model, and using the government and copyright law to do it.
This is not quite true. There are huge economic inefficiencies attached to the duplication/distribution aspect of publishing. I work for a distributor, and I can assure you that the entire industry is licking their chops at the idea of ditching the paper book entirely. The ultimate goal is to turn books into software and sell them as a service. Of course, the purpose is to eliminate production costs and pocket the difference. Current eBooks are already subject to many more restrictions of use and transfer, and are generally not cheaper than their paper versions.
Any information converted to a digital format can be considered software. As such, look for Microsoft's tactics to be adopted by all kind of publishers.
Even if you assemble a second car identical to the first, you still ended up paying for all the parts again, plus whatever labor went into it. It's nothing like duplicating software--
Actually, it is exactly the same as duplicating software. You are paying for the media and the duplication equipment. Chances are you are paying more to create the duplicate than the original manufacturer paid to create the original because of economies of scale. Nonetheless, you HAVE paid for both copies.
Much like a software on a CD, the real cost of a car comes from the R&D that went into developing it. However, if you agree that replicating the physical manifestation of a car is legal, you can't argue that replicating the phisucal manifestation of a peice of software is not.
I don't think that X10's ubiquitous ads prove that they are effective. They just prove that ad space on web-sites is now dirt cheap.
The reason that they are dirt cheap was the reason for my original post. People ignore them. Thus, advertisers are not willing to pay much to have them posted. Thus, dot-coms that rely on being paid to post them are failing.
It is only confusing if you can't distinguish the parties that pay to advertise from the parties that are paid to post the ads.
Add placement is just one step closer to advertorial. Once schools become dependent on this revenue, advertisers will be able to dictate their policies on the threat of withdrawing it.
You really think that your tuition is going to go down becuase of this crap? These colleges are selling you out to businesses with crass, intrusive marketing practices. You will not benefit from this in any way.
You have no right to expect anything from the government that you, yourself, are not willing to give.
If you have been paying attention, you'll also note that you have no right to expect anything from the government that you are willing to give. Take respect, justice, fair-play for examples. The government of Abe Lincolns time is not the government of today.
They're selling apples at $3 a bag, but you can't just break open the bag for the best apple and pay 20c for it.
Nor would anyone be expected to buy the bag if all the apples were rotten except for one. By your reasoning, the store could claim that the one good apple was worth $3. Furthering your reasoning, the stores could only offer bags of 11 rotten apples and one good one for $3, or sell them individually for $1 each. Fair?
But obviously a lot more are okay with doing so, thus the retail music industry.
This would be a valid point if large scale file sharing existed when the music industry started. It did not. As such, you can't claim that people prefer buying music to trading it for free. I think that the file sharing explosion proves quite the opposite.
Supply and demand works on a competitive industry (not entirely the case with the music companies, more so with the retailers).
As far as I know this kind of business practice is illegal. The RIAA represents a trust. As such, they have no legal leg to stand on. Moreover, our legal system favors interests with deep pockets partly by the RIAA's efforts to corrupt it.
The price of a TV is basically set by the cost of production and what the consumer is willing to pay; not by comparing it to the price Barry charges for the ones that he got off the back of a truck.
Yes, but for the most part it is not easy to get a TV off the back of a truck. If it were as easy to get a stolen one as it is a legitimate one, retail prices would have to drop. This is more basic Economics. Basically, it boils down to scarcity. The music industry has relied on monopolistic practices to generate scarcity and drive up prices. Thanks to technology, this kind of anti-competitive, illegal practice is no longer possible. Now the RIAA must learn to live in a world where their prices must also take into account the value of their product to a majority of their consumers. This is a bad thing?
If the music industry is indeed charging too much or abusing their position, there are better (and more legal) ways of influencing that.
I think the DMCA proves who's side the legal system is on.
Slashdot Mirror
Speaking of Crackers. . .
Not hackers, crackers dammit!!!!
What's sarcasm?
These are generally just people who find a whole in security and take advantage of it.
Hackers find security holes. Crackers take advantage of them.
Sure we'd hear about them, just not as much as we bo with MS's great products.
Of course you realize that Linux hasn't had nearly enough exposure to back up that claim.
I'd like to see a nice double stockade for the writers of Sircam and Nimda, and maybe some fireants.
Maybe just corn syrup and regular ants for the admins who still haven't patched their servers.
Dictionary.com defines:Duh
duh (d)
interj.
Used to express disdain for something deemed stupid or obvious, especially a self-evident remark.
Also, I haven't met anyone this year who would willingly purchase one. I haven't been looking, but I haven't met anyone.
Nor have I. Even among the people I work with in the industry. That is the truly outrageous thing about the whole situation. Everyone knows that that readers are hostile to the idea. Unfortunatley, Microsoft is proving that you can force whatever you want down customers throats if you limit their options. So, publishers are pushing ahead to a model that only benefits them by increasing their control over their content and the revenue it generates.
As much as I hate to say it, I must admit that the creation of the content is where it's true cost lays. Most readers/listeners/software users judge the value by the media is is distributed on. This, obviously is not an accurate perception, as it does not account for the cost of producing the content.
What I do have a problem with is the control issue. I would pay the same price for an eBook as a paperbook if I could use it in the same ways. The convenience of portablilty, and searchablilty would make up for not reducing the price. However, this "service" nonesense significantly degrades the value of the product to me. If I can't copy it or recoup my costs by transferring it when I no longer need it, I won't pay the same prices.
Am I missing something? Never in my life would I visit a site called FarmClub. Even if someone told me it was a music site, it would never occur to me that it had any music worth listening to.
Okay, maybe those songs where cats and dogs meow and bark Christmas carols.
How would you feel if you produced a hit one day, it's played everywhere, but instead of a lot of money, you only receive a few pats on the back?
Just fine because I am not a greedy slacker who thinks that I should be able to coast for life on the work of a few weeks or months, however hard.
Please show me one hit of late that is not entirely derivative of earlier works. That would be an accomplishment worthy of a lot of money. Everything else is just a re-shuffle of someone elses ideas, and rarely worth more than a pat on the back.
Artists have a perfectly legitimate way of making a living. Performing. If they want to make good money, they should hit the road and earn it. Give people something that can't be duplicated.
Therefore the publishing industry is hanging on to that role as hard as they can, trying to keep their buggy-whip in the pre-automotive model, and using the government and copyright law to do it.
This is not quite true. There are huge economic inefficiencies attached to the duplication/distribution aspect of publishing. I work for a distributor, and I can assure you that the entire industry is licking their chops at the idea of ditching the paper book entirely. The ultimate goal is to turn books into software and sell them as a service. Of course, the purpose is to eliminate production costs and pocket the difference. Current eBooks are already subject to many more restrictions of use and transfer, and are generally not cheaper than their paper versions.
Any information converted to a digital format can be considered software. As such, look for Microsoft's tactics to be adopted by all kind of publishers.
Even if you assemble a second car identical to the first, you still ended up paying for all the parts again, plus whatever labor went into it. It's nothing like duplicating software--
Actually, it is exactly the same as duplicating software. You are paying for the media and the duplication equipment. Chances are you are paying more to create the duplicate than the original manufacturer paid to create the original because of economies of scale. Nonetheless, you HAVE paid for both copies.
Much like a software on a CD, the real cost of a car comes from the R&D that went into developing it. However, if you agree that replicating the physical manifestation of a car is legal, you can't argue that replicating the phisucal manifestation of a peice of software is not.
Jolene Blalock.
Zounds.
Damn this compression filter!
Mr. Eastern Standard Time
Damn him!
First he rigs the election, and now this!
I'm going to assume you posted before thinking...
Right back at ya'. Just keep hitting Parent, you'll figure it out.
I don't think that X10's ubiquitous ads prove that they are effective. They just prove that ad space on web-sites is now dirt cheap.
The reason that they are dirt cheap was the reason for my original post. People ignore them. Thus, advertisers are not willing to pay much to have them posted. Thus, dot-coms that rely on being paid to post them are failing.
It is only confusing if you can't distinguish the parties that pay to advertise from the parties that are paid to post the ads.
X10 doesn't profit from ad revenue. They pay sites to post their ad.
Add placement is just one step closer to advertorial. Once schools become dependent on this revenue, advertisers will be able to dictate their policies on the threat of withdrawing it.
You really think that your tuition is going to go down becuase of this crap? These colleges are selling you out to businesses with crass, intrusive marketing practices. You will not benefit from this in any way.
I hope these adds are as succesfull for colleges as pop-ups and banners are for dot-coms!
It's not entrapment unless they entice you to do something illegal. It is not illegal to claim a prize, real or not.
alt.nerd.obsessive, need know star of RM movie.
You have no right to expect anything from the government that you, yourself, are not willing to give.
If you have been paying attention, you'll also note that you have no right to expect anything from the government that you are willing to give. Take respect, justice, fair-play for examples. The government of Abe Lincolns time is not the government of today.
Anything I can listen to, I can record. You can too!
If only the RIAA could figure this out, we would be done with this nonesense.
On the other hand, it is fun to see them spin their wheels.
They're selling apples at $3 a bag, but you can't just break open the bag for the best apple and pay 20c for it.
Nor would anyone be expected to buy the bag if all the apples were rotten except for one. By your reasoning, the store could claim that the one good apple was worth $3. Furthering your reasoning, the stores could only offer bags of 11 rotten apples and one good one for $3, or sell them individually for $1 each. Fair?
But obviously a lot more are okay with doing so, thus the retail music industry.
This would be a valid point if large scale file sharing existed when the music industry started. It did not. As such, you can't claim that people prefer buying music to trading it for free. I think that the file sharing explosion proves quite the opposite.
Supply and demand works on a competitive industry (not entirely the case with the music companies, more so with the retailers).
As far as I know this kind of business practice is illegal. The RIAA represents a trust. As such, they have no legal leg to stand on. Moreover, our legal system favors interests with deep pockets partly by the RIAA's efforts to corrupt it.
The price of a TV is basically set by the cost of production and what the consumer is willing to pay; not by comparing it to the price Barry charges for the ones that he got off the back of a truck.
Yes, but for the most part it is not easy to get a TV off the back of a truck. If it were as easy to get a stolen one as it is a legitimate one, retail prices would have to drop. This is more basic Economics. Basically, it boils down to scarcity. The music industry has relied on monopolistic practices to generate scarcity and drive up prices. Thanks to technology, this kind of anti-competitive, illegal practice is no longer possible. Now the RIAA must learn to live in a world where their prices must also take into account the value of their product to a majority of their consumers. This is a bad thing?
If the music industry is indeed charging too much or abusing their position, there are better (and more legal) ways of influencing that.
I think the DMCA proves who's side the legal system is on.