The scariest thing about this hoax is that it's actually believable. Anyone who has spent siginificant time in the South (and South West) can attest that there *ARE* people who believe this crap. As crazy as it is...there are still believers.
Come down to Texas and I'll introduce you to you a whole boatload of them.
When I was recently in Amsterdam, I was talking to my Dutch friend and I asked him "Why does your country have such liberal laws?"
His reply: "Because the alternative is chaos."
You see, the Netherlands is very similar to the US. It has a very diverse group of people living there, all with different ethnicities and viewpoints. If laws didn't "tolerate" certain behaviors, the result is they piss off all of the people all of the time. Instead, the have a much more liberal policy on some things and they wind up promoting true tolerance. (ie: tolerance means putting up with something that you don't necessarily agree with).
Perhaps Bertelsman is taking a different strategic view of what is going on?
They see the "other 4" going down an increasingly miserable road and decide that they are going to differentiate themselves by trying a sort-of napster like model (where piracy becomes a cost of doing business - like software).
That's my guess.
Its *very* clear that the general public WANTS digital music (mp3's to be exact). Its also clear that they want a way to legally download music from the net. I mean, after all, most of us would rather pay for it than be illegal, assuming the fee is reasonable.
Ok, so there exists an effective means of distribution and a tangible (and large!) customer base who wants this "service".
My question is simple: Exactly why haven't the music co's provided this service? The demand is clearly there....the means of distro are there.....and the dollars are prolly there too -- yet, as it exists right now -- there is no *LEGAL* way for me to go out and download a good copy of "Oops I did it again". I couldn't even if I wanted to. Not even if I had $1000 to do it.
And THAT, my friends, is why music/movie piracy will never go away until the business models (and revenue streams) change and customers/users/listeners have a legal option to get the music *they* want in the format *they* want.
Oh well...guess I'll get back to Morpheus now.
Actually, has anyone noticed that bandwidth has gotten cheaper over the last 3-5 years? Go ask Level 3 if they can get the same prices for bandwidth that they did last year. They can't. If fact - they are DYING to sell bandwidth - at ANY price (almost).
I just don't buy the "its too expensive" arguments. Technology gets CHEAPER as time goes on - not more expensive. While this is not a proven theory yet, I dont think I would encounter much difficulty in finding more technological examples of where that is true.
Sooo...perhaps in the long run, psuedo-unlimited bandwidth CAN be a reality. By the sound of some of these posts, many of you fear that. I don't know why since 6months ago, all I saw were posts saying "GIVE ME MORE BANDWIDTH". Now/. goes the other direction. Go figure
I've read most of the posts on this article and one thing definitely jumps out at me:
Why is everyone moving towards LIMITING users bandwidth? I thought the whole point of broadband was for people to use it. From the sound of some of these posts, I have to wonder whether some of you really *want* users to have broadband.
Perhaps the root cause of the poor economics have more to do with poorly run companies than it does with the price of bandwidth.
Keep in mind - by ANY (and I mean ANY) measure, the price of bandwidth has plummetted over the last 3-5 years. Trends indicate it will continue to do so...
So, why do you need more money from me? If you could offer this service before (when bandwidth was higher) why can't you offer it now?
"* There's no way to guarantee that movies/music won't be freely redistributed". Exactly. So why continue down this path? Makes far more economic sense to find an acceptable level of piracy/loss and shoot for that number. NO business can ever become 100% immune to theft of its services and if that is the criteria for moving forward into a new line of business or technology, then Corp. America would *never* get anywhere. The fact is, there are companies out there - RIGHT NOW - who can provide these services. Unfortunately, they won't even get a crack at building a better mousetrap because of the power the top5 music co. possess.
"* Customers become up in arms when the music/movie companies try to protect their interests by stipulating that music can only be played on approved players, can't be redistributed, etc. They can't win because customers feel that giving away music is their right"
Not true. Most customers would gladly pay for the music -- however -- they will NOT pay under the current pricing/service offering. In other words, the companies have put out a product and the customer has said "we don't think its worth that". If people thought $15 CD's were a good deal, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. However, the fact is, people DON'T like paying premium prices for commodity products.
While I agree with most of your post, I think you trivialize the role of these companies. The very same economic 'principles' you refer to in your argument are the very ones the RIAA and its cronies are using to stifle new and unique ways of providing customer what they want. Remember, there are *2* sides to every story...
If you can't beat your competitors (who built a better mouse trap) then you run to 'legislators' who, given enough money, might do it for you. That way, you can continue to "serve" customers the same way you used to (with CD's and DVD's but no real online options). Unless there is a real fear that the competition might take away your business if you DON'T serve your customers, then business processes don't change. In other words, the music companies don't HAVE to serve their customers because there is no viable alternative. Its the same principle behind M$ taking as long as they want to fix bugs. If M$ had REAL competition (ie: like long distance or something) you might see their behavior change regarding how fast they get those fixes out. I can't guarantee it, but I just betcha they would....
If you need further illustration of the issue, consider mp3's. I think by any reasonable measure, customers have indicated they like and want mp3's. This much is clear. What is not clear is why the record companies have not responded to this request after a year or two of 'discussing' it. All I have seen are proposalss that do not even come close to what customers are saying they want.
So...who is to blame? The customer - for not 'voting with their dollars? or the companies for not providing customers with what they want?
I dont think the answer is very clear.
I currenly live and have lived in Texas for quite some time.
Texas doesn't edit Shakespeare and it is NOT illegal to sell/read/purvey/buy/ or write Shakespeare. Learn your facts before you post.
Yes, you can buy vibrators and whatever else you want. In fact, most of Okla comes to our state to get them since "showing penetration" is still illegal there. Pr0n is not only legal here, but readily available from numerous stores.
The Texas constituation is chock full of weird and arcane laws. Many states are similar. For example, it IS illegal in Texas to carry wire cutters in your saddle bags.
I don't think pointing out a few arcane laws (and ones that don't exist, mind you) makes you an authority on Texas and how the people of Texas govern themselves. For the most part, this is a conservative state -- but it is a LONG LONG way from being as crazy as you imply. I can think of MANY states that are much more backwards than Texas -- Kansas for starters (evolution). Oklahoma is up there, for sure.
Yea, but with milk and software, I have about a million other alternatives.
Last I checked at the store, I had 3-5 choices (in my area of the country)....and I KNOW that they aren't all colluding with each other to set unrealistic prices. For the most part, milk and software are priced according to supply/demand. Furthermore, the distribution of that milk and software also takes on about a million manifestations.
My point is this: Your analogy is worthless because, currently, the RIAA controls not only the product but the distribution of that product. That's the issue here.
At one point, NASA could estimate within 5 or 10% of EVERY development project they had running.
Of course, they are CMM level 5 - which basically means they have their shit together. Most of everyone else, however, does not. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of projects out there could be considered to be in a state of chaos and I dont see that changing until two things happen:
a) the "business" people think through what they REALLY want instead of just throwing a bunch of unformed ideas at the wall and hoping they stick. It constantly amazes me how little thought is given to systems by the very people who have to depend on them. (ie: solid requirements)
and
b) the developers must start acting like professional developers and not "hackers". I realize that there is a grey area between art and science but too many programmers I know take too many risks and don't think through their analysis. Often times, projects fail because something is not thoroughly analyzed or is not throughly thought out. Don't get me wrong, programmers don't need to be experts in risk management, but some acknowledgement of risk MUST be made by developers nowadays. You can't just go into your corner and code away.
Slashdot Mirror
The scariest thing about this hoax is that it's actually believable. Anyone who has spent siginificant time in the South (and South West) can attest that there *ARE* people who believe this crap. As crazy as it is...there are still believers.
Come down to Texas and I'll introduce you to you a whole boatload of them.
When I was recently in Amsterdam, I was talking to my Dutch friend and I asked him "Why does your country have such liberal laws?"
His reply: "Because the alternative is chaos."
You see, the Netherlands is very similar to the US. It has a very diverse group of people living there, all with different ethnicities and viewpoints. If laws didn't "tolerate" certain behaviors, the result is they piss off all of the people all of the time. Instead, the have a much more liberal policy on some things and they wind up promoting true tolerance. (ie: tolerance means putting up with something that you don't necessarily agree with).
Perhaps Bertelsman is taking a different strategic view of what is going on? They see the "other 4" going down an increasingly miserable road and decide that they are going to differentiate themselves by trying a sort-of napster like model (where piracy becomes a cost of doing business - like software). That's my guess.
Its *very* clear that the general public WANTS digital music (mp3's to be exact). Its also clear that they want a way to legally download music from the net. I mean, after all, most of us would rather pay for it than be illegal, assuming the fee is reasonable. Ok, so there exists an effective means of distribution and a tangible (and large!) customer base who wants this "service". My question is simple: Exactly why haven't the music co's provided this service? The demand is clearly there....the means of distro are there.....and the dollars are prolly there too -- yet, as it exists right now -- there is no *LEGAL* way for me to go out and download a good copy of "Oops I did it again". I couldn't even if I wanted to. Not even if I had $1000 to do it. And THAT, my friends, is why music/movie piracy will never go away until the business models (and revenue streams) change and customers/users/listeners have a legal option to get the music *they* want in the format *they* want. Oh well...guess I'll get back to Morpheus now.
One word: Porn.
You couldn't pay me enough to live there. Nice people. Sheltered world.
Actually, has anyone noticed that bandwidth has gotten cheaper over the last 3-5 years? Go ask Level 3 if they can get the same prices for bandwidth that they did last year. They can't. If fact - they are DYING to sell bandwidth - at ANY price (almost). I just don't buy the "its too expensive" arguments. Technology gets CHEAPER as time goes on - not more expensive. While this is not a proven theory yet, I dont think I would encounter much difficulty in finding more technological examples of where that is true. Sooo...perhaps in the long run, psuedo-unlimited bandwidth CAN be a reality. By the sound of some of these posts, many of you fear that. I don't know why since 6months ago, all I saw were posts saying "GIVE ME MORE BANDWIDTH". Now /. goes the other direction. Go figure
I've read most of the posts on this article and one thing definitely jumps out at me: Why is everyone moving towards LIMITING users bandwidth? I thought the whole point of broadband was for people to use it. From the sound of some of these posts, I have to wonder whether some of you really *want* users to have broadband. Perhaps the root cause of the poor economics have more to do with poorly run companies than it does with the price of bandwidth. Keep in mind - by ANY (and I mean ANY) measure, the price of bandwidth has plummetted over the last 3-5 years. Trends indicate it will continue to do so... So, why do you need more money from me? If you could offer this service before (when bandwidth was higher) why can't you offer it now?
"* There's no way to guarantee that movies/music won't be freely redistributed". Exactly. So why continue down this path? Makes far more economic sense to find an acceptable level of piracy/loss and shoot for that number. NO business can ever become 100% immune to theft of its services and if that is the criteria for moving forward into a new line of business or technology, then Corp. America would *never* get anywhere. The fact is, there are companies out there - RIGHT NOW - who can provide these services. Unfortunately, they won't even get a crack at building a better mousetrap because of the power the top5 music co. possess.
"* Customers become up in arms when the music/movie companies try to protect their interests by stipulating that music can only be played on approved players, can't be redistributed, etc. They can't win because customers feel that giving away music is their right"
Not true. Most customers would gladly pay for the music -- however -- they will NOT pay under the current pricing/service offering. In other words, the companies have put out a product and the customer has said "we don't think its worth that". If people thought $15 CD's were a good deal, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. However, the fact is, people DON'T like paying premium prices for commodity products.
While I agree with most of your post, I think you trivialize the role of these companies. The very same economic 'principles' you refer to in your argument are the very ones the RIAA and its cronies are using to stifle new and unique ways of providing customer what they want. Remember, there are *2* sides to every story... If you can't beat your competitors (who built a better mouse trap) then you run to 'legislators' who, given enough money, might do it for you. That way, you can continue to "serve" customers the same way you used to (with CD's and DVD's but no real online options). Unless there is a real fear that the competition might take away your business if you DON'T serve your customers, then business processes don't change. In other words, the music companies don't HAVE to serve their customers because there is no viable alternative. Its the same principle behind M$ taking as long as they want to fix bugs. If M$ had REAL competition (ie: like long distance or something) you might see their behavior change regarding how fast they get those fixes out. I can't guarantee it, but I just betcha they would.... If you need further illustration of the issue, consider mp3's. I think by any reasonable measure, customers have indicated they like and want mp3's. This much is clear. What is not clear is why the record companies have not responded to this request after a year or two of 'discussing' it. All I have seen are proposalss that do not even come close to what customers are saying they want. So...who is to blame? The customer - for not 'voting with their dollars? or the companies for not providing customers with what they want? I dont think the answer is very clear.
I currenly live and have lived in Texas for quite some time. Texas doesn't edit Shakespeare and it is NOT illegal to sell/read/purvey/buy/ or write Shakespeare. Learn your facts before you post. Yes, you can buy vibrators and whatever else you want. In fact, most of Okla comes to our state to get them since "showing penetration" is still illegal there. Pr0n is not only legal here, but readily available from numerous stores. The Texas constituation is chock full of weird and arcane laws. Many states are similar. For example, it IS illegal in Texas to carry wire cutters in your saddle bags. I don't think pointing out a few arcane laws (and ones that don't exist, mind you) makes you an authority on Texas and how the people of Texas govern themselves. For the most part, this is a conservative state -- but it is a LONG LONG way from being as crazy as you imply. I can think of MANY states that are much more backwards than Texas -- Kansas for starters (evolution). Oklahoma is up there, for sure.
Yea, but with milk and software, I have about a million other alternatives. Last I checked at the store, I had 3-5 choices (in my area of the country)....and I KNOW that they aren't all colluding with each other to set unrealistic prices. For the most part, milk and software are priced according to supply/demand. Furthermore, the distribution of that milk and software also takes on about a million manifestations. My point is this: Your analogy is worthless because, currently, the RIAA controls not only the product but the distribution of that product. That's the issue here.
At one point, NASA could estimate within 5 or 10% of EVERY development project they had running. Of course, they are CMM level 5 - which basically means they have their shit together. Most of everyone else, however, does not. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of projects out there could be considered to be in a state of chaos and I dont see that changing until two things happen: a) the "business" people think through what they REALLY want instead of just throwing a bunch of unformed ideas at the wall and hoping they stick. It constantly amazes me how little thought is given to systems by the very people who have to depend on them. (ie: solid requirements) and b) the developers must start acting like professional developers and not "hackers". I realize that there is a grey area between art and science but too many programmers I know take too many risks and don't think through their analysis. Often times, projects fail because something is not thoroughly analyzed or is not throughly thought out. Don't get me wrong, programmers don't need to be experts in risk management, but some acknowledgement of risk MUST be made by developers nowadays. You can't just go into your corner and code away.