Musicnet and Press play are failing for one simple reason: the record companys made them to do just that.
Putting monatary and moral issues aside for a moment, why would anyone in their right mind subscribe to these services? They have shitty music selections and massive restrictions on what you can do with the music you download. Even if someone is willing to pay for a music service, there is no way most people would use these when the free alternitives are so much better.
I think it was obvioius to anyone who read about these things before they came out that they would fail. It was certeinly obvious to me. It should of been obvious to the record companys as well. why wasn't it? Becuase they where designed to fail. They realised that when these services failed, they would have ammunition to throw into legislaion. They are going to say that it's a faulty buisness model, and that musicnet is proof. Too bad too, as I am sure that a pay service that was not restrictive and was offered for a decent price would be quite sucsessful.
The game you refer to to is called Catchuman or something close to that. I read a review of it once in PC Gamer, and it was just shovelware quickly pushed out to go after the "christian gaming crowd". Instead of blowing up monsters with a rocket laucher, you "save" them with a blessed sword. The underlying concept was no diferent then say, doom, just the plot presented to you before the game, which never actully came into play. The point being, art is not definable. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that jazz. Just becuase a game has a christan theme does not give it any more artistic expression then Half-life, Doom, Max Payne or any other game out there. It's art because whoever created it says it is. All speech should be protected, not just what you, I, or The idiot right wing judge that ruled this way, says is speech.
Damn, is this spelling bee? I'm very tired today and don't feel like pouring over a post that almost no one will read. If it makes it hard to read, sorry. Don't read it then.
hurting me by driving up the price of CDs
CD's cost $17 before napster. Thay have a bad year in the middle of a huge economic downturn and they suddenly blame p2p and anything else that is outside of their little cartel. There is NO evidence that p2p or internet raido or anything else decreases sales of music, other then a 5% drop in sales for 2 quarters. This coming from an industry known for manipulating figures to an extreme.
Who said anything about the copyright holder being a corporation?
If you think that this crap is there to protect people,your sadly mistaken. It is there to protect company's that extort the copyrights from the original authors of the work. You may be a copyright holder, but unless you have a whole lotta money behind you, this won't help you at all.
Bowing to unresonable xxAA mesures won't make them the xxAA's any less unresonable once said bowing has taken place. In fact, if they see their tactics work, it will Make them even worse IMHO. Whatever it does, it won't make the world a better place.
being penalized $750 for violating a law that didn't deprive anyone of anything to appese an outdated industry pushing dracoian tactics dosen't put you off just a bit? It's corparate facisim.
This idea seems to open a whole new problem: privacy issues. I don't want AOL/Time Warner monitering me. but they'll only go after the big ones you say. Well, there's only one way to find the big ones, and thats look at everyone.
if you are targeted for violation unfairly, contest it in court.
Defending yourself in civil court is next to impoosible when the complaintent has millions upon millions of dollars in petty cash. people can and are easily railroaded and forced to settle because of the simple fact they don't have the money to defend themselves.
I am basically saying, leave things the way they are.
I agree in full. The fact is though, it's not gonna happen that way. The XXAA's will continue to legislate and litagate untill they win or they're dead.
That would be even worse. At least with the goverment you've got someone to bitch to when the system is abused. Corparations have no such responsibilty to the consumer. I hope that the outcome is one of no legislation at all, but I'd govermental enforcement over corprate enforcement any day. At least in theroy we have a say in goverment, which is something we lack with faceless corparations.
is the problem here. When the whole napster debate first came up, I assumed that the content companys would eventuly figure out how to make money with the new technology, as they had with radio, audio and video tapes. After all, no matter the morals of the situation, if no one is paying them they'll go out of buisness, and so they would be forced to try to appal to the conumer again. it has become clear to me now that they belive that they can litagate themselves out of the situation they're in.Litagation will not work. If they don't want to use the new technology to their advantage someone else will. DRM is not a lifeboat.
No doubt that gatway views it custumers as users, but that's due to their buisness model, not the fact that their nicer or more progressive then the XXAA's. My point was, that if gatway(or whoever) is sucsessful at winning the media conglomeration war, they will become every bit as domineering as the XXAA's are now. It's the nature of buisness. If you take some tiny company and put them at the helm of Microsoft for instance, I garantee that company will continue to be anti-competive and use whatever tatics are nessacary to maintain and raise there market share. Don't assume that becuase a company's policy is to your liking now that it'll stay the same once they are in a postion of greater power. The goes for politicans,but that's another matter entirely.
This is the real reason computer industry opposed the SSSCA(CBT.....). It wasn't really becuase it restrained their buisness model(it didn't all that much),nor out of the goodness of their hearts, but becuase they want to be the ones in control of the content. This applies to all large companys in the tech sector these days, be it microsoft, intel, dell or in this case, gateway. They all want in on the action of media conglomeration!
OEM is just one way to buy a PC. They "control" one portion of one piece of one market.
How's that? You and I may build our computers, but you and I are a very small segment of the computer buying public. If you take out home built, what's left? OEM sales make up the VAST majority of computer sales.
Wrong, because I dont watch TV, listen to Radio, or buy CDs. That means no control.
Wow. I wish I was as disciplined as you. The fact that you don't do those things dosen't change the fact that massive media conglomerates still effect your life every day, in a variety of ways. why? well, even though you don't particapate in popular culture, that dosen't stop everyone else from doing so. When AOl/Time-Warner gives money to Sen.Hollings from the profits they make off the public, it effects you. If that example dosen't work for you I'm sure I could come up with one or five that do.
The refelctions of art on society and visa versa are in equalibrium. Art changes how we percive our society, and thus changes it in the process. It works in the opposite as well. At least I hope that's how it works.
control Pronunciation Key (kn-trl) tr.v. controlled, controlling, controls 1:To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. See Synonyms at conduct. 2:To adjust to a requirement; regulate: controlled trading on the stock market; controls the flow of water. 3:To hold in restraint; check: struggled to control my temper. 4:To reduce or prevent the spread of: control insects; controlled the fire by dousing it with water.
There is more to the word control then just your black and white, Orwellian or not view of it. When microsoft goes around buying up companys like there going out of style, thats control(of the market). When you can't by an OEM computer without windows on it, thats control(of the conusmer). There are lots of exapmples of companys removing choice from the consumer, ala "control". the best example is media conglomerates. The next time you watch the news,,listen to the radio, buy a cd, watch tellivison, or see a movie rember that all of that is CONTROLED by 6 or so companys, and that number gets smaller all the time. How long before it's 2? or 1? That's control. Do our civil liberties suffer becuase of this? Absolutly.
I don't fear corporations at all. Because the great thing about corporations is that participation is voluntary. I fear government, because participation is mandatory.
Particapation is not voluntary, you just have a choice as to who you chose to particapte with(Unless you want to live in a cave and hunt your food). As corporate consolidation continues, your choice will disapear as well.
I disagree. I think its about, you know, making money. "Control" is a lot of work. It is much easier to just make money by making a product and then selling it for money.
Microsoft may just want to make money, but they need to exert control over the consumer and the market to make more. To do that they need to goverment on their side. Thinking otherwise is just naive.
Slashdot Mirror
there has been a dc app has been accused of being spyware
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-873181.htmlPutting monatary and moral issues aside for a moment, why would anyone in their right mind subscribe to these services? They have shitty music selections and massive restrictions on what you can do with the music you download. Even if someone is willing to pay for a music service, there is no way most people would use these when the free alternitives are so much better.
I think it was obvioius to anyone who read about these things before they came out that they would fail. It was certeinly obvious to me. It should of been obvious to the record companys as well. why wasn't it? Becuase they where designed to fail. They realised that when these services failed, they would have ammunition to throw into legislaion. They are going to say that it's a faulty buisness model, and that musicnet is proof. Too bad too, as I am sure that a pay service that was not restrictive and was offered for a decent price would be quite sucsessful.
The game you refer to to is called Catchuman or something close to that. I read a review of it once in PC Gamer, and it was just shovelware quickly pushed out to go after the "christian gaming crowd". Instead of blowing up monsters with a rocket laucher, you "save" them with a blessed sword. The underlying concept was no diferent then say, doom, just the plot presented to you before the game, which never actully came into play. The point being, art is not definable. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that jazz. Just becuase a game has a christan theme does not give it any more artistic expression then Half-life, Doom, Max Payne or any other game out there. It's art because whoever created it says it is. All speech should be protected, not just what you, I, or The idiot right wing judge that ruled this way, says is speech.
All media outlets have agendas. At least /.'s leans towards the citizens instead of the conglomerates.
A Geforce 256 DDR cost $300 when it came out.
Damn, is this spelling bee? I'm very tired today and don't feel like pouring over a post that almost no one will read. If it makes it hard to read, sorry. Don't read it then.
hurting me by driving up the price of CDsCD's cost $17 before napster. Thay have a bad year in the middle of a huge economic downturn and they suddenly blame p2p and anything else that is outside of their little cartel. There is NO evidence that p2p or internet raido or anything else decreases sales of music, other then a 5% drop in sales for 2 quarters. This coming from an industry known for manipulating figures to an extreme.
Who said anything about the copyright holder being a corporation?If you think that this crap is there to protect people,your sadly mistaken. It is there to protect company's that extort the copyrights from the original authors of the work. You may be a copyright holder, but unless you have a whole lotta money behind you, this won't help you at all.
Bowing to unresonable xxAA mesures won't make them the xxAA's any less unresonable once said bowing has taken place. In fact, if they see their tactics work, it will Make them even worse IMHO. Whatever it does, it won't make the world a better place.
being penalized $750 for violating a law that didn't deprive anyone of anything to appese an outdated industry pushing dracoian tactics dosen't put you off just a bit? It's corparate facisim.
when considering the context, that's a pretty facist way of looking at things.
This idea seems to open a whole new problem: privacy issues. I don't want AOL/Time Warner monitering me. but they'll only go after the big ones you say. Well, there's only one way to find the big ones, and thats look at everyone.
Defending yourself in civil court is next to impoosible when the complaintent has millions upon millions of dollars in petty cash. people can and are easily railroaded and forced to settle because of the simple fact they don't have the money to defend themselves.
I am basically saying, leave things the way they are.I agree in full. The fact is though, it's not gonna happen that way. The XXAA's will continue to legislate and litagate untill they win or they're dead.
That would be even worse. At least with the goverment you've got someone to bitch to when the system is abused. Corparations have no such responsibilty to the consumer. I hope that the outcome is one of no legislation at all, but I'd govermental enforcement over corprate enforcement any day. At least in theroy we have a say in goverment, which is something we lack with faceless corparations.
is the problem here. When the whole napster debate first came up, I assumed that the content companys would eventuly figure out how to make money with the new technology, as they had with radio, audio and video tapes. After all, no matter the morals of the situation, if no one is paying them they'll go out of buisness, and so they would be forced to try to appal to the conumer again. it has become clear to me now that they belive that they can litagate themselves out of the situation they're in.Litagation will not work. If they don't want to use the new technology to their advantage someone else will. DRM is not a lifeboat.
No doubt that gatway views it custumers as users, but that's due to their buisness model, not the fact that their nicer or more progressive then the XXAA's. My point was, that if gatway(or whoever) is sucsessful at winning the media conglomeration war, they will become every bit as domineering as the XXAA's are now. It's the nature of buisness. If you take some tiny company and put them at the helm of Microsoft for instance, I garantee that company will continue to be anti-competive and use whatever tatics are nessacary to maintain and raise there market share. Don't assume that becuase a company's policy is to your liking now that it'll stay the same once they are in a postion of greater power. The goes for politicans,but that's another matter entirely.
This is the real reason computer industry opposed the SSSCA(CBT.....). It wasn't really becuase it restrained their buisness model(it didn't all that much),nor out of the goodness of their hearts, but becuase they want to be the ones in control of the content. This applies to all large companys in the tech sector these days, be it microsoft, intel, dell or in this case, gateway. They all want in on the action of media conglomeration!
How's that? You and I may build our computers, but you and I are a very small segment of the computer buying public. If you take out home built, what's left? OEM sales make up the VAST majority of computer sales.
Wrong, because I dont watch TV, listen to Radio, or buy CDs. That means no control.Wow. I wish I was as disciplined as you. The fact that you don't do those things dosen't change the fact that massive media conglomerates still effect your life every day, in a variety of ways. why? well, even though you don't particapate in popular culture, that dosen't stop everyone else from doing so. When AOl/Time-Warner gives money to Sen.Hollings from the profits they make off the public, it effects you. If that example dosen't work for you I'm sure I could come up with one or five that do.
These companys should ask the RIAA for advise. Their very talanted at stopping people from moving/copying data without permission.
The refelctions of art on society and visa versa are in equalibrium. Art changes how we percive our society, and thus changes it in the process. It works in the opposite as well. At least I hope that's how it works.
control Pronunciation Key (kn-trl)
,listen to the radio, buy a cd, watch tellivison, or see a movie rember that all of that is CONTROLED by 6 or so companys, and that number gets smaller all the time. How long before it's 2? or 1? That's control. Do our civil liberties suffer becuase of this? Absolutly.
tr.v. controlled, controlling, controls
1:To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct. See Synonyms at conduct.
2:To adjust to a requirement; regulate: controlled trading on the stock market; controls the flow of water.
3:To hold in restraint; check: struggled to control my temper.
4:To reduce or prevent the spread of: control insects; controlled the fire by dousing it with water.
There is more to the word control then just your black and white, Orwellian or not view of it. When microsoft goes around buying up companys like there going out of style, thats control(of the market). When you can't by an OEM computer without windows on it, thats control(of the conusmer). There are lots of exapmples of companys removing choice from the consumer, ala "control". the best example is media conglomerates. The next time you watch the news,
Particapation is not voluntary, you just have a choice as to who you chose to particapte with(Unless you want to live in a cave and hunt your food). As corporate consolidation continues, your choice will disapear as well.
I disagree. I think its about, you know, making money. "Control" is a lot of work. It is much easier to just make money by making a product and then selling it for money.Microsoft may just want to make money, but they need to exert control over the consumer and the market to make more. To do that they need to goverment on their side. Thinking otherwise is just naive.