"Industry studies point out that for every hit the business scores, it loses $6.3 million on albums that tank. Fewer than 5% of signed artists deliver a hit."
That's not the artists' fault, so don't make them pay for the labels' poor decisions. It's the fault of the labels for signing every jackass garage band it 'discovers' to multi-album contracts.
That's like asking for a refund on your flood insurance when your house doesn't get flooded. The most important thing that artists are buying when they sign a record contract is insurance. If their record is a bust, and the record company loses $100K, they're not liable.
If the artists had the $100K to risk themselves, they wouldn't be entering into record contracts in the first place.
It's like being screwed by your landlord. You know you don't like it. You should leave. But where will you live?
Yep, I bet it's exactly like "being screwed" by your landlord. You're missing the picture of exactly how much it costs to run the business. You're forgetting about the taxes, the hot water heating bills, the mortgage interest, the hazard insurance, the money lost from deadbeats who don't pay, the new stoves, the washer, the dryer, the boiler, the vacancies, the advertising, etc.
Yeah, when you don't look at all the costs, it sure looks like a steal, but if it's such a steal, don't you think more people would be in the business?
perhaps he doesnt invest in these companies because he believes the points he made in the post above yours to be true. this would indicate that he places what he thinks is morally correct above the ability to make money.
That's a pretty stupid plan. If you invest in a stock, you're not helping the company any. You're merely taking profits away from the person you bought the stock from and giving them to yourself.
there are many companies i would not invest in. for example, i wouldnt invest in microsoft. there is no doubt that many have made money from investing in microsoft, but i would consider those ill gotten gains.
That's stupid. The best way to get a company to change its ways is to buy stock and then vote for a new board of directors.
really though, if you think slashdot sucks, why do you troll here so much?
I never said I think slashdot sucks, and my post was not a troll.
RIAA wants to control how we use the content we purchased
Yeah, so do I, what's your point?
RIAA wants to make it impossible to exercise fair use
I don't think that's true.
RIAA controls the price of most music
So?
RIAA members control which band "makes it" by turning on the payola tap
Nah, I don't think that's true.
RIAA members expect to cheat artists out of roylity payments, has done it in the past, and independent reports confirm it's still happening.
RIAA members use contracts that are the next best thing to slavery.
I don't think that's accurate.
RIAA paid a congressional aide to add language to a bill, bypassing congress and debate.
So?
For every superstar that makes the record company a million dollars there's five failures that lose the record company a couple hundred thousand.
That's if you trust their figures. It's already been said that RIAA makes Enron look like amature hour.
Enron moved around funds to make it appear that they made more money than they did. Is that what you're accusing AOL of? Please, explain exactly what you're accusing the record companies of doing.
And then explain why if it's such a great deal, you don't invest in these companies or go into the business yourself.
Seems like your site, and I do mean your site, (because you seem like the only one submitting articles) has many articles supporting this perverse thinking.
I really don't get this holier than thou attitude from people against the RIAA. If you have $200K to invest in an unknown artist to produce and market his/her album, by all means, put your money where your mouth is. If you think AOL is making so much money, go ahead and invest in it.
But that's not what's happening. For every superstar that makes the record company a million dollars there's five failures that lose the record company a couple hundred thousand. Yes, in the end the record company usually makes a profit, but on average that profit is generally only a few percent a year of the amount of money that had to be invested to earn that profit.
That's the way capitalism works. If you can't afford the capital, you work for someone else. If you've got a better solution, I'd like to hear it.
I guess if you have a dedicated server... But most of us don't.
And GPG/PGP would protect the email as stored on the server
Not if the private key is stored on the server.
As for 'it's just not worth it', that's what we're talking about changing, isn't it...
Well, my point is it's not going to be "worth it" until it's convenient to carry around your private key everywhere you go. Or if we all bought dedicated servers, I guess.
Oh, and also, I could easily implement a system which decrypts the email upon receipt, and then continue to use SSL/IMAP or HTTPS as usual - that is, if anyone I talk to had GPG to begin with.
But that ultimately relies on passwords and trusting your hosting provider. I already use an SSL connection to my IMAP account through Outlook, or an https connection to my web-based email. Yes, GPG would protect the email en route to my server, but for the hassles to the people sending the email it's just not worth it.
Why not? So many people already carry bags full of useless stuff, so why couldnt they add a cd or disk or minidisc or whatever small thing is needed?
At that point the problem becomes the fact that I can't easily add the key temporarily to Netscape or IE or Outlook. I need to be able to access email easily on the go. A simple PGP module built into IE would solve the problem for the most part. But instead Microsoft counts on passport... Bleh.
With this and Evolution and Kmail both supporting GPG and PGP are we at the dawn of that golden age when encrypted email will be commonplace?
No. The biggest problem with public key encryption is that you can't use it on multiple computers without some way of transferring the private key. Plus you have to keep a backup of your private key somewhere outside your main computer's location, yet somewhere it will remain secure.
So, ultimately, unless you carry around a CD everywhere you go, you're probably relying on passwords in the end anyway.
Yes, but Despair has threatened to sue (well, is -pretending- to threaten to sue as their site is parody) everyone on the Internet that uses the:-( face.
As we saw in the Felton case, pretending to threaten to sue doesn't mean anything.
I broke up with my girlfriend last week, but she keeps calling me anyway. I told her to stop, but now she's showing up at my doorstep and ringing my doorbell every hour. I tried asking her to stop, but she says she loves me and doesn't want to lose me. Does anyone have any experience with this problem and know how to stop this activity without getting a lawyer involved?
You say that Palladium "could be used to significantly reduce user's rights to access digital media," but I highly doubt this is true.
I don't think that this is a debatable point. Certainly the technology could be used for this purpose. Perhaps you could argue that you don't think it will or that it won't be effective but I think that the potential is nigh irrefutable.
If it's not effective, then it can't. But my point is I don't think it will. We can argue predestination and whether or not there's a difference between can and will if you want...
In essence, this is the same argument the RIAA uses against online music sharing - if the potential exists, people will steal anything and everything.
I agree with the RIAA on that point. The reason more people aren't using P2P filesharing is because P2P filesharing is less convenient than going out and buying a CD in many instances. I also think this doesn't address my comment. I said "those who create crippled media will quickly find that they are losing sales in droves to the illegal markets." My point is if the next Britney Spears CD can't be played more than 5 times, fewer people are going to buy it. Some, probably many, will instead turn to the illegal markets where they can obtain a CD without restrictions.
I watch MPAA movies, and even buy DVDs, but ultimately I think it's worth the money I pay for the product I receive.
Okay, now here is the tricky bit. Would it still be worth the money if you had to buy a separate copy for each DVD player you wanted to watch it in (e.g. standalone & laptop)? How about if you wanted to lend it to a friend or relative - not for copying but just for watching?
I wouldn't buy the DVD if I couldn't play it on any DVD player, lend it to others, and resell it. That's the main reason I buy DVDs, so they'd definately lose my sale. Moreover, I think it's clear from a simple microeconomic standpoint that there would be lowered demand for this lower quality product, and thus price and profit would go down. So it would make little sense for the MPAA to do this.
While these are not planned "features" of Palladium, they appear to be supportable by the system and are not significantly more restrictive than the planned prohibition on shifting audio CDs to MP3s.
The big difference is that not that many people shift audio CDs to MP3s. Lots and lots of people lend DVDs to friends. Another big difference is that audio CD piracy is much much bigger of a problem than DVD piracy.
I'd hate to get on the proverbial "slippery slope" with Microsoft and the MPAA/RIAA calling the shots.
Ultimately though it is the consumer who calls the shots, as the consumer has the choice of whether or not to buy the product. I'd much rather have a situation where artists are able to protect their works technically than one where they are forced to rely on laws and intimidation.
Palladium merely enables artists to release their works in ways that technically enforces the laws that we already have.
Actually, I don't think it does. The courts have traditionally upheld the public's right to copy legally purchased media products for the purpose of using it on another device. The DMCA tries to take this away but it has yet to be strongly challenged in the proper forum and, therefore, it remains to be seen whether it really trumps fair use.
Fair enough. I agree with you on this point.
[Palladium/DRM] doesn't force artists to take options away from the user.
I would assert that the denial of fair use is taking options away from the user.
Yes, but DRM doesn't force the artist to deny fair use. It merely gives them the opportunity to sell a product which denies the user fair use. As long as the user knows that fair use is denied to them when they decide to buy the product, I don't see any problem with that.
In fact, my guess is that it will enable artists to offer more options to the user. With DRM artists can offer time-limited free trials, for instance. This could be a great opportunity for independent musicians to get their music out there without giving it away for free.
This is a very good point and, of course, I am all in favor of helping independent artists. However, I don't see a groundswell of demand for DRM in the indie community.
I must admit I don't see it either, but it seems to me that marketing and distribution are the two main reasons that record companies are needed in the first place. The internet has brought us solutions to both of these problems, but without some protection against widespread copying it's too great of a risk for most artists to utilize.
It could re-establish shareware as a viable alternative to corporate products.
And here I was thinking that we live in the golden age of shareware. Just about 3 years ago I broke the barrier where I started to spend more on shareware than commercial software and the gap has been growing steadily. Do you know something I don't? I was unaware of the demise of shareware.
Anecdotally, the only non-free (as in price) software I have installed is Windows 2000. But I guess I'll defer to your opinion as to whether or not shareware is dead. I really don't have that much data on it.
The important thing is not to stop the technology, it is to put mechanisms in place to ensure that the technology will be used properly.
Well that seems fair enough. In the spirit of your challenge for me to clarify the "viable options", I am curious as to what mechanisms you feel are necessary and appropriate.
I really think all you need is a free market. A lot of that is already in place, but it must be ensured that Microsoft licenses this technology fairly and equally to everyone. I think supply and demand will take care of the rest.
Slashdot Mirror
"Industry studies point out that for every hit the business scores, it loses $6.3 million on albums that tank. Fewer than 5% of signed artists deliver a hit."
That's not the artists' fault, so don't make them pay for the labels' poor decisions. It's the fault of the labels for signing every jackass garage band it 'discovers' to multi-album contracts.
That's like asking for a refund on your flood insurance when your house doesn't get flooded. The most important thing that artists are buying when they sign a record contract is insurance. If their record is a bust, and the record company loses $100K, they're not liable.
If the artists had the $100K to risk themselves, they wouldn't be entering into record contracts in the first place.
It's like being screwed by your landlord. You know you don't like it. You should leave. But where will you live?
Yep, I bet it's exactly like "being screwed" by your landlord. You're missing the picture of exactly how much it costs to run the business. You're forgetting about the taxes, the hot water heating bills, the mortgage interest, the hazard insurance, the money lost from deadbeats who don't pay, the new stoves, the washer, the dryer, the boiler, the vacancies, the advertising, etc.
Yeah, when you don't look at all the costs, it sure looks like a steal, but if it's such a steal, don't you think more people would be in the business?
So what's the problem then, if the record companies are only cheating non-musicians and people NOT like us?
perhaps he doesnt invest in these companies because he believes the points he made in the post above yours to be true. this would indicate that he places what he thinks is morally correct above the ability to make money.
That's a pretty stupid plan. If you invest in a stock, you're not helping the company any. You're merely taking profits away from the person you bought the stock from and giving them to yourself.
there are many companies i would not invest in. for example, i wouldnt invest in microsoft. there is no doubt that many have made money from investing in microsoft, but i would consider those ill gotten gains.
That's stupid. The best way to get a company to change its ways is to buy stock and then vote for a new board of directors.
really though, if you think slashdot sucks, why do you troll here so much?
I never said I think slashdot sucks, and my post was not a troll.
RIAA wants to control how we use the content we purchased
Yeah, so do I, what's your point?
RIAA wants to make it impossible to exercise fair use
I don't think that's true.
RIAA controls the price of most music
So?
RIAA members control which band "makes it" by turning on the payola tap
Nah, I don't think that's true.
RIAA members expect to cheat artists out of roylity payments, has done it in the past, and independent reports confirm it's still happening. RIAA members use contracts that are the next best thing to slavery.
I don't think that's accurate.
RIAA paid a congressional aide to add language to a bill, bypassing congress and debate.
So?
For every superstar that makes the record company a million dollars there's five failures that lose the record company a couple hundred thousand.
That's if you trust their figures. It's already been said that RIAA makes Enron look like amature hour.
Enron moved around funds to make it appear that they made more money than they did. Is that what you're accusing AOL of? Please, explain exactly what you're accusing the record companies of doing.
And then explain why if it's such a great deal, you don't invest in these companies or go into the business yourself.
If Slashdot sucks so much, why do you post here?
Why do you?
Seems like your site, and I do mean your site, (because you seem like the only one submitting articles) has many articles supporting this perverse thinking.
Huh? What perverse thinking?
What does it feel like?
I don't understand. Be more specific.
I really don't get this holier than thou attitude from people against the RIAA. If you have $200K to invest in an unknown artist to produce and market his/her album, by all means, put your money where your mouth is. If you think AOL is making so much money, go ahead and invest in it. But that's not what's happening. For every superstar that makes the record company a million dollars there's five failures that lose the record company a couple hundred thousand. Yes, in the end the record company usually makes a profit, but on average that profit is generally only a few percent a year of the amount of money that had to be invested to earn that profit. That's the way capitalism works. If you can't afford the capital, you work for someone else. If you've got a better solution, I'd like to hear it.
Well, I am my hosting provider.
I guess if you have a dedicated server... But most of us don't.
And GPG/PGP would protect the email as stored on the server
Not if the private key is stored on the server.
As for 'it's just not worth it', that's what we're talking about changing, isn't it...
Well, my point is it's not going to be "worth it" until it's convenient to carry around your private key everywhere you go. Or if we all bought dedicated servers, I guess.
I'd like a web client that can do the public key stuff on the server.
I don't see much point in that. If you're paranoid about people reading your email, shouldn't you be paranoid that your email provider can read it?
Oh, and also, I could easily implement a system which decrypts the email upon receipt, and then continue to use SSL/IMAP or HTTPS as usual - that is, if anyone I talk to had GPG to begin with.
which is why mutt is such a great client.
But that ultimately relies on passwords and trusting your hosting provider. I already use an SSL connection to my IMAP account through Outlook, or an https connection to my web-based email. Yes, GPG would protect the email en route to my server, but for the hassles to the people sending the email it's just not worth it.
Why not? So many people already carry bags full of useless stuff, so why couldnt they add a cd or disk or minidisc or whatever small thing is needed?
At that point the problem becomes the fact that I can't easily add the key temporarily to Netscape or IE or Outlook. I need to be able to access email easily on the go. A simple PGP module built into IE would solve the problem for the most part. But instead Microsoft counts on passport... Bleh.
With this and Evolution and Kmail both supporting GPG and PGP are we at the dawn of that golden age when encrypted email will be commonplace?
No. The biggest problem with public key encryption is that you can't use it on multiple computers without some way of transferring the private key. Plus you have to keep a backup of your private key somewhere outside your main computer's location, yet somewhere it will remain secure.
So, ultimately, unless you carry around a CD everywhere you go, you're probably relying on passwords in the end anyway.
it says that I am responsible for unauthorized charges and I'll start caring.
umm, that starts with a 1... Try at least starting with a 4 (visa), 5 (mastercard), or 6 (discover).
Sorry, some pipe dream about finding E.T. is not enough for me to waste electricity and contribute to global warming.
It would be great to see this kind of wireless community outside academia too.
Then set one up. No one is stopping you.
Yes, but Despair has threatened to sue (well, is -pretending- to threaten to sue as their site is parody) everyone on the Internet that uses the :-( face.
As we saw in the Felton case, pretending to threaten to sue doesn't mean anything.
No, because the Despair trademark only applied to greeting cards, posters and art prints.
I broke up with my girlfriend last week, but she keeps calling me anyway. I told her to stop, but now she's showing up at my doorstep and ringing my doorbell every hour. I tried asking her to stop, but she says she loves me and doesn't want to lose me. Does anyone have any experience with this problem and know how to stop this activity without getting a lawyer involved?
If you're using a preprocessor, just #define long_name ln. If you're not, then create a makefile system to generate your html pages.
IANAA, but a professor once told me that a body that orbits another non-stellar body is a moon
So that would make the sun a moon. As well as all the stars in the sky.
You say that Palladium "could be used to significantly reduce user's rights to access digital media," but I highly doubt this is true.
I don't think that this is a debatable point. Certainly the technology could be used for this purpose. Perhaps you could argue that you don't think it will or that it won't be effective but I think that the potential is nigh irrefutable.
If it's not effective, then it can't. But my point is I don't think it will. We can argue predestination and whether or not there's a difference between can and will if you want...
In essence, this is the same argument the RIAA uses against online music sharing - if the potential exists, people will steal anything and everything.
I agree with the RIAA on that point. The reason more people aren't using P2P filesharing is because P2P filesharing is less convenient than going out and buying a CD in many instances. I also think this doesn't address my comment. I said "those who create crippled media will quickly find that they are losing sales in droves to the illegal markets." My point is if the next Britney Spears CD can't be played more than 5 times, fewer people are going to buy it. Some, probably many, will instead turn to the illegal markets where they can obtain a CD without restrictions.
I watch MPAA movies, and even buy DVDs, but ultimately I think it's worth the money I pay for the product I receive.
Okay, now here is the tricky bit. Would it still be worth the money if you had to buy a separate copy for each DVD player you wanted to watch it in (e.g. standalone & laptop)? How about if you wanted to lend it to a friend or relative - not for copying but just for watching?
I wouldn't buy the DVD if I couldn't play it on any DVD player, lend it to others, and resell it. That's the main reason I buy DVDs, so they'd definately lose my sale. Moreover, I think it's clear from a simple microeconomic standpoint that there would be lowered demand for this lower quality product, and thus price and profit would go down. So it would make little sense for the MPAA to do this.
While these are not planned "features" of Palladium, they appear to be supportable by the system and are not significantly more restrictive than the planned prohibition on shifting audio CDs to MP3s.
The big difference is that not that many people shift audio CDs to MP3s. Lots and lots of people lend DVDs to friends. Another big difference is that audio CD piracy is much much bigger of a problem than DVD piracy.
I'd hate to get on the proverbial "slippery slope" with Microsoft and the MPAA/RIAA calling the shots.
Ultimately though it is the consumer who calls the shots, as the consumer has the choice of whether or not to buy the product. I'd much rather have a situation where artists are able to protect their works technically than one where they are forced to rely on laws and intimidation.
Palladium merely enables artists to release their works in ways that technically enforces the laws that we already have.
Actually, I don't think it does. The courts have traditionally upheld the public's right to copy legally purchased media products for the purpose of using it on another device. The DMCA tries to take this away but it has yet to be strongly challenged in the proper forum and, therefore, it remains to be seen whether it really trumps fair use.
Fair enough. I agree with you on this point.
[Palladium/DRM] doesn't force artists to take options away from the user.
I would assert that the denial of fair use is taking options away from the user.
Yes, but DRM doesn't force the artist to deny fair use. It merely gives them the opportunity to sell a product which denies the user fair use. As long as the user knows that fair use is denied to them when they decide to buy the product, I don't see any problem with that.
In fact, my guess is that it will enable artists to offer more options to the user. With DRM artists can offer time-limited free trials, for instance. This could be a great opportunity for independent musicians to get their music out there without giving it away for free.
This is a very good point and, of course, I am all in favor of helping independent artists. However, I don't see a groundswell of demand for DRM in the indie community.
I must admit I don't see it either, but it seems to me that marketing and distribution are the two main reasons that record companies are needed in the first place. The internet has brought us solutions to both of these problems, but without some protection against widespread copying it's too great of a risk for most artists to utilize.
It could re-establish shareware as a viable alternative to corporate products.
And here I was thinking that we live in the golden age of shareware. Just about 3 years ago I broke the barrier where I started to spend more on shareware than commercial software and the gap has been growing steadily. Do you know something I don't? I was unaware of the demise of shareware.
Anecdotally, the only non-free (as in price) software I have installed is Windows 2000. But I guess I'll defer to your opinion as to whether or not shareware is dead. I really don't have that much data on it.
The important thing is not to stop the technology, it is to put mechanisms in place to ensure that the technology will be used properly.
Well that seems fair enough. In the spirit of your challenge for me to clarify the "viable options", I am curious as to what mechanisms you feel are necessary and appropriate.
I really think all you need is a free market. A lot of that is already in place, but it must be ensured that Microsoft licenses this technology fairly and equally to everyone. I think supply and demand will take care of the rest.
I don't know, you'll have to ask a lawyer if that's fair use or not.
There are no secure alternatives. That's my point.