"It's My Life" "Livin on a Prayer" "You Give Love a Bad Name "Captain Crash and the Beauty Queen From Mars" "Runaway" "Bad Medicine" "Wanted Dead or Alive"
Like the Special Edition Star Wars soundtracks. 2 CDs and they came with a *book* of note by John Williams about the composition of the music. Very interesting to read.
There's always abuse, no matter what. Lot's of gammers bought Zone of the Enders just for the Metal Gear Solid Demo, and when MGS came out, back to the store ZOE went.
No, cause the RIAA went balistic over cassette tapes too, because those were supposed to destroy the industry, bring it to it's knees and ruin music. The RIAA want's to be the sole provider of music, venues and listening options. I guarentee if the RIAA owned the MP3 codec, they would tag on a licence fee and not care about MP3s anymore.
I bought a Meatloaf Greatest Hits collection despite the fact that I had already downloaded the songs for the simple reason that the cover art was amazing.
I bought an Eagles CD full of live recordings of their songs, even though I could have easily found them elsewhere, because I like to have original copies, and because as I found out afterwards there were some cool notes on the concert.
I have seen very few new CDs that offer these items. Most just have a cover art and nothing else, no lyrics, nor notes, no additional art, nothing.
Actualy, this is another incentive. Instead of having to wade through the garbage of files on Kazza et al to find the appropriate version of the song, I'm guarenteed a highquality, accurate file. That's worth it to me.
Subtract out venue costs and it's less than 3 million, but the point is well taken. And on top of that, the music industry as a whole will benifit from this because people who can't make real music, and rely on the studio to clean up their sound when it's all over will fail miserably, while people who can perform and create music people will enjoy will rise to the tops.
What about me, I've downloaded every Bon Jovi song I like, and I'm still looking for more. Despite this, I gladly paid for a DVD of a concert (which by the way has an incredible version of Runaway which is not to be found on P2P networks). I also would gladly pay to go to a concert. Concerts are much higher on my purchase list than a CD because I concert is something I will remember.
The same applies to other artists I download. I would gladly pay to see them in concert and other such events.
But what constitutes a product? Consider it this way. The lable is in the business of making money buy selling CDs. Consumers don't want the CDs they want the music. There are providers who are willing to pay for a CD and then be in the business of distributing music. If the artist wants to ensure that they get every penny they can off the music, they can never record it. They should only play concerts. Playing a concert is selling music and selling a performance. Making CDs is selling CDs. Theft is depriving the rightful owner of his property. By making a copy of music, I have deprived no one of their property. I'm not saying that artists shouldn't get paid, but a new model has to be formed. Selling CDs isn't going to cut it anymore. They're going to have to add something to the CD that consumers will want to buy, such as creative cover art (go look at a Meatloaf CD like Bat Outta Hell to see what I mean) Or some other promotional material with the CD. CDs will become a thing for collectors and music buffs. The artist will have to get paid another way, maybe by doing live performances, by writing songs on commision, doing live broadcasts on radio and TV, etc etc etc. CD sales will never disapear entirely, but it cannot remain the dominate sales point in music for much longer, that's just how things go.
Do you think spending 33 years in prison is a fair sentence when drunk drivers and other people who have mortaly injured or disabled others can get off with Involuntary Mansluaghter and 10 years?
Forgeting the fact that robots simmilar to this one have been in use for quite some time. Out town only spent $25,000 on their sewer crawler. Same basic idea, except the pyramid bot is smaller and has a drill. I don't see that racking up the price that high
from http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/18698.html
It's just plain interesting how software is licensed. In most purchases made under contract, the contract is negotiated, the price is settled, and then the exchange of value happens. But software is different.
First, you must provide vendors with cash, then they tell you under what terms you've given them your money. And for some unknown reason, people think this seems logical.
I propose an entirely new scheme that would operate similarly to the way licensing works now -- "by using this product, you agree to this license" -- except that it would work to the benefit of those who are paying for a product.
1. Software Operators
By accepting value, cash or otherwise, you agree to the following terms of use for the purchased software product, and by acceptance of that value (that is, cash) the software company is bound by this agreement.
This agreement supersedes all other agreements, including click-through agreements, end-user license agreements (EULA) and other such mechanisms that are made at a later time, even when tacit approval of a click-through agreement is required for software installation.
If at any time the Software Company (hereafter referred to as SC) wishes to cancel this agreement, it may do so by returning to the purchasing entity the amount of cash or other value initially agreed upon.
By accepting payment for the software product, you, the SC, agree to be bound by this agreement and understand that it may not be set aside by any other agreements, constructs or legal means.
You, the SC, agree that you are liable for monetary damages if it is discovered that, through negligent programming and testing, your product causes substantial financial loss to the purchaser. The only remedies permitted in this license are mediation or civil suit.
2. Software Purchasers
The purchaser of the software product shall be permitted at all times to maintain a copy of the product for archival purposes.
The purchaser of the software product shall have and enjoy complete freedom to use the software product in any way that is deemed lawful by the laws in the jurisdiction in which the purchaser lives. Furthermore, the SC cannot stipulate (as in the case of Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) FrontPage) that the purchaser must not use the SC's product to criticize or demean the SC.
Respecting the intellectual property rights of the SC, no purchasing entity that purchases under this license may distribute copies of the software product without compensation in the amount of full retail price to the SC.
SC agrees to make available all relevant documentation (or "tree-ware") necessary to make operating, using and troubleshooting the software product convenient to the end user provided that the end user is also the purchasing entity.
3. Transfer and Test
SC must agree that if the purchasing entity so chooses, he or she may donate the software product to a charitable organization of his or her choice and that all rights under this document also transfer.
SC agrees that the purchasing entity may test, compare and measure the SC's software product against that of a competitor freely and without restriction. SC agrees that all of the test, comparing and measuring results may be published without restriction of medium, technology or public nature.
Rebel Against EULA
There it is. It isn't pretty, and I'm not a lawyer, which might be obvious already.
But I encourage rebellion against ridiculous software licenses. It is incredible that Microsoft actually presumes that it can force you not to use FrontPage to create a site that criticizes Microsoft. So I say rebel against these ridiculous agreements.
It amazes me that it is legal for a software company to dictate terms of use after a purchase. In no other instance in a consumer's life does this happen. We even negotiate the terms of an automobile purchase before we spend the money.
What about sound? What about cache? What speed was the drive, did you make sure they matched? Again, did you match the speed on the DVDROM/CD-RW drive. I've seen cheap drives availible, but not in the speeds apple offered. After you've added your sound, your gigabit ethernet, your and your modem (and maybe the USB 2 might take a port, how many open and useable PCI slots are left? Why would I want firewire? iPod for one, and the fact that honestly, I don't see a whole lot of USB 2 drives and devices out there.
I have yet to find good equivilents to iTunes or iMovie availible free for the PC. And then there's OS X, which in itself is worth paying some money for. Not to mention, you still need to pay for XP on your windows box.
And I was initialy refering to finding one of these machines from a name brand vendor. The prices are very comparable. Of course you can build one yourself for cheaper, I'm not arguing with that, but face it, most people don't want to do that.
Yes geeks and people who look can get better deals on PCs, and I can get better deals on macs (i.e. I can get the top of the line TiBook for $3,000 instead of $3,800), but for a consumer who buys from a vendor, macs and PCs are fairly competative for the same features.
Or maybe these companies need to look into a better business model, or get into another business. When the market changes so that you can not survive, you change your business or you go out. It's that simple. In the case of the DVD players, maybe the licence for a player worked at one point, when you needed to buy a machine to play it, but it doesn't work anymore. Maybe they should build the licence into the actual media reader (drive, player, burner whatever) then into the program which plays the DVDs. That way, no matter how many "free players" float about the net, they creators get their compensation.
Tranfering media and files and creating perfect replications has long been a dream of the technology world. It's sad that companies will have to go out of business when their one time artwork is now a consumable item, but that's life. If they ever created a replicator, should we ban stores that use them because it's putting the farmers out of business? Should we make them illegal for the average consumer to own because they could make a perfect copy of something without paying the artist. It's hypothetical, but it drawn paralelle to the music problem.
Currently musig is being sold on the idea that the sound file and recording is worth something. Maybe we need a new method. Music is cheap, and is out there in droves, you need to give us something to justify us spending money. And protecting your IP is not going to cut it. Maybe mucisians will all have to be paid on commision and they will be paid based on their labor not on the products sold. Maybe mucisians will have to start making money touring and doing their own promotion rather than letting a company put up posters for them. Just because the current model worked yesterday, doesn't mean it has to work tomorrow. To quote Bob Dylan "You better start swimmin or you'll sink like a stone, for the times they are a changing.
What are the chances that M$ is working to patent all this stuff to prevent companies from trying to enforce it on the tech world? Think about it, if M$ held the patent to this, and the RIAA somehow got a bill passed for a hardware/software encryption on music to become mandatory, M$ could sit on it claiming it's in the development stages, and it would never see the light of day.
Crazy and paranoid? How about you try to go back to 1990 and convince people that in 10 years, the RIAA would be pushing to get a bill passed that would allow them to legaly hack your computer to see if you have any music files on there that you don't own. They would tell you you're paranoid.
Try to convince them that in 2002, you will need to report to Microsoft information about the hardware your computer is running just to get a licence key. THey would tell you you're crazy.
Try to convince them that in 10 years, linking or providing acess to code that would allow you to watch a video on a *NIX based OS would be illegal. They wouldn't believe you.
Try to convince them that the RIAA would be pushing for legislation to make it illegal for you to make a copy of your favorite album to keep at work or in the car. They would tell you to go jump in a lake.
Yet each of these senarios are equaly true today. Never underestimate the power of people with money. They can get what they want if they try hard enough and people don't pay attention.
It has to be less than that though, because cassettes are more expensive to produce than CDs and cassettes run $7 a pop. Not to mention that years ago when CDs first started comming out (at $13-$14 per CD) the record companies told us that once the CDs permeated the market and became common place, the price would drop. We're still waiting for them to deliver on that.
Slashdot Mirror
Search for the following songs:
"It's My Life"
"Livin on a Prayer"
"You Give Love a Bad Name
"Captain Crash and the Beauty Queen From Mars"
"Runaway"
"Bad Medicine"
"Wanted Dead or Alive"
that should get you started
Like the Special Edition Star Wars soundtracks. 2 CDs and they came with a *book* of note by John Williams about the composition of the music. Very interesting to read.
There's always abuse, no matter what. Lot's of gammers bought Zone of the Enders just for the Metal Gear Solid Demo, and when MGS came out, back to the store ZOE went.
No, cause the RIAA went balistic over cassette tapes too, because those were supposed to destroy the industry, bring it to it's knees and ruin music. The RIAA want's to be the sole provider of music, venues and listening options. I guarentee if the RIAA owned the MP3 codec, they would tag on a licence fee and not care about MP3s anymore.
Wasn't "Wish You Were Here" all about the music industry and how it was a souless corporation that sucked you dry?
I bought a Meatloaf Greatest Hits collection despite the fact that I had already downloaded the songs for the simple reason that the cover art was amazing.
I bought an Eagles CD full of live recordings of their songs, even though I could have easily found them elsewhere, because I like to have original copies, and because as I found out afterwards there were some cool notes on the concert.
I have seen very few new CDs that offer these items. Most just have a cover art and nothing else, no lyrics, nor notes, no additional art, nothing.
Actualy, this is another incentive. Instead of having to wade through the garbage of files on Kazza et al to find the appropriate version of the song, I'm guarenteed a highquality, accurate file. That's worth it to me.
Subtract out venue costs and it's less than 3 million, but the point is well taken. And on top of that, the music industry as a whole will benifit from this because people who can't make real music, and rely on the studio to clean up their sound when it's all over will fail miserably, while people who can perform and create music people will enjoy will rise to the tops.
What about me, I've downloaded every Bon Jovi song I like, and I'm still looking for more. Despite this, I gladly paid for a DVD of a concert (which by the way has an incredible version of Runaway which is not to be found on P2P networks). I also would gladly pay to go to a concert. Concerts are much higher on my purchase list than a CD because I concert is something I will remember.
The same applies to other artists I download. I would gladly pay to see them in concert and other such events.
I would, because I prefer rock, espesialy good rock, to rap and shit
But what constitutes a product? Consider it this way. The lable is in the business of making money buy selling CDs. Consumers don't want the CDs they want the music. There are providers who are willing to pay for a CD and then be in the business of distributing music. If the artist wants to ensure that they get every penny they can off the music, they can never record it. They should only play concerts. Playing a concert is selling music and selling a performance. Making CDs is selling CDs. Theft is depriving the rightful owner of his property. By making a copy of music, I have deprived no one of their property. I'm not saying that artists shouldn't get paid, but a new model has to be formed. Selling CDs isn't going to cut it anymore. They're going to have to add something to the CD that consumers will want to buy, such as creative cover art (go look at a Meatloaf CD like Bat Outta Hell to see what I mean) Or some other promotional material with the CD. CDs will become a thing for collectors and music buffs. The artist will have to get paid another way, maybe by doing live performances, by writing songs on commision, doing live broadcasts on radio and TV, etc etc etc. CD sales will never disapear entirely, but it cannot remain the dominate sales point in music for much longer, that's just how things go.
Do you think spending 33 years in prison is a fair sentence when drunk drivers and other people who have mortaly injured or disabled others can get off with Involuntary Mansluaghter and 10 years?
Forgeting the fact that robots simmilar to this one have been in use for quite some time. Out town only spent $25,000 on their sewer crawler. Same basic idea, except the pyramid bot is smaller and has a drill. I don't see that racking up the price that high
Because the hyroglyphs on the second door said:
"By breaking this seal you agree to the terms of the license contained herein.
Funny stuff
I think "Your ad here" would work better for boosting tourism.
from http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/18698.html
It's just plain interesting how software is licensed. In most purchases made under contract, the contract is negotiated, the price is settled, and then the exchange of value happens. But software is different.
First, you must provide vendors with cash, then they tell you under what terms you've given them your money. And for some unknown reason, people think this seems logical.
I propose an entirely new scheme that would operate similarly to the way licensing works now -- "by using this product, you agree to this license" -- except that it would work to the benefit of those who are paying for a product.
1. Software Operators
By accepting value, cash or otherwise, you agree to the following terms of use for the purchased software product, and by acceptance of that value (that is, cash) the software company is bound by this agreement.
This agreement supersedes all other agreements, including click-through agreements, end-user license agreements (EULA) and other such mechanisms that are made at a later time, even when tacit approval of a click-through agreement is required for software installation.
If at any time the Software Company (hereafter referred to as SC) wishes to cancel this agreement, it may do so by returning to the purchasing entity the amount of cash or other value initially agreed upon.
By accepting payment for the software product, you, the SC, agree to be bound by this agreement and understand that it may not be set aside by any other agreements, constructs or legal means.
You, the SC, agree that you are liable for monetary damages if it is discovered that, through negligent programming and testing, your product causes substantial financial loss to the purchaser. The only remedies permitted in this license are mediation or civil suit.
2. Software Purchasers
The purchaser of the software product shall be permitted at all times to maintain a copy of the product for archival purposes.
The purchaser of the software product shall have and enjoy complete freedom to use the software product in any way that is deemed lawful by the laws in the jurisdiction in which the purchaser lives. Furthermore, the SC cannot stipulate (as in the case of Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) FrontPage) that the purchaser must not use the SC's product to criticize or demean the SC.
Respecting the intellectual property rights of the SC, no purchasing entity that purchases under this license may distribute copies of the software product without compensation in the amount of full retail price to the SC.
SC agrees to make available all relevant documentation (or "tree-ware") necessary to make operating, using and troubleshooting the software product convenient to the end user provided that the end user is also the purchasing entity.
3. Transfer and Test
SC must agree that if the purchasing entity so chooses, he or she may donate the software product to a charitable organization of his or her choice and that all rights under this document also transfer.
SC agrees that the purchasing entity may test, compare and measure the SC's software product against that of a competitor freely and without restriction. SC agrees that all of the test, comparing and measuring results may be published without restriction of medium, technology or public nature.
Rebel Against EULA
There it is. It isn't pretty, and I'm not a lawyer, which might be obvious already.
But I encourage rebellion against ridiculous software licenses. It is incredible that Microsoft actually presumes that it can force you not to use FrontPage to create a site that criticizes Microsoft. So I say rebel against these ridiculous agreements.
It amazes me that it is legal for a software company to dictate terms of use after a purchase. In no other instance in a consumer's life does this happen. We even negotiate the terms of an automobile purchase before we spend the money.
Rebel against the EULA!
Now all those hotline server agreements (and my KDX agreement) can be considered legaly binding. Hot shit, warez server, here I come.
What about sound?
What about cache?
What speed was the drive, did you make sure they matched?
Again, did you match the speed on the DVDROM/CD-RW drive. I've seen cheap drives availible, but not in the speeds apple offered.
After you've added your sound, your gigabit ethernet, your and your modem (and maybe the USB 2 might take a port, how many open and useable PCI slots are left?
Why would I want firewire? iPod for one, and the fact that honestly, I don't see a whole lot of USB 2 drives and devices out there.
I have yet to find good equivilents to iTunes or iMovie availible free for the PC. And then there's OS X, which in itself is worth paying some money for. Not to mention, you still need to pay for XP on your windows box.
And I was initialy refering to finding one of these machines from a name brand vendor. The prices are very comparable. Of course you can build one yourself for cheaper, I'm not arguing with that, but face it, most people don't want to do that.
Yes geeks and people who look can get better deals on PCs, and I can get better deals on macs (i.e. I can get the top of the line TiBook for $3,000 instead of $3,800), but for a consumer who buys from a vendor, macs and PCs are fairly competative for the same features.
Or maybe these companies need to look into a better business model, or get into another business. When the market changes so that you can not survive, you change your business or you go out. It's that simple. In the case of the DVD players, maybe the licence for a player worked at one point, when you needed to buy a machine to play it, but it doesn't work anymore. Maybe they should build the licence into the actual media reader (drive, player, burner whatever) then into the program which plays the DVDs. That way, no matter how many "free players" float about the net, they creators get their compensation.
Tranfering media and files and creating perfect replications has long been a dream of the technology world. It's sad that companies will have to go out of business when their one time artwork is now a consumable item, but that's life. If they ever created a replicator, should we ban stores that use them because it's putting the farmers out of business? Should we make them illegal for the average consumer to own because they could make a perfect copy of something without paying the artist. It's hypothetical, but it drawn paralelle to the music problem.
Currently musig is being sold on the idea that the sound file and recording is worth something. Maybe we need a new method. Music is cheap, and is out there in droves, you need to give us something to justify us spending money. And protecting your IP is not going to cut it. Maybe mucisians will all have to be paid on commision and they will be paid based on their labor not on the products sold. Maybe mucisians will have to start making money touring and doing their own promotion rather than letting a company put up posters for them. Just because the current model worked yesterday, doesn't mean it has to work tomorrow. To quote Bob Dylan "You better start swimmin or you'll sink like a stone, for the times they are a changing.
What are the chances that M$ is working to patent all this stuff to prevent companies from trying to enforce it on the tech world? Think about it, if M$ held the patent to this, and the RIAA somehow got a bill passed for a hardware/software encryption on music to become mandatory, M$ could sit on it claiming it's in the development stages, and it would never see the light of day.
Possible?
But what happens when your ISP won't let you connect without a DRM OS? ANd what heppens when the next line of processors wont' run without DRM OS?
So you mean, If I want to access my bank history, I have to get a licence from microsoft? No fricken way thank you.
Crazy and paranoid? How about you try to go back to 1990 and convince people that in 10 years, the RIAA would be pushing to get a bill passed that would allow them to legaly hack your computer to see if you have any music files on there that you don't own. They would tell you you're paranoid.
Try to convince them that in 2002, you will need to report to Microsoft information about the hardware your computer is running just to get a licence key. THey would tell you you're crazy.
Try to convince them that in 10 years, linking or providing acess to code that would allow you to watch a video on a *NIX based OS would be illegal. They wouldn't believe you.
Try to convince them that the RIAA would be pushing for legislation to make it illegal for you to make a copy of your favorite album to keep at work or in the car. They would tell you to go jump in a lake.
Yet each of these senarios are equaly true today. Never underestimate the power of people with money. They can get what they want if they try hard enough and people don't pay attention.
It has to be less than that though, because cassettes are more expensive to produce than CDs and cassettes run $7 a pop. Not to mention that years ago when CDs first started comming out (at $13-$14 per CD) the record companies told us that once the CDs permeated the market and became common place, the price would drop. We're still waiting for them to deliver on that.