Thing is, they aren't being "robbed". Someone had to buy the music to put it on P2P in the first place. The fact of the matter is, someone is paying some costs, and then redistributing the product at a lower cost. Guess that means the RIAA needs to come up with a new business model.
Ah but you're making the fatal assumption that if intel develops it, they will deploy it. Intel developed USB, and then sat on the finished product, too afraid to break the tried and true compatability (or in compatability) of other formats. Apple came along, took USB from them, and made it work. They forced people to adopt, and it was for the better. You're also assuming that just because Apple is investing currently in BlueTooth, that they won't adopt a different tech down the road.
802.11b runs at mostly 9-10 mb for me. And since most of the internet is even worse than that, it doesn't really affect my broadband connection. ANd so fine, I won't use 802.11b, I'll use 802.11a.
In case you don't already, you best start buying Apple stuff, Steve has been pushing for this for a while, and he's working to get products working with this as we speak.
How are they entitled to profits? If I start a business, there is no entitlement to me that all my hardwork will pay off ever. Period. Why do they get a guarentee?
I always find it funny to hear someone (usualy radical feminists) declare that the usage of he or she to describe an object is sexist. Espesialy when you consider that most words which are refered to as she/her are usualy items which are to command the upmost respect (i.e. the flag, the nation, a boat, a very nice car, a beautiful sculpture etc etc etc). How is asociating the female gender with respect and reverence sexist?
No really Microsoftian because it's still removeable from the system. WHen you can't remove it and install quark (assuming ti ever arrives) then it will be microsoftian.
Much better. It's cheaper, but it doesn't wok right out of the box. I have to put it together, it's un polished, doesn't do everything it should do, and has a much slower development time than the commercial version. Much much better.
With the exception of, if I take the Ferrari from the other guy, he no longer has his Ferarri, and he most certainly did not offer it to me. With P2P, the consumers don't loose becasue a) they still have the music and b) They offered the music, no one held a gun to their head to get it out there. The only people who really loose from P2P are the record companies, because they can't get any profits because a) They don't write music to sell b) they don't perform music
note however, with P2P, artists can still make money because they can fufill both a and b themselves.
You can want something more than anyone has ever wanted something in the world. That doesn't make you entitled to it.
The same applies to the RIAA. They can want profits, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to profits.
Maybe not, but so what? Just because you have a company, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO PROFITS (sorry). Nor are you entitled to continue making profits. You are simply entitled to try. The mucisians are entitled to try and sell their own CDs, instead they choose to let someone else do it for them. That's great, but it doesn't mean that the seller or the mucisian has to make a profit. Nor does it mean that just becasue there aren't any profits, music will just go away forever. Why do people start in the first place? It's certainly not because of the multi-million dollar paychecks they're getting in the garage. No, it's because it's fun, it's something they enjoy.
Most artists signed a contract long before P2P hit big, and they're still paying on that contract. Many other artists are going with keeping their own music. But until it becomes a massive movement, P2P artists will remain in a minority so long as the RIAA ones get pushed into the limelight. When was the last time you heard a radio play a non-published artist?
At this point, artists, would have to go back the the early days of their recording career where they made money performing. Yes, an artist would actualy have to have talent to make money, imagine that. The artist could then use part of that money to produce their own CDs, and distribute them, earning a much larger cut than they get from the RIAA.
But then the question is, why would people buy it? Because people like to have originals. CDs would become a collectable item instead of a mass produced product. Music collectors would buy CDs, average joe would just download and attend concerts.
For starters, you might use that money to pay for the computer you're using, and the bandwidth you are depriving others of. Not to mention the cloths you're wearing, the food you've eaten today, the education you have and all other worldly possesions
You can not fight an ism. Just like the whole "War on Terrorism" is pointless, so is a war on capitalism. An ism is an ideal, you can not fight an ideal
Terrorism is any act designed to cause fear or terror in a given group of people. It doesn't even have to be a violent motion, the simple act of waving a grenade arround in a crowd is an act of terrorism.
The WTC attacks were acts of terrorism. And unlike a single plane crashing in tokyo (which one would assume is not being piloted by terrorists) the WTC attacks involved 4 planes intentionaly flown off course.
As for millitary vs terrorism, even if you buy your definitions, what about all the civilians on the planes themselves? Or the civilians in the streets below? Are those also legitamte military targets?
Not quite. Ever hear of any black market cigarettes? YOu know, 50,000 a box? ANd those cigarette dealers that are getting busted all the time? ANd the killing sprees because some poor junkie just has to have his cigarette?
No?
That's because they're legal. Believe me, if cigarettes became illegal tomorrow, there would be a huge black market. The value of a single cigarette would shoot up ten fold. Why? Because there is a high demand. Drugs are the same way.
Depends on loyalty. If the company is mac specific to begin with, maybe they might continue with mac support. Apple is betting that such companies, after having already invested so much money in macs, would rather change software or run on the old machines temporarily than invest in entirely new computers and software. If companies did that, Quak would be very much inclined to get off theri ass and start programing.
No they can use their current machines, they can get replacement software, or Quark can get off theri ass and start developing. OS X in a usable (not perfect but usable fo rdevelopment purposes) has been arround for a long time, there is no excuse for Quark not to have a working version by now.
And notice how windows still supports a lot of old old hardware. By doing this, Apple is freeing up development for OS X to move forwards not backwards. No need to continue working on support for hardware back to 1998, all the resources can be poured into making the new hardware run better.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought Napster was dead!
That's what they wanted you to believe.
Thing is, they aren't being "robbed". Someone had to buy the music to put it on P2P in the first place. The fact of the matter is, someone is paying some costs, and then redistributing the product at a lower cost. Guess that means the RIAA needs to come up with a new business model.
Ah but you're making the fatal assumption that if intel develops it, they will deploy it. Intel developed USB, and then sat on the finished product, too afraid to break the tried and true compatability (or in compatability) of other formats. Apple came along, took USB from them, and made it work. They forced people to adopt, and it was for the better. You're also assuming that just because Apple is investing currently in BlueTooth, that they won't adopt a different tech down the road.
802.11b runs at mostly 9-10 mb for me. And since most of the internet is even worse than that, it doesn't really affect my broadband connection. ANd so fine, I won't use 802.11b, I'll use 802.11a.
In case you don't already, you best start buying Apple stuff, Steve has been pushing for this for a while, and he's working to get products working with this as we speak.
How are they entitled to profits? If I start a business, there is no entitlement to me that all my hardwork will pay off ever. Period. Why do they get a guarentee?
The Calendar Makers Association of America (CMAA) has filed a lawsuit against Apple for promoting the illegal sharing of calenders over the internet.
Said a representative of the CMAA:
"We can not allow the distribution of content without properly compensating the original creators."
I always find it funny to hear someone (usualy radical feminists) declare that the usage of he or she to describe an object is sexist. Espesialy when you consider that most words which are refered to as she/her are usualy items which are to command the upmost respect (i.e. the flag, the nation, a boat, a very nice car, a beautiful sculpture etc etc etc). How is asociating the female gender with respect and reverence sexist?
If that were true, how the hell does UNIX and it's spawn manage to continue to gain a user base? When was the last time you saw a commercial for BSD?
No really Microsoftian because it's still removeable from the system. WHen you can't remove it and install quark (assuming ti ever arrives) then it will be microsoftian.
Simple, it's the best product. What's so hard to understand about that?
Much better. It's cheaper, but it doesn't wok right out of the box. I have to put it together, it's un polished, doesn't do everything it should do, and has a much slower development time than the commercial version. Much much better.
With the exception of, if I take the Ferrari from the other guy, he no longer has his Ferarri, and he most certainly did not offer it to me. With P2P, the consumers don't loose becasue a) they still have the music and b) They offered the music, no one held a gun to their head to get it out there. The only people who really loose from P2P are the record companies, because they can't get any profits because
a) They don't write music to sell
b) they don't perform music
note however, with P2P, artists can still make money because they can fufill both a and b themselves.
You can want something more than anyone has ever wanted something in the world. That doesn't make you entitled to it.
The same applies to the RIAA. They can want profits, but that doesn't mean they are entitled to profits.
Maybe not, but so what? Just because you have a company, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO PROFITS (sorry). Nor are you entitled to continue making profits. You are simply entitled to try. The mucisians are entitled to try and sell their own CDs, instead they choose to let someone else do it for them. That's great, but it doesn't mean that the seller or the mucisian has to make a profit. Nor does it mean that just becasue there aren't any profits, music will just go away forever. Why do people start in the first place? It's certainly not because of the multi-million dollar paychecks they're getting in the garage. No, it's because it's fun, it's something they enjoy.
Most artists signed a contract long before P2P hit big, and they're still paying on that contract. Many other artists are going with keeping their own music. But until it becomes a massive movement, P2P artists will remain in a minority so long as the RIAA ones get pushed into the limelight. When was the last time you heard a radio play a non-published artist?
At this point, artists, would have to go back the the early days of their recording career where they made money performing. Yes, an artist would actualy have to have talent to make money, imagine that. The artist could then use part of that money to produce their own CDs, and distribute them, earning a much larger cut than they get from the RIAA.
But then the question is, why would people buy it? Because people like to have originals. CDs would become a collectable item instead of a mass produced product. Music collectors would buy CDs, average joe would just download and attend concerts.
See the following links:
e .h tml
. ht ml
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacl
http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html
http://www.fastcompany.com/online/60/monopolist
The point he was making though was that RP and QT support the formats natively. No extra downlaods and installs nessesary
For starters, you might use that money to pay for the computer you're using, and the bandwidth you are depriving others of. Not to mention the cloths you're wearing, the food you've eaten today, the education you have and all other worldly possesions
You can not fight an ism. Just like the whole "War on Terrorism" is pointless, so is a war on capitalism. An ism is an ideal, you can not fight an ideal
Terrorism is any act designed to cause fear or terror in a given group of people. It doesn't even have to be a violent motion, the simple act of waving a grenade arround in a crowd is an act of terrorism.
The WTC attacks were acts of terrorism. And unlike a single plane crashing in tokyo (which one would assume is not being piloted by terrorists) the WTC attacks involved 4 planes intentionaly flown off course.
As for millitary vs terrorism, even if you buy your definitions, what about all the civilians on the planes themselves? Or the civilians in the streets below? Are those also legitamte military targets?
Not quite. Ever hear of any black market cigarettes? YOu know, 50,000 a box? ANd those cigarette dealers that are getting busted all the time? ANd the killing sprees because some poor junkie just has to have his cigarette?
No?
That's because they're legal. Believe me, if cigarettes became illegal tomorrow, there would be a huge black market. The value of a single cigarette would shoot up ten fold. Why? Because there is a high demand. Drugs are the same way.
Depends on loyalty. If the company is mac specific to begin with, maybe they might continue with mac support. Apple is betting that such companies, after having already invested so much money in macs, would rather change software or run on the old machines temporarily than invest in entirely new computers and software. If companies did that, Quak would be very much inclined to get off theri ass and start programing.
No they can use their current machines, they can get replacement software, or Quark can get off theri ass and start developing. OS X in a usable (not perfect but usable fo rdevelopment purposes) has been arround for a long time, there is no excuse for Quark not to have a working version by now.
And notice how windows still supports a lot of old old hardware. By doing this, Apple is freeing up development for OS X to move forwards not backwards. No need to continue working on support for hardware back to 1998, all the resources can be poured into making the new hardware run better.