IANAL, but it seems pretty bullet-resistant to me. And, it's damned convenient...
Heh, and I thought MP3.com was pretty bullet-resistant also, and look what happened.
I don't think it's a question of personal liability. I can't imagine anyone being sued over purchasing music from AllofMP3.com. Worst-case scenario would be having one's hard drive confiscated. (Like, if you bought a bootleg CD in a store right at the moment when the authorities rushed in and arrested the store owners/managers for trafficking in counterfeit material, you wouldn't get arrested. But they'd take your CD as evidence, and you wouldn't get it back.) I was trying to address whether AoMP3.com could survive a challenge, which is really only a hypothetical anyway, since it's in Russia. I don't think there is much the music industry can do about this except try to pressure the Russians to change their licensing schemes. If AoMP3 ever becomes a big threat or similar operations pop up, they will probably do just that.
The grey area is whether they have the right to sell it to us folk over the seas. If it were CDs, then there's no law against importing a CD
You can't legally import a CD for resale in the U.S. if the exclusive U.S. distribution rights to that CD have been purchased by/granted to a company. Same goes for books. If, say, a record label in Brazil (or Belgium or Belize, etc.) makes a deal with a record label in the U.S., giving the latter U.S. distribution rights, then it would not be legal for a U.S. store to import the Brazilian label's CDs for sale in its shop(s). The store would have to offer the U.S. label's editions of the CD, even if it could obtain and sell the Brazilian discs less expensively than the U.S. discs.
It's a different story if the Brazilian CD is not otherwise available in the U.S. -- then the record store can import to its heart's content. Many specialty stores (especially specialty bookstores) do just that -- what makes them unique and valuable to their customers is that they don't offer *just* the stuff you could find at Borders or Amazon.com, but also stuff you can't easily obtain elsewhere or might not otherwise be aware of.
I suspect, in the case of allofmp3s.com, the area is not terribly gray -- unless there is some loophole that allows them to sell to U.S. customers.
Watch the audience at a film, and see how many stay through part or all of the closing credits.
I used to be one of those people, and once in a while still am. But mostly I don't bother anymore because of the IMDb. So I'd submit (with about as much logic for my reasoning as you employed in your post) that Americans are less likely to stay through the credits because they are more tech-savvy than their European counterparts.
The USA has lots of support for pulicizing movies. Magazines like People exist largely to drum up more movie publicity.
And what is Cannes, a venue for promoting obscure documentaries dealing with world poverty? C'mon! Plus, Europe has just as many (probably more, in total) celebrity-focused rags as the U.S.
You'll see plenty of European one-sheets where the big name actors are suddenly in much smaller type than the director, and words like "starring" get omitted.
I suspect this has something to do with the fact that most English-language films are shown dubbed in most European movie theatres, as well as on television. It amazes me, actually, that any American film stars catch on as big as they do in Europe, let alone that so many of them do. You can't even hear the actors voices! European audiences' preference for dubbed films over subtitled films still confounds me. It's actually quite difficult to find dubbed films here in the U.S., except for some martial arts Asian imports. I did once catch some of a late-night TV broadcast of La Cage aux Folles that had been dubbed into English. But for the most part films are shown here in their original language, as God intended. When Hollywood thinks a foreign-language film has real potential in the U.S. market, it just remakes them (usually poorly), which at least has the effect of publicizing the original. I doubt nearly as many people would have seen the Japanese Ringu had it not been for the U.S. remake The Ring.
In any case, you speak as if Europe has no big stars, which is not the case.
All this leads to an overall point: One reason movie studios are overpaying "stars" and not making as much money on overseas releases as they would like is they reward the stars as though the effects of getting the right actor are going to be seen world-wide, when these effects are mostly largely confined to the USA.
The effects of getting the right actor pays for itself in the U.S. market. I don't think stars are overpaid as a rule, though there have certainly been instances where some have been (think Demi Moore in Striptease). There's no surefire formula for deciding what any given is actor is worth to any particular project, even in hindsight. Would Mission: Impossible have been as big a hit without Tom Cruise? Did his star power really justify his $20 million price tag? Who knows? Would Spiderman have been a bigger hit with Ashton Kutchner or some other personality better-known than Tobey McGuire in the lead? Who can say for sure? I think, though, that some films really need a big star and those tend not to be the films that translate as readily into foreign markets.
That way, the event say... going public with evidence that the Secratary of State committed treason maybe... is reported in a blog is an ACT of journalism no matter who the person is.
The law being proposed here is, essentially, a reaction to what happened to NYT reporter Judith Miller, who was held in contempt of court when she refused to reveal her source for information about Valerie Plame's status as an undercover CIA operative. But Miller never wrote an article revealing that information. So, by your formulation, she never committed the "act of journalism" necessary to define her as a person "practicing journalism" with regard to this story, which would mean she wouldn't be covered by the shield law as you suggest it ought to be implemented. The only way she'd be covered is if you defined her as a "practicing journalist," and that takes us right back to the question of how you define who is or is not a journalist.
...Which leads me to the conclusion that this proposed law is wrong-headed in any formulation one could devise. I don't think anyone, be he a professional journalist employed by The New York Times with a graduate degree from Columbia University School of Journalism or Joe Blow with a LiveJournal blog, ought to be shielded from the consequences of refusing to provide information to the courts regarding the possible commission of a crime, even if those consequences include jail time. I applaud Ms. Miller for her actions... under the circumstances, it seemed to me to be the right thing for her to do. One, she needs credibility with her sources in order for her to do her job. Any reporter who relies on confidential sources must demonstrate a willingness to keep those sources confidential when push comes to shove, as it did here. It's doubtful that Joe Blow Blogger necessarily would feel as compelled to maintain confidentiality, since Joe Blow Blogger probably isn't relying on his blog (or his reputation) for his livelihood. But that doesn't mean that Joe Professional Journalist deserves some special shielding that Joe Blow Blogger does not. The point is that a crime may have been committed here, and anyone who has information about that crime can be subpoenaed to testify in the investigation of that crime. Whether that person will testify or what he will or won't reveal in that testimony is entirely up to him. From the court's perspective, why should it matter whether the person subpoenaed is a journalist, a blogger, a person committing the "act of journalism," or anything else -- anything other than a person who has knowledged about the crime?
I guess I'm an atypical Farscape fan in that I'm not much of a television watcher, nor particularly a fan of sci-fi in general. I started watching Farscape intermittently during the first season, and found the show's atmosphere and look intriguing, its characters compelling, and its writing witty and sharp (for television, anyway). By the second season, I was hooked all the way through the third. It was space opera in all its glory -- unafraid to go for the grand gesture, to take its time to build to climaxes that were genuinely climactic because of it. Unlike on many shows ("Andromeda" for instance), characters didn't fall in love, get betrayed, and learn important life lessons all in the space of 43 minutes. And it wasn't, like so many shows, "something else" in space (Firefly="western in space," Stargate="F-Troop in space" -- yawn). And unlike Wheedon shows (particularly "Buffy") I've sampled, it didn't rely on cheesy pop music for emotional resonance it couldn't drum up on its own. (Though, in fairness to Wheedon, other shows and countless movies do this too. Queue: heartbreak; soundtrack: R.E.M., "Everything Hurts.")
But then in the fourth season it ran out of ideas and began repeating itself, not to mention hitting an all-time low by using the Challenger disaster as a plot device. (To quote Lynne Cheney: "cheap and tawdry.") It makes me wonder if it is even possible to maintain the level of quality Farscape attained over multiple seasons. Maybe this is only because I'm not much of a television viewer, but I find that most TV shows are so mundane because they so often seem to be filling up airtime. A show like Farscape, I think, would be better suited to mini-series events like this one, although longer than four hours would be better. I'm psyched to watch this, and I hope it's good, and if it is, I hope there will be more -- six hours here, eight hours there, whatever the ideas the writers come up with can sustain. That kind of thing could work so much better for a show like Farcape than a "fifth season," I think, which is why, as much as I once liked the show, I could never really get behind a campaign like "Save Farscape."
(especially compared to Switzerland (not Sweden) which is the most free and demcratic country in the world)
Right... Switzerland, the country that closed its borders to the Jews during WWII. There's "neutrality," then there's just not giving a damn about anyone but yourself, except of course those kind African despots whose money you can hide for them.
In all my travels in Europe, Switzerland struck me as easily the most souless country on the continent, not to mention frighteningly monolithic. (What good is having a populace that speaks so many different languages when they all say basically the same thing?) If it takes trading spirit, individuality, and a sense of compassion for what you describe as "free" and "democratic," I'll pass.
The problem is, if that level of piracy becomes common everywhere, it will stop being profitable for the record companies to make music.
Presuming that the primary cause of the decline in retail sales is p2p filesharing (which I don't think is even implied in the article -- the article seems to cite a number of causes), I still find it hard to believe that it will "stop being profitable for record companies to make music." First, record companies don't really "make music," they market, distribute, and sell music. Musicians make music. Record companies front the musicians money to pay the expenses associated with making music, then they charge back those expenses to the musicians. It may very well be that it stops being profitable for record companies to operate as they operate now, but why is that necessarily a bad thing? An awful lot of people, musicians included, don't seem terribly happy with the way record companies operate. If their business practices change, it very likely could be for the better for all concerned.
Record company execs and spokespersons are fond of saying that few CDs breakeven, the vast majority lose money, and those that do break out from the pack subsidize everything else. Is this necessarily the most logical, most effective business model on which to structure the industry? A lot of people don't think so, a lot of smaller labels that don't structure their business in that manner are doing just fine. A good 95% of the reason most CDs "lose money" is major-label accounting practices, not because the actual dollars received for a given "unprofitable" release isn't sufficient to pay for the production, royalties, marketing and distribution of that actual CD. There is plenty of money to go around, even in the face of rampant p2p activity. If the major labels can't make the numbers work, smaller labels (and independent musicians so motivated) can, do, and will.
You seem to be implying that business people can't figure out how to make a profit on a multi-billion dollar industry. You must have quite a low opinion of business!
Cool -- I didn't know there was a "Debian list" of Debian derivatives. I've checked out only a small portion of those. My problem with those I have is that they don't maintain 100% compatibility with Debian -- software installed from Debian archives that would work on a vanilla Debian install won't necessarily work on installations of some of these derivatives. Xandros, while a lovely distro in & of itself, was a disappointment in that regard. What I'm hoping to find, at least until Sarge becomes stable, is an "easy install" Debian derivative that does retain compatibility. Libranet seems to be working for me so far, but I've only been trying it out for about a week. It's impressive, and so far I haven't hit any compatibility roadblocks. Ubuntu, from what I can gather, seems to share that aim of 100% compatibility, which is great news to me.
OK, I am totally clueless as to the differences here. what is the most significant difference between BSD and Linux?
Don't know if it's the "most significant difference," but one important difference is the license. A BSD license is, AFAIK, the least restrictive out there. Basically, it says you can use, modify, redistribute, etc., as you wish, all you have to do is acknowledge BSD's copyright. You want to make a closed-source, proprietary derivative app using some BSD code? No problem, as long as you acknowledge that some of your code came from BSD. Even Microsoft uses BSD code in Windows.
Can I run Linux stuff on BSD? E.g. Can I grab the latest GNOME desktop and install it on BSD along with any of the applications that come with it? And by install I mean I perform the same kind of effort involved in a Linux install.
Yes, at least with FreeBSD. Probably with the others as well. Google for BSD ports. It has a huge collection of software. And installation is straightforward -- Gentoo adapted its ports system from BSD.
You mistake the Debian maintainers' pragmatic licencing approach for religious zealotry.
Licencing and legal restrictions on your hardware may prevent you running Debian on your specific hardware (thanks to "Trustworthy Computing" taking over from "binary only"), but there will be no licence or legal restrictions to your using Debian on any hardware that it does work on.
Isn't there an inherent contradiction there? What good is the lack of license or legal restrictions to using Debian if there are practical, real-world hardware restrictions? If Debian won't bend it's licensing approach to some degree to accomodate drivers or other necessary components, then how can its approach be characterized as "pragmatic." "Idealistic" comes to mind, so does "impractical." But not "pragmatic."
these are people who want to dedicate their time to having an operating system they can safely give to their friends and family without risking a gaol term.
But do they want their friends and family to be able actually to use it? "Hey Jer, here's this great OS I helped develop that consists entirely of free (as defined by the GPL) software. Oh, you can't get it installed? You're probably one of the 95% of PC owners with some piece of hardware or other that our philosophy doesn't permit us to support. Too bad... back to Windows." It seems to me if Debian developers really have the goal that you mention in mind, they'd use a BSD license instead of the GPL. FreeBSD... now that's an OS you can safely give to your friends and family without risking a jail term, and one they are likelier to install successfully.
I'm in your situation, basic non-techy Linux newb, armed with my trusty copy of Running Linux, 4th Ed. and a predisposition to RTFM. Where vi is concerned, I took the advice in RL and spent a half-hour on the four or five pages that deal with basic usage. That was all it took, I really can't understand all I read about vi being arcane or difficult or outdated or whatever. It may not be anyone's preference for every given editing task, and I'm certainly not qualified to speak to its suitability as a programming editor or its superiority/inferiority to joe, emacs, etc., but as a basic tool that is almost guaranteed to be available for any installation tweaking, it rocks. I do want to try other editors (thusfar, I've only tried nano, and I didn't see any advantage to using it over vi for what I need); I do want to attempt to come to grips with emacs, since it's so flexible. Still, it's hard to imagine needing any other editor for straightforward config editing, or simple text file creation.
I hacked it a little, to do nicer formating, read multiple feeds and handle different versions of rss, and now i have the headlines from/., kuro5hin, wired, the register and a few more on my desktop. Nice!
Less technically adept Windows users like myself can get the same effect with the help of programs like Coolmon or Samurize. The nice thing about both is that the appearance and layout are infinitely customizable.
But I'm still waiting for the software program that will let me write my own headlines and make them come to pass, kinda like Burgess Meredith's typeset machine in the "Printer's Devil" episode of "Twilight Zone." Of course, he was the devil, and I would only use it for good... heh heh.
I regularly visit maybe 2 or 3 sites, so I really don't see any reason to invest time in getting RSS set up. I find it hard to believe that an average user really visits so many sites. It seems to me RSS is really more of a niche thing that's really great for people who like to overload themselves with information, rather than a super-hot technology that's about to explode into widespread popularity.
You're probably right that RSS won't "explode" in popularity. A great many people (like you, for example!) don't really think it's for them, don't really think they'll have enough of a use for it to bother trying it out for themselves. But this is one of those things that will spread more slowly, by word-of-mouth, especially across interlapping niche interest circles. A good friend of mine works in the classical music field; eventually, I had sent her enough posts and items from various blogs that deal with classical music that she asked me how I had time to find all these things. I told her about RSS and news aggregators, and she was hooked. She is also a lesbian, and has found numerous g&l blogs she likes to follow, spreading the word about RSS not only to some of her music collegues, but also to some of her lesbian friends. In that way, eventually, a lot of people who aren't necessarily infojunkies (and I fully admit to being one) get in on the game.
The thing about RSS is that even if you only subscribe to a half-dozen feeds, it still saves you time. It isn't only for people who visit 50 sites regularly. (ATM, I'm subbed to 20; I regularly add and delete, but I can't imagine my list growing much larger than that.) And the fact that you subscribe to a half-dozen sites doesn't mean you have to visit those sites everyday -- it just makes it easy to keep tabs on what's happening at sites you have an interest in.
No offense, but if you can't find six feeds out of the 10s of thousands out there that pique your interest enough that you would like an easy way to keep up with them, then you must not have many interests. You already read/. -- only five more to go.:-)
The individual band members most likely saw ~zippo after various extractions.
FWIW, Stevie Nicks said in some televised interview a year or so ago that Rumours is still "money in the bank." She mentioned something about that one album financing her retirement (and I don't imagine that "retirement" for someone like her comes cheap -- she ain't thinking a time-share in Ft. Lauderdale).
That shouldn't change anyone's opinion that Warner Bros. Records has taken a cut of the profits that far exceeds what a reasonable person might consider fair, but when an album is that successful (and very few have been), there is plenty of money to go around.
For example, I haven't gone to www.washingtonpost.com since they introduced their new "super-nosy" registration policy (and I used to go there almost every day).
I'm glad the Post began its registration policy because it finally made me take a look at all the options available. I subscribed to a couple of their email newsletters (with a special subdomain address I created especially for this purpose) and now receive some worthwhile info everyday. It was only my own laziness, of course, that kept me from doing that before the Post made registration mandatory; nevertheless, registration forced the issue. You either care enough about any given website to play by its rules, or you stop visiting. I don't have any problem with that. I can filter my own spam; I can divulge precious little personal info (my occupation: "Other"; my zip code: valid); I can block "targeted" pop-ups. If having x number of registered visitors helps the Post generate advertising revenue that in turn helps it be a better, more competitive newspaper, then I'm happy to help, because I value its coverage. If or when I no longer value its coverage, I'll unsub from its newsletters and block the any email coming in to that address.
The only honest and tactful response to a co-worker with a new-born who shoves pictures in your face of some bawling, squinty thing that looks like a giant red prune is:
2) MEPIS website. Sucks bigtime. They list 7 different ways to buy it but not a single way to download it.
I'm kinda depressed about the direction MEPIS development seems to be headed, at least based upon the issues with the website you noted. MEPIS was the first Linux distro I installed on my computer, and the reason I used that one was because it was so easy to try. Unlike Knoppix and most of the other live CD distros, it wasn't pitched as primarily a "live CD distro," it was pitched as a live CD/installable hybrid distro. As such, I think it is fairly unique -- yes, I know many other live CD distros can be installed with varying degrees of difficulty, but I haven't seen one yet that is as easily or explicitly designed to run from either a CD or a HD. For a newbie like me, it was just what the doctor ordered, and I liked it so much that I did register it after only a few days of playing around with it, for the commanding sum of $10 (which was all that was suggested at the time). Never have I been happier with a purchase.
But if I were a first-time visitor to the website in its current incarnation, I'd probably pass MEPIS right by without even trying it, mainly because it is so difficult to find the downloads now, and because of the off-putting purchase "tiers." It appears that Warren can't decide if he really wants it to be available for free download or not; frankly, I have less respect for that kind of dithering than I do for those developers who are very clear up-front that their distros (Libranet, Lindows, etc.) are for sale only.
I'm glad I found MEPIS when I did, and I disagree that it's JALCDD -- but I hope it's not shooting itself in the foot.
Sado-masochists worldwide rejoice at Yahoo!'s new search engine capabilities... details at 11 (after the kiddies have gone to bed... we're a little worried about the FCC).
Nay, regulations are often quite useful and can benefit consumers.
...Benefit *some* consumers, at the expense of others.
Here in South Dakota, we've got a few big cities (by SD standards) and lots of small ones. Even in some of the medium cities, there is little financial incentive to build out broadband networks to consumers. Such fees go into a pool to provide the needed incentives to network operators to expand their broadband networks out to those who otherwise might be cut off.
State-imposed fees, on specific services, that are designed to extend those services to areas of that state that might not otherwise be able to support them, aren't necessarily a bad thing. But how far do you carry it? In 2002, your state received $1.61 in federal expenditures for every dollar paid in federal taxes, which makes it 9th on list of states that receive such largess. That extra $.61 per dollar, of course, comes from the states that pay more in federal taxes than they get back in federal expenditures -- including mine, New York, which is down at #40, well into negative territory.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html
Isn't one of the benefits of the internet it's access to everyone? Shouldn't we help bring such access to all of those in our country who otherwise might be cut off from it and who are willing to pay for it?
Laudable goals. I can think of lots more, and like yours, they all cost money. The question is, who pays? South Dakotan's apparently have no problem with the concept of other people paying to benefit them, but you shouldn't be too surprised it others don't always see it that way.
Some people just like having their documentation on paper
*Raises hand* Somewhat OT, but one thing that has bugged me in my first forays into Linux OSes over the past few months is the utter lack of comprehensive and up-to-date documentation in any form, paper or electronic. And I do much prefer paper, wherever possible. I bought Running Linux, 4th Ed. and Linux in a Nutshell in paper form and both have come in handy, though neither are up-to-the-minute. I even bought FreeBSD Mall's FreeBSD 5.1 box to get the manual in printed form (also, I thought I might try FreeBSD, but my installation attempts so far have failed), even though that is more out-of-date, yet still handy.
To bring this around to ideas touched upon in Doctorow's excellent piece, one of the advantages of the electronic format is that it can be easily, inexpensively, and quickly updated -- compared to printed docs, which have to be, well, written, typeset, printed, and distributed. The problems is that, with regard to Linux documentation, it is not being updated -- at best, it's being patched up here and there. I have now about 30 bookmarks to non-distro-specific documentation websites, and not one of them is up-to-date in every regard, or even in most regards. I guess that's understandable -- coders like writing code, not docs. But it's a PITA for a newbie like me, and I think it's a stumbling block that doesn't get enough attention in the many Linux-for-the-desktop discussions on/. and elsewhere. It's not so much that learning how to use a Linux OS is all that difficult, it's the lack of one comprehensive place where you can find correct and updated answers to 90% of your questions without too much difficulty. Microsoft provides this (and for the remaining 10%, there are an enormous number of solid, useful, comprehensive alternatives), Apple provides this (and ditto, even if the number of alternative isn't quite as enormous -- it doesn't need to be), but it doesn't exist for Linux. Getting answers to Linux issues is a hunt & peck exercise during which you may get lucky or you may get frustrated
I would have thought it might fall to the commercial distros to provide better and more up-to-date docs, since they are after all selling a product, and products usually come with manuals. But from what I've been able to gather, only SuSE excels at this, and not even it can keep up -- in neither printed nor e- form. So if one of the advantages of ebooks is that they can be more readily updated, why aren't they?
Don't get too used to the FireBird's new name, it's already taken by Hollywood. Way to avoid copyright infringement
FYI, the titles of movies, books, songs, etc., can not be copyrighted. Thus you can have three albums released within the space of a few years all titled "Up" (Shania Twain, R.E.M., Peter Gabriel). You can trademark a series title, like IDG has done with the "... for Dummies" series, which prevents another publisher from publishing instructional guides entitled "... for Dummies" (though it probably would not prevent someone from publishing a novel with the title "... for Dummies.")
Mozilla isn't in any danger of copyright infringement because the name "Firefox" was once used as a movie title. A bigger risk would have been the "Mozilla" name itself (especially coupled with the Mozilla's logo), which the owners of the trademark on "Godzilla" might have made a fuss about. A local (NYC) sushi restaurant opened a few years ago calling itself Godzilla Sushi -- after the Godzilla-the-fire-breather people threatened legal action, it changed its name to Monster Sushi. But even that isn't "copyright" infringement, it's trademark infringement. And at this point "Mozilla" has been around long enough that I think it's safe.
While 17 USC 109 prohibits the rental of CDs and such, the record stores could structure the transaction as a sale if they were VERY careful about it.
It doesn't actually prohibit the rental of CDs, it prohibits the rental of CDs without the copyright holder's permission. Since the labels are the copyright holders in the overwhelming number of cases, permission is not likely to be forthcoming. They are already paranoid about home copying. It would be trivially easy to rent a bunch of CDs, make perfect copies at home, and return them. Allowing the rental of audio CDs would essentially turn the music business into an informal "rent-to-own" business overnight. Since the manufacturing cost of CDs is insignificant, the labels wouldn't be saving much money, but they'd be losing heaps of margin, presuming the rental fees are along the lines of video/DVD rental fees. Like you said, it wouldn't be practical or worthwhile.
With the exception of Warner Bros. Studios, these companies are based on subscriber base. How can you sell ad space without a large subscriber base? The millions of people AOL reaches through it's service, and the billions it reaches through it's properties (AIM, etc.). Goes further than the subscriber base of Time.
I believe the point the previous post made is that Time Warner owns content. Time, SI, etc., are subscriber-based, sure (though I believe People is more newstand-based), but Time Warner retains and exploits the copyright on much of the content in all its publications. And then lets not forget HBO and other cable channels, Warner Music and its back catalog, and the book publishing divisions, in addtion to the movie and TV studios. Time Warner has made more off "The Sopranos" than AOL will ever make from AOL-IM.
And, my other point was that they didn't 'screw' TW in the merger, and if you still think they did, you have to admit, that it wasn't intentional.
I wouldn't characterize it as AOL screwing Time Warner, but I would say than TW shareholders got screwed nonetheless. It was a bad deal all around, far worse for Time Warner than for AOL. Time Warner has real assets, a good mix of product lines that variously depend on subscribers, advertising revenue, retail sales, subsidiary IP licensing. AOL has... subscribers, over-stated advertising revenue, and not much else. I doubt either company's stock would have gone down as much as the combined company's stock sank, but I can't imagine why anyone would think Time Warner would have fared worse than AOL on its own.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but it seems pretty bullet-resistant to me. And, it's damned convenient...
Heh, and I thought MP3.com was pretty bullet-resistant also, and look what happened.
I don't think it's a question of personal liability. I can't imagine anyone being sued over purchasing music from AllofMP3.com. Worst-case scenario would be having one's hard drive confiscated. (Like, if you bought a bootleg CD in a store right at the moment when the authorities rushed in and arrested the store owners/managers for trafficking in counterfeit material, you wouldn't get arrested. But they'd take your CD as evidence, and you wouldn't get it back.) I was trying to address whether AoMP3.com could survive a challenge, which is really only a hypothetical anyway, since it's in Russia. I don't think there is much the music industry can do about this except try to pressure the Russians to change their licensing schemes. If AoMP3 ever becomes a big threat or similar operations pop up, they will probably do just that.
Michael
The grey area is whether they have the right to sell it to us folk over the seas. If it were CDs, then there's no law against importing a CD
You can't legally import a CD for resale in the U.S. if the exclusive U.S. distribution rights to that CD have been purchased by/granted to a company. Same goes for books. If, say, a record label in Brazil (or Belgium or Belize, etc.) makes a deal with a record label in the U.S., giving the latter U.S. distribution rights, then it would not be legal for a U.S. store to import the Brazilian label's CDs for sale in its shop(s). The store would have to offer the U.S. label's editions of the CD, even if it could obtain and sell the Brazilian discs less expensively than the U.S. discs.
It's a different story if the Brazilian CD is not otherwise available in the U.S. -- then the record store can import to its heart's content. Many specialty stores (especially specialty bookstores) do just that -- what makes them unique and valuable to their customers is that they don't offer *just* the stuff you could find at Borders or Amazon.com, but also stuff you can't easily obtain elsewhere or might not otherwise be aware of.
I suspect, in the case of allofmp3s.com, the area is not terribly gray -- unless there is some loophole that allows them to sell to U.S. customers.
Michael
Watch the audience at a film, and see how many stay through part or all of the closing credits.
I used to be one of those people, and once in a while still am. But mostly I don't bother anymore because of the IMDb. So I'd submit (with about as much logic for my reasoning as you employed in your post) that Americans are less likely to stay through the credits because they are more tech-savvy than their European counterparts.
The USA has lots of support for pulicizing movies. Magazines like People exist largely to drum up more movie publicity.
And what is Cannes, a venue for promoting obscure documentaries dealing with world poverty? C'mon! Plus, Europe has just as many (probably more, in total) celebrity-focused rags as the U.S.
You'll see plenty of European one-sheets where the big name actors are suddenly in much smaller type than the director, and words like "starring" get omitted.
I suspect this has something to do with the fact that most English-language films are shown dubbed in most European movie theatres, as well as on television. It amazes me, actually, that any American film stars catch on as big as they do in Europe, let alone that so many of them do. You can't even hear the actors voices! European audiences' preference for dubbed films over subtitled films still confounds me. It's actually quite difficult to find dubbed films here in the U.S., except for some martial arts Asian imports. I did once catch some of a late-night TV broadcast of La Cage aux Folles that had been dubbed into English. But for the most part films are shown here in their original language, as God intended. When Hollywood thinks a foreign-language film has real potential in the U.S. market, it just remakes them (usually poorly), which at least has the effect of publicizing the original. I doubt nearly as many people would have seen the Japanese Ringu had it not been for the U.S. remake The Ring.
In any case, you speak as if Europe has no big stars, which is not the case.
All this leads to an overall point: One reason movie studios are overpaying "stars" and not making as much money on overseas releases as they would like is they reward the stars as though the effects of getting the right actor are going to be seen world-wide, when these effects are mostly largely confined to the USA.
The effects of getting the right actor pays for itself in the U.S. market. I don't think stars are overpaid as a rule, though there have certainly been instances where some have been (think Demi Moore in Striptease). There's no surefire formula for deciding what any given is actor is worth to any particular project, even in hindsight. Would Mission: Impossible have been as big a hit without Tom Cruise? Did his star power really justify his $20 million price tag? Who knows? Would Spiderman have been a bigger hit with Ashton Kutchner or some other personality better-known than Tobey McGuire in the lead? Who can say for sure? I think, though, that some films really need a big star and those tend not to be the films that translate as readily into foreign markets.
--Michael
That way, the event say... going public with evidence that the Secratary of State committed treason maybe... is reported in a blog is an ACT of journalism no matter who the person is.
The law being proposed here is, essentially, a reaction to what happened to NYT reporter Judith Miller, who was held in contempt of court when she refused to reveal her source for information about Valerie Plame's status as an undercover CIA operative. But Miller never wrote an article revealing that information. So, by your formulation, she never committed the "act of journalism" necessary to define her as a person "practicing journalism" with regard to this story, which would mean she wouldn't be covered by the shield law as you suggest it ought to be implemented. The only way she'd be covered is if you defined her as a "practicing journalist," and that takes us right back to the question of how you define who is or is not a journalist.
...Which leads me to the conclusion that this proposed law is wrong-headed in any formulation one could devise. I don't think anyone, be he a professional journalist employed by The New York Times with a graduate degree from Columbia University School of Journalism or Joe Blow with a LiveJournal blog, ought to be shielded from the consequences of refusing to provide information to the courts regarding the possible commission of a crime, even if those consequences include jail time. I applaud Ms. Miller for her actions ... under the circumstances, it seemed to me to be the right thing for her to do. One, she needs credibility with her sources in order for her to do her job. Any reporter who relies on confidential sources must demonstrate a willingness to keep those sources confidential when push comes to shove, as it did here. It's doubtful that Joe Blow Blogger necessarily would feel as compelled to maintain confidentiality, since Joe Blow Blogger probably isn't relying on his blog (or his reputation) for his livelihood. But that doesn't mean that Joe Professional Journalist deserves some special shielding that Joe Blow Blogger does not. The point is that a crime may have been committed here, and anyone who has information about that crime can be subpoenaed to testify in the investigation of that crime. Whether that person will testify or what he will or won't reveal in that testimony is entirely up to him. From the court's perspective, why should it matter whether the person subpoenaed is a journalist, a blogger, a person committing the "act of journalism," or anything else -- anything other than a person who has knowledged about the crime?
-- Michael
I guess I'm an atypical Farscape fan in that I'm not much of a television watcher, nor particularly a fan of sci-fi in general. I started watching Farscape intermittently during the first season, and found the show's atmosphere and look intriguing, its characters compelling, and its writing witty and sharp (for television, anyway). By the second season, I was hooked all the way through the third. It was space opera in all its glory -- unafraid to go for the grand gesture, to take its time to build to climaxes that were genuinely climactic because of it. Unlike on many shows ("Andromeda" for instance), characters didn't fall in love, get betrayed, and learn important life lessons all in the space of 43 minutes. And it wasn't, like so many shows, "something else" in space (Firefly="western in space," Stargate="F-Troop in space" -- yawn). And unlike Wheedon shows (particularly "Buffy") I've sampled, it didn't rely on cheesy pop music for emotional resonance it couldn't drum up on its own. (Though, in fairness to Wheedon, other shows and countless movies do this too. Queue: heartbreak; soundtrack: R.E.M., "Everything Hurts.")
But then in the fourth season it ran out of ideas and began repeating itself, not to mention hitting an all-time low by using the Challenger disaster as a plot device. (To quote Lynne Cheney: "cheap and tawdry.") It makes me wonder if it is even possible to maintain the level of quality Farscape attained over multiple seasons. Maybe this is only because I'm not much of a television viewer, but I find that most TV shows are so mundane because they so often seem to be filling up airtime. A show like Farscape, I think, would be better suited to mini-series events like this one, although longer than four hours would be better. I'm psyched to watch this, and I hope it's good, and if it is, I hope there will be more -- six hours here, eight hours there, whatever the ideas the writers come up with can sustain. That kind of thing could work so much better for a show like Farcape than a "fifth season," I think, which is why, as much as I once liked the show, I could never really get behind a campaign like "Save Farscape."
Michael
(especially compared to Switzerland (not Sweden) which is the most free and demcratic country in the world)
Right ... Switzerland, the country that closed its borders to the Jews during WWII. There's "neutrality," then there's just not giving a damn about anyone but yourself, except of course those kind African despots whose money you can hide for them.
In all my travels in Europe, Switzerland struck me as easily the most souless country on the continent, not to mention frighteningly monolithic. (What good is having a populace that speaks so many different languages when they all say basically the same thing?) If it takes trading spirit, individuality, and a sense of compassion for what you describe as "free" and "democratic," I'll pass.
Michael
The problem is, if that level of piracy becomes common everywhere, it will stop being profitable for the record companies to make music.
Presuming that the primary cause of the decline in retail sales is p2p filesharing (which I don't think is even implied in the article -- the article seems to cite a number of causes), I still find it hard to believe that it will "stop being profitable for record companies to make music." First, record companies don't really "make music," they market, distribute, and sell music. Musicians make music. Record companies front the musicians money to pay the expenses associated with making music, then they charge back those expenses to the musicians. It may very well be that it stops being profitable for record companies to operate as they operate now, but why is that necessarily a bad thing? An awful lot of people, musicians included, don't seem terribly happy with the way record companies operate. If their business practices change, it very likely could be for the better for all concerned.
Record company execs and spokespersons are fond of saying that few CDs breakeven, the vast majority lose money, and those that do break out from the pack subsidize everything else. Is this necessarily the most logical, most effective business model on which to structure the industry? A lot of people don't think so, a lot of smaller labels that don't structure their business in that manner are doing just fine. A good 95% of the reason most CDs "lose money" is major-label accounting practices, not because the actual dollars received for a given "unprofitable" release isn't sufficient to pay for the production, royalties, marketing and distribution of that actual CD. There is plenty of money to go around, even in the face of rampant p2p activity. If the major labels can't make the numbers work, smaller labels (and independent musicians so motivated) can, do, and will.
You seem to be implying that business people can't figure out how to make a profit on a multi-billion dollar industry. You must have quite a low opinion of business!
Michael
Cool -- I didn't know there was a "Debian list" of Debian derivatives. I've checked out only a small portion of those. My problem with those I have is that they don't maintain 100% compatibility with Debian -- software installed from Debian archives that would work on a vanilla Debian install won't necessarily work on installations of some of these derivatives. Xandros, while a lovely distro in & of itself, was a disappointment in that regard. What I'm hoping to find, at least until Sarge becomes stable, is an "easy install" Debian derivative that does retain compatibility. Libranet seems to be working for me so far, but I've only been trying it out for about a week. It's impressive, and so far I haven't hit any compatibility roadblocks. Ubuntu, from what I can gather, seems to share that aim of 100% compatibility, which is great news to me.
OK, I am totally clueless as to the differences here. what is the most significant difference between BSD and Linux?
Don't know if it's the "most significant difference," but one important difference is the license. A BSD license is, AFAIK, the least restrictive out there. Basically, it says you can use, modify, redistribute, etc., as you wish, all you have to do is acknowledge BSD's copyright. You want to make a closed-source, proprietary derivative app using some BSD code? No problem, as long as you acknowledge that some of your code came from BSD. Even Microsoft uses BSD code in Windows.
Can I run Linux stuff on BSD? E.g. Can I grab the latest GNOME desktop and install it on BSD along with any of the applications that come with it? And by install I mean I perform the same kind of effort involved in a Linux install.
Yes, at least with FreeBSD. Probably with the others as well. Google for BSD ports. It has a huge collection of software. And installation is straightforward -- Gentoo adapted its ports system from BSD.
Michael
You mistake the Debian maintainers' pragmatic licencing approach for religious zealotry.
Licencing and legal restrictions on your hardware may prevent you running Debian on your specific hardware (thanks to "Trustworthy Computing" taking over from "binary only"), but there will be no licence or legal restrictions to your using Debian on any hardware that it does work on.
Isn't there an inherent contradiction there? What good is the lack of license or legal restrictions to using Debian if there are practical, real-world hardware restrictions? If Debian won't bend it's licensing approach to some degree to accomodate drivers or other necessary components, then how can its approach be characterized as "pragmatic." "Idealistic" comes to mind, so does "impractical." But not "pragmatic."
these are people who want to dedicate their time to having an operating system they can safely give to their friends and family without risking a gaol term.
But do they want their friends and family to be able actually to use it? "Hey Jer, here's this great OS I helped develop that consists entirely of free (as defined by the GPL) software. Oh, you can't get it installed? You're probably one of the 95% of PC owners with some piece of hardware or other that our philosophy doesn't permit us to support. Too bad ... back to Windows." It seems to me if Debian developers really have the goal that you mention in mind, they'd use a BSD license instead of the GPL. FreeBSD ... now that's an OS you can safely give to your friends and family without risking a jail term, and one they are likelier to install successfully.
Michael
I agree with that analysis.
[begin AOL]
Um, me too!
[end AOL]
I'm in your situation, basic non-techy Linux newb, armed with my trusty copy of Running Linux, 4th Ed. and a predisposition to RTFM. Where vi is concerned, I took the advice in RL and spent a half-hour on the four or five pages that deal with basic usage. That was all it took, I really can't understand all I read about vi being arcane or difficult or outdated or whatever. It may not be anyone's preference for every given editing task, and I'm certainly not qualified to speak to its suitability as a programming editor or its superiority/inferiority to joe, emacs, etc., but as a basic tool that is almost guaranteed to be available for any installation tweaking, it rocks. I do want to try other editors (thusfar, I've only tried nano, and I didn't see any advantage to using it over vi for what I need); I do want to attempt to come to grips with emacs, since it's so flexible. Still, it's hard to imagine needing any other editor for straightforward config editing, or simple text file creation.
Michael
the most popular uses include ... looking up the lyrics of songs by rap stars like Jay-Z, Nas and DMX.
Tonight on Fox: Learn how Bill Gates supports teenagers accessing smut on the Internet!
Michael
I hacked it a little, to do nicer formating, read multiple feeds and handle different versions of rss, and now i have the headlines from /., kuro5hin, wired, the register and a few more on my desktop. Nice!
Less technically adept Windows users like myself can get the same effect with the help of programs like Coolmon or Samurize. The nice thing about both is that the appearance and layout are infinitely customizable.
But I'm still waiting for the software program that will let me write my own headlines and make them come to pass, kinda like Burgess Meredith's typeset machine in the "Printer's Devil" episode of "Twilight Zone." Of course, he was the devil, and I would only use it for good ... heh heh.
Michael
I regularly visit maybe 2 or 3 sites, so I really don't see any reason to invest time in getting RSS set up. I find it hard to believe that an average user really visits so many sites. It seems to me RSS is really more of a niche thing that's really great for people who like to overload themselves with information, rather than a super-hot technology that's about to explode into widespread popularity.
You're probably right that RSS won't "explode" in popularity. A great many people (like you, for example!) don't really think it's for them, don't really think they'll have enough of a use for it to bother trying it out for themselves. But this is one of those things that will spread more slowly, by word-of-mouth, especially across interlapping niche interest circles. A good friend of mine works in the classical music field; eventually, I had sent her enough posts and items from various blogs that deal with classical music that she asked me how I had time to find all these things. I told her about RSS and news aggregators, and she was hooked. She is also a lesbian, and has found numerous g&l blogs she likes to follow, spreading the word about RSS not only to some of her music collegues, but also to some of her lesbian friends. In that way, eventually, a lot of people who aren't necessarily infojunkies (and I fully admit to being one) get in on the game.
The thing about RSS is that even if you only subscribe to a half-dozen feeds, it still saves you time. It isn't only for people who visit 50 sites regularly. (ATM, I'm subbed to 20; I regularly add and delete, but I can't imagine my list growing much larger than that.) And the fact that you subscribe to a half-dozen sites doesn't mean you have to visit those sites everyday -- it just makes it easy to keep tabs on what's happening at sites you have an interest in.
No offense, but if you can't find six feeds out of the 10s of thousands out there that pique your interest enough that you would like an easy way to keep up with them, then you must not have many interests. You already read /. -- only five more to go. :-)
Michael
The individual band members most likely saw ~zippo after various extractions.
FWIW, Stevie Nicks said in some televised interview a year or so ago that Rumours is still "money in the bank." She mentioned something about that one album financing her retirement (and I don't imagine that "retirement" for someone like her comes cheap -- she ain't thinking a time-share in Ft. Lauderdale).
That shouldn't change anyone's opinion that Warner Bros. Records has taken a cut of the profits that far exceeds what a reasonable person might consider fair, but when an album is that successful (and very few have been), there is plenty of money to go around.
Michael (who still has his original vinyl copy)
For example, I haven't gone to www.washingtonpost.com since they introduced their new "super-nosy" registration policy (and I used to go there almost every day).
I'm glad the Post began its registration policy because it finally made me take a look at all the options available. I subscribed to a couple of their email newsletters (with a special subdomain address I created especially for this purpose) and now receive some worthwhile info everyday. It was only my own laziness, of course, that kept me from doing that before the Post made registration mandatory; nevertheless, registration forced the issue. You either care enough about any given website to play by its rules, or you stop visiting. I don't have any problem with that. I can filter my own spam; I can divulge precious little personal info (my occupation: "Other"; my zip code: valid); I can block "targeted" pop-ups. If having x number of registered visitors helps the Post generate advertising revenue that in turn helps it be a better, more competitive newspaper, then I'm happy to help, because I value its coverage. If or when I no longer value its coverage, I'll unsub from its newsletters and block the any email coming in to that address.
What's the big deal?
Michael
The only honest and tactful response to a co-worker with a new-born who shoves pictures in your face of some bawling, squinty thing that looks like a giant red prune is:
"Oh, you must be so proud!"
Michael
2) MEPIS website. Sucks bigtime. They list 7 different ways to buy it but not a single way to download it.
I'm kinda depressed about the direction MEPIS development seems to be headed, at least based upon the issues with the website you noted. MEPIS was the first Linux distro I installed on my computer, and the reason I used that one was because it was so easy to try. Unlike Knoppix and most of the other live CD distros, it wasn't pitched as primarily a "live CD distro," it was pitched as a live CD/installable hybrid distro. As such, I think it is fairly unique -- yes, I know many other live CD distros can be installed with varying degrees of difficulty, but I haven't seen one yet that is as easily or explicitly designed to run from either a CD or a HD. For a newbie like me, it was just what the doctor ordered, and I liked it so much that I did register it after only a few days of playing around with it, for the commanding sum of $10 (which was all that was suggested at the time). Never have I been happier with a purchase.
But if I were a first-time visitor to the website in its current incarnation, I'd probably pass MEPIS right by without even trying it, mainly because it is so difficult to find the downloads now, and because of the off-putting purchase "tiers." It appears that Warren can't decide if he really wants it to be available for free download or not; frankly, I have less respect for that kind of dithering than I do for those developers who are very clear up-front that their distros (Libranet, Lindows, etc.) are for sale only.
I'm glad I found MEPIS when I did, and I disagree that it's JALCDD -- but I hope it's not shooting itself in the foot.
Michael
Pain inclusion is a good thing.
Sado-masochists worldwide rejoice at Yahoo!'s new search engine capabilities ... details at 11 (after the kiddies have gone to bed ... we're a little worried about the FCC).
--Michael
Nay, regulations are often quite useful and can benefit consumers.
...Benefit *some* consumers, at the expense of others.
Here in South Dakota, we've got a few big cities (by SD standards) and lots of small ones. Even in some of the medium cities, there is little financial incentive to build out broadband networks to consumers. Such fees go into a pool to provide the needed incentives to network operators to expand their broadband networks out to those who otherwise might be cut off.
State-imposed fees, on specific services, that are designed to extend those services to areas of that state that might not otherwise be able to support them, aren't necessarily a bad thing. But how far do you carry it? In 2002, your state received $1.61 in federal expenditures for every dollar paid in federal taxes, which makes it 9th on list of states that receive such largess. That extra $.61 per dollar, of course, comes from the states that pay more in federal taxes than they get back in federal expenditures -- including mine, New York, which is down at #40, well into negative territory.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html
Isn't one of the benefits of the internet it's access to everyone? Shouldn't we help bring such access to all of those in our country who otherwise might be cut off from it and who are willing to pay for it?
Laudable goals. I can think of lots more, and like yours, they all cost money. The question is, who pays? South Dakotan's apparently have no problem with the concept of other people paying to benefit them, but you shouldn't be too surprised it others don't always see it that way.
--Michael
To borrow from the pigs in "1984": All privacy breeches are equally bad, but some are just way effin' worse than others.
The pigs are from Animal Farm, not 1984. Right author, wrong book. That aside, good point.
--Michael
Some people just like having their documentation on paper
*Raises hand* Somewhat OT, but one thing that has bugged me in my first forays into Linux OSes over the past few months is the utter lack of comprehensive and up-to-date documentation in any form, paper or electronic. And I do much prefer paper, wherever possible. I bought Running Linux, 4th Ed. and Linux in a Nutshell in paper form and both have come in handy, though neither are up-to-the-minute. I even bought FreeBSD Mall's FreeBSD 5.1 box to get the manual in printed form (also, I thought I might try FreeBSD, but my installation attempts so far have failed), even though that is more out-of-date, yet still handy.
To bring this around to ideas touched upon in Doctorow's excellent piece, one of the advantages of the electronic format is that it can be easily, inexpensively, and quickly updated -- compared to printed docs, which have to be, well, written, typeset, printed, and distributed. The problems is that, with regard to Linux documentation, it is not being updated -- at best, it's being patched up here and there. I have now about 30 bookmarks to non-distro-specific documentation websites, and not one of them is up-to-date in every regard, or even in most regards. I guess that's understandable -- coders like writing code, not docs. But it's a PITA for a newbie like me, and I think it's a stumbling block that doesn't get enough attention in the many Linux-for-the-desktop discussions on /. and elsewhere. It's not so much that learning how to use a Linux OS is all that difficult, it's the lack of one comprehensive place where you can find correct and updated answers to 90% of your questions without too much difficulty. Microsoft provides this (and for the remaining 10%, there are an enormous number of solid, useful, comprehensive alternatives), Apple provides this (and ditto, even if the number of alternative isn't quite as enormous -- it doesn't need to be), but it doesn't exist for Linux. Getting answers to Linux issues is a hunt & peck exercise during which you may get lucky or you may get frustrated
I would have thought it might fall to the commercial distros to provide better and more up-to-date docs, since they are after all selling a product, and products usually come with manuals. But from what I've been able to gather, only SuSE excels at this, and not even it can keep up -- in neither printed nor e- form. So if one of the advantages of ebooks is that they can be more readily updated, why aren't they?
--Michael
Don't get too used to the FireBird's new name, it's already taken by Hollywood. Way to avoid copyright infringement
FYI, the titles of movies, books, songs, etc., can not be copyrighted. Thus you can have three albums released within the space of a few years all titled "Up" (Shania Twain, R.E.M., Peter Gabriel). You can trademark a series title, like IDG has done with the "... for Dummies" series, which prevents another publisher from publishing instructional guides entitled "... for Dummies" (though it probably would not prevent someone from publishing a novel with the title "... for Dummies.")
Mozilla isn't in any danger of copyright infringement because the name "Firefox" was once used as a movie title. A bigger risk would have been the "Mozilla" name itself (especially coupled with the Mozilla's logo), which the owners of the trademark on "Godzilla" might have made a fuss about. A local (NYC) sushi restaurant opened a few years ago calling itself Godzilla Sushi -- after the Godzilla-the-fire-breather people threatened legal action, it changed its name to Monster Sushi. But even that isn't "copyright" infringement, it's trademark infringement. And at this point "Mozilla" has been around long enough that I think it's safe.
--Michael
While 17 USC 109 prohibits the rental of CDs and such, the record stores could structure the transaction as a sale if they were VERY careful about it.
It doesn't actually prohibit the rental of CDs, it prohibits the rental of CDs without the copyright holder's permission. Since the labels are the copyright holders in the overwhelming number of cases, permission is not likely to be forthcoming. They are already paranoid about home copying. It would be trivially easy to rent a bunch of CDs, make perfect copies at home, and return them. Allowing the rental of audio CDs would essentially turn the music business into an informal "rent-to-own" business overnight. Since the manufacturing cost of CDs is insignificant, the labels wouldn't be saving much money, but they'd be losing heaps of margin, presuming the rental fees are along the lines of video/DVD rental fees. Like you said, it wouldn't be practical or worthwhile.
Michael
With the exception of Warner Bros. Studios, these companies are based on subscriber base. How can you sell ad space without a large subscriber base? The millions of people AOL reaches through it's service, and the billions it reaches through it's properties (AIM, etc.). Goes further than the subscriber base of Time.
I believe the point the previous post made is that Time Warner owns content. Time, SI, etc., are subscriber-based, sure (though I believe People is more newstand-based), but Time Warner retains and exploits the copyright on much of the content in all its publications. And then lets not forget HBO and other cable channels, Warner Music and its back catalog, and the book publishing divisions, in addtion to the movie and TV studios. Time Warner has made more off "The Sopranos" than AOL will ever make from AOL-IM.
And, my other point was that they didn't 'screw' TW in the merger, and if you still think they did, you have to admit, that it wasn't intentional.
I wouldn't characterize it as AOL screwing Time Warner, but I would say than TW shareholders got screwed nonetheless. It was a bad deal all around, far worse for Time Warner than for AOL. Time Warner has real assets, a good mix of product lines that variously depend on subscribers, advertising revenue, retail sales, subsidiary IP licensing. AOL has ... subscribers, over-stated advertising revenue, and not much else. I doubt either company's stock would have gone down as much as the combined company's stock sank, but I can't imagine why anyone would think Time Warner would have fared worse than AOL on its own.
Michael