The trouble is, the media can run (or even hint at running) the hooker/intern stories almost immediately, where as it takes a lot of time to re-regulate.
Doesn't work for Joe Sixpack (US) as all his are region 1, and his player is region 1. In the UK, almost all players sold routinely have multi-region, because of the large number of region 1 only DVDs. The market spoke, and your conclusion was correct - man-in-the-street said "they're ripping me off" and bought the appropriate player to compensate...
Unless the previous coder littered it with goto statements (most original mainframe applications were written before gotos were considered a bad idea). I've seen COBOL where gotos were used inside loops.
Maintenance coding typically takes longer than writing a clean implementation. Following and changing someone else's code is a more difficult task than writing a program from scratch, as we are all individuals - and do things *our* way. Variable names differ, approaches differ. This is not something that comes out of which language is used, but how well the programmer structures the code, choses variable names, and so forth.
I'm sure someone can provide you a horrible example of COBOL, and an easy to follow version in C or Java. And I'm sure someone can show you badly done OO, and well done OO.
Remember Kent Beck's quote: "I'm not a great programmer; I'm a good programmer with great habits."
IIRC the constitution allows for treaties - article 6:
and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
In fact, one of the classic tactics used, is if you can't pass it in the US, pass it abroard, and sneak it into a treaty! A lot of countries are looking to relax their "war" on drugs, but cannot, as they are tied in to Hague and Geneva drug conventions passed back in 1912/1925.
This argument shouldn't work though. The DMCA is an amendment of copyright law, not a separate standalone law. It affects only rights as they pertain to copyright. This is why people argue in court that the device has substantial non-infringing of copyright uses. I doubt that any lawyer claiming a particular law is pertinent, without the context that it applied it, has ever impressed a judge.
The argument (that I put forward) is not relying on fair use, it's pointing out that the tool will have very significant use in the public domain.
IANAL-SIMBW (so I may be wrong).
As a thought, it's not ok to distribute a circumvention device, but it's OK to manufacture one yourself. A corporation, charity, or organisation is seen in law as a person - if that organidation develops a device, can all members of the organisation legally use it?
Surely the argument is that once a work is out of copyright, the DMCA no longer applies, as it is an amendment to copyright law.
Therefore, the copying product (that breaks copy protection) is aimed at public domain content, and has a substantial non-infringing use.
Arguing that this is not a substantial use is implying that the encryption does extend the copyright - it's saying the product will never be needed - but as *all* works will *eventually* come out of copyright (Eldred not withstanding), this is not true.
I guess the view is that where there is competition, this is fine, and just the natural order of things. But they have entered into an agreement (by taking on the commitment of having the broadcast license) with the government to provide a service. The question is - are they providing it. They blatantly admit that they are focussed more on what revenue it provides, rather than the product they provide, so the question is
"Is the absolute minimum that they provide in the way of actual content, sufficient to meet their obligations to provide a public service?"
It's a deregulation thing. The government has a responsibility (demanded by the people, not mandated by the constitution) to ensure that a particular service is delivered. It allows the market to provide it, to ensure efficiency. It can't however, allow it to collapse (see california power). So, as the people clamouring for better service, we do have the right to say that the media companies, who enjoy the monopoly we granted them, will behave differently from a free market company.
Ah, the UK model. You have a forced levy (TV license) to subsidise the BBC. This sets the minimum acceptable level - it keeps the companies who concentrate on comercials honest, because if they show too many, they lose viewer share to the BBC.
But PBS in the US doesn't get the budget it needs to compete, so the big boys do what they like...
I don't think there is anything wrong with making a profit. The problems come when they are already making a competative profit, and every decision is "how do we make more profit". Then old faithfuls that are profitable get tossed as they aren't making the most profit, and bingo, you get the situation now -
TV: pick a show (say friends, simpsons), Play repeatedly. 33% Advertising. Radio: rent ten slots to RIAA. Play repeatedly. 33% Advertising.
This is the mentality that gets Jonathon Edwards on the "Sci-Fi" channel - it's *more* profitable than actual sci-fi. But TNN seems to make money showing star trek endlessly?
So what is wrong from a business perspective - nothing on the short term. But here's an example - Marconi - sold off all its non-core subsidiaries to "concentrate" on telecoms... which crashed as an industry, crippling what was a blue chip, diversified group. Someone saw telecoms as "most" lucrative, and discarded the rest. And that's what's happening to the Media. And when the five/ten "most lucrative" shows become boring, they are going to crash and burn. Wait a minute, they are - that's why they need to a bigger share - to cut costs, to improve profit lines.
Ah, you obviously haven't read the supreme court decision on this then, where they decided that it is not an interstate-tariff (although it plainly is), and is only bringing the tax in line with local products...
However, according to most anti-spam sites, it's the top ten or so "clever" spammers who send approximately 90% of all the spam. These are the guys that have the expensive houses and the money.
And unless they were from Nebraska, your average american probably couldn't tell you either.
But nebraska is not a country, it's part of a country. As an example - tell me where Wales or Scotland are, what their capitals are, who their leaders are? This is not the same as "Tell me where America is? Where Canada is? Where Norway, Sweden, Denmark , are?"
As a "Brit" (hope this offends the poster above), I have heard of Washington (district of columbia), Ottawa, Oslo, Stockholm, and Copenhagen). But I could only remember Bush and Chretien. I had to look up Bondevik, Persson, and Ramussen.
People don't normally need these facts in daily life so they won't remember them, or may never even have learnt them. I think it's the attitude of "Everyone should know where my country is, but other countries are not as important as mine so I don't need to know where they are" spouted by many stupid people that pi$$es people off.
The trouble is, where is the line drawn between "obvious" patents, and new "inventions". The patent office has been notoriously bad in deciding these.
> There would be nothing stopping...
Yes, there is. A patent these days is not considered a mechanism to earn your money back. It's considered a license to print money by gouging the market. For every individual who gets his patent in, the corporations will patent hundreds of blindingly obvious algorithms, if only to counter other patents. And corporations aquire rights in buy outs (cough! SCO cough!).
Remember, a patent is not a copyright. It's not protecting that exact implementation - it even prevents you doing the same thing another way. People already have copyright protection for their software.
Try writing software if someone got a patent for all the design patterns. Or for auto code generation. They don't really have to fight it in court because you personally probably couldn't afford the first round defending yourself (all the prior art not withstanding). And they know it. Some of these cases run to millions.
Nope, it mentions "telecommunications device", which, if you read the section pdescribing that in cludes any device for or facilitating internet access.
So really, we need to introduce competition. The key to this is retrieving the rights back to the author. This requires key facets:
1. Author guaranteed a set percentage of the gross per sale. Exclusive rights may never be granted to another party, and the author cannot surrender rights to the work. The author cannot prevent the material being published if the royalties are being paid. The work cannot be distributed for free, unless the author consents, or under fair use guidelines.
2. Record labels now split to form publishing houses, marketing services, and VC shops. The VC shops front the authors an advance for a gross percentage of the authors profits. The publisher creates the finished product. The marketing service is paid by the author, for advertising and promoting the work.
3. This solution is aimed at works not considered "works for hire", as defined by the supreme court, and not by the record labels(RIAA) and their bought lobbyists.
This guarantees that the artists get their money, that the labels still have relevance, and brings competition to a previous monopoly. It also prevents works going "out of print" as a new publisher can provide the work, if no one else will, or the author could sell copies themselves.
I'm not going to foray into how long the Author should have the rights for, as that is a separate argument.
I'm not touching the whole consultant/contractor argument with a twenty foot pole.
> I fail to see the logic where one "cheap" client will necessarily refer you to another "cheap" client.
Other way around - client recommends you to another client, who obviously does not expect to pay more than the recommending client.
> employers conspiring to lower labor costs?
And the reverse - where are consultants conspiring to raise rates? With the exception of the imploded dot coms, all other employers attempt to get "human resource" at the minimum they can get away with, and always have done.
> There's nothing wrong with lowering prices to become more competitive.
This is fine. Except that there is also nothing wrong with raising prices if you provide a superior service. Your view comes across (at least to me - I may be wrong) that no one should expect to be able to charge more than the average price. Trouble is, there needs to be some people working at above average price in order to have an average. If you typically provide superior work, you should expect to levy a better than average price for your services.
But customers have different expectations about what that level is, and so price differentials occur. Remember the dilbertism - "What the customer wants is better products for free".
> doing a good job at low wages. > doing a lousy job will not get you any referrals.
My take on this was that the original poster was advocating not doing an *exceptional* job for minimum wages. Nobody I know likes doing overtime/weekends for no extra money - especially when the client pays you under the standard market rate. Is that being competitive, or is that being taken advantage of?
Obviously, this comment will make no sense to those out there with the "what ever you get paid is the market rate" mentality.
Who will also expect you to work for peanuts - these recomendations you don't want.... collectively conspiring to charge
Unlike the employers conspiring to pay a smaller amount. As an example, why does every employer want to know how much you were paid in your previous job? Yes, you don't have the *right* to always get the "First Class" wage, but the employers don't have the *right* to always employ you for the "Economy" wage - *that* is the market, and has been pointed out, if you do first class work, and charge economy fair for it, you *are* "ruining it for all".
The market value is what the *market* is willing to pay, not just a particular participant in the market. So if the *market* predominantly pays $X, and you are providing the expected service, you should generally expect $X.
If the "shut up and accept what's on offer" party get their way all the time, everyone but the board of directors will be on minimum wage, and we will have a new nobles and serfs society. And to think people fought long and hard to abolish slavery!
Ah, but the university is not "banning" the acts, CDs etc, but rather, "not allowing them within the university (campus, systems, etc), in order to prevent illegal copying". So they are helping the RIAA, rather than acting against them. Officially. Of course, the student body can spin it the other way...
The dilemma for the RIAA, is that to guarantee no illegal copying, they have to stop making music (media, performances, etc) available for public purchase.
This spin on the problem brought to you by the "it's coming straight for us" department of hunting.
The real cost of producing the goods goes down (no hidden tax burden on companies). So US goods become more attractive abroad.
At the same time your average citizen has more take home pay to purchase stuff with.
Finally, foreign purchases are not affected, as those are import tarriffs/duty, not taxes. If you think tax evasion and the IRS are rough, try customs!
IE cost them a fortune to make. They are not charging $0 for it - they provide it as part of windows, which they charge for, or as a download for the Mac, which provides IE due to a deal with Apple, and Apple includes the cost in the amount you pay for their systems. Either way it's not free.
However, a dedicated browser company, cannot compete fairly on price, as the equation is artificially skewed. Even the OSS browsers have ridiculous amounts of development behind them that has been writen off as either "a labour of love" or a dead company's gift to the world.
The point is that Microsoft are not providing IE for free - you get it as part of windows which you pay for. Part of that cost is IE (the millions that it cost them to make). So by your very words, comparing with the $0 Mozilla, "If MS is an abusive monopoly (one that is hurting consumers), they should be charging an exhorbinant price for IE" - they are - more than $0. Apparently, IE is an essential part of windows according to Microsoft, and windows isn't free - so IE can't be "free" as you put it.
Exorbitant - spelling care of MS Word spell checker;)
And since the thread was "Media Player?", I would apply my arguments doubly so.
>> if you dont like windows media player - write a fucking better one.
With what? Developers cost money. Oh, hey that's right - Microsoft can write off millions, because they can reclaim it all from the cost of windows.
>> The only way these guys see to compete...... is to prevent Microsoft doing their usual product-tie-and-price-dump tactic, which is illegal under US and EU rules if your company is an "effective" monopoly.
Slashdot Mirror
The trouble is, the media can run (or even hint at running) the hooker/intern stories almost immediately, where as it takes a lot of time to re-regulate.
Except,
I don't see the option to put limitations back in. So if it does become a monoculture, there isn't much the FCC could do.
Doesn't work for Joe Sixpack (US) as all his are region 1, and his player is region 1. In the UK, almost all players sold routinely have multi-region, because of the large number of region 1 only DVDs. The market spoke, and your conclusion was correct - man-in-the-street said "they're ripping me off" and bought the appropriate player to compensate ...
Unless the previous coder littered it with goto statements (most original mainframe applications were written before gotos were considered a bad idea). I've seen COBOL where gotos were used inside loops.
Maintenance coding typically takes longer than writing a clean implementation. Following and changing someone else's code is a more difficult task than writing a program from scratch, as we are all individuals - and do things *our* way. Variable names differ, approaches differ. This is not something that comes out of which language is used, but how well the programmer structures the code, choses variable names, and so forth.
I'm sure someone can provide you a horrible example of COBOL, and an easy to follow version in C or Java. And I'm sure someone can show you badly done OO, and well done OO.
Remember Kent Beck's quote: "I'm not a great programmer; I'm a good programmer with great habits."
It doesn't say anything about the states or anyone else undermining it, but w/r/t judicial scope, we have the following:
...
Article III, section 2
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made
IIRC the constitution allows for treaties - article 6:
and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
In fact, one of the classic tactics used, is if you can't pass it in the US, pass it abroard, and sneak it into a treaty! A lot of countries are looking to relax their "war" on drugs, but cannot, as they are tied in to Hague and Geneva drug conventions passed back in 1912/1925.
This argument shouldn't work though. The DMCA is an amendment of copyright law, not a separate standalone law. It affects only rights as they pertain to copyright. This is why people argue in court that the device has substantial non-infringing of copyright uses. I doubt that any lawyer claiming a particular law is pertinent, without the context that it applied it, has ever impressed a judge.
The argument (that I put forward) is not relying on fair use, it's pointing out that the tool will have very significant use in the public domain.
IANAL-SIMBW (so I may be wrong).
As a thought, it's not ok to distribute a circumvention device, but it's OK to manufacture one yourself. A corporation, charity, or organisation is seen in law as a person - if that organidation develops a device, can all members of the organisation legally use it?
Surely the argument is that once a work is out of copyright, the DMCA no longer applies, as it is an amendment to copyright law.
...
Therefore, the copying product (that breaks copy protection) is aimed at public domain content, and has a substantial non-infringing use.
Arguing that this is not a substantial use is implying that the encryption does extend the copyright - it's saying the product will never be needed - but as *all* works will *eventually* come out of copyright (Eldred not withstanding), this is not true.
They can't have it both ways
IANAL
I guess the view is that where there is competition, this is fine, and just the natural order of things. But they have entered into an agreement (by taking on the commitment of having the broadcast license) with the government to provide a service. The question is - are they providing it. They blatantly admit that they are focussed more on what revenue it provides, rather than the product they provide, so the question is
"Is the absolute minimum that they provide in the way of actual content, sufficient to meet their obligations to provide a public service?"
It's a deregulation thing. The government has a responsibility (demanded by the people, not mandated by the constitution) to ensure that a particular service is delivered. It allows the market to provide it, to ensure efficiency. It can't however, allow it to collapse (see california power). So, as the people clamouring for better service, we do have the right to say that the media companies, who enjoy the monopoly we granted them, will behave differently from a free market company.
Ah, the UK model. You have a forced levy (TV license) to subsidise the BBC. This sets the minimum acceptable level - it keeps the companies who concentrate on comercials honest, because if they show too many, they lose viewer share to the BBC.
...
But PBS in the US doesn't get the budget it needs to compete, so the big boys do what they like
I don't think there is anything wrong with making a profit. The problems come when they are already making a competative profit, and every decision is "how do we make more profit". Then old faithfuls that are profitable get tossed as they aren't making the most profit, and bingo, you get the situation now -
... which crashed as an industry, crippling what was a blue chip, diversified group. Someone saw telecoms as "most" lucrative, and discarded the rest. And that's what's happening to the Media. And when the five/ten "most lucrative" shows become boring, they are going to crash and burn. Wait a minute, they are - that's why they need to a bigger share - to cut costs, to improve profit lines.
TV: pick a show (say friends, simpsons), Play repeatedly. 33% Advertising.
Radio: rent ten slots to RIAA. Play repeatedly. 33% Advertising.
This is the mentality that gets Jonathon Edwards on the "Sci-Fi" channel - it's *more* profitable than actual sci-fi. But TNN seems to make money showing star trek endlessly?
So what is wrong from a business perspective - nothing on the short term. But here's an example - Marconi - sold off all its non-core subsidiaries to "concentrate" on telecoms
Ah, you obviously haven't read the supreme court decision on this then, where they decided that it is not an interstate-tariff (although it plainly is), and is only bringing the tax in line with local products ...
Make this the top ~180 (and kudos to the spamhaus guys).
However, according to most anti-spam sites, it's the top ten or so "clever" spammers who send approximately 90% of all the spam. These are the guys that have the expensive houses and the money.
And unless they were from Nebraska, your average american probably couldn't tell you either.
But nebraska is not a country, it's part of a country. As an example - tell me where Wales or Scotland are, what their capitals are, who their leaders are? This is not the same as "Tell me where America is? Where Canada is? Where Norway, Sweden, Denmark , are?"
As a "Brit" (hope this offends the poster above), I have heard of Washington (district of columbia), Ottawa, Oslo, Stockholm, and Copenhagen). But I could only remember Bush and Chretien. I had to look up Bondevik, Persson, and Ramussen.
People don't normally need these facts in daily life so they won't remember them, or may never even have learnt them. I think it's the attitude of "Everyone should know where my country is, but other countries are not as important as mine so I don't need to know where they are" spouted by many stupid people that pi$$es people off.
The trouble is, where is the line drawn between "obvious" patents, and new "inventions". The patent office has been notoriously bad in deciding these.
...
> There would be nothing stopping
Yes, there is. A patent these days is not considered a mechanism to earn your money back. It's considered a license to print money by gouging the market. For every individual who gets his patent in, the corporations will patent hundreds of blindingly obvious algorithms, if only to counter other patents. And corporations aquire rights in buy outs (cough! SCO cough!).
Remember, a patent is not a copyright. It's not protecting that exact implementation - it even prevents you doing the same thing another way. People already have copyright protection for their software.
Try writing software if someone got a patent for all the design patterns. Or for auto code generation. They don't really have to fight it in court because you personally probably couldn't afford the first round defending yourself (all the prior art not withstanding). And they know it. Some of these cases run to millions.
IANAL
Nope, it mentions "telecommunications device", which, if you read the section pdescribing that in cludes any device for or facilitating internet access.
RTFA, and assocaited pages, please.
So really, we need to introduce competition. The key to this is retrieving the rights back to the author. This requires key facets:
1. Author guaranteed a set percentage of the gross per sale. Exclusive rights may never be granted to another party, and the author cannot surrender rights to the work. The author cannot prevent the material being published if the royalties are being paid. The work cannot be distributed for free, unless the author consents, or under fair use guidelines.
2. Record labels now split to form publishing houses, marketing services, and VC shops. The VC shops front the authors an advance for a gross percentage of the authors profits. The publisher creates the finished product. The marketing service is paid by the author, for advertising and promoting the work.
3. This solution is aimed at works not considered "works for hire", as defined by the supreme court, and not by the record labels(RIAA) and their bought lobbyists.
This guarantees that the artists get their money, that the labels still have relevance, and brings competition to a previous monopoly. It also prevents works going "out of print" as a new publisher can provide the work, if no one else will, or the author could sell copies themselves.
I'm not going to foray into how long the Author should have the rights for, as that is a separate argument.
I'm not touching the whole consultant/contractor argument with a twenty foot pole.
> I fail to see the logic where one "cheap" client will necessarily refer you to another "cheap" client.
Other way around - client recommends you to another client, who obviously does not expect to pay more than the recommending client.
> employers conspiring to lower labor costs?
And the reverse - where are consultants conspiring to raise rates? With the exception of the imploded dot coms, all other employers attempt to get "human resource" at the minimum they can get away with, and always have done.
> There's nothing wrong with lowering prices to become more competitive.
This is fine. Except that there is also nothing wrong with raising prices if you provide a superior service. Your view comes across (at least to me - I may be wrong) that no one should expect to be able to charge more than the average price. Trouble is, there needs to be some people working at above average price in order to have an average. If you typically provide superior work, you should expect to levy a better than average price for your services.
But customers have different expectations about what that level is, and so price differentials occur. Remember the dilbertism - "What the customer wants is better products for free".
> doing a good job at low wages.
> doing a lousy job will not get you any referrals.
My take on this was that the original poster was advocating not doing an *exceptional* job for minimum wages. Nobody I know likes doing overtime/weekends for no extra money - especially when the client pays you under the standard market rate. Is that being competitive, or is that being taken advantage of?
Obviously, this comment will make no sense to those out there with the "what ever you get paid is the market rate" mentality.
Who will also expect you to work for peanuts - these recomendations you don't want.
Unlike the employers conspiring to pay a smaller amount. As an example, why does every employer want to know how much you were paid in your previous job? Yes, you don't have the *right* to always get the "First Class" wage, but the employers don't have the *right* to always employ you for the "Economy" wage - *that* is the market, and has been pointed out, if you do first class work, and charge economy fair for it, you *are* "ruining it for all".
The market value is what the *market* is willing to pay, not just a particular participant in the market. So if the *market* predominantly pays $X, and you are providing the expected service, you should generally expect $X.
If the "shut up and accept what's on offer" party get their way all the time, everyone but the board of directors will be on minimum wage, and we will have a new nobles and serfs society. And to think people fought long and hard to abolish slavery!
Ah, but the university is not "banning" the acts, CDs etc, but rather, "not allowing them within the university (campus, systems, etc), in order to prevent illegal copying". So they are helping the RIAA, rather than acting against them. Officially. Of course, the student body can spin it the other way ...
The dilemma for the RIAA, is that to guarantee no illegal copying, they have to stop making music (media, performances, etc) available for public purchase.
This spin on the problem brought to you by the "it's coming straight for us" department of hunting.
The real cost of producing the goods goes down (no hidden tax burden on companies). So US goods become more attractive abroad.
At the same time your average citizen has more take home pay to purchase stuff with.
Finally, foreign purchases are not affected, as those are import tarriffs/duty, not taxes. If you think tax evasion and the IRS are rough, try customs!
It's a consumption tax, not a "wealth" tax per se. The best example is the fair tax bill - HR 2525.
IE cost them a fortune to make. They are not charging $0 for it - they provide it as part of windows, which they charge for, or as a download for the Mac, which provides IE due to a deal with Apple, and Apple includes the cost in the amount you pay for their systems. Either way it's not free.
;)
However, a dedicated browser company, cannot compete fairly on price, as the equation is artificially skewed. Even the OSS browsers have ridiculous amounts of development behind them that has been writen off as either "a labour of love" or a dead company's gift to the world.
The point is that Microsoft are not providing IE for free - you get it as part of windows which you pay for. Part of that cost is IE (the millions that it cost them to make). So by your very words, comparing with the $0 Mozilla, "If MS is an abusive monopoly (one that is hurting consumers), they should be charging an exhorbinant price for IE" - they are - more than $0. Apparently, IE is an essential part of windows according to Microsoft, and windows isn't free - so IE can't be "free" as you put it.
Exorbitant - spelling care of MS Word spell checker
And since the thread was "Media Player?", I would apply my arguments doubly so.
>> if you dont like windows media player - write a fucking better one.
... ... is to prevent Microsoft doing their usual product-tie-and-price-dump tactic, which is illegal under US and EU rules if your company is an "effective" monopoly.
With what? Developers cost money. Oh, hey that's right - Microsoft can write off millions, because they can reclaim it all from the cost of windows.
>> The only way these guys see to compete