Sony and Nintendo currently have much lower costs to build their consoles than Microsoft does. If Microsoft drops their price down to $99, thus pouring money down the well with a larger bucket, of course Sony and Nintendo will also drop their price to $99. They were better off at $299, as Sony was holding that price too.
I have not read the terms of service, but I'll bet they reserve the right to change the terms at any time without any notice. I read through the Yahoo TOS back when they did exactly the same thing and noticed that no matter what your preferences say, they still reserve the right to sell your information to 3rd parties who promise not to resell it.
Well, there was incremental innovation in the whole SUV market that has changed what people drive. They used to be work trucks. Luxury SUVs are a relatively new thing, as are Mini-SUVs. (built on a car unibody chassis) People who would have bought a station wagon back in the 70's are now buying some sort of SUV's. The fact that a company like Land Rover was an early leader, but that the market is now dominated by the Big 3 sort of proves his point about how hard it is for a new or small company to break into a market using sustaining innovation.
You didn't actually read the article did you? You just wanted to get your post up near the top. Right from the beginning of the article, he explains that sustaining innovation, like soundcards, in generally the realm of established companies, like Creative Labs. Only 6% of the time can a new company compete with the big boys in this way. Being "first" would be a part of that sustaining innovation.
The odds of success go up to 30% when the new technology is disruptive instead of sustaining. That is, it creates a new market that does not compete directly with the established market and is not attractive to the big boys who would crush you like a grape. Go read the article first if you want to comment on it.
I really admire your zeal. But, tell me again why the courts wouldn't dare to outlaw something that is vastly popular? (*cough**napster**cough*) What does a Fedral Judge, appointed for life, have to fear from your disapproval? And unless you can outspend the MPAA, what does your congresscritter have to fear from you?
Sorry, I don't mean to be negative, but I don't think we are going to get anywhere with [i]They Wouldn't Dare![/i] They do dare. They will dare.
Well, I guess the first judge ignored the fact that there were actual people involved here who had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Instead she figured that these "records" were just ordinary discovery. Glad to see that another judge at least wants to think about it for a while.
When I choose my download option for "The Han Solo Affair" it serves me up a very nice "Holy Grail" sendup. A shot for shot redo of the "Camelot" song with lego men. It is not at all what I was looking for, but OTOH, it is probably more enjoyable. Has this happened to anyone else?
But they can only hold onto a monopoly as long as there is no viable alternative. Internet distribution of MP3 files is a viable alternative to packaging CDs and selling them through retail chains. Yes, you are correct that many artists who currently have record label contracts are stuck until their contract is up. But their contract will be up some day. Also, there are artists who are powerfull enough to hold onto their rights to digital distribution, which means they can put a foot in each camp and sell CDs through their label as well as selling MP3s through this new thing. Thirdly, there are many artists who do NOT have a record deal who will flock to this distribution model. How these indie bands become popular without a label pushing videos to MTV and paying radio stations for airplay is the missing piece of the puzzle. But if you create a market where tons of good and bad music is available to the public, then "filters" will be created to help you find what you like.
But your point that artists are going to be able to protect themselves from plagarism without a money-grubbing distribution monopoly on their side is a good point.
You've got some good points there, but you're making a couple wrong assumptions. First, the Nielson ratings set the BASIC ad rates. It is really just a starting point for price negotiation. Advertisers are just as interested in demographics as they are in number of people watching. Most advertisers want younger viewers who are more influenced by advertising, so a show that teens watch will merit a premium price over the basic ad rate. If advertisers or ad agents don't think price is right, they don't buy, and the ad time has to be sold at a discount, directly impacting the network.
Second, all this is based on some Nielson families. So your use of a TiVO to watch shows you normally wouldn't doesn't actully change the ad rate unless you are one of the Nielson families. I would guess that Nielson families are not allowed to use DVRs. So the more that the general public uses DVRs, or even a regualr VCR, to skip the ads, the less that advertisers and their agents will be willing to pay "the rate."
You are correct though that if viewers are given a choice about what ads they watch, then they may pay more attention to the ones they choose. If networks could convice advertisers of that, then they might be able to increase advertisers faith in ad time, and therefore protect their rates. But devices that automatically don't record the ads to begin with really do kill the networks current business model.
Not that I think that is a bad thing, but a judge probably will.
But isn't he saying that as long as you are willing to do all the decrypting work yourself, (write your own original DeCSS, write your own original eBook hack) then its ok, as long as you don't share it or tell anyone how you did it? Is he using that reasoning to say that the DMCA is okay?
No, I can't see myself, or anyone else, paying for Internet Explorer, or Windows Media Player, or any of the add-ons that M$ is grafting into the OS to keep you from running a competitors product. Not that your cynicism isn't a good thing.
Not quite. It disables itself if there is a firewall program running. I assume so that it doesn't get detected. If there is no gatekeeper, then it goes ahead and downloads other programs and installs them. If that isn't malicious intent I don't know what is. It makes sure you aren't watching before it trys something.
I agree with you, that is the real question. And furthermore I would say the answer is neither YES nor NO. I think one needs to look at what is gained and what is lost in these type of preventative laws on a case by case basis. For example, speed limits are laws designed to prevent reckless driving and therefore accidents. We give up some freedom and accept regulation of how we use our personal property for increased public safety. One could argue that outlawing cars in favor of massive public transportation would be even better for society, but I think the cost is too high. The lost freedom is more valueable than the benefit to public safety. Similarly, I think the loss of an open PC is too high a cost for protecting content owners or distributors. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that something more like a speed limit law could be found to address the illegal behavior. I have not seen a law like that yet, but I am open to the possibility.
That is exactly what the software company thought. After all, another federal court had already set the precedent that games ARE speech. They can still be regulated, but they deserve the protections of speech. In a surprise move, this particular judge decided that games are not speech. Which means they get no protection. Which means that if it feels like it, the city of Macon can decide that the Baptist church's womens auxilliary shall be a panel that decides what games can be sold inside the city limits of Macon, to anyone, adult or child.
Except Sony didn't sell Playstations at a loss. Atari tried to sue them for dumping, because the announced introductory price was so outrageously low compared to the competition. But Sony was able produce them for cheaper, and the exchange rate helped them too. Read the story here.
Nasa didn't just put it there, they spread it out over a large area, or two. But seriously, the standard radiation on the surface of Mars is pretty bad, with there being almost no atmosphere. If there is bacteria, it is probably underground with the water.
But flesh-eating bacteria, or even something humans are succeptable to isn't the risk. The risk is that a bacteria from Mars might find an environment on earth it finds hospitable and spread and impact anything. Humans, dogs, pigs, chickens, beef, wheat, rice, algae, oranges... What are the chances? Nobody knows. We don't know enough about Mars. It is a good idea to start thinking about it now.
Not to sound alarmist and sensational, but I think your speed limiter analogy doesn't go far enough. I think outlawing the sale of any device that doesn't include whatever copyright/file protection scheme the big copyright holders dream up could be closer to outlawing cars in favor of public transportation. You don't control the device any more, it goes to places/does things that the law decides on. Today's PC's and personal music players will be gone, and be replaced by things with very limited functionality.
And what they are asking him to cease and desist is his current distribution. (of an excellent program which is not primarily used for blahblahblah. Ex post facto does not apply. IANAL
I mean legal penalties. Just because they wrote something down and I didn't obey it, doesn't mean they can make me pay them whatever they want. What legal basis do they have to enforce any license? If I have bought the software product, what need do I have of a license?
That is a silly requirement for value, because it applies to pretty much everything. If everyone in my city decided to sell their house at the same time, then the price would drop like a lead balloon too. Houses are very real and yet subject to the same laws of supply and demand that stocks are, and both are tied to the wider economy. That doesn't mean the value of either one is "pure fiction." At least not any more than the U.S. dollar itself, which is to say not in any meaningfull way.
Slashdot Mirror
Sony and Nintendo currently have much lower costs to build their consoles than Microsoft does. If Microsoft drops their price down to $99, thus pouring money down the well with a larger bucket, of course Sony and Nintendo will also drop their price to $99. They were better off at $299, as Sony was holding that price too.
I have not read the terms of service, but I'll bet they reserve the right to change the terms at any time without any notice. I read through the Yahoo TOS back when they did exactly the same thing and noticed that no matter what your preferences say, they still reserve the right to sell your information to 3rd parties who promise not to resell it.
Well, there was incremental innovation in the whole SUV market that has changed what people drive. They used to be work trucks. Luxury SUVs are a relatively new thing, as are Mini-SUVs. (built on a car unibody chassis) People who would have bought a station wagon back in the 70's are now buying some sort of SUV's. The fact that a company like Land Rover was an early leader, but that the market is now dominated by the Big 3 sort of proves his point about how hard it is for a new or small company to break into a market using sustaining innovation.
You didn't actually read the article did you? You just wanted to get your post up near the top. Right from the beginning of the article, he explains that sustaining innovation, like soundcards, in generally the realm of established companies, like Creative Labs. Only 6% of the time can a new company compete with the big boys in this way. Being "first" would be a part of that sustaining innovation.
The odds of success go up to 30% when the new technology is disruptive instead of sustaining. That is, it creates a new market that does not compete directly with the established market and is not attractive to the big boys who would crush you like a grape. Go read the article first if you want to comment on it.
I really admire your zeal. But, tell me again why the courts wouldn't dare to outlaw something that is vastly popular? (*cough**napster**cough*) What does a Fedral Judge, appointed for life, have to fear from your disapproval? And unless you can outspend the MPAA, what does your congresscritter have to fear from you?
Sorry, I don't mean to be negative, but I don't think we are going to get anywhere with [i]They Wouldn't Dare![/i] They do dare. They will dare.
Well, I guess the first judge ignored the fact that there were actual people involved here who had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Instead she figured that these "records" were just ordinary discovery. Glad to see that another judge at least wants to think about it for a while.
Hey, it isn't just the US in MLB; we invite the Canadians too.
When I choose my download option for "The Han Solo Affair" it serves me up a very nice "Holy Grail" sendup. A shot for shot redo of the "Camelot" song with lego men. It is not at all what I was looking for, but OTOH, it is probably more enjoyable. Has this happened to anyone else?
But they can only hold onto a monopoly as long as there is no viable alternative. Internet distribution of MP3 files is a viable alternative to packaging CDs and selling them through retail chains. Yes, you are correct that many artists who currently have record label contracts are stuck until their contract is up. But their contract will be up some day. Also, there are artists who are powerfull enough to hold onto their rights to digital distribution, which means they can put a foot in each camp and sell CDs through their label as well as selling MP3s through this new thing. Thirdly, there are many artists who do NOT have a record deal who will flock to this distribution model. How these indie bands become popular without a label pushing videos to MTV and paying radio stations for airplay is the missing piece of the puzzle. But if you create a market where tons of good and bad music is available to the public, then "filters" will be created to help you find what you like.
Under Pressure is a David Bowie song.
But your point that artists are going to be able to protect themselves from plagarism without a money-grubbing distribution monopoly on their side is a good point.
Just ignore it and it will go away.
You've got some good points there, but you're making a couple wrong assumptions. First, the Nielson ratings set the BASIC ad rates. It is really just a starting point for price negotiation. Advertisers are just as interested in demographics as they are in number of people watching. Most advertisers want younger viewers who are more influenced by advertising, so a show that teens watch will merit a premium price over the basic ad rate. If advertisers or ad agents don't think price is right, they don't buy, and the ad time has to be sold at a discount, directly impacting the network.
Second, all this is based on some Nielson families. So your use of a TiVO to watch shows you normally wouldn't doesn't actully change the ad rate unless you are one of the Nielson families. I would guess that Nielson families are not allowed to use DVRs. So the more that the general public uses DVRs, or even a regualr VCR, to skip the ads, the less that advertisers and their agents will be willing to pay "the rate."
You are correct though that if viewers are given a choice about what ads they watch, then they may pay more attention to the ones they choose. If networks could convice advertisers of that, then they might be able to increase advertisers faith in ad time, and therefore protect their rates. But devices that automatically don't record the ads to begin with really do kill the networks current business model.
Not that I think that is a bad thing, but a judge probably will.
I dislike Puff Daddy, but he PAYS for the rights to sample.
The article says at least one duo of mashers did the same thing, that is, got permission to use the material though it took them months.
It may not be parody, but watch who you're calling a thief.
But isn't he saying that as long as you are willing to do all the decrypting work yourself, (write your own original DeCSS, write your own original eBook hack) then its ok, as long as you don't share it or tell anyone how you did it? Is he using that reasoning to say that the DMCA is okay?
No, I can't see myself, or anyone else, paying for Internet Explorer, or Windows Media Player, or any of the add-ons that M$ is grafting into the OS to keep you from running a competitors product. Not that your cynicism isn't a good thing.
Not quite. It disables itself if there is a firewall program running. I assume so that it doesn't get detected. If there is no gatekeeper, then it goes ahead and downloads other programs and installs them. If that isn't malicious intent I don't know what is. It makes sure you aren't watching before it trys something.
I agree with you, that is the real question. And furthermore I would say the answer is neither YES nor NO. I think one needs to look at what is gained and what is lost in these type of preventative laws on a case by case basis. For example, speed limits are laws designed to prevent reckless driving and therefore accidents. We give up some freedom and accept regulation of how we use our personal property for increased public safety. One could argue that outlawing cars in favor of massive public transportation would be even better for society, but I think the cost is too high. The lost freedom is more valueable than the benefit to public safety. Similarly, I think the loss of an open PC is too high a cost for protecting content owners or distributors. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that something more like a speed limit law could be found to address the illegal behavior. I have not seen a law like that yet, but I am open to the possibility.
That is exactly what the software company thought. After all, another federal court had already set the precedent that games ARE speech. They can still be regulated, but they deserve the protections of speech. In a surprise move, this particular judge decided that games are not speech. Which means they get no protection. Which means that if it feels like it, the city of Macon can decide that the Baptist church's womens auxilliary shall be a panel that decides what games can be sold inside the city limits of Macon, to anyone, adult or child.
Those are the stakes.
Except Sony didn't sell Playstations at a loss. Atari tried to sue them for dumping, because the announced introductory price was so outrageously low compared to the competition. But Sony was able produce them for cheaper, and the exchange rate helped them too. Read the story here.
Nasa didn't just put it there, they spread it out over a large area, or two. But seriously, the standard radiation on the surface of Mars is pretty bad, with there being almost no atmosphere. If there is bacteria, it is probably underground with the water.
But flesh-eating bacteria, or even something humans are succeptable to isn't the risk. The risk is that a bacteria from Mars might find an environment on earth it finds hospitable and spread and impact anything. Humans, dogs, pigs, chickens, beef, wheat, rice, algae, oranges... What are the chances? Nobody knows. We don't know enough about Mars. It is a good idea to start thinking about it now.
Not to sound alarmist and sensational, but I think your speed limiter analogy doesn't go far enough. I think outlawing the sale of any device that doesn't include whatever copyright/file protection scheme the big copyright holders dream up could be closer to outlawing cars in favor of public transportation. You don't control the device any more, it goes to places/does things that the law decides on. Today's PC's and personal music players will be gone, and be replaced by things with very limited functionality.
And what they are asking him to cease and desist is his current distribution. (of an excellent program which is not primarily used for blahblahblah. Ex post facto does not apply. IANAL
I mean legal penalties. Just because they wrote something down and I didn't obey it, doesn't mean they can make me pay them whatever they want. What legal basis do they have to enforce any license? If I have bought the software product, what need do I have of a license?
That is a silly requirement for value, because it applies to pretty much everything. If everyone in my city decided to sell their house at the same time, then the price would drop like a lead balloon too. Houses are very real and yet subject to the same laws of supply and demand that stocks are, and both are tied to the wider economy. That doesn't mean the value of either one is "pure fiction." At least not any more than the U.S. dollar itself, which is to say not in any meaningfull way.