True, but aren't there also some initial costs to get a new customer signed up and on the network?
Besides, they should realize that even if they aren't making as much money from you if they offer you an incentive (vs. you just staying with them as-is), the loyalty they will gain is worth much more.
We can only hope number portability will help alleviate some of these issues.
I'd had my Sprint phone for several months, when I discovered that I needed to up my plan (I was using too many minutes). I called Sprint and the CSR assured me that upgrading would not extend my contract. I double-checked, and told them I would not up the plan if it extended my contract. I was told it wouldn't, so I upgraded.
When it came time for my contract to expire, I called Sprint to verify that they kept my original contract date, not the date I changed my plan. They hadn't. I told the CSR what happened, and they agreed to honor my original contract date. Having worked call centers before, I asked the CSR to make a note in my account showing my correct contract ending date, which they said they did.
Right before I changed providers, I called Sprint one more time to make sure they recognized the correct date. I had to go through the same shit with the CSR that I had the time before. This time, they said they had placed a note in my account of the correct contract ending date. I also asked when I should terminate my service - anytime after the contract was up, before the contract was up, etc. I wanted to make sure my last bill was for when the phone was actually used, not after I had new service. The CSR said I could terminate any time after the contract and it would be pro-rated.
I got my new service and went to terminate the Sprint service, and was greeted, yet again, with a CSR ignorant of my correct contract ending date. I argued for 30 minutes and finally got the contract date ironed out. Then I was transferred to the Terminations (?) department. I was then told that my bill couldn't be pro-rated, but that I would have to pay for the next month, regardless of whether I used the phone or not. I was tired of arguing and relented, probably like most.
While our students are lazy and self centered individuals, the Japanese youth know the value of conformity and hard work.
I don't think it's necessarily the Japanese students pushing themselves to conform and work hard. I think it's Japanese society. It's part of the reason they have such a high suicide rate among the student population.
From what I've heard, India is beginning to have problems with this as well. The enormous pressure to succeed has side effects.
Why should someone be able to think up something and live off it for the rest of their life, while others have to work hard their entire life to make ends meet?
It's life. Deal with it.
More pay goes to those that use their brain. This is why the factory worker isn't driving a Benz. And it works. Want to become wealthy? Go to school and learn to use your brain, or be a smart businessperson, or invent something.
I don't dispute that modern copyright laws, or their interpretation, are at fault. I just think that the last thing "the movement" needs right now is an all out war by way of civil disobedience.
Want to give politicians an out for favoring the RIAA in this situation? Declare war. It's the last thing we need to do.
If you want to do something, boycott the RIAA, come up with alternative distribution methods, get the word out. But don't cut your own throat.
No, I'm not confusing the term republic with the modern US Republican Party (GOP). Don't insult my intelligence. And don't assume to know shit about my political affiliations.
Regardless of the semantics about political definitions, my original point stands. Don't like the law? Change the law. Don't arbitrarily apply personal opinion to individual criminal cases. It does no one any good if the problem is a flawed law.
We've reached a new low on Slashdot: the comparison of P2P to the civil rights movement.
Please find a better analogy. You wanting to download a Metallica song from Kazaa hardly compares to the basic human rights of black people in 1960s America.
An individual should be able to hold a copyright on a work for their lifetime. I would differentiate between the artist that actually created the work and the label/publishing company that signed the artist.
When a company creates something and then goes out of business (assuming they obtained a patent), usually the IP is purchased by someone else. No, the public shouldn't have to pay to "resurrect the company" because they don't have to - the IP lives on when it is purchased by someone else. If it's not purchased, I believe it goes to public domain (IANAL).
I'm sure glad our current IP laws don't reflect your views. If that were the case, we'd have the "little guy" creating something, a large corporation seeing it, then profiting off of it. To an extent, these shady things already happen, but they sure as hell shouldn't be legalized.
It's hard enough for inventors to compete with a large corporation when it comes to marketing, production, distribution, etc. I can't imagine what a nightmare we would have if the corporations could simply steal someone's idea and run with it.
I don't care about the technical aspects of law-breaking... I abide by the spirit of law. Just as a jury member should be doing (ref. the Fully Informed Jury Association), We The People are the judge of the law, not that overpaid, elitist punk behind the podium.
Admittadly offtopic...
The law is what we rely on. It's the reason we live in a republic and not a democracy. If every specific law was open to "interpretation" by a jury, we wouldn't have laws, we would have arbitrary mob rule.
We elect representatives for a reason - to address changes in the law. It is then up to the Judicial Branch to decide whether the law was broken, or in the case of some courts, to decide if the law violates the basic tenants laid forth in the Constitution.
Don't like a law? Protest, run for office, write your congressman.
Why do games cost $50? If I play a game at the arcade 100 times, I'd spend those $50, but most games aren't even worth playing 100 times like that. Then people are sick of spending MORE money on required expansion packs and monthly fees for MMOs.
It's called capitalism. If you don't think the game is worth $50, don't buy it. If enough people agree with you, the price will come down. Evidently there are enough people buying the game at its current price for the seller to keep the price at $50.
That being said, I think CDs could be priced lower and the labels should have been severely penalized for price fixing. But if music sales are on the decline like the labels say, it may just be the public sending the message that they aren't willing to pay the given price for a CD. If the price is lowered to a "critical mass" (a la iTMS) CD sales will most likely increase significantly.
It's the ol' rule of supply and demand (with a little "is it worth my trouble to use a P2P?" thrown in).
Now if this was something that a cable company offered as an (optional) add on to cable internet, then MAYBE they'd be able to do something.
It's not through cable internet, but our Comcast digital cable has stereo (I think they say CD-quality) music on the 900 channels. We have line-level stereo outputs on the digital box, so you only have to feed them into a receiver and jam away!
Our school's radio station handled renting out PA systems for student organizations to use for campus activities. When I picked up the system for an event one day, one of the DJs handed me an MP3 player loaded with (RIAA) tunes and said "We're not supposed to do this, but..."
It was easier to go around the system. We didn't have the funds to pay no stinking licensing fees.
Additionally, if the school's IT dept is doing their job, they should be able to track down any P2P offenders and punish them individually, if need be.
In your example, the rioters remained anonymous...hence the blanket charge (which doesn't really sound right, either, IMHO).
1. This will be in addition to the expenses you list.
2. Music (in this case) is entertainment, and not mandatory. You could argue the same for sports, except the athletes are getting some value from that.
3. The schools aren't looking to do this out of the goodness of their hearts. Their trying to keep the RIAA off their backs. What they should be doing is addressing the issue legally, either by challenging the RIAA or locking down their own networks so P2Ps don't present a problem. Cop out.
Certainly beats me funding some 12-year-old's Britney Spears addiction through my shopping trolley or tax bill.
What...you think the RIAA will stop receiving their CD-R tax? Hell no! This will be an additional revenue stream, and once it's enacted, it will be viewed by the industry as a right, and will be extremely difficult to retract.
This proposed system does not even come close when compared to one of your examples. Music is (technically) entertainment, and not a necessity, especially to a cash-strapped college student.
This is an example of two very large, very powerful groups trying to take advantage of a captive group - college students. If I was still in school, I would protest the living shit out of this, and current students should do the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, they should realize that even if they aren't making as much money from you if they offer you an incentive (vs. you just staying with them as-is), the loyalty they will gain is worth much more.
We can only hope number portability will help alleviate some of these issues.
I'd had my Sprint phone for several months, when I discovered that I needed to up my plan (I was using too many minutes). I called Sprint and the CSR assured me that upgrading would not extend my contract. I double-checked, and told them I would not up the plan if it extended my contract. I was told it wouldn't, so I upgraded.
When it came time for my contract to expire, I called Sprint to verify that they kept my original contract date, not the date I changed my plan. They hadn't. I told the CSR what happened, and they agreed to honor my original contract date. Having worked call centers before, I asked the CSR to make a note in my account showing my correct contract ending date, which they said they did.
Right before I changed providers, I called Sprint one more time to make sure they recognized the correct date. I had to go through the same shit with the CSR that I had the time before. This time, they said they had placed a note in my account of the correct contract ending date. I also asked when I should terminate my service - anytime after the contract was up, before the contract was up, etc. I wanted to make sure my last bill was for when the phone was actually used, not after I had new service. The CSR said I could terminate any time after the contract and it would be pro-rated.
I got my new service and went to terminate the Sprint service, and was greeted, yet again, with a CSR ignorant of my correct contract ending date. I argued for 30 minutes and finally got the contract date ironed out. Then I was transferred to the Terminations (?) department. I was then told that my bill couldn't be pro-rated, but that I would have to pay for the next month, regardless of whether I used the phone or not. I was tired of arguing and relented, probably like most.
Fuck Sprint.
I don't think it's necessarily the Japanese students pushing themselves to conform and work hard. I think it's Japanese society. It's part of the reason they have such a high suicide rate among the student population.
From what I've heard, India is beginning to have problems with this as well. The enormous pressure to succeed has side effects.
Free nights, free weekends, free long distance, mobility. Land lines can't compete.
The biggest drawback is not having access to DSL to compete with my cable internet.
BTW (offtopic), is it legal for the phone company (landline) to deny you DSL service if you don't have telephone service on the line?
I was basically told no.
Funny, I thought the biggest profit for cell phone companies was retention of customers.
I changed to T-Mobile and have been happy so far.
MPAA != RIAA
Yeah, that really changed some minds, didn't it? Everyone really relates to the plight of the citizens in the third world because of those protests.
So maybe you weren't there. Regardless, it's an analogy for what not to do in this situation.
It's life. Deal with it.
More pay goes to those that use their brain. This is why the factory worker isn't driving a Benz. And it works. Want to become wealthy? Go to school and learn to use your brain, or be a smart businessperson, or invent something.
Want to give politicians an out for favoring the RIAA in this situation? Declare war. It's the last thing we need to do.
If you want to do something, boycott the RIAA, come up with alternative distribution methods, get the word out. But don't cut your own throat.
Regardless of the semantics about political definitions, my original point stands. Don't like the law? Change the law. Don't arbitrarily apply personal opinion to individual criminal cases. It does no one any good if the problem is a flawed law.
Please find a better analogy. You wanting to download a Metallica song from Kazaa hardly compares to the basic human rights of black people in 1960s America.
When a company creates something and then goes out of business (assuming they obtained a patent), usually the IP is purchased by someone else. No, the public shouldn't have to pay to "resurrect the company" because they don't have to - the IP lives on when it is purchased by someone else. If it's not purchased, I believe it goes to public domain (IANAL).
I'm sure glad our current IP laws don't reflect your views. If that were the case, we'd have the "little guy" creating something, a large corporation seeing it, then profiting off of it. To an extent, these shady things already happen, but they sure as hell shouldn't be legalized.
It's hard enough for inventors to compete with a large corporation when it comes to marketing, production, distribution, etc. I can't imagine what a nightmare we would have if the corporations could simply steal someone's idea and run with it.
Admittadly offtopic...
The law is what we rely on. It's the reason we live in a republic and not a democracy. If every specific law was open to "interpretation" by a jury, we wouldn't have laws, we would have arbitrary mob rule.
We elect representatives for a reason - to address changes in the law. It is then up to the Judicial Branch to decide whether the law was broken, or in the case of some courts, to decide if the law violates the basic tenants laid forth in the Constitution.
Don't like a law? Protest, run for office, write your congressman.
It's called capitalism. If you don't think the game is worth $50, don't buy it. If enough people agree with you, the price will come down. Evidently there are enough people buying the game at its current price for the seller to keep the price at $50.
That being said, I think CDs could be priced lower and the labels should have been severely penalized for price fixing. But if music sales are on the decline like the labels say, it may just be the public sending the message that they aren't willing to pay the given price for a CD. If the price is lowered to a "critical mass" (a la iTMS) CD sales will most likely increase significantly.
It's the ol' rule of supply and demand (with a little "is it worth my trouble to use a P2P?" thrown in).
There shouldn't be a blanket accusation, resulting in this everyone-pays-because-everyone-offends retarded system.
The RIAA gets theirs.
If anything, it's someone testifying firsthand that they are essentially being wrongly accused of theft.
It's not through cable internet, but our Comcast digital cable has stereo (I think they say CD-quality) music on the 900 channels. We have line-level stereo outputs on the digital box, so you only have to feed them into a receiver and jam away!
It was easier to go around the system. We didn't have the funds to pay no stinking licensing fees.
In your example, the rioters remained anonymous...hence the blanket charge (which doesn't really sound right, either, IMHO).
2. Music (in this case) is entertainment, and not mandatory. You could argue the same for sports, except the athletes are getting some value from that.
3. The schools aren't looking to do this out of the goodness of their hearts. Their trying to keep the RIAA off their backs. What they should be doing is addressing the issue legally, either by challenging the RIAA or locking down their own networks so P2Ps don't present a problem. Cop out.
What...you think the RIAA will stop receiving their CD-R tax? Hell no! This will be an additional revenue stream, and once it's enacted, it will be viewed by the industry as a right, and will be extremely difficult to retract.
This is an example of two very large, very powerful groups trying to take advantage of a captive group - college students. If I was still in school, I would protest the living shit out of this, and current students should do the same.
If the uni's library doesn't have it, travel to the local public library. They probably do.
Anyway...1200 ohms! That's the smallest speaker load I've ever heard of. How did you arrive at that number?