They are part of this because they are part of everything potentially important. If two people in the industry get together, Microsoft will clamor to be number three. Being a part gives them the ability to a) seem like they are supporting whatever view is involved while b) making sure that Microsoft's interests are always served above all others.
They are specifically part of this because they do NOT want government regulation of this sort of control of digital content. Because they care about their users rights? Of course not! Because if the government is setting the agenda on digital content protection, then Microsoft isn't. Microsoft is all for DRM (WMP9,TCPA,Palladium, etc.). Just on their terms exclusively. They do not want to have to answer to Washington. Only Bill. Always Bill.
and do eventually think there will be a major reorganization of the recording industry, I don't remotely believe that it is imminent.
More importantly, two of the foundation elements of this article are misleading and/or potentially wrong. First, the 11% decline of sales this year can be attributed to
a) the 25% decline in output by the labels
b) the economy
c) the generally boring content
My vote is on a and b. c never seems to have an effect.
Also, the usage of P2P services does not necessarily bode ill for the recording industry. As has been advanced here before, P2P services often drive sales (they have for me and quite a few others). Just because the Suits don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't true.
into work farms, where they will be rightfully punished for being willfully poor.
I thought you were serious until the regressive tax part.
The especially amusing part about your rant is describing the top 1% as being productive. Considering that large segments of the wealth of that top 1% comes from trust funds and investments set up by the parents/grandparents of those currently benefitting, it's always amusing to see them described as useful/productive.
It's almost like imagining that W would have gotten into Yale on his academic record. Or that he was a successful businessman. Amusing.
Predatory lending laws: Subprime loans, often to those with supposedly poor credit (though industry statistics show that at least 35% could have qualified for loans at 'A' rates). On top of the higher rates supposed to reflect the borrowers poor credit, they are filled with other abusive features like high fees, large and extended prepayment penalties, and financed single premium credit insurance - that cost borrowers even more money, and can lock them into the higher rates. While affecting borrowers of all races and income levels, but they are most concentrated in minority communities, and among senior citizen and lower- and moderate-income borrowers who can least afford it.
And the Government has ruined this golden opportunity to bilk the poorest, weakest segments of society. Oh, the shame.
As is usually the case when Republicans start pushing their twisted tax cut logic, they omit vitally important details that show that they have no leg to stand on. But what is it this time?
20.81% of all income covered under the income tax
Because for that top 1%, an enormous amount of their wealth isn't covered as income under the income tax. A great deal of their wealth is derived from mechanisms (trusts, capital gains, shelters) that conveniently don't fall under the designation of taxable income. And when they figure in losses (often manufactured for the purpose of reducing taxes) the top 1% often find themselves with an even smaller portion of their total incomes being taxable.
So limiting your statement to 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax is obviously an attempt to manipulate the argument and ignore the reality of the vastly larger sums that the top 1% are raking in.
So the Party is absolving the top 1% of the responsibility to support the system that allows them to make the money's the do, and forcing the rest of us to subsidize them. Let the 1% try safely making their money somewhere without the underlying structures of the US. I'd like to see them try.
Oh, and the ruling Party is planning on giving the richest 1% of the population more money
Actually they are letting them keep more of their own money.
Ha! This little GOP canard always amuses in a sickening way. The Big Lie nature of it, and the way it is trotted out repeatedly by the GOP are so wonderfully, shamefully. willfully ignoring the nature of the economic system is which we ALL exist, that you'd figure that at least one of them would look away in self-loathing occasionally. But that's expecting too much.
Now let's go slow here: The money that people make is not independent of the society of which they are a part. In fact, there is a good chance they wouldn't make it at all without the society. Without the laws (civil, economic and criminal) that allow our economic system to flourish. Without the services and infrastructure (Police, Fire, Sanitation, power, roads, airways, etc.) that allow the economic system to function. Without the military to protect the system. People don't invest in stock markets, make contracts, build structures, build companies, with the confidence and success of the US without the underlying structures that allow them to happen.
Here's the kicker: Taxes pay for all of that! The more money you make, the more the money you made is a result of that structure, and the more you depend on that structure to safeguard what you have and to ensure you can make more. So you owe more.
Oh, that's a good one. I mean, here we are in the second leg of the double dip recession (W's W recession: Ironic), we've got at least 10 years of ever escalating budget deficits ahead (10 years if you trust the Party line), and the main reasons that the unemployment rates are lower now are that a) a large number of people have given up, which takes them off the list b) a larger number of people are employed at lower paying service jobs that require both spouses to be fully employed to make a percentage of the money that one alone used to make. Oh, and the ruling Party is planning on giving the richest 1% of the population more money that would be paying for economic stimulus, health care, infrastructure, deficit reduction, or something useful. Oh, wait. Did I mention the upcoming war, which will further deplete the economy?
that in this time of imminent war, collapsed economy and everpresent terror that our legislators have their priorities set straight. I can sleep easier now.
In your experience as a convention exhibitor, what is the most effective giveaway item you've ever used to draw people to your booth long enough to make a pitch? What will people wait in line for, sit through demos for, fill out long questionaires for, let you swipe their card for, jostle others to get?
Conversely, what was the lamest giveaway item you were ever saddled with? Where you had to throw it at passersby, and even then they recoiled in dismay?
will be tested to see if it's meaningful. I like that. That is definitely putting your money where your mouth is.
Of course, it is incumbent upon all of us to rush out and try to the link to the article. And some of us to actually read it as opposed to just reading the title.
Smart record company executives would have seen by at least 1998 (outside, 1999) that the current model for their business was being made obsolete. They would have recognized that this would require fundamental reworking of the business model. They would have also recognized that the time to make this sort of radical reworking is when you are in a position of power. When you are flush with money, and not so pressured by outside forces that you have no choices or time. They also would have examined the numbers objectively and recognized that P2P services tend to increase rather than decrease sales (They introduce people to new music, remind people of music they've forgotten, intrigue people enough to take further steps) and would have encouraged them.
Since absolutely none of these things came to pass with the major labels, we conclude that smart record company executives either now work in other industries, are not powerful/convincing enough to drown out the idiots, and/or are starting their own small labels to go forward with these ideas and to be ready to swoop in and pick clean the carcasses of the lumbering dinosaurs who currently control the industry.
playing little guerilla internet tricks rather than trying to understand/reform your industry. It's so much simpler to poison a well rather than figure out how to use it to make money and satisfy your "customers". It's so much more restful to sit around and blame "pirates" rather than addressing new technology and a changed customer base. It so much less tiring to pay off legislators to outlaw things that are inconvenient rather than putting together a business model that isn't 30 years out of date. Thanks IFPI.
The focus of the letter is a threat of legal action. The placating gesture is doubly insulting because he has been, out of his own pocket, providing a valuable resource to this community for years, one which he had already offered them quite awhile ago. If they had come to him offering to take over the database and thanking him for his efforts, he'd have probably been glad to hand it over. Now, they can rot. The idiots who hired the lawyers and authorized that letter made this an "us" vs. "them" thing. Not Jim.
What? Did I forget to include emoticons or tags? Did I not make the references to "Logan's Run" explicit enough? Sheesh. Flamebait.
Effective Java? What is this Java?
on
Effective Java
·
· Score: 3, Funny
How can it possibly be effective if it isn't.Net? I mean, if it exists outside of Microsoft then how can it do anything? Listen. They're calling us to Carousel. Perhaps our code will be renewed.
Do not talk of this Java Sanctuary. There is no such thing.
How do you hang around this community and not expect that suddenly coming forward with an overexpansive IP claim is going to have everybody jumping down your throat? Haven't they ever been slashdotted? Even in the "What's the least likely way we can make money?" sense, putting this on paper and internally distributing it is a recipe for permanent suspicion.
Slashdot Mirror
They are specifically part of this because they do NOT want government regulation of this sort of control of digital content. Because they care about their users rights? Of course not! Because if the government is setting the agenda on digital content protection, then Microsoft isn't. Microsoft is all for DRM (WMP9,TCPA,Palladium, etc.). Just on their terms exclusively. They do not want to have to answer to Washington. Only Bill. Always Bill.
More importantly, two of the foundation elements of this article are misleading and/or potentially wrong. First, the 11% decline of sales this year can be attributed to
a) the 25% decline in output by the labels
b) the economy
c) the generally boring content
My vote is on a and b. c never seems to have an effect.
Also, the usage of P2P services does not necessarily bode ill for the recording industry. As has been advanced here before, P2P services often drive sales (they have for me and quite a few others). Just because the Suits don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't true.
I thought you were serious until the regressive tax part.
The especially amusing part about your rant is describing the top 1% as being productive. Considering that large segments of the wealth of that top 1% comes from trust funds and investments set up by the parents/grandparents of those currently benefitting, it's always amusing to see them described as useful/productive.
It's almost like imagining that W would have gotten into Yale on his academic record. Or that he was a successful businessman. Amusing.
Predatory lending laws: Subprime loans, often to those with supposedly poor credit (though industry statistics show that at least 35% could have qualified for loans at 'A' rates). On top of the higher rates supposed to reflect the borrowers poor credit, they are filled with other abusive features like high fees, large and extended prepayment penalties, and financed single premium credit insurance - that cost borrowers even more money, and can lock them into the higher rates. While affecting borrowers of all races and income levels, but they are most concentrated in minority communities, and among senior citizen and lower- and moderate-income borrowers who can least afford it.
And the Government has ruined this golden opportunity to bilk the poorest, weakest segments of society. Oh, the shame.
Offtopic. Especially when they don't support the ruling Party.
20.81% of all income covered under the income tax
Because for that top 1%, an enormous amount of their wealth isn't covered as income under the income tax. A great deal of their wealth is derived from mechanisms (trusts, capital gains, shelters) that conveniently don't fall under the designation of taxable income. And when they figure in losses (often manufactured for the purpose of reducing taxes) the top 1% often find themselves with an even smaller portion of their total incomes being taxable.
So limiting your statement to 20.81% of all income covered under the income tax is obviously an attempt to manipulate the argument and ignore the reality of the vastly larger sums that the top 1% are raking in.
So the Party is absolving the top 1% of the responsibility to support the system that allows them to make the money's the do, and forcing the rest of us to subsidize them. Let the 1% try safely making their money somewhere without the underlying structures of the US. I'd like to see them try.
Actually they are letting them keep more of their own money.
Ha! This little GOP canard always amuses in a sickening way. The Big Lie nature of it, and the way it is trotted out repeatedly by the GOP are so wonderfully, shamefully. willfully ignoring the nature of the economic system is which we ALL exist, that you'd figure that at least one of them would look away in self-loathing occasionally. But that's expecting too much.
Now let's go slow here: The money that people make is not independent of the society of which they are a part. In fact, there is a good chance they wouldn't make it at all without the society. Without the laws (civil, economic and criminal) that allow our economic system to flourish. Without the services and infrastructure (Police, Fire, Sanitation, power, roads, airways, etc.) that allow the economic system to function. Without the military to protect the system. People don't invest in stock markets, make contracts, build structures, build companies, with the confidence and success of the US without the underlying structures that allow them to happen.
Here's the kicker: Taxes pay for all of that! The more money you make, the more the money you made is a result of that structure, and the more you depend on that structure to safeguard what you have and to ensure you can make more. So you owe more.
Oh, that's a good one. I mean, here we are in the second leg of the double dip recession (W's W recession: Ironic), we've got at least 10 years of ever escalating budget deficits ahead (10 years if you trust the Party line), and the main reasons that the unemployment rates are lower now are that a) a large number of people have given up, which takes them off the list b) a larger number of people are employed at lower paying service jobs that require both spouses to be fully employed to make a percentage of the money that one alone used to make. Oh, and the ruling Party is planning on giving the richest 1% of the population more money that would be paying for economic stimulus, health care, infrastructure, deficit reduction, or something useful. Oh, wait. Did I mention the upcoming war, which will further deplete the economy?
that in this time of imminent war, collapsed economy and everpresent terror that our legislators have their priorities set straight. I can sleep easier now.
Conversely, what was the lamest giveaway item you were ever saddled with? Where you had to throw it at passersby, and even then they recoiled in dismay?
I hear they got Angelina Jolie (dressed as her character from Hackers) to sing the National Anthem, and MIT Marching Band for the half-time show.
Of course, it is incumbent upon all of us to rush out and try to the link to the article. And some of us to actually read it as opposed to just reading the title.
Since absolutely none of these things came to pass with the major labels, we conclude that smart record company executives either now work in other industries, are not powerful/convincing enough to drown out the idiots, and/or are starting their own small labels to go forward with these ideas and to be ready to swoop in and pick clean the carcasses of the lumbering dinosaurs who currently control the industry.
playing little guerilla internet tricks rather than trying to understand/reform your industry. It's so much simpler to poison a well rather than figure out how to use it to make money and satisfy your "customers". It's so much more restful to sit around and blame "pirates" rather than addressing new technology and a changed customer base. It so much less tiring to pay off legislators to outlaw things that are inconvenient rather than putting together a business model that isn't 30 years out of date. Thanks IFPI.
Make that two bags of potato chips.
The focus of the letter is a threat of legal action. The placating gesture is doubly insulting because he has been, out of his own pocket, providing a valuable resource to this community for years, one which he had already offered them quite awhile ago. If they had come to him offering to take over the database and thanking him for his efforts, he'd have probably been glad to hand it over. Now, they can rot. The idiots who hired the lawyers and authorized that letter made this an "us" vs. "them" thing. Not Jim.
Best shouted just before being doused in liquid nitrogen.
After the excitement of all of those hacker movies and TV shows, I'm suprised at this result.
Ha-aa-aackers Delight
1970s flashback, man.
What? Did I forget to include emoticons or tags? Did I not make the references to "Logan's Run" explicit enough? Sheesh. Flamebait.
Do not talk of this Java Sanctuary. There is no such thing.
"Limited times" seems to this non-lawyer to suggest, oh, I don't know, LIMITS. Silly non-lawyer thinking, I guess.
But that's just me.
How do you hang around this community and not expect that suddenly coming forward with an overexpansive IP claim is going to have everybody jumping down your throat? Haven't they ever been slashdotted? Even in the "What's the least likely way we can make money?" sense, putting this on paper and internally distributing it is a recipe for permanent suspicion.