If he continues to do so, it is a sign that in his opinion, the only way for Microsoft to survive in the long term is to CONTINUE to pursue certain behaviors that the judgement has forbidden.
Specifically, pressuring OEMs, using OEM pricing to control their behavior, and withholding interoperability information.
Just about the only things Kollar-Kotelly did were to carefully scotch those specific behaviors. Plenty of slashdotters, for good or ill, have suggested that given more freedom for OEMs to turn to competition and more ability for coders to interoperate with the MS world, their monopoly would come apart on its own.
We'll discover whether Bill Gates and the Microsoft braintrust agree, by watching to see if they continue to sell out after learning the import of the judgement. If they believe Microsoft can continue growing and dominating in the absence of such behaviors, they'll reverse course and not sell off their holdings. But if they are convinced the only way to win is to carry on like the mafiosi Judge Jackson compared them to, they will claim it is a huge victory- but continue selling off their holdings, and cash out, in the belief that Microsoft will tank if forced to compete honestly.
They can't do that- if they release information at all, it's 'reasonable and non-discrimatory'. "No soup for you!" is not among their options.
I was initially disappointed in this decision- still am, in an emotional sense, I'd love to see MS thwacked soundly- but on reflection, I'm impressed with how cagey Colleen really was. I think this whole thing is about roping them into unwittingly going along with a settlement- thinking it is a total wristslap- except that the judgement very carefully scotches certain SPECIFIC behaviors that get in the way of anyone offering competition and unseating them. That can't be an accident...
Think about it. The judgement addresses their behavior with OEMs, and specifically blocks them from playing politics- something that they did BIGTIME and which helped kill Netscape. The judgement addresses APIs and specifically blocks them from discriminatory behavior there as well. And all the time, it doesn't do a thing to upset Microsoft apart from that.
Call it a MS victory if you want to. A breakup and Gates wailing and gnashing his teeth would have been way more fun. But to me it looks like Kollar-Kotelly thought very hard about the problem, "What can I slip past these people, who have total contempt for the law and enough money to be almost impossible to defeat in court, which they will accept, but which will damage their ability to continue their worst abuses?"
Her answer seems to be, "Certain specific and very carefully placed restrictions on how they deal with OEMs and how they publicise their APIs". I can't really argue with that- if it is true that they cannot be punished and are more powerful than the US government or the justice system, the practical question is clearly 'so what do we do?'. And we all know quite well that playing politics with vendors, developers etc. is how they managed the worst of their abuses.
Don't be too quick to call this a total MS victory. In an ideal world where Microsoft was just a nice hardworking business, it would be. In the real world, the judge has just singled out some of their most effective (and illegal under antitrust law) weapons, and forced them to deal with the world they way they claim to.
It would be difficult for them to bitch at this point and object (on the grounds that they need to be able to discriminate with APIs and pressure OEMs). They almost have to claim in turn that it's a big victory for them. But, again, that's only if they usually play fair. Frankly, they prefer to carry on like mafiosi- and that is almost ALL that has changed, for them.
Welcome to the real world, Microsoft. Announce your victory. And bite your tongue!
Since when is Microsoft really, blatantly stupid? I think it's more likely that they haven't got the money they say they have, or that their projected costs are so high that they are forced to watch every penny.
Yes, absolutely- in that Microsoft's notion of 'gift' means being locked into their systems and having to pay them lots of money for it, and the grain 'gift' you mention was Monsanto patented corn, which can contaminate existing crops and lead to (a) said crops not being sellable in the EU because of the contamination, and (b) the risk of Monsanto suing you and demanding money for your entire crop since they own the patent on it.
Not that you meant it THAT way, but yeah, it's very similar.
If a free-market society means I'd have to go to a lot of extra trouble, with no benefit to myself, just to not get ripped off all the time, then why would I want one?
This, and the related rollerbladers, are an amazing picture of Microsoft psychology.
If someone is just starting out, desperate, trying to promote their thing, they may do things like this- law be damned. The idea is partly to somehow GET attention, and partly it's a guerrila, "we're tiny and desperate and cool" sort of thing. The idea is, someone sees your schtick, is shocked, and then thinks, 'whoa, that's pretty edgy, they could get arrested and they're in my face anyway. Do I blow the whistle or listen to what they have to say?' It's a _danger_ trip, the idea is it's a struggling little company trying for attention, who could easily be busted for their shenanigans, but they have so much balls they're doing it anyway. It's very punk, in its way.
This is why Microsoft is particularly drawn to this sort of thing. They see themselves as the struggling little startup.
The problem is, they are NOT. They can vandalize anything they want, have hired rollerbladers going anywhere they want (including 'no rollerblading' zones), and they're running no risk. Any fine means nothing compared to the scale they try to operate on. The risk of vandalism and 'anti-authority' behavior is absolutely nil, for them.
As such, it is particularly obnoxious for them to be doing this. Nobody has any refuge from them. You can even pass laws and the Microsoft people will just completely ignore them and do whatever they want anyway. The City of New York basically has to ASK them not to harass the city- nicely and firmly- and hope to hell they listen, this time.
It could be worse. They could just as easily put stickers all over your private home- or your car- or put a sticker on your window to surprise you... on an upstairs window, using a pole to place it. Then it's your problem to get the sticker off while not falling out the window. It's only a streak of basic sanity that keeps them from using permanent adhesives, too. There is NO LIMIT on what these people will do, except what THEY think is appropriate. That's not a very equitable situation.
So, currently they're vandalizing, hiring people to rollerblade in prohibited areas, and hiring people to disturb the peace by screaming loudly.
How're you going to ask THEM to stop it, if you're doing the same thing?
Well, that was interesting
on
Ebay vs. Musician
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Good concept, terrible test case. Yeah, this guy's identified a real problem- too bad he's totally fscking unprofessional! That band needs a manager, it's gonna end up unable to get gigs if that's the way it deals with bumps in the road. Act that way with a club and you might find all the local clubs not hiring you- word gets around.
That said, there is a simple answer to the eBay problem: simple and literally true. Advertise the CDs like this:
Music CD: Not Mass Replicated
The process by which major label CDs are made is called 'replication'. It's different from home CD burning or low-volume duplicating- both use CDRs, replicated CDs are stamped in an expensive (hundreds of dollars) process allowing them to be churned out faster and cheaper. It's mass production.
Anyone who seriously cares about not getting a CDR in their music purchase ought to know what 'mass replicated' means. If they don't, maybe they can guess. Again, this is literally the technical term for it- rather than saying 'CDR' you can say 'not mass replicated' which means exactly the same thing. Even some small label releases are duplicated on CDR rather than replicated, so if it matters you can't go by whether it was a pressing run, or outsourced. It's strictly about whether the CD was replicated or duplicated.
Oh, and go check out MY music- I don't mailbomb people;) how's that for a sales pitch? "Listen to my music, I promise not to hack onto your computer and delete your mp3s, or mailbomb you, or prohibit you from reselling the CD you bought from me on eBay." This world we live in...
*bzzzt* wrong. If it's a CD duplicating rig, it's making CDRs. To do CD replicating you have to produce glass masters and stampers etc. and you're not gonna fit that industrial process into the size of a fridge.
Without it, you still are doing CDRs, just not off your computer CD burner.
Only because they were furious with McDonalds, which in turn was completely contemptuous and scornful of the problem and arrogant. That 4M (which was only an initial figure) was not intended as a fair settlement. I can sum the meaning of that 4M up in two words from a movie:
"Dodge this." *POW*
Of course, you can continue believing the spin if you want, nobody is stopping you:) but with all the talk about corp-ocracy on Slashdot, can you be surprised that a jury in the USA got good and practical and returned a verdict that was basically a bitch-slap, to say 'you WILL pay attention to this'?
We need more juries like that, not less. The purpose of the exercise wasn't to transfer funds from McDonald's to an old lady. The purpose of the exercise was justice- and what with the obnoxious behavior of the corporation, punitive justice was called for- and how are you supposed to bitchslap a corporation like that with a REASONABLE fine? Only an unreasonable fine will even make them freaking blink, much less consider not intentionally burning the fuck out of people routinely.
Simple: you're a liar. If you even LOOK for 'old conservative Vermonters' half of what you turn up is YOU guys, the rest is the likes of Ruth Dwyer. That 'take back Vermont' movement is not antisocialist so much as it is antigay: you'd be fools to align yourself with it.
Your own web site's recent study on Vermont says, 'if we go to Vermont we'd better give up the idea of trying to take it over'. It's still a damned stupid and disaster-prone idea to attempt to immigrate 20,000 people into Vermont (make your own jobs, ha! Specify), but you know what? If you guys want to come here, push for civil liberties legislation (AGAINST the TBM folks, if you hadn't noticed), maybe help with our groundbreaking strides protecting privacy against the abuses of banks etc, and ABANDON any thought of turning Vermont into an experiment in unregulated capitalism- why, you come right in and welcome.
I don't think you want that. I think you guys are hot for setting up another Houston, or Chile- 'let's get rid of all regulations and most laws and all be happy in a free market utopia'- and you wouldn't stop at just civil liberties and privacy. I think you're already arguing for a hostile takeover, arguing (in a stretch of the evidence) that 'you Vermont socialists' did our own takeover so we deserve to be wiped out in turn. In fact, a bit of research will show you that however socially conservative old Vermonters are, we've always been prone to see a strong role for government, and it's a very small step from that to 'government should pass laws preventing pollution and billboards and banks going nuts with your information and selling it to all and sundry', which you see as socialism. Maybe it's just good sense.
Bottom line here: I'm arguing, "We are the way we are for good reasons and as the result of long-standing synthesis between ALL of our citizens", and you're arguing "you guys are bad guys, we ought to come and take you over". Who's the villain here? More relevantly, who is doing the slashdot equivalent of 'attack ads', just attacking like a pit bull with no real concern even for whether what you're saying is true?
If you're gonna continue to propose coming HERE and remaking society in your image, you've got to do a better job at explaining why that is a good thing. You don't seem to understand that the burden of proof is on YOU. You're the ones making bold claims- back it up, don't go with some 'you're commie pinkos' routine. This is about YOU. Why should you be permitted to try and realize YOUR ideas? None of that 'oh, you're obviously closeminded, explanation would be a waste of time'. No. Take the time. Explain.
Hey, I'm down with that;) the workflow I've put together for my most recent sessions has generally been about eight hours of demanding, high-stress tracking, a couple hours of mixing and mastering, and out. That's typically less than 12 hours a complete song. Of course, I've been doing this for a lot of years... I know how.
I consciously chose that mode of working (I'm also laying down basic tracks without any sequencing or click track) to rebel against the cult of perfection and note-fixing so common today. Stuff gets so polished that it has no distinguishing marks at all. Listen to some of the acts you're talking about, listen closely, and you'll see they are NOT PERFECT. There are mistakes! Even from the Beatles! But the personality and character of the music comes through so strongly that it distracts you and you don't key off the mistakes.
That said, you're leaving out whole genres of musicians by going that way. I'm thinking particularly of Steely Dan. Not many people know that the first incarnation of Steely Dan, the 'Can't Buy A Thrill' band, was asked not to tour by the record label, because they DID gig, and they SUCKED. They weren't consistent. In the studio they had the capacity to keep hammering away at it until each part came into its own- they didn't have the capability to get fired up and get it in one take. Contrast with a musician like David Gilmour (one of my idols;) ), who is- people recording Gilmour know to roll the tape the first time, every time, because sometimes when he's just feeling out the song he'll hit an effortless peak that you couldn't get by slogging through the part 1000 times. The solo in Comfortably Numb (iirc) was like this: one take, the very first run-through, and it was a matter of 'well- looks like we have that taken care of' and not attempting to re-record it. The famous Bruce Springsteen song 'Born in the USA' was very much like this as well.
You just have to know which type of musician you are- personally, I'm thrilled that you as a listener like the rawer, more personal stuff, seeing as I've been veering in that direction of late:)
I am an anarchist- a left anarchist. I think there are limitations to how far you can stretch such a philosophy- it's the Right Thing on a community level but as the population grows to where you can't possibly know the other people, it breaks down. I think the Constitution is a darn good way of dealing with an intractable, unsolvable problem. What alarms me about you people is, you claim to have the solution. In fact you claim many things- if I was a diehard anti-union robber-baron you'd (correctly) claim unions are very much opposed to libertarianism.
It's a sign that you guys are more interested in winning the argument, than in the truth. Some of you approach this goal in different ways than others. One charming fellow, who probably _claims_ to be a libertarian, has taken the trouble of looking up every single one of my posts in this story, and replying to every one with,
you are an idiot
you are not intelligent you hate freedom you are stupid (etc)
I would compliment you on taking a higher intellectual tone, except that you're simply saying the same thing using more and fancier words. I do NOT think the same of you: you are obviously a person of some intelligence, just horribly wrong. In fact, your folly is characteristic of people who are intelligent- you're building castles in your mind, convinced that your understanding can fully describe the real world. It's the same folly that would describe Chicago School economics as a grand success in Chile- don't know if you're familiar with that disaster.
Basically, it doesn't matter what you think about the real-world impact of your beliefs and creed. You can argue all day that it is anti-corporatist (really? from a creed declaring that no force can possibly be attributed to companies operating in a market?) or that it would lead to a reinassance of ever-better environmental conditions as companies compete to appease the demands of environmentalists, or that labor would be transformed as workers choose among the various employers, selecting among the widest possible range of benevolent and abusive employers.
Those are fantasies, and in the real world, what you want has been tried, and it leads to disaster, primarily because there are serious limitations on the enlightenment required of every party to such a system. People don't act in their own best interest- all that's left is for you to insist that, by definition, they are. And just as you'll insist I'm incapable of rational thought, you'll argue that the world you facilitate is the best of all possible worlds. This is why your plans need to be resisted: evil people may be dangerous, but they're not half as dangerous as good people with the wrong idea.
...tip of the hat to the fellow replying to all my posts- betcha a nickel he chooses 'you are incapable of rational thought'. Gotta give him points for brevity...
They have no concern whatsoever for abuses of authority, or even the situation of authority, unless it's coming from something called a 'government'. They completely fail to see any other form of authority, and they are legion. The world is based on authority and dominance and submission and they are kidding themselves if they think they can put a 'government' label on some of it and think they've solved the problem.
All they really want is to be the one holding the whip. They don't give a rat's ass about consensus and true anarchist thinking, or they wouldn't even be CONSIDERING this idea of moving into a place and seizing power. It is an absolute affront to true anarchist thinking to sit around plotting a coup like that. They want to BE the authority and give the orders. Because of course unlike everyone else, THEY are infallible and know what's best for us. That's why they're laying plans to move in on a state and seize power.
These guys make lousy anarchists. Call them 'fascists'.
If they went to Vermont they'd easily screw up a lot of things we as a state are trying to accomplish. Vermont leads the nation in privacy laws, but that's not very Libertarian- privacy laws restrict banks and such from doing things with your information without your permission. These guys would probably be able to disrupt our efforts towards freedom and quality of life, so if they targeted us we would have to defend ourselves VERY promptly and effectively.
Thankfully we have a hell of a lot of activists ourselves, and good Congresscritters, plus it would be very easy to paint these guys as hostilely invading flatlanders trying to screw up the state. There's built-in prejudice against flatlanders trying to move in and throw their weight around, so it would be possible to rapidly build a mass movement just to resist them.
I agree they're 'insufferable loons', but some of us are already in battles against forces (for instance, agribusiness like Monsanto) that could take advantage of the insufferable loons, and that makes the situation a lot less funny. It doesn't matter if they're laughable and fail in their ideas for a utopian society, but if they ruin your state while they're at it, that's a problem. And again, some of us are already fighting other adversaries who could USE the 'insufferable loons' as tools. Suppose Monsanto arranged to have any GE-food-regulating referendum undertaken by a community, flooded with Libertarian ringers? The people who live there would be hosed because of the shills. They already do this but currently they don't have an organized force of 20,000 scabs to do their dirty work. Could be bad news.
They are. Here in Vermont, we have been trying to put through labelling-of-GE-foods laws. The corporations involved can and do apply pressure even at the community level to prevent communities from passing such laws to govern themselves.
These FSP people are just what the corporations were looking for to further their agendas. I pity any state they eventually try to take over, because they won't succeed in brainwashing an entire state but the odds are pretty good that they can be manipulated and financed to totally gut environmental laws, food inspection, you name it. The Libertarians are idealistically opposed to regulations in GENERAL. The people funding them will have a hit list of regulations in SPECIFIC to get rid of, and will take advantage of every loophole.
You didn't think corporations budget for interfering in the governing of individual communities, when the community is proposing to do something like hold a referendum on GE foods? I swear to you, they do, and effectively. I live in Vermont, our organic farmers are threatened by this. You can lose the ability to sell crops as organic if they are contaminated with GE stuff, and this does happen. So we have been actively trying to control our environments, and corporate lobbyists DO come and fight us every step of the way.
Re:NOT FUNNY - mod down - Re:Everyone together now
on
The Free State Project
·
· Score: 2
You say it's your life, but my state happens to be on your little list of which place to invade and hostilely take over.
May I ask that all slashdotters sign up and specify any non-East Coast state? That way, should they actually put this into action, the strip mining, smokestacks (beloved of Ayn Rand) and smog that will blanket all nearby states can be somewhere else, not here:)
Speaking as a (thoroughly disgusted) Vermonter, I'd just like to point out that people like you come to our state to RETIRE and build big mansions after you've run some other place into the ground. Funny how you don't end up moving to Houston to retire.
I particularly love how you're going to watch and see if we promote freedom here in Vermont, and you think not unless you 'take it back'.
We lead the NATION in privacy legislation- starting from before the Federal statute. We lead the NATION in civil rights and nondiscrimination. We keep our state free of roadside billboards, stubbornly fight against the destruction of our environment. WE are in the front lines against the onslaught of agribusiness such as Monsanto, who will sue you over the intellectual property of SEEDS. We are fighting for fair labelling of genetically engineered crops and foodstuffs even though corporate lobbyists ACTIVELY try to suppress even the suggestion that such labelling be done. We are moving to support instant runoff voting- to defend our rights to community-based decision making in a world where (I'm thinking about Monsanto and GE crops again) corporate power is used to crushing resistance at the community level.
What the HELL have you done for freedom? Apart from entertaining the possibility of moving in to our nice diligently-maintained state, throwing a complete monkeywrench into everything we're working for, probably with financing from corporate lobbyists who would LOVE to see less pesky regulation, and staging a coup to take over and rule us?
Oh, sorry, that's not freedom at all. Silly me.
"My bet's not on Vermont, unless we 'take it back'." You disgust me, sir. You have no idea of the meaning of the word 'freedom'. I bet you know where to get in touch with lobbyists from Monsanto to help you throw an election, though. If not- they'll find you! They'd love to see you gut our environmental protections and attempts at mandating plain labelling of GE foods.
You _are_ a loony. What troubles me is that you could be a useful tool for interests a lot bigger than you are.
These people have the gall to list Vermont as one of their candidates- and we in Vermont are one of the most progressive states in the Union- AND we have guns.
We're currently busy digesting our Civil Unions law legalizing a form of gay marriage- you'll see some people with 'Take Vermont Back' bumper stickers, those are the fundies, and about as many with 'Take Vermont Forward' bumper stickers, including nongays who are just progressive socially. We're busy with that and don't need the heartache.
But, if 20,000 armed Libertarians try to move in and take us over, all that will be quickly forgotten and it'll be War on the Flatlanders- we do NOT like invasion. We kinda joke bitterly about flatlanders 'invading' even when it's just rich people moving in and putting up mansions in which they never stay, being too busy screwing people over in New York or wherever. Even the idea of twenty thousand ORGANIZED flatlanders invading and taking over politically is beyond alarming. We'd have EVERYBODY siding against them. Not to see the looks on their faces- but because we're free, dammit, our state works the way we want it, and they're proposing to traipse in and install themselves as the ones in charge. NOT!
They'd be lucky to see only 20,000 people organized to resist them. I suppose it's maybe over-reacting because they'll never get it together to actually do this anywhere- but I'm just saying, if they did, in Vermont they'd be INVADING FLATLANDERS and you would not believe the amount of anger they would provoke. What is the matter with them anyway, to even THINK of such a thing?
These maniacs are talking about invading MY state, overthrowing the people (Bernie Sanders, Jeffords, Leahy) who are currently doing good work in Washington, and freaking taking over.
You are a damned fool if you see that as anything other than an attack. I don't know how the residents of other mentioned states feel- but what they're proposing is a complete affront to what Vermont is about, and I am appalled.
What kind of creep are you to so frivolously support the invasion and takeover of a whole state by libertarians? Never mind that it's an unreasonable fantasy- it's an _obscene_ fantasy and deserves to encounter the most extreme, dedicated resistance.
I guarantee that if they pick Vermont and try to act on these plans their world will become a nightmare of 'conspiring looters' balking their every move. That's a promise- I know that I personally will happily tolerate libertarians in small harmless numbers, but an invasion force of twenty thousand? That calls for coordinated, determined resistance at every level and to every extent.
You're a _fool_ to be all misty-eyed over this- or a fascist. Go find some land that isn't being lived on.
Slashdot Mirror
Specifically, pressuring OEMs, using OEM pricing to control their behavior, and withholding interoperability information.
Just about the only things Kollar-Kotelly did were to carefully scotch those specific behaviors. Plenty of slashdotters, for good or ill, have suggested that given more freedom for OEMs to turn to competition and more ability for coders to interoperate with the MS world, their monopoly would come apart on its own.
We'll discover whether Bill Gates and the Microsoft braintrust agree, by watching to see if they continue to sell out after learning the import of the judgement. If they believe Microsoft can continue growing and dominating in the absence of such behaviors, they'll reverse course and not sell off their holdings. But if they are convinced the only way to win is to carry on like the mafiosi Judge Jackson compared them to, they will claim it is a huge victory- but continue selling off their holdings, and cash out, in the belief that Microsoft will tank if forced to compete honestly.
Don't touch that dial! :D
I was initially disappointed in this decision- still am, in an emotional sense, I'd love to see MS thwacked soundly- but on reflection, I'm impressed with how cagey Colleen really was. I think this whole thing is about roping them into unwittingly going along with a settlement- thinking it is a total wristslap- except that the judgement very carefully scotches certain SPECIFIC behaviors that get in the way of anyone offering competition and unseating them. That can't be an accident...
Think about it. The judgement addresses their behavior with OEMs, and specifically blocks them from playing politics- something that they did BIGTIME and which helped kill Netscape. The judgement addresses APIs and specifically blocks them from discriminatory behavior there as well. And all the time, it doesn't do a thing to upset Microsoft apart from that.
Call it a MS victory if you want to. A breakup and Gates wailing and gnashing his teeth would have been way more fun. But to me it looks like Kollar-Kotelly thought very hard about the problem, "What can I slip past these people, who have total contempt for the law and enough money to be almost impossible to defeat in court, which they will accept, but which will damage their ability to continue their worst abuses?"
Her answer seems to be, "Certain specific and very carefully placed restrictions on how they deal with OEMs and how they publicise their APIs". I can't really argue with that- if it is true that they cannot be punished and are more powerful than the US government or the justice system, the practical question is clearly 'so what do we do?'. And we all know quite well that playing politics with vendors, developers etc. is how they managed the worst of their abuses.
Don't be too quick to call this a total MS victory. In an ideal world where Microsoft was just a nice hardworking business, it would be. In the real world, the judge has just singled out some of their most effective (and illegal under antitrust law) weapons, and forced them to deal with the world they way they claim to.
It would be difficult for them to bitch at this point and object (on the grounds that they need to be able to discriminate with APIs and pressure OEMs). They almost have to claim in turn that it's a big victory for them. But, again, that's only if they usually play fair. Frankly, they prefer to carry on like mafiosi- and that is almost ALL that has changed, for them.
Welcome to the real world, Microsoft. Announce your victory. And bite your tongue!
I think that is correct. It suggests they can't set arbitrary terms- they can charge, but they can't single out anybody and punish them.
I'd better believe? Why? They don't ACT like they have 40 billion dollars.
Since when is Microsoft really, blatantly stupid? I think it's more likely that they haven't got the money they say they have, or that their projected costs are so high that they are forced to watch every penny.
Not that you meant it THAT way, but yeah, it's very similar.
Muggins! :D
Rubbish. (But beautifully spoken)
OK, now, nice and smooth, put it down... now STEP AWAY from that copy of 'Atlas Shrugged'... ;)
If a free-market society means I'd have to go to a lot of extra trouble, with no benefit to myself, just to not get ripped off all the time, then why would I want one?
If someone is just starting out, desperate, trying to promote their thing, they may do things like this- law be damned. The idea is partly to somehow GET attention, and partly it's a guerrila, "we're tiny and desperate and cool" sort of thing. The idea is, someone sees your schtick, is shocked, and then thinks, 'whoa, that's pretty edgy, they could get arrested and they're in my face anyway. Do I blow the whistle or listen to what they have to say?' It's a _danger_ trip, the idea is it's a struggling little company trying for attention, who could easily be busted for their shenanigans, but they have so much balls they're doing it anyway. It's very punk, in its way.
This is why Microsoft is particularly drawn to this sort of thing. They see themselves as the struggling little startup.
The problem is, they are NOT. They can vandalize anything they want, have hired rollerbladers going anywhere they want (including 'no rollerblading' zones), and they're running no risk. Any fine means nothing compared to the scale they try to operate on. The risk of vandalism and 'anti-authority' behavior is absolutely nil, for them.
As such, it is particularly obnoxious for them to be doing this. Nobody has any refuge from them. You can even pass laws and the Microsoft people will just completely ignore them and do whatever they want anyway. The City of New York basically has to ASK them not to harass the city- nicely and firmly- and hope to hell they listen, this time.
It could be worse. They could just as easily put stickers all over your private home- or your car- or put a sticker on your window to surprise you... on an upstairs window, using a pole to place it. Then it's your problem to get the sticker off while not falling out the window. It's only a streak of basic sanity that keeps them from using permanent adhesives, too. There is NO LIMIT on what these people will do, except what THEY think is appropriate. That's not a very equitable situation.
So, currently they're vandalizing, hiring people to rollerblade in prohibited areas, and hiring people to disturb the peace by screaming loudly.
Wonder what they'll be up to next year?
How're you going to ask THEM to stop it, if you're doing the same thing?
That said, there is a simple answer to the eBay problem: simple and literally true. Advertise the CDs like this:
Music CD: Not Mass Replicated
The process by which major label CDs are made is called 'replication'. It's different from home CD burning or low-volume duplicating- both use CDRs, replicated CDs are stamped in an expensive (hundreds of dollars) process allowing them to be churned out faster and cheaper. It's mass production.
Anyone who seriously cares about not getting a CDR in their music purchase ought to know what 'mass replicated' means. If they don't, maybe they can guess. Again, this is literally the technical term for it- rather than saying 'CDR' you can say 'not mass replicated' which means exactly the same thing. Even some small label releases are duplicated on CDR rather than replicated, so if it matters you can't go by whether it was a pressing run, or outsourced. It's strictly about whether the CD was replicated or duplicated.
Oh, and go check out MY music- I don't mailbomb people ;) how's that for a sales pitch? "Listen to my music, I promise not to hack onto your computer and delete your mp3s, or mailbomb you, or prohibit you from reselling the CD you bought from me on eBay." This world we live in...
Without it, you still are doing CDRs, just not off your computer CD burner.
"Dodge this." *POW*
Of course, you can continue believing the spin if you want, nobody is stopping you :) but with all the talk about corp-ocracy on Slashdot, can you be surprised that a jury in the USA got good and practical and returned a verdict that was basically a bitch-slap, to say 'you WILL pay attention to this'?
We need more juries like that, not less. The purpose of the exercise wasn't to transfer funds from McDonald's to an old lady. The purpose of the exercise was justice- and what with the obnoxious behavior of the corporation, punitive justice was called for- and how are you supposed to bitchslap a corporation like that with a REASONABLE fine? Only an unreasonable fine will even make them freaking blink, much less consider not intentionally burning the fuck out of people routinely.
Look it up- it's an interesting story.
Your own web site's recent study on Vermont says, 'if we go to Vermont we'd better give up the idea of trying to take it over'. It's still a damned stupid and disaster-prone idea to attempt to immigrate 20,000 people into Vermont (make your own jobs, ha! Specify), but you know what? If you guys want to come here, push for civil liberties legislation (AGAINST the TBM folks, if you hadn't noticed), maybe help with our groundbreaking strides protecting privacy against the abuses of banks etc, and ABANDON any thought of turning Vermont into an experiment in unregulated capitalism- why, you come right in and welcome.
I don't think you want that. I think you guys are hot for setting up another Houston, or Chile- 'let's get rid of all regulations and most laws and all be happy in a free market utopia'- and you wouldn't stop at just civil liberties and privacy. I think you're already arguing for a hostile takeover, arguing (in a stretch of the evidence) that 'you Vermont socialists' did our own takeover so we deserve to be wiped out in turn. In fact, a bit of research will show you that however socially conservative old Vermonters are, we've always been prone to see a strong role for government, and it's a very small step from that to 'government should pass laws preventing pollution and billboards and banks going nuts with your information and selling it to all and sundry', which you see as socialism. Maybe it's just good sense.
Bottom line here: I'm arguing, "We are the way we are for good reasons and as the result of long-standing synthesis between ALL of our citizens", and you're arguing "you guys are bad guys, we ought to come and take you over". Who's the villain here? More relevantly, who is doing the slashdot equivalent of 'attack ads', just attacking like a pit bull with no real concern even for whether what you're saying is true?
If you're gonna continue to propose coming HERE and remaking society in your image, you've got to do a better job at explaining why that is a good thing. You don't seem to understand that the burden of proof is on YOU. You're the ones making bold claims- back it up, don't go with some 'you're commie pinkos' routine. This is about YOU. Why should you be permitted to try and realize YOUR ideas? None of that 'oh, you're obviously closeminded, explanation would be a waste of time'. No. Take the time. Explain.
I consciously chose that mode of working (I'm also laying down basic tracks without any sequencing or click track) to rebel against the cult of perfection and note-fixing so common today. Stuff gets so polished that it has no distinguishing marks at all. Listen to some of the acts you're talking about, listen closely, and you'll see they are NOT PERFECT. There are mistakes! Even from the Beatles! But the personality and character of the music comes through so strongly that it distracts you and you don't key off the mistakes.
That said, you're leaving out whole genres of musicians by going that way. I'm thinking particularly of Steely Dan. Not many people know that the first incarnation of Steely Dan, the 'Can't Buy A Thrill' band, was asked not to tour by the record label, because they DID gig, and they SUCKED. They weren't consistent. In the studio they had the capacity to keep hammering away at it until each part came into its own- they didn't have the capability to get fired up and get it in one take. Contrast with a musician like David Gilmour (one of my idols ;) ), who is- people recording Gilmour know to roll the tape the first time, every time, because sometimes when he's just feeling out the song he'll hit an effortless peak that you couldn't get by slogging through the part 1000 times. The solo in Comfortably Numb (iirc) was like this: one take, the very first run-through, and it was a matter of 'well- looks like we have that taken care of' and not attempting to re-record it. The famous Bruce Springsteen song 'Born in the USA' was very much like this as well.
You just have to know which type of musician you are- personally, I'm thrilled that you as a listener like the rawer, more personal stuff, seeing as I've been veering in that direction of late :)
Sign me up, man, I'd be competitive as hell with that ;D
It's a sign that you guys are more interested in winning the argument, than in the truth. Some of you approach this goal in different ways than others. One charming fellow, who probably _claims_ to be a libertarian, has taken the trouble of looking up every single one of my posts in this story, and replying to every one with,
I would compliment you on taking a higher intellectual tone, except that you're simply saying the same thing using more and fancier words. I do NOT think the same of you: you are obviously a person of some intelligence, just horribly wrong. In fact, your folly is characteristic of people who are intelligent- you're building castles in your mind, convinced that your understanding can fully describe the real world. It's the same folly that would describe Chicago School economics as a grand success in Chile- don't know if you're familiar with that disaster.
Basically, it doesn't matter what you think about the real-world impact of your beliefs and creed. You can argue all day that it is anti-corporatist (really? from a creed declaring that no force can possibly be attributed to companies operating in a market?) or that it would lead to a reinassance of ever-better environmental conditions as companies compete to appease the demands of environmentalists, or that labor would be transformed as workers choose among the various employers, selecting among the widest possible range of benevolent and abusive employers.
Those are fantasies, and in the real world, what you want has been tried, and it leads to disaster, primarily because there are serious limitations on the enlightenment required of every party to such a system. People don't act in their own best interest- all that's left is for you to insist that, by definition, they are. And just as you'll insist I'm incapable of rational thought, you'll argue that the world you facilitate is the best of all possible worlds. This is why your plans need to be resisted: evil people may be dangerous, but they're not half as dangerous as good people with the wrong idea.
They have no concern whatsoever for abuses of authority, or even the situation of authority, unless it's coming from something called a 'government'. They completely fail to see any other form of authority, and they are legion. The world is based on authority and dominance and submission and they are kidding themselves if they think they can put a 'government' label on some of it and think they've solved the problem.
All they really want is to be the one holding the whip. They don't give a rat's ass about consensus and true anarchist thinking, or they wouldn't even be CONSIDERING this idea of moving into a place and seizing power. It is an absolute affront to true anarchist thinking to sit around plotting a coup like that. They want to BE the authority and give the orders. Because of course unlike everyone else, THEY are infallible and know what's best for us. That's why they're laying plans to move in on a state and seize power.
These guys make lousy anarchists. Call them 'fascists'.
Thankfully we have a hell of a lot of activists ourselves, and good Congresscritters, plus it would be very easy to paint these guys as hostilely invading flatlanders trying to screw up the state. There's built-in prejudice against flatlanders trying to move in and throw their weight around, so it would be possible to rapidly build a mass movement just to resist them.
I agree they're 'insufferable loons', but some of us are already in battles against forces (for instance, agribusiness like Monsanto) that could take advantage of the insufferable loons, and that makes the situation a lot less funny. It doesn't matter if they're laughable and fail in their ideas for a utopian society, but if they ruin your state while they're at it, that's a problem. And again, some of us are already fighting other adversaries who could USE the 'insufferable loons' as tools. Suppose Monsanto arranged to have any GE-food-regulating referendum undertaken by a community, flooded with Libertarian ringers? The people who live there would be hosed because of the shills. They already do this but currently they don't have an organized force of 20,000 scabs to do their dirty work. Could be bad news.
These FSP people are just what the corporations were looking for to further their agendas. I pity any state they eventually try to take over, because they won't succeed in brainwashing an entire state but the odds are pretty good that they can be manipulated and financed to totally gut environmental laws, food inspection, you name it. The Libertarians are idealistically opposed to regulations in GENERAL. The people funding them will have a hit list of regulations in SPECIFIC to get rid of, and will take advantage of every loophole.
You didn't think corporations budget for interfering in the governing of individual communities, when the community is proposing to do something like hold a referendum on GE foods? I swear to you, they do, and effectively. I live in Vermont, our organic farmers are threatened by this. You can lose the ability to sell crops as organic if they are contaminated with GE stuff, and this does happen. So we have been actively trying to control our environments, and corporate lobbyists DO come and fight us every step of the way.
May I ask that all slashdotters sign up and specify any non-East Coast state? That way, should they actually put this into action, the strip mining, smokestacks (beloved of Ayn Rand) and smog that will blanket all nearby states can be somewhere else, not here :)
Think I'm kidding? :)
I particularly love how you're going to watch and see if we promote freedom here in Vermont, and you think not unless you 'take it back'.
We lead the NATION in privacy legislation- starting from before the Federal statute. We lead the NATION in civil rights and nondiscrimination. We keep our state free of roadside billboards, stubbornly fight against the destruction of our environment. WE are in the front lines against the onslaught of agribusiness such as Monsanto, who will sue you over the intellectual property of SEEDS. We are fighting for fair labelling of genetically engineered crops and foodstuffs even though corporate lobbyists ACTIVELY try to suppress even the suggestion that such labelling be done. We are moving to support instant runoff voting- to defend our rights to community-based decision making in a world where (I'm thinking about Monsanto and GE crops again) corporate power is used to crushing resistance at the community level.
What the HELL have you done for freedom? Apart from entertaining the possibility of moving in to our nice diligently-maintained state, throwing a complete monkeywrench into everything we're working for, probably with financing from corporate lobbyists who would LOVE to see less pesky regulation, and staging a coup to take over and rule us?
Oh, sorry, that's not freedom at all. Silly me.
"My bet's not on Vermont, unless we 'take it back'." You disgust me, sir. You have no idea of the meaning of the word 'freedom'. I bet you know where to get in touch with lobbyists from Monsanto to help you throw an election, though. If not- they'll find you! They'd love to see you gut our environmental protections and attempts at mandating plain labelling of GE foods.
You _are_ a loony. What troubles me is that you could be a useful tool for interests a lot bigger than you are.
These people have the gall to list Vermont as one of their candidates- and we in Vermont are one of the most progressive states in the Union- AND we have guns.
We're currently busy digesting our Civil Unions law legalizing a form of gay marriage- you'll see some people with 'Take Vermont Back' bumper stickers, those are the fundies, and about as many with 'Take Vermont Forward' bumper stickers, including nongays who are just progressive socially. We're busy with that and don't need the heartache.
But, if 20,000 armed Libertarians try to move in and take us over, all that will be quickly forgotten and it'll be War on the Flatlanders- we do NOT like invasion. We kinda joke bitterly about flatlanders 'invading' even when it's just rich people moving in and putting up mansions in which they never stay, being too busy screwing people over in New York or wherever. Even the idea of twenty thousand ORGANIZED flatlanders invading and taking over politically is beyond alarming. We'd have EVERYBODY siding against them. Not to see the looks on their faces- but because we're free, dammit, our state works the way we want it, and they're proposing to traipse in and install themselves as the ones in charge. NOT!
They'd be lucky to see only 20,000 people organized to resist them. I suppose it's maybe over-reacting because they'll never get it together to actually do this anywhere- but I'm just saying, if they did, in Vermont they'd be INVADING FLATLANDERS and you would not believe the amount of anger they would provoke. What is the matter with them anyway, to even THINK of such a thing?
These maniacs are talking about invading MY state, overthrowing the people (Bernie Sanders, Jeffords, Leahy) who are currently doing good work in Washington, and freaking taking over.
You are a damned fool if you see that as anything other than an attack. I don't know how the residents of other mentioned states feel- but what they're proposing is a complete affront to what Vermont is about, and I am appalled.
What kind of creep are you to so frivolously support the invasion and takeover of a whole state by libertarians? Never mind that it's an unreasonable fantasy- it's an _obscene_ fantasy and deserves to encounter the most extreme, dedicated resistance.
I guarantee that if they pick Vermont and try to act on these plans their world will become a nightmare of 'conspiring looters' balking their every move. That's a promise- I know that I personally will happily tolerate libertarians in small harmless numbers, but an invasion force of twenty thousand? That calls for coordinated, determined resistance at every level and to every extent.
You're a _fool_ to be all misty-eyed over this- or a fascist. Go find some land that isn't being lived on.