I agree that a $52 savings is not enough to motivate regular users. But why not offer a dual-boot Linux/Windows machine for the price of a Windows-only machine? I'd love to have a dual-boot Linux/Windows system set up for me. Someone else works out all the driver and hardware issues for me in Linux as well as Windows; and I get to determine which O/S to use for which purposes. This option would be great for consumers and has been technically feasible for years. I wonder why we haven't seen systems like this, despite all the competition in the PC industry?:-)
How does dealing with a local shop help? They can blow you off just as easily as a big company. In fact, it is easier for a small company to blow you off. An internet story complaining about Dell will get noticed, a story about LocalTech will not.
The answer is to deal with a reputable seller, local or not.
The cynic in me prevents me from stopping there:-) I don't believe that any computer seller will provide support that is worth paying extra for. I have found that technical support can't answer any question that isn't in the documentation or help file. The only way to deal with computers (x86/Windows computers, that is:-) is to learn to fix them yourself, or to know someone who won't blow you off. The best thing to do is to get a local company to put a computer together out of good-quality parts and make sure you have documentation for everything in your computer.
And there is one another easy thing Microsoft could do to actually benefit a customer with product activation. When I had to reinstall my upgrade copy of Windows XP, the installer asked for my CD of Windows ME. Why? I have already activated the product, they could easily verify that I am legally entitled to use XP and save me the trouble of keeping an otherwise useless CD. Of course, that assumes that companies that use activation "care about consumers" and are willing to do even simple things that benefit the consumer:-)
Are you saying that the Taliban was illegitimate because very few countries recognized it? Does this rule also apply to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which was not approved by the U.N. Security Council?
Legitimacy is in the eyes of the beholder, and I would prefer it if the U.S. weren't the ultimate judge of what is legitimate and what isn't.
Actually, he probably isn't a Newbie; he either inserted a strawman argument into the mix (the original poster wrote "trained" not "funded") or he didn't carefully read the original post. Either alternative is the action of a Slashdot veteran!
The Iraq invasion is not about oil, it is about who runs the world. Yes, Saddam was a dangerous man, but the evidence shows he was not that much of a danger, so the war wasn't about making America safe or about the war on Terrorism. What it is about is punishing any countries that do not bow to the will of the United States. The sanctions imposed on Iraq did appear to be containing the threat Saddam posed, but Saddam was doing what little he could to thumb his nose at Americans. Unfortunately Saddam couldn't admit the U.S. beat him, so the U.S. had to invade his country to prove who really won. No country other than the U.S. has had any say in how the U.S. prosecutes its "war" on terror, and if present trends continue, the U.S. will never consider the opinions of other countries on any subject.
The U.S. has made it clear that they don't recognize any international authority that might prevent Americans from doing whatever they want. The U.N. Security council was ignored, the U.S. gives more rights to U.S. terrorists than to foreign ones, and the U.S. refuses to recognize the international criminal court. The best lesson to draw from the current actions of the U.S. is that in a dispute with the U.S., you'd be dumb to depend on international laws, even ones that the U.S. has signed. Disputes are going to be won by the stronger party in the dispute, and the only way to make a deal with the U.S. is to suck up to Bush and hope his re-election chances don't prevent him from making a deal.
The U.S. government is indeed doing what you say and excusing it by calling it a "war" on terror. The truth is this is just PR to get the U.S. public to accept whatever the government feels like doing. As I see it, the U.S. is asserting that they have the right to do whatever they want to the citizens and governments of other countries; and that the only laws that apply in international disputes are the laws of the jungle -- let the most powerful country prevail!
I would hope that we someday get to the point where there is a body of law that dictates how countries must treat the citizens of other countries (like the Geneva conventions); but with the present U.S. administration, if an international law retricts the U.S. in any way, it is going to be ignored.
I don't understand why anyone would buy music from an artist than can only manage one or two good songs. I prefer to buy CD's that have no filler, and if for some reason I am interested in the latest song from a one-hit wonder, I'll get tired of it long before they stop playing it on the radio.
In fact, I don't see any reason to buy top 40 hits. When they stop playing them on the new hits stations, they'll just start playing them on the classic hits stations.
It seems to me that the only music you need to own is the stuff they don't hype on the radio or with videos. The only stuff you need to buy is exactly the "filler" that nobody plays for you.
I think more resources go into marketing than into production for two reasons; spending money on marketing usually works, and record company executives can justifiably claim credit when the marketing works.
The mainstream market for CD's (and movies) thrives on novelty. If you want to sell a lot of CD's you'll have to first get the artist noticed, then convince the public that there is something new and different about it. Think "American Idol" where previously unknown artists with no track record are suddenly selling boatloads of CD's. It is too early to tell whether there is any long-term market for the Idols' music, but I'll bet the record companies have already earned a profit on the music.
Marketing will usually result in a profit, but there is even more incentive for taking this approach because the record executives that decided how to market it can claim part of the credit for the success of the artist. If too many artists succeed without any marketing, how will the executives justify their huge salaries and bonuses if they can't claim to be responsible for the success?
Movies are the same thing. If a heavily hyped movie makes a lot of money, executives can claim part of the credit, so they look for movies that are easy to hype (like sequels).
Now all of this, assuming it isn't entirely a product of my cynical mind:-), can explain some of the actions that the media companies have taken lately. Piracy is a big problem if you have only a short window of popularity to exploit for making money. People passing around bootleg copies of Pink Floyd albums are not really a problem since there are plenty of other albums they might buy if they become interested in the music. Bootleg copies of American Idols' music are a big problem because it is quite possible that after 6 months there will be no market for the CD's.
Since media companies think that successful sales only occur as a result of hype, they will keep pushing for laws that ensure they will be the only ones that profit from the hype. Disney got the copyright term extended to protect their investment in hyping Mickey Mouse, not to repay the original production costs or to ensure that more Mickeys will be created. The original creators have been paid, the work exists; the only ongoing expense is marketing.
Now all of this works against my interests as a consumer. I am not all that interested in most of the music that is currently being hyped; but that is all you hear on the radio or can buy in the stores. The music companies are pulling every trick they can to ensure that people are exposed only to the latest hype. I am finding it harder to find the music I like, and when I do it costs more because it is rare (why is it that the popular music that everyone wants costs less and the obscure music that no one likes costs more? Shouldn't it be the opposite?).
The record companies have pretty much lost me as a customer, and I own more than 1000 CD's. When I recently found a CD at a price I was willing to pay, I had to return it when I discovered that it was copy-protected. I want to be able to listen to something I buy for the next 10 years or more; what guarantee do I have that a copy-protected CD will even play in the next CD player I buy?
The record companies are doing everything they can to ensure they make back their marketing investments, but unfortunately that is making the music business much less relevant to me. I hope the companies wake up and realize that they could be selling 100+ CD's a year to me again; but I have my doubts, and in the meantime, my lost sales will be attributed to piracy.
A google search ("standards many to choose from") lead to: A. Tanenbaum. That rings true for me, but a more exhaustive search may yield a better answer.
It could also show that China's leaders understand the value of standards that are open rather than controlled by a small number of very rich companies. It is interesting that if this pans out, China's video market will be more open to competition than the West.
It's already too late to standardize equipment; a copy-protected "CD" won't play on all CD players and some record labels (like EMI) have already vowed to stop manufacturing standard CDs. In fact, that is the main reason why I won't buy a copy-protected "CD"; I have 15 year old CDs now that I still play, I don't want to get stuck with a non-standard format that may not play in devices I own now, let alone anything available for purchase 10 years from now.
This message is getting close to what I think is the heart of this issue. Although the RIAA likes to argue that piracy is stealing, having copyright is not the same thing as owning something, and owning something is not the same as having the right to do whatever you want with it.
Copyright is simply the legal right to make copies of a particular work. To a first approximation, no one but the copyright holder can make copies of a work. There are some exceptions (called "fair use") to ensure that copyright owners can't exploit this right unreasonably, but the intention of copyright law is to ensure that only the copyright holder can make significant numbers of copies.
I don't think that part-ownership of a copy of a work gives the part-owner a right to copy that work, which is the heart of Cringely's scheme. It might be legal now, but this is just too big a loophole to let stand, no matter how you feel about the RIAA. If this loophole were allowed to stand, copyrights would be useless and the whole copyright law (which truly has been a net benefit to society) might as well be struck from the books.
Now, that being said, I'd love to see some sort of attempt to rein in the record companies. They have extended their monopoly on copying into a monopoly in distribution. The law recognizes that monopolies in one area can be used to create monopolies in other areas, and restricts the action of monopolies accordingly; why wasn't that done for copyright holders? Now, with the DMCA and the example of what the studios could get away with on DVD's (e.g. prevention of any kind of copying, even legal "fair-use" copying; control over where you can buy DVD's that will work in your player; control over such details as when you are able to use the fast-forward or pause buttons on your DVD player), there is every indication that the record companies will extend their monopoly on making copies to control how and when you can play music.
I'd love to see the distribution monopoly broken, so that the fear of competition can force record companies to consider consumers (and artists) rather than simply what they think is best for the bottom line. If record companies did not have the sole right to determine what music is available for purchase and in which format, artists might have some leverage to negotiate a better deal, and consumers might have a better change of buying the music they want in the format they want.
There might be a solution that allows artists to get paid and for consumers to have some control over how they may use the music they buy, even if Cringely's suggestion (to effectively repeal copyright laws) isn't it. However, unless the monopoly that record companies have is ended, we are not going to see any changes except those that make it better for those companies and worse for the artists and consumers.
Re:Who is Allowed to Own the Property?
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 1
We have options, but they are very limited. I am rather frustrated by how our economic system doesn't give the consumer a real choice. As a consumer, you can only choose what to buy or not to buy; you don't have much influence on price and you certainly have no influence on what companies offer for sale. Consumers have to depend on competition to force companies to offer good choices, and where there are monopolies, there will be no choice.
I do not want to pay more that $15 (Canadian) for a CD, and despite the fact that I own more than 1000 CD's, I haven't been able to find more than a handful of CD's over the last few years that meet that criteria (I am buying DVD's for less than $20 instead). Although I have never downloaded any music, I'll bet the RIAA thinks my reduced purchases are due to piracy, not the real reason: a price that is too high for the value the product gives.
What's worse is the record companies are making their product even less desirable. I recently bought the new Radiohead CD (for $12.99); but when I got home, I noticed that the disk was not a CD, but a "copy controlled" disk that was "compatible" with CD players. I exercised my only option as a consumer and returned the disk for two reasons. Beside the fact that it is legal to copy CD's in Canada and the record companies are therefore removing this capability without compensating me; there is no guarantee that this disk will play on all the CD players I own now, let alone one I might buy 10 years from now. As far as I know, if this disk doesn't work in a particular CD player, the record company will not provide me with a disk that will, and I will not be able to return the useless CD for a refund. The record companies apparently believe they will make more money by offering an inferior product at the same price as real CD's. I am only willing buy the CD is if it is released as a standard CD; but that decision rests entirely with EMI, and I doubt my e-mail of complaint will make any influence on their decision. Ironically, I will only buy these crippled disks if the copy protection is defeated and I am able to burn copies (legally, in Canada) that I can use instead.
I am exercising my only option as a consumer by refusing to buy CD's that are crippled or too expensive; unfortunately, I don't hold out much hope that record companies will change as a result. Despite buying about a hundred CD's a year for the last decade, I never got the sense that record companies ever really cared about my business; they certainly have done nothing to show they care lately.
I think the author meant copyright infringement, not patent infringement (as in the linked article). Patent infringement can be proven even without access to the source code; proving copyright infringement requires access to the source code, which is only available for open source software.
You claim computer enthusiasts on all sides accept that ALL benchmarks are bullshit, so how can these enthusiasts argue rationally about which "measurable" quantities are important? There are plenty of measurements you can make about audio performance, and grossly bad figures correlate with bad sound. But, after a point, the measurements don't tell you anything useful; any more than comparing the relative clock rates of microprocessors tells you anything useful when comparing a Pentium to an Athlon.
Audiophiles recognize that measurements (especially ones like power output) are usually just as much bullshit as computer benchmarks. Just look at the newspaper adds that advertise the power handling of speakers; that specification is nearly useless.
There are plenty of things you can measure about audio performance, with sufficient accuracy that every component measures differently; but there seems to be little correlation between most of those measurements and the experiences of users (i.e. what they hear). It is no different for computers, or anything else. Most consumers want to buy something with the highest number, manufacturers know this, and therefore most measurements have been mutated into useless marketing information.
Who is Allowed to Own the Property?
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think the situation is even worse than the author describes. The media companies are turning copyright into a property right, which is bad enough, but they are also ensuring that they don't actually transfer any property rights when you buy from them.
They are setting up a sort of feudal system, where they own all the property, and we are merely serfs who get to pay rent to access the property.
It is important to restore some balance in the copyright law between the public and the media companies; but I think it is equally important to define what property rights (i.e. fair use rights) consumers have when they buy a CD or a DVD.
Well, people are a part of nature, so I think you need to worry about both. I don't think it would be an ecological disaster if mosquitoes became extinct, but the byproducts of eliminating mosquitoes might.
For example, the mosquito zappers that seem to be all the rage emit on the order of a pound of CO2 per day; which might possibly fuel global warming and a true disaster for nature (and people). I think it is quite likely that any method that could eliminate all mosquitoes would likely involve huge environmental problems.
The smallpox case is different; it was eliminated (except in government labs) by preventing its spread. It might be possible to eliminate a given mosquito-borne disease like West Nile without a huge environmental impact, but I doubt we can eliminate the mosquitoes themselves; and if the past is any guide, just attempting to eliminate mosquitoes will screw things up.
The business model pursued by the RIAA stinks. CDs are too expensive, and now they are making their product even less valuable by restricting where you can play CDs.
Unscrupulous people are showing their disapproval of the RIAA's product by downloading MP3 copies of songs rather than buying higher-quality CD's. I have chosen the legal route to putting pressure on the greedy music companies; I am simply refusing to buy CDs that are crippled with copy protection or that cost more than $15 (Canadian). I used to buy 100 CD's a year, so I hope my actions will also be noted by the RIAA, as they have noticed the pirates. I somehow think the sales lost by my personal boycott will blamed on the pirates. Companies used to react to loss of sales by improving their product or lowering their prices, the RIAA is showing us the modern way -- use the law to create an unbreakable monopoly so you can charge whatever you can get away with.
As you have pointed out, the actions of the pirates can't really be defended, they are clearly illegal. However, I also haven't seen proof that piracy is harmful, so I am not sure it is morally wrong. I think the piracy I did in my youth (taping LP's onto cassette) caused me to buy more records that I might otherwise have bought, and I think that my 1000 legally purchased CD's make me a better than average customer.
I agree with the RIAA that not much music will get produced if piracy becomes widespread enough to kill all sales; but if the alternative is the RIAA's current business model, it doesn't matter to me because I am not going to be buying any more CD's. I wish the RIAA would fix the real problems rather than blaming everything on piracy, but I think the RIAA will destroy the music business before it understands that piracy is not the major problem.
Is there anything like a class-action suit in reverse? You know where the company can lump all its customers into a class and sue them simultaneously. It sure would help the RIAA save legal costs, and the savings could then be used to help the artists.
I love these market share arguments. The number of Macs in the world now probably exceeds the number of Microsoft PCs that existed 15 years ago. 15 years ago, the PC market was big enough to support software companies and virus writers; why isn't the Mac market big enough now?
I would think a virus writer would be happy to infect millions of computers, even if they are all Macs. I think there are factors other than market share that help explain why there are fewer Mac worms.
Yes, Clinton lied about his sex life to the American public. So what. Clinton was not impeached for lying about cheating on his wife to the American public; if that were enough to impeach a politician, we'd have impeachments every week. Clinton was impeached for lying in court, and that particular charge was never proven.
If you want to condemn Clinton for lying about a matter that really didn't concern anyone but the people directly involved, fine. Clinton certainly has some problems with self-control.
I think there is a lot of room to argue about whether Bush "lied" about Iraq or Clinton "lied" in court (although there is no doubt Clinton lied in the quote you gave). Clinton answered the question in a way he thought was technically true, but would mislead. Bush presented his case for immediate war against Iraq without explaining the uncertainty about the evidence. I do not think that Bush, Blair, Powell and the rest presented bald-faced lies; but I do think they oversold their case and willfully ignored the uncertainty of the information. Marketing and spinning are a regrettable but normal part of politics, just as is lying about cheating on your wife.
I think there was a case to be made that invading Iraq was the only possible solution to the problem of Iraq. I think that Bush should have been patient enough to present his case to the U.N. Security Council, so that there would have been no question about the motives for the invasion. But, Bush claimed that Iraq was an immediate threat and there was no time to waste trying to convince other countries (via the U.N. Security Council) that invasion is the only solution. Other members of the Security Council did not agree with Bush about the immediate necessity for invasion, and it turns out the skeptics on the Security Council may have been correct to doubt that an immediate invasion was necessary.
I am sure that Bush truly believed that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. I just don't approve of the fact that he was selective in which information he shared rather than trusting us to weigh same information he did; I suspect because he feared we would come to a different conclusion than he did.
I think that you may be right that war was the only solution to get rid of Saddam, I just don't agree that the time to do it was necessarily now. Saddam was bad, but while the world is distracted by Iraq, there are worse disasters going on in Zimbabwe and Congo. Was it really necessary to go after Saddam right now? Wasn't he being contained by sanctions and weapons inspectors? It looks like the inspectors did just as good a job as the military is now, and there are absolutely no restrictions on the current inspections.
That is the crux of the matter for me, and you can judge for yourself whether it matters. I think Bush had his priorities screwed up by going after Saddam first. His justification for going after Saddam appears to be much less compelling than he claimed. I think he was lying to influence opinion about the decision of when to go to war; and also exaggerated the necessity.
And incidentally, Iraqi refugees are going to be a lot less concerned about the destruction of Iraq than its inhabitants, and might just judge the costs of the war differently than someone who had to live through it.
The Clinton situation was not as cut-and-dried as you make it out here. Clinton gave a clever answer to a question that may have been technically true, but gave a mistaken impression.
Bush made all sorts of claims about a link between bin Laden and Iraq, about Iraqi development of nuclear weapons, and about how Iraq was an immediate danger to the United States. None of these claims has been proven, despite 2 months of unfettered access to Iraq, and all indications are that Bush knew his claims were doubtful at the time he was making them.
I think both of these men have played fast and loose with the truth, whether or not they technically lied. Whether you approve or disapprove of the actions justified by the lies shouldn't matter; if you can't trust the word of the president, the country is in big trouble. Maybe the next action Bush justifies with lies will be something you disapprove of.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that a $52 savings is not enough to motivate regular users. But why not offer a dual-boot Linux/Windows machine for the price of a Windows-only machine? I'd love to have a dual-boot Linux/Windows system set up for me. Someone else works out all the driver and hardware issues for me in Linux as well as Windows; and I get to determine which O/S to use for which purposes. This option would be great for consumers and has been technically feasible for years. I wonder why we haven't seen systems like this, despite all the competition in the PC industry? :-)
How does dealing with a local shop help? They can blow you off just as easily as a big company. In fact, it is easier for a small company to blow you off. An internet story complaining about Dell will get noticed, a story about LocalTech will not.
:-) I don't believe that any computer seller will provide support that is worth paying extra for. I have found that technical support can't answer any question that isn't in the documentation or help file. The only way to deal with computers (x86/Windows computers, that is :-) is to learn to fix them yourself, or to know someone who won't blow you off. The best thing to do is to get a local company to put a computer together out of good-quality parts and make sure you have documentation for everything in your computer.
The answer is to deal with a reputable seller, local or not.
The cynic in me prevents me from stopping there
And there is one another easy thing Microsoft could do to actually benefit a customer with product activation. When I had to reinstall my upgrade copy of Windows XP, the installer asked for my CD of Windows ME. Why? I have already activated the product, they could easily verify that I am legally entitled to use XP and save me the trouble of keeping an otherwise useless CD. Of course, that assumes that companies that use activation "care about consumers" and are willing to do even simple things that benefit the consumer :-)
Are you saying that the Taliban was illegitimate because very few countries recognized it? Does this rule also apply to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which was not approved by the U.N. Security Council?
Legitimacy is in the eyes of the beholder, and I would prefer it if the U.S. weren't the ultimate judge of what is legitimate and what isn't.
Actually, he probably isn't a Newbie; he either inserted a strawman argument into the mix (the original poster wrote "trained" not "funded") or he didn't carefully read the original post. Either alternative is the action of a Slashdot veteran!
The Iraq invasion is not about oil, it is about who runs the world. Yes, Saddam was a dangerous man, but the evidence shows he was not that much of a danger, so the war wasn't about making America safe or about the war on Terrorism. What it is about is punishing any countries that do not bow to the will of the United States. The sanctions imposed on Iraq did appear to be containing the threat Saddam posed, but Saddam was doing what little he could to thumb his nose at Americans. Unfortunately Saddam couldn't admit the U.S. beat him, so the U.S. had to invade his country to prove who really won. No country other than the U.S. has had any say in how the U.S. prosecutes its "war" on terror, and if present trends continue, the U.S. will never consider the opinions of other countries on any subject.
The U.S. has made it clear that they don't recognize any international authority that might prevent Americans from doing whatever they want. The U.N. Security council was ignored, the U.S. gives more rights to U.S. terrorists than to foreign ones, and the U.S. refuses to recognize the international criminal court. The best lesson to draw from the current actions of the U.S. is that in a dispute with the U.S., you'd be dumb to depend on international laws, even ones that the U.S. has signed. Disputes are going to be won by the stronger party in the dispute, and the only way to make a deal with the U.S. is to suck up to Bush and hope his re-election chances don't prevent him from making a deal.
The U.S. government is indeed doing what you say and excusing it by calling it a "war" on terror. The truth is this is just PR to get the U.S. public to accept whatever the government feels like doing. As I see it, the U.S. is asserting that they have the right to do whatever they want to the citizens and governments of other countries; and that the only laws that apply in international disputes are the laws of the jungle -- let the most powerful country prevail!
I would hope that we someday get to the point where there is a body of law that dictates how countries must treat the citizens of other countries (like the Geneva conventions); but with the present U.S. administration, if an international law retricts the U.S. in any way, it is going to be ignored.
I don't understand why anyone would buy music from an artist than can only manage one or two good songs. I prefer to buy CD's that have no filler, and if for some reason I am interested in the latest song from a one-hit wonder, I'll get tired of it long before they stop playing it on the radio.
In fact, I don't see any reason to buy top 40 hits. When they stop playing them on the new hits stations, they'll just start playing them on the classic hits stations.
It seems to me that the only music you need to own is the stuff they don't hype on the radio or with videos. The only stuff you need to buy is exactly the "filler" that nobody plays for you.
I think more resources go into marketing than into production for two reasons; spending money on marketing usually works, and record company executives can justifiably claim credit when the marketing works.
:-), can explain some of the actions that the media companies have taken lately. Piracy is a big problem if you have only a short window of popularity to exploit for making money. People passing around bootleg copies of Pink Floyd albums are not really a problem since there are plenty of other albums they might buy if they become interested in the music. Bootleg copies of American Idols' music are a big problem because it is quite possible that after 6 months there will be no market for the CD's.
The mainstream market for CD's (and movies) thrives on novelty. If you want to sell a lot of CD's you'll have to first get the artist noticed, then convince the public that there is something new and different about it. Think "American Idol" where previously unknown artists with no track record are suddenly selling boatloads of CD's. It is too early to tell whether there is any long-term market for the Idols' music, but I'll bet the record companies have already earned a profit on the music.
Marketing will usually result in a profit, but there is even more incentive for taking this approach because the record executives that decided how to market it can claim part of the credit for the success of the artist. If too many artists succeed without any marketing, how will the executives justify their huge salaries and bonuses if they can't claim to be responsible for the success?
Movies are the same thing. If a heavily hyped movie makes a lot of money, executives can claim part of the credit, so they look for movies that are easy to hype (like sequels).
Now all of this, assuming it isn't entirely a product of my cynical mind
Since media companies think that successful sales only occur as a result of hype, they will keep pushing for laws that ensure they will be the only ones that profit from the hype. Disney got the copyright term extended to protect their investment in hyping Mickey Mouse, not to repay the original production costs or to ensure that more Mickeys will be created. The original creators have been paid, the work exists; the only ongoing expense is marketing.
Now all of this works against my interests as a consumer. I am not all that interested in most of the music that is currently being hyped; but that is all you hear on the radio or can buy in the stores. The music companies are pulling every trick they can to ensure that people are exposed only to the latest hype. I am finding it harder to find the music I like, and when I do it costs more because it is rare (why is it that the popular music that everyone wants costs less and the obscure music that no one likes costs more? Shouldn't it be the opposite?).
The record companies have pretty much lost me as a customer, and I own more than 1000 CD's. When I recently found a CD at a price I was willing to pay, I had to return it when I discovered that it was copy-protected. I want to be able to listen to something I buy for the next 10 years or more; what guarantee do I have that a copy-protected CD will even play in the next CD player I buy?
The record companies are doing everything they can to ensure they make back their marketing investments, but unfortunately that is making the music business much less relevant to me. I hope the companies wake up and realize that they could be selling 100+ CD's a year to me again; but I have my doubts, and in the meantime, my lost sales will be attributed to piracy.
A google search ("standards many to choose from") lead to: A. Tanenbaum. That rings true for me, but a more exhaustive search may yield a better answer.
It could also show that China's leaders understand the value of standards that are open rather than controlled by a small number of very rich companies. It is interesting that if this pans out, China's video market will be more open to competition than the West.
It's already too late to standardize equipment; a copy-protected "CD" won't play on all CD players and some record labels (like EMI) have already vowed to stop manufacturing standard CDs. In fact, that is the main reason why I won't buy a copy-protected "CD"; I have 15 year old CDs now that I still play, I don't want to get stuck with a non-standard format that may not play in devices I own now, let alone anything available for purchase 10 years from now.
This message is getting close to what I think is the heart of this issue. Although the RIAA likes to argue that piracy is stealing, having copyright is not the same thing as owning something, and owning something is not the same as having the right to do whatever you want with it.
Copyright is simply the legal right to make copies of a particular work. To a first approximation, no one but the copyright holder can make copies of a work. There are some exceptions (called "fair use") to ensure that copyright owners can't exploit this right unreasonably, but the intention of copyright law is to ensure that only the copyright holder can make significant numbers of copies.
I don't think that part-ownership of a copy of a work gives the part-owner a right to copy that work, which is the heart of Cringely's scheme. It might be legal now, but this is just too big a loophole to let stand, no matter how you feel about the RIAA. If this loophole were allowed to stand, copyrights would be useless and the whole copyright law (which truly has been a net benefit to society) might as well be struck from the books.
Now, that being said, I'd love to see some sort of attempt to rein in the record companies. They have extended their monopoly on copying into a monopoly in distribution. The law recognizes that monopolies in one area can be used to create monopolies in other areas, and restricts the action of monopolies accordingly; why wasn't that done for copyright holders? Now, with the DMCA and the example of what the studios could get away with on DVD's (e.g. prevention of any kind of copying, even legal "fair-use" copying; control over where you can buy DVD's that will work in your player; control over such details as when you are able to use the fast-forward or pause buttons on your DVD player), there is every indication that the record companies will extend their monopoly on making copies to control how and when you can play music.
I'd love to see the distribution monopoly broken, so that the fear of competition can force record companies to consider consumers (and artists) rather than simply what they think is best for the bottom line. If record companies did not have the sole right to determine what music is available for purchase and in which format, artists might have some leverage to negotiate a better deal, and consumers might have a better change of buying the music they want in the format they want.
There might be a solution that allows artists to get paid and for consumers to have some control over how they may use the music they buy, even if Cringely's suggestion (to effectively repeal copyright laws) isn't it. However, unless the monopoly that record companies have is ended, we are not going to see any changes except those that make it better for those companies and worse for the artists and consumers.
We have options, but they are very limited. I am rather frustrated by how our economic system doesn't give the consumer a real choice. As a consumer, you can only choose what to buy or not to buy; you don't have much influence on price and you certainly have no influence on what companies offer for sale. Consumers have to depend on competition to force companies to offer good choices, and where there are monopolies, there will be no choice.
I do not want to pay more that $15 (Canadian) for a CD, and despite the fact that I own more than 1000 CD's, I haven't been able to find more than a handful of CD's over the last few years that meet that criteria (I am buying DVD's for less than $20 instead). Although I have never downloaded any music, I'll bet the RIAA thinks my reduced purchases are due to piracy, not the real reason: a price that is too high for the value the product gives.
What's worse is the record companies are making their product even less desirable. I recently bought the new Radiohead CD (for $12.99); but when I got home, I noticed that the disk was not a CD, but a "copy controlled" disk that was "compatible" with CD players. I exercised my only option as a consumer and returned the disk for two reasons. Beside the fact that it is legal to copy CD's in Canada and the record companies are therefore removing this capability without compensating me; there is no guarantee that this disk will play on all the CD players I own now, let alone one I might buy 10 years from now. As far as I know, if this disk doesn't work in a particular CD player, the record company will not provide me with a disk that will, and I will not be able to return the useless CD for a refund. The record companies apparently believe they will make more money by offering an inferior product at the same price as real CD's. I am only willing buy the CD is if it is released as a standard CD; but that decision rests entirely with EMI, and I doubt my e-mail of complaint will make any influence on their decision. Ironically, I will only buy these crippled disks if the copy protection is defeated and I am able to burn copies (legally, in Canada) that I can use instead.
I am exercising my only option as a consumer by refusing to buy CD's that are crippled or too expensive; unfortunately, I don't hold out much hope that record companies will change as a result. Despite buying about a hundred CD's a year for the last decade, I never got the sense that record companies ever really cared about my business; they certainly have done nothing to show they care lately.
I think the author meant copyright infringement, not patent infringement (as in the linked article). Patent infringement can be proven even without access to the source code; proving copyright infringement requires access to the source code, which is only available for open source software.
You claim computer enthusiasts on all sides accept that ALL benchmarks are bullshit, so how can these enthusiasts argue rationally about which "measurable" quantities are important? There are plenty of measurements you can make about audio performance, and grossly bad figures correlate with bad sound. But, after a point, the measurements don't tell you anything useful; any more than comparing the relative clock rates of microprocessors tells you anything useful when comparing a Pentium to an Athlon.
Audiophiles recognize that measurements (especially ones like power output) are usually just as much bullshit as computer benchmarks. Just look at the newspaper adds that advertise the power handling of speakers; that specification is nearly useless.
There are plenty of things you can measure about audio performance, with sufficient accuracy that every component measures differently; but there seems to be little correlation between most of those measurements and the experiences of users (i.e. what they hear). It is no different for computers, or anything else. Most consumers want to buy something with the highest number, manufacturers know this, and therefore most measurements have been mutated into useless marketing information.
I think the situation is even worse than the author describes. The media companies are turning copyright into a property right, which is bad enough, but they are also ensuring that they don't actually transfer any property rights when you buy from them.
They are setting up a sort of feudal system, where they own all the property, and we are merely serfs who get to pay rent to access the property.
It is important to restore some balance in the copyright law between the public and the media companies; but I think it is equally important to define what property rights (i.e. fair use rights) consumers have when they buy a CD or a DVD.
Well, people are a part of nature, so I think you need to worry about both. I don't think it would be an ecological disaster if mosquitoes became extinct, but the byproducts of eliminating mosquitoes might.
For example, the mosquito zappers that seem to be all the rage emit on the order of a pound of CO2 per day; which might possibly fuel global warming and a true disaster for nature (and people). I think it is quite likely that any method that could eliminate all mosquitoes would likely involve huge environmental problems.
The smallpox case is different; it was eliminated (except in government labs) by preventing its spread. It might be possible to eliminate a given mosquito-borne disease like West Nile without a huge environmental impact, but I doubt we can eliminate the mosquitoes themselves; and if the past is any guide, just attempting to eliminate mosquitoes will screw things up.
Sorry, I believe the French are the surrender monkeys. The British are macho meat-eating warriors just like Americans.
By the way, TIVO is not available in Canada; and now I know why; those bacon-eating wimps canâ(TM)t have TIVO, only countries that invade Iraq can.
The business model pursued by the RIAA stinks. CDs are too expensive, and now they are making their product even less valuable by restricting where you can play CDs.
Unscrupulous people are showing their disapproval of the RIAA's product by downloading MP3 copies of songs rather than buying higher-quality CD's. I have chosen the legal route to putting pressure on the greedy music companies; I am simply refusing to buy CDs that are crippled with copy protection or that cost more than $15 (Canadian). I used to buy 100 CD's a year, so I hope my actions will also be noted by the RIAA, as they have noticed the pirates. I somehow think the sales lost by my personal boycott will blamed on the pirates. Companies used to react to loss of sales by improving their product or lowering their prices, the RIAA is showing us the modern way -- use the law to create an unbreakable monopoly so you can charge whatever you can get away with.
As you have pointed out, the actions of the pirates can't really be defended, they are clearly illegal. However, I also haven't seen proof that piracy is harmful, so I am not sure it is morally wrong. I think the piracy I did in my youth (taping LP's onto cassette) caused me to buy more records that I might otherwise have bought, and I think that my 1000 legally purchased CD's make me a better than average customer.
I agree with the RIAA that not much music will get produced if piracy becomes widespread enough to kill all sales; but if the alternative is the RIAA's current business model, it doesn't matter to me because I am not going to be buying any more CD's. I wish the RIAA would fix the real problems rather than blaming everything on piracy, but I think the RIAA will destroy the music business before it understands that piracy is not the major problem.
Is there anything like a class-action suit in reverse? You know where the company can lump all its customers into a class and sue them simultaneously. It sure would help the RIAA save legal costs, and the savings could then be used to help the artists.
I love these market share arguments. The number of Macs in the world now probably exceeds the number of Microsoft PCs that existed 15 years ago. 15 years ago, the PC market was big enough to support software companies and virus writers; why isn't the Mac market big enough now?
I would think a virus writer would be happy to infect millions of computers, even if they are all Macs. I think there are factors other than market share that help explain why there are fewer Mac worms.
Yes, Clinton lied about his sex life to the American public. So what. Clinton was not impeached for lying about cheating on his wife to the American public; if that were enough to impeach a politician, we'd have impeachments every week. Clinton was impeached for lying in court, and that particular charge was never proven.
If you want to condemn Clinton for lying about a matter that really didn't concern anyone but the people directly involved, fine. Clinton certainly has some problems with self-control.
I think there is a lot of room to argue about whether Bush "lied" about Iraq or Clinton "lied" in court (although there is no doubt Clinton lied in the quote you gave). Clinton answered the question in a way he thought was technically true, but would mislead. Bush presented his case for immediate war against Iraq without explaining the uncertainty about the evidence. I do not think that Bush, Blair, Powell and the rest presented bald-faced lies; but I do think they oversold their case and willfully ignored the uncertainty of the information. Marketing and spinning are a regrettable but normal part of politics, just as is lying about cheating on your wife.
I think there was a case to be made that invading Iraq was the only possible solution to the problem of Iraq. I think that Bush should have been patient enough to present his case to the U.N. Security Council, so that there would have been no question about the motives for the invasion. But, Bush claimed that Iraq was an immediate threat and there was no time to waste trying to convince other countries (via the U.N. Security Council) that invasion is the only solution. Other members of the Security Council did not agree with Bush about the immediate necessity for invasion, and it turns out the skeptics on the Security Council may have been correct to doubt that an immediate invasion was necessary.
I am sure that Bush truly believed that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. I just don't approve of the fact that he was selective in which information he shared rather than trusting us to weigh same information he did; I suspect because he feared we would come to a different conclusion than he did.
I think that you may be right that war was the only solution to get rid of Saddam, I just don't agree that the time to do it was necessarily now. Saddam was bad, but while the world is distracted by Iraq, there are worse disasters going on in Zimbabwe and Congo. Was it really necessary to go after Saddam right now? Wasn't he being contained by sanctions and weapons inspectors? It looks like the inspectors did just as good a job as the military is now, and there are absolutely no restrictions on the current inspections.
That is the crux of the matter for me, and you can judge for yourself whether it matters. I think Bush had his priorities screwed up by going after Saddam first. His justification for going after Saddam appears to be much less compelling than he claimed. I think he was lying to influence opinion about the decision of when to go to war; and also exaggerated the necessity.
And incidentally, Iraqi refugees are going to be a lot less concerned about the destruction of Iraq than its inhabitants, and might just judge the costs of the war differently than someone who had to live through it.
The Clinton situation was not as cut-and-dried as you make it out here. Clinton gave a clever answer to a question that may have been technically true, but gave a mistaken impression.
Bush made all sorts of claims about a link between bin Laden and Iraq, about Iraqi development of nuclear weapons, and about how Iraq was an immediate danger to the United States. None of these claims has been proven, despite 2 months of unfettered access to Iraq, and all indications are that Bush knew his claims were doubtful at the time he was making them.
I think both of these men have played fast and loose with the truth, whether or not they technically lied. Whether you approve or disapprove of the actions justified by the lies shouldn't matter; if you can't trust the word of the president, the country is in big trouble. Maybe the next action Bush justifies with lies will be something you disapprove of.