Good. We are agreed that even the most idiotic, unscrupulous individuals still have their eye on the bottom line. Now, change the law so those 5 sales do not happen, and QED.
Of course a spammer doesn't have to prove stuff gets sold. The seller can determine that for themselves. And if nothing gets sold, ever, via spam, sellers will no more use the services of spammers than they use the services of apothecaries to turn lead into gold.
If really really cheap means the same thing as free to you, find out what a spammer would cost to send out a few million emails, and send that money to me. I'll send the same amount of business your way as a spammer would have done if responding to spam carried the death penalty.
Hey, you guys all but invented "letting the market decide", so if you're not the most attractive country in which to pay tax, surely you'll be redressing that through competition, not regulation?!
As long as there's demand, there'll always be supply.
Indeed. And as long as there's profitability, there'll always be demand. What I can't understand is why you think there'll be profitability when only, say, one in ten billion eyeballs will take the risk to buy viagra upon pain of death.
Assuming you'd make less selling at $1.09 instead of $.99 isn't exactly a foregone conclusion.
No, but Apple's done considerably more market research than I have, and they seem to think you would.
Anyway, as I said: what difference does it make if you defer 9c or 15c from the 70c that's coming to you anyway? (Assuming that you eventually get that 9c or 15c from the CRB; if not, that's another debate.)
Listening to purchased music requires an authorized player, and authorizing a player requires the iTS, so playing purchased music certainly entails the ongoing involvement of Apple if you don't want to use the same computer your whole life.
FWIW I agree that Apple probably won't leave their customers high and dry in this. I was merely disagreeing with tholomyes's assertion that "music does not [entail the ongoing involvement of Apple]". Playing music on your already authorized machine does not. Playing music beyond the life of your current machine does.
Sure, but in that case you are effectively your own record company. And you'd probably realise that if Apple were forced to increase the price of your track to $1.09 you would sell fewer copies and make less money pro rata. So you'd suck up the 6c from your 70c rather than Apple's 29c. Not least because that 6c should be coming straight back to you as royalties from the CRB. And also because you're less greedy and short-sighted than a record company.
English may not be your first language: read it again. Pay particular attention to the bit where it says that you acknowledge that some aspects of the service (i.e. being able to listen to your music) entails the ongoing involvement of Apple.
The people sending the message a.) don't think that's too much to spend just to try it in case b.) they get just 1% of those 50,000 people to read it.
Reading it is not enough. If 1% of 50,000 people read it, but no-one ever buys anything, do you honestly think the people sending the message will continue to employ the spammers?
Seriously, if you don't expect a return on your investments, I'd love to do business with you sometime.
You're setting up a straw man. I'm not denying that the money has already changed hands, any more than I'm denying that the murder victim is already dead. The point is that if people cease to buy things as a result of spam, spam will dry up. Are you seriously claiming I'm wrong about that?
Slashdot Mirror
You must truly be the conman's dream, if you think that hindsight is the only way to evaluate a proposition.
Now, I have something you might be interested in. It only costs $20, and it'll net you thousands of dollars profit. Do we have a deal?
"Well, we'd only have to sell 5 to break even."
Good. We are agreed that even the most idiotic, unscrupulous individuals still have their eye on the bottom line. Now, change the law so those 5 sales do not happen, and QED.
Are you aware of how the legal system works in the USA?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent
It's wasn't just the decision the appeals court overturned. It was the very argument.
Its to promote the progress of the arts and sciences by giving greater a avenue for financial gain.
Anyone who reads the arguments our founding fathers had over these issue would understand that.
Could you please elaborate with specific references? I don't see anything written by the founding fathers to support your statement.
Too late for that, I fear: corporations have too many rights to let that happen.
You might want to ask why the USA has such high corporate tax rates.
Gotta tax someone to pay for the war effort!
Of course a spammer doesn't have to prove stuff gets sold. The seller can determine that for themselves. And if nothing gets sold, ever, via spam, sellers will no more use the services of spammers than they use the services of apothecaries to turn lead into gold.
If really really cheap means the same thing as free to you, find out what a spammer would cost to send out a few million emails, and send that money to me. I'll send the same amount of business your way as a spammer would have done if responding to spam carried the death penalty.
Hey, you guys all but invented "letting the market decide", so if you're not the most attractive country in which to pay tax, surely you'll be redressing that through competition, not regulation?!
As long as there's demand, there'll always be supply.
Indeed. And as long as there's profitability, there'll always be demand. What I can't understand is why you think there'll be profitability when only, say, one in ten billion eyeballs will take the risk to buy viagra upon pain of death.
Mod parent up! But what are you doing posting something so informative/insightful to idle?
It's not boring, it's drilling! :)
Assuming you'd make less selling at $1.09 instead of $.99 isn't exactly a foregone conclusion.
No, but Apple's done considerably more market research than I have, and they seem to think you would.
Anyway, as I said: what difference does it make if you defer 9c or 15c from the 70c that's coming to you anyway? (Assuming that you eventually get that 9c or 15c from the CRB; if not, that's another debate.)
Sorry if I was a bit harsh.
Listening to purchased music requires an authorized player, and authorizing a player requires the iTS, so playing purchased music certainly entails the ongoing involvement of Apple if you don't want to use the same computer your whole life.
FWIW I agree that Apple probably won't leave their customers high and dry in this. I was merely disagreeing with tholomyes's assertion that "music does not [entail the ongoing involvement of Apple]". Playing music on your already authorized machine does not. Playing music beyond the life of your current machine does.
Sure, but in that case you are effectively your own record company. And you'd probably realise that if Apple were forced to increase the price of your track to $1.09 you would sell fewer copies and make less money pro rata. So you'd suck up the 6c from your 70c rather than Apple's 29c. Not least because that 6c should be coming straight back to you as royalties from the CRB. And also because you're less greedy and short-sighted than a record company.
English may not be your first language: read it again. Pay particular attention to the bit where it says that you acknowledge that some aspects of the service (i.e. being able to listen to your music) entails the ongoing involvement of Apple.
The people sending the message a.) don't think that's too much to spend just to try it in case b.) they get just 1% of those 50,000 people to read it.
Reading it is not enough. If 1% of 50,000 people read it, but no-one ever buys anything, do you honestly think the people sending the message will continue to employ the spammers?
Seriously, if you don't expect a return on your investments, I'd love to do business with you sometime.
You're setting up a straw man. I'm not denying that the money has already changed hands, any more than I'm denying that the murder victim is already dead. The point is that if people cease to buy things as a result of spam, spam will dry up. Are you seriously claiming I'm wrong about that?
P.S. The operative words are in fact "otherwise dissimilar".
Let me spell this out for you:
*** If nobody bought anything as a result of reading spam, spam would cease to exist. ***
To put it another way:
*** People expect some sort of return from an advertising budget. ***
Do you understand it yet?
s/denying/claiming/
Uh, no, that's nothing like what I said at all.
See http://www.answers.com/analogy
Are you really denying that punishment has no deterrent effect?
Where do you think the advertising revenue for spam comes from? That's right: sales!
That's like saying "we shouldn't have laws for murder, because by the time it's been committed, the victim is already dead".
The App Store:
No trojans. Less crapware than Android Market. Lame.