Wallstreet is already doing this, and throwing some pretty powerful brain power and computer power at the problem. Just don't expect the players to share their information with us.
I have a friend who got his PhD in mathematics a few years back. His career options were: 1) Teach (there are far fewer teaching positions than there are candidates), 2) Work for the NSA, 3) or go work for a Wallstreet firm.
He lucked out and got a teaching position at a local city college.
Deregulation seems to only work one way, in favor of the major corporate interests that the FCC is supposed to protect us from. Instead, in this environment of deregulation, which allows more and more power to be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, we see who is going to be regulated: the consumer!
Thank you, my fellow Republicans, for blindly following ideology as if it were holy writ.
The blame, he said, could be laid on law enforcement, which hasn't exactly been successful in tracking down on spammers. Some individuals have been stymied -- most recently a Boca Raton resident whose assets were frozen by the courts -- but enforcement is the exception rather than the rule.
Now my question. Were law enforcement agencies given any additional resources or funding to enforce the law? I don't know, but I highly doubt it. Without additional resources to fight such crime, how did congress expect law enforcement agencies to shift their already overstretched resources from other law enforcement activities?
In addition to this being a law that does nothing but codify loopholes, it is toothless in supporting enforcement of those who don't even bother to follow the letter of the law, loopholes and all.
Exactly my point. It is very far from clear cut which is why you can't call it a "monopolistic tactic" without major qualifications and equivications. Two further counterpoints. One, last I heard, one in three mp3 players sold was an iPod. Apple might currently be the most successful player, but it is wrong to claim that they have anything approaching a monopoly position (yet. I'll concede that it could happen.). Second, they're not shutting out the record industry! The record industry, in the form of the dominant cartel, the RIAA companies, has the monopoly power and ultimately controls the product.
Protocols and languages are both methods of transimitting information from one entity to another. Certainly protocols aren't NATURAL languages or human languages -they have a much smaller bredth of information that they need to be flexible enough to transmit - but the analogy is sound.
It might be a sound analogy, but it not a perfect analogy. You and I could develop a computer programming language and not publish it in the public domain, and that language would still be useful for creating effective programs. There is no law that would require us to open that language to others, either freely or for recompense. We could have a "monopoly" on that language, but it could never become a monopoly because there would always be the (very easy) possibility of lots of competition.
In your example, it sounds like the community created a new language, and the original work is not necessarily protected by copyright law when creating something new. Definitions of derivative works come into play here. If the language had been patented, the result might have been different, since patents do generally control derivative works, even new work if it is based on the patented work. Still, I don't know tha particulars.
I do think you're on a good track that deserves further thought and follow up regarding interface as being langauge-like. (And I do agree with you philosophically about patents.) May I suggest you read Roland Barthes on the topic of Semiotics and Semiology? Check out Mythologies. From the Amazon book description: "For Barthes, words and objects have in common the organized capacity to say something. .."
As your argument currently stands, I find much fault. However, I do think you are on to something, maybe something larger than the current set of issues under discussion.
There is one scenario that would make the labels shit their pants, though it is probably unlikely to come to pass.
What if. ..
A musician or band (or small coalition of musicians) with sufficient star power to dictate terms, refused to sell online rights to a label, prefering to deal directly with Apple or some other online distributor. They could do this if they were big enough, by refusing to sell CD distribution rights without this condition. Eventually, one of the labels would cave, since CD distribution is still pretty lucrative (more lucrative than online sales for the moment).
Once one powerful artist did this, the floodgates would open. The RIAA cartel would lose their monopoly power, and that power would return to the artists (though obviously not in monopoly form, unless the artists formed their own cartel).
Physical distribution would still exist profitably, but would not be the huge profit center for the huge multinationals that own the labels. This would lead to some sort of rationalizing of those business and perhaps an end to the excesses.
I'm sure that the RIAA companies are aware of this possibility, and would pull out all the stops to prevent it from happening, but the possibility exists.
Not complete disagreement, but some clarification
on
Lawyers In Space...
·
· Score: 1
When Deng Xiao Peng (1904-1997) began instituting reforms in 1997, the whole picture changed, and it is no longer possible to argue that the PRC is a communist nation. Definitely socialist, as there is still much state ownership of major industry, and definitely authoritarian, as you can still be jailed for open dissent, but not communist or totalitarian, as could be said pre-Deng.
Indeed, there have been steps back for every step forward. I remember the "Spiritual Pollution" campaign of the 1980s, instituted by Communist Party hardliners in reaction to the new freedoms and increasing influence of Western culture. But as the aged hardliners were replaced by younger party members with new ideas, such campaigns have lost their steam.
Two better examples (maybe the only real examples) of nations that are still communist would be Cuba and North Korea, but they've really only been able to maintain their communist status because of each nation's "cult of personality". Yet neither nation really represents a threat to the world order. Admittedly, N. Korea is a thorn in the side, but their influence is severely limited vis-a-vis exporting communism. Cuba has largely become irrelevant, except as a campaign issue in U.S. politics.
Really, the biggest difference between the PRC and the USA is that in the PRC, government still domiates industry, while in the USA, industry dominates the government.
Transparent open Free Market capitalism is also still theoretical and relegated to Academia. Yet there is definitely a trend towards such free markets (though they might never be achieved because there is an opposing trend powered by powerful and monied interests that continues to consolidate power into fewer and fewer hands). The more transparency and openness in our markets, the more perfect a capitalism we will have, the more level a playing field we will have, and the more opportunities we will have for more people to have good lives.
Important note: Free market capitalism is not necessarily the same as laisez-faire capitalism. Businesses can still be regulated under free market capitalism; the ideal is that regulation be uniform globally.
How hard would it have been for the makers to come up with a Barbie Dream Labyrinth, complete with a BFG, triple armor and quad damage. That'd teach Ken to keep changing those stupid plans.
Please, explain what you mean by first item and second item. Is the first item the iPod? But you're not required to purchase music from iTMS to use the iPod.
Is the first item music from iTMS? But you do not need to purchase an iPod to play that music. Any computer with the free iTunes software installed will do.
And lastly:
Interfaces are essentially a language. It has already been tested in court that you can't patent a language, simply because you need to release it into the public domain for it to be useful. Interfaces are a little different - you don't have to release them into the public domain for them to be useful, but you do have to do so if you aren't attempting to hold a monopoly on both ends of its use.
Huh? Not even sure where to start. ..
The map is not the territory. While you might find analogous qualities in two different things, that does not make them equal. I think you're confusing semiotics with linguistics. While we might speak of a system in semiotic terms, as if it was a language, that doesn't really make it a language. If we were comparing and contrasting "The language of the English garden vs. the language of the French Garden, we wouldn't actually be discussing a real language.
I'll just pass on the part about needing to release a language into the public domain being tested in court. That just sounds wacky, but whatever. It has no bearing on the matter, so why argue it.
The last sentence, Interfaces are a little different - you don't have to release them into the public domain for them to be useful, but you do have to do so if you aren't attempting to hold a monopoly on both ends of its use.
Excuse me, but I've NEVER heard of any law that rewuires you to release a design for an interface into the public domain because otherwise you'd be attempting to "hold a monopoly"at both ends". Maybe you're from a different country than I am and the laws are different, but this just sounds completely non-sensical.
Someone modded you insightful, so maybe I'm just not getting what you're saying. Could you try to explain it again in a different way?
Numbers quibble, although you did get a number right, sort of. The half number is for revenue. Apple is pulling in half of all money being spent on players. The number they're selling is roughly one third of all players being sold.
Not necessarily. Will HP actually be manufacturing these themselves? Or will they use the same manufacturer that Apple does. Will they design their own iPod using some Apple spec., or will Apple design them?
The way I understood it, HP was just going to rebadge them.
Or perhaps Virgin should find artists/copyright holders that are willing to license their music for digital distribution without DRM. I don't see what is stopping them. Then they could sell DRM free mp3s or AACs.
This begs the question, would anybody buy such songs in enough volume for Virgin to be profitable? Since they'd probably be distributing music from non-mainstream bands, probably not. But that would be their problem, not Apple's.
That's still a pretty huge stretch. Think about it. That's like saying that MS maintains their monopoly illegally by not releasing their source code.
The more fruitful avenue would be product tie-in, but that too is a stretch, since you can play other formats on the iPod (such as mp3) and you can play DRMed AACs on other devices (such as computers running iTunes.
It's widely known that Apple breaks even with iTMS, and just uses it as a vehicle to sell iPods.
Last two quarters, Apple has reported a small profit with iTMS.
As to your bullet points. ..
1. Why not buy your music on priceline? Name your own price. I don't think there is anything stopping a person from creating a price matching site, so have at it. Remember, we're talking 99 songs here, so pardon me if my butthole doesn't get wet when I find a 5 savings on "Freebird".
2. A. Not in Australia. B. And the music companies would do this why? Because the AAC miniCD is a smaller physical size? Maybe you should buy your digital music in bulk by weight and get a really great deal?
3. Profit!!
Actually, point #3 is probably a good thing, since it offers more choice to the consumer, but personally, I'm good wit iTunes. I'm already very comfortable with it, so even if a better jukebox/music organizer came along, it would have to be a whole lot better to interest me.
Again you are thinking horizontal. They are creating vendor lockout on their music player which has competitors to favor their music sotre which has competitors.
They're creating vendor lock out? How's that? They don't control the music, the record labels do that. If they had monopoly power, they could limit inputs (music to distribute) to other companies, and basically not allow other online music stores to compete. As it is, the cartel of music labels, which we can just call the RIAA for convenience, controls the music. They will sell rights to distribute to anyone who wants to start up an online music store, so long as you meet their requirements.
I think part of the problem is that you are using the outmoded term "vertical monopoly" when you should be using the term "vertical integration". You might be able to use the term vertical monopoly if Apple had sole control of the music, as I have said, but they don't.
Vertical integration does not make a monopoly. Being the most successful player in a new area doesn't make one a monopoly. You're mischaracterizing the current state* of Apple's business by throwing terms around loosely. So is Virgin, for that matter, but they're attempting to make profit without providing a competitive product. They want to compete in the courts because they offer no innovation, no compelling reason to use their products over Apple's. Similar deal with Real, although Real chose to "innovate", although it remains to be seen whether this innovation will really help the consumer or hurt the consumer, or even help Real all that much. Still, at least Real's actions offer more choice, though not necessarily a good choice.
I'm not up on French law, but I can tell you that Virgin's strategy would not work in the U.S. courts. As far as Real goes, the only way Apple could take them to court and win is if they used the novel (perhaps whimsical) argument that their DRM works both ways, protecting the sanctity of the iPod as well as the rights of the music copyright owners. They'd have to convince the court that this outweighs the interoperability provisions of the DMCA.
*I say the current state because it is theoretically possible that Apple could eventually control both 95% of online music sales and 95% of mp3 player sales, in which case, you could argue that they were a monopoly. But we all know that the real monopoly, er, cartel, the RIAA is not going to let that happen in online music sales.
Slashdot Mirror
We're talking about cordless, not cellular. You furriners need to read for comprehension.
Wallstreet is already doing this, and throwing some pretty powerful brain power and computer power at the problem. Just don't expect the players to share their information with us.
I have a friend who got his PhD in mathematics a few years back. His career options were: 1) Teach (there are far fewer teaching positions than there are candidates), 2) Work for the NSA, 3) or go work for a Wallstreet firm.
He lucked out and got a teaching position at a local city college.
Deregulation seems to only work one way, in favor of the major corporate interests that the FCC is supposed to protect us from. Instead, in this environment of deregulation, which allows more and more power to be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, we see who is going to be regulated: the consumer!
Thank you, my fellow Republicans, for blindly following ideology as if it were holy writ.
Now my question. Were law enforcement agencies given any additional resources or funding to enforce the law? I don't know, but I highly doubt it. Without additional resources to fight such crime, how did congress expect law enforcement agencies to shift their already overstretched resources from other law enforcement activities?
In addition to this being a law that does nothing but codify loopholes, it is toothless in supporting enforcement of those who don't even bother to follow the letter of the law, loopholes and all.
The case here is a little more complicated.
."
Exactly my point. It is very far from clear cut which is why you can't call it a "monopolistic tactic" without major qualifications and equivications. Two further counterpoints. One, last I heard, one in three mp3 players sold was an iPod. Apple might currently be the most successful player, but it is wrong to claim that they have anything approaching a monopoly position (yet. I'll concede that it could happen.). Second, they're not shutting out the record industry! The record industry, in the form of the dominant cartel, the RIAA companies, has the monopoly power and ultimately controls the product.
Protocols and languages are both methods of transimitting information from one entity to another. Certainly protocols aren't NATURAL languages or human languages -they have a much smaller bredth of information that they need to be flexible enough to transmit - but the analogy is sound.
It might be a sound analogy, but it not a perfect analogy. You and I could develop a computer programming language and not publish it in the public domain, and that language would still be useful for creating effective programs. There is no law that would require us to open that language to others, either freely or for recompense. We could have a "monopoly" on that language, but it could never become a monopoly because there would always be the (very easy) possibility of lots of competition.
In your example, it sounds like the community created a new language, and the original work is not necessarily protected by copyright law when creating something new. Definitions of derivative works come into play here. If the language had been patented, the result might have been different, since patents do generally control derivative works, even new work if it is based on the patented work. Still, I don't know tha particulars.
I do think you're on a good track that deserves further thought and follow up regarding interface as being langauge-like. (And I do agree with you philosophically about patents.) May I suggest you read Roland Barthes on the topic of Semiotics and Semiology? Check out Mythologies . From the Amazon book description: "For Barthes, words and objects have in common the organized capacity to say something. .
As your argument currently stands, I find much fault. However, I do think you are on to something, maybe something larger than the current set of issues under discussion.
There is one scenario that would make the labels shit their pants, though it is probably unlikely to come to pass.
.
What if. .
A musician or band (or small coalition of musicians) with sufficient star power to dictate terms, refused to sell online rights to a label, prefering to deal directly with Apple or some other online distributor. They could do this if they were big enough, by refusing to sell CD distribution rights without this condition. Eventually, one of the labels would cave, since CD distribution is still pretty lucrative (more lucrative than online sales for the moment).
Once one powerful artist did this, the floodgates would open. The RIAA cartel would lose their monopoly power, and that power would return to the artists (though obviously not in monopoly form, unless the artists formed their own cartel).
Physical distribution would still exist profitably, but would not be the huge profit center for the huge multinationals that own the labels. This would lead to some sort of rationalizing of those business and perhaps an end to the excesses.
I'm sure that the RIAA companies are aware of this possibility, and would pull out all the stops to prevent it from happening, but the possibility exists.
When Deng Xiao Peng (1904-1997) began instituting reforms in 1997, the whole picture changed, and it is no longer possible to argue that the PRC is a communist nation. Definitely socialist, as there is still much state ownership of major industry, and definitely authoritarian, as you can still be jailed for open dissent, but not communist or totalitarian, as could be said pre-Deng.
Indeed, there have been steps back for every step forward. I remember the "Spiritual Pollution" campaign of the 1980s, instituted by Communist Party hardliners in reaction to the new freedoms and increasing influence of Western culture. But as the aged hardliners were replaced by younger party members with new ideas, such campaigns have lost their steam.
Two better examples (maybe the only real examples) of nations that are still communist would be Cuba and North Korea, but they've really only been able to maintain their communist status because of each nation's "cult of personality". Yet neither nation really represents a threat to the world order. Admittedly, N. Korea is a thorn in the side, but their influence is severely limited vis-a-vis exporting communism. Cuba has largely become irrelevant, except as a campaign issue in U.S. politics.
Really, the biggest difference between the PRC and the USA is that in the PRC, government still domiates industry, while in the USA, industry dominates the government.
Transparent open Free Market capitalism is also still theoretical and relegated to Academia. Yet there is definitely a trend towards such free markets (though they might never be achieved because there is an opposing trend powered by powerful and monied interests that continues to consolidate power into fewer and fewer hands). The more transparency and openness in our markets, the more perfect a capitalism we will have, the more level a playing field we will have, and the more opportunities we will have for more people to have good lives.
Important note: Free market capitalism is not necessarily the same as laisez-faire capitalism. Businesses can still be regulated under free market capitalism; the ideal is that regulation be uniform globally.
How hard would it have been for the makers to come up with a Barbie Dream Labyrinth, complete with a BFG, triple armor and quad damage. That'd teach Ken to keep changing those stupid plans.
Is the first item music from iTMS? But you do not need to purchase an iPod to play that music. Any computer with the free iTunes software installed will do.
And lastly:
Huh? Not even sure where to start. .
The map is not the territory. While you might find analogous qualities in two different things, that does not make them equal. I think you're confusing semiotics with linguistics. While we might speak of a system in semiotic terms, as if it was a language, that doesn't really make it a language. If we were comparing and contrasting "The language of the English garden vs. the language of the French Garden, we wouldn't actually be discussing a real language.
I'll just pass on the part about needing to release a language into the public domain being tested in court. That just sounds wacky, but whatever. It has no bearing on the matter, so why argue it.
The last sentence, Interfaces are a little different - you don't have to release them into the public domain for them to be useful, but you do have to do so if you aren't attempting to hold a monopoly on both ends of its use.
Excuse me, but I've NEVER heard of any law that rewuires you to release a design for an interface into the public domain because otherwise you'd be attempting to "hold a monopoly"at both ends". Maybe you're from a different country than I am and the laws are different, but this just sounds completely non-sensical.
Someone modded you insightful, so maybe I'm just not getting what you're saying. Could you try to explain it again in a different way?
Then maybe they need to rethink the part about not selling DRMed music.
Ditto for French hotel rooms frequented by executives.
The French bugged Paris Hilton? Even the rear entrance?
Numbers quibble, although you did get a number right, sort of. The half number is for revenue. Apple is pulling in half of all money being spent on players. The number they're selling is roughly one third of all players being sold.
Not necessarily. Will HP actually be manufacturing these themselves? Or will they use the same manufacturer that Apple does. Will they design their own iPod using some Apple spec., or will Apple design them?
The way I understood it, HP was just going to rebadge them.
Fuck you and balloon you wafted in on
Don't you mean, "the balloon you were smuggled in"?
10 cents per song and $60 per device and they'd be making the same profit with less work.
He could tell you, but then he'd have to puncture you.
Or perhaps Virgin should find artists/copyright holders that are willing to license their music for digital distribution without DRM. I don't see what is stopping them. Then they could sell DRM free mp3s or AACs.
This begs the question, would anybody buy such songs in enough volume for Virgin to be profitable? Since they'd probably be distributing music from non-mainstream bands, probably not. But that would be their problem, not Apple's.
That's still a pretty huge stretch. Think about it. That's like saying that MS maintains their monopoly illegally by not releasing their source code.
The more fruitful avenue would be product tie-in, but that too is a stretch, since you can play other formats on the iPod (such as mp3) and you can play DRMed AACs on other devices (such as computers running iTunes.
In French, it's Bon Apetit.
(Man, I'm really ragging on the French tonite. I'm not normally a franco-phobe. Sorry French. I still like your mustard.)
Hey man, that's still a lot of beans, if you're talking a metric hill.
They would be if they could find any.
If they've got MIMEole!
I'll whip up a batch of fresh salsa.
muthafu. . .
/.?
no cent symbols on
99 songs above means 99 cent songs and 5 savings means 5 cent savings.
It's widely known that Apple breaks even with iTMS, and just uses it as a vehicle to sell iPods.
.
Last two quarters, Apple has reported a small profit with iTMS.
As to your bullet points. .
1. Why not buy your music on priceline? Name your own price. I don't think there is anything stopping a person from creating a price matching site, so have at it. Remember, we're talking 99 songs here, so pardon me if my butthole doesn't get wet when I find a 5 savings on "Freebird".
2. A. Not in Australia. B. And the music companies would do this why? Because the AAC miniCD is a smaller physical size? Maybe you should buy your digital music in bulk by weight and get a really great deal?
3. Profit!!
Actually, point #3 is probably a good thing, since it offers more choice to the consumer, but personally, I'm good wit iTunes. I'm already very comfortable with it, so even if a better jukebox/music organizer came along, it would have to be a whole lot better to interest me.
They're creating vendor lock out? How's that? They don't control the music, the record labels do that. If they had monopoly power, they could limit inputs (music to distribute) to other companies, and basically not allow other online music stores to compete. As it is, the cartel of music labels, which we can just call the RIAA for convenience, controls the music. They will sell rights to distribute to anyone who wants to start up an online music store, so long as you meet their requirements.
I think part of the problem is that you are using the outmoded term "vertical monopoly" when you should be using the term "vertical integration". You might be able to use the term vertical monopoly if Apple had sole control of the music, as I have said, but they don't.
Vertical integration does not make a monopoly. Being the most successful player in a new area doesn't make one a monopoly. You're mischaracterizing the current state* of Apple's business by throwing terms around loosely. So is Virgin, for that matter, but they're attempting to make profit without providing a competitive product. They want to compete in the courts because they offer no innovation, no compelling reason to use their products over Apple's. Similar deal with Real, although Real chose to "innovate", although it remains to be seen whether this innovation will really help the consumer or hurt the consumer, or even help Real all that much. Still, at least Real's actions offer more choice, though not necessarily a good choice.
I'm not up on French law, but I can tell you that Virgin's strategy would not work in the U.S. courts. As far as Real goes, the only way Apple could take them to court and win is if they used the novel (perhaps whimsical) argument that their DRM works both ways, protecting the sanctity of the iPod as well as the rights of the music copyright owners. They'd have to convince the court that this outweighs the interoperability provisions of the DMCA.
*I say the current state because it is theoretically possible that Apple could eventually control both 95% of online music sales and 95% of mp3 player sales, in which case, you could argue that they were a monopoly. But we all know that the real monopoly, er, cartel, the RIAA is not going to let that happen in online music sales.