Yeah it's an inconvenience for the students, but on the other hand they are getting a fabulous object lesson in how the legal system operates in practice.
Your comments are funny but *I* understood it. Basically he's saying that he's assed-out and awared no credibility by society because he's black and may as well be dead in the context of achieving anything worthy of note in this lifetime but it's not that big a deal in the scheme of things.
It's like a more raw version of Maya Angelou. I thought she was dumb when I had to read her in 6th grade too.
There's a lot there to address. Does the industry lobby for undue burdens on consumers from a legal perspective? Yes. However to the extent that people object (as you are doing) some of them will be lifted and you might do better to direct your energies towards lobbying your representative. (assuming you strengthen your arguments first)
As I see it, people won't buy media or devices that don't do what they want. It's as simple as that. And a choice not to buy something is a choice. If it puts companies who don't sell the products you want out of business while keeping more money in your pocket, that's a choice.
On the other hand, if enough other people disagree with your rant and those companies stay in business because they provide products other people don't have a problem with, that's a choice too. Just not yours.
There might be cases right now (like the boing boing one) of people having higher expectations than are delivered, but the formatting and law and such are in a state of flux right now. And if a Gateway doesn't work, an HP shouldn't either because they're effectively the same computer. That's more a case of why the whole concecpt of a media center PC is bunk and people who buy them are dumb. Why would I or anyone else build our digital lives around such clumsy devices with such onerous restrictions on the way we use them as a Microsoft Windows-based product? I don't want to watch a blue screen of death on a 60" plasma screen! If people want to record shows, there are ways to do it. TiVo for example. And that presently seems to be the most popular choice. Failing that, there's always the trusty VCR. Point being, who in their right mind would buy technology that represents a step backwards? Just because some people apparently do doesn't mean the market failed. It means those people are idiots.
The valid reason for giving Hollywood that level of power is that the shiny disc costs pennies but the content on the disc often cost the studio tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions. A PSP with shiny discs but no content is still an expensive paperweight. A studio with a movie in the can but no PSP to release on still has other options. It is in the electronics manufacturers' interest to want to see content produced for their platform even if that means making certain concessions to the studios.
"Further, the recording industry, both for film and audio, came to be only after the invention of these "psp and ipod" type devices, prompting someone to fill the need."
That's disingeneous. Recording industry only came into being after recording devices came into being? You don't say! Artists preceded the recording industry. And without the artists, there is no recording industry.
"Major fashion houses don't have a right to tell you what shoes you can wear with their fancy and patented new line of pants. "
Huh? I don't see how that applies.
"You can license the official implementation of the format, or design your own unique and independent way of accessing that format from the ground up:"
Ok, I believe there's a place for both. And people do do both and that's fine. However if I'm a studio with the rights to a film and I only want to release on a specific format which contains DRM protection, that's my right. If other people want to release their films on a different format, I have no objection. If they want to convert a film on my format to a different format, I'm going to object because I'm the only one who holds the right to copy the film.
Now if people don't like the DRM format and buy fewer copies as a result and I end up losing money then I have only myself to blame. But if I release on the open format and everyone copies my film and don't pay me for it and I lose even more money, then I'll wish I had released on the DRM format. So the trick with DRM is to find a format that keeps honest people honest while respecting the legitimate rights of consumers and not unduly burdening them.
"now this is down right false.the concept of copyright is "LIMITED" monopoly, not unlimited."
Just because the government grants exceptions and limitations to copyright doesn't make it any less the studio's movie.
Additionally, under this very quote, hollywood has no right to deny consumer electronics manufacturers the right to market devices which access their product (even if it's in ways they don't like) because it's THEIR DEVICE/THEIR IP.
Um, no. If it's the STUDIO'S IP, then the studios have the right to limit the ability of others to copy it. Hence the term, COPY-RIGHT.
That seems to me a quite tortured analogy. If Ford were the one to pay for the roads to be built it would seem to me that they should have the right to deny others the ability to use them, much like the railroads of yore. However roads are public goods which copyrighted works are not.
If Hollywood makes a movie and the options to buy it are limited to: buy the DRM version or not buy it. Those are your choices and that's fair. Why? BECAUSE IT'S THEIR MOVIE.
market for copyrighted works is not the same as a commodity market
The above statement is accurate. What followed was tortured. In fact, if you don't like one movie, there are many thousands of other options available. However they're not the same movie. Nonetheless there are other options.
Going back to the market for copyrighted works, you're right. It is not the same as for commodity products. Looking at things from an economics standpoint, there are a number of differences such as excludability; that with copyrighted works, you *can* have your cake and eat it too. Namely you can effortlessly and without cost give the same work to your friend while keeping it for yourself. But the problem is that the first copy costs $10 million and retails for $19.95,so it's necessary to make it difficult for the first customer to make copies of his own if you want to sell enough to recover your investment and turn a profit. If you can think of a better way than what they've come up with so far, feel free to patent and sell it.
So this is a complaint about companies being forced to add DRM? Well, that's not the free market, is it?
At the same time, as I said in another post, I can understand the position of the studios as well. If they do good work, they also have a right to expect to profit from it. Everything from PSPs to iPods are nothing more than an expensive paperweights without it. And if content can be easily copied (and digital content does have that attribute), the chances of content-producers recovering their development costs is lower, meaning fewer people will invest in content production, and as a result we'll have less content of poorer quality.
If you can think of some alternative business model that respects the rights of artists and yes, publishers, (publishers are the ones who bear the financial risk of marketing usually) as well as the rights of consumers, by all means, start a company around it.
Alternatively, just do the Linux hacker thing, which in the aggregate means fuck all and at the margins is good because it means interesting things are happening. But understand that in the aggregate all legitimate parties on the value chain for consumer products, including information, should be allowed to reap the legitimate rewards of their effort exerted and risk borne.
You people can relax. China's not going to take over the world.
I've been living in China for the past 3 of 4 years and now speak Chinese well enough to discuss such issues. And I actually wondered such things myself. In fact, I was discussing it with one of my friends last night who's reasonably successful. He owns a coffee shop that's more popular than the local Starbucks. In fact I often discuss such things with him. But the conclusion I reached from that discussion is that a Chinese take-over of the world is not going to happen.
He was telling me how he was reading about the notion of a space elevator online and that he found the idea very interesting. I had thought about this before and since he brought up the subject suggested to him that since Chinese people are so nationalistic and so interested in face and so good at building things, and are wondering when they'll finally get respect from other nations, they should build one. Rough plans are already freely available online and they could presumably build it for $0.03 on the dollar.
He sort of paused and looked at me with a blank expression but wasn't really interested and didn't seem to think anyone else would be either. And I flat-out told him, if people in China are only interested in doing things that other people have already been done (albeit on a larger scale perhaps) then China will always be at least one step behind other nations in terms of development and he agreed with me on that point.
At the same time, he acknowledged that if you're making t-shirts, you're under the threat of competition from someone else who might undercut you whereas if you're the only one in the world who does what you do, you have no such concern to worry about.
I read the linked thread. I don't know if I agree with the whole big media and electronics companies are trying to screw us thing. Big companies have a habit of screwing the consumer if they think they can get away with it, but electronics companies aren't the worst offenders.
And there are infinitely more egregious instances. For example, it's bullshit that you have to get locked into a year-long "service" contract with a mobile provider that may or may not actually provide decent service. About the only thing I can say there is that such companies absolutely will lose market share after the year is up. Ditto credit card companies making you pay $29 if you're one day late.
Thanks to Google, however, that's becoming more and more rare. People can look for opinions out there on whatever products and services before they buy. Consequently, power does shift, to a large extent to the consumer if they but take the initiative to spend not even 5 minutes doing their homework before making major purchasing decisions. Of course, you're pretty vague about the instances of companies screwing people over except for Microsoft, but we all knew that. If you don't like Microsoft, your choices are: OSX and Linux. Personally I like OSX but a lot of other people are already used to viruses, spyware, and things otherwise not working. As you said yourself, inertia.
But when it comes to the balance of profits between studios and electronics firms, consumers be damned, hardly. The paying consumer, in the aggregate, is the one who ultimately holds the power.
Obviously if the studios determine what format they release on, they implicitly have some sway over the technology that interacts with them. And I'll grant companies like Macrovision would never exist in a free market.
Now you argue that it's one-sided but it's not really. The studios want DRM and scream bloody murder if it's not there. And the electronics companies are like, fine, no skin off our backs really. So it's not that it's one-sided. It's that only one side cares. Some of the time, I'll grant it makes things inconvenient and worse and doesn't apparently solve anything. Region-encoding for DVDs for example. Other times, things just suck completely and work not at all and make things so bad consumers revolt and that's why every attempt to produce an iTunes music store competitor failed abysmally. (if it's any consolation, companies like Wal-Mart lost money trying) And I can certainly understand the frustration at having studio execs make technical decisions as a general matter of principle.
At the end of the day, however, companies that strike a balance between the rights of consumers and the rights of content producers like Apple will win and companies like Wal-Mart that kow-tow to the studios and try and undercut on the basis of price alone while offering an inferior consumer experience will lose and that's how it should be.
I'm not familiar with the DRM in Vista but if it does indeed represent an onerous burden on consumers, it can only cost Microsoft market share, especially when it comes to the golden-convergence holy grail battle for the living room.
and what happened to my "private property rights"?
you know.. my right to OWN the things I purchased with my hard earned dollar?
Surely you do have the right to the things you purchase with your money.
what happened to those people's right to profit form their ideas?
Hang on. No one has the "right" to profit from their ideas. You have the right to offer them for sale, but that doesn't mean other people have the obligation to pay you for them.
One of the major issues with digital media generally is that it is easily copied. And that keeps Hollywood executives up at night and in search of ways to prevent that. They did, after all, risk tens of millions if not hundreds of millions to develop their IP and would like to receive a return on investment. Sometimes, despite multi-million dollar marketing budgets, they don't and even end up losing money. However they can't maximize their profits unless they hit ancillary markets like DVDs.
In the case of the relationship between electronic device manufacturers and Hollywood, it varies. The movie and music companies have the right to determine what format they want to release THEIR music and movies on and if the electronics manufacturers want to produce something different, they're just SOL. On the other hand, the studios are not going to release their content on a format no one has a player for because it's bad business. So there's a balance that gets struck and of course that balance is not equal. It matters who has the power in such cases.
As you might recall, Apple did have to "beg" the music industry for cooperation with iTunes at first. But because of its tremendous popularity, Apple is now in the driver's seat and treats the initiatives of the record labels relating to iTunes pricing and even government (at least the French) with open disdain.
And I'll be sure to use small words you communist Slashdotters will be sure to understand.
This is part of a broader trend amongst the Chinese powers that be to recognize and enforce IP rights.
It has nothing to do with pressure from foreign lobbying from AmCham or the RIAA or whoever. Not only could they not care less, I think they actually enjoy giving various foreign powers the run-around because it gives them "face".
No. This is something that they're doing on their own because they simply see it as being in the national interest. It's not that there's a lot of Chinese elites with IP lined up to register so much, although that does happen to some degree. It's more that they thoroughly understand and recognize the very necessary role the concept of PRIVATE PROPERTY plays in economic development.
The Chinese experience with IP is pretty straightforward. Name a Chinese band. Any one will do. Name a Chinese movie. (HK doesn't count) Name a Chinese brand of a product you actually bought and use. That's what I thought.
There are many people here in China who LIVED THROUGH and remember what happened when they decided to share everything, including food, collectively, in the largest peer-to-peer network ever created. For the uninitiated amongst you, (and in the "beer wants to be free" parallel universe of the hippie commune that is Slashdot I imagine that's quite a few) 30 million people starved to death.
I agree with you that Silicon Valley has lost its spark. I was working on a tech start-up remotely from China and decided to move back home to Silicon Valley figuring the costs of living should be even lower. (2003) Try as I might to get into "the zone" to develop a kinematics engine, there was no end to the string of unacceptable bullshit interruptions from lowly slime like telemarketers to my mother wanting me to help her carry groceries or some stupid shit like that, and in the meantime, everyone I knew was pestering me to go get a "real" job like working at Starbucks or Walmart or some shit like that.
In a nutshell, I would describe the Valley culture of 2003 as anti-innovation because the troglodytes took over when they took over the rest of the US. And if things are "slow" even now, it's because the troglodytes still rule and the visionaries are marginalized nowhere to turn.
Well you have to think that UCSD was founded within the lifetime of many posters here. Consequently, I tend to think there really hasn't been enough time for many UCSD-based outfits to become household names.
However the MAJOR advantage that Stanford and Berkeley enjoy over UCSD is top-notch business and law schools. UCSD is working on building up an MBA program and has some notable economists on its faculty but I don't think the program's even started yet, let alone become established. So far as I know, there are no plans for a law school. Lack of business and legal expertise is really what holds UCSD back on the start-up front. In fact it's what killed the UCSD-based start-up I was working for.
As an example, who here could name a single name relating to Sun Micro on the technology side? It's the business and management side that's gotten all the glory. I dare say that pretty much extends to every technology company out there. No one cares that you invented a better mousetrap. They only care what your stock options are worth.
I agree with you that the uneducated wealthy rule supreme in San Diego. (you might try North County if you're looking to get away from that) But having observed the way of the world I conclude that intelligence and creativity are only worth a damn to the extent that you can find someone willing to recognize and pay you for them.
There's quite a few places in San Jose, Palo Alto, and Los Gatos. Limelight, Double D's, Mountain Charlie's, The Brit on Almaden......sure there's a few I've forgotten and no doubt the scene's changed, but it's not that Silicon Valley hurts for a nightlife but that the techies are generally not so-inclined.
What are you talking about? CNN? Ted Turner's media empire is the most influential in the world. You know the bass fishing shows you flip through on cable repeatedly while looking for something good? It's an insidious plot to subliminally control your ass. I mean, no one actually watches that shit.
And what about Coca Cola? What Silicon Valley biotech company would have thought to deliver addictive narcotics to the consumer market in a fun and fizzy beverage form factor?
Yeah, but Silicon Valley isn't one of them. I'm both amused and disgusted by their attempts to try. Yeah they can throw billions into "high-tech zones" and do, but they're just glorified factories for building the things that were invented in Silicon Valley for $0.03 on the dollar. Look at your iPod.
Being from Silicon Valley and having received my 4-year new media degree in 2001 right after its value went from about $60K/year to about $7/hr (actually $8 because my uncle wanted to do me a "favor"), I certainly share some of the concerns of people here.
One I wonder about perhaps being overblown (although they do still matter but not as much as we might think) is the twin deficits. Basically, the trade deficit finances the budget deficit. If America ships dollars to Asia to buy products, the Asian manufacturer is going to turn those dollars into local currency to pay its workers and buy materials and such and the Asian central banks will take those dollars and buy T-bills. (they could also buy euros or yen or gold if so inclined but nominal yields on T-bills are highest) This is because they don't want another 1997 when they had inadequate dollar reserves to cover dollar withdrawals and basically got reamed harder than you're getting reamed right now. And I have to suspect that a lot of the capital flight from Asia at the time found a home in the Nasdaq, bolsering the tech and dot-com market as that money was looking for a quick buck to offset some nasty losses. Short story: you benefitted from their misery then just like they're benefitting from yours now.
Globalization is really The Next Big Thing. And you have to embrace it if you want to not be basically a serf tied to the land. Nationality doesn't really matter too much in the context of business and economics anymore. To the extent that it ever did, that was only due to the trouble and expense of going offshore which is now greatly diminished. Some of that is artifical, like with NAFTA, but it's really unlikely to play any role in the information economy anyway.
As far as manufacturing goes, I don't honestly believe that anyone on/. is that concerned about it. It's really more that politically, the union workers are much more numerous and therefore powerful in a democratic society than/.ers, so complaining about the loss of manufacturing jobs is really only a political maneuver. From a purely economic standpoint, however, Perot was quoted as saying about American workers that they want $20/hr to do a job you could train a monkey to do, which he was probably right about.
Therefore the only thing to do is have a skillset that makes you worth more than the next guy, regardless of race or nationality.
A paycheck is your incentive to avoid getting fired.
The question (which doesn't apply to you) is how companies should give people incentives to make the company successful rather than program the banking system to hack off fractions of cents and put them in a separate account.
I know what we're talking about. And stock options increase in value because the value of the underlying stock has increased in value. And not for any other reason.
Companies don't always buy stock to offset exercised options. They could do nothing and allow the equity to dilute. And in cases where they do buy back shares it's already expensed as another poster astutely pointed out.
I think people at FASB are as stupid. Much stupider than me. But smarter than you.
Options are used as an incentive just like salary and as such should be included in the books as a cost of doing business.
Except that options are not a cost of doing business. Are they an incentive? Yes. Do they have value? Yes. Are they a cost of doing business? No. Because unlike salary, bonus pay, and benefit expenses, options don't cost the company any cash. The only thing they cost the shareholders is equity IF they vest in the money. And if they vest in the money, you should be happy about that because that means the value of your investment went up.
And if you're concerned about equity dilution, you the shareholder have the option of cashing in your chips long before the options holder.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah it's an inconvenience for the students, but on the other hand they are getting a fabulous object lesson in how the legal system operates in practice.
It was on one of those run your car on water sites. Obviously this is just another giant hoax.
Your comments are funny but *I* understood it. Basically he's saying that he's assed-out and awared no credibility by society because he's black and may as well be dead in the context of achieving anything worthy of note in this lifetime but it's not that big a deal in the scheme of things. It's like a more raw version of Maya Angelou. I thought she was dumb when I had to read her in 6th grade too.
There's a lot there to address. Does the industry lobby for undue burdens on consumers from a legal perspective? Yes. However to the extent that people object (as you are doing) some of them will be lifted and you might do better to direct your energies towards lobbying your representative. (assuming you strengthen your arguments first) As I see it, people won't buy media or devices that don't do what they want. It's as simple as that. And a choice not to buy something is a choice. If it puts companies who don't sell the products you want out of business while keeping more money in your pocket, that's a choice. On the other hand, if enough other people disagree with your rant and those companies stay in business because they provide products other people don't have a problem with, that's a choice too. Just not yours. There might be cases right now (like the boing boing one) of people having higher expectations than are delivered, but the formatting and law and such are in a state of flux right now. And if a Gateway doesn't work, an HP shouldn't either because they're effectively the same computer. That's more a case of why the whole concecpt of a media center PC is bunk and people who buy them are dumb. Why would I or anyone else build our digital lives around such clumsy devices with such onerous restrictions on the way we use them as a Microsoft Windows-based product? I don't want to watch a blue screen of death on a 60" plasma screen! If people want to record shows, there are ways to do it. TiVo for example. And that presently seems to be the most popular choice. Failing that, there's always the trusty VCR. Point being, who in their right mind would buy technology that represents a step backwards? Just because some people apparently do doesn't mean the market failed. It means those people are idiots.
The valid reason for giving Hollywood that level of power is that the shiny disc costs pennies but the content on the disc often cost the studio tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions. A PSP with shiny discs but no content is still an expensive paperweight. A studio with a movie in the can but no PSP to release on still has other options. It is in the electronics manufacturers' interest to want to see content produced for their platform even if that means making certain concessions to the studios.
"Further, the recording industry, both for film and audio, came to be only after the invention of these "psp and ipod" type devices, prompting someone to fill the need."
That's disingeneous. Recording industry only came into being after recording devices came into being? You don't say! Artists preceded the recording industry. And without the artists, there is no recording industry.
"Major fashion houses don't have a right to tell you what shoes you can wear with their fancy and patented new line of pants. "
Huh? I don't see how that applies.
"You can license the official implementation of the format, or design your own unique and independent way of accessing that format from the ground up:"
Ok, I believe there's a place for both. And people do do both and that's fine. However if I'm a studio with the rights to a film and I only want to release on a specific format which contains DRM protection, that's my right. If other people want to release their films on a different format, I have no objection. If they want to convert a film on my format to a different format, I'm going to object because I'm the only one who holds the right to copy the film.
Now if people don't like the DRM format and buy fewer copies as a result and I end up losing money then I have only myself to blame. But if I release on the open format and everyone copies my film and don't pay me for it and I lose even more money, then I'll wish I had released on the DRM format. So the trick with DRM is to find a format that keeps honest people honest while respecting the legitimate rights of consumers and not unduly burdening them.
"now this is down right false.the concept of copyright is "LIMITED" monopoly, not unlimited."
Just because the government grants exceptions and limitations to copyright doesn't make it any less the studio's movie.
Additionally, under this very quote, hollywood has no right to deny consumer electronics manufacturers the right to market devices which access their product (even if it's in ways they don't like) because it's THEIR DEVICE/THEIR IP.
Um, no. If it's the STUDIO'S IP, then the studios have the right to limit the ability of others to copy it. Hence the term, COPY-RIGHT.
That seems to me a quite tortured analogy. If Ford were the one to pay for the roads to be built it would seem to me that they should have the right to deny others the ability to use them, much like the railroads of yore. However roads are public goods which copyrighted works are not.
If Hollywood makes a movie and the options to buy it are limited to: buy the DRM version or not buy it. Those are your choices and that's fair. Why? BECAUSE IT'S THEIR MOVIE.
market for copyrighted works is not the same as a commodity market
The above statement is accurate. What followed was tortured. In fact, if you don't like one movie, there are many thousands of other options available. However they're not the same movie. Nonetheless there are other options.
Going back to the market for copyrighted works, you're right. It is not the same as for commodity products. Looking at things from an economics standpoint, there are a number of differences such as excludability; that with copyrighted works, you *can* have your cake and eat it too. Namely you can effortlessly and without cost give the same work to your friend while keeping it for yourself. But the problem is that the first copy costs $10 million and retails for $19.95,so it's necessary to make it difficult for the first customer to make copies of his own if you want to sell enough to recover your investment and turn a profit. If you can think of a better way than what they've come up with so far, feel free to patent and sell it.
So this is a complaint about companies being forced to add DRM? Well, that's not the free market, is it? At the same time, as I said in another post, I can understand the position of the studios as well. If they do good work, they also have a right to expect to profit from it. Everything from PSPs to iPods are nothing more than an expensive paperweights without it. And if content can be easily copied (and digital content does have that attribute), the chances of content-producers recovering their development costs is lower, meaning fewer people will invest in content production, and as a result we'll have less content of poorer quality. If you can think of some alternative business model that respects the rights of artists and yes, publishers, (publishers are the ones who bear the financial risk of marketing usually) as well as the rights of consumers, by all means, start a company around it. Alternatively, just do the Linux hacker thing, which in the aggregate means fuck all and at the margins is good because it means interesting things are happening. But understand that in the aggregate all legitimate parties on the value chain for consumer products, including information, should be allowed to reap the legitimate rewards of their effort exerted and risk borne.
You people can relax. China's not going to take over the world.
I've been living in China for the past 3 of 4 years and now speak Chinese well enough to discuss such issues. And I actually wondered such things myself. In fact, I was discussing it with one of my friends last night who's reasonably successful. He owns a coffee shop that's more popular than the local Starbucks. In fact I often discuss such things with him. But the conclusion I reached from that discussion is that a Chinese take-over of the world is not going to happen.
He was telling me how he was reading about the notion of a space elevator online and that he found the idea very interesting. I had thought about this before and since he brought up the subject suggested to him that since Chinese people are so nationalistic and so interested in face and so good at building things, and are wondering when they'll finally get respect from other nations, they should build one. Rough plans are already freely available online and they could presumably build it for $0.03 on the dollar.
He sort of paused and looked at me with a blank expression but wasn't really interested and didn't seem to think anyone else would be either. And I flat-out told him, if people in China are only interested in doing things that other people have already been done (albeit on a larger scale perhaps) then China will always be at least one step behind other nations in terms of development and he agreed with me on that point.
At the same time, he acknowledged that if you're making t-shirts, you're under the threat of competition from someone else who might undercut you whereas if you're the only one in the world who does what you do, you have no such concern to worry about.
I read the linked thread. I don't know if I agree with the whole big media and electronics companies are trying to screw us thing. Big companies have a habit of screwing the consumer if they think they can get away with it, but electronics companies aren't the worst offenders. And there are infinitely more egregious instances. For example, it's bullshit that you have to get locked into a year-long "service" contract with a mobile provider that may or may not actually provide decent service. About the only thing I can say there is that such companies absolutely will lose market share after the year is up. Ditto credit card companies making you pay $29 if you're one day late. Thanks to Google, however, that's becoming more and more rare. People can look for opinions out there on whatever products and services before they buy. Consequently, power does shift, to a large extent to the consumer if they but take the initiative to spend not even 5 minutes doing their homework before making major purchasing decisions. Of course, you're pretty vague about the instances of companies screwing people over except for Microsoft, but we all knew that. If you don't like Microsoft, your choices are: OSX and Linux. Personally I like OSX but a lot of other people are already used to viruses, spyware, and things otherwise not working. As you said yourself, inertia. But when it comes to the balance of profits between studios and electronics firms, consumers be damned, hardly. The paying consumer, in the aggregate, is the one who ultimately holds the power.
Obviously if the studios determine what format they release on, they implicitly have some sway over the technology that interacts with them. And I'll grant companies like Macrovision would never exist in a free market. Now you argue that it's one-sided but it's not really. The studios want DRM and scream bloody murder if it's not there. And the electronics companies are like, fine, no skin off our backs really. So it's not that it's one-sided. It's that only one side cares. Some of the time, I'll grant it makes things inconvenient and worse and doesn't apparently solve anything. Region-encoding for DVDs for example. Other times, things just suck completely and work not at all and make things so bad consumers revolt and that's why every attempt to produce an iTunes music store competitor failed abysmally. (if it's any consolation, companies like Wal-Mart lost money trying) And I can certainly understand the frustration at having studio execs make technical decisions as a general matter of principle.
At the end of the day, however, companies that strike a balance between the rights of consumers and the rights of content producers like Apple will win and companies like Wal-Mart that kow-tow to the studios and try and undercut on the basis of price alone while offering an inferior consumer experience will lose and that's how it should be.
I'm not familiar with the DRM in Vista but if it does indeed represent an onerous burden on consumers, it can only cost Microsoft market share, especially when it comes to the golden-convergence holy grail battle for the living room.
Hang on. No one has the "right" to profit from their ideas. You have the right to offer them for sale, but that doesn't mean other people have the obligation to pay you for them.
One of the major issues with digital media generally is that it is easily copied. And that keeps Hollywood executives up at night and in search of ways to prevent that. They did, after all, risk tens of millions if not hundreds of millions to develop their IP and would like to receive a return on investment. Sometimes, despite multi-million dollar marketing budgets, they don't and even end up losing money. However they can't maximize their profits unless they hit ancillary markets like DVDs.
In the case of the relationship between electronic device manufacturers and Hollywood, it varies. The movie and music companies have the right to determine what format they want to release THEIR music and movies on and if the electronics manufacturers want to produce something different, they're just SOL. On the other hand, the studios are not going to release their content on a format no one has a player for because it's bad business. So there's a balance that gets struck and of course that balance is not equal. It matters who has the power in such cases.
As you might recall, Apple did have to "beg" the music industry for cooperation with iTunes at first. But because of its tremendous popularity, Apple is now in the driver's seat and treats the initiatives of the record labels relating to iTunes pricing and even government (at least the French) with open disdain.
It's no surprise to me that someone so anti-IP has ZERO worthwhile ideas.
And I'll be sure to use small words you communist Slashdotters will be sure to understand. This is part of a broader trend amongst the Chinese powers that be to recognize and enforce IP rights. It has nothing to do with pressure from foreign lobbying from AmCham or the RIAA or whoever. Not only could they not care less, I think they actually enjoy giving various foreign powers the run-around because it gives them "face". No. This is something that they're doing on their own because they simply see it as being in the national interest. It's not that there's a lot of Chinese elites with IP lined up to register so much, although that does happen to some degree. It's more that they thoroughly understand and recognize the very necessary role the concept of PRIVATE PROPERTY plays in economic development. The Chinese experience with IP is pretty straightforward. Name a Chinese band. Any one will do. Name a Chinese movie. (HK doesn't count) Name a Chinese brand of a product you actually bought and use. That's what I thought. There are many people here in China who LIVED THROUGH and remember what happened when they decided to share everything, including food, collectively, in the largest peer-to-peer network ever created. For the uninitiated amongst you, (and in the "beer wants to be free" parallel universe of the hippie commune that is Slashdot I imagine that's quite a few) 30 million people starved to death.
I agree with you that Silicon Valley has lost its spark. I was working on a tech start-up remotely from China and decided to move back home to Silicon Valley figuring the costs of living should be even lower. (2003) Try as I might to get into "the zone" to develop a kinematics engine, there was no end to the string of unacceptable bullshit interruptions from lowly slime like telemarketers to my mother wanting me to help her carry groceries or some stupid shit like that, and in the meantime, everyone I knew was pestering me to go get a "real" job like working at Starbucks or Walmart or some shit like that. In a nutshell, I would describe the Valley culture of 2003 as anti-innovation because the troglodytes took over when they took over the rest of the US. And if things are "slow" even now, it's because the troglodytes still rule and the visionaries are marginalized nowhere to turn.
Well you have to think that UCSD was founded within the lifetime of many posters here. Consequently, I tend to think there really hasn't been enough time for many UCSD-based outfits to become household names. However the MAJOR advantage that Stanford and Berkeley enjoy over UCSD is top-notch business and law schools. UCSD is working on building up an MBA program and has some notable economists on its faculty but I don't think the program's even started yet, let alone become established. So far as I know, there are no plans for a law school. Lack of business and legal expertise is really what holds UCSD back on the start-up front. In fact it's what killed the UCSD-based start-up I was working for. As an example, who here could name a single name relating to Sun Micro on the technology side? It's the business and management side that's gotten all the glory. I dare say that pretty much extends to every technology company out there. No one cares that you invented a better mousetrap. They only care what your stock options are worth. I agree with you that the uneducated wealthy rule supreme in San Diego. (you might try North County if you're looking to get away from that) But having observed the way of the world I conclude that intelligence and creativity are only worth a damn to the extent that you can find someone willing to recognize and pay you for them.
There's quite a few places in San Jose, Palo Alto, and Los Gatos. Limelight, Double D's, Mountain Charlie's, The Brit on Almaden... ...sure there's a few I've forgotten and no doubt the scene's changed, but it's not that Silicon Valley hurts for a nightlife but that the techies are generally not so-inclined.
What are you talking about? CNN? Ted Turner's media empire is the most influential in the world. You know the bass fishing shows you flip through on cable repeatedly while looking for something good? It's an insidious plot to subliminally control your ass. I mean, no one actually watches that shit. And what about Coca Cola? What Silicon Valley biotech company would have thought to deliver addictive narcotics to the consumer market in a fun and fizzy beverage form factor?
Yeah, but Silicon Valley isn't one of them. I'm both amused and disgusted by their attempts to try. Yeah they can throw billions into "high-tech zones" and do, but they're just glorified factories for building the things that were invented in Silicon Valley for $0.03 on the dollar. Look at your iPod.
Being from Silicon Valley and having received my 4-year new media degree in 2001 right after its value went from about $60K/year to about $7/hr (actually $8 because my uncle wanted to do me a "favor"), I certainly share some of the concerns of people here. One I wonder about perhaps being overblown (although they do still matter but not as much as we might think) is the twin deficits. Basically, the trade deficit finances the budget deficit. If America ships dollars to Asia to buy products, the Asian manufacturer is going to turn those dollars into local currency to pay its workers and buy materials and such and the Asian central banks will take those dollars and buy T-bills. (they could also buy euros or yen or gold if so inclined but nominal yields on T-bills are highest) This is because they don't want another 1997 when they had inadequate dollar reserves to cover dollar withdrawals and basically got reamed harder than you're getting reamed right now. And I have to suspect that a lot of the capital flight from Asia at the time found a home in the Nasdaq, bolsering the tech and dot-com market as that money was looking for a quick buck to offset some nasty losses. Short story: you benefitted from their misery then just like they're benefitting from yours now. Globalization is really The Next Big Thing. And you have to embrace it if you want to not be basically a serf tied to the land. Nationality doesn't really matter too much in the context of business and economics anymore. To the extent that it ever did, that was only due to the trouble and expense of going offshore which is now greatly diminished. Some of that is artifical, like with NAFTA, but it's really unlikely to play any role in the information economy anyway. As far as manufacturing goes, I don't honestly believe that anyone on /. is that concerned about it. It's really more that politically, the union workers are much more numerous and therefore powerful in a democratic society than /.ers, so complaining about the loss of manufacturing jobs is really only a political maneuver. From a purely economic standpoint, however, Perot was quoted as saying about American workers that they want $20/hr to do a job you could train a monkey to do, which he was probably right about.
Therefore the only thing to do is have a skillset that makes you worth more than the next guy, regardless of race or nationality.
Smartest guys in the room and all that.
The solution is not to bitch and moan on the internet. The solution is to use your gaming dollar to buy and therefore subsidize good games.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to register my copy of Escape Velocity Nova.
A paycheck is your incentive to avoid getting fired. The question (which doesn't apply to you) is how companies should give people incentives to make the company successful rather than program the banking system to hack off fractions of cents and put them in a separate account.
I know what we're talking about. And stock options increase in value because the value of the underlying stock has increased in value. And not for any other reason. Companies don't always buy stock to offset exercised options. They could do nothing and allow the equity to dilute. And in cases where they do buy back shares it's already expensed as another poster astutely pointed out. I think people at FASB are as stupid. Much stupider than me. But smarter than you.