Re:There are other differences...
on
Longhorn Preview
·
· Score: 1
The post your responding too is still essentially true IMO. Price, at least, is the biggest reason this user hasn't switched to Apple. I've been considering a mini to run Final Cut Pro, but the mini, though well under a thousand bucks, is basically a laptop without a screen, down to the slow drives, and is not very upgradeable. And, of course, Apple's big machines are outrageously priced.
Now, when the Mac OS was competing with Windows 3.1.1 back 1994, I'd have shelled out the difference. Back then the Mac OS was light years ahead of Windows. Today, however, the Mac OS and Windows XP are so close in stability and functionality (both being pretty good) that paying extra is something many people will do only if they have to, as in my case - wanting to run a specific Mac-only program.
Note: After starting on someone else's Mac, I bought a PC in the early 90's. Why? Because I couldn't afford a Mac.
Curiosity is the ONLY reason for humans to explore space. But more specificially, humans are compelled to live into the vision of humans in space presented to us throughout much of the 20th century. Living into our visions of the future is inevitable, and for that reason, science fiction and myths are not only prophetic but catalystic.
The dumbest reason is survival. It takes so much energy to get people into space that it is unlikely we could get a substantial amount of our kind off earth in time to avoid the coming down of the shit, whenever and however it happens.
Let's say, for example, that the population keeps growing at its current rate. There's no reason not to believe that we'll have a food crisis on such a scale that billions (not millions) will starve to death. Well, we can't very well get a thousand, let alone a million, let alone a billion people off the planet.
But we're still stuck with the images of Noah's arc, Jesus's raft, and a hundred other "escape myths", so we'll be running the "escape" program for a while, regardless of its plausibility.
it's hard not to be a little disappointed with the state of robot technology. We've landed a man on the moon, split the atom, and decoded our genes, yet we're supposed to be impressed by a (human-controlled) robot that can crawl like a caterpillar.
Don't get me wrong. I realize this is a step forward, but the current state of robots seems so behind others.
Be on the lookout for a verile male with a sixteen-inch penis, a stack of college diplomas, all the descrabled satellite TV he can watch, and low low mortgage rates.
"Viable and profitable alternatives for legal music distribution are staring the RIAA right in the face and they just don't seem to care!"
Would you want to change if you had a monopoly, a guarantee of making loads of money year after year? No, you'd do everything you could to protect the status quo.
Venkman: No. Peck: Why not? Venkman: You didn't use the magic word. Peck: And what is the magic word? Venkman: Please. Peck: May I please see the torrents, Mr. Venkman? Venkman: Why do you want to see the torrents?
Funny enough, since I've started using AllOfMP3.com, I've spent more on music than the last five years combined (almost none). Maybe it's because I feel I'm getting my money's worth?
Half the people in the country will have a hard time moving from DVD to download. The DVD player still fits the old VCR model - stick something in the front of the box, and it plays. DVD is really just a more advanced VCR, as far as most people are concerned.
Downloading, of course, is a foreign concept to most people. While my dad is computer literate, my mother has never touched a computer, and she wouldn't know what the f*** a download is. Literally, she has no concept of it.
If downloading becomes the norm, it will happen through the cable box. Again, the cable box is a box hooked to the TV, a concept everybody understands.
Canadian pharmacies is a good analogy. Both US industries are accused of setting arbitrary prices, locking out competition to keep the prices high, and both claim that research and development is the reason for the high prices. As long as buying drugs from Canada is legal, people will. Of course, that will change soon, just as the US recording industry will put a stop to what AllOfMP3 is doing. In the meantime...
My position has nothing to do with fucking the artist. I'm one of them.
As I said, AllOfMP3 is to me like buying from a bargain bin at the store or buying a used CD. In either case, very little if any money goes back to the artist, though the act itself is perfectly legal. But that's beside the point. I'm buying in that case because the product is the same but cheaper, and after all I'm in the position of the consumer, plain and simple. Morality has nothing to do with it.
Anyone can list a catalogue of companies and entire industries that should not be supported, because they treat their workers badly. In not buying, one can easily claim the moral highground. I understand what you're getting at, but the moral highground simpy isn't an argument.
"Actually, downloading copyrighted music without permission or an applicable exception is always illegal in the US.
Downloading is a form of reproduction, and reproduction is an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Uploading is a form of distribution, and distribution is another exclusive right of the copyright holder. So really, you can't do either."
Hmm. I've downloaded songs in the U.S., and the downloads were perfectly legal. I did not download from the copyright holder. How in the world could that be?
I believe what AllOfMP3 is saying is that a Russian agency of some sort has legally licensed the material from American companies. That agency grants companies a license (again, which is supposedly legal) to distribute the material electronically. So, like iTunes can legally sell music, AllOfMP3 can legally sell music, if I understand their position.
In other words, though America's copyright laws grant control to the copyright holder, you can still buy music from someone other than the copyright holder. Everyone does it all the time.
Using AllOfMP3 is a psychological crutch?!? No, "exploiting an apparent loophole" is at present a way to get great service at a great price. Crutch, my ass. I had no part in writing the Russian or American copyright law. I just try to abide. If there's a hole and it allows me more access, power to me.
If the RIAA steps in to close the gap, power to them. But right now it's great.
Why are so many people pointing out that AllofMp3 is "obviously" illegal? What's so obvious about it? I mean, what makes us think Apple or MSN Music is so perfectly legal? Because they've told us so, that's why. So what's the difference? AllofMP3 says they're legal and goes to great length to explain how.
Now, it's true - the American music industry has set the standard of ridiculous prices and substandard service. Even the online stores are only slightly cheaper than CDs, and they don't offer a variety of encoding options, just their proprietary 128k crappola.
I've bought from MSN, which is okay, but the quality is pretty bad on my portable MP3 player, not to mention that the MSN file format crashes the player ever other time. I'd go with Apple, but I don't think theirs works at all on my player, and if it did, they only offer 128k (right?). The record-industry-shill response has been unhelpful - get an IPod, buy from Apple, or else don't buy music. Well, I'm supposed to have a choice. That is not a choice. It is an illusion of choice.
So recently I started using AllofMP3, and I love it. There's no silly DRM. I don't plan on sharing my files, but I like that I can actually f-ing play the files. I download 192k, which sounds infinitely better on my portable player. The prices - well, they're incredible, but I'd be willing to pay double the price, maybe even triple, for this kind of service. Needless to say, it's nice to deal with a business that doesn't seem to be ringing as much money from me as it can possibly get while providing me with as little. Respect is refreshing.
Those who say AllOfMP3 SHOULD obviously be illegal are just shilling for the industry that literally gets together and decides how to screw the customers. Not only that, these users have been conditioned to think that ridiculous prices and crappy service is not only the norm but should always be.
Furthermore, this is not a moral argument; it is only a legal one. There is no need to always tie the two together, as they are seperate things. Who gets his morality from the law of the land? That's worse than backward thinking - it's fascist.
AllOfMP3 is a bit like a clearance sale to me. I've bought plenty of CDs for two bucks before, used and new, without a pang of guilt that the artist was being hurt or the law kicking down my door. I'm just a lowly consumer of music. If you're selling it for cheap, cool.
P.S.: All the article says is that Russians are investigating Russians. Unless they shut down the site, nothing has changed.
The person who pointed out that you're not making an argument is right. Saying over and over how your opinion is obvious is not an argument.
Using P2P to download copyrighted work is usually illegal, that much is certain. But immoral? How so? Because it's illegal? Does the law of the land determine your definitions of morality? Adultery is legal; do you think it's moral?
Is taking Doom 3 without paying for it inherently immoral? That doesn't exactly sound like the last message left by God. Is what makes taking Doom 3 immoral that they're asking for money for it and you're taking it without paying? Is that how morality works? The thing that always comes up in court regarding intellectual property misuse, is harm (how much has been done to the rights holder), but maybe they should rewrite the rules - you violate copyright, you are son-of-a-bitch, no questions asked.
Copyright is a complex subject, no matter how loudly a man says that it's simple.
A similar argument can be heard coming from anti-abortion nuts: It's murder! Really? How so? It's an innocent life! Really? How so? It just is! What makes you say that? I just know! Okay. Next.
Agreed. How is it suddenly cool just to follow the crowd? I'll tell you how - it isn't! Blogs (ugh), photoblogs (yuck), and moblogs (barf) are substitutes for doing real stuff. They give the sensation of creativity and individuality without all the messy thinking and risk.
None of this behavior would be so disturbing if so many didn't use the words and partake of these "memes" at-the-same-exact-time. This kind of group thinking conjurs up (for me) a group of hippies singing "Be Yourself" around a campfire (cringe).
Does the music industry serve to find the 'successes' among the rubbish out there?
The argument holds up, if we ignore one gigantic, gargantuan, glaring fact: the music industry has a monopoly.
So, is it that they find, like so many diamonds in the rough, the better acts, or would the more accurate portrayal be that they, being the only means of distribution, exploit the best talent? The monopoly makes the answer impossible to determine, since there is no free market going on in music.
The same is true of the moral argument around file sharing. People who protect the current system seem to forget that they're protecting an arguably illegal cartel that inarguably price-gouges them. That the music industry has a monopoly and abuses it, again, clouds the whole issue.
Underneath the clouds, I think the real problem the music industry faces is life without a monopoly. Their abuse of the consumer has caused an alternative means of distribution to crop up that seems impervious to the laws that the industry has, in the past, been able to bend to its will. They had a unique thing - a guarantee of revenue. What a business! But now it's evaporating, and they'll have to actually compete for their food, like the rest of us.
Jobs probably doesn't have it wrong; he's just politicing. He has to, now that he's in bed with the music guys.
Does the music industry serve to find the 'successes' among the rubbish out there?
The argument would hold up, if we ignore one gigantic, gargantuan, glaring fact: the music industry has a monopoly.
So, is it that they find, like so many diamonds in the rough, the better acts, or would the more accurate portrayal be that they, being the only means of distribution, exploit the best talent? The monopoly makes the answer impossible to determine, since there is no free market going on in music.
The same is true of the moral argument around file sharing. People who protect the current system seem to forget that they're protecting an arguably illegal cartel that inarguably price-gouges them. That the music industry has a monopoly and abuses it, again, clouds the whole issue.
Underneath the clouds, I think the real problem the music industry faces is life without a monopoly. Their abuse of the consumer has caused an alternative means of distribution to crop up that seems impervious to the laws that the industry has, in the past, been able to bend to its will. They had a unique thing - a guarantee of revenue. What a business! But now it's evaporating, and they'll have to actually compete for their food, like the rest of us.
Jobs probably doesn't have it wrong; he's just politicing. He has to, now that he's in bed with the music guys.
Slashdot Mirror
The post your responding too is still essentially true IMO. Price, at least, is the biggest reason this user hasn't switched to Apple. I've been considering a mini to run Final Cut Pro, but the mini, though well under a thousand bucks, is basically a laptop without a screen, down to the slow drives, and is not very upgradeable. And, of course, Apple's big machines are outrageously priced.
Now, when the Mac OS was competing with Windows 3.1.1 back 1994, I'd have shelled out the difference. Back then the Mac OS was light years ahead of Windows. Today, however, the Mac OS and Windows XP are so close in stability and functionality (both being pretty good) that paying extra is something many people will do only if they have to, as in my case - wanting to run a specific Mac-only program.
Note: After starting on someone else's Mac, I bought a PC in the early 90's. Why? Because I couldn't afford a Mac.
Obso-f'ing-lutely!
Curiosity is the ONLY reason for humans to explore space. But more specificially, humans are compelled to live into the vision of humans in space presented to us throughout much of the 20th century. Living into our visions of the future is inevitable, and for that reason, science fiction and myths are not only prophetic but catalystic.
The dumbest reason is survival. It takes so much energy to get people into space that it is unlikely we could get a substantial amount of our kind off earth in time to avoid the coming down of the shit, whenever and however it happens.
Let's say, for example, that the population keeps growing at its current rate. There's no reason not to believe that we'll have a food crisis on such a scale that billions (not millions) will starve to death. Well, we can't very well get a thousand, let alone a million, let alone a billion people off the planet.
But we're still stuck with the images of Noah's arc, Jesus's raft, and a hundred other "escape myths", so we'll be running the "escape" program for a while, regardless of its plausibility.
That republic deserved to fall apart.
it's hard not to be a little disappointed with the state of robot technology. We've landed a man on the moon, split the atom, and decoded our genes, yet we're supposed to be impressed by a (human-controlled) robot that can crawl like a caterpillar.
Don't get me wrong. I realize this is a step forward, but the current state of robots seems so behind others.
I mean "virile" and "descrambled". Obviously I am not the man with the stack of diplomas.
Be on the lookout for a verile male with a sixteen-inch penis, a stack of college diplomas, all the descrabled satellite TV he can watch, and low low mortgage rates.
Bad form, Kazaa! Bad form!
You can't, like, trademark a product's look, feel, and functionality, man.
What? You can? Oh. Yeah, those guys are screwed.
"Viable and profitable alternatives for legal music distribution are staring the RIAA right in the face and they just don't seem to care!" Would you want to change if you had a monopoly, a guarantee of making loads of money year after year? No, you'd do everything you could to protect the status quo.
Venkman: No.
Peck: Why not?
Venkman: You didn't use the magic word.
Peck: And what is the magic word?
Venkman: Please.
Peck: May I please see the torrents, Mr. Venkman?
Venkman: Why do you want to see the torrents?
Funny enough, since I've started using AllOfMP3.com, I've spent more on music than the last five years combined (almost none). Maybe it's because I feel I'm getting my money's worth?
"And all my purchases in the recent past have been by non *AA artists..."
Hey, sometimes the best artists happen to be alcoholics.
Half the people in the country will have a hard time moving from DVD to download. The DVD player still fits the old VCR model - stick something in the front of the box, and it plays. DVD is really just a more advanced VCR, as far as most people are concerned.
Downloading, of course, is a foreign concept to most people. While my dad is computer literate, my mother has never touched a computer, and she wouldn't know what the f*** a download is. Literally, she has no concept of it.
If downloading becomes the norm, it will happen through the cable box. Again, the cable box is a box hooked to the TV, a concept everybody understands.
Canadian pharmacies is a good analogy. Both US industries are accused of setting arbitrary prices, locking out competition to keep the prices high, and both claim that research and development is the reason for the high prices. As long as buying drugs from Canada is legal, people will. Of course, that will change soon, just as the US recording industry will put a stop to what AllOfMP3 is doing. In the meantime...
My position has nothing to do with fucking the artist. I'm one of them.
As I said, AllOfMP3 is to me like buying from a bargain bin at the store or buying a used CD. In either case, very little if any money goes back to the artist, though the act itself is perfectly legal. But that's beside the point. I'm buying in that case because the product is the same but cheaper, and after all I'm in the position of the consumer, plain and simple. Morality has nothing to do with it.
Anyone can list a catalogue of companies and entire industries that should not be supported, because they treat their workers badly. In not buying, one can easily claim the moral highground. I understand what you're getting at, but the moral highground simpy isn't an argument.
Oh, I see. You're more moral, because don't buy from AllOfMP3. That clears it up.
I'd be more than willing to pay $2 per album with no DRM. That's what I'm doing with AllOfMP3.
"Actually, downloading copyrighted music without permission or an applicable exception is always illegal in the US.
Downloading is a form of reproduction, and reproduction is an exclusive right of the copyright holder. Uploading is a form of distribution, and distribution is another exclusive right of the copyright holder. So really, you can't do either."
Hmm. I've downloaded songs in the U.S., and the downloads were perfectly legal. I did not download from the copyright holder. How in the world could that be?
I believe what AllOfMP3 is saying is that a Russian agency of some sort has legally licensed the material from American companies. That agency grants companies a license (again, which is supposedly legal) to distribute the material electronically. So, like iTunes can legally sell music, AllOfMP3 can legally sell music, if I understand their position. In other words, though America's copyright laws grant control to the copyright holder, you can still buy music from someone other than the copyright holder. Everyone does it all the time.
Using AllOfMP3 is a psychological crutch?!? No, "exploiting an apparent loophole" is at present a way to get great service at a great price. Crutch, my ass. I had no part in writing the Russian or American copyright law. I just try to abide. If there's a hole and it allows me more access, power to me.
If the RIAA steps in to close the gap, power to them. But right now it's great.
Why are so many people pointing out that AllofMp3 is "obviously" illegal? What's so obvious about it? I mean, what makes us think Apple or MSN Music is so perfectly legal? Because they've told us so, that's why. So what's the difference? AllofMP3 says they're legal and goes to great length to explain how.
Now, it's true - the American music industry has set the standard of ridiculous prices and substandard service. Even the online stores are only slightly cheaper than CDs, and they don't offer a variety of encoding options, just their proprietary 128k crappola.
I've bought from MSN, which is okay, but the quality is pretty bad on my portable MP3 player, not to mention that the MSN file format crashes the player ever other time. I'd go with Apple, but I don't think theirs works at all on my player, and if it did, they only offer 128k (right?). The record-industry-shill response has been unhelpful - get an IPod, buy from Apple, or else don't buy music. Well, I'm supposed to have a choice. That is not a choice. It is an illusion of choice.
So recently I started using AllofMP3, and I love it. There's no silly DRM. I don't plan on sharing my files, but I like that I can actually f-ing play the files. I download 192k, which sounds infinitely better on my portable player. The prices - well, they're incredible, but I'd be willing to pay double the price, maybe even triple, for this kind of service. Needless to say, it's nice to deal with a business that doesn't seem to be ringing as much money from me as it can possibly get while providing me with as little. Respect is refreshing.
Those who say AllOfMP3 SHOULD obviously be illegal are just shilling for the industry that literally gets together and decides how to screw the customers. Not only that, these users have been conditioned to think that ridiculous prices and crappy service is not only the norm but should always be.
Furthermore, this is not a moral argument; it is only a legal one. There is no need to always tie the two together, as they are seperate things. Who gets his morality from the law of the land? That's worse than backward thinking - it's fascist.
AllOfMP3 is a bit like a clearance sale to me. I've bought plenty of CDs for two bucks before, used and new, without a pang of guilt that the artist was being hurt or the law kicking down my door. I'm just a lowly consumer of music. If you're selling it for cheap, cool.
P.S.: All the article says is that Russians are investigating Russians. Unless they shut down the site, nothing has changed.
The person who pointed out that you're not making an argument is right. Saying over and over how your opinion is obvious is not an argument.
Using P2P to download copyrighted work is usually illegal, that much is certain. But immoral? How so? Because it's illegal? Does the law of the land determine your definitions of morality? Adultery is legal; do you think it's moral?
Is taking Doom 3 without paying for it inherently immoral? That doesn't exactly sound like the last message left by God. Is what makes taking Doom 3 immoral that they're asking for money for it and you're taking it without paying? Is that how morality works? The thing that always comes up in court regarding intellectual property misuse, is harm (how much has been done to the rights holder), but maybe they should rewrite the rules - you violate copyright, you are son-of-a-bitch, no questions asked.
Copyright is a complex subject, no matter how loudly a man says that it's simple.
A similar argument can be heard coming from anti-abortion nuts:
It's murder!
Really? How so?
It's an innocent life!
Really? How so?
It just is!
What makes you say that?
I just know!
Okay. Next.
Agreed. How is it suddenly cool just to follow the crowd? I'll tell you how - it isn't! Blogs (ugh), photoblogs (yuck), and moblogs (barf) are substitutes for doing real stuff. They give the sensation of creativity and individuality without all the messy thinking and risk.
None of this behavior would be so disturbing if so many didn't use the words and partake of these "memes" at-the-same-exact-time. This kind of group thinking conjurs up (for me) a group of hippies singing "Be Yourself" around a campfire (cringe).
Does the music industry serve to find the 'successes' among the rubbish out there?
The argument holds up, if we ignore one gigantic, gargantuan, glaring fact: the music industry has a monopoly.
So, is it that they find, like so many diamonds in the rough, the better acts, or would the more accurate portrayal be that they, being the only means of distribution, exploit the best talent? The monopoly makes the answer impossible to determine, since there is no free market going on in music.
The same is true of the moral argument around file sharing. People who protect the current system seem to forget that they're protecting an arguably illegal cartel that inarguably price-gouges them. That the music industry has a monopoly and abuses it, again, clouds the whole issue.
Underneath the clouds, I think the real problem the music industry faces is life without a monopoly. Their abuse of the consumer has caused an alternative means of distribution to crop up that seems impervious to the laws that the industry has, in the past, been able to bend to its will. They had a unique thing - a guarantee of revenue. What a business! But now it's evaporating, and they'll have to actually compete for their food, like the rest of us.
Jobs probably doesn't have it wrong; he's just politicing. He has to, now that he's in bed with the music guys.
Does the music industry serve to find the 'successes' among the rubbish out there?
The argument would hold up, if we ignore one gigantic, gargantuan, glaring fact: the music industry has a monopoly.
So, is it that they find, like so many diamonds in the rough, the better acts, or would the more accurate portrayal be that they, being the only means of distribution, exploit the best talent? The monopoly makes the answer impossible to determine, since there is no free market going on in music.
The same is true of the moral argument around file sharing. People who protect the current system seem to forget that they're protecting an arguably illegal cartel that inarguably price-gouges them. That the music industry has a monopoly and abuses it, again, clouds the whole issue.
Underneath the clouds, I think the real problem the music industry faces is life without a monopoly. Their abuse of the consumer has caused an alternative means of distribution to crop up that seems impervious to the laws that the industry has, in the past, been able to bend to its will. They had a unique thing - a guarantee of revenue. What a business! But now it's evaporating, and they'll have to actually compete for their food, like the rest of us.
Jobs probably doesn't have it wrong; he's just politicing. He has to, now that he's in bed with the music guys.