Re:Then, an ebook reader [eink device]is not for y
on
The Cult of Kindle
·
· Score: 1
I wasn't saying the device isn't useful as is. What I was trying to get at is the price point puts it at a point where most people are going to look at it and think the same as I - "why pay 700 for an reader (even if I can make notes) when I could get a laptop for the same". People as in your example would be better off with one of these. But, people in my example might be better off with something cheaper. People who are reading fiction books generally don't make notations (excepting those doing stuff like book reports) and a read-only device would be perfect - but that market can't sustain a 700USD price point when a dead-tree version costs 5-30 depending on paperback or hardback. Give that market a 100USD device with the "books" being 5-10 and boom - that market will snap up the device and the books. My mother is a prime example. She buys books left and right and that takes a lot of storage space. Have a device that uses SD and she could have hundreds of "books" in a show box. But make it to where the device uses non-standard chips/cartridges/files and/or DRM and very shortly you'll find it being relegated to the scrap heap because people will get frustrated. A sort of related example would be my mother-in-law who simply wanted an audio book and couldn't get it to work because the DRM'd WMA files wouldn't work with all supposedly DRM WMA supporting players. She tried 3 different DRM WMA capable players and couldn't get the file to work (echo/reverb problem that made it unlistenable) so she went right back to paper.
The Iliad is nice... but way too costly. The price I've seen is 700USD and for that price I can buy a cheap laptop that is way more expandable.
If they want to have this device, or any similar one, take off they will have to sell it for 100USD to 200USD tops, with the ability to use non-DRM'd PDFs, HTMLs, etc. For a college student or a techie that would be perfect. I'd be willing to pay for locked (as in non-rewritable, not DRM'd) memory chips loaded up with books.
If the layoffs are not your fault then the employer won't care as long as you are honest regarding the reasons. Don't sound bitter, and above all, DON'T make it sound as though the layoffs were a result of poor management. If pressed for details be very discreet and non-judgemental in the response - a "The company decided that they could no longer provide work for me" sounds MUCH better than "they canned me as soon as they finished using me".
I as a manager don't mind seeing a period of unemployment if it is not a result of the person's actions and with the collapse of IT jobs that's unfortunately become common.
Don't know about your state but in mine such contracts are non-binding and void if your employer does not substantially re-define your job either through promotion or through substantial and substantive changes to the job duties.
The news.com article got it SORT OF right.
SCO filed a motion to amend it's claims. IOW, they asked the judge to be allowed to amend the claims. The judge has YET to rule on this motion.
For a FAR more accurate and complete edition of what happened today see Groklaw here and look here for IBM's analysis of what SCO provided.
That this is like ATT (or MCI or BTI or Sprint or...) saying that they won't allow calls to their customers unless the caller is also a customer. Maybe it's about time to have these services classified in the same manner as the telephone systems are so they can be forced to interoperate. But I'll that will open the wallets of a bunch of lobbyists to stop it:)
It seems that it would be patently illegal to ask for payment to play music that the RIAA members dont have copyright on.
The RIAA may not own the copyrights to the songs on a record (depending on the contract signed by the artist/group), but what they do own (IIRC) is the copyrights on the particular performance of the songs on the record. A slight but important difference essentially allowing a webcaster who does not use the RIAA member performance but instead uses an artist-owned performance to avoid royalties to the RIAA for playing it. Of course, the non-RIAA owner could asks for royalties on playing that performance...
I've often wondered when we would see someone go after a spammer under a stalking law... (and IANAL so I don't know if this is even possible, any real lawyers feel free to speak up as to whether this would be possible - I'm interested more from curiosity)
...or better yet, let you make your own mix while at the store. Unfortunately, it won't happen any time soon.
It did happen for a while. IIRC it was about '93 or '94. There was a "test-marketing" in which people were allowed to walk into a select music store, pick out a list of tracks, pay (outrageous I know) $2-3US per track, and have it burned to a CD-R by the store.
The "test-marketing" was a success - The stores actually had trouble keeping CD-Rs available for the program. But it was yanked after a mere 6 months - because it resulted in 20-30% drops of new album sales across the board. The reason for that happening was people got the 1,2 or 3 tracks they liked from a release and didn't then go on to buy the whole release.
Remember - the record inductry marketing is built on album sales numbers. If they are negatively impacted the 'bandwagon appeal' used to get people to buy an album loses steam.
An interesting catch-22: If the hardware is destroyed (say by a firmware re-writer) after the data is destroyed (after all, wouldn't want the theives to be able to get anything back via something like having a spare controller board) there would be no evidence of the user having done something other than download the mp3-bomb. But then again there would be no evidence for the entertainment industries to be able to point to to prove it wasn't them.
Either way I'm fairly certain (at least here in the lawyer-happy states) that liability on the part of the entertainment industries could be proven under this idea as they would have released code which could be disassembled and placed inside of a new virus or three. Not something I would really want to place myself in the line of fire for - especially if the resulting virus managed to get into a few governmental systems as they might all of a sudden become unfriendly towards the entertainment industries due to the costs of repairs.
..not just the employees but the state governments.
From the article:
Some are holding down these jobs while receiving unemployment benefits.
In my state (and I believe most others including California) this 'work' makes you inellegible for unemployment as you are being compensated (the stock options, although worthless, are still 'pay', but not in California where they don't count and therefore the people are not being paid for the work performed). Call me a jerk (or worse) but if I found out that someone I knew was doing this I'd be calling the local unemployment office to report them. Yes I'm hard-hearted about it but look at it this way - this is a way for the 'employer' to skirt around the unemployment funding laws, and for the 'employee' to get money THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO. I should not have to pay more taxes because people are defrauding the government. Again from the article:
State officials say those working for equity can lose their unemployment benefits. Moreover, the startups that sign up these workers could be violating state labor laws.
These people in question are not really employees but I bet they have to sign a non-compete agreements anyway in a large number of cases.
A previous employer, for whom I worked as a tech, put me on pure commision pay (i.e. no work, no pay) and then didn't provide any work to do. They weren't happy when I said I would do work for any one who called me directly at home for help without including them (sorry - you don't provide the work I, and usually the courts, consider your non-compete voided) nor were they happy when I finally filed for unemployment (lack of work provissions in the law). The entire commision pay but no work deal was a way for them to avoid taking the hit on the unemployment taxes they had to pay.
Julian Millenbach said at the end of the article employers who do not pay don'tvalue the worker's time or labor. I would add that at least some of them do value it - as something that can be stolen.
I did RTFA.. and then re-read it. I am still wondering (as no-one has posted the letters or given any details of the target businesses yet) how much of the campaign is being waged against the used CD stores. Looking at the bins at the ones here are always copies that look brand new. That's not saying those are pirated but with the ranting and raving the RIAA has done over the last year and the recent inflated numbers press releases you have to seriously begin to wonder if they are going to use this as an excuse to shut down a line of business (used CD sales) they have repeatedly claimed was a violation of copyright (despite the courts saying over and over 'first sale doctrine') and cost them money while 'depriving the poor artist' who barely gets anything out of the first sale anyway, by drving the costs so high the poor owners can't go on any more.
Oh god....I just had a horrifying thought - This is going to be used to figure out what artists are popular... so they can more quickly saturate the market with copy cats and clones. So much for the record companies trying out new groups with new sounds. I'm depressed now....
Hey Mister CEO, how 'bout you invite me to your house?
When you guide me to the door at the end of my visit do you mind if I leave wireless web cams scattered thoughout your house? Like say in your living room and kitchen? Or how about your bedrooms and bathrooms? It would really help me to understand you better.
Honestly (and sarcasm aside now) - I would just like to know where these people come up with these ideas. Do they not realize it's invasive? Then again thay probably have the same undertsnading impairment of Mr. Ralsky
Hell - when your competitor InaCom folded they told the employees by a pre-recorded 800 number message. Some didn't even get the chance to call using company equipment - Pinkerton's was too busy escorting people out the doors.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the smiley face a copyrighted item (still thanks to all the extensions on that)? And if so I wonder if Wal-Mart has paid for permission to use it?
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't saying the device isn't useful as is. What I was trying to get at is the price point puts it at a point where most people are going to look at it and think the same as I - "why pay 700 for an reader (even if I can make notes) when I could get a laptop for the same". People as in your example would be better off with one of these. But, people in my example might be better off with something cheaper. People who are reading fiction books generally don't make notations (excepting those doing stuff like book reports) and a read-only device would be perfect - but that market can't sustain a 700USD price point when a dead-tree version costs 5-30 depending on paperback or hardback. Give that market a 100USD device with the "books" being 5-10 and boom - that market will snap up the device and the books. My mother is a prime example. She buys books left and right and that takes a lot of storage space. Have a device that uses SD and she could have hundreds of "books" in a show box. But make it to where the device uses non-standard chips/cartridges/files and/or DRM and very shortly you'll find it being relegated to the scrap heap because people will get frustrated. A sort of related example would be my mother-in-law who simply wanted an audio book and couldn't get it to work because the DRM'd WMA files wouldn't work with all supposedly DRM WMA supporting players. She tried 3 different DRM WMA capable players and couldn't get the file to work (echo/reverb problem that made it unlistenable) so she went right back to paper.
The Iliad is nice ... but way too costly. The price I've seen is 700USD and for that price I can buy a cheap laptop that is way more expandable.
If they want to have this device, or any similar one, take off they will have to sell it for 100USD to 200USD tops, with the ability to use non-DRM'd PDFs, HTMLs, etc. For a college student or a techie that would be perfect. I'd be willing to pay for locked (as in non-rewritable, not DRM'd) memory chips loaded up with books.
If the layoffs are not your fault then the employer won't care as long as you are honest regarding the reasons. Don't sound bitter, and above all, DON'T make it sound as though the layoffs were a result of poor management. If pressed for details be very discreet and non-judgemental in the response - a "The company decided that they could no longer provide work for me" sounds MUCH better than "they canned me as soon as they finished using me". I as a manager don't mind seeing a period of unemployment if it is not a result of the person's actions and with the collapse of IT jobs that's unfortunately become common.
Don't know about your state but in mine such contracts are non-binding and void if your employer does not substantially re-define your job either through promotion or through substantial and substantive changes to the job duties.
The news.com article got it SORT OF right. SCO filed a motion to amend it's claims. IOW, they asked the judge to be allowed to amend the claims. The judge has YET to rule on this motion. For a FAR more accurate and complete edition of what happened today see Groklaw here and look here for IBM's analysis of what SCO provided.
Imagine unintentionally cussing out your boss, or worse spouse, because you were tone deaf.....
That this is like ATT (or MCI or BTI or Sprint or ...) saying that they won't allow calls to their customers unless the caller is also a customer. Maybe it's about time to have these services classified in the same manner as the telephone systems are so they can be forced to interoperate. But I'll that will open the wallets of a bunch of lobbyists to stop it :)
The RIAA may not own the copyrights to the songs on a record (depending on the contract signed by the artist/group), but what they do own (IIRC) is the copyrights on the particular performance of the songs on the record. A slight but important difference essentially allowing a webcaster who does not use the RIAA member performance but instead uses an artist-owned performance to avoid royalties to the RIAA for playing it. Of course, the non-RIAA owner could asks for royalties on playing that performance...
I've often wondered when we would see someone go after a spammer under a stalking law... (and IANAL so I don't know if this is even possible, any real lawyers feel free to speak up as to whether this would be possible - I'm interested more from curiosity)
It did happen for a while. IIRC it was about '93 or '94. There was a "test-marketing" in which people were allowed to walk into a select music store, pick out a list of tracks, pay (outrageous I know) $2-3US per track, and have it burned to a CD-R by the store.
The "test-marketing" was a success - The stores actually had trouble keeping CD-Rs available for the program. But it was yanked after a mere 6 months - because it resulted in 20-30% drops of new album sales across the board. The reason for that happening was people got the 1,2 or 3 tracks they liked from a release and didn't then go on to buy the whole release.
Remember - the record inductry marketing is built on album sales numbers. If they are negatively impacted the 'bandwagon appeal' used to get people to buy an album loses steam.
An interesting catch-22: If the hardware is destroyed (say by a firmware re-writer) after the data is destroyed (after all, wouldn't want the theives to be able to get anything back via something like having a spare controller board) there would be no evidence of the user having done something other than download the mp3-bomb. But then again there would be no evidence for the entertainment industries to be able to point to to prove it wasn't them.
Either way I'm fairly certain (at least here in the lawyer-happy states) that liability on the part of the entertainment industries could be proven under this idea as they would have released code which could be disassembled and placed inside of a new virus or three. Not something I would really want to place myself in the line of fire for - especially if the resulting virus managed to get into a few governmental systems as they might all of a sudden become unfriendly towards the entertainment industries due to the costs of repairs.
..not just the employees but the state governments.
From the article:
Some are holding down these jobs while receiving unemployment benefits.
In my state (and I believe most others including California) this 'work' makes you inellegible for unemployment as you are being compensated (the stock options, although worthless, are still 'pay', but not in California where they don't count and therefore the people are not being paid for the work performed). Call me a jerk (or worse) but if I found out that someone I knew was doing this I'd be calling the local unemployment office to report them. Yes I'm hard-hearted about it but look at it this way - this is a way for the 'employer' to skirt around the unemployment funding laws, and for the 'employee' to get money THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO. I should not have to pay more taxes because people are defrauding the government. Again from the article:
State officials say those working for equity can lose their unemployment benefits. Moreover, the startups that sign up these workers could be violating state labor laws.
These people in question are not really employees but I bet they have to sign a non-compete agreements anyway in a large number of cases.
A previous employer, for whom I worked as a tech, put me on pure commision pay (i.e. no work, no pay) and then didn't provide any work to do. They weren't happy when I said I would do work for any one who called me directly at home for help without including them (sorry - you don't provide the work I, and usually the courts, consider your non-compete voided) nor were they happy when I finally filed for unemployment (lack of work provissions in the law). The entire commision pay but no work deal was a way for them to avoid taking the hit on the unemployment taxes they had to pay.
Julian Millenbach said at the end of the article employers who do not pay don'tvalue the worker's time or labor. I would add that at least some of them do value it - as something that can be stolen.
I did RTFA .. and then re-read it. I am still wondering (as no-one has posted the letters or given any details of the target businesses yet) how much of the campaign is being waged against the used CD stores. Looking at the bins at the ones here are always copies that look brand new. That's not saying those are pirated but with the ranting and raving the RIAA has done over the last year and the recent inflated numbers press releases you have to seriously begin to wonder if they are going to use this as an excuse to shut down a line of business (used CD sales) they have repeatedly claimed was a violation of copyright (despite the courts saying over and over 'first sale doctrine') and cost them money while 'depriving the poor artist' who barely gets anything out of the first sale anyway, by drving the costs so high the poor owners can't go on any more.
Oh god....I just had a horrifying thought - This is going to be used to figure out what artists are popular ... so they can more quickly saturate the market with copy cats and clones. So much for the record companies trying out new groups with new sounds. I'm depressed now....
Hey Mister CEO, how 'bout you invite me to your house?
When you guide me to the door at the end of my visit do you mind if I leave wireless web cams scattered thoughout your house? Like say in your living room and kitchen? Or how about your bedrooms and bathrooms? It would really help me to understand you better.
Honestly (and sarcasm aside now) - I would just like to know where these people come up with these ideas. Do they not realize it's invasive? Then again thay probably have the same undertsnading impairment of Mr. Ralsky
Hell - when your competitor InaCom folded they told the employees by a pre-recorded 800 number message. Some didn't even get the chance to call using company equipment - Pinkerton's was too busy escorting people out the doors.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the smiley face a copyrighted item (still thanks to all the extensions on that)? And if so I wonder if Wal-Mart has paid for permission to use it?