I think the industry is being rather dumb to pass on this so quickly.
A quick attempt to dig up RIAA sales figures, of course, came up with a whole lot of contradictory information. So like any good researcher, I picked the one that best supported my argument.:D According to this article the total dollar value of CDs sold (or maybe just CDs shipped, not sure) is somewhere in the area of $14 billion.
Now then there are, according to reports, 57 million people using file-sharing services. Let's create a compulsary licensing scheme, wherein everyone who uses file-sharing services ponies up $20 for unlimited downloads.
Yes, only $20. The approximate price of ONE CD. Seems unreasonably low, no? And let's just take the unreasonable assumption that every one of those 57 million agrees to pay the fee. (but then again, it's so low a large number of them will, AND it will likely attract users who avoided P2P because of the notoriety and\or piracy issues)
So then... $20x12 months is $240. And $240 x 57 million is... $13.6 Billion Dollars.
So by going to a licensing scheme that is ONLY $20 a month per user, the industry can make nearly as much money as it did before. And that's not to say that file sharing will 100% replace physical albums - I expect they will continue to do brisk sales in those as well, since people will still want a professionally pressed hard copy, liner notes, CD-ROM extras, whatever. And I personally find it unimaginable that, in the short term, the value of CDs sold would drop 93% to under $1 billion dollars. In other words, they would quite probably make MORE money doing this.
I think in things like that, people generally compare it to real-life equivilents. Like in the case of Bloom County, which I know a bunch of/.ers subscribed to when it became available. $10 gets you a year of Bloom County which, if you bother working it out, is far cheaper than buying an equivilent number of books. Plus you get access to their library of comics - I suspect most of the Bloom'ers are also getting Calvin and Hobbes. And whichever other ones they want, so that perceived value is multiplied by however many other comics you won't have to buy.
So compared to the physical world, that $10 represents a fine value and we're not going to start trying to break down panel-by-panel costs.
I think the "problem" here is that, for whatever reason, the idea has been set up in the customers' minds that if it is online it must be CHEAP. I suspect deep down most people realize that it's far cheaper to have a load of content on a server than to print up thousands of books\newspapers\whatever. I know there's not an exact formula, but in my experience to entice people into buying something in electronic form, it generally needs to be at least half the price of the real-world equivilent.
(the success of Apple's iTunes does seem to belie this a bit, as 99c a song works out to about the same price per album as a physical CD. But there are a lot of factors that would need to be analyzed in that case. (how many people are actually downloading whole albums? How many are just downloading singles? How many have an eye towards constructing compilation discs for themselves? etc...))
And, of course, it all goes to hell once you start talking about things like Blog entries, or links, that really have no real-world equivilent at all. THAT'S when the system really breaks down - if people have nothing to compare the price with, they usually decide it's too expensive and wander on.
Actually, they'd be a perfect example of why micropayment systems DON'T work. The reason the telephone charging system works is that people DON'T stop and think about it. You don't have to fish a quarter out of your pocket and plunk it into your home phone. You just pick up the phone and dial - which makes the charges invisible to the user, and most likely, almost totally ignored. (how many of you, honestly, actually think about what a call is costing, until you've been talking and suddenly say "oh crap, it's been two hours! This is gonna cost me a fortune!")
If you DID actually have to make a conscious decision to place a financial transaction every time you used the phone, long distance calls would plummet. And THAT'S what this article is arguing.
For a web-based micropayment system to work, it would have to follow the TelCo model - you hand the website in question your credit card, and then you don't hear a word about the cost of the services again except once a month in the mail. And this is, for reasons too obvious to bother typing out, NOT a good idea for internet-based systems.
And that's why Internet micropayments don't really work.
I mean, a scientist who can get published in journals that also owns a nightclub and DJs? How cool is that?! But then I listened to the tracks.
Maybe it's just me, but I heard virtually nothing about them that sounded different than any number of scratched-up CDs in my collection. (except for the slightly interesting distort on Trent's voice in Hurt) You could likely get about the same effect by holding a zippo up to the CD for a few seconds.
He gets props for discovering a highly novel new way of destroying CD players, and for being generally cool, but that's about it.
Um, check the title. It's only the underreported stories of 2002 and early 2003. Last I checked, Clinton hasn't been much of a political force lately. Nor have the Democrats, due to their being the minority in both Houses. (and what few "interesting" things they have done have been QUITE well covered in the presses)
If you're looking for dirt on the Clinton administration, try their 1999 Report. Lots of juicy stuff in there, especially about the Kosovo war.
I'm wondering that myself. Someone select the wrong item from the list? Someone being extra sarcastic? Someone deciding to try out chaos-based modding? Weird.
But like the sig says, my funny posts are Interesting, and my insightful posts are Funny. At least I have good karma.;-)
Under this system, "instilling fear" into lawbreakers is exactly what lawsuits and criminal prosecutions are about. It's called deterrence. This is one of the principal purposes of the law.
I disagree for the most part, and it's this point of view which causes so many draconian laws to be passed.
Man is by nature a SOCIAL animal. We live by the herd. It's in our instincts (and by "our" at this point, I am speaking of people in general, NOT specific abberations) to, in essence, do what everyone else is doing. Why else do marketeers, politicians, etc try so hard to convince the "buyer" that everyone else in the world is doing something, even if, in fact, only a small fraction are? Get enough people to believe that everyone is doing something, and pretty soon, everyone WILL be doing it.
Accordingly, any child properly raised will know the mores, morals, and values of his society. You say that one of the principle purposes of law is deterrence - do you mean to suggest that, without threat of governmental punishment, people everywhere would start running around stealing and raping and burning? I certainly hope your view on humanity isn't that dismal. No, most people follow the basic rules of social conduct because its in our nature to do so, and the subliminal threat of social ostracization (known as the emotion "guilt") is FAR more of a deterrent than any stated legal penalty.
Will a starving man, looking at an unattended loaf of bread, say "Gee, I shouldn't take that. I might get locked up"? Certainly not. (in fact, in this case, the "deterrent" could serve as encouragement - jail time means a bed and three square meals) Does a man, upon seeing his wife in bed with his best friend, stop to consider the personal ramifications before pulling the trigger? I would doubt it. Do 90+% of drivers on the road every day keep EXACTLY to the speed limit out of fear of getting pulled over? (remember, 5 MPH over is STILL breaking the law) No. And in many circumstances, adhering to the speed limit is MORE dangerous - woe to the car going 55 when everyone around them is going 70.
The only way that a law is a REAL deterrent is if the penalties are orders of magnitude worse than the crime. The starving man above wouldn't hesitate to take the loaf of bread if the only penalty is jail time - but he might if he was looking at having his hand severed. A casual file trader isn't going to think twice about swapping a few MP3s, unless he's looking at penalties in the thousands or millions. However, this is NOT Justice, because if enforced, the penalty is several magnitudes worse than the crime. And a slavish adherence to overreaching punishments will lead almost inexorably (and I'm talking historically, do the research) into a police state. There hits a point where the laws are seen as justification unto themselves (ie, "If it is illegal, it MUST be immoral,") and that's when personal freedoms start going away.
This is why laws and society clash. When a government starts making laws which run contrary to the general behavior of society - like attempting to enforce a 55 mph speed limit when, as traffic engineers will tell you, traffic will generally find the correct speed on its own - it starts to create stress and social fracturing. The primary purpose of laws is, and should be, to remove those that behave contrary to the general will of society FROM that society. Murderers, rapists, rampant theives, etc. And, on the LARGER scale, society should be left to sort itself out. The only question is exactly what balance to strike between societal freedom, and legal rules governing conduct.
The alternative is a downwards spiral of ever more laws, with ever more increasing penalties.
For 1,000s of years people have created music and performances. It is only the last 100 years or so, that people have tried to turn the creations into a profit market.
Thank you! Some people still remember their history. Traditionally, music-making has been seen as a public service. Where do you think the phrase "sing for your supper" came from? I suspect most people born prior to about 1800 would be agast at the idea of using the creation of art (music, poetry, paintings, etc) as a route to becoming wealthy. It was a Calling, sort of like going into a monastary. They recognized the need for Art in everyday life, and if an artist produced something pleasing, he was given enough to live on. If you were REALLY lucky, some king or nobleman would decide he liked your work so much that he'd sponsor you, and you'd continue to get room and board so long as you continued to make pleasing Art.
That line about "no incentive" always amuses me, since it's the current state of affairs which is the abberation, not the idea of sharing music.
There's a difference in the bill between its intent and its wording. The intent, very obviously, was an agreement between the RIAA and the People, arbitrated by the government - we'll pay you a few cents for every blank tape or CD we buy, and in return, you won't try to sue private users for the occasional act of piracy. (since the amount you're making off the CD surcharge is FAR more than what you'd lose in sales to non-professional pirates)
This is a perfectly fair, reasonable, and all around good solution to the problem. The surcharge doesn't financially inconvenience anyone directly, but collectively it adds up to millions going to the RIAA. Win-win.
Unfortunately, the bill does not SAY this. The literal wording ONLY gives you the right to make a single "fair use" personal copy of a work. Which makes it a complete ripoff since we de facto had those rights ANYWAY thanks to the Betamax decision and a couple other related SCOTUS precedents in the early 80s. All it did was codify what was already an established Supreme Court judgement. (which, if you're not up on your civics, carries force of law)
And further, the DMCA, by extension, destroys even that "right." Technically, if the album is encrypted in some fashion, all your Fair Use rights go out the window - you're paying that surcharge to the RIAA and getting nothing in return.
I personally think one could build a strong case based around this. If we no longer have legal Fair Use rights to make a personal copy of albums\movies we buy, then that surcharge is accordingly illegal - it amounts to a criminal punishment on people convicted of no crime. Or, in reverse, it could be said you cannot be sued for copying an encrypted CD (as per the DMCA) precisely because you've paid the RIAA their piracy surcharge.
(note: This applies only to the US version of the bill, I've heard the Canadian one has subtlely different wording and can actually support the theory that all personal copying is legal)
Yes, exactly. So is marketing an adult product towards children. (in such a way to try to trick them into buying it)
When I worked Road Runner, at least once every couple weeks, I'd have some parent whose kid (usually 10-12) had installed Bonzai and it messed everything up. And, of course, I couldn't help them as Bonzai is INCREDIBLY difficult to get rid of. (And way outside support boundaries)
That's one where I'd fully support suing the corporation.
Exactly. People often seem to expect legal verdicts to be more broad or far-reaching than they really are. I agree with the judge 100% in this case - in LEGAL THEORY the owner's right to make their computer display whatever they want FAR outweighs the right of a corporation to have their advertisements be seen.
I mean, think about the inverse - the judge rules that U-haul's right to have their ads be seen trumps. That would be an almost direct precedent making popup blockers illegal. And those are something that users DO choose to install.
Now we just need someone to sue Bonzai for misrepresentation of product. That would be a pretty good suit, considering that the cute cartoon monkey seems to be geared to appeal to children. (the "Joe Camel" strategy...)
I agree. If the burgler refuses to leave on his own, it's MUCH more entertaining to beat him for awhile instead of just killing him. (which is messy and wasteful)
It's nice living in a state that believes a criminal's rights more or less end the moment he breaks into your house. In California, there's at least one incident on record where a burgler broke into a house, managed to injure himself on carving knives left in the kitchen, and then successfully sued the owner of the house for negligence. (while dodging any criminal charges of his own) Not kidding.
And THAT would be why some people feel it's better just to shoot on sight./also Texan
Jeez, even when I'm trying to be funny, I get modded up as Interesting. No wonder my karma's so good.;-)
Although, in the 'done worse' category, here's one from the place I used to work. Guy on one of the full-body computer contracts had a seriously annoying customer with some sort of mobo problem. They spent 90 minutes on the phone disassembling the computer. Then, JUST as they get to the point they can fix the problem, the customer declares that he's tired of working on it and wants someone sent out. ALL the hard work was past, and this rendered the hour and an half they'd spent a complete waste. Tech tried to explain this, customer refused to listen, and started getting abusive.
So the tech lost it. He told the customer, fine, we'll have someone sent out. But we need to make sure all the computer components are kept safe in the meantime.
So he instructed the customer to take every removed board and wire, and place each one in its own individual zip-loc bag for safekeeping.
He didn't work there much longer.
That's nothing. Anyone who's worked tech support before has heard (or, heh heh, DONE) worse. I'd be REALLY impressed if he could give us directions on destroying an IBM Model M keyboard. I've had mine for a decade and still haven't managed to even dent it.
I wish I had mod points to give you. I *despise* so-called free marketeers / objectivists who, in fact, really only want to stack the deck in favor of whatever group they like, and cry foul when they start to slide.
Is DirectTV going after people who purchased their SmartCard programmer from other places, or is it still just those consumers who were unfortunate enough to purchase their SmartCard programmer from the wrong company?
Doesn't matter. The simplest defense would be if that pirate vendor had lower prices - the free market in action. (which they often do) If someone's going to sell me a piece of equipment for half of what I'd pay for it in a retail store, as long as I'm reasonably sure the product itself isn't tainted, I'm not going to give much of a damn how he markets the product.
And beyond that, there's still nothing resembling proof there. I wouldn't even say there's REALISTICALLY probable cause. Now, DirecTV is probably gambling that they can convince the 12 sloped-foreheads in the jury box (selected by the lawyers primarily for their glassy stare) that these Smartcard programmers are ONLY for use stealing their signal. (probably using the bong\"tobacco water pipe" analogy) But to any halfway educated person, it's quite clear the products have many MORE legit purposes than non-legit.
(for that matter, a good analogy would be this: the government forces High Times magazine to give up their subscriber list, compares that to monitors credit card transaction records, and then arrests every High Time subscriber who has purchased rolling papers. Without bothering to produce actual drugs, since they can likely con a jury into convicting anyway)
For these suits to proceed, DirecTV needs to prove through perponderance of the evidence that the people in question stole their service. Know what the problem is? They can't. By its very nature, this sort of digital signal piracy is untracable. And whose fault is that? *Theirs.*
If someone comes up with a business model in which the product can be stolen anonymously, in such quantity that their basic profitability is threatened, then that company has a LOUSY BUSINESS MODEL and deserves to go out of business. Period.
Ok, but there is the theoretical way the system works, and the REALITY of how the system works. And while broadcast stations may technically be paying fees, in reality they aren't - they're more than made up for by what's being paid to them. Which is part of the reason that this is an anti-trust issue - the various recording groups have tilted the scales so far in favor of broadcast radio that, should the webcasting fees ever become cemented, it will destroy the industry completely.
The way I see it, this issue is simple. There is no reason at all that webcasters should be forced to pay more to play songs than broadcast radio. We all know how much radio pays the RIAA. (hint: less than nothing) But that's because the industry can control the radio biz through payola. Webcasters are distributed and beyond control, and THAT'S why the RIAA's trying to force them to pay massive fines which radio doesn't. The only reason this is even an issue is the insistance of our government that anything Online has to be treated like it's a completely different entity than its offline counterpart. There's otherwise no excuse to make the webcasters pay, while simultaneously paying OUT to radio stations. It IS monopolistic behavior, and very possibly illegal - as hopefully the courts will decide.
But if all the content is to be given away for free, surely these will die away?
I think, whether the industry likes it or not, we're moving towards a model where content IS given away. And you buy the DVD or whatever for the extras.
Look at the Red Dwarf DVDs they just released. You can get the eps for cheap (or free on Kazaa) but there are a huge load of extras, plus the DVD mastering, to make it worth buying the set.
And besides, the article does say ALL the archives not, "All the shows except for those people actually like."
Unfortunately, your troll appears to be proven wrong by reality at this moment. The Time-Warner server with "more bandwidth than God" is buckling and constantly resetting connections. I'm online with a load of people, none of us are getting *anything* off the official site. Right now, BT is the only thing managing to serve up the file.
Make of that what you will.
Slashdot Mirror
There WOULD appear to be a very strong case for conflict of interest, but it would take significant abuse on their part before it could stick.
A quick attempt to dig up RIAA sales figures, of course, came up with a whole lot of contradictory information. So like any good researcher, I picked the one that best supported my argument. :D According to this article the total dollar value of CDs sold (or maybe just CDs shipped, not sure) is somewhere in the area of $14 billion.
Now then there are, according to reports, 57 million people using file-sharing services. Let's create a compulsary licensing scheme, wherein everyone who uses file-sharing services ponies up $20 for unlimited downloads.
Yes, only $20. The approximate price of ONE CD. Seems unreasonably low, no? And let's just take the unreasonable assumption that every one of those 57 million agrees to pay the fee. (but then again, it's so low a large number of them will, AND it will likely attract users who avoided P2P because of the notoriety and\or piracy issues)
So then... $20x12 months is $240. And $240 x 57 million is... $13.6 Billion Dollars.
So by going to a licensing scheme that is ONLY $20 a month per user, the industry can make nearly as much money as it did before. And that's not to say that file sharing will 100% replace physical albums - I expect they will continue to do brisk sales in those as well, since people will still want a professionally pressed hard copy, liner notes, CD-ROM extras, whatever. And I personally find it unimaginable that, in the short term, the value of CDs sold would drop 93% to under $1 billion dollars. In other words, they would quite probably make MORE money doing this.
Just something to think about.
So compared to the physical world, that $10 represents a fine value and we're not going to start trying to break down panel-by-panel costs.
I think the "problem" here is that, for whatever reason, the idea has been set up in the customers' minds that if it is online it must be CHEAP. I suspect deep down most people realize that it's far cheaper to have a load of content on a server than to print up thousands of books\newspapers\whatever. I know there's not an exact formula, but in my experience to entice people into buying something in electronic form, it generally needs to be at least half the price of the real-world equivilent.
(the success of Apple's iTunes does seem to belie this a bit, as 99c a song works out to about the same price per album as a physical CD. But there are a lot of factors that would need to be analyzed in that case. (how many people are actually downloading whole albums? How many are just downloading singles? How many have an eye towards constructing compilation discs for themselves? etc...))
And, of course, it all goes to hell once you start talking about things like Blog entries, or links, that really have no real-world equivilent at all. THAT'S when the system really breaks down - if people have nothing to compare the price with, they usually decide it's too expensive and wander on.
If you DID actually have to make a conscious decision to place a financial transaction every time you used the phone, long distance calls would plummet. And THAT'S what this article is arguing. For a web-based micropayment system to work, it would have to follow the TelCo model - you hand the website in question your credit card, and then you don't hear a word about the cost of the services again except once a month in the mail. And this is, for reasons too obvious to bother typing out, NOT a good idea for internet-based systems. And that's why Internet micropayments don't really work.
Maybe it's just me, but I heard virtually nothing about them that sounded different than any number of scratched-up CDs in my collection. (except for the slightly interesting distort on Trent's voice in Hurt) You could likely get about the same effect by holding a zippo up to the CD for a few seconds.
He gets props for discovering a highly novel new way of destroying CD players, and for being generally cool, but that's about it.
There's actually an IT group named San Dimas? I was making a Bill and Ted joke. Funny.
VeriSign is evil... Microsoft is evil... AOL is evil... WHO DO I ROOT FOR? I don't know what to say... Um... um... Uh, San Dimas Open Source ROCKS!
If you're looking for dirt on the Clinton administration, try their 1999 Report. Lots of juicy stuff in there, especially about the Kosovo war.
I'm wondering that myself. Someone select the wrong item from the list? Someone being extra sarcastic? Someone deciding to try out chaos-based modding? Weird. But like the sig says, my funny posts are Interesting, and my insightful posts are Funny. At least I have good karma. ;-)
I disagree for the most part, and it's this point of view which causes so many draconian laws to be passed.
Man is by nature a SOCIAL animal. We live by the herd. It's in our instincts (and by "our" at this point, I am speaking of people in general, NOT specific abberations) to, in essence, do what everyone else is doing. Why else do marketeers, politicians, etc try so hard to convince the "buyer" that everyone else in the world is doing something, even if, in fact, only a small fraction are? Get enough people to believe that everyone is doing something, and pretty soon, everyone WILL be doing it.
Accordingly, any child properly raised will know the mores, morals, and values of his society. You say that one of the principle purposes of law is deterrence - do you mean to suggest that, without threat of governmental punishment, people everywhere would start running around stealing and raping and burning? I certainly hope your view on humanity isn't that dismal. No, most people follow the basic rules of social conduct because its in our nature to do so, and the subliminal threat of social ostracization (known as the emotion "guilt") is FAR more of a deterrent than any stated legal penalty.
Will a starving man, looking at an unattended loaf of bread, say "Gee, I shouldn't take that. I might get locked up"? Certainly not. (in fact, in this case, the "deterrent" could serve as encouragement - jail time means a bed and three square meals) Does a man, upon seeing his wife in bed with his best friend, stop to consider the personal ramifications before pulling the trigger? I would doubt it. Do 90+% of drivers on the road every day keep EXACTLY to the speed limit out of fear of getting pulled over? (remember, 5 MPH over is STILL breaking the law) No. And in many circumstances, adhering to the speed limit is MORE dangerous - woe to the car going 55 when everyone around them is going 70.
The only way that a law is a REAL deterrent is if the penalties are orders of magnitude worse than the crime. The starving man above wouldn't hesitate to take the loaf of bread if the only penalty is jail time - but he might if he was looking at having his hand severed. A casual file trader isn't going to think twice about swapping a few MP3s, unless he's looking at penalties in the thousands or millions. However, this is NOT Justice, because if enforced, the penalty is several magnitudes worse than the crime. And a slavish adherence to overreaching punishments will lead almost inexorably (and I'm talking historically, do the research) into a police state. There hits a point where the laws are seen as justification unto themselves (ie, "If it is illegal, it MUST be immoral,") and that's when personal freedoms start going away.
This is why laws and society clash. When a government starts making laws which run contrary to the general behavior of society - like attempting to enforce a 55 mph speed limit when, as traffic engineers will tell you, traffic will generally find the correct speed on its own - it starts to create stress and social fracturing. The primary purpose of laws is, and should be, to remove those that behave contrary to the general will of society FROM that society. Murderers, rapists, rampant theives, etc. And, on the LARGER scale, society should be left to sort itself out. The only question is exactly what balance to strike between societal freedom, and legal rules governing conduct.
The alternative is a downwards spiral of ever more laws, with ever more increasing penalties.
Thank you! Some people still remember their history. Traditionally, music-making has been seen as a public service. Where do you think the phrase "sing for your supper" came from? I suspect most people born prior to about 1800 would be agast at the idea of using the creation of art (music, poetry, paintings, etc) as a route to becoming wealthy. It was a Calling, sort of like going into a monastary. They recognized the need for Art in everyday life, and if an artist produced something pleasing, he was given enough to live on. If you were REALLY lucky, some king or nobleman would decide he liked your work so much that he'd sponsor you, and you'd continue to get room and board so long as you continued to make pleasing Art.
That line about "no incentive" always amuses me, since it's the current state of affairs which is the abberation, not the idea of sharing music.
There's a difference in the bill between its intent and its wording. The intent, very obviously, was an agreement between the RIAA and the People, arbitrated by the government - we'll pay you a few cents for every blank tape or CD we buy, and in return, you won't try to sue private users for the occasional act of piracy. (since the amount you're making off the CD surcharge is FAR more than what you'd lose in sales to non-professional pirates) This is a perfectly fair, reasonable, and all around good solution to the problem. The surcharge doesn't financially inconvenience anyone directly, but collectively it adds up to millions going to the RIAA. Win-win. Unfortunately, the bill does not SAY this. The literal wording ONLY gives you the right to make a single "fair use" personal copy of a work. Which makes it a complete ripoff since we de facto had those rights ANYWAY thanks to the Betamax decision and a couple other related SCOTUS precedents in the early 80s. All it did was codify what was already an established Supreme Court judgement. (which, if you're not up on your civics, carries force of law) And further, the DMCA, by extension, destroys even that "right." Technically, if the album is encrypted in some fashion, all your Fair Use rights go out the window - you're paying that surcharge to the RIAA and getting nothing in return. I personally think one could build a strong case based around this. If we no longer have legal Fair Use rights to make a personal copy of albums\movies we buy, then that surcharge is accordingly illegal - it amounts to a criminal punishment on people convicted of no crime. Or, in reverse, it could be said you cannot be sued for copying an encrypted CD (as per the DMCA) precisely because you've paid the RIAA their piracy surcharge. (note: This applies only to the US version of the bill, I've heard the Canadian one has subtlely different wording and can actually support the theory that all personal copying is legal)
And just because something is illegal doesn't make it morally wrong.
Yes, exactly. So is marketing an adult product towards children. (in such a way to try to trick them into buying it) When I worked Road Runner, at least once every couple weeks, I'd have some parent whose kid (usually 10-12) had installed Bonzai and it messed everything up. And, of course, I couldn't help them as Bonzai is INCREDIBLY difficult to get rid of. (And way outside support boundaries) That's one where I'd fully support suing the corporation.
I mean, think about the inverse - the judge rules that U-haul's right to have their ads be seen trumps. That would be an almost direct precedent making popup blockers illegal. And those are something that users DO choose to install.
Now we just need someone to sue Bonzai for misrepresentation of product. That would be a pretty good suit, considering that the cute cartoon monkey seems to be geared to appeal to children. (the "Joe Camel" strategy...)
I agree. If the burgler refuses to leave on his own, it's MUCH more entertaining to beat him for awhile instead of just killing him. (which is messy and wasteful) It's nice living in a state that believes a criminal's rights more or less end the moment he breaks into your house. In California, there's at least one incident on record where a burgler broke into a house, managed to injure himself on carving knives left in the kitchen, and then successfully sued the owner of the house for negligence. (while dodging any criminal charges of his own) Not kidding. And THAT would be why some people feel it's better just to shoot on sight. /also Texan
Jeez, even when I'm trying to be funny, I get modded up as Interesting. No wonder my karma's so good. ;-)
Although, in the 'done worse' category, here's one from the place I used to work. Guy on one of the full-body computer contracts had a seriously annoying customer with some sort of mobo problem. They spent 90 minutes on the phone disassembling the computer. Then, JUST as they get to the point they can fix the problem, the customer declares that he's tired of working on it and wants someone sent out. ALL the hard work was past, and this rendered the hour and an half they'd spent a complete waste. Tech tried to explain this, customer refused to listen, and started getting abusive.
So the tech lost it. He told the customer, fine, we'll have someone sent out. But we need to make sure all the computer components are kept safe in the meantime.
So he instructed the customer to take every removed board and wire, and place each one in its own individual zip-loc bag for safekeeping.
He didn't work there much longer.
That's nothing. Anyone who's worked tech support before has heard (or, heh heh, DONE) worse. I'd be REALLY impressed if he could give us directions on destroying an IBM Model M keyboard. I've had mine for a decade and still haven't managed to even dent it.
I wish I had mod points to give you. I *despise* so-called free marketeers / objectivists who, in fact, really only want to stack the deck in favor of whatever group they like, and cry foul when they start to slide.
Doesn't matter. The simplest defense would be if that pirate vendor had lower prices - the free market in action. (which they often do) If someone's going to sell me a piece of equipment for half of what I'd pay for it in a retail store, as long as I'm reasonably sure the product itself isn't tainted, I'm not going to give much of a damn how he markets the product.
And beyond that, there's still nothing resembling proof there. I wouldn't even say there's REALISTICALLY probable cause. Now, DirecTV is probably gambling that they can convince the 12 sloped-foreheads in the jury box (selected by the lawyers primarily for their glassy stare) that these Smartcard programmers are ONLY for use stealing their signal. (probably using the bong\"tobacco water pipe" analogy) But to any halfway educated person, it's quite clear the products have many MORE legit purposes than non-legit.
(for that matter, a good analogy would be this: the government forces High Times magazine to give up their subscriber list, compares that to monitors credit card transaction records, and then arrests every High Time subscriber who has purchased rolling papers. Without bothering to produce actual drugs, since they can likely con a jury into convicting anyway)
For these suits to proceed, DirecTV needs to prove through perponderance of the evidence that the people in question stole their service. Know what the problem is? They can't. By its very nature, this sort of digital signal piracy is untracable. And whose fault is that? *Theirs.*
If someone comes up with a business model in which the product can be stolen anonymously, in such quantity that their basic profitability is threatened, then that company has a LOUSY BUSINESS MODEL and deserves to go out of business. Period.
Ok, but there is the theoretical way the system works, and the REALITY of how the system works. And while broadcast stations may technically be paying fees, in reality they aren't - they're more than made up for by what's being paid to them. Which is part of the reason that this is an anti-trust issue - the various recording groups have tilted the scales so far in favor of broadcast radio that, should the webcasting fees ever become cemented, it will destroy the industry completely.
The way I see it, this issue is simple. There is no reason at all that webcasters should be forced to pay more to play songs than broadcast radio. We all know how much radio pays the RIAA. (hint: less than nothing) But that's because the industry can control the radio biz through payola. Webcasters are distributed and beyond control, and THAT'S why the RIAA's trying to force them to pay massive fines which radio doesn't. The only reason this is even an issue is the insistance of our government that anything Online has to be treated like it's a completely different entity than its offline counterpart. There's otherwise no excuse to make the webcasters pay, while simultaneously paying OUT to radio stations. It IS monopolistic behavior, and very possibly illegal - as hopefully the courts will decide.
But if all the content is to be given away for free, surely these will die away? I think, whether the industry likes it or not, we're moving towards a model where content IS given away. And you buy the DVD or whatever for the extras. Look at the Red Dwarf DVDs they just released. You can get the eps for cheap (or free on Kazaa) but there are a huge load of extras, plus the DVD mastering, to make it worth buying the set. And besides, the article does say ALL the archives not, "All the shows except for those people actually like."
I read this, and the first thing I thought was, "Hello. I am C-3PO, human-cyborg relations, and I am I at your service."
Unfortunately, your troll appears to be proven wrong by reality at this moment. The Time-Warner server with "more bandwidth than God" is buckling and constantly resetting connections. I'm online with a load of people, none of us are getting *anything* off the official site. Right now, BT is the only thing managing to serve up the file. Make of that what you will.