Good idea. I would think making a book available for download immediately after the customer purchases a book, will let them get started reading while waiting for the hard copy to arrive in the mail.
Good point. Too bad I didn't have any mod points. Somehow people think computers are different than everything else...the are not. Common sense still applies.
No matter what the technology/situation is, if you put your hand in the flame you are going to get burned. It might be a good idea to learn a bit about the "fire" phenomenon before putting your hand in there.:)
I order a custom vehicle and have the dealer deliver it to my driveway. Why should I have to know that it needs gas do run? What is this key thingy for?
My point is, a purchase is a decision, and it is generally a good idea to make informed ones. No, I don't expect Joe Sixpack to know how to set up a firewall unless he has decided to purchase a computer and decided to connect it to the Internet. Notice how each of this item are decisions which should have some logic behind them.
Now, if someone was making him do that ( not his decision ), the requirement to do research and make informed decisions is waived.
Personally I prefer Barnes and Noble bookstore over both B&N online or Amazon.com. In fact I am biased against Amazon.com ever since they pulled the "one-click shopping" patent move. I prefer paper books to electronic...what can I say? Anyhow, insightful post.
Well, one idea I have that has not been mentioned yet is that they may be trying to lower bandwidth needs by making setting up a server impractical ( too slow for a popular ftp/web/whatever site ). Or, in the same stream of thought, by making setting up a web server impractical from home, increase their sales of Web-hosting accounts and storage space since customers cannot practically host such services from their residental connection.
I hope that made sense. Here is an example of what I mean - Joe User wants to set up a fanboy web site but his upload speed is only 256k. He sets up the site on his home computer anyway and finds after a few months that it is become very popular and has outgrown its very limited upload capacity. Since increasing his upload speed is very expensive, he gets a web hosting account for less but also has to pay quite a bit more per MB storage than he would on a home-based web server solution.
In other words, he gets forced into web-hosting and pays more that he would have if upload speeds were not so expensive when compared with download speeds. In addition, his web server can be shut down more easily now ( say, as the result of a DMCA violation letter ) that it is on the ISP's server than if it were on his home computer.
Interesting. The way I envision non-DRM'd networks to run is grow as a separate network, heck, perhaps even have systems check for DRM being enabled on systems with incoming connections and deny them access if they are. Have audio/video software refuse to open media with content-protection properties, have P2P software refuse to share it.
On the other side of the coin, DRM supporter are likely to phase in the trusted computer scheme by at first letting non-protected content play, and then later having a "no verification, no access" scheme put in place so that applications such as WMP will not playing any contect that the user does not have a license for. Media companies would love this as it would block the usage of media that has had it's protection conveniently removed.
I would like to add a few more idea on how the untrusted Internet could work, but I have to go now.
Sure, let's help. *if* they ask us to help, and explain exactly what it is they need help with, and then put the U.S.'s reponse to popular vote and then go from there. That way, the Iraqi people are not being pressured to do anything they do not do willingly, U.S. citizen's get a say in how ( and if ) their tax money is spent, and there is no amibiguity as to what the U.S. is committing itself to when it says "ok".
Right to trial by jury and due process? How about the requirement of law enforcement to get a search warrant? Shall I keep going? It's all been posted before here on Slashdot
Of course, I purchased the tires and donated them to a poor(er) person who could not afford new tires on their own. Looks like I got busted for someone elses crimes. Damn, this will hold up in court for sure!
Exactly. Instead they use a "wirefall". How it works is that as soon as a packet comes in over the wire, it triggers a release mechanism that allows the network cabling ( wire ) to fall to the ground, immediately taking the server offline.
This usually isn't a problem since almost no one goes to SCO's web site, but with all the recent press a few bored individuals actually visited it, thereby knocking the web server offline.
Now we know why they experience so much downtime on their web server!
Once again I liken this to programming, where you should design each function to do one task only, and do it very well. It makes a lot easier to find problems with a particular function, plus lends itself to modularity.
Like it or not, the game has changed. You can either adapt to the new rules or get thrown out of the game for too many violations because you are not following the new rules. Copyright laws have gotten way out of hand because the old distribution model gave an unjustifiable amount of power to distributors of music, movies, etc. such that they could artificially move the U.S. Government to extend copyright length beyond what it should be and for reasons that are in conflict with the intent of copyright laws in the first place.
So distribution model is broken and that was also the crux of your business model. Time to get a new business model or become extinct.
The only way to save the old business model is to go to a 1984'ish ( I mean the book/movie 1984, not the year ) totalitarian form of enforcement, which I for one do not want to see happen. The other way, as I already stated, is to adapt to the new environment.
On final point, which is not rebuttal directed at your post, is that I keep seeing people whine about 'lost sales'. Where are these lost sales? And how did you lose them if you never had them?
Well, I agree and disagree. I agree it is convenient to be able to preview a movie before dropping $10 U.S.D. or more on seeing the movie. But if it's good, wait a week or two after opening day before going to see it, but go see it. Heck, if you find yourself playing the screener a few times because the movie is that good, then buying the VHS/DVD/etc. is highly recommended.
On a side note about the DVD purchase, if the movie is one of the Lord Of the Ring series, wait until the 3rd or 4th DVD release before buying so you can get the super deluxe ultra-extended release.:-)
"The stakes in the debate are huge. Federal and state governments could lose billions of dollars in revenue from regulatory fees if calls moved onto the Internet are no longer subject to the charges."
To lose a sale, revenue, etc., you have to have it first. As has been said on Slashdot a million times before ( after this post, a million and one:) ), no one is guaranteed a sale. Nobody(EN), nessuno(IT), personne(FR). So please talking about losing something you don't have, Mr. AT&T, RIAA, MPAA, and the rest of the businesses that think the public owes them a living.
I am all for removed the RIAA from the picture, I really don't think these "taxes" are the first step. How about the first change being the proceeds from sales go to the artist ( single or group ), and then they pay back the label for the production/distribution etc. from that. In this way, the RIAA and its members have no business with the buyers of the music, only with the artist. Think for a second, they will have zero justification to subpoena for IP addresses, send out cease and desist letters, etc. because the only party they get paid from is the artist that created the music. Oh, and that should also take the steam out of their marketing machine and payola scams, as control of ( and the bill for ) that is now in the hands of the artists.
Ok, it will never happen, but I can dream, can't I?
Well, since all of SCO's claims are false anyway, the truth is no one on the planet are using the features under litigation. So, from that, one can conclude Google is as good of a target as anyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
Good idea. I would think making a book available for download immediately after the customer purchases a book, will let them get started reading while waiting for the hard copy to arrive in the mail.
Good point. Too bad I didn't have any mod points. Somehow people think computers are different than everything else...the are not. Common sense still applies.
:)
No matter what the technology/situation is, if you put your hand in the flame you are going to get burned. It might be a good idea to learn a bit about the "fire" phenomenon before putting your hand in there.
I order a custom vehicle and have the dealer deliver it to my driveway. Why should I have to know that it needs gas do run? What is this key thingy for?
My point is, a purchase is a decision, and it is generally a good idea to make informed ones. No, I don't expect Joe Sixpack to know how to set up a firewall unless he has decided to purchase a computer and decided to connect it to the Internet. Notice how each of this item are decisions which should have some logic behind them.
Now, if someone was making him do that ( not his decision ), the requirement to do research and make informed decisions is waived.
Personally I prefer Barnes and Noble bookstore over both B&N online or Amazon.com. In fact I am biased against Amazon.com ever since they pulled the "one-click shopping" patent move. I prefer paper books to electronic...what can I say? Anyhow, insightful post.
Cheers
Well, one idea I have that has not been mentioned yet is that they may be trying to lower bandwidth needs by making setting up a server impractical ( too slow for a popular ftp/web/whatever site ). Or, in the same stream of thought, by making setting up a web server impractical from home, increase their sales of Web-hosting accounts and storage space since customers cannot practically host such services from their residental connection.
I hope that made sense. Here is an example of what I mean -
Joe User wants to set up a fanboy web site but his upload speed is only 256k. He sets up the site on his home computer anyway and finds after a few months that it is become very popular and has outgrown its very limited upload capacity. Since increasing his upload speed is very expensive, he gets a web hosting account for less but also has to pay quite a bit more per MB storage than he would on a home-based web server solution.
In other words, he gets forced into web-hosting and pays more that he would have if upload speeds were not so expensive when compared with download speeds. In addition, his web server can be shut down more easily now ( say, as the result of a DMCA violation letter ) that it is on the ISP's server than if it were on his home computer.
Interesting. The way I envision non-DRM'd networks to run is grow as a separate network, heck, perhaps even have systems check for DRM being enabled on systems with incoming connections and deny them access if they are. Have audio/video software refuse to open media with content-protection properties, have P2P software refuse to share it.
On the other side of the coin, DRM supporter are likely to phase in the trusted computer scheme by at first letting non-protected content play, and then later having a "no verification, no access" scheme put in place so that applications such as WMP will not playing any contect that the user does not have a license for. Media companies would love this as it would block the usage of media that has had it's protection conveniently removed.
I would like to add a few more idea on how the untrusted Internet could work, but I have to go now.
>>Replacing "MS" with "M$" doesn't make you clever. Aren't I clever for pointing that out?
No, but it does make you accurate. Hopefully you understand the meaning of purposeful spelling mistake.
Sure, let's help. *if* they ask us to help, and explain exactly what it is they need help with, and then put the U.S.'s reponse to popular vote and then go from there. That way, the Iraqi people are not being pressured to do anything they do not do willingly, U.S. citizen's get a say in how ( and if ) their tax money is spent, and there is no amibiguity as to what the U.S. is committing itself to when it says "ok".
Of course it will protect you...in Canada.
They are releasing a new DRM scheme? Ok...I am holding the shift key down...let me know when they are done!
Oh, and now they are implying I should vote for GW Bush? No thanks.
Right to trial by jury and due process? How about the requirement of law enforcement to get a search warrant? Shall I keep going? It's all been posted before here on Slashdot
Too late. The Bush-bashing began before he was elected,and continued afterward.
We understand. Well, most of us. Just a few think English is the only language on the planet.
Of course, I purchased the tires and donated them to a poor(er) person who could not afford new tires on their own. Looks like I got busted for someone elses crimes. Damn, this will hold up in court for sure!
Exactly. Instead they use a "wirefall". How it works is that as soon as a packet comes in over the wire, it triggers a release mechanism that allows the network cabling ( wire ) to fall to the ground, immediately taking the server offline.
This usually isn't a problem since almost no one goes to SCO's web site, but with all the recent press a few bored individuals actually visited it, thereby knocking the web server offline.
Now we know why they experience so much downtime on their web server!
The same way they know their IP is in the Linux kernel...pulled it out of their rear!
Once again I liken this to programming, where you should design each function to do one task only, and do it very well. It makes a lot easier to find problems with a particular function, plus lends itself to modularity.
And there are so many that this trend will continue on a daily basis...
Like it or not, the game has changed. You can either adapt to the new rules or get thrown out of the game for too many violations because you are not following the new rules. Copyright laws have gotten way out of hand because the old distribution model gave an unjustifiable amount of power to distributors of music, movies, etc. such that they could artificially move the U.S. Government to extend copyright length beyond what it should be and for reasons that are in conflict with the intent of copyright laws in the first place.
So distribution model is broken and that was also the crux of your business model. Time to get a new business model or become extinct.
The only way to save the old business model is to go to a 1984'ish ( I mean the book/movie 1984, not the year ) totalitarian form of enforcement, which I for one do not want to see happen. The other way, as I already stated, is to adapt to the new environment.
On final point, which is not rebuttal directed at your post, is that I keep seeing people whine about 'lost sales'. Where are these lost sales? And how did you lose them if you never had them?
Word up, I think. I am getting ready to learn about encoding in XVid...wish me luck!
Well, I agree and disagree. I agree it is convenient to be able to preview a movie before dropping $10 U.S.D. or more on seeing the movie. But if it's good, wait a week or two after opening day before going to see it, but go see it. Heck, if you find yourself playing the screener a few times because the movie is that good, then buying the VHS/DVD/etc. is highly recommended.
:-)
On a side note about the DVD purchase, if the movie is one of the Lord Of the Ring series, wait until the 3rd or 4th DVD release before buying so you can get the super deluxe ultra-extended release.
"The stakes in the debate are huge. Federal and state governments could lose billions of dollars in revenue from regulatory fees if calls moved onto the Internet are no longer subject to the charges."
:) ), no one is guaranteed a sale. Nobody(EN), nessuno(IT), personne(FR). So please talking about losing something you don't have, Mr. AT&T, RIAA, MPAA, and the rest of the businesses that think the public owes them a living.
To lose a sale, revenue, etc., you have to have it first. As has been said on Slashdot a million times before ( after this post, a million and one
Thank You.
I am all for removed the RIAA from the picture, I really don't think these "taxes" are the first step. How about the first change being the proceeds from sales go to the artist ( single or group ), and then they pay back the label for the production/distribution etc. from that. In this way, the RIAA and its members have no business with the buyers of the music, only with the artist. Think for a second, they will have zero justification to subpoena for IP addresses, send out cease and desist letters, etc. because the only party they get paid from is the artist that created the music. Oh, and that should also take the steam out of their marketing machine and payola scams, as control of ( and the bill for ) that is now in the hands of the artists.
Ok, it will never happen, but I can dream, can't I?
Well, since all of SCO's claims are false anyway, the truth is no one on the planet are using the features under litigation. So, from that, one can conclude Google is as good of a target as anyone else.