Not all recording contracts are the same. I am sure there are bands who get screwed out of their money. But is everyone getting screwed? The article makes it sound like they are, but that's hard to believe when you see the kind of money music stars are throwing around. The problem is that the two sources of information we have in this matter, the RIAA and the artists, both have motives to twist the facts. I would like to see a third party release statistics on exactly what kind of profit most artists make for different levels of record sales.
Of course I know it is from the Simpsons. Even a simpsons' joke gets old the 5 millionth time you hear it.
Re:competition always good
on
Athlon 64 Debuts
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
I wish I had mod points so I could mod this one down. God, the whole "welcome our new xxxxx overlords" is getting so old. Try something original please.
"Valve made a great game four or five years ago, and someone else made an even better game by modifying it."
Not true. You can't compare a great single player game to a great mulitplayer game and come to the conclusion that one is better than the other.
"...resting on their laurels all these years..."
Perhaps they were just smart and took the time necessary to complete a quality game? Maybe this is why they'll actually be one of the first companies I've seen in a long time that were able to hit their originally announced release date.
"...windows only game..." The linux version of Quake3 was a complete flop in sales figures. What would motivate any game company to make linux versions?
"...selling themselves into a hardware vendor fight..."
Which is a totally unconfirmed rumor. If, however, it is true, you can't really blame any company for going after it's one purpose: to make money. As long as they aren't injuring their customers, which selling packaging deals isn't, then it should be fair game.
"...trying to tie the game into a subscription service..."
Again, you are misinformed. The subscription service is just one of many options, the others include the more traditional methods of payment. I'll leave it up to you to go inform yourself on those details, as it will be good practice for your next post.
What his parents did (or didn't do) that allowed a simple video game to influence them to such a degree. Obviously the game played some role, but it is the job of his parents to prevent the game from doing so. I find it amazing that a game can do this, and I would like to know more about the conditions that allow this to happen.
Let me guess... you were educated 25+ years ago?
Seriously though, if you are going to make that kind of statement, at least back it up with some facts. If people educated 25 years ago are smarter or better educated, then why? Is it in comparison to those who are educated now, or in the relative quality of education between the U.S. (which I assume you are speaking of) and other countries? If what you say is true, then why hasn't technological inovation slowed down?
Since they all failed, I don't really consider that competition. You need SUCCESSFUL companies to provide the current status quo with incentive to work harder.
The handheld gaming market is a perfect example of what can occur when there is lack of competition. Nintendo's technological progress in this area has been glacial. The original gameboy came out in 1989, and other than some minor improvements, stayed the same for NINE YEARS until the release of gameboy color in 1998. This had color and a processor that was 2x as fast. The next step was the Gameboy Advance in 2001. This had a 32 bit processor. Still, despite the great demand for, it still failed to include a backlight. That lead to the most recent release of the Gameboy Advance SP, which has a backlight, but no other technological enhancments.
I sure hope that the PSP is as great as it sounds, because Nintendo needs a good slap in the face to bring them around. I understand that there is a nitch for cheap, long lasting portable gaming devices, but surely there are plenty of people who will by a slightly more expensive but much more capable device.
The fundamental problem here is that it pretty much destroyes the capatilist system because the money made by the corporations would not be paid back out into the econemy through employees. It breaks the cycle and would just make the rich much, much, richer. One implication of this is that other forms of government that have failed in the past due to the human element might be much more successful once the human element has been taken out (like communism). At any rate, to keep the capatalist system in place, the best solution would be to simply make it illegal for companies to "hire" robots directly. Instead, allow employees to buy a robot and replace themselves with it at work (with company approval). They would be responsible for the robot's maintenece etc. If the robot stopped functioning the employee would have to fill in for the robot until it was replaced or repaired. This way the employee could be more productive and would be able to have more than one job. Services could even develope that would take care of robot maintenence/replacement for you. The robot and its maitenence would be an expense... but would allow the person to have much more free time. People could have a lot more jobs this way, and everyone could make a lot more money, and would spend a lot more money. It would still cost the companies the same amount of money to make things, but it wouldn't matter because people would have enough money to buy it. There could be hiring rules to ensure that jobs were evenly distributed, and that a person with 4 robots would not get a job over a person with 1 robot or that kind of thing. In other words, this system would allow a fairly painless transition to a civilization where all non human-imperitive jobs would be filled my robots. Anyone who wanted to could have as much free time as he/she wanted, and have enough money to buy most anything that person wanted. People without money for robots initially would have priority in the hiring laws, but when hired could be given a loan deal that would ensure their robot replacement instantly. Wage laws would ensure that wages stayed at a basic level even for robot jobs, while the capatilist system would raise the wages for human filled jobs, thereby maitaining a motivation for the talented people in those jobs.
Well, I like to believe that this country's government is put together in such a way that a revolution should not be necessary to get what the people want. Since we can vote we should be able to guide our country's policies through non violent means.
Besides, I don't think I would want to go up against the US military =P
We could probably "liberate" washington with slashdot readers alone. Just think... the United States run by slashdot users! RIAA, Microsoft, and certain senators would be deported to whatever country we are currently the most pissed off at.
Unfortunantly it seems like whenever a group is getting government funding they feel like they have to spend ALL the money. If they don't spend it all whoever gave it to them isn't going to give them as much next time. I think that is what causes a lot of the senseless waste in government, and could be the culprit here as well.
It seems rather silly to buy or not by something purely because of the name. Pocket PC is just as Microsoft as Windows XP is. They make almost all of the software the comes standard on the device. If you have some vendetta against MS, then you would be served best by looking past whatever MS decides to call their products and simply look at what products they make.
I on the other hand, buy the best product available. Rarely does idiology factor into my buying (or software use) decisions. As such, I have both windows and linux, and I them for what I find them most suited to be used as.
I wonder if they have tried doing this to someone who already is a great artist. What effect would this have on them? Would they be able to get even better? Worse? No difference? I think it would be rather interesting.
I know this. That is why I said it was difficult to judge for software, since the more you sell the less you can sell each individual unit for. This is also why my subject is a question rather than a statement. I don't know how much profit MS makes off each sell, but I do know that they sell a LOT of them. I'm guessing, but I believe that MS could sell their products for $50 rather than $100 or $150. That is the whole reasoning behind the "MS charges too much for their products" debate. So ironically, if you think Microsoft over prices their products and hate them for that, you can't really say they are dumping their product when they sell it for a more reasonable price.
I've heard dumping defined as selling a product for less than it took you to make it. It's a bit harder to judge this in the area of software, since it is very cheap to reproduce. However, I would think that by now Microsoft can easily sell Windows XP for $50 and still make a profit, so how is this dumping? It's just that MS has been overcharging before this.
"prior to its invention, people had to ask clerks to take goods of the shelves."
ROFL... surrrrrreee they did. I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but I am quite sure there were stores back then that didn't require the cashier to go get everything for the customers... Just because someone patents something doesn't mean they were the first to think of it.
How long has this patent craze been going on? I've never seen a history of patent cases, and me only being 21, I certainly didn't hear about them. When did people start patenting obvious stuff and winning? Anyone know? What was the first landmark case?
Frodo starts, like Bilbo, as a somewhat useless, cowardly, and reluctant character. While Bilbo grew and changed greatly throughout the hobbit and became a hero, Frodo is the same pitiful character at the end of the book. Frodo wouldn't of made it without Sam, and Sam really becomes the hero of this book, but Sam is still relegated to a secondary position for the entire book. I can understand Tolken not wanting to retell the same tired story of "reluctant average joe becomes hero", but he could of done something a bit more interesting, like actually having Frodo fail and die, and Sam take over, or something more imaginative which I can't think of =P
I don't blame slashdot for trying to profit off their website, but why would someone pay for gaming news here when they can find a huge number of free websites that will give them their news quickly without asking them to pay for it? Time may not make a difference in some stories, but if the story is announcing the availability of a downloadable demo, game, or movie, then it certainly does.
Re:Things that I like after 40 years of reading Sc
on
A Good Summer Read?
·
· Score: 1
I agree with this post completely. Caves of Steel is not to be missed, and should be read before Naked Sun. Mod this guy up!
That is true, but I enjoyed The Hobbit much more than I did The Lord of The Rings. Part of it was my dislike for the never changing character of Frodo, but the other part was that it bordered on tedious. While I still enjoyed it, I believe there is a happy medium that you have to reach concerning detail. Part of the elequence of good writing is describing enough of the world so that a person can visualize it well, but not so much that it becomes restrictive and boring to read. The Hobbit most certainly achieved a high level of elequence in that respect, while The Lord of The Rings did not.
Slashdot Mirror
Not all recording contracts are the same. I am sure there are bands who get screwed out of their money. But is everyone getting screwed? The article makes it sound like they are, but that's hard to believe when you see the kind of money music stars are throwing around. The problem is that the two sources of information we have in this matter, the RIAA and the artists, both have motives to twist the facts. I would like to see a third party release statistics on exactly what kind of profit most artists make for different levels of record sales.
Of course I know it is from the Simpsons. Even a simpsons' joke gets old the 5 millionth time you hear it.
I wish I had mod points so I could mod this one down. God, the whole "welcome our new xxxxx overlords" is getting so old. Try something original please.
"Valve made a great game four or five years ago, and someone else made an even better game by modifying it." Not true. You can't compare a great single player game to a great mulitplayer game and come to the conclusion that one is better than the other. "...resting on their laurels all these years..." Perhaps they were just smart and took the time necessary to complete a quality game? Maybe this is why they'll actually be one of the first companies I've seen in a long time that were able to hit their originally announced release date. "...windows only game..." The linux version of Quake3 was a complete flop in sales figures. What would motivate any game company to make linux versions? "...selling themselves into a hardware vendor fight..." Which is a totally unconfirmed rumor. If, however, it is true, you can't really blame any company for going after it's one purpose: to make money. As long as they aren't injuring their customers, which selling packaging deals isn't, then it should be fair game. "...trying to tie the game into a subscription service..." Again, you are misinformed. The subscription service is just one of many options, the others include the more traditional methods of payment. I'll leave it up to you to go inform yourself on those details, as it will be good practice for your next post.
What his parents did (or didn't do) that allowed a simple video game to influence them to such a degree. Obviously the game played some role, but it is the job of his parents to prevent the game from doing so. I find it amazing that a game can do this, and I would like to know more about the conditions that allow this to happen.
Let me guess... you were educated 25+ years ago? Seriously though, if you are going to make that kind of statement, at least back it up with some facts. If people educated 25 years ago are smarter or better educated, then why? Is it in comparison to those who are educated now, or in the relative quality of education between the U.S. (which I assume you are speaking of) and other countries? If what you say is true, then why hasn't technological inovation slowed down?
Since they all failed, I don't really consider that competition. You need SUCCESSFUL companies to provide the current status quo with incentive to work harder.
I sure hope that the PSP is as great as it sounds, because Nintendo needs a good slap in the face to bring them around. I understand that there is a nitch for cheap, long lasting portable gaming devices, but surely there are plenty of people who will by a slightly more expensive but much more capable device.
Check out the civil war. I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time...
The fundamental problem here is that it pretty much destroyes the capatilist system because the money made by the corporations would not be paid back out into the econemy through employees. It breaks the cycle and would just make the rich much, much, richer. One implication of this is that other forms of government that have failed in the past due to the human element might be much more successful once the human element has been taken out (like communism). At any rate, to keep the capatalist system in place, the best solution would be to simply make it illegal for companies to "hire" robots directly. Instead, allow employees to buy a robot and replace themselves with it at work (with company approval). They would be responsible for the robot's maintenece etc. If the robot stopped functioning the employee would have to fill in for the robot until it was replaced or repaired. This way the employee could be more productive and would be able to have more than one job. Services could even develope that would take care of robot maintenence/replacement for you. The robot and its maitenence would be an expense... but would allow the person to have much more free time. People could have a lot more jobs this way, and everyone could make a lot more money, and would spend a lot more money. It would still cost the companies the same amount of money to make things, but it wouldn't matter because people would have enough money to buy it. There could be hiring rules to ensure that jobs were evenly distributed, and that a person with 4 robots would not get a job over a person with 1 robot or that kind of thing. In other words, this system would allow a fairly painless transition to a civilization where all non human-imperitive jobs would be filled my robots. Anyone who wanted to could have as much free time as he/she wanted, and have enough money to buy most anything that person wanted. People without money for robots initially would have priority in the hiring laws, but when hired could be given a loan deal that would ensure their robot replacement instantly. Wage laws would ensure that wages stayed at a basic level even for robot jobs, while the capatilist system would raise the wages for human filled jobs, thereby maitaining a motivation for the talented people in those jobs.
Well, I like to believe that this country's government is put together in such a way that a revolution should not be necessary to get what the people want. Since we can vote we should be able to guide our country's policies through non violent means. Besides, I don't think I would want to go up against the US military =P
We could probably "liberate" washington with slashdot readers alone. Just think... the United States run by slashdot users! RIAA, Microsoft, and certain senators would be deported to whatever country we are currently the most pissed off at.
Unfortunantly it seems like whenever a group is getting government funding they feel like they have to spend ALL the money. If they don't spend it all whoever gave it to them isn't going to give them as much next time. I think that is what causes a lot of the senseless waste in government, and could be the culprit here as well.
It seems rather silly to buy or not by something purely because of the name. Pocket PC is just as Microsoft as Windows XP is. They make almost all of the software the comes standard on the device. If you have some vendetta against MS, then you would be served best by looking past whatever MS decides to call their products and simply look at what products they make. I on the other hand, buy the best product available. Rarely does idiology factor into my buying (or software use) decisions. As such, I have both windows and linux, and I them for what I find them most suited to be used as.
I wonder if they have tried doing this to someone who already is a great artist. What effect would this have on them? Would they be able to get even better? Worse? No difference? I think it would be rather interesting.
Well of COURSE Carmack did it first. HE ALWAYS DOES. Slashdot is just trying to make the 2nd placers feel a little better ;)
I know this. That is why I said it was difficult to judge for software, since the more you sell the less you can sell each individual unit for. This is also why my subject is a question rather than a statement. I don't know how much profit MS makes off each sell, but I do know that they sell a LOT of them. I'm guessing, but I believe that MS could sell their products for $50 rather than $100 or $150. That is the whole reasoning behind the "MS charges too much for their products" debate. So ironically, if you think Microsoft over prices their products and hate them for that, you can't really say they are dumping their product when they sell it for a more reasonable price.
I've heard dumping defined as selling a product for less than it took you to make it. It's a bit harder to judge this in the area of software, since it is very cheap to reproduce. However, I would think that by now Microsoft can easily sell Windows XP for $50 and still make a profit, so how is this dumping? It's just that MS has been overcharging before this.
"prior to its invention, people had to ask clerks to take goods of the shelves." ROFL... surrrrrreee they did. I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but I am quite sure there were stores back then that didn't require the cashier to go get everything for the customers... Just because someone patents something doesn't mean they were the first to think of it.
How long has this patent craze been going on? I've never seen a history of patent cases, and me only being 21, I certainly didn't hear about them. When did people start patenting obvious stuff and winning? Anyone know? What was the first landmark case?
Perhaps us being alone would be more comforting. We have enough trouble getting along with ourselves.
Frodo starts, like Bilbo, as a somewhat useless, cowardly, and reluctant character. While Bilbo grew and changed greatly throughout the hobbit and became a hero, Frodo is the same pitiful character at the end of the book. Frodo wouldn't of made it without Sam, and Sam really becomes the hero of this book, but Sam is still relegated to a secondary position for the entire book. I can understand Tolken not wanting to retell the same tired story of "reluctant average joe becomes hero", but he could of done something a bit more interesting, like actually having Frodo fail and die, and Sam take over, or something more imaginative which I can't think of =P
I don't blame slashdot for trying to profit off their website, but why would someone pay for gaming news here when they can find a huge number of free websites that will give them their news quickly without asking them to pay for it? Time may not make a difference in some stories, but if the story is announcing the availability of a downloadable demo, game, or movie, then it certainly does.
I agree with this post completely. Caves of Steel is not to be missed, and should be read before Naked Sun. Mod this guy up!
That is true, but I enjoyed The Hobbit much more than I did The Lord of The Rings. Part of it was my dislike for the never changing character of Frodo, but the other part was that it bordered on tedious. While I still enjoyed it, I believe there is a happy medium that you have to reach concerning detail. Part of the elequence of good writing is describing enough of the world so that a person can visualize it well, but not so much that it becomes restrictive and boring to read. The Hobbit most certainly achieved a high level of elequence in that respect, while The Lord of The Rings did not.