No, they work. I built a computer running W2K for my father in law. He is one of those types that if he gets spam or sees a banner ad talking about "free" software he'll try it. The system was constantly being infected with spyware and other crap. I'd tell him time and time again NOT to download or install anything. I finally got sick of it and locked down his account. He's been completely spyware free for about two years.
I'm not saying that large laptops are necessarily bad. If you want to play Doom3 or edit movies on a long flight, you're going to need a powerful laptop. My point is that three are advantages to both. There are people who want small and efficient and those who want huge and powerful.
In other words, I think flash drives will succeed in laptops, just not in all of them.
Not every one is concerned about massive drive sizes. There are plenty of people who would choose the battery saving advantages of flash drives in their laptops.
I'm of the opinion that laptops should be as small and energy efficent as possible. I just don't get the point of using them desktop replacements. If you want something as huge and powerful as desktop, buy a friggin' desktop. If you want something portable, buy something portable.
I mean, what's the point of a "portable" computer if you have to plug it in all the time?!
We have to prepare kids for the future. And once the DMCA was enacted, we no longer own our stuff. Thus, kids should get used to the idea that we can't use products they way we want. Thus if we use them in a way that society deems harmful, no matter how mundane that use is, there are going to be consequences.
Yeah, let's look. If some rich guy wants your land. He can have it. And he won't have to pay what you're asking or what it's actually worth. He only has to pay you a "reasonable" price.
And it's rarely used? Sure, it WAS rarely used BEFORE the Supreme Court decided it was legal. And now that it is legal, expect to see land grabs all across the US.
Why ask hard questions? It was presented as a rumor, and due to the seriousness of it, it needed to be published. It's not like any harm came out of it. And more likely, it may have actually prevented harm by keeping the sneak from occurring.
The RIAA did something similar in the 90s when it snuck in "work for hire" legislation, which made all recording artists mere "work for hires" without any right to retain or obtain copyrights on their songs.
Wrong, you don't have to OWN something in order to have rights to access it.
"Second: This is in no way like putting a wall in front of the entrance to your house. This is more like putting a line of 9 inch diameter rocks in a row in front of your house. Rocks that you can easily step over."
Not really, the CD is locked. Only by asking Sony or by violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act can you get the CD unlocked. Thus, you're either at Sony's discretion or at risk violating federal law.
"The question is: How do we do it?"
Sony fully admits that the new DRM is solely directed to those who BUY their CDs. Thus my answer to the question would involve NOT screwing over your legitimate customers. That should obvious. If CDs sales are down, the last thing you'd want to do is screw over those few people left who are still willing to buy from you.
"Leave aside the technical definition." So you admit that technically the iPod is an MP3 player. But, because it doesn't fit in with your economic theory, you determine that it can't possibly be an MP3 player.
So you proved my point. You don't let reality prove your economic model. You let your economic model prove itself.
Like I said, either you're incredibly stupid or incredibly funny. I'm not sure which, but I'm leaning towards the former.
The problem is with your asinine definition of "non-competitive" markets. You claim, with a straight face, that the iPod is NOT an MP3 player. What is your basis for that? Does it play MP3s? Yes. Is that what it's primarily used for? Yep. (Do you really think people are spending $10,000 bucks on iTunes to fill up those iPods?! Yeah right!)
Sure there are differences, but there are ALWAYS differences between products.
I pointed out the price differences between ATI cards, and how they had nothing to do with the underlying costs, and you claimed that ATI has a monopoly on ATI cards. Well duh! Guess what. Entempo has a monopoly over its Spirit player. EVERY SINGLE COMPANY HAS A MONOPOLY OVER ITS OWN PRODUCTS.
I've shown examples after examples where prices are not set by costs but by the market. Every time I do that you make up a monopoly out of thin air. But that's easy to do, since according to your definition, EVERY product is a monopoly in itself!
You're either incredibly stupid. Or you're having fun fucking with me. If it's the former, I feel sorry for you. If it's the latter, hats off to you. You're a genius!
You're wrong because your analogy assumes you have no right to cross the line. In the US, at least, the Home Recording Act and fair use allows us to make copies of our music and share them with friends and family. Any hindrance to that should not be allowed. Simply put, ripping a CD you legally bought is perfectly legal.
Under your analogy, it'd be perfectly reasonable for someone to put a barrier keeping you from entering your own property. Under property law that'd be a nuisance and would clearly be illegal.
I proved both Pianoman and you wrong time and time again, and the best you can say is that my examples are somehow "bad." Bad in the sense they prove you wrong? Because I don't see any other way they could be bad. How many more examples do I need, I could come up with them all day.
And I'll comment on this: "I meant the actual PC market. As in the beige box you have sitting on your desk."
Once again, go to Dell.com and go to Alienware.com. Alienware will sell similar systems for a LOT more money than Dell, but yet the costs are nearly identical. The reason being? You guessed it, because people are willing to pay more. They perceive a higher quality/performance from Alienware and are willing to pay more for that.
I'll say it again and again and again because you don't seem to get it. The market sets prices, not costs. The market sets prices, not costs. The market sets prices, not costs.
Pianoman made this unqualified (and quite ridiculous) statement that "things are expensive because they have high costs."
While that is sometimes true, it is not always true. Sometimes things are expensive even though they cost hardly anything.
The REAL reason things cost more is because people are willing to pay more. That's where pricing really comes from. Not from the cost of production.
And do you really think that prices in the computer realm are "very close to costs"? You really believe that? First, how in the heck could Microsoft be making 80% profit margins off of Office and Windows if they were selling those products "close to costs"?!
And do you really think an X800XT ATI Radeon Video card costs $164 more to produce than the X800XL version of the same card. Especially when considering you can simply flash the bios on the XL to get an XT. In other words, the SOLE difference between the XL and the XT is the bios, thus the XT costs NO MORE TO PRODUCE, yet it costs $164 more. Could it be that it costs more simply because people are willing to pay more?
And look at MP3 players. You can buy an Etempo Spirit 20 gig player for 99 bucks. Or you could buy a 20 gig iPod for $300. Do you REALLY believe the iPod costs three times as much to produce?! Really? Or could it be that people are willing to pay more for the iPod, for whatever reason?
Once again, prices are set by the market, in other words, by what people are willing to pay. NOT BY COSTS OF PRODUCTION!
Rick Boucher seems pretty smart about the issues until the very end, when he repeats the same industry bullshit lie, namely that "the only way that I think we are going to have high-value television programming delivered over the air in digital format is if the motion picture industry has some level of confidence that it's not going to get recorded and uploaded to the internet."
That is PURE bullshit for one simple reason: Broadcasters ARE currently delivering "high-value" content in HD format "over the air"!!!! You can't say that broadcasters won't do something unless we take action, WHEN THEY ARE FUCKING DOING IT RIGHT NOW!!!
That bullshit lie is just a ploy to get broadcast flags in place to make sure we have absolutely no fair use rights left.
Let me clear this up, the intent was NOT to force MS to include alternatives from 3rd parties, but it was done to allow OEMs to bundle third party players with their systems without any interference from Microsoft's player. Before this ruling Microsoft was demanding all OEMs make their "Media Player" the default video player on new systems. Now OEMs are free to include any player they want. We're just learning now that no OEM actually wants to do that and that the entire basis for the ruling was BS.
This is one example where good intentions lead to bad decisions.
First of all, illegally downloading software is NOT stealing. It's infringing. DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207, 1985.
Second, I certainly cannot speak for everyone. But neither can you. Everyone I know has the sense to try software before spending the money. Maybe you and your friends don't. But that's not my concern.
I really have no idea what you're talking about. The original poster made this claim: "I highly doubt most software pirates ever 'try' the product and then buy it." And I disagreed.
Do I get to try out EVERY bit of software I buy? Nope. But that doesn't stop me from trying the vast majority of software before I buy.
Would you buy a car without trying it out? Would you buy a house without first going inside? Of course not. Anyone with brains would download a copy of the software BEFORE buying to make sure it does what you want.
If it's does do what I need I'll buy it. It's just simpler than living without any updates or constantly finding cracks for the latest updates.
"Now I can only question why you'd choose an image without said red latex suit"
I'm lazy. Damn lazy. I went to google images, spelled her name the best I could, and that was the first picture I found. You're right, I should have found a better one. But I didn't, let's both be brave and move past this. Thanks!
This is easy. Linux is cool because it has an X in it. Everyone knows Xs are cool. (Of course, Linux would be cooler if they capitalized the X, but that's a minor point.)
On the other hand, BSD is cool because it has a hot chick.
Both are valid attributes and neither side should feel bad.
I'd make people pay at supermarket checkouts for the privilege of listening to musak while they shopped. And I'd make it so elevators with musak wouldn't open until money was deposited for the same privilege.
If I were the MPAA I'd have police checkpoints surrounding outdoor movie theatres to make sure anyone driving by while the movie is playing pays their fair share.
And if were the Association of American Publishers I'd burn every library to the ground.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they work. I built a computer running W2K for my father in law. He is one of those types that if he gets spam or sees a banner ad talking about "free" software he'll try it. The system was constantly being infected with spyware and other crap. I'd tell him time and time again NOT to download or install anything. I finally got sick of it and locked down his account. He's been completely spyware free for about two years.
I'm not saying that large laptops are necessarily bad. If you want to play Doom3 or edit movies on a long flight, you're going to need a powerful laptop. My point is that three are advantages to both. There are people who want small and efficient and those who want huge and powerful.
In other words, I think flash drives will succeed in laptops, just not in all of them.
Not every one is concerned about massive drive sizes. There are plenty of people who would choose the battery saving advantages of flash drives in their laptops.
I'm of the opinion that laptops should be as small and energy efficent as possible. I just don't get the point of using them desktop replacements. If you want something as huge and powerful as desktop, buy a friggin' desktop. If you want something portable, buy something portable.
I mean, what's the point of a "portable" computer if you have to plug it in all the time?!
We have to prepare kids for the future. And once the DMCA was enacted, we no longer own our stuff. Thus, kids should get used to the idea that we can't use products they way we want. Thus if we use them in a way that society deems harmful, no matter how mundane that use is, there are going to be consequences.
"Lets look at what was actually decided here"
Yeah, let's look. If some rich guy wants your land. He can have it. And he won't have to pay what you're asking or what it's actually worth. He only has to pay you a "reasonable" price.
And it's rarely used? Sure, it WAS rarely used BEFORE the Supreme Court decided it was legal. And now that it is legal, expect to see land grabs all across the US.
Why ask hard questions? It was presented as a rumor, and due to the seriousness of it, it needed to be published. It's not like any harm came out of it. And more likely, it may have actually prevented harm by keeping the sneak from occurring.
The RIAA did something similar in the 90s when it snuck in "work for hire" legislation, which made all recording artists mere "work for hires" without any right to retain or obtain copyrights on their songs.
"First: Do you really own it?"
Wrong, you don't have to OWN something in order to have rights to access it.
"Second: This is in no way like putting a wall in front of the entrance to your house. This is more like putting a line of 9 inch diameter rocks in a row in front of your house. Rocks that you can easily step over."
Not really, the CD is locked. Only by asking Sony or by violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act can you get the CD unlocked. Thus, you're either at Sony's discretion or at risk violating federal law.
"The question is: How do we do it?"
Sony fully admits that the new DRM is solely directed to those who BUY their CDs. Thus my answer to the question would involve NOT screwing over your legitimate customers. That should obvious. If CDs sales are down, the last thing you'd want to do is screw over those few people left who are still willing to buy from you.
"Leave aside the technical definition." So you admit that technically the iPod is an MP3 player. But, because it doesn't fit in with your economic theory, you determine that it can't possibly be an MP3 player.
So you proved my point. You don't let reality prove your economic model. You let your economic model prove itself.
Like I said, either you're incredibly stupid or incredibly funny. I'm not sure which, but I'm leaning towards the former.
"God dammit. I'm through with this conversation."
And to that I completely agree.
The problem is with your asinine definition of "non-competitive" markets. You claim, with a straight face, that the iPod is NOT an MP3 player. What is your basis for that? Does it play MP3s? Yes. Is that what it's primarily used for? Yep. (Do you really think people are spending $10,000 bucks on iTunes to fill up those iPods?! Yeah right!)
Sure there are differences, but there are ALWAYS differences between products.
I pointed out the price differences between ATI cards, and how they had nothing to do with the underlying costs, and you claimed that ATI has a monopoly on ATI cards. Well duh! Guess what. Entempo has a monopoly over its Spirit player. EVERY SINGLE COMPANY HAS A MONOPOLY OVER ITS OWN PRODUCTS.
I've shown examples after examples where prices are not set by costs but by the market. Every time I do that you make up a monopoly out of thin air. But that's easy to do, since according to your definition, EVERY product is a monopoly in itself!
You're either incredibly stupid. Or you're having fun fucking with me. If it's the former, I feel sorry for you. If it's the latter, hats off to you. You're a genius!
So where exactly do you live? I'd love to build a wall keeping you from easily entering your house. Thanks!
Great post. Well put!
You're wrong because your analogy assumes you have no right to cross the line. In the US, at least, the Home Recording Act and fair use allows us to make copies of our music and share them with friends and family. Any hindrance to that should not be allowed. Simply put, ripping a CD you legally bought is perfectly legal.
Under your analogy, it'd be perfectly reasonable for someone to put a barrier keeping you from entering your own property. Under property law that'd be a nuisance and would clearly be illegal.
I proved both Pianoman and you wrong time and time again, and the best you can say is that my examples are somehow "bad." Bad in the sense they prove you wrong? Because I don't see any other way they could be bad. How many more examples do I need, I could come up with them all day.
And I'll comment on this: "I meant the actual PC market. As in the beige box you have sitting on your desk."
Once again, go to Dell.com and go to Alienware.com. Alienware will sell similar systems for a LOT more money than Dell, but yet the costs are nearly identical. The reason being? You guessed it, because people are willing to pay more. They perceive a higher quality/performance from Alienware and are willing to pay more for that.
I'll say it again and again and again because you don't seem to get it. The market sets prices, not costs. The market sets prices, not costs. The market sets prices, not costs.
Pianoman made this unqualified (and quite ridiculous) statement that "things are expensive because they have high costs."
While that is sometimes true, it is not always true. Sometimes things are expensive even though they cost hardly anything.
The REAL reason things cost more is because people are willing to pay more. That's where pricing really comes from. Not from the cost of production.
And do you really think that prices in the computer realm are "very close to costs"? You really believe that? First, how in the heck could Microsoft be making 80% profit margins off of Office and Windows if they were selling those products "close to costs"?!
And do you really think an X800XT ATI Radeon Video card costs $164 more to produce than the X800XL version of the same card. Especially when considering you can simply flash the bios on the XL to get an XT. In other words, the SOLE difference between the XL and the XT is the bios, thus the XT costs NO MORE TO PRODUCE, yet it costs $164 more. Could it be that it costs more simply because people are willing to pay more?
And look at MP3 players. You can buy an Etempo Spirit 20 gig player for 99 bucks. Or you could buy a 20 gig iPod for $300. Do you REALLY believe the iPod costs three times as much to produce?! Really? Or could it be that people are willing to pay more for the iPod, for whatever reason?
Once again, prices are set by the market, in other words, by what people are willing to pay. NOT BY COSTS OF PRODUCTION!
Exactly what are the high costs asssociated with diamonds, printer ink, and bottled water which makes them cost so damn much?
Rick Boucher seems pretty smart about the issues until the very end, when he repeats the same industry bullshit lie, namely that "the only way that I think we are going to have high-value television programming delivered over the air in digital format is if the motion picture industry has some level of confidence that it's not going to get recorded and uploaded to the internet."
That is PURE bullshit for one simple reason: Broadcasters ARE currently delivering "high-value" content in HD format "over the air"!!!! You can't say that broadcasters won't do something unless we take action, WHEN THEY ARE FUCKING DOING IT RIGHT NOW!!!
That bullshit lie is just a ploy to get broadcast flags in place to make sure we have absolutely no fair use rights left.
Yeah, how dare a national publisher follow the law! I too only subscribe to magazines that openly flaunt our country's tax code. Fuck 'em all!
Let me clear this up, the intent was NOT to force MS to include alternatives from 3rd parties, but it was done to allow OEMs to bundle third party players with their systems without any interference from Microsoft's player. Before this ruling Microsoft was demanding all OEMs make their "Media Player" the default video player on new systems. Now OEMs are free to include any player they want. We're just learning now that no OEM actually wants to do that and that the entire basis for the ruling was BS.
This is one example where good intentions lead to bad decisions.
First of all, illegally downloading software is NOT stealing. It's infringing. DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207, 1985.
Second, I certainly cannot speak for everyone. But neither can you. Everyone I know has the sense to try software before spending the money. Maybe you and your friends don't. But that's not my concern.
I really have no idea what you're talking about. The original poster made this claim: "I highly doubt most software pirates ever 'try' the product and then buy it." And I disagreed.
Do I get to try out EVERY bit of software I buy? Nope. But that doesn't stop me from trying the vast majority of software before I buy.
Would you buy a car without trying it out? Would you buy a house without first going inside? Of course not. Anyone with brains would download a copy of the software BEFORE buying to make sure it does what you want.
If it's does do what I need I'll buy it. It's just simpler than living without any updates or constantly finding cracks for the latest updates.
"Now I can only question why you'd choose an image without said red latex suit"
I'm lazy. Damn lazy. I went to google images, spelled her name the best I could, and that was the first picture I found. You're right, I should have found a better one. But I didn't, let's both be brave and move past this. Thanks!
You've never heard of Ceren Ercen (sp?!)?! I'll admit she's not the hottest BSD chick in the world, but she's easily the most famous.
This is easy. Linux is cool because it has an X in it. Everyone knows Xs are cool. (Of course, Linux would be cooler if they capitalized the X, but that's a minor point.)
On the other hand, BSD is cool because it has a hot chick.
Both are valid attributes and neither side should feel bad.
I'd make people pay at supermarket checkouts for the privilege of listening to musak while they shopped. And I'd make it so elevators with musak wouldn't open until money was deposited for the same privilege.
If I were the MPAA I'd have police checkpoints surrounding outdoor movie theatres to make sure anyone driving by while the movie is playing pays their fair share.
And if were the Association of American Publishers I'd burn every library to the ground.