The purpose behind DRM confused me. There is no doubt that Velvet Revolver's music was readily available on the net for free before the CD was even released. Thus, any so-called pirate was able to get it with no problem.
There is also no doubt, as seen above, that the DRM was easily circumvented.
There is also no doubt, that those who legitimately bought the CD and respect the digital millennium copyright act, are screwed. They are unable to convert their newly bought CD to a different format, even though doing so is perfectly legal under the fair use laws of the US.
Considering there is no doubt as to the utter failure of DRM, as shown above, I was perplexed at why it exists. I had trouble finding the answer as I was looking at it logically. The answer to my question is that there is no logical basis for DRM as it is necessarily true that DRM fails stops so-called pirates and screws legitimate buyers.
So what's the answer? I've determined that when confronted by a problem, it is felt by most people that doing something is necessarily better than doing nothing. This is seen as true even when the result of that something is worse than if nothing was done in the first place. Even when that happens, when doing something exacerbates the problem, people will say in defense of their screw up, "Hey, at least I did something!"
This psychological mindset is at play in relation to DRM. The morons in charge of the music industry see so-called piracy as a problem. They can either do something or do nothing. Even though DRM causes more problems, i.e., screwing over legitimate buyers while not putting any dent in so called piracy, they continue doing that something because they feel that doing nothing would somehow be worse. And that's despite all the evidence that clearly shows that DRM is actually worse.
This is why I think DRM will eventually fail. Over time those in power will see the futility of their "something" and do something else to solve any problems associated with so called piracy.
Of course there's a way around DRM. In this instance all you have to do is hold the shift key when you insert the CD. It's that easy.
But that just begs the question? What's the point of DRM?!?! Someone from the copyright industry must peruse these forums. What's the point?! I'm serious. Explain this too me!
We all know that Microsoft has been itching to get us to pay yearly for the use of their OS. This is their attempt to get that gravy train rolling.
Sure, Microsoft's antivirus app will be a separate product. Sure it will not be bundled with Windows. However, I'd bet anything that it WILL be bundled with new computers via special deals to manufacturers.
After a year, those new computer buyers will get messages to pay some money to continue receiving updates.
Once we're used to paying every year (or every month?!) for antivirus updates, Microsoft will start charging us yearly for other updates.
Microsoft will be smart and will start out with a reasonable price. But it won't be too long before we're paying about $80 a year for the right to use our computers.
People keep using Windows, and computer manufactures keep selling computer installed with Windows, because most apps run exclusively on Windows.
However, if software development becomes mostly web-based, it won't matter what OS the end-user runs, as he or she be able to run most apps on anything.
Therefore, there will be no reason to run Windows.
Now feel free to resort to your plentiful supply of Ad Hominem attacks!
Except for Office, every product that Microsoft sells that is not bundled with Windows fails, i.e., either fails to sell or sells well but loses tons of money. Every single one. I doubt if this will be any different.
A lot of people say that Sony also loses money on its hardware. I've read conflicting reports about Sony's hardware loses. Some say they exist while other say they do not. However, it doesn't really matter whether Sony loses money on its hardware, because its PlayStation division is profitable. And it's also a fact that Microsoft's Xbox division is not profitable. Heck, it's more than not profitable, it's loses gobs of money.
According to this article, the Xbox has lost Microsoft billions of dollars: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_pag e.php?sect ion_name=pub&aid=3489
But even if it's half that, or a quarter of that, it is still a lot of money.
I've already read the article, in fact I read Cringely every Friday. And I agree with the article completely. One, that Microsoft has milked the PC market dry. And two, that Microsoft has to move to different markets.
However, I happen to think that Microsoft will NOT win the console market. Essentially Microsoft is in a catch-22 situation with the Xbox. If it fails to sell, Microsoft failed. However, due to the 100 bucks loss on each console, if it succeeds, Microsoft loses even MORE money.
Maybe Microsoft has the wherewithal to wait 12+ years to pay off its current Xbox debt and start making a real profit. Time will tell.
Oh, and one more thing. People who assume that future Xboxes will be profitable enough to pay off the current Xboxes debt also assume that the current demand and growth for consoles will continue.
What if the console market crashes in a couple years?! Sony would not be harmed too much, as the PS2 was very profitable. In other words, Sony will come out ahead. While Microsoft will be completely harmed because it will not be able to recoup its current Xbox losses with a profitable Xbox2 or Xbox3.
As I said, you might be right. This could be the first time Microsoft released a profitable product other than Windows or Office. Merely because Microsoft has failed in every other attempt does not mean it has to fail in this attempt.
I do know one thing for certain, though, the Xbox2 will NOT have a hard drive. I seriously doubt that Microsoft will be willing to lose money on each console in the next round of the console wars. The Xbox2 will be much leaner, that's for sure.
Right now, Microsoft only makes money on two things: Windows and Office. Every other aspect of Microsoft's business loses money. E.g., Xbox, MSN, WinCE, WebTV, etc.
The only reason Microsoft can support all of these other failures is because Windows and Office has about 80% profit margins. Microsoft uses those HUGE profits to enter into unprofitable fields.
You may be right, maybe the Xbox2 will not lose money and will start to earn a profit. Maybe by Xbox3 (about 12 years from now) the billion dollar losses of the original Xbox will start to be paid off. Maybe by the Xbox4 is out the billion dollar debt will be paid off and Microsoft will start earning a real profit.
So maybe, just maybe, Microsoft will start earning money on the Xbox console 12+ years from now. You may be right. But, you also might be wrong. And considering how much money Microsoft is losing now, I don't think Microsoft will wait 12 years and will almost certainly give up before then. Only time will tell who is right.
I guess I didn't explain myself. The better the Xbox sells, the MORE Microsoft loses. Let's assume that you're right and a billion Xboxes are sold and everyone buys Half Life2, Halo 2, Fable, and Doom3. And let's also assume that Microsoft gets 10 bucks each for each of those games.
Assuming that's true, Microsoft loses a whopping $60,000,000,000. Yep, if Microsoft sells a BILLION consoles over Christams and if every one of their best games get sold, Microsoft will lose 60 BILLION!!! Even Microsoft doesn't have that kind of money!
John didn't do a great job in his editorial explaining why it is failing. But it is failing.
The problem for the Xbox is that it is utterly unprofitable. Microsoft loses about 100 bucks per console. Since it makes only about $7.50 per game, each console user has to buy about 13 new games for Microsoft to only break even. Obviously used games do not count, nor does renting them.
Some have estimated the Xbox losses to be near a billion dollars. And let's assume that this Christmas the Xbox sells a million consoles. That's a loss of $100,000,000. Assuming each console buyer also buys three games, which is a HUGE overestimate, the loss is still $77,500,000!!!
And don't think that Microsoft's Live! is going to save it, it's dirt cheap and is losing money too.
And think about this, even if the Xbox2 is a huge hit, it will have to earn a billion dollars before Microsoft breaks even!!! And I seriously doubt that will ever happen.
Check out the forums over at PCMag for more info and some links.
I just want to add, I have nothing against the Xbox. I think it's a great system and I plan on getting one when Doom3 is released, if I'm able to use a mouse and keyboard to play it. It'd be a heck of a lot cheaper than spending about $400 for a new video card and about $150 for a new CPU.
Actually, if you read the article, and knew the history of radio, you'd know that courts were dealing with the problems associated with multiple broadcasts.
People have disputes over property all the time. Over land, cars, grain, etc. Setting up a government agency to dole out and control airwaves is as asinine as setting up an agency to dole out our daily food supply.
Currently the FCC does not protect our interest. The sole purpose of the FCC is to protect the status quo of corporate America.
Content producers wanted broadcast flags mandated on every TV device, including even public domain content, the FCC gave it to them.
Content producers want to plug the analog hole, i.e., keep us from even recording analog copies of our shows. Even though our US Supreme Court ruled that such copying is legal, after 2006 the FCC has mandated that no TV device will have analog output. With no analog output, there will be no ability to record onto analog devices. All those VCRs out there will be useless.
Internet cable companies did not want to be defined as common carriers, i.e., they want to be able to limit what you can access and do on the internet. So, the FCC capitulated.
And as the editorial pointed out, the FCC attempted to scale back competition rules related to the phone industry.
It's a simple fact that the FCC is anti-consumer and is utterly and completely pro business. How exactly does that protect us?!
The original poster sarcastically wrote "Yea, OpenSource is a huge money maker.... Great business model."
Sarcasim is defined as "remarks that mean the opposite of what they seem to say and are intended to mock or deride."
The opposite of what he wrote is, "OpenSource loses money.... Terrible business model."
That certainly sounds to me like he's suggesting that "open source could not be profitable."
And I've been thinking about your Coke analogy. Since Coke cola has absolutely no IP protection, it IS open source, as anyone can take the recipe, sell it, modify it, and come up with something new. Thus, Coke has made billions working on an open source model! Thanks for proving my point!
Yeah, and companies make money at that. Which contradicts his point that there is no money is open source. And one last thing, HP, Sun, and IBM all put money into open source development. So you're wrong about that too.
Gee, once again no brain. "Open source only makes sense to companies whose primary source of revenue isn't generated by their I.P." I guess you don't know that IBM is probably the LARGEST source of IP on this planet! It has more patents than God.
Secondly, there is no IP associated with Coke's recipe. Recipes cannot be copyrighted or patented. Thus, your analogy fails.
And worse of all you ADMIT that open source can make companies money!
You have NO brain. If open source doesn't make money, then why are so many companies behind it? IBM, HP, and Sun, just to name a few. And why are so many countries pushing it? Japan, China, and Germany, just to name a few.
BeOS 5 was just a fantastic OS. It made computing fun. The trial version set up all my hardware and installed in about 5 minutes, including a TV card, modem, etc.
I ran the desktop 1280x1024x32. So once I ran Quake at 640x480 and a TV window also at 640x480 at the same time. It didn't crash, it didn't slow down, they both ran flawlessly. There is no way Windows could have done that at the time, or anytime for that matter.
I stopped running BeOS when they pulled the plug for it. And still today I wish I wouldn't have switched back.
Slashdot Mirror
The purpose behind DRM confused me. There is no doubt that Velvet Revolver's music was readily available on the net for free before the CD was even released. Thus, any so-called pirate was able to get it with no problem.
There is also no doubt, as seen above, that the DRM was easily circumvented.
There is also no doubt, that those who legitimately bought the CD and respect the digital millennium copyright act, are screwed. They are unable to convert their newly bought CD to a different format, even though doing so is perfectly legal under the fair use laws of the US.
Considering there is no doubt as to the utter failure of DRM, as shown above, I was perplexed at why it exists. I had trouble finding the answer as I was looking at it logically. The answer to my question is that there is no logical basis for DRM as it is necessarily true that DRM fails stops so-called pirates and screws legitimate buyers.
So what's the answer? I've determined that when confronted by a problem, it is felt by most people that doing something is necessarily better than doing nothing. This is seen as true even when the result of that something is worse than if nothing was done in the first place. Even when that happens, when doing something exacerbates the problem, people will say in defense of their screw up, "Hey, at least I did something!"
This psychological mindset is at play in relation to DRM. The morons in charge of the music industry see so-called piracy as a problem. They can either do something or do nothing. Even though DRM causes more problems, i.e., screwing over legitimate buyers while not putting any dent in so called piracy, they continue doing that something because they feel that doing nothing would somehow be worse. And that's despite all the evidence that clearly shows that DRM is actually worse.
This is why I think DRM will eventually fail. Over time those in power will see the futility of their "something" and do something else to solve any problems associated with so called piracy.
Of course there's a way around DRM. In this instance all you have to do is hold the shift key when you insert the CD. It's that easy.
But that just begs the question? What's the point of DRM?!?! Someone from the copyright industry must peruse these forums. What's the point?! I'm serious. Explain this too me!
Velvet Revolver's CD was available on the net weeks before it was released.
So called pirates still get their music. While those who actually buy it will be unable to put it on their MP3 players. Why would any one buy it?!
If the music is readily available via p2p, and if those who actually buy it get screwed, then what's the point of DRM?!
I'm serious, can someone explain this to me?!
We all know that Microsoft has been itching to get us to pay yearly for the use of their OS. This is their attempt to get that gravy train rolling.
Sure, Microsoft's antivirus app will be a separate product. Sure it will not be bundled with Windows. However, I'd bet anything that it WILL be bundled with new computers via special deals to manufacturers.
After a year, those new computer buyers will get messages to pay some money to continue receiving updates.
Once we're used to paying every year (or every month?!) for antivirus updates, Microsoft will start charging us yearly for other updates.
Microsoft will be smart and will start out with a reasonable price. But it won't be too long before we're paying about $80 a year for the right to use our computers.
People keep using Windows, and computer manufactures keep selling computer installed with Windows, because most apps run exclusively on Windows.
However, if software development becomes mostly web-based, it won't matter what OS the end-user runs, as he or she be able to run most apps on anything.
Therefore, there will be no reason to run Windows.
Now feel free to resort to your plentiful supply of Ad Hominem attacks!
Except for Office, every product that Microsoft sells that is not bundled with Windows fails, i.e., either fails to sell or sells well but loses tons of money. Every single one. I doubt if this will be any different.
SCO sells stuff too?!
Every article I've read places Microsoft's per console loss at between $100 to $120. If you can find a different and lower number, I'd like to see it.
Also, I've read that Microsoft makes from $5 to $10 per game. If you can find something different and higher, I'd like to see it.
A lot of people say that Sony also loses money on its hardware. I've read conflicting reports about Sony's hardware loses. Some say they exist while other say they do not. However, it doesn't really matter whether Sony loses money on its hardware, because its PlayStation division is profitable. And it's also a fact that Microsoft's Xbox division is not profitable. Heck, it's more than not profitable, it's loses gobs of money.
g e.php?sect ion_name=pub&aid=3489
According to this article, the Xbox has lost Microsoft billions of dollars:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_pa
But even if it's half that, or a quarter of that, it is still a lot of money.
...Lara Croft's attributes!!! Much more!
I've already read the article, in fact I read Cringely every Friday. And I agree with the article completely. One, that Microsoft has milked the PC market dry. And two, that Microsoft has to move to different markets.
However, I happen to think that Microsoft will NOT win the console market. Essentially Microsoft is in a catch-22 situation with the Xbox. If it fails to sell, Microsoft failed. However, due to the 100 bucks loss on each console, if it succeeds, Microsoft loses even MORE money.
Maybe Microsoft has the wherewithal to wait 12+ years to pay off its current Xbox debt and start making a real profit. Time will tell.
Oh, and one more thing. People who assume that future Xboxes will be profitable enough to pay off the current Xboxes debt also assume that the current demand and growth for consoles will continue.
What if the console market crashes in a couple years?! Sony would not be harmed too much, as the PS2 was very profitable. In other words, Sony will come out ahead. While Microsoft will be completely harmed because it will not be able to recoup its current Xbox losses with a profitable Xbox2 or Xbox3.
As I said, you might be right. This could be the first time Microsoft released a profitable product other than Windows or Office. Merely because Microsoft has failed in every other attempt does not mean it has to fail in this attempt.
I do know one thing for certain, though, the Xbox2 will NOT have a hard drive. I seriously doubt that Microsoft will be willing to lose money on each console in the next round of the console wars. The Xbox2 will be much leaner, that's for sure.
Right now, Microsoft only makes money on two things: Windows and Office. Every other aspect of Microsoft's business loses money. E.g., Xbox, MSN, WinCE, WebTV, etc.
The only reason Microsoft can support all of these other failures is because Windows and Office has about 80% profit margins. Microsoft uses those HUGE profits to enter into unprofitable fields.
You may be right, maybe the Xbox2 will not lose money and will start to earn a profit. Maybe by Xbox3 (about 12 years from now) the billion dollar losses of the original Xbox will start to be paid off. Maybe by the Xbox4 is out the billion dollar debt will be paid off and Microsoft will start earning a real profit.
So maybe, just maybe, Microsoft will start earning money on the Xbox console 12+ years from now. You may be right. But, you also might be wrong. And considering how much money Microsoft is losing now, I don't think Microsoft will wait 12 years and will almost certainly give up before then. Only time will tell who is right.
I guess I didn't explain myself. The better the Xbox sells, the MORE Microsoft loses. Let's assume that you're right and a billion Xboxes are sold and everyone buys Half Life2, Halo 2, Fable, and Doom3. And let's also assume that Microsoft gets 10 bucks each for each of those games.
Assuming that's true, Microsoft loses a whopping $60,000,000,000. Yep, if Microsoft sells a BILLION consoles over Christams and if every one of their best games get sold, Microsoft will lose 60 BILLION!!! Even Microsoft doesn't have that kind of money!
"I don't believe that the Xbox is failing."
John didn't do a great job in his editorial explaining why it is failing. But it is failing.
The problem for the Xbox is that it is utterly unprofitable. Microsoft loses about 100 bucks per console. Since it makes only about $7.50 per game, each console user has to buy about 13 new games for Microsoft to only break even. Obviously used games do not count, nor does renting them.
Some have estimated the Xbox losses to be near a billion dollars. And let's assume that this Christmas the Xbox sells a million consoles. That's a loss of $100,000,000. Assuming each console buyer also buys three games, which is a HUGE overestimate, the loss is still $77,500,000!!!
And don't think that Microsoft's Live! is going to save it, it's dirt cheap and is losing money too.
And think about this, even if the Xbox2 is a huge hit, it will have to earn a billion dollars before Microsoft breaks even!!! And I seriously doubt that will ever happen.
Check out the forums over at PCMag for more info and some links.
I just want to add, I have nothing against the Xbox. I think it's a great system and I plan on getting one when Doom3 is released, if I'm able to use a mouse and keyboard to play it. It'd be a heck of a lot cheaper than spending about $400 for a new video card and about $150 for a new CPU.
"It's just a common practice," said Kagan, the telecoms analyst. "I don't know an instance where they delete them."
If the cell phone providers never see a reason or need to delete messages, they have way too much space.
Actually, if you read the article, and knew the history of radio, you'd know that courts were dealing with the problems associated with multiple broadcasts.
People have disputes over property all the time. Over land, cars, grain, etc. Setting up a government agency to dole out and control airwaves is as asinine as setting up an agency to dole out our daily food supply.
Currently the FCC does not protect our interest. The sole purpose of the FCC is to protect the status quo of corporate America.
Content producers wanted broadcast flags mandated on every TV device, including even public domain content, the FCC gave it to them.
Content producers want to plug the analog hole, i.e., keep us from even recording analog copies of our shows. Even though our US Supreme Court ruled that such copying is legal, after 2006 the FCC has mandated that no TV device will have analog output. With no analog output, there will be no ability to record onto analog devices. All those VCRs out there will be useless.
Internet cable companies did not want to be defined as common carriers, i.e., they want to be able to limit what you can access and do on the internet. So, the FCC capitulated.
And as the editorial pointed out, the FCC attempted to scale back competition rules related to the phone industry.
It's a simple fact that the FCC is anti-consumer and is utterly and completely pro business. How exactly does that protect us?!
I'll say it again, yes.
Outside the US Microsoft is toast.
The original poster sarcastically wrote "Yea, OpenSource is a huge money maker.... Great business model."
Sarcasim is defined as "remarks that mean the opposite of what they seem to say and are intended to mock or deride."
The opposite of what he wrote is, "OpenSource loses money.... Terrible business model."
That certainly sounds to me like he's suggesting that "open source could not be profitable."
And I've been thinking about your Coke analogy. Since Coke cola has absolutely no IP protection, it IS open source, as anyone can take the recipe, sell it, modify it, and come up with something new. Thus, Coke has made billions working on an open source model! Thanks for proving my point!
Yeah, and companies make money at that. Which contradicts his point that there is no money is open source. And one last thing, HP, Sun, and IBM all put money into open source development. So you're wrong about that too.
Gee, once again no brain. "Open source only makes sense to companies whose primary source of revenue isn't generated by their I.P." I guess you don't know that IBM is probably the LARGEST source of IP on this planet! It has more patents than God.
Secondly, there is no IP associated with Coke's recipe. Recipes cannot be copyrighted or patented. Thus, your analogy fails.
And worse of all you ADMIT that open source can make companies money!
You have NO brain. If open source doesn't make money, then why are so many companies behind it? IBM, HP, and Sun, just to name a few. And why are so many countries pushing it? Japan, China, and Germany, just to name a few.
BeOS 5 was just a fantastic OS. It made computing fun. The trial version set up all my hardware and installed in about 5 minutes, including a TV card, modem, etc.
I ran the desktop 1280x1024x32. So once I ran Quake at 640x480 and a TV window also at 640x480 at the same time. It didn't crash, it didn't slow down, they both ran flawlessly. There is no way Windows could have done that at the time, or anytime for that matter.
I stopped running BeOS when they pulled the plug for it. And still today I wish I wouldn't have switched back.