Battery is going to die, so let's see how quick yet thorough I can make this...
How did this get modded +4, Insightful? It's pure flamebait (my bet), or its a pretty awful misunderstanding of economics. People will always go for this shit more when the economy is down, too. Have IBT? Maybe. But I still like to argue.
It's not a real mystery: it got modded that way because some group of moderators agreed with his statements and thought it was justified. You feel it shouldn't have been because you disagree with his position. Maybe you'd feel validated if you were modded higher? Having a conflicting point of view with yours doesn't make it less valuable.
I'm a little curious who this "french philosopher" is, but not really. Macroeconomic theory changed drastically in the late 19th century, which ties in to the birth of the field as an actual discipline in itself (instead of merely the province of bored clerks, philosophers, and suchlike). Suffice to say, we've come a long, long way since this argument held any water in serious discussion--it seems plausible, though, so people get away with it all the time amongst those who haven't taken any economic theory.
I will admit to not having spent a lot of time studying economics and that I'm probably swimming in water much deeper than I should be, but here it goes anyways: first, as you point out, it's economic THEORY. That means it's not fact, it's not natural law, it's not God's word or anything else along those lines, and that it is possible for others to have a competing theory. That being said, I too would like to know who the "french philosopher" is. Attributions like this always make me think back to "so I heard from a friend of a friend's cousin that..." and lac some amount of credibility.
First problem: this theory assumes that labor (or work) is directly proportional to productivity, which is demonstrably not true. Productivity...[words, words, words]...TREMENDOUS influence on the value of the pie that is the output.
I would mostly agree with this...
An American costs a hell of a lot more to feed, clothe, and put in an SUV, it's true. But it's also true that the American produces a hell of a lot more wealth per hour of labor (generally, but not true for every case) than a Third-world counterpart. By the time we start working for a living, we mostly have better education and job skills than they do. Also, we tend to have longer working lives, because we live longer and stay healthier. It IS true that you will have a higher standard of living if you produce more value, so it's not surprising that we're materially better off.
Hmmm, but is the wealth created by the average American minus the wealth consumed by the average American that much greater than the average "third-world" counterpart? I think that a big part of the OP's point is that distribution of consumption is not consistent with distribution of wealth-generation, i.e., a large number of people do not see their "fair share" of the wealth that they create as it is concentrated up the ladder into the hands of a few people accumulate more wealth than they actually do generate (aka, "CEOs" or "hamburger" for socialists and "eat the rich" anarchists)
[more stuff I don't have any comment on right now...]
I'm not going to say that sweatshops are fair or unfair. "Exploitation", as it were, does exist in capitalist market economies, and it happens all the time, but it's not the reason why the modern First world is rich. I will pay an employee as much per hour as will maximize my profits. If the labor market is supply-heavy, I can get away with lower salaries because the workers have less choices, but it's true just as often that a worker can pick and choose, driving salaries up. The amount of power a worker has depends on how unique and productive he/she can be, meaning that you tend to make more money as a worker if you're educated and skilled.
You'd get mine too, moderating your insane drivel into oblivion.
First Amendment protections (at least here in the U.S.) may very well protect your right to say whatever you want (although technically they wouldn't protect my right to censor you if I could, as I am not a government actor). They also protect my right to speak louder so you can't be heard.
This is one of those posts that make me wish/. didn't allow for ACs. If you're going to spew crap like this, have the balls (or ovaries) to sow yourself and suffer the potential community backlash for exposing yourself as the village idiot.
1. Yes, the SC said they must all be counted under the same standard. 2. Since the SC determined that it was not possible to promulgate such a standard in a timely fashion in order for the vote to be certified before Dec 12, when results had to be sent to Congress, they ordered the recount to stop. Florida did not get a choice to continue the recount.
Next time, read the opinion more closely. And the dissent too. You'll learn a lot.
I wasn't really implying that I agreed with the "marketshare" argument, I was trying to point out though the rather ironic fact that using that argument as a selling point to attract "switchers" would, if successful, ultimately eliminate any benefit of it.
So if one of the main arguments about why Macs are so virus free is their small market share, should we really keep telling people to switch, since a growing market share will make Macs a bigger target?
Also, is it wise to keep pointing out so loudly that its so hard to write a virus for OS X and that none currently exist? I mean, it sounds kind of pompous and arrogant...like an invitation to try write one?
1. Create expanding encrypted sparse disk image 2. Copy home directory to disk image 3. Delete home directory
Then when you log in it decrypts and mounts the sparse disk image to where your home directory was.
So the space that was occupied by your home directory is simply moved to the disk image. When you need more space in your home directory, it expands the disk image to accomodate.
The issue with libertarian philosophy is that it can not be neatly placed into the linear spectrum of political philosophies that is typically used. I believe that's why you will see on most libertarian websites when they have "are you a libertarian?" quizzes, they will usually map your position out on a 2-dimensional plane, which categorizes your political beliefs based on too factors (social and economic ideology) with two poles for each ("liberal" and "conservative", used in the modern sense of the terms). This is a good example of one such quiz.
I inferred by their policies that they are economically "conservative" (which would define them as "libertarian") but by the individuals they mentioned/endorsed/associated that they have a socially "conservative" bias (which would define them also as "right-wing"). You can disagree with my methodology all you want. It may not make perfect logical sense, but it works for me.
In regards to:
"Assuming these are all economic matters, then the site's proponents could be secretly conservative or libertarian (secret because they publicly state that they are not affiliated with any party). There isn't sufficient information to tell which one, however, and they cannot be both."
Well, I never asserted that they were affiliated with any party. I asserted they proscribed to a particular political ideology (being the difference between calling them "libertarians" vs. "Libertarians". One asserts believers of a particular ideology, the other members of a party).
Finally as to the ad-hominem attacks:
ad hominem: Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.
Yes, I did engage technically in an ad hominem attack as I made an argument that questioned the opponents' motives. I make a distinction however in that he asserted he was asking an objective question of "science", although the information he referenced was not objective nor was it "science", but rather an ideologically biased piece attempting to discredit recycling. The original poster was intellectually dishonest in his question, and so I raised the point. I accused you of making an ad hominem attack as I DID present some evidence of my own, which apparently you dismissed and then skipped to the bottom and latched onto one statement that I made that questioned his bias.
And finally, yeah it was a loaded statement with some disdain, and that is probably my own bias poking through. You are absolutely correct that I am not a libertarian, I am not a right-winger, and I do not put much into their beliefs as a general rule. The closest you could come to putting me in a box is to call me a socialist, although most socialists tend to accuse me of breaking with orthodoxy a bit too often. And while I did only intend to point out the bias in his source, I apparently failed to do so in a polite fashion. So sue me.:)
And on a final final note, in my defense I would like to point out that every time an story like this gets posted, it seems to me that those "just looking for an objective scientific point of view" always seem to cite sources like the Heartland Institute or the American Enterprise Institute or some other politically conservative organization, not seeming to recognize that they are no more "unbiased" and "scientific" than Greenpeace or the Sierra Club or whatever other "liberal" group the author appears to disagree with. It's that sort of intellectual dishonesty that gets my blood going. If you want to get into a political/economic debate about these issues, then fine, let's do it. If you want to get to "just the facts", then you need to really find a more credible source, IMHO.
Yeah, I caught it after I posted. Sadly though, no take-backs on/.: once it's posted: I really do wish you could delete or at least edit your posts.
The funny thing is, reading it in that context and in relation to this post, my estimation of your intelligence (and knowledge of history) jumped ten-fold.
Although I will have to disagree about the similarities between hemp and marijuana - it has nothing to do with breeding, they're two different species in the same genus. The similarities are about the same as that between a house cat and a lion.
For those interested in further reading:
Hemp and Marijuana: Myths & Realities It's a great article that illustrates the distinctions between hemp and marijuana and a little bit of history as well.
As an aside, the strange thing about this whole thread is that it's turning me into the "NORML activist". While I'm supportive of both legalization of hemp and marijuana (I don't smoke it, I just don't really care what people put in their bodies so long as they aren't hurting anybody else), I wouldn't say I'm that passionate about it.
And papyrus is legal. And hemp and marijuana are two different things. So maybe if you look up the history of why marijuana is illegal, you'll understand a little better why it makes not sense that hemp is illegal.
I'll take my head out of my ass when you do the same.
I didn't mean to imply that it was a Bad Thing (although I would agree that it is), I was merely noting that it is there. Before considering the validity of any source, the first step is to note its bias.
And yes, I know that they are two different things. But they are not mutually exclusive things, and reading through their site, I felt that they met both definitions.
No apologies necessary - I set myself up for it. Just don't accuse me too much of "learning my lawyer lessons well." I'm trying hard not to let law school jade me.:)
Alas, we should probably end this before we violate/. etiquette and have a civil conversation...
I informed them (being from a small town in the middle of logging country), that old growth forest was NOT being used for paper, as those trees produce the best lumber for things like houses and decks.
While the second half of the statement is correct, the first half is speculation, and incorrect speculation at that. Old growth logging for paper does occur in BC (Canada), although most of the paper produced is for situations where high-quality paper is needed, not for writing paper in your three-ring binder. Blanket statements are A Bad Thing
The shock continued when I also stated in fact most paper comes from trees planted just for that purpose.
Correct, but your proposition leaves out a whole slew of other situations - you're stating that paper comes from either old growth or tree farms, ignoring exploitation of second and third growth forests in the public domain. Even though it's been logged, a large amount of it has recovered to the point of being relatively "virgin", yet is being logged again.
My own take on it: using trees (whether "wild" from a forest or "domestic" from a tree farm) to make paper is just plain stupid. We should use less paper or make it from other sources. Hemp or kanaf, for example, make fine, high quality paper, you get a much higher yield per acre and cause less soil depletion. Recycling would still be a good thing though in terms of cutting the waste stream on the other end, because even if the argument about "saving trees" was debunked, you still gotta figure out what to do with it on the other end, which is usually bury it or burn it, neither of which is a great solution.
Epilogue: From the website or your article's "source":
Heartland's mission is to help build social movements in support of ideas that empower people. Such ideas include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.
Heartland has been endorsed by some of the country's leading scholars, public policy experts, and elected officials. Dr. Milton Friedman calls a "a highly effective libertarian institute." Cato Institute president Edward Crane says Heartland "has had a tremendous impact, first in the Midwest, and now nationally."
So your premise is to debunk the "politically charged" assertions of environmental groups with "scientific "evidence, but you cite a right-wing libertarian think tank? Do I detect a little "small town logging bias"?
Apologies for having come across a bit harsh, but after having made my way through most of the thread and having read numerous postings sounding just as authoritative as your own spouting off just as many numbers, it started getting to me. Obviously, not all of you can be right, and it all has the appearance of speculation. You're just the one I lashed out at.
In reading your follow-up, its also apparent that your estimate wasn't what Apple's cut of the $.99 is, but more an estimate of their profit per song. Again, apologies.
History undergrad and now a law student - if you can't (or don't) cite a source for your information, your credibility is shot and anything you say is suspect. Of course, that same standard probably shouldn't be applied to/.
And lastly, while it's good to see a source (or some indication of personal authority on the subject), in general I don't give a rat's ass for what Fortune has to say. Then again, some people accuse me of being a socialist, so I guess that says it all...
Apple doesn't make any deals with the RIAA. They make deals with the record labels. If they had to make deals with the RIAA, then we wouldn't see any independent lables on the iTMS.
This is not so commonly known, in fact, it's just another number pulled out of thin air.
Th real number seems to be somewhere between $.10 and $.40 (disregarding the unrealistic numbers of $.01-$.05 some have thrown out. Apple may not be in the online music market to make money, but they're not so stupid as to get THAT bad of a deal...).
I think the bigger question is what's the damage to Apple's bottom line, and on that note, I think I saw it quoted somewhere that iTMS was near to breaking even, although I will admit to not being certain. Noticed I QUALIFY my uncertain statements.
So unless you REALLY know the bottom line on the what the number is, stop making things up and stating them with an air of authority. But of course, if you did that, then this wouldn't be/.
"Also consider that Apple pays royalties only on RIAA music, but nothing is stopping Apple from signing it's own talent and listing them alongside mainsteam acts."
Actually, there is. The whole Apple Computer/Apple Music confilct (mentioned previously).
While I think Apple Music's current lawsuit is pretty baseless, if Apple Computer did get into the music label business (which would basically be what you suggest), then there would definitely be a STRONG case for trademark infringement. They would either have to pay out a huge settlement or just end the whole matter by trying to buy them out, which would be my suggestion. Think about it, then they even get their own head start on the whole label business. The interesting question then would be how that would impact their relationship with the other major labels.
Slashdot Mirror
Correction: No, he didn't. He wanted to get rich just like the rest of them.
Battery is going to die, so let's see how quick yet thorough I can make this...
How did this get modded +4, Insightful? It's pure flamebait (my bet), or its a pretty awful misunderstanding of economics. People will always go for this shit more when the economy is down, too. Have IBT? Maybe. But I still like to argue.
It's not a real mystery: it got modded that way because some group of moderators agreed with his statements and thought it was justified. You feel it shouldn't have been because you disagree with his position. Maybe you'd feel validated if you were modded higher? Having a conflicting point of view with yours doesn't make it less valuable.
I'm a little curious who this "french philosopher" is, but not really. Macroeconomic theory changed drastically in the late 19th century, which ties in to the birth of the field as an actual discipline in itself (instead of merely the province of bored clerks, philosophers, and suchlike). Suffice to say, we've come a long, long way since this argument held any water in serious discussion--it seems plausible, though, so people get away with it all the time amongst those who haven't taken any economic theory.
I will admit to not having spent a lot of time studying economics and that I'm probably swimming in water much deeper than I should be, but here it goes anyways: first, as you point out, it's economic THEORY. That means it's not fact, it's not natural law, it's not God's word or anything else along those lines, and that it is possible for others to have a competing theory. That being said, I too would like to know who the "french philosopher" is. Attributions like this always make me think back to "so I heard from a friend of a friend's cousin that..." and lac some amount of credibility.
First problem: this theory assumes that labor (or work) is directly proportional to productivity, which is demonstrably not true. Productivity...[words, words, words]...TREMENDOUS influence on the value of the pie that is the output.
I would mostly agree with this...
An American costs a hell of a lot more to feed, clothe, and put in an SUV, it's true. But it's also true that the American produces a hell of a lot more wealth per hour of labor (generally, but not true for every case) than a Third-world counterpart. By the time we start working for a living, we mostly have better education and job skills than they do. Also, we tend to have longer working lives, because we live longer and stay healthier. It IS true that you will have a higher standard of living if you produce more value, so it's not surprising that we're materially better off.
Hmmm, but is the wealth created by the average American minus the wealth consumed by the average American that much greater than the average "third-world" counterpart? I think that a big part of the OP's point is that distribution of consumption is not consistent with distribution of wealth-generation, i.e., a large number of people do not see their "fair share" of the wealth that they create as it is concentrated up the ladder into the hands of a few people accumulate more wealth than they actually do generate (aka, "CEOs" or "hamburger" for socialists and "eat the rich" anarchists)
[more stuff I don't have any comment on right now...]
I'm not going to say that sweatshops are fair or unfair. "Exploitation", as it were, does exist in capitalist market economies, and it happens all the time, but it's not the reason why the modern First world is rich. I will pay an employee as much per hour as will maximize my profits. If the labor market is supply-heavy, I can get away with lower salaries because the workers have less choices, but it's true just as often that a worker can pick and choose, driving salaries up. The amount of power a worker has depends on how unique and productive he/she can be, meaning that you tend to make more money as a worker if you're educated and skilled.
Hang on there: exploitation is a big rea
You'd get mine too, moderating your insane drivel into oblivion.
/. didn't allow for ACs. If you're going to spew crap like this, have the balls (or ovaries) to sow yourself and suffer the potential community backlash for exposing yourself as the village idiot.
First Amendment protections (at least here in the U.S.) may very well protect your right to say whatever you want (although technically they wouldn't protect my right to censor you if I could, as I am not a government actor). They also protect my right to speak louder so you can't be heard.
This is one of those posts that make me wish
Correct and incorrect.
1. Yes, the SC said they must all be counted under the same standard.
2. Since the SC determined that it was not possible to promulgate such a standard in a timely fashion in order for the vote to be certified before Dec 12, when results had to be sent to Congress, they ordered the recount to stop. Florida did not get a choice to continue the recount.
Next time, read the opinion more closely. And the dissent too. You'll learn a lot.
I wasn't really implying that I agreed with the "marketshare" argument, I was trying to point out though the rather ironic fact that using that argument as a selling point to attract "switchers" would, if successful, ultimately eliminate any benefit of it.
Impressive response, nonetheless.
So if one of the main arguments about why Macs are so virus free is their small market share, should we really keep telling people to switch, since a growing market share will make Macs a bigger target?
Also, is it wise to keep pointing out so loudly that its so hard to write a virus for OS X and that none currently exist? I mean, it sounds kind of pompous and arrogant...like an invitation to try write one?
Well, I suppose technically you could, but it's not easy. According to the Apple technote, the old System folder is non-bootable.
Here's how it does it:
1. Create expanding encrypted sparse disk image
2. Copy home directory to disk image
3. Delete home directory
Then when you log in it decrypts and mounts the sparse disk image to where your home directory was.
So the space that was occupied by your home directory is simply moved to the disk image. When you need more space in your home directory, it expands the disk image to accomodate.
The issue with libertarian philosophy is that it can not be neatly placed into the linear spectrum of political philosophies that is typically used. I believe that's why you will see on most libertarian websites when they have "are you a libertarian?" quizzes, they will usually map your position out on a 2-dimensional plane, which categorizes your political beliefs based on too factors (social and economic ideology) with two poles for each ("liberal" and "conservative", used in the modern sense of the terms). This is a good example of one such quiz.
:)
I inferred by their policies that they are economically "conservative" (which would define them as "libertarian") but by the individuals they mentioned/endorsed/associated that they have a socially "conservative" bias (which would define them also as "right-wing"). You can disagree with my methodology all you want. It may not make perfect logical sense, but it works for me.
In regards to:
"Assuming these are all economic matters, then the site's proponents could be secretly conservative or libertarian (secret because they publicly state that they are not affiliated with any party). There isn't sufficient information to tell which one, however, and they cannot be both."
Well, I never asserted that they were affiliated with any party. I asserted they proscribed to a particular political ideology (being the difference between calling them "libertarians" vs. "Libertarians". One asserts believers of a particular ideology, the other members of a party).
Finally as to the ad-hominem attacks:
ad hominem: Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.
Yes, I did engage technically in an ad hominem attack as I made an argument that questioned the opponents' motives. I make a distinction however in that he asserted he was asking an objective question of "science", although the information he referenced was not objective nor was it "science", but rather an ideologically biased piece attempting to discredit recycling. The original poster was intellectually dishonest in his question, and so I raised the point. I accused you of making an ad hominem attack as I DID present some evidence of my own, which apparently you dismissed and then skipped to the bottom and latched onto one statement that I made that questioned his bias.
And finally, yeah it was a loaded statement with some disdain, and that is probably my own bias poking through. You are absolutely correct that I am not a libertarian, I am not a right-winger, and I do not put much into their beliefs as a general rule. The closest you could come to putting me in a box is to call me a socialist, although most socialists tend to accuse me of breaking with orthodoxy a bit too often. And while I did only intend to point out the bias in his source, I apparently failed to do so in a polite fashion. So sue me.
And on a final final note, in my defense I would like to point out that every time an story like this gets posted, it seems to me that those "just looking for an objective scientific point of view" always seem to cite sources like the Heartland Institute or the American Enterprise Institute or some other politically conservative organization, not seeming to recognize that they are no more "unbiased" and "scientific" than Greenpeace or the Sierra Club or whatever other "liberal" group the author appears to disagree with. It's that sort of intellectual dishonesty that gets my blood going. If you want to get into a political/economic debate about these issues, then fine, let's do it. If you want to get to "just the facts", then you need to really find a more credible source, IMHO.
Peace out, grasshopper.
Yeah, I caught it after I posted. Sadly though, no take-backs on/.: once it's posted: I really do wish you could delete or at least edit your posts.
The funny thing is, reading it in that context and in relation to this post, my estimation of your intelligence (and knowledge of history) jumped ten-fold.
Although I will have to disagree about the similarities between hemp and marijuana - it has nothing to do with breeding, they're two different species in the same genus. The similarities are about the same as that between a house cat and a lion.
For those interested in further reading:
Hemp and Marijuana: Myths & Realities It's a great article that illustrates the distinctions between hemp and marijuana and a little bit of history as well.
As an aside, the strange thing about this whole thread is that it's turning me into the "NORML activist". While I'm supportive of both legalization of hemp and marijuana (I don't smoke it, I just don't really care what people put in their bodies so long as they aren't hurting anybody else), I wouldn't say I'm that passionate about it.
It's all good...I'm just messin' with ya anyways. :)
but...they're cute...and fuzzy...
besides, i don't have a car...
And papyrus is legal. And hemp and marijuana are two different things. So maybe if you look up the history of why marijuana is illegal, you'll understand a little better why it makes not sense that hemp is illegal.
I'll take my head out of my ass when you do the same.
I didn't mean to imply that it was a Bad Thing (although I would agree that it is), I was merely noting that it is there. Before considering the validity of any source, the first step is to note its bias.
And yes, I know that they are two different things. But they are not mutually exclusive things, and reading through their site, I felt that they met both definitions.
Now, how about YOUR ad-hominem attack?
Not to mention 2x4s. For the scaffold to hang it from.
Basic Uses of Industrial Hemp
No apologies necessary - I set myself up for it. Just don't accuse me too much of "learning my lawyer lessons well." I'm trying hard not to let law school jade me. :)
/. etiquette and have a civil conversation...
Alas, we should probably end this before we violate
'til we meet again, grasshopper.
Perhaps I would if I had one. But don't let me stand in the way of your irrational bias...
Dude.
"Basically, the earth was here for hundreds of millions of years before humans, and it will be here for hundreds of millions of years after us"
Given, but you forgot the part that most people probably care about: how long will we be here?
Most of the environmental movement has really been quite humanistic in nature: preserving the Earth is good practice because it preserves us.
Not that I'm one of those people. Screw the people, save the cute and fuzzy bunnies...
I informed them (being from a small town in the middle of logging country), that old growth forest was NOT being used for paper, as those trees produce the best lumber for things like houses and decks.
While the second half of the statement is correct, the first half is speculation, and incorrect speculation at that. Old growth logging for paper does occur in BC (Canada), although most of the paper produced is for situations where high-quality paper is needed, not for writing paper in your three-ring binder. Blanket statements are A Bad Thing
The shock continued when I also stated in fact most paper comes from trees planted just for that purpose.
Correct, but your proposition leaves out a whole slew of other situations - you're stating that paper comes from either old growth or tree farms, ignoring exploitation of second and third growth forests in the public domain. Even though it's been logged, a large amount of it has recovered to the point of being relatively "virgin", yet is being logged again.
My own take on it: using trees (whether "wild" from a forest or "domestic" from a tree farm) to make paper is just plain stupid. We should use less paper or make it from other sources. Hemp or kanaf, for example, make fine, high quality paper, you get a much higher yield per acre and cause less soil depletion. Recycling would still be a good thing though in terms of cutting the waste stream on the other end, because even if the argument about "saving trees" was debunked, you still gotta figure out what to do with it on the other end, which is usually bury it or burn it, neither of which is a great solution.
Epilogue: From the website or your article's "source":
Heartland's mission is to help build social movements in support of ideas that empower people. Such ideas include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.
Heartland has been endorsed by some of the country's leading scholars, public policy experts, and elected officials. Dr. Milton Friedman calls a "a highly effective libertarian institute." Cato Institute president Edward Crane says Heartland "has had a tremendous impact, first in the Midwest, and now nationally."
So your premise is to debunk the "politically charged" assertions of environmental groups with "scientific "evidence, but you cite a right-wing libertarian think tank? Do I detect a little "small town logging bias"?
I prefer bridges, thanks. :)
/.
Apologies for having come across a bit harsh, but after having made my way through most of the thread and having read numerous postings sounding just as authoritative as your own spouting off just as many numbers, it started getting to me. Obviously, not all of you can be right, and it all has the appearance of speculation. You're just the one I lashed out at.
In reading your follow-up, its also apparent that your estimate wasn't what Apple's cut of the $.99 is, but more an estimate of their profit per song. Again, apologies.
History undergrad and now a law student - if you can't (or don't) cite a source for your information, your credibility is shot and anything you say is suspect. Of course, that same standard probably shouldn't be applied to
And lastly, while it's good to see a source (or some indication of personal authority on the subject), in general I don't give a rat's ass for what Fortune has to say. Then again, some people accuse me of being a socialist, so I guess that says it all...
Regards,
-j
That's supposed to be labels. Damn, i need to learn to type better.
and probably will eventually on the PC side...though you'll still have to get an iPod to play iTMS tracks (or if you encode into AAC).
Minor correction:
Apple doesn't make any deals with the RIAA. They make deals with the record labels. If they had to make deals with the RIAA, then we wouldn't see any independent lables on the iTMS.
This is not so commonly known, in fact, it's just another number pulled out of thin air.
/.
Th real number seems to be somewhere between $.10 and $.40 (disregarding the unrealistic numbers of $.01-$.05 some have thrown out. Apple may not be in the online music market to make money, but they're not so stupid as to get THAT bad of a deal...).
I think the bigger question is what's the damage to Apple's bottom line, and on that note, I think I saw it quoted somewhere that iTMS was near to breaking even, although I will admit to not being certain. Noticed I QUALIFY my uncertain statements.
So unless you REALLY know the bottom line on the what the number is, stop making things up and stating them with an air of authority. But of course, if you did that, then this wouldn't be
"Also consider that Apple pays royalties only on RIAA music, but nothing is stopping Apple from signing it's own talent and listing them alongside mainsteam acts."
Actually, there is. The whole Apple Computer/Apple Music confilct (mentioned previously).
While I think Apple Music's current lawsuit is pretty baseless, if Apple Computer did get into the music label business (which would basically be what you suggest), then there would definitely be a STRONG case for trademark infringement. They would either have to pay out a huge settlement or just end the whole matter by trying to buy them out, which would be my suggestion. Think about it, then they even get their own head start on the whole label business. The interesting question then would be how that would impact their relationship with the other major labels.