1)Solicit artists (though the quality is in question)
2)Provide the studio
3)Studio costs, sound engineers etc.
4)Pay for a possible orchestral accompaniment
4)And Advertising.
-----
You do realize, of course, that the artists (certainly the majority of them) probably pay for all but #1 on your list (as expenses deducted from the revenue before their percentage is paid to them).
If you are Canadian, I encourage you to contact your member of parliament and make sure they know you, as a voter, want them to put the concerns of Canadian consumers before big business (especially foreign big business).
When in doubt, punish everyone - students guilty of illegal downloading and hardworking students who've never downloaded a thing in their life and need loans and grants to be able to afford to go to school alike. Yeah. Great idea that.
I also hope that people note the fact that the public has not been flocking to smartphones of any sort...
I don't know, but I think there's over a million iPhone owners who might disagree with you, Mr. Dvorak. That said, I suspect there's more than just iPhone owners who would also disagree with him but that's par for the course.
Call me crazy (or skeptical - take your pick), but it sounds to me more like someone is doing a pump and dump than this story having a hint of legitimacy.
"...could this be "the deal" that establishes Google's hegemony in the internet sphere."
Ok, maybe I'm missing something, but haven't they already established their leadership roll on the internet? Really, is there a company out there more influential than Google when it comes to the internet?
If one wishes to find a legitimate example of bittorrent sharing of legitimate files, one need look no further than the largest MMORPG on the market - World of Warcraft. Patches are automatically (assuming the user doesn't disable the feature) downloaded using bittorrent. And Blizzard is more than aware of and approving of this, given that they programmed the feature. Needless to say, I think any internet service provider who disrupts a consumer's legitimate use of their internet connection is a service provider that doesn't deserve the consumer's money...
Alternate browsers! Not alternative browsers. That said, I'm sure many people use their browsers to view "alternative" material, but WGA might have pushed people to try ALTERNATE browsers.
Wait a minute! You mean, my cousin who sells this stuff to pay his mortgage, lied to me when he told me "cables are the most important part of any sound system." My cousin would never lie to me. Even if it's in his financial best interest to do so.
I'm forced to wonder, is the RIAA coming out ahead at the end of all of this? Did enough people settle that, despite all the garbage, they're still in the black? And, if they aren't (as I suspect is the case), why would the client-companies of the RIAA keep the RIAA legal staff employed? I know, were I in charge of a mega-media corporation and a team of lawyers screwed the pooch as badly as the RIAA legal team appears to have done so, I'd be handing them all their walking papers...
While it sucks for users who have unlocked their phones, I am forced to wonder if Apple is backed into a corner because of their contract with AT&T. Are they required, by the terms of their contract, to react in just this way or face stiff penalties? I suspect they are. My prediction is that the next update will screw unlocked phones but the various teams out there will find a way to break the fix in short order, allowing users of unlocked phones to again get back to enjoying their phone, with the latest update installed. And I suspect that's exactly what Apple wants and expects though they are forced to act otherwise because of the terms of their deal with AT&T. Yeah, I might just be touting the Apple fanboy party line, but I suspect the pressure to fix things is not coming from Apple in this case.
I'd love to see how much of that 70% makes its way to the artists. Perhaps Vivendi misunderstood where the "indecent" portion of the financial split exists...
"With the creation of this new service, we are acknowledging that now, more than ever, viewers want to be in control of how, when and where they consume their favorite entertainment," said Vivi Zigler, the executive vice president of NBC Digital Entertainment. "Not only does this feature give them more control, but it also gives them a higher quality video experience."
Followed by:
The service will allow customers to download full episodes of NBC shows for seven days on Windows-based PCs. The file will expire after the seven days.
More control? Windows-based PCs only?
In control of how, when and where? File expires after seven days? Windows-based PCs only?
But, the best part (which actually manages to top the above marketing double-speak), is this:
Commercials will be embedded in the programs and viewers will not be able to skip through them.
Followed by:
But NBC intends to transform the service into a model similar to iTunes by the middle of 2008 -- that is, consumers will pay NBC directly to download episodes of the shows.
Consumers will PAY to be forced to watch commercials? Consumers will be scammed by a company double-dipping?
Greedy fucks. Media corps are wondering why consumers are getting sick and tired of their bullshit? It isn't hard to figure out.
Glad I'm Canadian. I'm going to vote with my dollar and exercise my legal right to download for personal use only.
Prime example of why the copyright laws are borked - arrows aren't used for defense. They're used for offense. If that's the sort of analogy being thought up by those in power, if gives you an idea of their mindset...
"...but dropping the price now has to piss off existing customers, who must feel like they've been had."
Sorry, but anyone who bought an iPhone thinking that the price would never change and is now pissed that the price dropped is incredibly stupid. And, while I think there are stupid people in the world, I think there are going to be very few in this case. I mean, this is a computer product. All computer tech products have a proven history of coming out at a price and then later having that price reduced as the product moves towards obsolete as newer models come out. This is not a new concept. People buying the iPhone are well-aware of it. Thus, I expect there will be exceedingly few people upset about the price drop (there'll always be someone who gets pissed at the dumbest things possible...). Maybe that it happened so soon, but I can't imagine anyone with a vague hint of intelligence not having seen the price drop coming long before the iPhone sold its first unit...
The Canadian version of the RIAA is spinning the news as being a direct result of music piracy.
They can spin it however they want, but it's legal for Canadians to download music. It's part of the reason behind the tarifs we pay on storage media (as much as $25 on an iPod, for example). I'm paying for my right to download music, thank you. Now be sure to give my money to the artists and not line your own damn pockets.
Perhaps you'd like to educate yourself on Fair Use a bit more.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
His use of the clip was absolutely Fair Use. Viacom's use of the clip absolutely was not Fair Use. Hint: The fact that Viacom MADE MONEY from the use of the clip is a strong indicator that it was not Fair Use.
Who cares if the burger-flipper at the local fast food joint believes that a bus can jump a 50-foot span? Sure, it highlights how not-bright a lot of society is but does it really matter if people who do no science at all have a faulty understanding of physics. All I care about is whether or not men-of-science know the truth of it.
Slashdot Mirror
1)Solicit artists (though the quality is in question)
2)Provide the studio
3)Studio costs, sound engineers etc.
4)Pay for a possible orchestral accompaniment
4)And Advertising.
-----
You do realize, of course, that the artists (certainly the majority of them) probably pay for all but #1 on your list (as expenses deducted from the revenue before their percentage is paid to them).
If you are Canadian, I encourage you to contact your member of parliament and make sure they know you, as a voter, want them to put the concerns of Canadian consumers before big business (especially foreign big business).
When in doubt, punish everyone - students guilty of illegal downloading and hardworking students who've never downloaded a thing in their life and need loans and grants to be able to afford to go to school alike. Yeah. Great idea that.
All fine and dandy, but when does the iPhone goodness come to Canada? Impatient Canadian minds want to know.
I also hope that people note the fact that the public has not been flocking to smartphones of any sort...
I don't know, but I think there's over a million iPhone owners who might disagree with you, Mr. Dvorak. That said, I suspect there's more than just iPhone owners who would also disagree with him but that's par for the course.
... and that iPhone thingy will never take off either!
Methinks he doth protest too much.
Call me crazy (or skeptical - take your pick), but it sounds to me more like someone is doing a pump and dump than this story having a hint of legitimacy.
"...could this be "the deal" that establishes Google's hegemony in the internet sphere."
Ok, maybe I'm missing something, but haven't they already established their leadership roll on the internet? Really, is there a company out there more influential than Google when it comes to the internet?
If one wishes to find a legitimate example of bittorrent sharing of legitimate files, one need look no further than the largest MMORPG on the market - World of Warcraft. Patches are automatically (assuming the user doesn't disable the feature) downloaded using bittorrent. And Blizzard is more than aware of and approving of this, given that they programmed the feature. Needless to say, I think any internet service provider who disrupts a consumer's legitimate use of their internet connection is a service provider that doesn't deserve the consumer's money...
Alternate browsers! Not alternative browsers. That said, I'm sure many people use their browsers to view "alternative" material, but WGA might have pushed people to try ALTERNATE browsers.
[/nitpick]
Wait a minute! You mean, my cousin who sells this stuff to pay his mortgage, lied to me when he told me "cables are the most important part of any sound system." My cousin would never lie to me. Even if it's in his financial best interest to do so.
[/sarcasm]
I'm forced to wonder, is the RIAA coming out ahead at the end of all of this? Did enough people settle that, despite all the garbage, they're still in the black? And, if they aren't (as I suspect is the case), why would the client-companies of the RIAA keep the RIAA legal staff employed? I know, were I in charge of a mega-media corporation and a team of lawyers screwed the pooch as badly as the RIAA legal team appears to have done so, I'd be handing them all their walking papers...
While it sucks for users who have unlocked their phones, I am forced to wonder if Apple is backed into a corner because of their contract with AT&T. Are they required, by the terms of their contract, to react in just this way or face stiff penalties? I suspect they are. My prediction is that the next update will screw unlocked phones but the various teams out there will find a way to break the fix in short order, allowing users of unlocked phones to again get back to enjoying their phone, with the latest update installed. And I suspect that's exactly what Apple wants and expects though they are forced to act otherwise because of the terms of their deal with AT&T. Yeah, I might just be touting the Apple fanboy party line, but I suspect the pressure to fix things is not coming from Apple in this case.
I'd love to see how much of that 70% makes its way to the artists. Perhaps Vivendi misunderstood where the "indecent" portion of the financial split exists...
"With the creation of this new service, we are acknowledging that now, more than ever, viewers want to be in control of how, when and where they consume their favorite entertainment," said Vivi Zigler, the executive vice president of NBC Digital Entertainment. "Not only does this feature give them more control, but it also gives them a higher quality video experience."
Followed by:
The service will allow customers to download full episodes of NBC shows for seven days on Windows-based PCs. The file will expire after the seven days.
More control? Windows-based PCs only?
In control of how, when and where? File expires after seven days? Windows-based PCs only?
But, the best part (which actually manages to top the above marketing double-speak), is this:
Commercials will be embedded in the programs and viewers will not be able to skip through them.
Followed by:
But NBC intends to transform the service into a model similar to iTunes by the middle of 2008 -- that is, consumers will pay NBC directly to download episodes of the shows.
Consumers will PAY to be forced to watch commercials? Consumers will be scammed by a company double-dipping?
Greedy fucks. Media corps are wondering why consumers are getting sick and tired of their bullshit? It isn't hard to figure out.
Glad I'm Canadian. I'm going to vote with my dollar and exercise my legal right to download for personal use only.
Prime example of why the copyright laws are borked - arrows aren't used for defense. They're used for offense. If that's the sort of analogy being thought up by those in power, if gives you an idea of their mindset...
Every time I see a story involving Jack Thompson, I wonder if it's some guy making stuff up - this guy is stranger than fiction...
I made the comment mostly in jest but I was unaware that US federal judges are appointed for life. Pretty sweet job security...
Anyone want to guess how long it'll be before Victor finds himself out of a job?... Unfortunately...
"...but dropping the price now has to piss off existing customers, who must feel like they've been had."
Sorry, but anyone who bought an iPhone thinking that the price would never change and is now pissed that the price dropped is incredibly stupid. And, while I think there are stupid people in the world, I think there are going to be very few in this case. I mean, this is a computer product. All computer tech products have a proven history of coming out at a price and then later having that price reduced as the product moves towards obsolete as newer models come out. This is not a new concept. People buying the iPhone are well-aware of it. Thus, I expect there will be exceedingly few people upset about the price drop (there'll always be someone who gets pissed at the dumbest things possible...). Maybe that it happened so soon, but I can't imagine anyone with a vague hint of intelligence not having seen the price drop coming long before the iPhone sold its first unit...
Ok, I love the new iPods (160 gig? Sweet!), but whet _I_ would really like to know is when the iPhone is coming to Canada...
Please allow me to say thank you for that description. Clear and concise and interesting. Thank you.
The Canadian version of the RIAA is spinning the news as being a direct result of music piracy.
They can spin it however they want, but it's legal for Canadians to download music. It's part of the reason behind the tarifs we pay on storage media (as much as $25 on an iPod, for example). I'm paying for my right to download music, thank you. Now be sure to give my money to the artists and not line your own damn pockets.
Perhaps you'd like to educate yourself on Fair Use a bit more.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
His use of the clip was absolutely Fair Use. Viacom's use of the clip absolutely was not Fair Use. Hint: The fact that Viacom MADE MONEY from the use of the clip is a strong indicator that it was not Fair Use.
Who cares if the burger-flipper at the local fast food joint believes that a bus can jump a 50-foot span? Sure, it highlights how not-bright a lot of society is but does it really matter if people who do no science at all have a faulty understanding of physics. All I care about is whether or not men-of-science know the truth of it.
Well, that and my bus driver...