At least DVD have extra contents, I used to buy at least 4 CDs for every movie I would watch. Now since the DVDs are quite cheap and they improved alot the marketing (adding nice packaging and extra features), I do buy alot more DVDs than CDs.
Personally, I have alot more pleasure watching my DVD collection than seeing all these overpriced CDs with no-extra content and which are quite expensive only because of the majors. Not that I endorse the MPAA but at least the movie industry made more efforts than the music industry to renew themselves.
Yeah I hope that it will end all of these cases where individuals get attacked without solid proofs by large corporations.
Their tactics are really questionable, instead of going to the source, they seem to attack many users which did not really made a difference in piracy on a global level. While I do not know if this has a real effect on most of the users, it seems very questionable in terms of prejudice compared to the damage caused by the users of P2P programs.
If they went against people who are actively sharing only for the purpose of sharing, I could understand from their point of view, but they just go after users who would not buy their stuff anyway.
The music industry needs to understand that they need to renew themselves.
Some suggestions:
Create rings of users and link the myspace fan websites/blogs all together
Organize chat sessions with artists
Regroup all of that in links/messages depending of your tastes in your profile (so you won't have to browse a bazillion sites to access what you are interested in
Provide a coupon in every CD to have access to clips (everytime you register your CD/have bought online a song), you can access special contents/forums about the group/CD
Provide alot of special offers related to music DVDs
Intelligent marketing to NOT spam but provide interesting links and contents to magazines/reviews/CDs that could interest you
I do buy CDs and if I am not aware of that it is their marketing department fault, I should have an account on their website. Not having this in 2007 just shows how they lack creativity.
Their error is their arrogance to admit that time have changed. Selling just plain CDs is quite an outdated model. You can pirate music, the only way to make much more money for them is to sell even more added content and try to find a way to make money out of it.
Yeah you are probably right, it is nothing new but it always pisses me off when I see such unfair trials. I always keep thinking something has to be done to protect someone who has smaller means to defend themselves...
The man and the chicken cross the river, (the fox and corn are safe together), he leaves the chicken on the other side and goes back across.
The man then takes the fox across the river, and since he can't leave the fox and chicken together, he brings the chicken back.
Again, since the chicken and corn can't be left together, he leaves the chicken and he takes the corn across and leaves it with the fox.
He then returns to pick up the chicken and heads across the river one last time.
The original problem
A man has to get a fox, a chicken, and a sack of corn across a river.
He has a rowboat, and it can only carry him and one other thing.
If the fox and the chicken are left together, the fox will eat the chicken.
If the chicken and the corn is left together, the chicken will eat the corn.
How does the man do it?
On a more serious notem I am in the process of looking for a job... and I understand your pain.
Yeah I am not implying that the article is wrong (like you just said, more information is better). It is just that alot of replies are quite negative and it surprised me... IMHO just reporting it and saying that Google is not the place it used to be is enough to spread the information.
I agree, anyway, eventually, if they get too far, their reputation about being a good employer is gonna fade. But again... that is quite normal, isn't it ?
I thought about it before to hit the reply button... The problem in this model is that the AV company doesn't get a percentage or save a percentage of the damage which is occuring.
i.e. police/army could pay a huge amount of money to save lifes/avoid a terrorist plot, since the risk/reward is biased, they have much more to lose if people die.
Writing software has a cost but depending of the country where you live and your career expectations, it can cost very few. i.e. if I was living in a quite poor country and had alot of time to spare, it could be profitable for me to write code to get paid in this way. (you gave a good argument about this: if the code is not yet widespread and/or not dangerous the price to pay for the counter will be quite cheap)
AV companies on the opposite would benefit from the terror of a major outbreak, especially if they get reported to the masses in the newspapers. The only thing that they would worry about is to have the counter to a security breach at least at the same time than their competitors to not look bad to their customers.
If they could reclaim money from the damage which could have occured it would make the model viable. The only benefit for them is to avoid hiring people writing filters to counter this attack.
In a capitalist model, if you are not happy, you are free to look for a better job somewhere else ?
If you are not happy about the package they are offering you, you can just knock at some other door if you have valuable skills (or skills more valued by another company) ? I do not understand what the fuss is about...
A unique blow-by-blow analysis reveals evidence of cooperation between groups of malware specialists acting as service providers and points to the future of malware's growing underground economy
I am the only one to notice that the only difference is that the word malware could be replaced with corrupted and underground by modern ?
I think this would set a precedent, i.e. every person who is sued by the RIAA has just to prove that they are not guilty and reclaim the attorney's fees.
Which means their model would be screwed, for every person they sue, they would have to prove that the person was responsible for sharing and/or inciting to share copyrighted contents. If they would fail to prove one or the other, the precedent would force the RIAA to pay back the attorney's fees, which would be a big change.
I do not know if the precedent could cause past plaintiffs to reclaim past attorney's fees. But without trolling, I can say that arguments and proofs from the RIAA are such bulls...
From the link at the bottom:
According to RIAA filings, Michelle Santangelo, 20, has admitted to illegal downloading at the age of 16. Robert Santangelo, 16, was implicated by his best friend, who said that the two traded copyrighted songs online.
Robert would be accused of sharing copyrighted contents at 11, 5 years ago ! How can this be considered as 'fair'. If I was sued by the RIAA over such stupid claims I would reclaim my hourly salary for not being able to work and a compensation. What next ? "RIAA sues a taxi driver for sharing hand drawn picutres of Superman(c) when he was 10" ?
Read also this related story:
- http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061103-8150 .html
From the article:
Researchers say that their study "refutes the idea that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species".
Of course they are gonna refute this fact. It would be acknowledging that there is no diversity in research !:)
Slashdot Mirror
I am looking for +1 revenge in the moderation combobox ...
Wow really a nice model and nice links.
In another reality, the Heisenberg cat still lives and USAA sues you for stealing the Usenet.
what if such "federal legislation" is, in fact, not "coming soon"?
:)
Answer: You won't get marked as insightful then
At least DVD have extra contents, I used to buy at least 4 CDs for every movie I would watch. Now since the DVDs are quite cheap and they improved alot the marketing (adding nice packaging and extra features), I do buy alot more DVDs than CDs.
Personally, I have alot more pleasure watching my DVD collection than seeing all these overpriced CDs with no-extra content and which are quite expensive only because of the majors. Not that I endorse the MPAA but at least the movie industry made more efforts than the music industry to renew themselves.
Yeah I hope that it will end all of these cases where individuals get attacked without solid proofs by large corporations.
Their tactics are really questionable, instead of going to the source, they seem to attack many users which did not really made a difference in piracy on a global level. While I do not know if this has a real effect on most of the users, it seems very questionable in terms of prejudice compared to the damage caused by the users of P2P programs.
If they went against people who are actively sharing only for the purpose of sharing, I could understand from their point of view, but they just go after users who would not buy their stuff anyway.
Here are the next topics if you can't wait for them ...
Welcome to RIAADot ...
News for lawyers, trials that matters
Some suggestions:
Their error is their arrogance to admit that time have changed. Selling just plain CDs is quite an outdated model. You can pirate music, the only way to make much more money for them is to sell even more added content and try to find a way to make money out of it.
Yeah you are probably right, it is nothing new but it always pisses me off when I see such unfair trials. I always keep thinking something has to be done to protect someone who has smaller means to defend themselves ...
Come on, it is really easy
...
... and I understand your pain.
The man and the chicken cross the river, (the fox and corn are safe together), he leaves the chicken on the other side and goes back across.
The man then takes the fox across the river, and since he can't leave the fox and chicken together, he brings the chicken back.
Again, since the chicken and corn can't be left together, he leaves the chicken and he takes the corn across and leaves it with the fox.
He then returns to pick up the chicken and heads across the river one last time.
The original problem
A man has to get a fox, a chicken, and a sack of corn across a river. He has a rowboat, and it can only carry him and one other thing. If the fox and the chicken are left together, the fox will eat the chicken. If the chicken and the corn is left together, the chicken will eat the corn. How does the man do it?
On a more serious notem I am in the process of looking for a job
I am surprised that the amount paid to the attorneys is not ALWAYS public ...
Yeah I am not implying that the article is wrong (like you just said, more information is better). It is just that alot of replies are quite negative and it surprised me ... IMHO just reporting it and saying that Google is not the place it used to be is enough to spread the information.
... that is quite normal, isn't it ?
I agree, anyway, eventually, if they get too far, their reputation about being a good employer is gonna fade. But again
I thought about it before to hit the reply button ... The problem in this model is that the AV company doesn't get a percentage or save a percentage of the damage which is occuring.
i.e. police/army could pay a huge amount of money to save lifes/avoid a terrorist plot, since the risk/reward is biased, they have much more to lose if people die.
Writing software has a cost but depending of the country where you live and your career expectations, it can cost very few. i.e. if I was living in a quite poor country and had alot of time to spare, it could be profitable for me to write code to get paid in this way. (you gave a good argument about this: if the code is not yet widespread and/or not dangerous the price to pay for the counter will be quite cheap)
AV companies on the opposite would benefit from the terror of a major outbreak, especially if they get reported to the masses in the newspapers. The only thing that they would worry about is to have the counter to a security breach at least at the same time than their competitors to not look bad to their customers. If they could reclaim money from the damage which could have occured it would make the model viable. The only benefit for them is to avoid hiring people writing filters to counter this attack.
In a capitalist model, if you are not happy, you are free to look for a better job somewhere else ? If you are not happy about the package they are offering you, you can just knock at some other door if you have valuable skills (or skills more valued by another company) ? I do not understand what the fuss is about ...
I guess the major flaw would be that I could write code and report it ?
is IE really that flawed?
+2 funny
A unique blow-by-blow analysis reveals evidence of cooperation between groups of malware specialists acting as service providers and points to the future of malware's growing underground economy
I am the only one to notice that the only difference is that the word malware could be replaced with corrupted and underground by modern ?
I am waiting for YouMemJetTube.com to be sued by the MJPAA ...
That's the only reason I read Slashdot !
... that we do not live 100 Mios years ...
I think this would set a precedent, i.e. every person who is sued by the RIAA has just to prove that they are not guilty and reclaim the attorney's fees. Which means their model would be screwed, for every person they sue, they would have to prove that the person was responsible for sharing and/or inciting to share copyrighted contents. If they would fail to prove one or the other, the precedent would force the RIAA to pay back the attorney's fees, which would be a big change. I do not know if the precedent could cause past plaintiffs to reclaim past attorney's fees. But without trolling, I can say that arguments and proofs from the RIAA are such bulls... From the link at the bottom: According to RIAA filings, Michelle Santangelo, 20, has admitted to illegal downloading at the age of 16. Robert Santangelo, 16, was implicated by his best friend, who said that the two traded copyrighted songs online. Robert would be accused of sharing copyrighted contents at 11, 5 years ago ! How can this be considered as 'fair'. If I was sued by the RIAA over such stupid claims I would reclaim my hourly salary for not being able to work and a compensation. What next ? "RIAA sues a taxi driver for sharing hand drawn picutres of Superman(c) when he was 10" ? Read also this related story: - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061103-8150 .html
From the article: Researchers say that their study "refutes the idea that sex is necessary for diversification into evolutionary species". Of course they are gonna refute this fact. It would be acknowledging that there is no diversity in research ! :)