I go to Canada and I see a country that is being invaded by hordes of foreign elements, whose national character and heritage is beseiged endlessly to the point it is practically extent, a corrupt government which exhibits everything that is evil about their so called democracy and egalitarianism, and the quiet desperation of people with no future, no hope, and a nihilistic acceptance of it all.
Funny, I think of the same thing when I think of the US in recent years...and I live here.
The same way I can get Night of the Living Dead on DVD, even though it's legal to download it from the public domain.
If you can get it, it's legal. That doesn't mean a record company is obligated to give you a copy on physical media for free, and a lot of people still value physical media, for some reason...:(
That's the risk you take in posting your stuff on the net.
Nobody owes you a living anymore than you owe us photography, or the studios owe us entertainment. However, if you choose to deal in a industry where things are easily copied and distributed, you assume the risks. Godspeed.
Perhaps you can give your photos away for non commercial use. Perhaps you could sell well done compilation discs, or albums, or whatever it is you sell. There's a way to make money from your stuff if it is good, but forcing customers to pay because you say so isn't the way anymore.
But people don't pay for stock that doesn't have much growth potential. People do not buy stock to keep their assets stable, they buy only for the promise of ever increasing growth. If the stock runs out of gas, stockholders start selling. Everyone sells at once, and the stock tanks.
As to the reply about being too idealistic, I'd say that's a bit of a stretch - the RIAA member companies have been seeing diminishing returns ever since they started their holy crusade against p2p networks. Going platinum just isn't what it used to be.
Unless, you know, the company is a public corporation. The stock price of such a company is based upon the future potential for growth, so if a large percentage of the population becomes so pissed that they'll never buy your product (see: RIAA member companies), then you'll find yourself in a bit of long term trouble.
The best musicians - the ones who do it primarily for the "love of the game" so to speak, do it because they enjoy it. A musician with any talent whatsoever doesn't need "the best studio equipment" to sound good. The only ones who need the "best" equipment are those who need said equipment to cover up their inadequacies.
As far as exposure, this goes into that outdated bullshit ideal that it's not worth playing the music if you can't reach the masses through huge, glitzy MTV promotion. If you want to reach people, you have many ways of doing so. Be creative - what's to stop you from making your song at or around the same filesize as a RIAA-issued song that is mass downloaded, naming it as such, and reaching people that way? Spoof-marketing, perhaps?
What's to stop you from shelling out a bit of cash to be featured on a local music scene late night program? What's to stop you from releasing your album as a rar with a link to your homepage, where you sell your tees and coffee mugs for revenue? Dropping flyers on cars with a link to your website, with the promise of free music...and a t-shirt shop, if you're so inclined.
Oh, but I guess it is much easier to sit back and let big daddy record company "manage" your career, even if that means you see 10 cents or less out of every 18 dollar record sale.
As to your music not being mine to give away, that's the risk you run by dealing in an industry where the content is easily copied. You can accept it, change, and adapt, or be pulled into obscurity, kicking and dragging all the way. The RIAA seems to be doing the latter.
The fact remains that net-savvy music lovers have been spoiled. They have been spoiled by having an entire world of free content at their fingertips. You're never going to wean the kids off it, and you're never going to take their cake away by force. So you have to do something that actually takes a little work and thought - you have to offer a product that can compete with free. I don't know how you do that, because it's not my job to know. But you don't do it by limiting your music store database to popular music. About the only way the RIAA can win this is through pooling their resources, offering every last song they own for download on the itms or something similar with no DRM, for a price so low it makes downloading it seem silly.
Because after all, while you may not feel I should distribute your music, what is to stop me from doing so? Your wishes? The unjust copyright laws? I don't mean to sound smug, but it seems that there are two kinds of musicians out there in the world - those who do it for the love of doing it, and those who absolutely do not want a single human ear to ever sense their product without the exchange of cash first.
Finally, it is the artists fault to some degree. They should know by now that the file sharing "threat" is putting the current way of doing things on shaky ground. You are judged by the company you keep, and when you join the mafia (which, at the core, describes the RIAA), don't be surprised when you're labeled as a scumbag with the rest of them.
I never said you defended the RIAA. I said that it would appear you take the stance of "it's the copyright law, and that's that, like it or not." Also, I took you to task for comparing copyright infringement to violating another man's wife.
I see the need for copyrights to exist. But they no longer serve the purpose they were designed for.
As to the GPL, you're barking up the wrong tree - unlike some/.'ers, I don't view it as some kind of sacred cow to be idolized. It too has its flaws. Furthermore, I would suggest that if "real" copyright law had a single shred of common fucking sense to it, and you didn't have to get a seperate license every time you wanted to use the material/program/etc. in a seperate/different/modified way, there would be no reason for the GPL. Again, it's all about context - Valve might have a legitimate complaint with a cybercafe using pirated Half Life copies, but nobody comes to a cybercafe to hear music. Is it a nice bit of background ambience? Sure. Does it bring in the money? No.
The GPL, and Creative Commons, seem to have been built in response to the fact that copyright is broken.
Do you think John Ashcroft's thugs would kick down the doors of the 5 DC++'ers they raided if some film student complained about a moderately successful student film being shared on the networks? No. The only time copyrights seem to matter is when the owners are also contributors to some campaign or another.
Copyright extension is the problem. Okay. Now what do you suggest we do about it? And by we, I mean the public as a whole. Maybe slashdotters will boycott the RIAA, but the average member of the uninformed, apathetic public won't.
Do you think the critters in DC will do the right thing? No. They've proven that with the Bono act and the DMCA. The system is broken, and unless the public makes the abuses of the copyright cartel a major campaign issue (hint: they won't), then the only way to fight the system is from outside.
Seriously - how do you fix a system when those at its controls are apathetic?
People like you are the reason that the RIAA's line of "copyright ends when we say so" stays as the official mantra of the public. I mean, did you really just compare the ownership of an idea to deflowering someone's bride? And I thought the Hitler/Bush comparisons were out there.
If this right did not exist, there would be drastically less incentive to create, and the public domain would become void of artistic works.
Good point, except that the public domain IS becoming void of artistic works, and will continue to do so for the next 75+ years thanks to the work of the late Sonny Bono and other "public servants."
Probably longer than that, actually - I can see it now: the MICKEY II AP act - Money In Copyright Key II American Prosperity act - will ensure that copyrights last for up to 90 years after the corporation that bought them for pennies of the dollar goes bankrupt.
They (the corporations) are not holding up to their end of the bargain (limited copyright). So why should I hold up to my end by buying their music instead of taking what should rightfully be in the public commons? (I don't listen to music from the current times, thanks.) Because the law says so? You're going to have to give this free thinker a better reason than that, Jack.
The musicians are in the middle of the battle, and those who keep signing with RIAA labels have shown where their allegiances lie. Thus, they'll get no pity from me.
For bands, it's called concerts. Touring. Busting your ass in venues across the country. Discs should be looked at as marketing.
Songwriters, I could give a fuck about - if you can't write your own material, you shouldn't be performing. It's not like writing/directing, where the director (in theory) brings the writer's vision to life. A songwriter should be a performer, and vice-versa. If not, then you're only doing half your job.
Radio play is fair game for royalties because the radio company is making money off that artist's music through advertisers.
On the other hand, do you really think a dentist or a taxi driver is going to be valued over his/her competitor because they have some RIAA-pwn3d musak in the background? Doubt it. By these "rights groups" stance, I should be paying up anytime I have a group of friends over who hear the song their members own. Never going to happen.
That's why shit like that should be off limits - because if you're going to make music, you have to realize that you can't get your fucking panties in a jar every time someone hears it without tithing.
At this point, I think every band that signs with a label deserves what they get. Musicians should know by now that the RIAA is out to screw them, and if nobody signed, they'd be out of business tommorow, as would MTV. That, or maybe the contracts would change.
The public is dumb - they like only what they are told to like. But those who actually create and perform the content should be a little smarter.
You respect him for what? Not really contributing jack shit to society, but making an assload of cash because he was in the "right place, right time?"
Sounds like a lottery to me.
That's the biggest problem with our system - and no, I'm not a "filthy commie" or "god hating socialist," so keep those fucking comments to yourself. But it really says something about us that those who have the most money didn't really contribute in any feasible way - they just are good at manipulating the numbers and the system.
And he can keep his little channels. From what it sounds like, everyone's getting excited over what amounts to an FMV high definition video game without the controller.
Because computers are more complex and, with the exception of high-end HDTVs and stereo equipment, more complex than other devices.
By their very nature, computers are meant to do "anything you can dream of doing." That's why it is a computer, instead of a TV, or a phone, or a stereo, etc. That's also why you can charge upwards of 1-2k for a really good one.
If I pay 1000 dollars or more for a device, you're damn right I expect competent tech support as part of the deal! If I bought a 42 inch HDTV, and was told, upon calling tech, that "we can't help you because you changed the settings from factory default," I'd be pissed.
But this is exactly what happened to me with Compaq, and this was AFTER they took my money because "my policy was up." So I paid for another year of support, only to be told by some turban wearing motherfucker on the other end that "we cannot support you, because you have changed the OS from windows 98 to XP. Thank you come again."
Perhaps those shelling out 300 bucks for an e-machine get what they deserve. But when you go for the higher end models from HP and Dell and the like, you should at least be able to call up, and get solid answers.
It's a problem that the IOC is actually ejecting ticketholders for simply "partnering" with the wrong company.
However, it's a bigger problem that monoliths can actually look at dropping millions for product placement as a good investment.
Stories like this make me feel like I'm living in a fucking loony box, and the inmates have taken over - who the fuck really eats at MCD's because of this "I'm lovin it" shit? Who the hell really felt a little tingle up their spine when they saw the "our best is serving the world's best" ads? If you raised your hand, please, shoot yourself.
The most amazing thing about advertising is that it actually works. I didn't buy an ipod because 50 Cent had one in one of his shitty videos. I bought an ipod because of the word of mouth endorsements from *gasp* private individuals.
Likewise, I'd like to know how many people are really going to buy Nike, now that they are the "official" sponsors. It's not like the horde of 10 year olds that wanted Air Jordans because MJ had em. I, for one, couldn't give a flying fuck what Michelle Kwan wears. It's not that "consumers are confused" as to who the Olympic bribe...er..."sponsors" are, it's that they simply don't give a shit.
In the end, the joke is on the corporations - at least, on the apparel side of things. I couldn't care less about athletes, but I can at least name the more prominent ones. I know who Kobe Bryant is, I know who A-Rod is, I know who Michael Vick is.
I would suggest that the average person, the type of mindless fuck who would buy something based on what he/she saw on TV, can't name 10 Olympians. I can name Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding for all the wrong reasons. I can name Michelle Kwan because she was the Asian eye candy of choice elevated by the powers-that-be. I can name Kurt Angle because of his WWE deal.
Now, here's an even bigger challenge for the average person - name 10 Olympians involved with THIS Olympiad. The average person can't. That kind of hurts MJ-style endorsement deals, based upon the will to emulate the athlete, when you don't even know who the fuck the athlete is!
Still, it's disgusting to know that even one person has changed their preference from Burger King to MCD's, based upon the Olympic marketing. It's sad that someone, somewhere, will go out of their way to buy Coke instead of Pepsi, because "that's what the Olympic people drink!"
It's all around us - the Nvidia/ATI scams. The Coke "real" commercials that imply you'll get teased by a hot beachcomber chick if you only drink their carbonated voodoo potions. The entirety of the fucking Superbowl. It's getting to a point where there is no more "product," only advertising.
It's already gotten to a point where they are actually advertising for advertising! Don't buy it? Think of this - MTV's business model is based upon advertising both products and new "stars," who then advertise new "products" to make the majority of their livelyhood. MTV advertises Britney Spears, Britney advertises Pepsi, Pepsi advertises their tie-in deal-of-the-week; it's a never ending cycle of madness, and it's baffling how anyone ever makes any money!
This is a bad thing because the punishment with the almighty cartels never fits the crime. Despite what you are made to believe, your actions will never deny any individual artist their home, but if the RIAA chooses to settle with you for 11 grand, that's exactly what may happen to YOU.
The problem is that the civil system is heavily skewered towards monoliths. The very structure of the system is designed towards keeping the little guy down, unless they can show some slam-dunk revelation, like Orrin Hatch taking a cash-stuffed envelope from Eisner on video. Even then, it's probably a very real possibility that Disney will claim copyright, and the commn guy will still lose.
Copyright infringement is wrong? That's debatable. Is it illegal? Certainly. But nobody should ever lose their home or have their lives ruined because they shared some top 40 mp3s over the internet. That is indeed tyrrany of a different kind - don't think for a second that these cartels wouldn't impose the death penalty for such "infringement" if they could. As it is, they can't take your life, so they'll just destroy it.
The system needs to change. Not 60 million people.
Assuming DRM gets so restrictive that it cannot be cracked, what can you possibly do to stop people from pointing video cameras at a monitor or TV screen in their own home?
Hey corporate america - sometimes things cost $$$!
on
The Saga of Katie.com
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Oh my, the poor corporation actually has to "gasp!" pay for things that it wants to steal from the little guy! That's...that's disgusting! Everyone knows that big internationals have imminent domain over the little guy's property!
All joking aside, the publisher should put aside their money for legal fees in this case, and just pay the domain owner whatever she wants. Yeah, she may have turned down several "high offers," but I assure you that none of them had the deep pockets of Penguin. Give the girl a nice advance, as well as a few points of the royalties if you want this domain THAT bad.
"I always buy games after I download them, so piracy doesn't really matter" bullshit
You may be a pompous asshole, but you're right - I actually bought Doom 3 BEFORE downloading it. My order with EB is paid-in-full, and it should be getting here tommorow.
Now, if you have a problem with the fact that I wanted a sneak preview a few days early, that's your problem, and says more about you than it does about me.
Let's be honest, the biggest advocate of this stuff (walmart) isn't exactly the employer of rocket scientists. I have called them before at midnight, asking if they had Socom and the PS2 Net Adapter (when that was the "new thing.")
"Oh, yeah, we have it."
I get there, and it turned out they didn't have it. They had an AC Adapter.
A clerk who cannot tell the difference between something that lets you go on the internet and something that plugs into the electric socket will be easily fooled by the RFID swap. Even if someone DOES check your bag, do you think "Joe Walmart" is really going to be acute enough in his observation to recognize that you've got the high end ATI card, and not the 9600? Doubtful.
It'll be great to watch Wal-Mart reap the fruit of the seed they've sown - lost merchandise, lost profits, etc. And it's quite fitting that this really has nothing to do with RFID, but their unwillingness to go the extra mile to spend a few more bucks to get employees who know what they are doing.
Why would the major outlets want to draw attention to this?!
CNN is owned by AOL-Time Warner, which owns major movie and music labels.
Fox is one of the MPAA's largest members, and...
...MSNBC is a joint venture between a television broadcast network and Microsoft, which has a vested interest in working with Hollywood on the widespread distribution of DRM.
They have no reason to tell you about this, for the same reason that the murderer doesn't inform the cops of the crime that just happened, and the adulterer doesn't inform his wife of his little "business vacations'" true purpose.
I can't believe that the americans don't see that those actions of the MPAA and FBI are highly criminal, and that thos organizations have similar terroristic skills than bin laden or bush.
For the same reasons that the Romans were blinded to the corruption in their own society. Because they were too doped up on bread, wine, and circuses.
Our modern equals of this would be:
Reality TV
Fast food
Disposable pop music
Hollywood blockbuster fx films
Sport Utility Vehicles
Decoy issues (Gay marriage, War on Terror)
The white fucking picket fence.
Apparently, our representitives in congress and in the white house are more concerned with keeping thier campain coffiers full then protecting the Constitution and our principals of freedom and democracy.
When the system has been corrupted to the point where the system can no longer be changed from within the system, isn't that where the 2nd amendment comes into play?
And if true, the guy's a scumbag. I'd suggest donating to EFF instead of giving the money direct, adding a little note asking them to check into this, and if legit, act appropriately.
But even if this guy did defraud people, how does this make him guilty of violating state or federal law that puts lives in danger. That's the supposed benchmark for a patriot act use, and so far, this doesn't fit the bill, unless those dvd players that don't exist were funding mafia or arab terrorists, etc.
So the ends justify the means? What the fuck about due process? Do you really value copyright over the due process of law?
That's what this is about. The government, bought and paid for by the folks in the cartel, bowing to their masters. If I have to explain to you why this is fucked, I am wasting my time - THE GOVERNMENT IS PROSECUTING COPYRIGHT CASES WITH A LAW MEANT TO PREVENT THINGS LIKE PLANES CRASHING INTO BUILDINGS!!!
Of course, that's probably a moot point to types like you, who will gleefully state that hey, the US govt can do anything they want with their laws, it's their intellectual property, and if you don't like it, you don't have the right to make them do anything...
I'm making a mockumentary style film based on the horrors of the internet, the seedier side that you never hear about on the nightly news. It's a movie for internet nerds by one of their own, and I think it'll be quite enjoyable for that audience.
However, it wouldn't make sense in a normal release. The average moviegoer wouldn't understand why I am asking an 80 year old woman if she is familiar with goatse or harlequin fetus. They won't understand my holding a sign outside a middle school that says "learn about the internet at tubgirl.com"
However, if I release the movie for free on suprnova, I have a potential audience of 500,000 people a day. I can also release to any number of BT sites, and take out small ads here and there on modestly trafficked sites.
So while I may not make a million dollar payday, chances are high that I will recoup my investment - which is primarily one of time. My business model relies on people watching for free, and a small fraction of them wanting a tshirt or hard copy.
Applying the concert mentality to movies, essentially.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, I think of the same thing when I think of the US in recent years...and I live here.
The same way I can get Night of the Living Dead on DVD, even though it's legal to download it from the public domain. If you can get it, it's legal. That doesn't mean a record company is obligated to give you a copy on physical media for free, and a lot of people still value physical media, for some reason... :(
That's the risk you take in posting your stuff on the net. Nobody owes you a living anymore than you owe us photography, or the studios owe us entertainment. However, if you choose to deal in a industry where things are easily copied and distributed, you assume the risks. Godspeed. Perhaps you can give your photos away for non commercial use. Perhaps you could sell well done compilation discs, or albums, or whatever it is you sell. There's a way to make money from your stuff if it is good, but forcing customers to pay because you say so isn't the way anymore.
But people don't pay for stock that doesn't have much growth potential. People do not buy stock to keep their assets stable, they buy only for the promise of ever increasing growth. If the stock runs out of gas, stockholders start selling. Everyone sells at once, and the stock tanks.
As to the reply about being too idealistic, I'd say that's a bit of a stretch - the RIAA member companies have been seeing diminishing returns ever since they started their holy crusade against p2p networks. Going platinum just isn't what it used to be.
Unless, you know, the company is a public corporation. The stock price of such a company is based upon the future potential for growth, so if a large percentage of the population becomes so pissed that they'll never buy your product (see: RIAA member companies), then you'll find yourself in a bit of long term trouble.
The best musicians - the ones who do it primarily for the "love of the game" so to speak, do it because they enjoy it. A musician with any talent whatsoever doesn't need "the best studio equipment" to sound good. The only ones who need the "best" equipment are those who need said equipment to cover up their inadequacies.
As far as exposure, this goes into that outdated bullshit ideal that it's not worth playing the music if you can't reach the masses through huge, glitzy MTV promotion. If you want to reach people, you have many ways of doing so. Be creative - what's to stop you from making your song at or around the same filesize as a RIAA-issued song that is mass downloaded, naming it as such, and reaching people that way? Spoof-marketing, perhaps?
What's to stop you from shelling out a bit of cash to be featured on a local music scene late night program? What's to stop you from releasing your album as a rar with a link to your homepage, where you sell your tees and coffee mugs for revenue? Dropping flyers on cars with a link to your website, with the promise of free music...and a t-shirt shop, if you're so inclined.
Oh, but I guess it is much easier to sit back and let big daddy record company "manage" your career, even if that means you see 10 cents or less out of every 18 dollar record sale.
As to your music not being mine to give away, that's the risk you run by dealing in an industry where the content is easily copied. You can accept it, change, and adapt, or be pulled into obscurity, kicking and dragging all the way. The RIAA seems to be doing the latter.
The fact remains that net-savvy music lovers have been spoiled. They have been spoiled by having an entire world of free content at their fingertips. You're never going to wean the kids off it, and you're never going to take their cake away by force. So you have to do something that actually takes a little work and thought - you have to offer a product that can compete with free. I don't know how you do that, because it's not my job to know. But you don't do it by limiting your music store database to popular music. About the only way the RIAA can win this is through pooling their resources, offering every last song they own for download on the itms or something similar with no DRM, for a price so low it makes downloading it seem silly.
Because after all, while you may not feel I should distribute your music, what is to stop me from doing so? Your wishes? The unjust copyright laws? I don't mean to sound smug, but it seems that there are two kinds of musicians out there in the world - those who do it for the love of doing it, and those who absolutely do not want a single human ear to ever sense their product without the exchange of cash first.
Finally, it is the artists fault to some degree. They should know by now that the file sharing "threat" is putting the current way of doing things on shaky ground. You are judged by the company you keep, and when you join the mafia (which, at the core, describes the RIAA), don't be surprised when you're labeled as a scumbag with the rest of them.
I never said you defended the RIAA. I said that it would appear you take the stance of "it's the copyright law, and that's that, like it or not." Also, I took you to task for comparing copyright infringement to violating another man's wife.
/.'ers, I don't view it as some kind of sacred cow to be idolized. It too has its flaws. Furthermore, I would suggest that if "real" copyright law had a single shred of common fucking sense to it, and you didn't have to get a seperate license every time you wanted to use the material/program/etc. in a seperate/different/modified way, there would be no reason for the GPL. Again, it's all about context - Valve might have a legitimate complaint with a cybercafe using pirated Half Life copies, but nobody comes to a cybercafe to hear music. Is it a nice bit of background ambience? Sure. Does it bring in the money? No.
I see the need for copyrights to exist. But they no longer serve the purpose they were designed for.
As to the GPL, you're barking up the wrong tree - unlike some
The GPL, and Creative Commons, seem to have been built in response to the fact that copyright is broken.
Do you think John Ashcroft's thugs would kick down the doors of the 5 DC++'ers they raided if some film student complained about a moderately successful student film being shared on the networks? No. The only time copyrights seem to matter is when the owners are also contributors to some campaign or another.
Copyright extension is the problem. Okay. Now what do you suggest we do about it? And by we, I mean the public as a whole. Maybe slashdotters will boycott the RIAA, but the average member of the uninformed, apathetic public won't.
Do you think the critters in DC will do the right thing? No. They've proven that with the Bono act and the DMCA. The system is broken, and unless the public makes the abuses of the copyright cartel a major campaign issue (hint: they won't), then the only way to fight the system is from outside.
Seriously - how do you fix a system when those at its controls are apathetic?
People like you are the reason that the RIAA's line of "copyright ends when we say so" stays as the official mantra of the public. I mean, did you really just compare the ownership of an idea to deflowering someone's bride? And I thought the Hitler/Bush comparisons were out there.
If this right did not exist, there would be drastically less incentive to create, and the public domain would become void of artistic works.
Good point, except that the public domain IS becoming void of artistic works, and will continue to do so for the next 75+ years thanks to the work of the late Sonny Bono and other "public servants."
Probably longer than that, actually - I can see it now: the MICKEY II AP act - Money In Copyright Key II American Prosperity act - will ensure that copyrights last for up to 90 years after the corporation that bought them for pennies of the dollar goes bankrupt.
They (the corporations) are not holding up to their end of the bargain (limited copyright). So why should I hold up to my end by buying their music instead of taking what should rightfully be in the public commons? (I don't listen to music from the current times, thanks.) Because the law says so? You're going to have to give this free thinker a better reason than that, Jack.
The musicians are in the middle of the battle, and those who keep signing with RIAA labels have shown where their allegiances lie. Thus, they'll get no pity from me.
For bands, it's called concerts. Touring. Busting your ass in venues across the country. Discs should be looked at as marketing.
Songwriters, I could give a fuck about - if you can't write your own material, you shouldn't be performing. It's not like writing/directing, where the director (in theory) brings the writer's vision to life. A songwriter should be a performer, and vice-versa. If not, then you're only doing half your job.
Radio play is fair game for royalties because the radio company is making money off that artist's music through advertisers.
On the other hand, do you really think a dentist or a taxi driver is going to be valued over his/her competitor because they have some RIAA-pwn3d musak in the background? Doubt it. By these "rights groups" stance, I should be paying up anytime I have a group of friends over who hear the song their members own. Never going to happen.
That's why shit like that should be off limits - because if you're going to make music, you have to realize that you can't get your fucking panties in a jar every time someone hears it without tithing.
At this point, I think every band that signs with a label deserves what they get. Musicians should know by now that the RIAA is out to screw them, and if nobody signed, they'd be out of business tommorow, as would MTV. That, or maybe the contracts would change.
The public is dumb - they like only what they are told to like. But those who actually create and perform the content should be a little smarter.
Sounds like a lottery to me.
That's the biggest problem with our system - and no, I'm not a "filthy commie" or "god hating socialist," so keep those fucking comments to yourself. But it really says something about us that those who have the most money didn't really contribute in any feasible way - they just are good at manipulating the numbers and the system.
And he can keep his little channels. From what it sounds like, everyone's getting excited over what amounts to an FMV high definition video game without the controller.
Strike the second "complex," replace with expensive. Thx :)
Because computers are more complex and, with the exception of high-end HDTVs and stereo equipment, more complex than other devices.
By their very nature, computers are meant to do "anything you can dream of doing." That's why it is a computer, instead of a TV, or a phone, or a stereo, etc. That's also why you can charge upwards of 1-2k for a really good one.
If I pay 1000 dollars or more for a device, you're damn right I expect competent tech support as part of the deal! If I bought a 42 inch HDTV, and was told, upon calling tech, that "we can't help you because you changed the settings from factory default," I'd be pissed.
But this is exactly what happened to me with Compaq, and this was AFTER they took my money because "my policy was up." So I paid for another year of support, only to be told by some turban wearing motherfucker on the other end that "we cannot support you, because you have changed the OS from windows 98 to XP. Thank you come again."
Perhaps those shelling out 300 bucks for an e-machine get what they deserve. But when you go for the higher end models from HP and Dell and the like, you should at least be able to call up, and get solid answers.
You know, the whole "you are in my power" bit...
Now all we need is a leather-clad hottie to come along and destroy him.
However, it's a bigger problem that monoliths can actually look at dropping millions for product placement as a good investment.
Stories like this make me feel like I'm living in a fucking loony box, and the inmates have taken over - who the fuck really eats at MCD's because of this "I'm lovin it" shit? Who the hell really felt a little tingle up their spine when they saw the "our best is serving the world's best" ads? If you raised your hand, please, shoot yourself.
The most amazing thing about advertising is that it actually works. I didn't buy an ipod because 50 Cent had one in one of his shitty videos. I bought an ipod because of the word of mouth endorsements from *gasp* private individuals.
Likewise, I'd like to know how many people are really going to buy Nike, now that they are the "official" sponsors. It's not like the horde of 10 year olds that wanted Air Jordans because MJ had em. I, for one, couldn't give a flying fuck what Michelle Kwan wears. It's not that "consumers are confused" as to who the Olympic bribe...er..."sponsors" are, it's that they simply don't give a shit.
In the end, the joke is on the corporations - at least, on the apparel side of things. I couldn't care less about athletes, but I can at least name the more prominent ones. I know who Kobe Bryant is, I know who A-Rod is, I know who Michael Vick is. I would suggest that the average person, the type of mindless fuck who would buy something based on what he/she saw on TV, can't name 10 Olympians. I can name Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding for all the wrong reasons. I can name Michelle Kwan because she was the Asian eye candy of choice elevated by the powers-that-be. I can name Kurt Angle because of his WWE deal.
Now, here's an even bigger challenge for the average person - name 10 Olympians involved with THIS Olympiad. The average person can't. That kind of hurts MJ-style endorsement deals, based upon the will to emulate the athlete, when you don't even know who the fuck the athlete is!
Still, it's disgusting to know that even one person has changed their preference from Burger King to MCD's, based upon the Olympic marketing. It's sad that someone, somewhere, will go out of their way to buy Coke instead of Pepsi, because "that's what the Olympic people drink!"
It's all around us - the Nvidia/ATI scams. The Coke "real" commercials that imply you'll get teased by a hot beachcomber chick if you only drink their carbonated voodoo potions. The entirety of the fucking Superbowl. It's getting to a point where there is no more "product," only advertising. It's already gotten to a point where they are actually advertising for advertising! Don't buy it? Think of this - MTV's business model is based upon advertising both products and new "stars," who then advertise new "products" to make the majority of their livelyhood. MTV advertises Britney Spears, Britney advertises Pepsi, Pepsi advertises their tie-in deal-of-the-week; it's a never ending cycle of madness, and it's baffling how anyone ever makes any money!
The problem is that the civil system is heavily skewered towards monoliths. The very structure of the system is designed towards keeping the little guy down, unless they can show some slam-dunk revelation, like Orrin Hatch taking a cash-stuffed envelope from Eisner on video. Even then, it's probably a very real possibility that Disney will claim copyright, and the commn guy will still lose.
Copyright infringement is wrong? That's debatable. Is it illegal? Certainly. But nobody should ever lose their home or have their lives ruined because they shared some top 40 mp3s over the internet. That is indeed tyrrany of a different kind - don't think for a second that these cartels wouldn't impose the death penalty for such "infringement" if they could. As it is, they can't take your life, so they'll just destroy it.
The system needs to change. Not 60 million people.
Make the TV go both ways.
All joking aside, the publisher should put aside their money for legal fees in this case, and just pay the domain owner whatever she wants. Yeah, she may have turned down several "high offers," but I assure you that none of them had the deep pockets of Penguin. Give the girl a nice advance, as well as a few points of the royalties if you want this domain THAT bad.
You may be a pompous asshole, but you're right - I actually bought Doom 3 BEFORE downloading it. My order with EB is paid-in-full, and it should be getting here tommorow.
Now, if you have a problem with the fact that I wanted a sneak preview a few days early, that's your problem, and says more about you than it does about me.
"Oh, yeah, we have it."
I get there, and it turned out they didn't have it. They had an AC Adapter.
A clerk who cannot tell the difference between something that lets you go on the internet and something that plugs into the electric socket will be easily fooled by the RFID swap. Even if someone DOES check your bag, do you think "Joe Walmart" is really going to be acute enough in his observation to recognize that you've got the high end ATI card, and not the 9600? Doubtful.
It'll be great to watch Wal-Mart reap the fruit of the seed they've sown - lost merchandise, lost profits, etc. And it's quite fitting that this really has nothing to do with RFID, but their unwillingness to go the extra mile to spend a few more bucks to get employees who know what they are doing.
CNN is owned by AOL-Time Warner, which owns major movie and music labels.
Fox is one of the MPAA's largest members, and...
...MSNBC is a joint venture between a television broadcast network and Microsoft, which has a vested interest in working with Hollywood on the widespread distribution of DRM.
They have no reason to tell you about this, for the same reason that the murderer doesn't inform the cops of the crime that just happened, and the adulterer doesn't inform his wife of his little "business vacations'" true purpose.
For the same reasons that the Romans were blinded to the corruption in their own society. Because they were too doped up on bread, wine, and circuses.
Our modern equals of this would be:
Reality TV
Fast food
Disposable pop music
Hollywood blockbuster fx films
Sport Utility Vehicles
Decoy issues (Gay marriage, War on Terror)
The white fucking picket fence.
When the system has been corrupted to the point where the system can no longer be changed from within the system, isn't that where the 2nd amendment comes into play?
But even if this guy did defraud people, how does this make him guilty of violating state or federal law that puts lives in danger. That's the supposed benchmark for a patriot act use, and so far, this doesn't fit the bill, unless those dvd players that don't exist were funding mafia or arab terrorists, etc.
That's what this is about. The government, bought and paid for by the folks in the cartel, bowing to their masters. If I have to explain to you why this is fucked, I am wasting my time - THE GOVERNMENT IS PROSECUTING COPYRIGHT CASES WITH A LAW MEANT TO PREVENT THINGS LIKE PLANES CRASHING INTO BUILDINGS!!!
Of course, that's probably a moot point to types like you, who will gleefully state that hey, the US govt can do anything they want with their laws, it's their intellectual property, and if you don't like it, you don't have the right to make them do anything...
Oh wait...
I'm making a mockumentary style film based on the horrors of the internet, the seedier side that you never hear about on the nightly news. It's a movie for internet nerds by one of their own, and I think it'll be quite enjoyable for that audience.
However, it wouldn't make sense in a normal release. The average moviegoer wouldn't understand why I am asking an 80 year old woman if she is familiar with goatse or harlequin fetus. They won't understand my holding a sign outside a middle school that says "learn about the internet at tubgirl.com"
However, if I release the movie for free on suprnova, I have a potential audience of 500,000 people a day. I can also release to any number of BT sites, and take out small ads here and there on modestly trafficked sites.
So while I may not make a million dollar payday, chances are high that I will recoup my investment - which is primarily one of time. My business model relies on people watching for free, and a small fraction of them wanting a tshirt or hard copy.
Applying the concert mentality to movies, essentially.