I agree. Although some of the points that the DOJ was making in their case against Microsoft seemed irrelevent, I was one of many people I knew who were looking forward to some kind of real penalty. Then, out of the blue, it was as if the case just disappeared and we never heard about it again.
They were talking about breaking up the company into different divisions or separating products or imposing massive fines, and yet did any of these things really happen? It seems like the DOJ really failed in that regard, and I'm glad that somebody stood up and sent a wake up call to MS.
It sounds a lot like the royalties that game companies have to pay when writing code for consoles (or at least they used to). If Microsoft even starts to contemplate charging royalties on every single program that people write and distribute for the operating system, I can bet we'll see one of the largest shifts to Linux development in history.
I think the benefits of integrating the internet into political campaigns have always been pretty simple and obvious. For one thing, it gives voters the opportunity to get a much more detailed look into candidates. Televised debates are always limited by time (and censors) and printed information is always limited by space (and censors), but in the online world people can really dig in to the nitty-gritty.
There are also times when a candidate doesn't answer all the questions voters have in their minds. Online campaign sites give them opportunities to really interact back and forth. Potential voters can ask questions and candidates (or their PR people) can answer back quickly.
Online sites also allow for much larger forums of debate and collaboration for campaigns. Rallies can quickly be arranged or mini-campaign fundraisers can be held across town or across the country without having direct contact with the campaign staff.
And these are just the obvious benefits-- most of which, I've already seen put to good use.
I never got the chance to see the movies on the big screen, so it will certainly be an interesting experience to have it in theaters again. I can only imagine the kind of crowds it will draw, though:)
I'm curious just exactly how much of a cut Walmart is taking from that 88 cents. If they really managed to put the pressure on the recording industry, then for once I can actually appreciate the store's strongarming abilities. Bravo.
Of course, what that means probably is that the RIAA is keeping a larger percentage of the remaining cut and ripping off the artists. Maybe it will make the artists see the light, though, and realize they're better off without the labels. The only thing I really worry about, though, is that when the day comes that Walmart is dealing with artists directly, I wonder if they're going to demand that artists take less and less?
Finally, two of my enemies are pitted against one another. The problem is, I'm not sure who to root for in this case; I suppose it just reinforces my theory that artists shouldn't rely on album sales for income.
Under some circumstances, sure, the store wants to get more of the stock out there, but if the store is one that puts things on sale merely for the purpose of baiting people out, then it would be advantageous for them to watch for a high purchase rate.
RFID's can be closer to real time than scanners, too, because there is some delay in waiting for people to get to the registers (which, as I've observed, can be upwards of an hour). In an hour, a lot can disappear from the shelf, and from this aspect RFID already has an advantage over barcodes-- not to mention all the others which have been brought up.
The real question is whether we'll actually see a benefit to the introduction of RFID-- ie, actually keeping things stocked that I *want*, particularly sale items. I could certainly see some potential disadvantages, like if sale items start selling faster than they expect. Maybe an alert will be flagged and they'll mysteriously pull the remaining stock off the shelves...
All in all, I guess I can't really see any huge problem with the technology, though, as far as privacy is concerned-- that is, as long as it stays on the products themselves. If they suddenly start requiring RFIDs in the shopper cards so they know when I enter or leave the store, then I might have a concern.
If I would rather directly pay artists than go through the industry, I should have the option to do so. It is not the RIAA's work which I am purchasing, but rather the work of the artist. They deserve my compensation if I like and want their music, and I am prepared to offer them appropriate compensation, but not at the rate the industry has arbitrarily set. Hence, people will continue downloading and in order to compensate artists, they go to concerts, where they get their real money. I don't see the problem here.
You miss the point. Eventually, most people end up purchasing the albums that they like or they go through services like iTunes to pay their dues. Unlike other goods or services, you can't really return music if you're not satisfied with it, so people should get to test drive it first.
It probably won't stand up in court, but from a realistic (moral?) standpoint, all that you're really paying for in a CD is the record label. Artists barely see a few percent of the profit from their CDs, so the good ones are not being hurt in any way from filesharing.
As long as the artists aren't being tools about the whole issue, I'm more than happy to buy their CDs if I like them. From an ideal standpoint, I would actually prefer if I could directly pay the artists rather than going through the entire hierarchy.
I'll say it again that the vast majority of even the big artists have no real problem with P2P; it's only the recording industry execs who do and need to come to the realization that their traditional industry stronghold is at an end. Nobody needs them anymore. They've been obsoleted.
The thing is, the vast majority of artists really do welcome it, whether they say it explicitly or not. The RIAA just strongarms or bribes them into using their public image as a means to gain sympathy for the "poor recording industry". If more of the big artists really started endorsing filesharing, what do you think would happen to their contracts? I would bet that the industry tries to keep the p2p supporters pretty hush-hush by threatening to pull their music or even filing lawsuits over breach of contract (seeing as how they're already suing their customers).
Once you've signed with one of the big labels, you've practically signed your soul over to the devil. You no longer control your music, and if you don't put out so much music over a certain period, you either lose your contract or you're fined. Yes, there are a few big artists who have come outright and spoken against filesharing, but on an overall scale, how much of the artist pool do they cover?
Now, you may say that I don't know what I'm talking about because it's different when you're in the position of the artist, but guess what? I'm an alternative rock artist, I fully support P2P filesharing, and in fact I allow people to download entire albums for free off of my website. How do I make my money, then? Performances, and I also do other things than just write music.
I'm really starting to wonder just exactly how long the RIAA intends to keep on their rampage of lawsuits against their own would-be customers. Sure seems to be like these lawsuits haven't really hurt filesharing one bit, aside from scaring away the few people who didn't understand the implications.
If you look at the figure given, a few articles back, that's a significant amount of money that the RIAA is receiving as a result of the settlements-- in the range of a several million, I believe? Is it not so much their goal to boost their CD sales but to make up for it with the settlements from a couple thousand people? Of course, they claim the purpose behind the lawsuits not to be the money, but honestly, what else do they think they are accomplishing?
Since it's obvious P2P is here to stay, maybe this is their way of "adapting". Instead of making money through legitimate business, they've shifted their business model to something of a mobster hierarchy: "pay us not to break your legs"
Well, aside from lack of fulfilling female companionship (15 females my age here, chances of finding someone with interests remotely similar to mine are roughly nil), but that seems to be a problem for almost all slashdotters.
I wouldn't say it's a problem for *all* slashdotters. As difficult as it may be, it is indeed possible for us to get girlfriends; I myself was in a year long relationship, and not long after was in a four-month long relationship just a few months back... You just have to learn how to be a smooth talker;)
Yes, is does seem appealing at the surface, but it can also be dangerous. If the idea of having only online social networks and online friends doesn't depress you at first glance, it certainly will after trying it for a while. Like you said, face to face interaction is far more healthy-- physically, mentally and emotionally.
Audioscrobbler is another site with a similar purpose. Although it doesn't directly link users together by their musical tastes, it is easy enough to find people who frequently listen to the same artists that you enjoy by looking at the rankings.
I've considered joining such online social circles in the past because I, like many others, do enjoy online interaction. I spend many hours per day talking to people on AIM or some other service, I maintain a livejournal, and as I'm doing right now, I enjoy posting on sites like Slashdot. However, I've yet to actually do it. Why? Because the people I would really be interested in having join along with me are already on AIM, or they simply aren't online very often.
Existing chat services already serve this purpose quite well. I have a number of contacts on my lists which I personally don't know very well, but they are friends of friends who I might talk to once a year. The only real difference with these sites is that the process is automated, in some sense or another. I can see the purpose to them and I would like to see a concept like this take off, but I just can't see anything like that really getting established and lasting any length of time.
It certainly could, even for quadriplegics. It's possible that the technology could be adapted such that muscle groups could be artificially stimulated for people who haven't actually lost their legs but just suffered a spinal cord injury. For those who have, mechanical limbs could be constructed. It opens up so many new possibilities.
Very true. In its current phase, it is not directly applicable for pari/quadriplegics, but again, it is still only in very early stages of development. With hope, it will eventually progress far enough such that people will be able to walk again just as if they'd never become paralyzed or lost their legs. If they're able to monitor for the proper brainwaves, they should be able to pick up on the impulses that would normally trigger muscle contractions in the legs. The main problem when monitoring for these types of brainwaves, however, is that a person doesn't actually "concentrate" on individual muscle groups; it's mostly involuntary. As a result, it must be more difficult for them to pick these impulses out.
There are many applications for this type of technology even beyond restoring body movement, though. It might become a totally new way of accepting user input for desktop machines. Think of the application you want to run, and it runs it, or write documents by merely thinking words. For gaming, it could mean having the ultimate life-like simulation for first person shooters. Such technology would probably require people to concentrate better on the tasks at hand, however-- no wondering thoughts...
There are already several open-source players out there, although not necessarily portable ones. It won't be long, though.
The only thing I've yet to see is an "open-source" music store which would, inherently, be very indie-label friendly. That's not to say that I haven't seen online indie-music stores, but they only come in small clusters and have limited selection; I haven't seen a single indie store with decent backing and publicity.
This is, in theory, what groups like my own are trying to promote. My band is all about free music and totally open distribution, but we don't have the necessary connections or resources open to us-- and this is the same problem most of these others sites face. Maybe some of the big names on/. could help us get it off the ground...
I agree with you totally, and I think there's extensive proof even beyond the services like MSN that this is the case. Windows XP itself is a good example; some of the key reasons many people bought it was just because of the colorful buttons and "updated" user interface.
Now, I have long since changed my opinion of XP and do believe it to be a significant improvement over 2000 in terms of compatibility and some optimizations, but the point is that these people that I knew weren't buying it for that reason. They flocked to it almost instinctually because it was new and pretty-- and had the advertising to back it up.
So if Microsoft does suddenly present this new feature to consumers and make it look pretty at the surface-- make the interface more "friendly" or colorful-- then I bet they'll have reasonable success with it. I have my doubts that they'll steal the existing clients of iTunes or the other big services, though, since most of them will either already have an iPod (and have no choice), or they're people like me who avoid MS whenever possible.
Somehow, I don't see an MS-sponsored service allowing you to keep rights to the song you've downloaded. If there's one company that is really buddy-buddy with the recording industry right now, it's Microsoft, and the RIAA wants people to pay as frequently as possible. They don't seem to believe in "lifetime licensing" anymore.
But only until the one who comes out on top completely dominates, and then they raise the prices again-- after it's impossible for a competitor to enter or retake the market because of all the legal spiderwebs and the costs involved.
The only problem is that the moment Microsoft drops their format and accepts what consumers want, you know they'll become the #1 target of the RIAA. They're smarter than that.
I just wish that they would use the billions of dollars at their disposal to at least try to end the digital rights insanity. The only reason they picked it up in the first place was to keep the money hogs in Hollywood happy.
I'm actually quite surprised with the number of obvious liberals hanging around on the Slashdot comment boards. In my experience, such people tend not to be the most tech savvy, and this is why democrats are the ones signing ridiculous laws into effect like the DMCA. This is also why I've been relatively happy for the past four years since I've not had to worry about quite as much BS.
I'll be one of the first to admit that Bush isn't the sharpest one out there. He's made some pretty stupid remarks and some bad mistakes, but, personally, I know that we're a hell of a lot better off now than we would've been with Gore or some other democrat running the show. Think about it. All of you complain about Bush's mistakes, but just think about how much worse it would be with more of these DMCA and trusted computing-happy democrats running the show.
When it comes down to it, I don't particularly like Bush either. If there were an alternative choice who was actually half-way popular, then I would vote for them, but Bush is the lesser of the two evils who actually stand a chance of winning.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. Although some of the points that the DOJ was making in their case against Microsoft seemed irrelevent, I was one of many people I knew who were looking forward to some kind of real penalty. Then, out of the blue, it was as if the case just disappeared and we never heard about it again.
They were talking about breaking up the company into different divisions or separating products or imposing massive fines, and yet did any of these things really happen? It seems like the DOJ really failed in that regard, and I'm glad that somebody stood up and sent a wake up call to MS.
It sounds a lot like the royalties that game companies have to pay when writing code for consoles (or at least they used to). If Microsoft even starts to contemplate charging royalties on every single program that people write and distribute for the operating system, I can bet we'll see one of the largest shifts to Linux development in history.
I think the benefits of integrating the internet into political campaigns have always been pretty simple and obvious. For one thing, it gives voters the opportunity to get a much more detailed look into candidates. Televised debates are always limited by time (and censors) and printed information is always limited by space (and censors), but in the online world people can really dig in to the nitty-gritty.
There are also times when a candidate doesn't answer all the questions voters have in their minds. Online campaign sites give them opportunities to really interact back and forth. Potential voters can ask questions and candidates (or their PR people) can answer back quickly.
Online sites also allow for much larger forums of debate and collaboration for campaigns. Rallies can quickly be arranged or mini-campaign fundraisers can be held across town or across the country without having direct contact with the campaign staff.
And these are just the obvious benefits-- most of which, I've already seen put to good use.
It's for the people who can't handle the intensity of The Passion, or the comic relief people can go see after it :)
You can only really take it in good humor, though. He means it to be a joke, as is the point of all the Monty Python movies.
I never got the chance to see the movies on the big screen, so it will certainly be an interesting experience to have it in theaters again. I can only imagine the kind of crowds it will draw, though :)
I'm curious just exactly how much of a cut Walmart is taking from that 88 cents. If they really managed to put the pressure on the recording industry, then for once I can actually appreciate the store's strongarming abilities. Bravo.
Of course, what that means probably is that the RIAA is keeping a larger percentage of the remaining cut and ripping off the artists. Maybe it will make the artists see the light, though, and realize they're better off without the labels. The only thing I really worry about, though, is that when the day comes that Walmart is dealing with artists directly, I wonder if they're going to demand that artists take less and less?
Finally, two of my enemies are pitted against one another. The problem is, I'm not sure who to root for in this case; I suppose it just reinforces my theory that artists shouldn't rely on album sales for income.
Under some circumstances, sure, the store wants to get more of the stock out there, but if the store is one that puts things on sale merely for the purpose of baiting people out, then it would be advantageous for them to watch for a high purchase rate.
RFID's can be closer to real time than scanners, too, because there is some delay in waiting for people to get to the registers (which, as I've observed, can be upwards of an hour). In an hour, a lot can disappear from the shelf, and from this aspect RFID already has an advantage over barcodes-- not to mention all the others which have been brought up.
The real question is whether we'll actually see a benefit to the introduction of RFID-- ie, actually keeping things stocked that I *want*, particularly sale items. I could certainly see some potential disadvantages, like if sale items start selling faster than they expect. Maybe an alert will be flagged and they'll mysteriously pull the remaining stock off the shelves...
All in all, I guess I can't really see any huge problem with the technology, though, as far as privacy is concerned-- that is, as long as it stays on the products themselves. If they suddenly start requiring RFIDs in the shopper cards so they know when I enter or leave the store, then I might have a concern.
If I would rather directly pay artists than go through the industry, I should have the option to do so. It is not the RIAA's work which I am purchasing, but rather the work of the artist. They deserve my compensation if I like and want their music, and I am prepared to offer them appropriate compensation, but not at the rate the industry has arbitrarily set. Hence, people will continue downloading and in order to compensate artists, they go to concerts, where they get their real money. I don't see the problem here.
You miss the point. Eventually, most people end up purchasing the albums that they like or they go through services like iTunes to pay their dues. Unlike other goods or services, you can't really return music if you're not satisfied with it, so people should get to test drive it first.
It probably won't stand up in court, but from a realistic (moral?) standpoint, all that you're really paying for in a CD is the record label. Artists barely see a few percent of the profit from their CDs, so the good ones are not being hurt in any way from filesharing.
As long as the artists aren't being tools about the whole issue, I'm more than happy to buy their CDs if I like them. From an ideal standpoint, I would actually prefer if I could directly pay the artists rather than going through the entire hierarchy.
I'll say it again that the vast majority of even the big artists have no real problem with P2P; it's only the recording industry execs who do and need to come to the realization that their traditional industry stronghold is at an end. Nobody needs them anymore. They've been obsoleted.
The thing is, the vast majority of artists really do welcome it, whether they say it explicitly or not. The RIAA just strongarms or bribes them into using their public image as a means to gain sympathy for the "poor recording industry". If more of the big artists really started endorsing filesharing, what do you think would happen to their contracts? I would bet that the industry tries to keep the p2p supporters pretty hush-hush by threatening to pull their music or even filing lawsuits over breach of contract (seeing as how they're already suing their customers).
Once you've signed with one of the big labels, you've practically signed your soul over to the devil. You no longer control your music, and if you don't put out so much music over a certain period, you either lose your contract or you're fined. Yes, there are a few big artists who have come outright and spoken against filesharing, but on an overall scale, how much of the artist pool do they cover?
Now, you may say that I don't know what I'm talking about because it's different when you're in the position of the artist, but guess what? I'm an alternative rock artist, I fully support P2P filesharing, and in fact I allow people to download entire albums for free off of my website. How do I make my money, then? Performances, and I also do other things than just write music.
I'm really starting to wonder just exactly how long the RIAA intends to keep on their rampage of lawsuits against their own would-be customers. Sure seems to be like these lawsuits haven't really hurt filesharing one bit, aside from scaring away the few people who didn't understand the implications.
If you look at the figure given, a few articles back, that's a significant amount of money that the RIAA is receiving as a result of the settlements-- in the range of a several million, I believe? Is it not so much their goal to boost their CD sales but to make up for it with the settlements from a couple thousand people? Of course, they claim the purpose behind the lawsuits not to be the money, but honestly, what else do they think they are accomplishing?
Since it's obvious P2P is here to stay, maybe this is their way of "adapting". Instead of making money through legitimate business, they've shifted their business model to something of a mobster hierarchy: "pay us not to break your legs"
Well, aside from lack of fulfilling female companionship (15 females my age here, chances of finding someone with interests remotely similar to mine are roughly nil), but that seems to be a problem for almost all slashdotters.
;)
I wouldn't say it's a problem for *all* slashdotters. As difficult as it may be, it is indeed possible for us to get girlfriends; I myself was in a year long relationship, and not long after was in a four-month long relationship just a few months back... You just have to learn how to be a smooth talker
Yes, is does seem appealing at the surface, but it can also be dangerous. If the idea of having only online social networks and online friends doesn't depress you at first glance, it certainly will after trying it for a while. Like you said, face to face interaction is far more healthy-- physically, mentally and emotionally.
Audioscrobbler is another site with a similar purpose. Although it doesn't directly link users together by their musical tastes, it is easy enough to find people who frequently listen to the same artists that you enjoy by looking at the rankings.
I've considered joining such online social circles in the past because I, like many others, do enjoy online interaction. I spend many hours per day talking to people on AIM or some other service, I maintain a livejournal, and as I'm doing right now, I enjoy posting on sites like Slashdot. However, I've yet to actually do it. Why? Because the people I would really be interested in having join along with me are already on AIM, or they simply aren't online very often.
Existing chat services already serve this purpose quite well. I have a number of contacts on my lists which I personally don't know very well, but they are friends of friends who I might talk to once a year. The only real difference with these sites is that the process is automated, in some sense or another. I can see the purpose to them and I would like to see a concept like this take off, but I just can't see anything like that really getting established and lasting any length of time.
It certainly could, even for quadriplegics. It's possible that the technology could be adapted such that muscle groups could be artificially stimulated for people who haven't actually lost their legs but just suffered a spinal cord injury. For those who have, mechanical limbs could be constructed. It opens up so many new possibilities.
Very true. In its current phase, it is not directly applicable for pari/quadriplegics, but again, it is still only in very early stages of development. With hope, it will eventually progress far enough such that people will be able to walk again just as if they'd never become paralyzed or lost their legs. If they're able to monitor for the proper brainwaves, they should be able to pick up on the impulses that would normally trigger muscle contractions in the legs. The main problem when monitoring for these types of brainwaves, however, is that a person doesn't actually "concentrate" on individual muscle groups; it's mostly involuntary. As a result, it must be more difficult for them to pick these impulses out.
There are many applications for this type of technology even beyond restoring body movement, though. It might become a totally new way of accepting user input for desktop machines. Think of the application you want to run, and it runs it, or write documents by merely thinking words. For gaming, it could mean having the ultimate life-like simulation for first person shooters. Such technology would probably require people to concentrate better on the tasks at hand, however-- no wondering thoughts...
There are already several open-source players out there, although not necessarily portable ones. It won't be long, though.
/. could help us get it off the ground...
The only thing I've yet to see is an "open-source" music store which would, inherently, be very indie-label friendly. That's not to say that I haven't seen online indie-music stores, but they only come in small clusters and have limited selection; I haven't seen a single indie store with decent backing and publicity.
This is, in theory, what groups like my own are trying to promote. My band is all about free music and totally open distribution, but we don't have the necessary connections or resources open to us-- and this is the same problem most of these others sites face. Maybe some of the big names on
I agree with you totally, and I think there's extensive proof even beyond the services like MSN that this is the case. Windows XP itself is a good example; some of the key reasons many people bought it was just because of the colorful buttons and "updated" user interface.
Now, I have long since changed my opinion of XP and do believe it to be a significant improvement over 2000 in terms of compatibility and some optimizations, but the point is that these people that I knew weren't buying it for that reason. They flocked to it almost instinctually because it was new and pretty-- and had the advertising to back it up.
So if Microsoft does suddenly present this new feature to consumers and make it look pretty at the surface-- make the interface more "friendly" or colorful-- then I bet they'll have reasonable success with it. I have my doubts that they'll steal the existing clients of iTunes or the other big services, though, since most of them will either already have an iPod (and have no choice), or they're people like me who avoid MS whenever possible.
Somehow, I don't see an MS-sponsored service allowing you to keep rights to the song you've downloaded. If there's one company that is really buddy-buddy with the recording industry right now, it's Microsoft, and the RIAA wants people to pay as frequently as possible. They don't seem to believe in "lifetime licensing" anymore.
But only until the one who comes out on top completely dominates, and then they raise the prices again-- after it's impossible for a competitor to enter or retake the market because of all the legal spiderwebs and the costs involved.
The only problem is that the moment Microsoft drops their format and accepts what consumers want, you know they'll become the #1 target of the RIAA. They're smarter than that.
I just wish that they would use the billions of dollars at their disposal to at least try to end the digital rights insanity. The only reason they picked it up in the first place was to keep the money hogs in Hollywood happy.
I'm actually quite surprised with the number of obvious liberals hanging around on the Slashdot comment boards. In my experience, such people tend not to be the most tech savvy, and this is why democrats are the ones signing ridiculous laws into effect like the DMCA. This is also why I've been relatively happy for the past four years since I've not had to worry about quite as much BS. I'll be one of the first to admit that Bush isn't the sharpest one out there. He's made some pretty stupid remarks and some bad mistakes, but, personally, I know that we're a hell of a lot better off now than we would've been with Gore or some other democrat running the show. Think about it. All of you complain about Bush's mistakes, but just think about how much worse it would be with more of these DMCA and trusted computing-happy democrats running the show. When it comes down to it, I don't particularly like Bush either. If there were an alternative choice who was actually half-way popular, then I would vote for them, but Bush is the lesser of the two evils who actually stand a chance of winning.