I would guess EMI said we're going to try this non-DRM music thing but we want more per song. Whether or not that's fair is up to the individual consumer, and the consumers will decide if non-DRM songs are worth $1.30 or not. Personally, I think DRM music at.99/song (or really any price over free) is overpriced and unfair, so I don't buy it. However I will happily pay $1.30/song for higher quality non-DRM music.
Yeah so go to your local music store and tell them you want to buy a song. I would guess the vast majority of ITunes sales are single songs that you simply can't purchase at your local music shop, rather than full albums. There's also the convenience factor, yeah I will pay just as much or more for (non-DRM) digital music than the cost of the physical album, because I can listen to it right now without even getting out of my chair, and it's already in a digital format, I don't have to rip it. I also don't find any artistic value in the album cover, it's just clutter and I don't want it.
The non-DRM costs more because if the price were the same as the lower quality DRM versions, who would ever buy the DRM songs? Nobody of course, and the labels don't want that, at least not without some compensation (more money). Jobs has said ITunes would remove all DRM restrictions if the music industry would agree, and this is a stepping stone in that direction. They're taking it slow and gauging interest, and you can be damn sure other labels are watching closely. If (when) the industry realizes people will pay more to lose DRM hopefully they'll jump on board.
Yes but i'd think by now they'd realize there is going to be a demand. Rather every time they rush the launch of their new highly anticipated system knowing they have a very limited supply, and millions of fans go home disappointed. Doesn't seem like the best business practice. Or maybe it is, I don't know.
The costs involved in the baseball thing are a little different, but I'm not real shocked that not every game is worth putting on tv(and I think that the teams make a bigger chunk on the gate than they do on tv rights, but I'm not sure).
Not really, blacked out games are televised they're just not available in certain zipcodes, for any price. There's a demand for it, the games are available, MLB is in the business of selling games, but people just simply aren't allowed to buy them. Getting off topic but I found the original artical I referred to: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-blackouts 061906&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
Or maybe they could prepare for their release a little better, maybe by making more units. When every new console is virtually un-findable for weeks after release it's pretty apparent they should be stocking up better beforehand, but then their marketing departments lose the inflated impression of having a super-hot in-demand item, which is probably what this is all about.
Who knows, but damn near every next gen console release ends up the same, with customers unable to get their hands on one. I don't know if it's intentional to build hype, incompetence, or who knows what but people actually WANT to buy your product, but you won't sell it to them. That just makes no sense, impulsive buyers don't place backorders, and most likely won't come back every week until they're in stock, they'll go buy an Xbox or PS3 to satisfy their urge to buy. I'd own a Wii right now, but the 360 was in stock, now i'll likely never buy a Wii.
This reminds me of a sports writer I believe who once wrote to Bud Sehlig regarding blackouts and non-televised MLB games: "Major League Baseball, you have a great product, it's too bad you won't let me buy it."
so since you don't use clip art nobody should? what does it matter why he wanted clipart? maybe he runs a daycare center or something, where cutesy graphics appear on everything.
...Second. ..you and/or your agents have stolen content from my web site,
circumventing copy protections in violation of the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, and posted the stolen content on another web site
(thetruthistold.com). Fair use is predicated upon first legally
obtaining the copy from which you quote. You did not obtain the content
legally. According to the terms published on my web site for use of that
content, for failure to prepay for the first copy, you owe me $250,000
plus $50,000 penalty and treble damages. I will enforce these terms in a
court of law. This is a demand for payment, jointly and severally. I'll
give you 30 days. I highly recommend you make payment or arrangements
with me immediately. Mr. Wiseman is name because he designed the web
site and circumvented the protections and acted at the direct of Mr.
Stewart and Mr. Kiefer. Mr. Stewart also owns the domains and/or web
site. Mr. Kiefer is the subject of the stolen content and therefore
directed the misappropriation....
well if you suck at art you'll probably suck at graphic design. over the years i've become pretty proficient with photoshop and fireworks, but i still contract out for designs simply because i don't have the creativity to come up with new stuff for every website.
Their insistence that he get on his feet or they would tase him again is all the proof we need that they were not the brightest bulbs in the pack. The function of a Taser shock is to disable by disrupting nerve and muscle function.
If you could stand up after being Tased they wouldn't be using them in the first place.
Quit making shit up, you can stand up just fine within seconds of being tasered. It's not a fucking bat in the face, it doesn't knock you out. As soon as it's done, it's done, and you say "god damn that sucked" and get up. (or just lay there and wait for another one, to pump up your lawsuit)
Students at the news conference said there was no sign Tabatabainejad was targeted because of his ethnicity. But his lawyer disagreed.
Civil rights attorney Stephen Yagman announced separately that he plans to file a lawsuit charging that the American-born Tabatabainejad was singled out because of his Middle Eastern appearance.
Ok you lost me there. There were obviously no audible racial epithets on the video, and there has never been any accusation of race ever even being mentioned, by any of the people involved or hundreds of witnesses.
Going straight to the race card is such a fucking turnoff to anyones cause, and has completely discredited anything this kid has to say in my view, and probably many others
I think maybe the point is 150,000 or so other people died that day, and every day since, so maybe it's time to stop devoting so much attention to the relative few when the majority don't get anything (most not even an obituary).
Or maybe that's not the point, whatever. I'm pretty sick of hearing about 9/11 myself. NEVAR FORGET!!!1111ONE
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think anyone has said the data can't or won't be restored. A customer service rep said he didn't know, and of course he doesn't know.
[i]Many innocent bystanders would have been killed in the crossfire.[/i]
So the 33 people who got capped today were all asking for it?
I would guess EMI said we're going to try this non-DRM music thing but we want more per song. Whether or not that's fair is up to the individual consumer, and the consumers will decide if non-DRM songs are worth $1.30 or not. Personally, I think DRM music at .99/song (or really any price over free) is overpriced and unfair, so I don't buy it. However I will happily pay $1.30/song for higher quality non-DRM music.
Yeah so go to your local music store and tell them you want to buy a song. I would guess the vast majority of ITunes sales are single songs that you simply can't purchase at your local music shop, rather than full albums. There's also the convenience factor, yeah I will pay just as much or more for (non-DRM) digital music than the cost of the physical album, because I can listen to it right now without even getting out of my chair, and it's already in a digital format, I don't have to rip it. I also don't find any artistic value in the album cover, it's just clutter and I don't want it.
The non-DRM costs more because if the price were the same as the lower quality DRM versions, who would ever buy the DRM songs? Nobody of course, and the labels don't want that, at least not without some compensation (more money). Jobs has said ITunes would remove all DRM restrictions if the music industry would agree, and this is a stepping stone in that direction. They're taking it slow and gauging interest, and you can be damn sure other labels are watching closely. If (when) the industry realizes people will pay more to lose DRM hopefully they'll jump on board.
I'm not a big FPS fanatic so maybe I don't know what i'm talking about, but the Counterstrike bots seem pretty good to me.
Brilliant
Thanks!
Yes but i'd think by now they'd realize there is going to be a demand. Rather every time they rush the launch of their new highly anticipated system knowing they have a very limited supply, and millions of fans go home disappointed. Doesn't seem like the best business practice. Or maybe it is, I don't know.
The costs involved in the baseball thing are a little different, but I'm not real shocked that not every game is worth putting on tv(and I think that the teams make a bigger chunk on the gate than they do on tv rights, but I'm not sure).
s 061906&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
Not really, blacked out games are televised they're just not available in certain zipcodes, for any price. There's a demand for it, the games are available, MLB is in the business of selling games, but people just simply aren't allowed to buy them. Getting off topic but I found the original artical I referred to: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=jp-blackout
Or maybe they could prepare for their release a little better, maybe by making more units. When every new console is virtually un-findable for weeks after release it's pretty apparent they should be stocking up better beforehand, but then their marketing departments lose the inflated impression of having a super-hot in-demand item, which is probably what this is all about.
This reminds me of a sports writer I believe who once wrote to Bud Sehlig regarding blackouts and non-televised MLB games: "Major League Baseball, you have a great product, it's too bad you won't let me buy it."
so since you don't use clip art nobody should? what does it matter why he wanted clipart? maybe he runs a daycare center or something, where cutesy graphics appear on everything.
Give us a youtube link, and we'll decide. Or is that covered by an RIAA copyright as well?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tq-VVAGLlRQlooks like archive.org aren't the only one's she's tried to extort:
http://nextfriend.christiancommonlaw-gov.org/nextf riend.us//mail/Cease%20and%20Desist2.eml
Lots more on this bitch here:
http://nextfriend.us/mail
http://thetruthistold.com/Shejjll.htm
yeah they should stand their ground, after all it's only 1.5b people who would no longer have access to their product(s). who needs them?
"Operating systems in the mirror are less compatible than they appear"
according to wikipedia, his co-conspirator got 4 years. he could have been out of prison years ago if he sucked it up and took it like a man.
My son found a copy of penthouse in my bureau, I guess I can go to prison for that.
well if you suck at art you'll probably suck at graphic design. over the years i've become pretty proficient with photoshop and fireworks, but i still contract out for designs simply because i don't have the creativity to come up with new stuff for every website.
No they don't, they are popular because people like their services, not because they don't have any alternatives.
If you could stand up after being Tased they wouldn't be using them in the first place.
Quit making shit up, you can stand up just fine within seconds of being tasered. It's not a fucking bat in the face, it doesn't knock you out. As soon as it's done, it's done, and you say "god damn that sucked" and get up. (or just lay there and wait for another one, to pump up your lawsuit)
Civil rights attorney Stephen Yagman announced separately that he plans to file a lawsuit charging that the American-born Tabatabainejad was singled out because of his Middle Eastern appearance.
Ok you lost me there. There were obviously no audible racial epithets on the video, and there has never been any accusation of race ever even being mentioned, by any of the people involved or hundreds of witnesses.
Going straight to the race card is such a fucking turnoff to anyones cause, and has completely discredited anything this kid has to say in my view, and probably many others
I want some crack!
I think maybe the point is 150,000 or so other people died that day, and every day since, so maybe it's time to stop devoting so much attention to the relative few when the majority don't get anything (most not even an obituary). Or maybe that's not the point, whatever. I'm pretty sick of hearing about 9/11 myself. NEVAR FORGET!!!1111ONE
thanks for the report
how much CN to buy you a sense of humor?