It does work with other music stores. You can buy music from eMusic, Magnatune, AllOfMP3, etc., and have it work perfectly on an iPod. Similarly, I can buy music from the iTunes store, and have it work perfectly on my Nokia phone. Of course, the music I buy from iTunes comes from the iTunes Plus section, which has a rather limited selection, but that's the labels' call. If they want interoperability and to end Apple's market dominance, all they have to do is ditch DRM and sell unencumbered AACs (or some lossless format that the client can then transcode to their favourite lossy format).
You don't even need to buy from iTunes Plus, iTunes allows you to burn cds. You can burn a cd then reimport the cd into iTunes. That removes the drm.
"So, it's fine with you to place nuclear waste somewhere that can be struck with an earthquake thus spreading radiation for hundreds of miles?"
I submit that any disaster capable of
(1) pulverizing chunks of solid glass encased in steel and concrete into a dust that can be spread for hundreds of miles and
(2) ripping up the crust of the Earth from down where the waste is stored and spewing material from that depth over hundreds of miles
would necessarily be of such a magnitude that the radioactivity of the debris would represent a barely noticeable blip in the carnage.
This is true however the spread of radioactive waste could make it worse. Encasing the waste in glass would help in the case of an earthquake, but not in the case of a volcano, and there is one near Yucca. Even if there wasn't though, I've heard nothing about the waste being encased in glass, all the plans I've heard of do nothing more than store the waste in metal, I think I heard titanium, casing. A volcano would not just pulverize the glass but would melt it.
Oh, I agree. However by selling songs for a lower price, especially oldies, more people are likely to try and like the older music. This can interfere in the ability to sell new music though, however by doing so people who would otherwise not buy may buy. Personally I wouldn't pay to download music unless I was sent the vinyl record as well. Say a Santana album with "Evil ways", "Black Magic Woman", and a few others I may pay $30, or for both Johnny Mathis's and Billie Holliday's "Greatest Hits". I may even pay it for Norah Jones and Neko Case. However that'd be only if ordering them online is the only way to get them. Luckily I've been into two stores within walking distance than carries and sales vinyl records and there a third one I know of but haven't been into yet, I don't know if newer music like Norah Jones is available though. I know some new metalica and other alternatives are. I'm just looking for a good turntable to get now, as well as a reel-to-reel tape deck.
OK, let me rephrase, you don't make nearly as much money on the pop tart of the day selling $1 singles as you would selling $5 singles
Downloading one song may be cheaper but by allowing cheap one song downloads more will be downloaded. I haven't even bought a single since they came on 45s in the '70s and I've never downloaded any music, legal or not. As for albums, I have a few tapes and about 20 cds. However I plan on getting a turntable and a reel-to-reel tape deck. When I do I'll be buying vinyl records. I'll do just what I used to do, the first tyme I play a record I'll record it on a tape reel. Then I'll play the tape and put the record away for safekeeping. When the tape starts wearing out I'll just grab the record and rerecord it. If I ever get a digital player, I don't have an iPod or anything like it, I can rip the tape.
It goes to all the other employees and the various expenses of running a business. If you were to drill down into Warner's financials (the only big publicly traded record company that I am aware of), you'd likely find that as a percentage of gross revenue, nobody makes more than the artists -- not even the CEO. It's a big pie but it gets rendered into a lot of very thin slices.
I might say "the company keeps the rest," but the truth is that the rest of it goes to pay all the other employees who have a hand in keeping the company running, as well as paying for R&D, marketing, and all the other realities of running a business.
And how many employees does an entertainment company really need? Artists may very well have their own studios, with today's tech many people are able to setup their own. A company sound engineer, if the performers don't have one, is needed however one can work with more than one performer. Marketing, the internet makes it pretty easy. I haven't tried out iTunes, and don't ever plan to, but I bet it has something similar to what Amazon does. "People who liked (or bought) this also liked (bought) this." Sure that's only a subset of people but word spreads, someone hears something they like and they share it with friends. I wouldn't be surprised if most media company employees are nothing more than office drones.
As for the theory that the record company nets 78% -- well, keep in mind that after several quarters of having terrible net margins (sub-5%), Warner Music lost money last quarter. If Vivendi's financials are like Warner's (and it's a safe bet that they are), they're probably in the sub-5% business as well. This actually isn't too bad (Wal-Mart makes do with similar margins) but 78% net is off the beam.
That's their problem, what are they doing with their 70% cut? Burning it? It certainly isn't going to the artists.
I think most of this discussion is pretty laughable. Its pretty easy to see what the issue is for the labels.
Yea, the labels want to gouge Apple, the artists, and the public.
You can't make much money on the pop tart of the day selling $1 singles.
A million downloads of that single nets the label $700,000. And they don't have to pay for servers and bandwidth. Of the $700,000 I'd be surprised if the artist sees $70,000.
for certain hits they want the right to charge $2.49 per song rather than $.99 per song. $2.49 translates (for a 12-song album) into around $30 for a CD.
I haven't once paid $20 for a cd, there's no way I'll pay $30 for one. I might pay $30 for a vinyl record, if it has at least 10 good songs. Or 5 great songs if that's the only way to get them.
In reality the majority of consumers would probably rather to pay a little more and go to the "Music store" that carries all music as opposed to the "Vivendi store", "Universal store".
In reality Apple wants to keep the same prices but the labels want to charge more. They ask for more and when Apple says no way, they leave.
400mm till 2025 adn another 190mm from 2025 to 2050..... I think table c-2 (thumbnail image 1/2 way down).
There is no table c-2. Figure C1_2 says nothing about India, neither does Table C1_2. Table C1_ 3 has India's projected population increase of 173,982,000,00 between 2025 and 2050. If you add the numbers for growth of India's population between 1995 and 2025 of 401 million and from 2025 to 2050 it comes out close to 600,000,000. However that started in 1995, 12 years ago, so between now and 2050 India won't be adding 600,000,000.
Annonymity does not equal privacy. Free speech is a right, clearly spelled out. There is no similar right spelled out for privacy. You may as well say you have a right to speak annonymously, instead of watering down what privacy means to most people.
While it may not be all of it anonymity is a big part of privacy.
Technology will eventually make privacy unattainable, if it isn't already. Google street views, red light cameras, etc continue to erode privacy. I don't see anything coming that will stop that.
Don't use Google, I use it to search but I haven't created a Google account and don't use Gmail. With the exception of a few websites when I create an account I use dumby info. For buying stuff, I mostly shop at brick and morter stores and pay with cash as much as I can. Public CCTVs and cameras I oppose.
The problem isn't in the potential, it's in the will and ability to execute. NIMBY is really hurting a lot of these alternative energy projects.
I totally agree. People who deny alternative energy sources can power the world either don't know the facts or have an agenda to keep the knowledge from getting out.
And your solution for the second child being of the same gender as the first would have been? Forced abortion?
No, in vitro fertilization. Actually I in no way support any sort of laws controlling what people do as long as they aren't harming anyone. To control population growth, start by making sure equal rights are respected. Allow women to get an education and employment in the workforce. Also improve people's economics.
I think 600 million more indians in the next 45 years is definitely a significant increase in the population
I don't know where you get 600 million, the page you provided a link to says: "According to the most recent (medium variant) UN population projection India's population will increase by an additional 401 million between 1995 and 2025." The only place it mentions 45 years is where it says "On a country-by-country basis it was mainly the oil exporting nations of Western Asia that had the highest population growth rates over the past 45 years." Those 45 years are in the past. Now if you say 45 year from now, that would be in the year 2052, and I can't find 2052 anywhere on the page. It does say however that Africa will add 1.3 billion people, and that's despite the spread of AIDS.
Slashdot Mirror
It does work with other music stores. You can buy music from eMusic, Magnatune, AllOfMP3, etc., and have it work perfectly on an iPod. Similarly, I can buy music from the iTunes store, and have it work perfectly on my Nokia phone. Of course, the music I buy from iTunes comes from the iTunes Plus section, which has a rather limited selection, but that's the labels' call. If they want interoperability and to end Apple's market dominance, all they have to do is ditch DRM and sell unencumbered AACs (or some lossless format that the client can then transcode to their favourite lossy format).
You don't even need to buy from iTunes Plus, iTunes allows you to burn cds. You can burn a cd then reimport the cd into iTunes. That removes the drm.
Falcon"So, it's fine with you to place nuclear waste somewhere that can be struck with an earthquake thus spreading radiation for hundreds of miles?"
I submit that any disaster capable of
would necessarily be of such a magnitude that the radioactivity of the debris would represent a barely noticeable blip in the carnage.
This is true however the spread of radioactive waste could make it worse. Encasing the waste in glass would help in the case of an earthquake, but not in the case of a volcano, and there is one near Yucca. Even if there wasn't though, I've heard nothing about the waste being encased in glass, all the plans I've heard of do nothing more than store the waste in metal, I think I heard titanium, casing. A volcano would not just pulverize the glass but would melt it.
FalconOh, I agree. However by selling songs for a lower price, especially oldies, more people are likely to try and like the older music. This can interfere in the ability to sell new music though, however by doing so people who would otherwise not buy may buy. Personally I wouldn't pay to download music unless I was sent the vinyl record as well. Say a Santana album with "Evil ways", "Black Magic Woman", and a few others I may pay $30, or for both Johnny Mathis's and Billie Holliday's "Greatest Hits". I may even pay it for Norah Jones and Neko Case. However that'd be only if ordering them online is the only way to get them. Luckily I've been into two stores within walking distance than carries and sales vinyl records and there a third one I know of but haven't been into yet, I don't know if newer music like Norah Jones is available though. I know some new metalica and other alternatives are. I'm just looking for a good turntable to get now, as well as a reel-to-reel tape deck.
FalconIs this Justice Roberts? If so please strike the Patriot Act down.
FalconYou aren't free to hit me because you've had that freedom taken away from you.
Your (My) freedom to hit someone (you) ends where their (your) nose begins.
FalconIt is the legal system's fault normal people need a legal interpreter in order to conduct official business.
No, it's "normal people's" fault because they allow it to be that way, at least they don't protest and vote to uphold their values.
FalocnOK, let me rephrase, you don't make nearly as much money on the pop tart of the day selling $1 singles as you would selling $5 singles
Downloading one song may be cheaper but by allowing cheap one song downloads more will be downloaded. I haven't even bought a single since they came on 45s in the '70s and I've never downloaded any music, legal or not. As for albums, I have a few tapes and about 20 cds. However I plan on getting a turntable and a reel-to-reel tape deck. When I do I'll be buying vinyl records. I'll do just what I used to do, the first tyme I play a record I'll record it on a tape reel. Then I'll play the tape and put the record away for safekeeping. When the tape starts wearing out I'll just grab the record and rerecord it. If I ever get a digital player, I don't have an iPod or anything like it, I can rip the tape.
FalconIt goes to all the other employees and the various expenses of running a business. If you were to drill down into Warner's financials (the only big publicly traded record company that I am aware of), you'd likely find that as a percentage of gross revenue, nobody makes more than the artists -- not even the CEO. It's a big pie but it gets rendered into a lot of very thin slices.
More likely it's Hollywood Accounting.
I might say "the company keeps the rest," but the truth is that the rest of it goes to pay all the other employees who have a hand in keeping the company running, as well as paying for R&D, marketing, and all the other realities of running a business.
And how many employees does an entertainment company really need? Artists may very well have their own studios, with today's tech many people are able to setup their own. A company sound engineer, if the performers don't have one, is needed however one can work with more than one performer. Marketing, the internet makes it pretty easy. I haven't tried out iTunes, and don't ever plan to, but I bet it has something similar to what Amazon does. "People who liked (or bought) this also liked (bought) this." Sure that's only a subset of people but word spreads, someone hears something they like and they share it with friends. I wouldn't be surprised if most media company employees are nothing more than office drones.
Falcon$30 is pretty commonplace in Australia. Music is a little overpriced here IMHO.
Oh, ok you're using Aussy dollars not uncle Sam's dollars. That's still rather high 30 Australian dollars is 26 US dollars at today's exchange rate.
FalconAs for the theory that the record company nets 78% -- well, keep in mind that after several quarters of having terrible net margins (sub-5%), Warner Music lost money last quarter. If Vivendi's financials are like Warner's (and it's a safe bet that they are), they're probably in the sub-5% business as well. This actually isn't too bad (Wal-Mart makes do with similar margins) but 78% net is off the beam.
That's their problem, what are they doing with their 70% cut? Burning it? It certainly isn't going to the artists.
FalconI think most of this discussion is pretty laughable. Its pretty easy to see what the issue is for the labels.
Yea, the labels want to gouge Apple, the artists, and the public.
You can't make much money on the pop tart of the day selling $1 singles.
A million downloads of that single nets the label $700,000. And they don't have to pay for servers and bandwidth. Of the $700,000 I'd be surprised if the artist sees $70,000.
Falconfor certain hits they want the right to charge $2.49 per song rather than $.99 per song. $2.49 translates (for a 12-song album) into around $30 for a CD.
I haven't once paid $20 for a cd, there's no way I'll pay $30 for one. I might pay $30 for a vinyl record, if it has at least 10 good songs. Or 5 great songs if that's the only way to get them.
FalconIn reality the majority of consumers would probably rather to pay a little more and go to the "Music store" that carries all music as opposed to the "Vivendi store", "Universal store".
In reality Apple wants to keep the same prices but the labels want to charge more. They ask for more and when Apple says no way, they leave.
FalconOR the labels might try legal action to *force* Apple to open up the iPod to integrate with other music stores (more likely)
Yeap, the labels get 70 cents out of every 99 cents. Ooh such poor music companies while Apple makes off like a bandit. NOT!!!
Falconeven if they sold non-DRM MP3s (which we already know is something that the majors will never agree to)
Apple already sells DRM free music. Instead of the 99 cents for iTunes songs you can pay $1.29 for songs without DRM that has a higher bitrate.
OR the labels might try legal action to *force* Apple to open up the iPod to integrate with other music stores (more likely)
Perhaps you don't know it but I can take a cd, rip it in iTunes, then play it on an iPod. If I had one.
Falconthey want to be able to charge less for old songs and 99 cents for new ones
No, they want to be able to sell new songs for $1.99 and keep old songs at 99 cents.
FalconNo: the iTunes markup is twice as much as it is at retailers for CDs. This is why Vivendi is whining.
And Vivendi get 70%+ of it. What they want is 100%, without the costs.
FalconAs long as the media is a vinyl record, with a lot of good songs and not one hit wonders, I agree.
Falcon400mm till 2025 adn another 190mm from 2025 to 2050..... I think table c-2 (thumbnail image 1/2 way down).
There is no table c-2. Figure C1_2 says nothing about India, neither does Table C1_2. Table C1_ 3 has India's projected population increase of 173,982,000,00 between 2025 and 2050. If you add the numbers for growth of India's population between 1995 and 2025 of 401 million and from 2025 to 2050 it comes out close to 600,000,000. However that started in 1995, 12 years ago, so between now and 2050 India won't be adding 600,000,000.
Annonymity does not equal privacy. Free speech is a right, clearly spelled out. There is no similar right spelled out for privacy. You may as well say you have a right to speak annonymously, instead of watering down what privacy means to most people.
While it may not be all of it anonymity is a big part of privacy.
Technology will eventually make privacy unattainable, if it isn't already. Google street views, red light cameras, etc continue to erode privacy. I don't see anything coming that will stop that.
Don't use Google, I use it to search but I haven't created a Google account and don't use Gmail. With the exception of a few websites when I create an account I use dumby info. For buying stuff, I mostly shop at brick and morter stores and pay with cash as much as I can. Public CCTVs and cameras I oppose.
FalconThe problem isn't in the potential, it's in the will and ability to execute. NIMBY is really hurting a lot of these alternative energy projects.
I totally agree. People who deny alternative energy sources can power the world either don't know the facts or have an agenda to keep the knowledge from getting out.
FalconSpeak to a solar installer who has experience with battery backed systems and you will be told not to discharge below 50%
What I've heard is that battery banks should be oversized by 20%. An "extra" couple of batteries won't add much to the cost of a system.
Someone who lives off-grid and ignores their battery bank is in big trouble.
I agree, that's why most people should inter tie into the power system and not use batteries, it's also why most shouldn't use a composting toilet.
you might want to pick up a copy of HomePower magazine
Oh, I read "Homepower" along with "Backwoods Home", "Solar Today", and others.
FalconAnd your solution for the second child being of the same gender as the first would have been? Forced abortion?
No, in vitro fertilization. Actually I in no way support any sort of laws controlling what people do as long as they aren't harming anyone. To control population growth, start by making sure equal rights are respected. Allow women to get an education and employment in the workforce. Also improve people's economics.
FalconSo after the first child, you keep killing until you have the other gender?
Could be, but that could be a lot of murder.
FalconI think 600 million more indians in the next 45 years is definitely a significant increase in the population
I don't know where you get 600 million, the page you provided a link to says: "According to the most recent (medium variant) UN population projection India's population will increase by an additional 401 million between 1995 and 2025." The only place it mentions 45 years is where it says "On a country-by-country basis it was mainly the oil exporting nations of Western Asia that had the highest population growth rates over the past 45 years." Those 45 years are in the past. Now if you say 45 year from now, that would be in the year 2052, and I can't find 2052 anywhere on the page. It does say however that Africa will add 1.3 billion people, and that's despite the spread of AIDS.
Falcon