Something to think about: Do you which people made a profit durring the gold rush? It was stores selling the equipment. Very little actually turned out a profit digging for gold.
Actually, it was more than that. The brothels, the stables, restaurants, saloons, casinos all made money during the gold rush. Probably the LEAST amount of money was made by anyone finding gold. IT industry is similar. I don't think we would be where we are now without the dotcom boom. Not many dotcom companies made money during the rush, but these days everyone from Apple to Skype are benefiting from the things that went on.
Most people want to curl up with a good book and read in comfort, lying in bed, on their couch, in their recliner (cracking fire and comfortable cup of tea/coffee/hot chocolate optional). A few folks don't mind sitting in front of a computer to read, but the rest of us like good old fashioned, physical books in our hands, and what Google is doing is not only NOT a threat to the sale of traditional bound books, it is a boon.
Interesting, that's a similar argument that used to be used about mp3 files. People would rather listen to a high quality CD than compressed mp3s. Then Apple came out with the iPod and the AAC format. So basically what you are saying is traditional book is fine until Apple hits the market with the iPod Reader and iBooks, which we will be able to take to the bed/couch/recliner/fireplace.
Once people are listening to the music they like, they don't think about RIAA or BMG for that matter.
That's why the RIAA exists, to protect the interests of the studios while minimizing negative PR for individual companies in the recording industry. If one individual company, say Sony, started throwing around lawsuits it would be easy for consumers to stop buying their products. With the RIAA it's difficult to know where individual studios, publishers, distributors or artists stand on the issue. Most people don't want to boycott music altogether, so the RIAA can act without hurting it's market much.
But in reality, I am seeing a lot of artists supporting RIAA and co. To name a few - Metallica, Eminem etc.
A lot of artists? You named two, and neither are what I would call typical artists. Metallica has sold out and is over the hill. Most old school Metallica fans I know either have grown up or think all of their new stuff sucks. Their career has peaked and they have much more to gain by supporting the RIAA than by pissing off their fans. Eminem is similar. He's at the point where he can put out any crap and people will buy it, kinda like U2, plus there's rumours he's going to retire. Again, he has nothing to lose from denouncing file sharing and everything to gain.
It's interesting to me that there are only a few artists that have actively come out in support of the RIAA's position out of thousands of musicians. I don't think the quiet ones are guilty, I think they are just smart enough to not get involved. They don't want to alienate their fans, but they want to keep a good relationship with their studios. It's actually somewhat unfortunate. It would be interesting to know what most artists honestly think about file trading, but as long as the RIAA and the studios are involved I don't think we will get an honest answer from anyone.
Erm, on the other side of the equation, think of all the accidents where someone goes through a windshield
You bring up a good point. Any accident with enough force to throw someone through a windshield generally results in serious injuries. There are rare occasions when occupants are thrown from the car and clear of additional danger, but often if you hit that hard you are screwed no matter what.
Expect to see this to enter the consumer market for things like - IPod nano screens, watch faces, scratch reistant coverings on eyeglasses,etc.
If I read TFA correctly, I would expect to see many more applications than this. One application I would expect to see, as soon as the price drops, is automotive glass. Traditional 'bulletproof' glass has little value in a consumer vehicle, but this material is allegedly lighter, stronger and more scratch resistant (and I would assume chip resistant) than glass. Glass makes up a significant portion of the weight in an automobile. A lighter alternative would decrease the weight and potentially increase fuel efficiency. On top of that durability and safety factors would probably also help adoption of this technology into the automotive industry. The only problem I see is that traditional glass manufacturers will cry foul.
A vast majority of what I see on webpages could be just as effective with simple HTML rather than the mess of flash/java/shockwave, etc... that is needlessly being thrown around these days.
You hit the nail on the head. There are so many sites out there using flash just because it's cute, when it doesn't offer any real value to the site. I like flash when it's well done and it definitely has it's place, but why do a whole site in it just so your menus can fade in and out. A flash site hurts your search engine rankings, locks out users that don't happen to have the right version of flash installed and eliminates low bandwidth users. Why even use it unless you have a killer design that needs flash to look good?
The reason/. community condemns spyware is because it is hidden, you do not have the choice about running it, as it is hidden away in an EULA that no-one reads, and installs the code that performs the spying without informing the end user.
Hmm... I disagree. I think the majority here at slashdot condemns spyware for the same reason they condemn spam, it's annoying. Spyware is a real pain to deal with. Lots of things are hidden for one reason or another, you rarely find anyone up in arms about DLLs a Microsoft product installs without telling you, or librarys a particular RedHat package updates without a big sign informing you of the installation.
Bottom line, freedom is freedom. If we stand by and let the judicial system regulate this aspect of the Internet soon they will be attempting to regulate everything. Porn sites, gambling, news sites, auctions, whatever...
I think you answered your own question. Just like anything else in life, if you go off blundering into unknown territory you might run across something unexpected. If you are going to forge into the wild you should be prepared, in this case with the appropriate AV software, anti-spyware, latest patches, alternative browsers, etc... Obviously there are sites that are relatively trustworthy, ebay, microsoft, slashdot... Anyone that ventures away from an established, responsible corporate or government site should be prepared to encounter spyware.
Poking our head in the sand by legislating this isn't going to help. There will always be people out there willing to take a chance to make money or cause mischief, even against legal grounds. The only real solution is to empower the end user.
I mean why are we starting to accuse P2P designers of enabling piracy, yet it's just hunky dory to design a program to gather information as long as it doesn't spread from computer to computer without a hidden legal agreement?
OTOH, why is the slashdot community constantly defending freedom when it comes to P2P networks, but the first on the bandwagon to condemn spyware. Should we support laws that interfere with the natural evolution of the Internet just because we disagree with the applications that are being distributed? Let's work to keep the Internet as unregulated as possible and find alternative solutions to problems like spyware and viruses.
I'm serious there has to be a point where this is filtered.
I wish you weren't. If you want to live in a communist dictatorship please move to China - don't make the U.S. one. Living in the 'land of the free' comes with some responsibilities. If you want the content filtered, filter it where the Internet comes in to your house, don't infringe on other's rights to download and view whatever they want to. Problem with a 'whole new slew of laws' is that the only way to enforce them results on infringments on individuals rights.
We would all be better off if people would start taking responsibility for their actions. I absolutely detest spyware and what it does to people's computers, but it is the individual's responsibility to take steps to ensure they don't infect their machines.
But how much spyware is installed by the user unknowingly, via misleading dialog boxes or other methods in which the user is fooled into installing it?
Exactly, where will this end. If spyware is trespass how about all the advertisements or demo software that is routinely installed with commercial applications.
From TFA the defendants caused spyware to be downloaded onto his computer.
It would be interesting to know how exactly the defendants 'caused spyware to be downloaded'. Looks to me like the plaintiff was visiting sites that had spyware attached to them, he shouldn't have visited these sites if he didn't want spyware installed. That's what I do. It's like he had a party and his guests brought some friends. Now he wants to charge his guest's friends with tresspassing. Would make more sense to be careful who you invited to start with.
Exactly, GPS was started by the military, with good reason. I can't imagine the military would let the network fail, unless of course they have an alternative in place.
It is a ripoff. I'm sure it will make money for the next few months just because it's new technology. After that I can't imagine people spending money for the popular network shows that they can just record on the PVR, download off BT or wait for the DVD if they don't catch them the first time around.
Where this looks exciting to me is the area of indie filmmakers. Unlike movies, an excellent TV show can be made without extreme amounts of special effects or popluar actors. I hope the videocasting grows like the podcasting has and we start to see independantly produced weekly 'TV Shows'.
I think this is a good idea. These individuals are running an auctioning business by taking peoples items for consignment. As long as it does not spread to those just selling their own private goods, this seems like an incredibly good idea.
First, these individuals are not running an auctioning business, they are running an ebay consulting business. Where I live, there is no license requirement to have your own business. If I am running a service/consulting type business and not reselling anything, I don't need any license at all. I can do business as a sole proprieter under my name, there is no need for a sales tax license or anything.
Don't kid yourself. This is just another venue for greedy state governments to get their fingers into the pockets of honest entrepenuers and squash small business. These laws will probably pass just because their aren't any ebay resellers with enough money to lobby the state legislatures. It's a sad thing when our governments only listen to big businesses, but crush small businesses as soon as they become economically viable.
Good point. I think too many of us are naieve to the propaganda a government can put out. This could very well be an attempt to slow growing internet use or at least make tech geeks that spend hours on the net reading western news stories and subversive content look bad.
The glorious vision of pay-per-play on the internet is about to come, and you fools are ushering it in with open arms.
I seriously doubt it. Micropayments may catch on for sites like WSJ or other premium content sites, but most people aren't going to pay for the majority of crap we see on the net. If it ever becomes a reality there will be a huge rush for every blogger and cheesy pron site out there to implement micropayments. Most people won't be willing to pay anything for the pathetic content and the sites will have to remove their micropayments or sacrifice the traffic.
This is even true for your gaming example. The more popular a game is the more they can charge. Games that are sucky or obscure can't charge as much as the hot game of the month. I actually don't see micropayments working at all. Most people bounce around the net, if I constantly have to be watching to see what site is charging my micropayments, watch how much I'm spending and re-enter my payment information for every site I want to look at, I'll go back to watching TV.
Don't get me wrong, Microsoft always plays both sides of the fence. They defend their trademarks, patents and copyrights because they can, but I'm guessing they would be the first to start buying up names like gogle.com and redirect to MSN if they weren't going to get caught.
For all intents and purposes, satellite radio is capable of sending out lossless audio data, if they so desired, whereas with FM radio there's not a whole lot that can be done toward that end.
Not exactly. Both are an issue of cost. The satellite companies are restricted by bandwidth issues, it's not economically viable for a satellite radio provider to stream lossless audio data. At the same time FM radio stations are limited by FCC licensing, transmitter strength, etc... Again, it's not economically viable for most FM stations to broadcast at the strength required to provide lossless or nearly lossless transmissions. Both technologies could be used to provide higher quality broadcasts than they do, but it wouldn't make financial sense.
Furthermore, satellite radio cannot be considered a "public service", as someone else claimed, because you have to pay to hear it. And so it doesn't fall under the same rules as AM/FM radio.
AM/FM radio are licensed as 'performances'. Most times when a band conducts a real live performance it's not free. A satellite is no different, customers are paying to listen to the performance. AM/FM radio is a free performance in the park, satellite radio is at Radio City Music Hall (or Red Rocks or your local State Fair). Both are still a performance.
However, I think they do have a right to request a certain amount of compensation for the satellite stations out there that really are streaming content of a reasonable fidelity.
Any broadcaster has to pay royalties to ASCAP/BMI which go to the artists. Why should the RIAA get a licensing fee as well. Why should the satellite providers have to pay twice?
Even if the 'The big IF' situation you described (a little upstart having something Microsoft wants) comes true, then what will Billy do? Buy them. Microsoft has built an empire buying the technology they need to make them money.
That's not exactly true. Microsoft has bought many companies over the years for their technology, but there are plenty that they just 'borrowed' the technology from. Apple is one example, they didn't buy Apple out so they could make Windows. Microsoft has bought what's been available and reasonable. Many other things have been copied from other successful manufacturers.
More than any other corporation their size, Microsoft should be anti-patent. There are many patent cases where Microsoft is the one getting sued. Probably more cases like that than there are where Microsoft is defending their patents. Either way the litigation costs are outrageous. Microsoft is a marketing machine, if there were no patents I assure you they would go out, steal the best technology and market the crap out of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Something to think about: Do you which people made a profit durring the gold rush? It was stores selling the equipment. Very little actually turned out a profit digging for gold.
Actually, it was more than that. The brothels, the stables, restaurants, saloons, casinos all made money during the gold rush. Probably the LEAST amount of money was made by anyone finding gold. IT industry is similar. I don't think we would be where we are now without the dotcom boom. Not many dotcom companies made money during the rush, but these days everyone from Apple to Skype are benefiting from the things that went on.
Most people want to curl up with a good book and read in comfort, lying in bed, on their couch, in their recliner (cracking fire and comfortable cup of tea/coffee/hot chocolate optional). A few folks don't mind sitting in front of a computer to read, but the rest of us like good old fashioned, physical books in our hands, and what Google is doing is not only NOT a threat to the sale of traditional bound books, it is a boon.
Interesting, that's a similar argument that used to be used about mp3 files. People would rather listen to a high quality CD than compressed mp3s. Then Apple came out with the iPod and the AAC format. So basically what you are saying is traditional book is fine until Apple hits the market with the iPod Reader and iBooks, which we will be able to take to the bed/couch/recliner/fireplace.
Once people are listening to the music they like, they don't think about RIAA or BMG for that matter.
That's why the RIAA exists, to protect the interests of the studios while minimizing negative PR for individual companies in the recording industry. If one individual company, say Sony, started throwing around lawsuits it would be easy for consumers to stop buying their products. With the RIAA it's difficult to know where individual studios, publishers, distributors or artists stand on the issue. Most people don't want to boycott music altogether, so the RIAA can act without hurting it's market much.
But in reality, I am seeing a lot of artists supporting RIAA and co. To name a few - Metallica, Eminem etc.
A lot of artists? You named two, and neither are what I would call typical artists. Metallica has sold out and is over the hill. Most old school Metallica fans I know either have grown up or think all of their new stuff sucks. Their career has peaked and they have much more to gain by supporting the RIAA than by pissing off their fans. Eminem is similar. He's at the point where he can put out any crap and people will buy it, kinda like U2, plus there's rumours he's going to retire. Again, he has nothing to lose from denouncing file sharing and everything to gain.
It's interesting to me that there are only a few artists that have actively come out in support of the RIAA's position out of thousands of musicians. I don't think the quiet ones are guilty, I think they are just smart enough to not get involved. They don't want to alienate their fans, but they want to keep a good relationship with their studios. It's actually somewhat unfortunate. It would be interesting to know what most artists honestly think about file trading, but as long as the RIAA and the studios are involved I don't think we will get an honest answer from anyone.
it doesn't seem like something you should always rely on, what about storms?
Storms? What about explosions??? Did these people never hear of the Hindenburg?
Erm, on the other side of the equation, think of all the accidents where someone goes through a windshield
You bring up a good point. Any accident with enough force to throw someone through a windshield generally results in serious injuries. There are rare occasions when occupants are thrown from the car and clear of additional danger, but often if you hit that hard you are screwed no matter what.
Expect to see this to enter the consumer market for things like - IPod nano screens, watch faces, scratch reistant coverings on eyeglasses,etc.
If I read TFA correctly, I would expect to see many more applications than this. One application I would expect to see, as soon as the price drops, is automotive glass. Traditional 'bulletproof' glass has little value in a consumer vehicle, but this material is allegedly lighter, stronger and more scratch resistant (and I would assume chip resistant) than glass. Glass makes up a significant portion of the weight in an automobile. A lighter alternative would decrease the weight and potentially increase fuel efficiency. On top of that durability and safety factors would probably also help adoption of this technology into the automotive industry. The only problem I see is that traditional glass manufacturers will cry foul.
A vast majority of what I see on webpages could be just as effective with simple HTML rather than the mess of flash/java/shockwave, etc... that is needlessly being thrown around these days.
You hit the nail on the head. There are so many sites out there using flash just because it's cute, when it doesn't offer any real value to the site. I like flash when it's well done and it definitely has it's place, but why do a whole site in it just so your menus can fade in and out. A flash site hurts your search engine rankings, locks out users that don't happen to have the right version of flash installed and eliminates low bandwidth users. Why even use it unless you have a killer design that needs flash to look good?
but last I checked, space wasn't about anything, really.
Exactly, space is... well... space. There's a reason they call it that, because it's a whole lot of nothing.
The cuts reflect the tremendous cost of warmongering around the world...
If they would just start making bombs, maybe they could get some funding.
The reason /. community condemns spyware is because it is hidden, you do not have the choice about running it, as it is hidden away in an EULA that no-one reads, and installs the code that performs the spying without informing the end user.
Hmm... I disagree. I think the majority here at slashdot condemns spyware for the same reason they condemn spam, it's annoying. Spyware is a real pain to deal with. Lots of things are hidden for one reason or another, you rarely find anyone up in arms about DLLs a Microsoft product installs without telling you, or librarys a particular RedHat package updates without a big sign informing you of the installation.
Bottom line, freedom is freedom. If we stand by and let the judicial system regulate this aspect of the Internet soon they will be attempting to regulate everything. Porn sites, gambling, news sites, auctions, whatever...
I think you answered your own question. Just like anything else in life, if you go off blundering into unknown territory you might run across something unexpected. If you are going to forge into the wild you should be prepared, in this case with the appropriate AV software, anti-spyware, latest patches, alternative browsers, etc... Obviously there are sites that are relatively trustworthy, ebay, microsoft, slashdot... Anyone that ventures away from an established, responsible corporate or government site should be prepared to encounter spyware.
Poking our head in the sand by legislating this isn't going to help. There will always be people out there willing to take a chance to make money or cause mischief, even against legal grounds. The only real solution is to empower the end user.
it wouldn't be legal for them to take your checkbook and ID with them.
Aahh, but wouldn't this be theft and not trespass?
I mean why are we starting to accuse P2P designers of enabling piracy, yet it's just hunky dory to design a program to gather information as long as it doesn't spread from computer to computer without a hidden legal agreement?
OTOH, why is the slashdot community constantly defending freedom when it comes to P2P networks, but the first on the bandwagon to condemn spyware. Should we support laws that interfere with the natural evolution of the Internet just because we disagree with the applications that are being distributed? Let's work to keep the Internet as unregulated as possible and find alternative solutions to problems like spyware and viruses.
I'm serious there has to be a point where this is filtered.
I wish you weren't. If you want to live in a communist dictatorship please move to China - don't make the U.S. one. Living in the 'land of the free' comes with some responsibilities. If you want the content filtered, filter it where the Internet comes in to your house, don't infringe on other's rights to download and view whatever they want to. Problem with a 'whole new slew of laws' is that the only way to enforce them results on infringments on individuals rights.
We would all be better off if people would start taking responsibility for their actions. I absolutely detest spyware and what it does to people's computers, but it is the individual's responsibility to take steps to ensure they don't infect their machines.
But how much spyware is installed by the user unknowingly, via misleading dialog boxes or other methods in which the user is fooled into installing it?
Exactly, where will this end. If spyware is trespass how about all the advertisements or demo software that is routinely installed with commercial applications.
From TFA the defendants caused spyware to be downloaded onto his computer.
It would be interesting to know how exactly the defendants 'caused spyware to be downloaded'. Looks to me like the plaintiff was visiting sites that had spyware attached to them, he shouldn't have visited these sites if he didn't want spyware installed. That's what I do. It's like he had a party and his guests brought some friends. Now he wants to charge his guest's friends with tresspassing. Would make more sense to be careful who you invited to start with.
Exactly, GPS was started by the military, with good reason. I can't imagine the military would let the network fail, unless of course they have an alternative in place.
It is a ripoff. I'm sure it will make money for the next few months just because it's new technology. After that I can't imagine people spending money for the popular network shows that they can just record on the PVR, download off BT or wait for the DVD if they don't catch them the first time around.
Where this looks exciting to me is the area of indie filmmakers. Unlike movies, an excellent TV show can be made without extreme amounts of special effects or popluar actors. I hope the videocasting grows like the podcasting has and we start to see independantly produced weekly 'TV Shows'.
I think this is a good idea. These individuals are running an auctioning business by taking peoples items for consignment. As long as it does not spread to those just selling their own private goods, this seems like an incredibly good idea.
First, these individuals are not running an auctioning business, they are running an ebay consulting business. Where I live, there is no license requirement to have your own business. If I am running a service/consulting type business and not reselling anything, I don't need any license at all. I can do business as a sole proprieter under my name, there is no need for a sales tax license or anything.
Don't kid yourself. This is just another venue for greedy state governments to get their fingers into the pockets of honest entrepenuers and squash small business. These laws will probably pass just because their aren't any ebay resellers with enough money to lobby the state legislatures. It's a sad thing when our governments only listen to big businesses, but crush small businesses as soon as they become economically viable.
If anything these laws are made to appease the religious right.
Yeah, because Tipper Gore and Hillary Clinton are two people that really come across as wanting to appease the religious right.
Good point. I think too many of us are naieve to the propaganda a government can put out. This could very well be an attempt to slow growing internet use or at least make tech geeks that spend hours on the net reading western news stories and subversive content look bad.
The glorious vision of pay-per-play on the internet is about to come, and you fools are ushering it in with open arms.
I seriously doubt it. Micropayments may catch on for sites like WSJ or other premium content sites, but most people aren't going to pay for the majority of crap we see on the net. If it ever becomes a reality there will be a huge rush for every blogger and cheesy pron site out there to implement micropayments. Most people won't be willing to pay anything for the pathetic content and the sites will have to remove their micropayments or sacrifice the traffic.
This is even true for your gaming example. The more popular a game is the more they can charge. Games that are sucky or obscure can't charge as much as the hot game of the month. I actually don't see micropayments working at all. Most people bounce around the net, if I constantly have to be watching to see what site is charging my micropayments, watch how much I'm spending and re-enter my payment information for every site I want to look at, I'll go back to watching TV.
Do you really believe that the "cost" of the DVD depends on things like DVD burning...
Yes, they could drop the price to $16.75 if they didn't have to create the DVDs and the cover art.
Don't get me wrong, Microsoft always plays both sides of the fence. They defend their trademarks, patents and copyrights because they can, but I'm guessing they would be the first to start buying up names like gogle.com and redirect to MSN if they weren't going to get caught.
For all intents and purposes, satellite radio is capable of sending out lossless audio data, if they so desired, whereas with FM radio there's not a whole lot that can be done toward that end.
Not exactly. Both are an issue of cost. The satellite companies are restricted by bandwidth issues, it's not economically viable for a satellite radio provider to stream lossless audio data. At the same time FM radio stations are limited by FCC licensing, transmitter strength, etc... Again, it's not economically viable for most FM stations to broadcast at the strength required to provide lossless or nearly lossless transmissions. Both technologies could be used to provide higher quality broadcasts than they do, but it wouldn't make financial sense.
Furthermore, satellite radio cannot be considered a "public service", as someone else claimed, because you have to pay to hear it. And so it doesn't fall under the same rules as AM/FM radio.
AM/FM radio are licensed as 'performances'. Most times when a band conducts a real live performance it's not free. A satellite is no different, customers are paying to listen to the performance. AM/FM radio is a free performance in the park, satellite radio is at Radio City Music Hall (or Red Rocks or your local State Fair). Both are still a performance.
However, I think they do have a right to request a certain amount of compensation for the satellite stations out there that really are streaming content of a reasonable fidelity.
Any broadcaster has to pay royalties to ASCAP/BMI which go to the artists. Why should the RIAA get a licensing fee as well. Why should the satellite providers have to pay twice?
Even if the 'The big IF' situation you described (a little upstart having something Microsoft wants) comes true, then what will Billy do? Buy them. Microsoft has built an empire buying the technology they need to make them money.
That's not exactly true. Microsoft has bought many companies over the years for their technology, but there are plenty that they just 'borrowed' the technology from. Apple is one example, they didn't buy Apple out so they could make Windows. Microsoft has bought what's been available and reasonable. Many other things have been copied from other successful manufacturers.
More than any other corporation their size, Microsoft should be anti-patent. There are many patent cases where Microsoft is the one getting sued. Probably more cases like that than there are where Microsoft is defending their patents. Either way the litigation costs are outrageous. Microsoft is a marketing machine, if there were no patents I assure you they would go out, steal the best technology and market the crap out of it.