i've already patently breathing and blinking. likewise, i'm charging an even more than reasonable $0.0001 per use or:
$1 per person for a yearly basic license
$5 per person for the yearly premium package
$10 per person for the yearly ultimate package
$1000 per person for the lifetime uber-ultimate package
no, patenting something that's trivial because it's part of the language should be banned.
patently software because you've come up with a novel algorithm that's faster than anyone else's due to a neat trick or technique you've come up with shouldn't.
i remember that in some of my engineering courses, we studied numerical methods and algorithms to solve what would normally be reserved for humans to solve analytically. These courses were hard because it required that someone figure out a way or technique for a computer to solve something abstract quickly. Things like this should be fully patentable, because someone had put in the work to solve something.
patenting dumb things like this should be grounds for immediate sterilization.
your statement is contradictory or very encouraging depending on how you see it....
If you're 20% of all music sales and only.001% of all music downloads total, that means that you can potentially, just by capturing 1% of all downloads, increase your sales by 10,000%!
that's one way of interpreting the numbers. another way of interpreting it is that you have no idea what you're talking about.
in what world do you live in where having 20% of music SALES constitute a failure? Walmart, the #1 music retailer has about 19% of all music sales.
And if you count recent stories being accurate, then Apple would be the new #1 seller of ALL music, having recently surpassed Walmart.
so please, how can you doubt the success of itunes?
actually, and sadly, i think that these changes in attitude have more to do with:
1) people starting to successfully counter RIAA litigation
2) the success of music stores like itunes and amazon
thank it has to do with them deciding anything or reading any of the writing on the proverbial walls.
But you know... business models are just like a science (to use a science analogy) in that ideas and hypothesis need to be proven beyond a doubt to be true before it's accepted as a viable business model/theory. and even then, those business practices are thoroughly dissected and analyzed before mass adoption. in this case, the issue of using or not using DRM needed to be put thru it's paces at the most conservative level.
and while you claim to be able to have told them that for a $20k fee, i think you would've been grossly short changing yourself because you would be doing a ton of work to prove what you're saying... something a large industry would happily pay millions for if the data and conclusions are incontrovertible.
and the complete absence of DRM is just as bad as high levels of DRM. We all lock our doors at night, not because it'll prevent all robbery, but it prevent opportunistic theft. and that's how DRM should be used. Just a sprinkle of it - enough to discourage a person from casually pirating music... but for those who really want to, no level of DRM will be enough. maybe just a digital watermark to identify the person the music was originally sold to at most.
i think that the digital signatures are going to be apple's way to prevent mass and free distribution w/o apple's blessing. i can also imagine that using apps not downloaded from the app store will void your waranty
i see a loophole where one company will act as a distributor, fronting all the App Store fees, and only asking for 1% of revenues... a boon for the little guys, pointless for anybody else
that's not gonna last very long. the touch feature might be what'll help the iphone take off in japan... u can snap a photo of a person of interest.... and then the program will allow u to virtually "touch" them...
that's completely false. read over any of the blogs and you'll see that you can make live updates to your iPhone through XCode to test out your apps.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080306-live-coverage-of-the-iphone-software-roadmap-announcement.html
snippet: -Can connect to iPhone like the remote debugger and see live performance of your app on your Mac from the iPhone
-Remote debugger--plug in your iPhone, run it on the iPhone live, but debug from the Mac
there will always be a group of people who will refuse to pay for anything. these people are the ones offering it all up on pirate bay. but as everyone knows, u can't threaten, coerce, or beat a dime out of a crack addict... but he'll kindly take anything of value off your hands.
if you enable disk mode on your iPod (in the preferences), then plug in your ipod, you can copy all the mp3's you want onto it, and it'll play them just fine. i've done it with my 3rd gen ipod.
The question in law is how is Apple controlling the hardware and the content different from say Standard Oil controlling the product and the distribution system (i.e. the railroad).
the difference is that apple makes the hardware (with the software is there to add value and incentive for buying the hardware) while with Microsoft, who made just the operating system, and then used the popularity and dominance of their operating system to stifle the adoption of competing software products. Standard Oil, similarly, bought the railroads in order to muscle out competitors.
Suing Apple for not including WMA drm and not allowing clone itunes stores is like suing sprint for not allowing people to buy ringtones for their sprint phones through the tmobile store.
i've always wondered why the artists don't just get up and leave... but then after doing some googling, and reading of the standard contracts most artists sign, it seems like the reason they aren't leaving is simply because they can't.
The labels basically own all rights to the artist's music, name, likeness, etc... they basically own everything about the artist short of their soul, and are free to exploit it as they see fit.
and things don't stop there... if the artist chooses to leave, then all their works stay with and belong to the label for a period of effectively forever. And you will not receive royalties either, letting the label keep every penny.
So if artists leave, they'll be screwed. If artists stay, they'll continue to be screwed, just not as badly. And there's nothing an artist can do about it, because once signed, nothing short of the top 1% of artists can negotiate out of it.
Wal-Mart initially offered films from $12.88 to $19.88 and individual TV episodes for $1.96 -- 4 cents less than the iTunes store. Wal-Mart's online store sold older titles starting at $7.50, compared with the $9.99 charged by iTunes.
Many studios have resisted signing deals with iTunes in part because of Apple's desire to sell movies at one price. Studios prefer variable pricing such as Wal-Mart offered.
what's to note here is that films were offered between $13 and $20 a pop, with older titles at $7.50. When will it occur to studios, in regards to how variable pricing won't work, that if there is no demand for an "older title," then there will be no purchases, even if you sold them at a buck a pop.
the ones that are in demand, that people want to buy, are being sold at or above the price of a regular dvd! sounds more like the studios are trying to make a download service fail.
you know, all this cost is only for movie studios and publishers who wish to keep their stranglehold on these movies. Yes, they're old, and they require money to keep them up and preserved... so that they may rerelease or resell them in the future. An obvious solution would be to release these old films into the public domain... then i'm sure any number of operations or groups would be more than happy to spend the money maintaining these films.
there are many reasons why a country wouldn't want float their currency, or to have peg their currency to another country's currency. you can read a brief on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_rate
the US dollar, for example, used to be pegged to the real world value of 471.25 grains of troy silver... then to 23.2 grains of gold, etc etc... it's gone back and forth for various reasons over the years.
all in all, what's real is that the wealth of any country is different from that of it's neighbors and their peers. And the value of a country's money is, generally speaking, a reflection of the strength of their economy, the country's buying power, and that country's worth as it related to money relative to the rest of the world. And every country have very different economies and very different basis for their economies - be it tourism, farming, high tech, services, etc.
so in essence, why would the EU want the value of their euro to fall because india is doing badly? and why would india want to suddenly improverish half their middle class simple because Russia has a banner year?
Slashdot Mirror
i've already patently breathing and blinking. likewise, i'm charging an even more than reasonable $0.0001 per use or: $1 per person for a yearly basic license $5 per person for the yearly premium package $10 per person for the yearly ultimate package $1000 per person for the lifetime uber-ultimate package
no, patenting something that's trivial because it's part of the language should be banned.
patently software because you've come up with a novel algorithm that's faster than anyone else's due to a neat trick or technique you've come up with shouldn't.
i remember that in some of my engineering courses, we studied numerical methods and algorithms to solve what would normally be reserved for humans to solve analytically. These courses were hard because it required that someone figure out a way or technique for a computer to solve something abstract quickly. Things like this should be fully patentable, because someone had put in the work to solve something.
patenting dumb things like this should be grounds for immediate sterilization.
you mean x86 Intelligent Design is Still Driving the Revolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact.
i would then say that the RIAA's losses would be $0.00. Those same people who downloaded that music never would've bought to begin with.
oops, 1 too many zero's... i mean 1000%
your statement is contradictory or very encouraging depending on how you see it....
.001% of all music downloads total, that means that you can potentially, just by capturing 1% of all downloads, increase your sales by 10,000%!
If you're 20% of all music sales and only
that's one way of interpreting the numbers. another way of interpreting it is that you have no idea what you're talking about.
in what world do you live in where having 20% of music SALES constitute a failure? Walmart, the #1 music retailer has about 19% of all music sales.
And if you count recent stories being accurate, then Apple would be the new #1 seller of ALL music, having recently surpassed Walmart.
so please, how can you doubt the success of itunes?
actually, and sadly, i think that these changes in attitude have more to do with: 1) people starting to successfully counter RIAA litigation 2) the success of music stores like itunes and amazon thank it has to do with them deciding anything or reading any of the writing on the proverbial walls.
just a million monkeys tapping away at a million typewriters...
sounds like one of the windows server marketing managers got "promoted" to the desktop windows group
are we going to need hardware usb dongles like is needed with CAD software in order to control what features are turned on or off?
But you know... business models are just like a science (to use a science analogy) in that ideas and hypothesis need to be proven beyond a doubt to be true before it's accepted as a viable business model/theory. and even then, those business practices are thoroughly dissected and analyzed before mass adoption. in this case, the issue of using or not using DRM needed to be put thru it's paces at the most conservative level.
and while you claim to be able to have told them that for a $20k fee, i think you would've been grossly short changing yourself because you would be doing a ton of work to prove what you're saying... something a large industry would happily pay millions for if the data and conclusions are incontrovertible.
and the complete absence of DRM is just as bad as high levels of DRM. We all lock our doors at night, not because it'll prevent all robbery, but it prevent opportunistic theft. and that's how DRM should be used. Just a sprinkle of it - enough to discourage a person from casually pirating music... but for those who really want to, no level of DRM will be enough. maybe just a digital watermark to identify the person the music was originally sold to at most.
i think that the digital signatures are going to be apple's way to prevent mass and free distribution w/o apple's blessing. i can also imagine that using apps not downloaded from the app store will void your waranty
i see a loophole where one company will act as a distributor, fronting all the App Store fees, and only asking for 1% of revenues... a boon for the little guys, pointless for anybody else
that's not gonna last very long. the touch feature might be what'll help the iphone take off in japan... u can snap a photo of a person of interest.... and then the program will allow u to virtually "touch" them...
that's completely false. read over any of the blogs and you'll see that you can make live updates to your iPhone through XCode to test out your apps. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080306-live-coverage-of-the-iphone-software-roadmap-announcement.html snippet: -Can connect to iPhone like the remote debugger and see live performance of your app on your Mac from the iPhone -Remote debugger--plug in your iPhone, run it on the iPhone live, but debug from the Mac
there will always be a group of people who will refuse to pay for anything. these people are the ones offering it all up on pirate bay. but as everyone knows, u can't threaten, coerce, or beat a dime out of a crack addict... but he'll kindly take anything of value off your hands.
awesome comment. kinda invalidates a lot of the lawsuite's claims
if you enable disk mode on your iPod (in the preferences), then plug in your ipod, you can copy all the mp3's you want onto it, and it'll play them just fine. i've done it with my 3rd gen ipod.
The question in law is how is Apple controlling the hardware and the content different from say Standard Oil controlling the product and the distribution system (i.e. the railroad).
the difference is that apple makes the hardware (with the software is there to add value and incentive for buying the hardware) while with Microsoft, who made just the operating system, and then used the popularity and dominance of their operating system to stifle the adoption of competing software products. Standard Oil, similarly, bought the railroads in order to muscle out competitors.
Suing Apple for not including WMA drm and not allowing clone itunes stores is like suing sprint for not allowing people to buy ringtones for their sprint phones through the tmobile store.
22 million a year or 22 million total since first release?
i've always wondered why the artists don't just get up and leave... but then after doing some googling, and reading of the standard contracts most artists sign, it seems like the reason they aren't leaving is simply because they can't.
http://www.futureofmusic.org/contractcrit.cfm
The labels basically own all rights to the artist's music, name, likeness, etc... they basically own everything about the artist short of their soul, and are free to exploit it as they see fit.
and things don't stop there... if the artist chooses to leave, then all their works stay with and belong to the label for a period of effectively forever. And you will not receive royalties either, letting the label keep every penny.
So if artists leave, they'll be screwed. If artists stay, they'll continue to be screwed, just not as badly. And there's nothing an artist can do about it, because once signed, nothing short of the top 1% of artists can negotiate out of it.
Wal-Mart initially offered films from $12.88 to $19.88 and individual TV episodes for $1.96 -- 4 cents less than the iTunes store. Wal-Mart's online store sold older titles starting at $7.50, compared with the $9.99 charged by iTunes.
Many studios have resisted signing deals with iTunes in part because of Apple's desire to sell movies at one price. Studios prefer variable pricing such as Wal-Mart offered.
what's to note here is that films were offered between $13 and $20 a pop, with older titles at $7.50. When will it occur to studios, in regards to how variable pricing won't work, that if there is no demand for an "older title," then there will be no purchases, even if you sold them at a buck a pop.
the ones that are in demand, that people want to buy, are being sold at or above the price of a regular dvd! sounds more like the studios are trying to make a download service fail.
that would not only be awesome, but also the way things should be.
you know, all this cost is only for movie studios and publishers who wish to keep their stranglehold on these movies. Yes, they're old, and they require money to keep them up and preserved... so that they may rerelease or resell them in the future. An obvious solution would be to release these old films into the public domain... then i'm sure any number of operations or groups would be more than happy to spend the money maintaining these films.
there are many reasons why a country wouldn't want float their currency, or to have peg their currency to another country's currency. you can read a brief on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_rate
the US dollar, for example, used to be pegged to the real world value of 471.25 grains of troy silver... then to 23.2 grains of gold, etc etc... it's gone back and forth for various reasons over the years.
all in all, what's real is that the wealth of any country is different from that of it's neighbors and their peers. And the value of a country's money is, generally speaking, a reflection of the strength of their economy, the country's buying power, and that country's worth as it related to money relative to the rest of the world. And every country have very different economies and very different basis for their economies - be it tourism, farming, high tech, services, etc.
so in essence, why would the EU want the value of their euro to fall because india is doing badly? and why would india want to suddenly improverish half their middle class simple because Russia has a banner year?