And as I mention in that other topic, the article is utter bollocks. The original RIAA article says that CDs would cost $34 each due to inflation. The word "should" does not occur anywhere. If you don't know understand the difference between "would" and "should" then I can't help you.
FFS people, if your argument about the RIAA are going to be based on deliberate misinterpretation and strawmen, then how do you expect to be taken seriously?
I know of lots of websites that do something similar, but the important difference would be that;
- they only spoof your address, the email does not actually come from your email account
- they don't need your password
- you supply the addresses, they don't rifle your address book
Or so I thought, I'd never use such a thing. If the website was that good I'd tell my friends myself, not fire spam at them. Real friends don't spam you.
What's interesting is that apparently some people are supplying this information to Flixster without a second thought, and perhaps under the impression that they're actually submitting it to AOL/Yahoo/whatever.
So the next question would be; if they had a similar page with the Bank Of America/Barclays/whatever logo, would people be just as happy to give their details for them?
Either way, it's scary. Scary that Flixster thinks this is an acceptable way to market themselves, scary that people are letting them.
What possible interest do you think the music industry has in determining what kind of music you listen to? As long as you're buying it from them, why would they care? You could be listening to white noise and industrial hammers for all they care. If that's what you want to buy, that's what they'll sell you. If that's what's selling most, then of course they'll offer more of it.
I'm afraid you fallen for the slashdot conspiracy theorists, who seem to think that there's a universal definition of what's good music and that top selling music isn't it. Therefore there must be a conspiracy to keep the good music down, and the every popular scapegoat, the music industry, must be behind it.
The unpalatable fact is that top selling music is top selling because that's the music that the most people want. By its very nature it is "lowest common denominator". No conspiracy. If you don't like it, then don't listen to it.
Wonder how those lower CD prices square up with the constant wail from some slashdotter about how the big evil music companies keep putting prices up because they're clueless, and that makes file-sharing ok.
Oh yeah, they don't square up. Guess some people have been making stuff up they know nothing about in order to justify their own actions.
Why on earth do Peacocks have such rediculous plumage?
Never mind that. What the hell is it about the word "ridiculous" that a fair proportion of educated westerners can't spell it? I see it all the time here on slashdot.
I am probably much like most of the rest of you slashdotters
You appear to be extrapolating two tiny unrepresentative samples (yourself and "people you know") into a conclusion that encompasses all slashdotters and beyond that the whole of humanity.
In my book that doesn't make you smart at all. In fact it makes you pretty dumb and rather arrogant.
Does this tetris game really need low level access to the disk driver? And a network connection? etc. etc.
"I'm a clueless user. I don't know. What's low-level access? What's a disk driver? Network, well , I guess... Quit asking me all these questions! (Clicks Allow, Allow, Allow)"
My assertion is that by default the user should be allowed to install anything they want, but that all software should run in an ACL sandbox, by default, and should be restricted from certain behaviors by default and that the user should be prompted not when installing software, but when the software actually tries to do something most legitimate software does not need to do, and then they should be given well crafted dialogue boxes with unique actions for buttons to avoid conditioning.
This is a good idea, and not dissimilar to what I already do by running ZoneAlarm. Every application needs to request permission to connect to the internet, even after it has been given permission to install.
But the difference is that I know what I'm doing, and if I get a request from some obscure DLL I don't recognise, I go find out about it. I do not expect that of the average user. If this was implemented on most users machines they would simply get in the habit of clicking "Allow" in exactly the same way they do for installs. Except it would be three times as annoying, especially if you craft the dialog boxes to force them to read it every time.
And who decides what "most legitimate software does not need to do"? Who decides what's "legitimate software"? Sounds like you're asking Microsoft to make those calls for you.
There just isn't an easy answer here. Every method of security ultimately relies on someone making a decision at some point, and most users have barely enough knowledge to make that decision reliably. And makers of malware will do everything to exploit that weakness and mislead the user.
But to do this, the industry requires tight control over who listens to what. I'm not some sensationalist saying that they can determine who likes what. But through the use of DRM they can monitor and influence choices. I like emo/screamo. There are DOZENS of bands who play very good music of this genre. About 3 are on the radio. Why? Because it's more profitable to have 3 popular bands than 12 semi-popular bands.
Interesting theory. But I'm confused. Why is it more profitable to have 3 popular bands, rather than 12 semi-popular? Surely the profit on each CD (or whatever) sold is much the same regardless of the band name on the front? All that matters to a music company is that their percentage share of the market doesn't go down, and putting all your eggs into only 1 of 3 bands surely increases the risks. A 12 way market is much stabler, safer and increases profits long term. Lots of other industries do this; companies intentionally spread their range of goods with almost identical products, simply to even their risks and maintain market share.
I would suspect that this genre of music, like any genre of music, like all fields of art, is simply following the usual pattern. There is always a small sub-set, through blind luck/endurance, that are far more popular than other equally qualified and talented artists. It's this way because that's the way people like it. Unless you are a particular fan of a genre of music then usually you don't have the interest in knowing the output of 12 similar bands. 3 is plenty for you, and you know what you're going to get from those 3. Radio stations know this. The 3 everyone knows is a safest choice for maximum listeners, the other 9 is a bit of a risk.
So the reason you're only hearing 3 bands is because that's enough emo/screamo for most people. Why would they want more of the same from bands they've never heard of? They want a selection of 3 bands from another type of music. That's how the mainstream works.
There should be a new law. No-one is allowed to discuss evolution, in any way, ever, until they have the correct, scientific definition of the word "theory" beaten into them.
I would be interested in what you consider would protect the user. You have three options here.
1/ No-one decides what goes on your computer. It's an open free-for-all.
2/ Microsoft decides what goes on your computer. Corporate lock-down.
3/ You decide what goes on your computer. You're the boss.
We've already seen what happens with option 1. It's a security nightmare for everyone. I can imagine just how popular the second option there would be, people already have plenty to bitch about the controlling nature of Microsoft without adding to it.
So it's got to be option number 3. The only other thing Microsoft can do then is to warn the user what's happening to their computer, provide as much useful information as possible (in as much a user-friendly manner as possible) and then let the user decide.
Which is pretty much what is happening here. And still people complain.
TFA clearly says "free-to-air". That does not mean the programmes were never broadcast before that in Australia.
The chances are that they are available a lot sooner on subscriber satellite and cable channels. If these channels buy them first, they buy total rights to show them within Australia. The free-to-air channels then have to wait until the subscriber channel has finished before getting a shot at buying the rights.
If you want the free-to-air broadcasts to be sooner, the free-to-air channels have to outbid the subscriber channels and buy the rights first. Clearly in Australia this is not often possible.
What are we doing to stop this blatant restriction on teenagers' rights to have sweary words on their clothing, and to bitch about, well, just about everyone, and rebel against, erm, everything? One thing's for sure; they didn't ask to be born!
Because this is slashdot. If you don't have news one day about the two great evil satans Microsoft & RIAA, then you just make shit up so you can get 100 poster to vigorously agree with you and ignore TFA.
In other news, we're still waiting on that official list of certified supported Linux apps. Guess that means nothing works on it.
Yes. I read that essay at the time. Linux has come a small way since then, but the basic facts remain the same. Too much of Linux is written by Linux experts without the slightest clue or interest in either decent documentation or understanding the typical end user. You can criticize Windows a thousand justifiable ways, but at least it always tries to explain itself to the user and isn't above hand-holding. With Linux its more a case of; "Wow, read the GPL, this is free! We won't insult you by explaining anything. This is a GUI wrapper on gtvpc using the -vk parameter, and you know how to use that, right?"
for the simple reason that before stomping off to a manager, common decency says you (the co-worker) turn off the monitor for him and have a talk with him personally
The point is kind of that the co-worker shouldn't have to deal with this. Maybe the situation makes the co-worker extremely uncomfortable, so why is it their responsibility to "talk with him personally". Common decency says the guy shouldn't have been putting his co-workers in such an awkward situation.
The "draconian" part is the disproportionate punishments. And it's "insisting", not "asking".
Again, any punishment is a matter of the Russian legal system, it is not enforced by Microsoft.
And it's "insisting", not "asking".
OK, so what's wrong with insisting that people who use your software pay for it? Most companies in most industries have the same idea. They're most insistent that you pay them when you make use of their product or service, and they don't just ask nicely.
What's draconian about asking people who want to use your software that they pay for it?
They are the ones who "innovated" the idea that this was stealing and started this whole business of software not being owned and requiring a license instantly revocable without cause from the manufacturer
All very interesting, but totally irrelevant in this case. The software in question here was never 'owned', not was it 'revoked'. It was pirated, without payment. Clear and simple. The only question that seems to remain is who was responsible and how seriously it should be treated. Neither of these are matters for Microsoft to determine.
Specifically, in this case, cost to produce is zero.
Wrong. The cost to produce may be diminishing, but it is never zero. The music didn't spring out of nowhere.
In this environment, selling one album for $18 provides $11.70 profit, while three albums for $10 provides $19.50 profit.
I don't get your figures, but no matter. How do you know they will sell three albums? What if they only sell two at $10? The cost to produce is only one side of the supply-demand equation. You need to know the elasticity of the demand for the product, you need to know what the market will pay.
I've no idea if the music industry is maximizing its profits by its current pricing. I don't know the market and neither do you. But what I do know is that the industry it is not stupid and perfectly capable of looking after its own interests. If the music costs so much you can be pretty certain that it's because it's at a point on the supply & demand curve that maximizes its profits. Simplistic "dumb company, more product at lower price = more profit" arguments just show an total ignorance of the situation.
Music company: "Fine. Don't sell it. Get nothing. We can live without online sales. If you want a piece of the pie, you have to sell it with DRM. No negotiations. No exceptions. That's how it will be done. Take it or leave it."
Tech company: "Blah, Blah, Blah. Attempt at taking moral high ground because we Tech companies, unlike all others, are motivated not by money, but by a love of humankind and a wish to share the gift of music. Blah, Blah, Blah. Patronising attempt to explain to music company their own business as if we know it better. Blah, Blah, Blah."
Music company:"Yeah, whatever. You're still not selling our product. If you think you can do better, go on then."
Sure I know it is "haha" since Microsoft in the recieving end
Are they?
From what I've read Microsoft had nothing to do with it, and went as far as saying they had nothing to do with it and it was a matter for the Russian courts. Their involvement went as far as having an employee testify that the pirated Microsoft Office was installed after the computers left the reseller. I assume they knew this by examining the installation logs. I'm assuming this is the truth.
Some are suggesting here that Microsoft could have prevented the prosecution, or turned the publicity to their benefit. Perhaps there are other Russian legal matters that they think American corporations should be encouraged to stick their oar in on? The word "AllofMP3" ring any bells?
They have proven time and time again that they would rather sell one CD for $18 than 3 for $10 each. This is irrational behavior, but they have been very consistent in it.
I take it you haven't studied Economics in any shape or form. The music industry, like all industry, is interested in maximizing profit. Maximizing sales does not mean maximizing profits. It is entirely possible that selling one CD at $18 produces more profit than three CDs for $10.
You're free to disagree with the way they operate, but why should the music industry work to different rational than every other industry in the free market economy? You don't like how it works; go start the revolution and overthrow the capitalist society.
The music industry is not populated with fools, and they know far more about their industry than you.
Slashdot Mirror
And as I mention in that other topic, the article is utter bollocks. The original RIAA article says that CDs would cost $34 each due to inflation. The word "should" does not occur anywhere. If you don't know understand the difference between "would" and "should" then I can't help you.
FFS people, if your argument about the RIAA are going to be based on deliberate misinterpretation and strawmen, then how do you expect to be taken seriously?
Well it's new to me.
I know of lots of websites that do something similar, but the important difference would be that;
- they only spoof your address, the email does not actually come from your email account
- they don't need your password
- you supply the addresses, they don't rifle your address book
Or so I thought, I'd never use such a thing. If the website was that good I'd tell my friends myself, not fire spam at them. Real friends don't spam you.
What's interesting is that apparently some people are supplying this information to Flixster without a second thought, and perhaps under the impression that they're actually submitting it to AOL/Yahoo/whatever.
So the next question would be; if they had a similar page with the Bank Of America/Barclays/whatever logo, would people be just as happy to give their details for them?
Either way, it's scary. Scary that Flixster thinks this is an acceptable way to market themselves, scary that people are letting them.
What possible interest do you think the music industry has in determining what kind of music you listen to? As long as you're buying it from them, why would they care? You could be listening to white noise and industrial hammers for all they care. If that's what you want to buy, that's what they'll sell you. If that's what's selling most, then of course they'll offer more of it.
I'm afraid you fallen for the slashdot conspiracy theorists, who seem to think that there's a universal definition of what's good music and that top selling music isn't it. Therefore there must be a conspiracy to keep the good music down, and the every popular scapegoat, the music industry, must be behind it.
The unpalatable fact is that top selling music is top selling because that's the music that the most people want. By its very nature it is "lowest common denominator". No conspiracy. If you don't like it, then don't listen to it.
Oh yeah, they don't square up. Guess some people have been making stuff up they know nothing about in order to justify their own actions.
Please demonstrate (factually) these "ever increasing prices", because I'm not seeing them.
Or shall we just assume everything you're saying is bollocks?
Never mind that. What the hell is it about the word "ridiculous" that a fair proportion of educated westerners can't spell it? I see it all the time here on slashdot.
You appear to be extrapolating two tiny unrepresentative samples (yourself and "people you know") into a conclusion that encompasses all slashdotters and beyond that the whole of humanity.
In my book that doesn't make you smart at all. In fact it makes you pretty dumb and rather arrogant.
Wow, a riposte without any supporting argument! Pointless posting on slashdot remains at usual heights!
"I'm a clueless user. I don't know. What's low-level access? What's a disk driver? Network, well , I guess... Quit asking me all these questions! (Clicks Allow, Allow, Allow)"
Which is pretty much where we came in....
This is a good idea, and not dissimilar to what I already do by running ZoneAlarm. Every application needs to request permission to connect to the internet, even after it has been given permission to install.
But the difference is that I know what I'm doing, and if I get a request from some obscure DLL I don't recognise, I go find out about it. I do not expect that of the average user. If this was implemented on most users machines they would simply get in the habit of clicking "Allow" in exactly the same way they do for installs. Except it would be three times as annoying, especially if you craft the dialog boxes to force them to read it every time.
And who decides what "most legitimate software does not need to do"? Who decides what's "legitimate software"? Sounds like you're asking Microsoft to make those calls for you.
There just isn't an easy answer here. Every method of security ultimately relies on someone making a decision at some point, and most users have barely enough knowledge to make that decision reliably. And makers of malware will do everything to exploit that weakness and mislead the user.
Interesting theory. But I'm confused. Why is it more profitable to have 3 popular bands, rather than 12 semi-popular? Surely the profit on each CD (or whatever) sold is much the same regardless of the band name on the front? All that matters to a music company is that their percentage share of the market doesn't go down, and putting all your eggs into only 1 of 3 bands surely increases the risks. A 12 way market is much stabler, safer and increases profits long term. Lots of other industries do this; companies intentionally spread their range of goods with almost identical products, simply to even their risks and maintain market share.
I would suspect that this genre of music, like any genre of music, like all fields of art, is simply following the usual pattern. There is always a small sub-set, through blind luck/endurance, that are far more popular than other equally qualified and talented artists. It's this way because that's the way people like it. Unless you are a particular fan of a genre of music then usually you don't have the interest in knowing the output of 12 similar bands. 3 is plenty for you, and you know what you're going to get from those 3. Radio stations know this. The 3 everyone knows is a safest choice for maximum listeners, the other 9 is a bit of a risk.
So the reason you're only hearing 3 bands is because that's enough emo/screamo for most people. Why would they want more of the same from bands they've never heard of? They want a selection of 3 bands from another type of music. That's how the mainstream works.
There should be a new law. No-one is allowed to discuss evolution, in any way, ever, until they have the correct, scientific definition of the word "theory" beaten into them.
I would be interested in what you consider would protect the user. You have three options here.
1/ No-one decides what goes on your computer. It's an open free-for-all.
2/ Microsoft decides what goes on your computer. Corporate lock-down.
3/ You decide what goes on your computer. You're the boss.
We've already seen what happens with option 1. It's a security nightmare for everyone. I can imagine just how popular the second option there would be, people already have plenty to bitch about the controlling nature of Microsoft without adding to it.
So it's got to be option number 3. The only other thing Microsoft can do then is to warn the user what's happening to their computer, provide as much useful information as possible (in as much a user-friendly manner as possible) and then let the user decide.
Which is pretty much what is happening here. And still people complain.
The chances are that they are available a lot sooner on subscriber satellite and cable channels. If these channels buy them first, they buy total rights to show them within Australia. The free-to-air channels then have to wait until the subscriber channel has finished before getting a shot at buying the rights.
If you want the free-to-air broadcasts to be sooner, the free-to-air channels have to outbid the subscriber channels and buy the rights first. Clearly in Australia this is not often possible.
What are we doing to stop this blatant restriction on teenagers' rights to have sweary words on their clothing, and to bitch about, well, just about everyone, and rebel against, erm, everything? One thing's for sure; they didn't ask to be born!
It's just so unfair!
Because this is slashdot. If you don't have news one day about the two great evil satans Microsoft & RIAA, then you just make shit up so you can get 100 poster to vigorously agree with you and ignore TFA.
In other news, we're still waiting on that official list of certified supported Linux apps. Guess that means nothing works on it.
Yes. I read that essay at the time. Linux has come a small way since then, but the basic facts remain the same. Too much of Linux is written by Linux experts without the slightest clue or interest in either decent documentation or understanding the typical end user. You can criticize Windows a thousand justifiable ways, but at least it always tries to explain itself to the user and isn't above hand-holding. With Linux its more a case of; "Wow, read the GPL, this is free! We won't insult you by explaining anything. This is a GUI wrapper on gtvpc using the -vk parameter, and you know how to use that, right?"
The point is kind of that the co-worker shouldn't have to deal with this. Maybe the situation makes the co-worker extremely uncomfortable, so why is it their responsibility to "talk with him personally". Common decency says the guy shouldn't have been putting his co-workers in such an awkward situation.
Again, any punishment is a matter of the Russian legal system, it is not enforced by Microsoft.
And it's "insisting", not "asking".
OK, so what's wrong with insisting that people who use your software pay for it? Most companies in most industries have the same idea. They're most insistent that you pay them when you make use of their product or service, and they don't just ask nicely.
What's draconian about asking people who want to use your software that they pay for it?
They are the ones who "innovated" the idea that this was stealing and started this whole business of software not being owned and requiring a license instantly revocable without cause from the manufacturer
All very interesting, but totally irrelevant in this case. The software in question here was never 'owned', not was it 'revoked'. It was pirated, without payment. Clear and simple. The only question that seems to remain is who was responsible and how seriously it should be treated. Neither of these are matters for Microsoft to determine.
Wrong. The cost to produce may be diminishing, but it is never zero. The music didn't spring out of nowhere.
In this environment, selling one album for $18 provides $11.70 profit, while three albums for $10 provides $19.50 profit.
I don't get your figures, but no matter. How do you know they will sell three albums? What if they only sell two at $10? The cost to produce is only one side of the supply-demand equation. You need to know the elasticity of the demand for the product, you need to know what the market will pay.
I've no idea if the music industry is maximizing its profits by its current pricing. I don't know the market and neither do you. But what I do know is that the industry it is not stupid and perfectly capable of looking after its own interests. If the music costs so much you can be pretty certain that it's because it's at a point on the supply & demand curve that maximizes its profits. Simplistic "dumb company, more product at lower price = more profit" arguments just show an total ignorance of the situation.
Music company: "Fine. Don't sell it. Get nothing. We can live without online sales. If you want a piece of the pie, you have to sell it with DRM. No negotiations. No exceptions. That's how it will be done. Take it or leave it."
Tech company: "Blah, Blah, Blah. Attempt at taking moral high ground because we Tech companies, unlike all others, are motivated not by money, but by a love of humankind and a wish to share the gift of music. Blah, Blah, Blah. Patronising attempt to explain to music company their own business as if we know it better. Blah, Blah, Blah."
Music company:"Yeah, whatever. You're still not selling our product. If you think you can do better, go on then."
Are they?
From what I've read Microsoft had nothing to do with it, and went as far as saying they had nothing to do with it and it was a matter for the Russian courts. Their involvement went as far as having an employee testify that the pirated Microsoft Office was installed after the computers left the reseller. I assume they knew this by examining the installation logs. I'm assuming this is the truth.
Some are suggesting here that Microsoft could have prevented the prosecution, or turned the publicity to their benefit. Perhaps there are other Russian legal matters that they think American corporations should be encouraged to stick their oar in on? The word "AllofMP3" ring any bells?
I take it you haven't studied Economics in any shape or form. The music industry, like all industry, is interested in maximizing profit. Maximizing sales does not mean maximizing profits. It is entirely possible that selling one CD at $18 produces more profit than three CDs for $10.
You're free to disagree with the way they operate, but why should the music industry work to different rational than every other industry in the free market economy? You don't like how it works; go start the revolution and overthrow the capitalist society.
The music industry is not populated with fools, and they know far more about their industry than you.