Whether you agree with the legal or moral issues with allofmp3.com, check it out sometime. They do the encoding for you. Want Ogg? Buy Ogg. Want MP3? Buy MP3.
There is no reason that a non-DRMed iTMS couldn't offer the same.
"We're using an open format! You just can't do anything with it unless we say so. And yeah, we're not going to say so unless you're using our product anyway, or paying us a hefty tax that our competitors, both free and otherwise, can't afford. But hey, we're interoperable!"
They can just have their loved ones renamed. I can see it now: "This is my daughter 'Swiffer's Good'. I'd like the ship named the SS Swiffer's Good please, and thank you.":)
I'm confused. Aren't USB thumb drives also a commodity item that probably won't get lost? Heck, you can stick one on your keychain and they cost less than an iPod.
I wasn't suggesting they post on the hate site(s). I was addressing their comments to Forbes about the hate site.
Instead of saying something to the effect of "pffft" they could have said "We're aware of the site. We here at (company) are concerned with what our customers have to say." Even if it's not true, it's much better PR.
With what half those companies said instead, I don't think I want to be a customer of theirs, and it has nothing to do with the hate site, but with their own responses.
One thing I know about customer complaint sites is this, there is little difference between what goes on there and what some fool at a bar claims he is going tell his boss the next time said boss comes up with a boneheaded idea.
Yeah, that's something I addressed.
It's a lot like customer reviews of products offered on retail websites. You take it with a grain of salt. But if a certain percentage of people have the same specific issue with a product, I don't buy the product if that issue is a problem for me.
This is similar. These companies have an opportunity to address problems with their service that many people are experiencing. Sure, there are people who just hate for no reason and haven't bothered to attempt to resolve the issue with the company. But there are also people with legitimate gripes.
Paypal, as an example, claimed they couldn't check out the validity of statements made on the hate site. And I agree, they probably can't check if "Bob" in Customer Service hung up on Customer #021968215. I don't expect them to just blindly trust that what is said on those hate sites is true.
But if a significant percentage of people on the hate site are complaining that Paypal's customer service department is hanging up on customers when they ask to speak to their supervisors, that's something Paypal can investigate.
...we were expected to be suprised, but it's not suprising.
Just an example from the Paypal part of the report:
Company Says:
"We believe that people have a right to express their opinion. PayPal welcomes constructive criticism from members to help us continue to improve our service through our community discussion boards, chat rooms and Voices program. The problem with complaint sites is that the issues reported are sometimes out-of-date and have long since been resolved. Other times, customers may write complaints on the sites without trying to get their issues resolved through our customer service channels first. As a result, we can't confirm the accuracy of the information on these third-party sites. And we've found that they are not interested in providing a balanced view." (emphasis added)
Why can't they confirm the accuracy of the information?
Sure, they might not know if Customer Service Person A really hung up on a customer, but certainly they can look into some of these issues. Unless they're the one company in the world that doesn't monitor customer service calls. They have access to this information.
Why do they expect the site to be fair and balanced? When I complain to a company, I'm not being fair and balanced. I'm advocating for myself against the company. Yes, I want to reach an equitable solution, but these sites have a lot of people who weren't able to reach that equitable solution.
That's a problem for any company and you'd think they'd actually listen. (Yeah, I know.)
I realize there's a lot of bull on those websites. But at the same time, there are also patterns of problems. No company is perfect, and here is a chance for those problems to get past the customer service filter (who are the problem a certain percentage of the time).
What I don't get is why in the world any company wouldn't say something like "Yes, we're aware of those websites and in fact take their concerns into consideration", even if they don't really mean it.
They just write those people off as "Never gonna be customers so skrew it: those people are stupid", but apparently don't realize that those people used to be customers, and other current customers will eventually leave them as well.
From TFA it looks like they had to be logged into their account at the time, which would positively identify that their account was used.
If so, that means only someone with their username and password combination would be able to view the letter.
I can't think of a reason why some unauthorized person who had that information would spend the time to find out whether or not the person had been accepted.
One exception: Parents. Parents are just as eager to find out the answer as the applicants. Parents probably have access to the username/password.
That's the defense I'd use. Then I'd work with my parents to get our story straight.;)
Wait, so that means the downloaders are breaking the law?
I doubt it.
Russian courts don't set precedence for US courts. So even if the Russian court concluded allofmp3.com is a copying service rather than a distribution service, a US court might disagree.
I imagine it would be easier for the RIAA to go after domestic downloaders from obviously illegal sources.
The teddy bear sitting in the corner of the child's room might look normal, until his head starts following the kid around using a face recognition program, perhaps also allowing a parent talk to the child through a special phone, or monitor the child via a camera and wireless Internet connection.
Kid does something he's not supposed to do and it's "YOU ARE THE DEAD!"
There's a (true) saying that time is money. Well, to me, time is also life. It's too valuable to spend watching the same subway ad 30,000 times.
As far as I'm concerned, commercials are obsolete. With few exceptions, I don't watch them. Exceptions being things like live shows and sports (and even then I usually get up off my ass and do a little housework or something during the commercial).
Right now I record BSG every friday and watch it later sans commercials. I'd much rather be able to download it. But any online distribution model that wants to make money off of me has to do with with a per-episode or subscription-based fee.
I wonder how much of the fact that online distribution isn't widespread is due to a Blockbuster type issue. Sure, Blockbuster has an online service now, but they're still tied down to all those physical locations. That hinders them competing with Netflix and delayed their own online business. Netflix basically forced their hand.
In the same way, Sci-Fi and other channels are tied down to the existing commercial-based network infrastructure. Sure, they could make BSG available for download, but it's popularity means they need to use it the old fashioned way to keep their network on the air.
I don't know, it might not be the case, but it sounds reasonable to me. Putting it online is a risk. Especially since, geeks aside, most people would probably rebel at the idea of paying to watch it when they already watch for free.
I think if this type of thing is going to happen, it's not going to happen with sci-fi or existing network (unless maybe it happens with CNN or some other news station), but some upstart network. Once they're successful, the established networks won't have any choice but to follow along. (Just like Netflix did to/for Blockbuster.) And at that point it will be safe(r) for them to do so.
The simplest solution is to stop voting these folks into office. Unfortunately that requires people to actually give a crap and not just pick a party and stick to it like a religion.
It also requires people to realize there are issues other than abortion and gun control that are both important and likely to be seriously addressed.
These laws are "quietly passed" because everyone is focused on the media-friendly issues that are never resolved (because they are political suicide for any politician who addresses them seriously).
However, some parents are not mollified, and vow to permanently keep such people-tracking technologies out of their schools
Hurrah!
"I'm disappointed; that's about all I can say at this point," Earnie Graham, the superintendent and principal of Brittan Elementary School in Sutter, said Tuesday night. "I think I let my staff down. Nobody on this campus knows every student."
In your solution, which player becomes the default application for the media type?
If it's a player that requires payment, what happens after the 6 month (or whatever) trial period is over? Do the associated file types automatically change to one of the free players?
Which media players should be included? Is that fair to the media players which are excluded?
Now when they click on a media file windows will prompt the user to download WMP, and we're back to the original problem...
You seem to be going with the assumption that home users are going to buy this version. They're not. They're going to buy a PC with this version installed.
The OEM is the one who will actually be selecting the media package. So when the home user clicks on a media file, they won't be prompted. They'll see the file load in WinAMP or some other media player. I imagine it will be something similar to Dell allowing people to select among various office software packages.
The real problem, I think, is that it's easy for Microsoft to put pressure on the OEMs to use their products. They could pretty easily charge more for the Reduced Media version. I think what's especially telling is that they modified Pro, instead of Home. How many home users pay the extra money for Pro? How is an OEM supposed to make money selling the more expensive (than Home), yet dumbed down version? I suppose they can make up for the money by charging, say, Nullsoft, for including the free version of WinAMP or by offering WinAMP Pro as an option for more money, but unless it's a significant amount of money (ie the OEM ends up making more money) why should they go to the expense and trouble? Especially when it could damage their relationship with Microsoft?
Slashdot Mirror
Whether you agree with the legal or moral issues with allofmp3.com, check it out sometime. They do the encoding for you. Want Ogg? Buy Ogg. Want MP3? Buy MP3.
There is no reason that a non-DRMed iTMS couldn't offer the same.
Why do people believe whatever politicians say?
Because they're on television.
...equip everyone in your party has a Cloak of Invisibility +5.
The famous Microsoft interoperability initiative.
"We're using an open format! You just can't do anything with it unless we say so. And yeah, we're not going to say so unless you're using our product anyway, or paying us a hefty tax that our competitors, both free and otherwise, can't afford. But hey, we're interoperable!"
They can just have their loved ones renamed. I can see it now: "This is my daughter 'Swiffer's Good'. I'd like the ship named the SS Swiffer's Good please, and thank you." :)
A dupe from when? Five minutes ago?
Okay, so let's assume that you need more than 1GB of space for the OS and there is no network where you could store recovered files.
Why not use a regular USB drive? It's still much less expensive than an iPod.
I'm confused. Aren't USB thumb drives also a commodity item that probably won't get lost? Heck, you can stick one on your keychain and they cost less than an iPod.
I wasn't suggesting they post on the hate site(s). I was addressing their comments to Forbes about the hate site.
Instead of saying something to the effect of "pffft" they could have said "We're aware of the site. We here at (company) are concerned with what our customers have to say." Even if it's not true, it's much better PR.
With what half those companies said instead, I don't think I want to be a customer of theirs, and it has nothing to do with the hate site, but with their own responses.
One thing I know about customer complaint sites is this, there is little difference between what goes on there and what some fool at a bar claims he is going tell his boss the next time said boss comes up with a boneheaded idea.
Yeah, that's something I addressed.
It's a lot like customer reviews of products offered on retail websites. You take it with a grain of salt. But if a certain percentage of people have the same specific issue with a product, I don't buy the product if that issue is a problem for me.
This is similar. These companies have an opportunity to address problems with their service that many people are experiencing. Sure, there are people who just hate for no reason and haven't bothered to attempt to resolve the issue with the company. But there are also people with legitimate gripes.
Paypal, as an example, claimed they couldn't check out the validity of statements made on the hate site. And I agree, they probably can't check if "Bob" in Customer Service hung up on Customer #021968215. I don't expect them to just blindly trust that what is said on those hate sites is true.
But if a significant percentage of people on the hate site are complaining that Paypal's customer service department is hanging up on customers when they ask to speak to their supervisors, that's something Paypal can investigate.
...we were expected to be suprised, but it's not suprising.
Just an example from the Paypal part of the report:
Company Says: "We believe that people have a right to express their opinion. PayPal welcomes constructive criticism from members to help us continue to improve our service through our community discussion boards, chat rooms and Voices program. The problem with complaint sites is that the issues reported are sometimes out-of-date and have long since been resolved. Other times, customers may write complaints on the sites without trying to get their issues resolved through our customer service channels first. As a result, we can't confirm the accuracy of the information on these third-party sites. And we've found that they are not interested in providing a balanced view." (emphasis added)
Why can't they confirm the accuracy of the information?
Sure, they might not know if Customer Service Person A really hung up on a customer, but certainly they can look into some of these issues. Unless they're the one company in the world that doesn't monitor customer service calls. They have access to this information.
Why do they expect the site to be fair and balanced? When I complain to a company, I'm not being fair and balanced. I'm advocating for myself against the company. Yes, I want to reach an equitable solution, but these sites have a lot of people who weren't able to reach that equitable solution.
That's a problem for any company and you'd think they'd actually listen. (Yeah, I know.)
I realize there's a lot of bull on those websites. But at the same time, there are also patterns of problems. No company is perfect, and here is a chance for those problems to get past the customer service filter (who are the problem a certain percentage of the time).
What I don't get is why in the world any company wouldn't say something like "Yes, we're aware of those websites and in fact take their concerns into consideration", even if they don't really mean it. They just write those people off as "Never gonna be customers so skrew it: those people are stupid", but apparently don't realize that those people used to be customers, and other current customers will eventually leave them as well.
Load USB Puppy Linux from bootable floppy.
I disagree. I imagine a lot of parents would be footing the bill and might want access to the account.
But if not, how about significant others?
From TFA it looks like they had to be logged into their account at the time, which would positively identify that their account was used.
;)
If so, that means only someone with their username and password combination would be able to view the letter.
I can't think of a reason why some unauthorized person who had that information would spend the time to find out whether or not the person had been accepted.
One exception: Parents. Parents are just as eager to find out the answer as the applicants. Parents probably have access to the username/password.
That's the defense I'd use. Then I'd work with my parents to get our story straight.
Wait, so that means the downloaders are breaking the law?
I doubt it. Russian courts don't set precedence for US courts. So even if the Russian court concluded allofmp3.com is a copying service rather than a distribution service, a US court might disagree. I imagine it would be easier for the RIAA to go after domestic downloaders from obviously illegal sources.
The teddy bear sitting in the corner of the child's room might look normal, until his head starts following the kid around using a face recognition program, perhaps also allowing a parent talk to the child through a special phone, or monitor the child via a camera and wireless Internet connection.
Kid does something he's not supposed to do and it's "YOU ARE THE DEAD!"
"YES, IT WAS IN THE TEDDY BEAR."
You know, the irony is, I consider this crap way more "indecent" than anything I've ever seen on cable or satelite.
I don't pay for mine.
I've got an LG VX4600, one of these, BitPim and a collection of MP3s.
I've also used it to remove the "Verizon Wireless" banner from the phone and to upload and download photos/images.
I'm with you.
There's a (true) saying that time is money. Well, to me, time is also life. It's too valuable to spend watching the same subway ad 30,000 times.
As far as I'm concerned, commercials are obsolete. With few exceptions, I don't watch them. Exceptions being things like live shows and sports (and even then I usually get up off my ass and do a little housework or something during the commercial).
Right now I record BSG every friday and watch it later sans commercials. I'd much rather be able to download it. But any online distribution model that wants to make money off of me has to do with with a per-episode or subscription-based fee.
I wonder how much of the fact that online distribution isn't widespread is due to a Blockbuster type issue. Sure, Blockbuster has an online service now, but they're still tied down to all those physical locations. That hinders them competing with Netflix and delayed their own online business. Netflix basically forced their hand.
In the same way, Sci-Fi and other channels are tied down to the existing commercial-based network infrastructure. Sure, they could make BSG available for download, but it's popularity means they need to use it the old fashioned way to keep their network on the air.
I don't know, it might not be the case, but it sounds reasonable to me. Putting it online is a risk. Especially since, geeks aside, most people would probably rebel at the idea of paying to watch it when they already watch for free.
I think if this type of thing is going to happen, it's not going to happen with sci-fi or existing network (unless maybe it happens with CNN or some other news station), but some upstart network. Once they're successful, the established networks won't have any choice but to follow along. (Just like Netflix did to/for Blockbuster.) And at that point it will be safe(r) for them to do so.
Get an axe.
I agree.
The simplest solution is to stop voting these folks into office. Unfortunately that requires people to actually give a crap and not just pick a party and stick to it like a religion.
It also requires people to realize there are issues other than abortion and gun control that are both important and likely to be seriously addressed.
These laws are "quietly passed" because everyone is focused on the media-friendly issues that are never resolved (because they are political suicide for any politician who addresses them seriously).
It should be the parent's choice wether or not their kid goes out to buy violent video games.
No one is taking choice away from the parents. Parents can still allow their children access to these video games.
How is this different, than say, preventing children from seeing a rated R movie without their parent?
Besides, if a kid wants to play a video game, they're gonna play it. At a friend's house or whatever.
And hey, if a kid wants to drink alcohol, he's gonna drink it, so let's legalize it for minors.
They keep game ratings, it's illegal to sell, but not illegal to play underage. So what difference does it make?
The difference is it takes a parent to make that game available to the child, so the parent is better able to enforce their decisions.
Looks like it would cost you less paper than an LCD ipod: http://www.ntera.com/technology/nano_overview.asp
Or so they say...
However, some parents are not mollified, and vow to permanently keep such people-tracking technologies out of their schools
Hurrah!
"I'm disappointed; that's about all I can say at this point," Earnie Graham, the superintendent and principal of Brittan Elementary School in Sutter, said Tuesday night. "I think I let my staff down. Nobody on this campus knows every student."
How about starting by getting rid of this clown?
Since "virus" is in quotes, I assume you don't mean an actual virus, but some kind of quantum device.
Have you ever heard of Grey Goo?
I think it's an interesting idea, but I doubt it's possible.
In your solution, which player becomes the default application for the media type?
If it's a player that requires payment, what happens after the 6 month (or whatever) trial period is over? Do the associated file types automatically change to one of the free players?
Which media players should be included? Is that fair to the media players which are excluded?
Now when they click on a media file windows will prompt the user to download WMP, and we're back to the original problem...
You seem to be going with the assumption that home users are going to buy this version. They're not. They're going to buy a PC with this version installed.
The OEM is the one who will actually be selecting the media package. So when the home user clicks on a media file, they won't be prompted. They'll see the file load in WinAMP or some other media player. I imagine it will be something similar to Dell allowing people to select among various office software packages.
The real problem, I think, is that it's easy for Microsoft to put pressure on the OEMs to use their products. They could pretty easily charge more for the Reduced Media version. I think what's especially telling is that they modified Pro, instead of Home. How many home users pay the extra money for Pro? How is an OEM supposed to make money selling the more expensive (than Home), yet dumbed down version? I suppose they can make up for the money by charging, say, Nullsoft, for including the free version of WinAMP or by offering WinAMP Pro as an option for more money, but unless it's a significant amount of money (ie the OEM ends up making more money) why should they go to the expense and trouble? Especially when it could damage their relationship with Microsoft?