What would be pretty slick is if someone like sony would partner with Apple to enable recording directly to an iPod through firewire. I assume this would be possible?
You could store some serious data with 3G of space. For lawyers, it would be pretty slick to have your entire exhibit set stored in your phone in PDF format. With Bluetooth, you wouldn't even need to wire your phone to your digital projector to run your courtroom presentation. With the right software, I'd buy. I'd prefer to see 20G though...
Depends on your taste. I agree with your point, but I also recognize that it's validated by your taste and mine as opposed to some concrete truth. WHat if you had a perpetual Jones for pap and sentimentality? Would you waste time searching it out on the internet? Hell no. You'd turn right to your local top 40 radio station.
But we're basically in agreement. I just think that you can get free content and a free filter if you are willing to search it out. For instance, I Ihave been entertained by the $250 Million Radio Show recently. It's free, and I trust the podcaster to play stuff I like. So I save time and money.
If I knew that I wanted Appetite for Destruction, however, I'd just swing by Best Buy on my way home.
Nothing is free. If you want free music, the closest you can get is music that you don't have to pay a fee to download. But because you don't have a record label filtering out crappy content for you, you have to spend time and effort either (1) lucking into quality content or (2) finding a free filter.
On the other hand, it doesn't take too much time to find a handfull of quality podcasts. It's probably pretty cheap to invest a couple of hours finding good free content filters for yourself. If you can entertain yourself with free content, go for it.
I recommend starting here or here.
Cheers.
Maybe so, but there are many "elite" products that you can only get through limited distribution chains. That is no indication of an antitrust violation.
Regardless, to the extent that Dolly Parton's songs constitute a single market, and to the extent that Dolly Parton has a monopoly on that market, she is granted the monopoly by United States copyright laws. This is done for good reason. We grant artists limited monopolies over their works in order to promote artistic creation.
If Dolly Parton chooses to distribute her product through a single record label, then she is entitled to do so without fear of violating the US antitrust laws. If Dolly were forced to allow each record label to produce and distribute each of her albums, then we would expect the price received for each of her albums to eventually fall to very near it's marginal cost of production. Thus, there would be little incentive to create music for a living. Thus, there may be no Dolly Parton.
Since each artist is granted the same monopoly over their catalog, however, they do compete with one another for customers. The whole music business is predicated on artists trying to sell more records and moving themselves up the popularity charts.
Your particular prediliction notwithstanding, Dolly Parton is still competing with Loretta Lynn for for your business.
Antitrust laws prohibit the individual record labels from making horizontal agreements with other labels to raise prices, but do not prohibit individual labels from setting prices that should be charged by downstream distributors.
Go read the line of cases about Manufacturers Suggested Retail Prices. I think you see that, without monopoly power, any individual record company is basically free to discuss retail prices with iTunes (or whoever....). Those companies will still have to compete with rival record labels on a price basis.
This guy doesn't understand antitrust, and his opinion should not be regarded.
Predatory pricing rules prevent sellers from selling below some measure of cost. The objective of the rules is to prevent large corporations from purposefully accepting short term losses on some product line in order to run a smaller competitor out of the market.
If predatory pricing ever worked (which is almost assuredly doesn't), the goal for the predator is to secure enough monopoly power to be able to reduce output and increase prices to a level that allows the monopolist to recoup its prior losses plus any opportunity costs associated with the losses plus some additional monopoly profit. Prices, however, must not be raised to a level that entices new competition into the market. This is almost impossible to do, and most of the economics scholars agree that the practical impossability indicates that there is no anticompetitive effect from so called "predatory pricing".
Regardless, rules against predatory pricing do not prevent consumers from bargaining prices downward. Antitrust rules exist to protect consumers; they generally do not exist to punish consumers for buying a prices they find favorable.
Actually, I think that the software you are describing would be considered a trap and trace as opposed to a wiretap. A wiretap captures the contents of a communication, while a trap and trace device merely logs the addresses (or phone number in the telephone context) to and from which the information was sent.
There are some differences in the egregiousness of the offenses of tapping a person's communication as opposed to traping and tracing it.
I'm not sure what the practical difference would be under the Florida statute, however. I confess that I haven't read it.
Slashdot Mirror
Can it really have taken this long for someone to make a Zaphod joke?
What would be pretty slick is if someone like sony would partner with Apple to enable recording directly to an iPod through firewire. I assume this would be possible?
Actually, they misspell "blue" so that it can be copyrighted.
You could store some serious data with 3G of space. For lawyers, it would be pretty slick to have your entire exhibit set stored in your phone in PDF format. With Bluetooth, you wouldn't even need to wire your phone to your digital projector to run your courtroom presentation. With the right software, I'd buy. I'd prefer to see 20G though...
Depends on your taste. I agree with your point, but I also recognize that it's validated by your taste and mine as opposed to some concrete truth. WHat if you had a perpetual Jones for pap and sentimentality? Would you waste time searching it out on the internet? Hell no. You'd turn right to your local top 40 radio station. But we're basically in agreement. I just think that you can get free content and a free filter if you are willing to search it out. For instance, I Ihave been entertained by the $250 Million Radio Show recently. It's free, and I trust the podcaster to play stuff I like. So I save time and money. If I knew that I wanted Appetite for Destruction, however, I'd just swing by Best Buy on my way home.
Nothing is free. If you want free music, the closest you can get is music that you don't have to pay a fee to download. But because you don't have a record label filtering out crappy content for you, you have to spend time and effort either (1) lucking into quality content or (2) finding a free filter. On the other hand, it doesn't take too much time to find a handfull of quality podcasts. It's probably pretty cheap to invest a couple of hours finding good free content filters for yourself. If you can entertain yourself with free content, go for it. I recommend starting here or here. Cheers.
A PDA with a built-in bidet? Brillient!
That makes me wish I had taken the blue pill.
From a Gillette Sensor to the Mach3 Turbo, but that's as far as I'll go. I'm not buying a vibrating razor. http://theawhells.com
Maybe so, but there are many "elite" products that you can only get through limited distribution chains. That is no indication of an antitrust violation. Regardless, to the extent that Dolly Parton's songs constitute a single market, and to the extent that Dolly Parton has a monopoly on that market, she is granted the monopoly by United States copyright laws. This is done for good reason. We grant artists limited monopolies over their works in order to promote artistic creation. If Dolly Parton chooses to distribute her product through a single record label, then she is entitled to do so without fear of violating the US antitrust laws. If Dolly were forced to allow each record label to produce and distribute each of her albums, then we would expect the price received for each of her albums to eventually fall to very near it's marginal cost of production. Thus, there would be little incentive to create music for a living. Thus, there may be no Dolly Parton. Since each artist is granted the same monopoly over their catalog, however, they do compete with one another for customers. The whole music business is predicated on artists trying to sell more records and moving themselves up the popularity charts. Your particular prediliction notwithstanding, Dolly Parton is still competing with Loretta Lynn for for your business.
Antitrust laws prohibit the individual record labels from making horizontal agreements with other labels to raise prices, but do not prohibit individual labels from setting prices that should be charged by downstream distributors. Go read the line of cases about Manufacturers Suggested Retail Prices. I think you see that, without monopoly power, any individual record company is basically free to discuss retail prices with iTunes (or whoever....). Those companies will still have to compete with rival record labels on a price basis.
This guy doesn't understand antitrust, and his opinion should not be regarded. Predatory pricing rules prevent sellers from selling below some measure of cost. The objective of the rules is to prevent large corporations from purposefully accepting short term losses on some product line in order to run a smaller competitor out of the market. If predatory pricing ever worked (which is almost assuredly doesn't), the goal for the predator is to secure enough monopoly power to be able to reduce output and increase prices to a level that allows the monopolist to recoup its prior losses plus any opportunity costs associated with the losses plus some additional monopoly profit. Prices, however, must not be raised to a level that entices new competition into the market. This is almost impossible to do, and most of the economics scholars agree that the practical impossability indicates that there is no anticompetitive effect from so called "predatory pricing". Regardless, rules against predatory pricing do not prevent consumers from bargaining prices downward. Antitrust rules exist to protect consumers; they generally do not exist to punish consumers for buying a prices they find favorable.
Actually, I think that the software you are describing would be considered a trap and trace as opposed to a wiretap. A wiretap captures the contents of a communication, while a trap and trace device merely logs the addresses (or phone number in the telephone context) to and from which the information was sent.
There are some differences in the egregiousness of the offenses of tapping a person's communication as opposed to traping and tracing it.
I'm not sure what the practical difference would be under the Florida statute, however. I confess that I haven't read it.