All they care about is how DRM affects *their* bottom line.
Right. And parent companies have to consider whether their subsidiaries' activities negatively impact other units' profitability.
T-Mobile not supporting non-DRM'd music may increase support expenses at Musicload, as customers try to buy newly available non-DRM'd music at Musicload and experience problems. A CBA would determine if the support for those customers is cheaper than the increased profits from sales of DRM'd music; if not, then these subsidiaries should figure out a better way to work together.
This is an example of the opposite of syngergy -- we have here two parts whose total value is less than the sum of each part.
Musicload is owned by Deutsche Telekom, who also own T-Mobile USA.
T-Mobile USA won't support non-DRM'd media out of the box (for ringtones!). I think a couple executives (and a few board members) are going to have to have a conference call and try to figure out DT's position on DRM.
In fact, on their site, I don't see an iPod as being supported.
From the Musicload site:
TIPPS
Kein WMA mit iPod!
Kein WMA mit iPod!
Der iPod unterstützt leider nicht das populäre Windows Media Audio (WMA) Format von Microsoft. Musicload empfiehlt deshalb Mobile Player zu kaufen, die WMA und MP3 Formate abspielen können.
Auf Englisch (my translation):
IPod unfortunately does not support Microsoft's popular format, Windows Media Audio (WMA). Therefore, Musicload recommends that you buy a Mobile Player which can play WMA and MP3 formats.
Specifically, Musicload's offerings are in WMA unless they fall in the subset of non-DRM'd media now available -- so no iPods is right on the mark.
If by forced you mean they lost the war then yes, they were forced. If somebody tried to claim your land would you ever stop fighting. I know I would stop when i was dead. They were just pussies. If they had any conviction we woudl be at war with them today.
Maybe if you understod their culture a little better, you'd understand. Most Native American cultures didn't have the same concept of property ownership as Europeans brought over. To them, it was impossible to 'claim' their land -- since they didn't consider it 'their' land. Right of use is what they believed in, and was always negotiable, or able to be taken by force. When the Lenape 'sold' Manhattan, for example, they thought they were just granting co-usage rights. By force, they were within a century disabused of that notion.
Right Ars, a small fraction of YouTube involves sports brawls.
Now show me on iFilm where I can watch a season of [TV show].
If Ars can't do that, they're just being asinine.
Why? Substantive infringement is substantive infringement, regardless of scope.
And as for a small fraction of iFilm video being copyrighted sports brawls, it's only a small fraction of Youtube that's a full season of copyrighted television shows.
In a civil suit such as this, Viacom definitely has a problem if it can be demonstrated that they do not take the kind of precautions they are demanding of the competitor they are suing.
If a CD had one-tenth of one per cent of the damage on one of those reels, it wouldn't play, period.
That's because you're trying to optically read through the damaged part. It is possible to recover data from damaged discs, as long as only the coating (and not the reflective surface) is damaged. It is quite possible to polish the surface and read the data, or even to fill in some of the damage and repolish for reading.
Just because it's harder to recover the data doesn't mean it's impossible.
Of course, anyone using CDs or DVDs for large data backup must have a lot of interns to do the disc swapping.
Malaria was common on the eastern seaboard in what is now the US during colonial times, even as far north as New York.
The reason we don't have malaria in the US is due to eradication efforts in the 20th century, that included drainage of swamps, destruction of standing water sites, DDT use (all these things for prevention), and most importantly, detection and treatment of malaria-infected humans, the natural resevoir of malaria in North America. It's the wealth and medical care in the US that has succeeded in eliminating malaria.
In tropical regions with non-human primate populations (particularly chimps and gorillas), there is a natural resevoir that would also need to be treated and/or vaccinated in order to eliminate malaria.
So a world without business subsidies is anarchy? Curious. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Making inaccurate and obtuse assumptions about what I'm saying without bothering to read the contextual posts? Curious, but not atypical here. And I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you didn't read the contextual posts, instead of either being unable to comprehend them, or just trolling when you did understand my point but decided to deliberately misinterpret it. We were discussing whether any law that affects different businesses in different ways should be allowed, which was a logical extension of the parent to my OP in the thread (they stated that they shouldn't).
Since no law affects everyone equally, this would mean eliminating all laws (hence the anarchy).
The fund is worth $38 billion. Dividend payouts from the fund last year were over $650 million, about $1,107 per payout, roughly 600,000 payouts.
This fund has nothing to do with tax revenue or annual gross product, it comes from oil revenues over a period of decades. The point of the fund is so the gov't doesn't have to pay out of a current account, and so doesn't NEED to depend on annual tax revenues.
At some point, we simply have to save as many of these lives as we can and deal with whatever comes.
I'm going to play a bit of the devil's advocate here, but overpopulation is the number one problem affecting Africa right now. The constant state of war? Due to too much demand for limited resources. Famine? Ditto. From a certain perspective, isn't allowing disease in Africa to wipe out a large portion of Africa's population a good thing?
Blech, I just disgusted myself with that argument -- but I'm not so sure that certain world leaders (and MANY politicoeconomists) don't feel that way.
Oh, come on. If you don't RTFA, at least read TFS.
From the article: 'In the laboratory, equal numbers of genetically modified and ordinary wild-type mosquitoes were allowed to feed on malaria-infected mice. As they reproduced, more of the GM, or transgenic, mosquitoes survived. According to the researchers, whose results appear in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal, after nine generations, 70% of the insects belonged to the malaria-resistant strain.
Sorry, then. I didn't use a sarcasm tag. Every law affects some in different ways than others. Arguing to not have any laws that subsidize any business is arguing for anarchy -- that was my point.
Actually, alternative == better. It is good policy to have alternate sources of fuel, just as one wouldn't want a single supplier for a vital input in a manufacturing process.
Governments shouldn't be giving tax payer money to any corporations, if corporations can't make it on their own, then maybe their business plan wasn't as good as they thought.
And while we're at it, why don't we make sure that any laws that affect some businesses in different ways than others (thus providing an indirect subsidy) get stricken from the books.
And then, let's get rid of personal rights, since they hamper some businesses more than others.
I agree that most subsidies are not a good thing. However, in order to stimulate economic activity and the general welfare, sometimes it's necessary for government to aid industries. Note that the farm subsidies, for example, were intended to help the small family farmer, during times of low demand when the corporate farm economies of scale were killing them. I won't judge whether it's worth it for government to try to preserve "the American way of life," since that is what was intended.
"Adobe says that Apollo will be easier to use, easier to install, more leading edge, and a more reliable and consistent platform" for creating [Rich Internet Applications] than existing solutions, she [DiDio] said. She expected the Apollo runtime -- essentially, a player -- to be available for free in its final release. ...
A beta version of Apollo is expected this summer, with the first official release later this year. Prices were not announced.
I'm sure the player will be free, the SDK not so free.
I'm curious how much memory this thing's going to eat, and how annoying the upgrade prompts will be. If it integrates Acrobat, I wonder how many times I'll need to reinstall it each year in order to keep it from hanging.
Google, I dig you for now, but I'm not really sure that I care for the idea of having google own nearly all of the search data for every search done by every individual around the planet in the history of google and beyond combined with all of the world-wide traffic analysis data.
It's heresy, I know, but perhaps Google is beginning to deserve a borg icon?
If you want to cut corners and save costs by not reviewing each video, I don't mind -- just be prepared for the liability stemming from the ones you took down in error. I'm sure you can establish optimal review rates, it's a very simple calculation.
Oh, and patterns of behavior -- they don't count for much in court.
Immaterial. They should still have the burden of positive validation of infringement before taking action under the DMCA, and liability for failing to meet that requirement.
And your calculation is way off, since there are not 100,000 per work day.
If somebody's uploading entire TV series -- and this does happen -- episode by episode, breaking down each into pieces, and accurately describing them -- it doesn't really seem necessary to watch each individual piece. Identify the bulk-uploader, take a look at a couple, flag the entire series of uploads as infringing.
I disagree. If each upload is to be treated as a separate violation of the DMCA, then it is the responsibility of the organization filing the takedown notice to ensure that each upload is, in actuality, infringing.
Slashdot Mirror
Almost all of Musicload's selection is not offered in mp3. Hence, the support calls when people download WMA media and it won't work in their iPod.
T-Mobile not supporting non-DRM'd music may increase support expenses at Musicload, as customers try to buy newly available non-DRM'd music at Musicload and experience problems. A CBA would determine if the support for those customers is cheaper than the increased profits from sales of DRM'd music; if not, then these subsidiaries should figure out a better way to work together.
This is an example of the opposite of syngergy -- we have here two parts whose total value is less than the sum of each part.
Musicload is owned by Deutsche Telekom, who also own T-Mobile USA.
T-Mobile USA won't support non-DRM'd media out of the box (for ringtones!). I think a couple executives (and a few board members) are going to have to have a conference call and try to figure out DT's position on DRM.
From the Musicload site:
Auf Englisch (my translation):
IPod unfortunately does not support Microsoft's popular format, Windows Media Audio (WMA). Therefore, Musicload recommends that you buy a Mobile Player which can play WMA and MP3 formats.
Specifically, Musicload's offerings are in WMA unless they fall in the subset of non-DRM'd media now available -- so no iPods is right on the mark.
Why? Substantive infringement is substantive infringement, regardless of scope.
And as for a small fraction of iFilm video being copyrighted sports brawls, it's only a small fraction of Youtube that's a full season of copyrighted television shows.
In a civil suit such as this, Viacom definitely has a problem if it can be demonstrated that they do not take the kind of precautions they are demanding of the competitor they are suing.
So (-1, redundant) should now be (+1, redundant) for posterity's sake? And dupes are posted for archival reasons?
I'm confused.
Just because it's harder to recover the data doesn't mean it's impossible.
Of course, anyone using CDs or DVDs for large data backup must have a lot of interns to do the disc swapping.
Malaria was common on the eastern seaboard in what is now the US during colonial times, even as far north as New York.
The reason we don't have malaria in the US is due to eradication efforts in the 20th century, that included drainage of swamps, destruction of standing water sites, DDT use (all these things for prevention), and most importantly, detection and treatment of malaria-infected humans, the natural resevoir of malaria in North America. It's the wealth and medical care in the US that has succeeded in eliminating malaria.
In tropical regions with non-human primate populations (particularly chimps and gorillas), there is a natural resevoir that would also need to be treated and/or vaccinated in order to eliminate malaria.
Since no law affects everyone equally, this would mean eliminating all laws (hence the anarchy).
I'm familiar with the breeding pressure and mortality link, but had forgotten about it, thanks for the info.
Hmm. Did you RTFA?
The fund is worth $38 billion. Dividend payouts from the fund last year were over $650 million, about $1,107 per payout, roughly 600,000 payouts.
This fund has nothing to do with tax revenue or annual gross product, it comes from oil revenues over a period of decades. The point of the fund is so the gov't doesn't have to pay out of a current account, and so doesn't NEED to depend on annual tax revenues.
Well, the summary states that the files were rescanned at a cost of $200,000 -- so it sure sounds like the hard copies were preserved.
Blech, I just disgusted myself with that argument -- but I'm not so sure that certain world leaders (and MANY politicoeconomists) don't feel that way.
I, for one, welcome our genetically-superior malaria-resistant blood-sucking overlords.
[pokes self in eye]
Self, stop making these clichéd jokes. Sure, it was a low-hanging fruit, but really, can it possibly still be funny?
And then, let's get rid of personal rights, since they hamper some businesses more than others.
I agree that most subsidies are not a good thing. However, in order to stimulate economic activity and the general welfare, sometimes it's necessary for government to aid industries. Note that the farm subsidies, for example, were intended to help the small family farmer, during times of low demand when the corporate farm economies of scale were killing them. I won't judge whether it's worth it for government to try to preserve "the American way of life," since that is what was intended.
All the sudden I pictured Gosling as the Kool-Aid Man, busting through my cubicle wall and shouting "Oh Yeah!" a la the 80s marketing campaign.
I'll be having nightmares about that every time I use Java, thanks to you.
I'm sure the player will be free, the SDK not so free.
I'm curious how much memory this thing's going to eat, and how annoying the upgrade prompts will be. If it integrates Acrobat, I wonder how many times I'll need to reinstall it each year in order to keep it from hanging.
It's heresy, I know, but perhaps Google is beginning to deserve a borg icon?
If you want to cut corners and save costs by not reviewing each video, I don't mind -- just be prepared for the liability stemming from the ones you took down in error. I'm sure you can establish optimal review rates, it's a very simple calculation.
Oh, and patterns of behavior -- they don't count for much in court.
Immaterial. They should still have the burden of positive validation of infringement before taking action under the DMCA, and liability for failing to meet that requirement.
And your calculation is way off, since there are not 100,000 per work day.