"Did you mean:
restaurants near Vermont Close, Enfield, Greater London, EN2, UK...."
Well, obviously Google Maps is aware that in the UK, they spell it "restuarant," not "restaurant."
Actually, it's because the Google Maps search is based on city and/or neighborhood, not state. Try Killington, Montpelier, Burlington, or some other municipality in Vermont and you'll get much better results.
So, in ten years, MS will become anti-patent? The logic behind this is that other companies will be enforcing their patents against Microsoft.
You know why this hasn't happened in the past? Because MS has the kind of cash available to make selling out to MS a better deal for your shareholders than trying to enforce your patents against MS.
MS will still be playing the "If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em" game.
A question I see is whether developer/inventor ill-will against MS will outweigh the financial incentive for companies to sell out. Given that it is illegal to not act in the best financial interests of your shareholders, I can't see that happening.
The other question I see is whether there will be a competitor with pockets deep enough to be a viable alternative to selling to MS... and I seem to recall a certain advertising/data mining company that's amassed a pretty big warchest...
"If I am submitting my credit card to a web store, I should be allowed to make a reasonable attempt to verify my credit card information is secure. If I want to ensure the database isn't accessible through an SQL injection attack, then I should (IMO) be allowed to test that, for my own safety."
Well, if you don't trust the web store, don't use your credit card. That's just common sense.
Yes, the law is broad -- which is why it is newsworthy that a judge is interpreting the law a little differently this time around. Please read the articles (particularly the second linked article in the summary) for more info.
The problem is the fear that the "I'm testing it for my own benefit" defense could be too easily used by people who are trying to hack the system for nefarious purposes -- these people would be unprosecutable unless they actually succeed, and even then, it would be difficult to get a conviction.
That's why I welcome the interpretation that convictions would require analysis of prior actions and intent.
Somewhere in the replies I read something along the lines of, "Most people knowingly infected with a diesease would not purposefully act to hurt others". I find this comment laughable(Granted, it's slightly out of context). How many of you go to work sick? You know your sick but yet you still go.
The difference is the intent. I go to work when sick so I can get my work done, not to purposely infect others. Although, at times, I am very tempted to direct my coughs into a specific office...
Many of the intentional plague vectors in WoW were having a lark... I'm sure it didn't bother their consciences much because the net effect is so small -- just a bit of annoyance for those they infected.
What's interesting, though, is that this is an example of sociopathic behavior, just to a smaller extent. Someone who knowingly and willingly transmits a plague in real life is a sociopath. WoW (and other MMORPGs) are showing us that quite a few people exhibit sociopathic tendencies to a certain degree -- like all the grievers who play.
The reason that these tendencies are over-represented in MMORPGs is twofold:
(1) There are only very small, underdevloped social structures, so negative repercussions for these acts are practically non-existant. This is why MMORPGs have in-game moderators and guilds -- to create the social structures which are otherwise lacking.
(2) Negative repercussions to the player (not the character) are almost nil. Risk/Reward for sociopathic actions becomes balanced in favor of Reward. Some games have tried to rebalance this by increasing the presence and power of in-game moderators, or better use of formal complaint channels, but most game companies do not want to destroy a revenue source by banning a player.
Look at the US's track record. You want to see abuse of power, both military and economic, that has led to misery, both in the US but, to a much greater extent, worldwide?
Look closer to home. The US has destroyed economies and lives at will for decades. The US acts out of self-interest. So does the UN, but since 'self' in re: the UN includes ALL member nations, I feel I can trust them more.
"IT: Consultant Convicted For Non-Invasive Site Access"
No. The consultant was convicted of attempting to access a system which he knew he was not authorized to access. He never got access -- t was the attempts that nailed him.
"Instead, Judge Purdy found Cuthbert guilty, because he had initially lied to the police about what he had done; Cuthbert originally told the police one story and later changed it."
British Law says that if you know you are not allowed access, you cannot attempt to circumvent system security.
What makes this case so interesting is: "This is thought to be the first time that a judge had indicated that -- despite the letter of the act -- knowingly accessing a system when unauthorised to do so is not necessarily a crime.
"
"In the long run, maybe we'll see laws that protect life, liberal and property rights rather than laws controlling thought or non-violent actions." (emphasis mine)
I'm sorry, can you please define "liberal rights"?
I'm unfamiliar with the term. Do liberals have rights, to be enumerated by law, separate from conservatives?
Slowly but sureley the Internet evolved into a system dependent upon a few companies with high-speed links between them - prime candidates BTW, as locations for government control to be imposed. The self-healing nature of the original Internet was lost because all traffic HAS to pass via the top level companies infrastructure and over their interconnect backbone connections.
This is what happens when you have an industry based upon a high cost of entry (physical infrastructure, here) and a low marginal cost of supply. We need fat pipelines because we demand fast speeds and high volumes for our traffic. If we didn't have regions, but instead had the "original self-healing internet," how long do you think it would take to download big files if the source didn't happen to be just 2 or 3 routers away? Say goodbye to streaming video, etc.
Net cost of transmission would be far higher for packets that are many routers away in a truly web-based system, since not all apths are equal.
The problem is, how do we balance cheap efficiency (fatline "superhighways") with expensive redundancy to optimize the system for all participants?
Because when people don't care, Bad Things happen. It is vital that individuals are involved.
2. Why take their word over your own trust in your own county?
Why would anyone trust their own country? How many times do you need to be duped before you learn one of the foundations of American citizenship, which is "a healthy distrust of government"?
I personally trust the UN more than I trust the US. Why? Because the individuals of US government have shown me again and again that they do not fight for OUR interests, but rather THEIR OWN interests -- although they claim the opposite. At least the UN is more honest.
In your situation, brand awareness != sales. As you said, maybe you aren't increasing your brand awareness among your market. Furthermore, a/. sig isn't going to increase brand awareness nearly as much as a colorful logo or something like that.
"but none of that obviates my point: "Brand Awareness" does NOT equal sales."
I did not say that brand awareness = sales. My point is that brand awareness affects sales, Especially when the product is a retail product of an emerging brand (which yours is not -- not retail, that is).
So, what you want is an independent study showing that placement spot X in media Y has a positive ROI? Who is paying for that study? I mean really, who do you think pays for the ROI studies for print publications, or television? I'll give you a hint: it's not the advertisers, it's not the consumer, and it's not the government. Even if it is an "independent agency," it is funded by the publishing/broadcasting companies.
Also, you can have different advertisements that are exactly the same in terms of placement, but have different effects on sales (and brand awareness). So it is impossible to prove that placement spot X in media Y will have a positive ROI, since it depends on the content of X.
What CAN be proven (and has been, to a reasonable certainty, many times over) is that advertising of your retail brand (which has not reached awareness saturation) directed to your target market increases brand awareness in that market. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated over and over again, to the point of being a foregone conclusion, that brand awareness among the market of a brand will tend to increase retail sales of that brand.
The question, of course, is whether profit on the increased sales offset the cost of the advertising over the period specified for the study... which often depends on short-term vs. long-term vision.
Of course, never mind the fact that if your business model sucks (I can think of several.com Superbowl advertisers to whom this applies), you're not going to realize a good ROI anyway, since your profits on those increases sales are negligible.
"I'll believe their ads work when I can see increases in sales independently measured and metered by the companies doing the advertising - "Brand Awareness" doesn't add one red cent to the bottom line.
"
OK, so you want more measurable proof. Fine, I understand that, but brand awareness makes a huge difference to the bottom line for retail products, especially emerging brands, which is what the article is referring to.
You're right, which is why I made the distinction. But the local monopolies were achieved through purchasing power, predatory pricing, and branding, which K-Mart or a number of other competitors could also have done.
Wal-mart's products are not unique -- someone else can sell a crappy drill too, often the same brand and model (except for the model# itself). The music industry, however, is in a situation where their products are unique -- by virtue of IP and licensing, only Media Company X can sell Artist's single "Y".
The two business models are extremely different, especially since Walmart is a distribution and retailing company, whereas the RIAA is a production and distribution company (though both do marketing as well).
"It amuses me you can give me these reasons for Kmart's fall when telling me that it doesn't apply to the recording industry."
The music industry does not have negative brand assoiation amongst the vast majority of consumers. K-Mart is also not the entire mass-retailer industry. Apples and Oranges, bub.
We were discussing pricing strategy, which you compared to KMart & Wal-mart, which do not compare at all.
The RIAA will definitely reconsider. Apple has got the RIAA by the balls, and the RIAA need to have a competitor to Apple in the marketplace. Microsoft's purchasing power, and ability to absorb losses, as well as easy penetration into the market, ideally situates them as an Apple competitor.
The RIAA will deal with MS just so they have more power in their negotiations with Apple.
I am aware of the publicity argument. However, there is the assumption that people not spending cash on the album will spend it on a concert/t-shirt/etc. I think that's being more than a little optimistic in terms of what most people would do, since most people do not attend concerts frequently.
Also, you can bet that recording companies (who will make sure to control the tours, and the touring contracts) will change their business model if this happens... sayonara to the 75% share of shirt sales. You can't change the business model and use the same pricing/royalty/share structure as the old business model.
Sure, on a personal level, it works -- I can get ahead if I am smart and bust my ass. But on a societal level, the inequitable distribution of wealth in the US is ridiculous, considering the cost of living. We are a laughingstock of the western economically-developed nations for how poor our poor really are.
"Remember, the RIAA is basically just a bunch of distributors. Apple and now Microsoft are taking that role away; with them holding the DRM key to the store the RIAA has little choice but to do business with (and through) them."
Unless, of course, the RIAA massively supports Linux distros and development... shudder... scary thought.
I think we're more likely to see stagnation in prices. The music industry will just wait a bit before attempting to raise the prices again... they'll try to stay in the warm spot of the cold pool (all negative associations intended); the market has shown it will bear current prices, so I don't see any kind of price decreases in our future.
Optimistic? How, by thinking that the recording industry will push and push for as much as the market will bear?
I think you misunderstood my post -- I'm not talking about pricing and profits based on supply and demand. Monopolies maximize profits by charging what the market will bear -- my OP implies that they are a monopoly.
Only if the recording industry will not limit prices to the market max will they become irrelevant. If they are stupid enough not to halt price increases (which they've done with music in the past, do you see CDs for sale for $40?), then they will become irrelevant.
Wal-mart vs. K-Mart does not apply. Wal-mart was, and is, not a national or regional monopoly. They leverage their purchasing power to drive smaller competitors out of business, but it's a totally different business model. The reason K-Mart lost out is not because of prices, but because of poor business management and negative brand association.
"in a world of cable modems and fiber optics, who controls the music distribution?
the tech companies do
bill gates and steve jobs do
so if their handlers are smart, they will just start signing artists themselves
"
Well, except then you'd have single companies in charge of production, distribution, and retail. Unless they allowed others to distribute and/or retail the music as well, they'd get slapped with charges. Not that getting slapped with charges has had any affect in the past... but FWIW, they'd be legally liable.
As far as I can tell, it would not be wise for either MS or Apple to get into that business. MS is already suffering from misdirected bloat, and Apple has proven itself successful in the current business model, with little need to bloat itself in this manner.
Slashdot Mirror
"Restuarants in Vermont"
"Did you mean: restaurants near Vermont Close, Enfield, Greater London, EN2, UK...."
Well, obviously Google Maps is aware that in the UK, they spell it "restuarant," not "restaurant."
Actually, it's because the Google Maps search is based on city and/or neighborhood, not state. Try Killington, Montpelier, Burlington, or some other municipality in Vermont and you'll get much better results.
So, in ten years, MS will become anti-patent? The logic behind this is that other companies will be enforcing their patents against Microsoft.
You know why this hasn't happened in the past? Because MS has the kind of cash available to make selling out to MS a better deal for your shareholders than trying to enforce your patents against MS.
MS will still be playing the "If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em" game.
A question I see is whether developer/inventor ill-will against MS will outweigh the financial incentive for companies to sell out. Given that it is illegal to not act in the best financial interests of your shareholders, I can't see that happening.
The other question I see is whether there will be a competitor with pockets deep enough to be a viable alternative to selling to MS... and I seem to recall a certain advertising/data mining company that's amassed a pretty big warchest...
"If I am submitting my credit card to a web store, I should be allowed to make a reasonable attempt to verify my credit card information is secure. If I want to ensure the database isn't accessible through an SQL injection attack, then I should (IMO) be allowed to test that, for my own safety."
Well, if you don't trust the web store, don't use your credit card. That's just common sense.
Yes, the law is broad -- which is why it is newsworthy that a judge is interpreting the law a little differently this time around. Please read the articles (particularly the second linked article in the summary) for more info.
The problem is the fear that the "I'm testing it for my own benefit" defense could be too easily used by people who are trying to hack the system for nefarious purposes -- these people would be unprosecutable unless they actually succeed, and even then, it would be difficult to get a conviction.
That's why I welcome the interpretation that convictions would require analysis of prior actions and intent.
Somewhere in the replies I read something along the lines of, "Most people knowingly infected with a diesease would not purposefully act to hurt others". I find this comment laughable(Granted, it's slightly out of context). How many of you go to work sick? You know your sick but yet you still go.
The difference is the intent. I go to work when sick so I can get my work done, not to purposely infect others. Although, at times, I am very tempted to direct my coughs into a specific office...
Many of the intentional plague vectors in WoW were having a lark... I'm sure it didn't bother their consciences much because the net effect is so small -- just a bit of annoyance for those they infected.
What's interesting, though, is that this is an example of sociopathic behavior, just to a smaller extent. Someone who knowingly and willingly transmits a plague in real life is a sociopath. WoW (and other MMORPGs) are showing us that quite a few people exhibit sociopathic tendencies to a certain degree -- like all the grievers who play.
The reason that these tendencies are over-represented in MMORPGs is twofold:
(1) There are only very small, underdevloped social structures, so negative repercussions for these acts are practically non-existant. This is why MMORPGs have in-game moderators and guilds -- to create the social structures which are otherwise lacking.
(2) Negative repercussions to the player (not the character) are almost nil. Risk/Reward for sociopathic actions becomes balanced in favor of Reward. Some games have tried to rebalance this by increasing the presence and power of in-game moderators, or better use of formal complaint channels, but most game companies do not want to destroy a revenue source by banning a player.
Look at the US's track record. You want to see abuse of power, both military and economic, that has led to misery, both in the US but, to a much greater extent, worldwide?
Look closer to home. The US has destroyed economies and lives at will for decades. The US acts out of self-interest. So does the UN, but since 'self' in re: the UN includes ALL member nations, I feel I can trust them more.
"IT: Consultant Convicted For Non-Invasive Site Access"
No. The consultant was convicted of attempting to access a system which he knew he was not authorized to access. He never got access -- t was the attempts that nailed him.
I was just making fun, I know you meant liberty :)
But, interestingly enough, liberals may need legal protection soon enough...
RTFA.
"Instead, Judge Purdy found Cuthbert guilty, because he had initially lied to the police about what he had done; Cuthbert originally told the police one story and later changed it."
British Law says that if you know you are not allowed access, you cannot attempt to circumvent system security.
What makes this case so interesting is:
"This is thought to be the first time that a judge had indicated that -- despite the letter of the act -- knowingly accessing a system when unauthorised to do so is not necessarily a crime. "
"In the long run, maybe we'll see laws that protect life, liberal and property rights rather than laws controlling thought or non-violent actions." (emphasis mine)
I'm sorry, can you please define "liberal rights"?
I'm unfamiliar with the term. Do liberals have rights, to be enumerated by law, separate from conservatives?
Slowly but sureley the Internet evolved into a system dependent upon a few companies with high-speed links between them - prime candidates BTW, as locations for government control to be imposed. The self-healing nature of the original Internet was lost because all traffic HAS to pass via the top level companies infrastructure and over their interconnect backbone connections.
This is what happens when you have an industry based upon a high cost of entry (physical infrastructure, here) and a low marginal cost of supply. We need fat pipelines because we demand fast speeds and high volumes for our traffic. If we didn't have regions, but instead had the "original self-healing internet," how long do you think it would take to download big files if the source didn't happen to be just 2 or 3 routers away? Say goodbye to streaming video, etc.
Net cost of transmission would be far higher for packets that are many routers away in a truly web-based system, since not all apths are equal.
The problem is, how do we balance cheap efficiency (fatline "superhighways") with expensive redundancy to optimize the system for all participants?
I know you didn't ask me, but it begs to be said:
1. Why do you care?
Because when people don't care, Bad Things happen. It is vital that individuals are involved.
2. Why take their word over your own trust in your own county?
Why would anyone trust their own country? How many times do you need to be duped before you learn one of the foundations of American citizenship, which is "a healthy distrust of government"?
I personally trust the UN more than I trust the US. Why? Because the individuals of US government have shown me again and again that they do not fight for OUR interests, but rather THEIR OWN interests -- although they claim the opposite. At least the UN is more honest.
"The US government does not exert direct control over ICANN"
Keep dreaming. The US Dept of Commerce exerts its authority to approve or deny ICANN assignations.
They do not control the operations of ICANN -- but they have veto power on the output.
How is this not direct control?
In your situation, brand awareness != sales. As you said, maybe you aren't increasing your brand awareness among your market. Furthermore, a /. sig isn't going to increase brand awareness nearly as much as a colorful logo or something like that.
.com Superbowl advertisers to whom this applies), you're not going to realize a good ROI anyway, since your profits on those increases sales are negligible.
"but none of that obviates my point: "Brand Awareness" does NOT equal sales."
I did not say that brand awareness = sales. My point is that brand awareness affects sales, Especially when the product is a retail product of an emerging brand (which yours is not -- not retail, that is).
So, what you want is an independent study showing that placement spot X in media Y has a positive ROI? Who is paying for that study? I mean really, who do you think pays for the ROI studies for print publications, or television? I'll give you a hint: it's not the advertisers, it's not the consumer, and it's not the government. Even if it is an "independent agency," it is funded by the publishing/broadcasting companies.
Also, you can have different advertisements that are exactly the same in terms of placement, but have different effects on sales (and brand awareness). So it is impossible to prove that placement spot X in media Y will have a positive ROI, since it depends on the content of X.
What CAN be proven (and has been, to a reasonable certainty, many times over) is that advertising of your retail brand (which has not reached awareness saturation) directed to your target market increases brand awareness in that market. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated over and over again, to the point of being a foregone conclusion, that brand awareness among the market of a brand will tend to increase retail sales of that brand.
The question, of course, is whether profit on the increased sales offset the cost of the advertising over the period specified for the study... which often depends on short-term vs. long-term vision.
Of course, never mind the fact that if your business model sucks (I can think of several
"I'll believe their ads work when I can see increases in sales independently measured and metered by the companies doing the advertising - "Brand Awareness" doesn't add one red cent to the bottom line. "
OK, so you want more measurable proof. Fine, I understand that, but brand awareness makes a huge difference to the bottom line for retail products, especially emerging brands, which is what the article is referring to.
Sure, but stealing that CD doesn't benefit the artist at all. In fact, it hurts them, whether they produce the album themselves or not.
If you were to say, that you should support artists by stealing their album and then buying their merchandise instead, then it makes sense.
However, I believe the vast majority of people would take the free album and never spend a cent on the artist.
You're right, which is why I made the distinction. But the local monopolies were achieved through purchasing power, predatory pricing, and branding, which K-Mart or a number of other competitors could also have done.
Wal-mart's products are not unique -- someone else can sell a crappy drill too, often the same brand and model (except for the model# itself). The music industry, however, is in a situation where their products are unique -- by virtue of IP and licensing, only Media Company X can sell Artist's single "Y".
The two business models are extremely different, especially since Walmart is a distribution and retailing company, whereas the RIAA is a production and distribution company (though both do marketing as well).
"It amuses me you can give me these reasons for Kmart's fall when telling me that it doesn't apply to the recording industry."
The music industry does not have negative brand assoiation amongst the vast majority of consumers. K-Mart is also not the entire mass-retailer industry. Apples and Oranges, bub.
We were discussing pricing strategy, which you compared to KMart & Wal-mart, which do not compare at all.
The RIAA will definitely reconsider. Apple has got the RIAA by the balls, and the RIAA need to have a competitor to Apple in the marketplace. Microsoft's purchasing power, and ability to absorb losses, as well as easy penetration into the market, ideally situates them as an Apple competitor.
The RIAA will deal with MS just so they have more power in their negotiations with Apple.
I am aware of the publicity argument. However, there is the assumption that people not spending cash on the album will spend it on a concert/t-shirt/etc. I think that's being more than a little optimistic in terms of what most people would do, since most people do not attend concerts frequently.
Also, you can bet that recording companies (who will make sure to control the tours, and the touring contracts) will change their business model if this happens... sayonara to the 75% share of shirt sales. You can't change the business model and use the same pricing/royalty/share structure as the old business model.
Sure, on a personal level, it works -- I can get ahead if I am smart and bust my ass. But on a societal level, the inequitable distribution of wealth in the US is ridiculous, considering the cost of living. We are a laughingstock of the western economically-developed nations for how poor our poor really are.
"Remember, the RIAA is basically just a bunch of distributors. Apple and now Microsoft are taking that role away; with them holding the DRM key to the store the RIAA has little choice but to do business with (and through) them."
Unless, of course, the RIAA massively supports Linux distros and development... shudder... scary thought.
I think we're more likely to see stagnation in prices. The music industry will just wait a bit before attempting to raise the prices again... they'll try to stay in the warm spot of the cold pool (all negative associations intended); the market has shown it will bear current prices, so I don't see any kind of price decreases in our future.
" My my, aren't you optmistic."
Optimistic? How, by thinking that the recording industry will push and push for as much as the market will bear?
I think you misunderstood my post -- I'm not talking about pricing and profits based on supply and demand. Monopolies maximize profits by charging what the market will bear -- my OP implies that they are a monopoly.
Only if the recording industry will not limit prices to the market max will they become irrelevant. If they are stupid enough not to halt price increases (which they've done with music in the past, do you see CDs for sale for $40?), then they will become irrelevant.
Wal-mart vs. K-Mart does not apply. Wal-mart was, and is, not a national or regional monopoly. They leverage their purchasing power to drive smaller competitors out of business, but it's a totally different business model. The reason K-Mart lost out is not because of prices, but because of poor business management and negative brand association.
"Maybe one day. I know I am a dreamer."
But you're not the only one,
We hope some day to join you,
And the world will listen free.
My apologies to Lennon, but I couldn't help it.
BTW, to which label do I need to make my check out to for using Imagine in a parody? I'm sure even that will require royalty payments soon enough...
"in a world of cable modems and fiber optics, who controls the music distribution?
the tech companies do
bill gates and steve jobs do
so if their handlers are smart, they will just start signing artists themselves " Well, except then you'd have single companies in charge of production, distribution, and retail. Unless they allowed others to distribute and/or retail the music as well, they'd get slapped with charges. Not that getting slapped with charges has had any affect in the past... but FWIW, they'd be legally liable.
As far as I can tell, it would not be wise for either MS or Apple to get into that business. MS is already suffering from misdirected bloat, and Apple has proven itself successful in the current business model, with little need to bloat itself in this manner.