Did you really just refer to Green Day's album as a "rock opera"? You've seriously been watching way too much MTV. Second, wtf would you want to know what they're saying, most of which is pure and utter BULLSHIT. I'll give it to Green Day, they were good; I have yet to meet a single kid who didn't own Dookie. They sold out a long time ago and most of the time there's nothing wrong with that, buuuut I think they ran out of ideas and decided to go the pop-punk route (which is probably the biggest load of teenie bopper wannabie poser bullshit I can imagine).
Either way I can't help wondering if this is a good thing since
if Suse or Ubunto or some other linux dist suddenly becomes popular
overnight, will they get nailed for bundling 100s of apps with it?
Will a judge know (or care) of the difference between open source
and MS when it comes to bundling freeware in a distribution?
You're kidding right? Hrm, maybe you were thinking about this too hard and you forgot about the whole monopoly thing. It would be kinda silly to take an open source OS to court for monopolistic practices. You know, since it's free and OPEN.
You do know that 'The Dead' are still touring, right? So if you want to boycott those responsible you still can. But then you'd be missing out on Warren Haynes!
Well, you can't blame him. He obviously listens to modern pop music, he doesn't know what he's missing. It makes me sad, people would pay so much for shitty music when the real musicians who love their work want everyone to hear their music and are very willing to share that music. Read sig.
Only tens of billions? Maybe Bill Gates is worth tens of billions, but Microsoft is worth far more than that. Which only amplifies your point, of course:)
Just say NO to DRM. The only thing Sony seems to understand is lost sales.
Haven't you learned by now that any lost sales are blamed on piracy? Which means it will probably just lead to more DRM bullshit. I mean, it's gotten to the point where I can no longer justify buying a CD. Why shouldn't I be able to backup a cd I payed 20 bucks for? It will end up with me doing something illegal either way. It's cool because the stuff I download doesn't have DRM!
Did you miss all of those other articles about this on slashdot? This release is WORLDWIDE, everyone is pretty much getting it around the same time. This is not how it was with the original xbox. Microsoft announced a LOOOONG time ago there would be a shortage of xbox 360's. Ya, right, intended effect to create a buz... wtf does that mean? Why wouldn't they put out as many xbox 360's as they could? Does this make any sense to you?
Google does pay per click adds which are very easy to fake, but that seems to work for them. But even if we cut the advertisers out of the deal and make people pay per download, the major networks and producers aren't jumping on it(obviously). You make a good point and I'm sure that also plays a roll in this, but I still think it's because they're too afraid to upload their products into cyberspace with fear of people easily being able to copy it and distribute it themselves. For some reason they never think to cut their losses and atleast get a few people to pay for content themselves. After all, it's already REEAL easy for anyone to get anything, even little kids are doing it, you know, the ones that are taken to court. Getting illegal content couldn't be much easier. If they would just start trusting their consumers and simply say what's true: if you don't pay for content, less of that content will be made. I mean, i've given up hope for this idea, but it's fun to talk about the way things could be.
Why is that? Because there does not exist an official ratings system for downloads. Until Nielsen or some other group begins collecting reliable and independent stats on viewership of video downloads, you won't see any advertisers that are willing to pay big money for ads on downloaded video.
Kinda like hits on any given website? It would be allll to easy to tell how many people downloaded the torrent link:o
This is not nearly as complex as you people are making it. It can all be explained by the networks fear of teh internets (kinda like the **AA).
Orrr it could be because he wanted people to view it for free and see what a terrible movie it was instead of having people pay to see it. But I agree, the producers and everyone involved in the making of that film all need to be sacked.
2.) The downward forcing of prices for CDs from the likes of WalMart is causing their decline in profits. The labels then blame it on piracy. You have seen the FUD..."Piracy has cost us XXX bazillion in sales!!!" when in reality it is the outlets refusing to sell CDs for what the labels expect they should get.
That really does not make any sense to me. I was always under the impression that retailers bought the product from the producers. Wal-Mart can sell these products for cheap because they buy ALOT of them. Then, if the labels think Wal-Mart isn't giving them enough money, then they don't have to sell them cd's. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.
I do agree with you that piracy does not cost them billions of dollars. And of course they don't give any proof of this. The thing that prob cost them billions of dollars is their R&D for DRM BULLSHIT. If I have to pay top dollar for a limited product or I can get the same product with no DRM for FREE, which do they think I'm going to choose? If they would just *gasp* trust their consumers to give back to a community they enjoy, I think everyone would be better off. I know, wishful thinking and it's DEFINATELY not going to happen.So I guess they'll just try to make their money through the court and not the market. [/rant]
And from the article you sited But despite their claims to have legitimate products or services to sell, these fraudsters simply use money coming in from new recruits to pay off early stage investors
How does this apply again? pwnd? Go look up the ipod pyramid scheme, then you might get a clue as to what everyone is talking about when they say they don't want a free ipod... idiots on the internets...
Microsoft biggest competition is with itself it is getting increasingly difficult to sell new versions of its software when windows 2000 is good enough for most people and companies
This is very true. This is also a very good reason for them to start subscription-based services. So when it's good enough not to upgrade, you still gotta pay.
Even if it does mean that Linux can run their software it is better for MS to get a piece of the pie then have it slowly arroded away by google.
Agreed. And if they start a subscription-based internet service, they wouldn't have to compete with Linux on this field(as in, not letting Linux users use the service) and they would actually make more money if they didn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you really just refer to Green Day's album as a "rock opera"? You've seriously been watching way too much MTV. Second, wtf would you want to know what they're saying, most of which is pure and utter BULLSHIT. I'll give it to Green Day, they were good; I have yet to meet a single kid who didn't own Dookie. They sold out a long time ago and most of the time there's nothing wrong with that, buuuut I think they ran out of ideas and decided to go the pop-punk route (which is probably the biggest load of teenie bopper wannabie poser bullshit I can imagine).
Either way I can't help wondering if this is a good thing since if Suse or Ubunto or some other linux dist suddenly becomes popular overnight, will they get nailed for bundling 100s of apps with it? Will a judge know (or care) of the difference between open source and MS when it comes to bundling freeware in a distribution?
You're kidding right? Hrm, maybe you were thinking about this too hard and you forgot about the whole monopoly thing. It would be kinda silly to take an open source OS to court for monopolistic practices. You know, since it's free and OPEN.
One likes to believe in the freedom of music, But glittering prizes and endless compromises Shatter the illusion of integrity. ya
You do know that 'The Dead' are still touring, right? So if you want to boycott those responsible you still can. But then you'd be missing out on Warren Haynes!
omg, your site rocks!
I wouldn't listen to DMB for free! and rizzo is right, Allman Brothers are strongly against giving their shows away.
There are many more. No Mojo Nixon though, maybe you should email him about this outlet for his music.
Well, you can't blame him. He obviously listens to modern pop music, he doesn't know what he's missing. It makes me sad, people would pay so much for shitty music when the real musicians who love their work want everyone to hear their music and are very willing to share that music. Read sig.
Hell ya he rocks, I dont know what that kids problem is. Anyone that can play the drums and sing earns my respect.
If Chewbacca lived on Endor, you must acquit!
Only tens of billions? Maybe Bill Gates is worth tens of billions, but Microsoft is worth far more than that. Which only amplifies your point, of course :)
Haven't you learned by now that any lost sales are blamed on piracy? Which means it will probably just lead to more DRM bullshit. I mean, it's gotten to the point where I can no longer justify buying a CD. Why shouldn't I be able to backup a cd I payed 20 bucks for? It will end up with me doing something illegal either way. It's cool because the stuff I download doesn't have DRM!
I dunno, but i'd donate 10,000 dollars to charifty if someone does make one
yup
Did you miss all of those other articles about this on slashdot? This release is WORLDWIDE, everyone is pretty much getting it around the same time. This is not how it was with the original xbox. Microsoft announced a LOOOONG time ago there would be a shortage of xbox 360's. Ya, right, intended effect to create a buz... wtf does that mean? Why wouldn't they put out as many xbox 360's as they could? Does this make any sense to you?
You uhh know this release was worldwide right? 20 pieces for every store seems like alot now doesn't it?
Maybe they're sick of all the WWII games. *ducks*
And with the ml_ipod plugin for winamp, you won't ever have to look back!
Google does pay per click adds which are very easy to fake, but that seems to work for them. But even if we cut the advertisers out of the deal and make people pay per download, the major networks and producers aren't jumping on it(obviously). You make a good point and I'm sure that also plays a roll in this, but I still think it's because they're too afraid to upload their products into cyberspace with fear of people easily being able to copy it and distribute it themselves. For some reason they never think to cut their losses and atleast get a few people to pay for content themselves. After all, it's already REEAL easy for anyone to get anything, even little kids are doing it, you know, the ones that are taken to court. Getting illegal content couldn't be much easier. If they would just start trusting their consumers and simply say what's true: if you don't pay for content, less of that content will be made. I mean, i've given up hope for this idea, but it's fun to talk about the way things could be.
Kinda like hits on any given website? It would be allll to easy to tell how many people downloaded the torrent link :o
This is not nearly as complex as you people are making it. It can all be explained by the networks fear of teh internets (kinda like the **AA).
Orrr it could be because he wanted people to view it for free and see what a terrible movie it was instead of having people pay to see it. But I agree, the producers and everyone involved in the making of that film all need to be sacked.
That really does not make any sense to me. I was always under the impression that retailers bought the product from the producers. Wal-Mart can sell these products for cheap because they buy ALOT of them. Then, if the labels think Wal-Mart isn't giving them enough money, then they don't have to sell them cd's. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.
I do agree with you that piracy does not cost them billions of dollars. And of course they don't give any proof of this. The thing that prob cost them billions of dollars is their R&D for DRM BULLSHIT. If I have to pay top dollar for a limited product or I can get the same product with no DRM for FREE, which do they think I'm going to choose? If they would just *gasp* trust their consumers to give back to a community they enjoy, I think everyone would be better off. I know, wishful thinking and it's DEFINATELY not going to happen.So I guess they'll just try to make their money through the court and not the market. [/rant]
And from the article you sited But despite their claims to have legitimate products or services to sell, these fraudsters simply use money coming in from new recruits to pay off early stage investors How does this apply again? pwnd? Go look up the ipod pyramid scheme, then you might get a clue as to what everyone is talking about when they say they don't want a free ipod... idiots on the internets...
This is very true. This is also a very good reason for them to start subscription-based services. So when it's good enough not to upgrade, you still gotta pay.
Even if it does mean that Linux can run their software it is better for MS to get a piece of the pie then have it slowly arroded away by google.
Agreed. And if they start a subscription-based internet service, they wouldn't have to compete with Linux on this field(as in, not letting Linux users use the service) and they would actually make more money if they didn't.
You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.