Thier main complaint was that the competition was selling thier product and the FS model wasnt contributing enough.
Lack of contributions could mean two things: the users were "leaching" or the product was really that good, i think the later because other people were selling it.
You could also assume the competition was better at bringing their product to market. They should attempt to make a deal with the competition to market it and they will develop it.
not only will the MS-DVD play once, it will only work for one person via light polatization tuned to a specific retina via the MS-DVD player. if a person tries to watch the MS-DVD without a proper license their eyes will crash. if more than one person wants to watch the MS-DVD at the same time they will have to buy a license from the IP owner.
also if you attempt to digitially record the initial playing of the MS-DVD a fat bald man will knock on your door, scream at you till his voice is gone, and then throw a chair at you.
i think the key word is industry or industries, recording music is only one small but critical facet.
..., Videos, Hot Topic, John Deer hats, Sean Jean, The Real World, Vote or Die,...
music is no longer about art appreciation, its about a consumerism. So much more than the music is profitable. If you remove the music from the industry there is a lot more to lose than CD sales.
lose control of the pop punk and new metal bands: no more over-priced anti-establishment apparel. kids will go back to making it themselves like they did in the 80s. they wont feel the need to have an officially licensed merchandise
lose control of the rappers: no more suburban white kids wearing expensive FUBU clothing, sports jerseys with , and gold chains that weighs more than they do.
you get the idea. if they lose control of the music they lose big, and others lose big too.
allow people to make money by paying people for their download bandwidth in theory if i were to do this i could pay my content costs, and then some; in theory could enyone else who has some of the content; so in theory the costs of hosting on BT would cost more than the profits of the content viewing.
Only two balls, but Right to Privacy and Freedom of Speech are awfully hard to juggle..
they are the exact same ball. the first amendment also means that you don't have to talk unless you want you -> you are free to not talk, unless in certain situations like when subpoenaed to testify or something like that. google is totaly within thier rights to do this: there is no ball to juggle.
now on the other hand, google's choices could effect some people's opinions of them, but that's life in the big city.
Slashdot Mirror
Thier main complaint was that the competition was selling thier product and the FS model wasnt contributing enough.
Lack of contributions could mean two things: the users were "leaching" or the product was really that good, i think the later because other people were selling it.
You could also assume the competition was better at bringing their product to market. They should attempt to make a deal with the competition to market it and they will develop it.
Everyone wins bigger.
also if you attempt to digitially record the initial playing of the MS-DVD a fat bald man will knock on your door, scream at you till his voice is gone, and then throw a chair at you.
music is no longer about art appreciation, its about a consumerism. So much more than the music is profitable. If you remove the music from the industry there is a lot more to lose than CD sales.
lose control of the pop punk and new metal bands: no more over-priced anti-establishment apparel. kids will go back to making it themselves like they did in the 80s. they wont feel the need to have an officially licensed merchandise
lose control of the rappers: no more suburban white kids wearing expensive FUBU clothing, sports jerseys with , and gold chains that weighs more than they do.
you get the idea. if they lose control of the music they lose big, and others lose big too.
allow people to make money by paying people for their download bandwidth
in theory if i were to do this i could pay my content costs, and then some;
in theory could enyone else who has some of the content;
so in theory the costs of hosting on BT would cost more than the profits of the content viewing.
*click* *click* *click*
enhance
*click* *click* *click*
enhance
Only two balls, but Right to Privacy and Freedom of Speech are awfully hard to juggle..
they are the exact same ball. the first amendment also means that you don't have to talk unless you want you -> you are free to not talk, unless in certain situations like when subpoenaed to testify or something like that. google is totaly within thier rights to do this: there is no ball to juggle.
now on the other hand, google's choices could effect some people's opinions of them, but that's life in the big city.