we now keep the naimals penned and well fed, control their breeding, and we wind up with cows who have easily 50 times the milk production of medieval cows. Right now, the RIAA has those penned and bred cows. They know they can milk those cows and be assured of a rich bounty because they bred them that way. And you're asking them to free range their artists? It's just not a smart move for them.
An interesting analogy, 'cause I think it continues:
Although the production quantities and profit have gone up for the farming conglomorates (from our moddern food production system), there is growing evidence that we are in essence poisoning ourselves. As an example, cows are fed steroids and antibiotics and these are then found in the milk. While this is good for the profits of large corporations, it doesn't do us any good. We can already produce more food than we can eat.
So, the RIAA is able to control music production to their own enrichment. The cost that we are paying is that the human spirit, the soul, the whole reason humans make music in the first place is lost. In other words: the music supply is poisoned.
We were just talking about microwave networks to connect remote communities... and I was wondering what a medium-sized kitchen appliance had to do with internet connections.
There was some debate here, so thanks for clearing up that it is a computer....so, err, how do you get the internet onto one of them things?
I guess this OT here, and should go in as an Ask/. but any help would be appreciated.
For example, in a series of recent white papers, Internet technology giant Cisco urges these companies to "meter individual subscriber usage by application," as individuals' online travels are "tracked" and "integrated with billing systems."
makes me laugh... how are they gonna tell what I'm doing when everything gets run encrypted on random/non-standard ports? If it wasn't coming from persumably 'techie' companies I'd think this as funny as the porn port
Not that I bother today, but let's face it: If companies try and exert control for profit, people will find ways to circumvent the controls. Whether is encryption or full-blown 'private' networks (of all types) as you're suggesting, people will find a way around it. If the broadcast range improves, ad-hoc wifi might be the result of all this...
bits is bytes is random 1s and 0s until they get parsed by the appropriate application...
Laws are like software: you get what you wrote, not what you wanted.
I'm no fan of how the Chinese gvt behaves, but at the same time you must respect their sovereignty. But that's a political, not a commercial problem. You can't expect an organisation who's legal mandate is to maximize profits within the constraints of the law to have a social conscience.
So, while I empathise with your position, the problem is that (apparently) a majority of the country doesn't agree with you. They want corporations to provide maximum profit.
Maybe though, most people havn't thought about it. And maybe this will bring it to people's attention. This isn't a Google/China problem. Corporations are 'evil' to Americans in the name of profit as well. It is, as you have said, a problem with the legal requirements we have for a corporation to make profit job-'one' above all else.
Next step? Talk to your congress-critter. Until the law changes, Google et al are behaving exactly as we mandated them to.
I'm anti patent, but that's really because I don't think the current system works as intended.
There are some decent ideas in the proposal:
- Novelty as the only condition.
- Independant creation.
- Much shorter duration.
I think I could get behind something like this if and only if the current system were dropped in it's place. My fear is that all this will do is increase the legal fees, as you now need to defend on two fronts, and fill paperwork for two kinds of patents. From TFA:
Protection would last for four years, enough time to establish a market and about the time required to process a regular patent application today. That would allow inventors to have immediate protection against knockoffs of a technology even as they try to get broader protection by meeting the more stringent requirements for a conventional patent.
It seems to me that the last thing we need is to effectively add yet another layer of mess to the existing problems...
He does address the issue that current patents aren't reviewed all that well
At the same time, a substantial increase in regular patent fees would pay for a dramatic improvement in examination quality, perhaps even permitting the examination of all applications by a team of examiners, instead of just one.
but I'm curious who this team of examiners would be? From my point of view, the non-obvious clause is one of the main problems in our current patent system. To anyone in the field, most solutions are obvious. Put a dozen random engineers in a seperate rooms with a puzzle, and odds are you only get a couple of different solutions. To me, that means they are obvious.
I'm also unsure as to how one could prove prior art... the files on my PC have the date/time stamp that I want them to have...
Oh, and he specifically wants this for software patents, which I think are absurd...patents (should they exist at all) should be reserved for real-world things. No patent or copyright should be allowed to cover a number.
A thousand bucks? That'll get you like TWO SHARES...
I don't know if you could even get someone to part with just two shares. While it's not always the case, most shares are sold in lots, and a common lot size is a multiple of 100...Expensive shares like Google will definately have more exceptions, but I still doubt you will be able to buy only a $1000 worth of Google.
In fact...(where's the damn article when you need it?) the high share price is apparently part of Google's strategy. By keeping a higher share price they limit the number of little investors, leaving more shares in the hands of big institutions who are less likely to buy+sell a lot, which in turn leads to a more stable stock price...
Most companies "manipulate" their stock price by splitting when it's too high, and do a reverse split (not so common as it's not always seen as a positive sign for the company) when they want to increase the price of the shares. They do this to attract certain levels of investors.
No, that argument is only invalid when there's three people involved.
If Alice tells Bob to "be profitable before compassionate", Alice has no business get angry when Bob does just that.
Charlie, on the other hand, can quite justifiably be upset with Bob for not being compassionate. Charlie can be upset not just with Bob, though, but with Alice as well for making the orders.
There is no rational argument for punishing someone for doing what you told them to do.
If you and a friend visit a country that condones murder, and you kill your friend, you'll still be acountable when you come home to the US.
would have to read: If you and a friend visit a country that has mandatory murder, and you kill your friend... would you still be held accountable?
So, since murder is probably too vicious an example, let's try another one instead:
If you have a liquor store chain, (since in your home district (the US) private corporations like yours sell alcohol). You wish to expand to Canada and discover that the state has a lock on sales of alcohol. In defiance, since you're an American coroporation and should (by your logic) abide by American laws, you open shop and sell alcohol. The cops show up, charges are pressed. No question about it.
But what about the opressed Canadians!?! yells a congressman. They can only get state-provided and state-limited alcohol! This violates our principles of an open market place, and infringes on their rights! right.
The bottom line is that if any business wants to do business in any locality, the local laws are those that must be observed, not those at head-office.
Would you allow a Chinese company to run in the US using Chinese law?
Profit Maximization. In Anglo-American jurisdictions, for-profit corporations are generally required to serve the best interests of the shareholders, a rule that courts have interpreted to mean the maximization of share value, and thus profits. Corporate directors are prohibited by corporate law from sacrificing profits to serve some other interest, including such areas as environmental protection, or the improvement of the welfare of the community.
Google et al are just doing what we told them they must do... Their shareholders can sue if the board takes an interest in the welfare of the people over profits...
This isn't a Google/China problem, it's a problem with our definition of a corporation, and it impacts us just the same. Don't like it? Change the definition such that Google can take an interest in the welfare of people (not just Chinese people -- all people).
You can't get mad at someone when they do what you told them to do, just because you don't like the end result.
Everyone is angry with the Globe for this... but what about the credit card companies? I mean, is this 1950? It would be (today) relatively simply to tie a unique number to a person+business for payments. So even if this number got out, it would be useless to anyone but the merchant.
imho, accepting a public number as a payment is irresponsible.
One implementation:
No business is alowed to or able to store credit card numbers - the swipe-machine doesn't pass it out.
Businesses would submit their merchant id plus the customer's credit card number and be given a unique response. This could be some kind of crypto algorithm...
If you swipe a card in a store, the merchant never sees the number on the card: the returning code, plus a transaction code is all they need, and they can store this and print this and publish this to their hearts content...
The returning code is a link between a card-holder and a merchant. Since it's not a credit card number, it's useless to an individual.
For recurring billing, the original return code (the one that tied the merchant and customer together) can be resubmitted and a new transaction id will be returned.
For not-in-person transactions, the card holder could optionally obtain a unique number for use with a specific merchant. For on-line transactions this might be made mandatory and could be done in-line (visa already does something simliar at some sites).
The key point is that the only data that a merchant stores is a unique link between a cardholder and a merchant. The worst that can happen if this number is leaked is 'criminals' could give the merchant more money, never themselves. This kinda takes the point out of stealing these numbers... Since the merchant would no longer have actual credit card numbers in their system, a security breach wouldn't put anyone in danger of being defrauded.
While everyone is angry with businesses for making mistakes we're ignoring the fact that the current system requires perfection. Not something that is real likely as long as humans are involved... Let's stop bitching about the mistakes being made and update the process to take imperfection into account.
No - mismanagement would be paying more than the market (apparently) bears. So if people are willing to deliver papers at a net loss to themselves, that's not really the companies problem is it? If there's mismanagement in what you're describing it's the carriers for working the contract... If enough leave, the company will be forced to raise the pay... yada yada yada economics 101.
Capitalism isn't about paying what you can afford to: it's about maximising profits. This is achieved by some combination of minimising expenses while maximising revenue. If management doesn't see any additional revenue for an expense they will (typically) balk at it... ...and if you think that "a first rate product" is their goal, I'll refer you back to the line about maximising profit... Very few companies make a first rate product: most shoot for the big bulge in the bell curve.
Then, after reinstalling, it actually booted, but the graphics were messed up, and it BSOD'd a whole lot.
It's amazing, the level to which they've already reproduced the original. I call copyright infrigement - no way they'd get so close so fast on their own.
Well, it did slow the process down by a pretty long time.
Did it?
We'll never know if the "bad guys" have been plotting these orbits since day-2.
The problem with any 'secret' is that it can leave you with a false sense of security - and that's often far more dangerous than knowing that the original information was public knowledge.
Organisations who rely on secrets that can be easily observed or discovered are setting themselves up for failure. So what decisions are/were made based on the assumption that these satelites were secret? how might they have behaved differently if the 'secret' assumption had not been made?
On first glance this appears a very attractive offer, and I can see why so many people are saying 'yes'.
The problem is that if the RIAA is genuinely looking at this it means we may be getting closer to the (much needed) end of this obsolete organisation. It is obviously a desperation tactic to guarantee their profits.
This flat-rate model is the RIAA looking to maximise profits with minimum work. If anyone thinks that a company with guaranteed income is going to do any work needs to revisit the economics of what welfare does to people's desire to work.
So we are effectively going to eliminate any work the RIAA might be doing.
Since they only have one real job: Distribute media, they are really not doing anything in the internet age anyways... so why pay them?
The argument that they discover and promote talent is bogus. They invent and market those that are most profitable to them. They prevent those that won't sign from getting exposure beyond clubs (i.e. no radio play for you!) Do you really want just the music that gets marketed to you? Marketing is a very real force, and you can pretend that ads don't work on you, but then everyone says that, but companies are still able to fabricate demand. Coca-Cola anyone? Purely fabricated demand.*
The 'discovery' and 'promotion' aspects are only there because it increases their bottom line. The only real job the RIAA has ever had is the distribution of media. The internet is now more efficient at performing this task, and I see no reason to pay the RIAA a royalty for doing nothing.
All those that want to pay me to do absolutely nothing for you, please reply here, I'll set up a paypal and you can fund me to your hearts content... no takers? hmmm, too bad.
So why do you want to prop up a bunch of millionaires who aren't doing anything for you either?
The RIAA is just looking to guarantee it's profits. Nothing more.
*I'm not saying coke's not a tastey beverage, just that it's popularity is based on slick marketing; which is how music is also marketed and sold. Art isn't made for profit. The profitability of art shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether or not it gets made or you get to see/hear it.
Will there still be $1 billion in music sales even if you can download for "free"?
I have several problems with the all-u-can-eat buffet...How about: When the RIAA gets their welfare cheque will they still have any interest in producing music (i.e. the much vaunted incentive is gone)
Currently the RIAA has two tasks:
Find and/or fabricate artist(s) and promote them.
Distribute physical media for a profit.
They don't produce content: Artists do, and always will.
The problem for the RIAA is that internet+economics dictates that they are no longer the cheapest/most-efficient method for accomplishing Task#2....so... ...this leaves them with only the task of finding or fabricating artists and promoting them. Personally, I find their track record in identifiying good (or even popular) music horrible. Some use the fact that for every 'hit' band the RIAA 'discovers', it must waste profits on 20 misses as a reason that the RIAA must exist. I just see that as a second innefficiency, and a second reason they are no longer necessary. Let's face it, the only real task was the distribution of media. The finding and promoting part is just a more-profit question. (i.e. more hits -> more media distributed -> more profit. So then comes the argument that We've never seen a mega-band come from non-RIAA promotion (i.e. internet alone). Well, that's simply not quite true (as in the whole truth). The reality is that the RIAA controls the single best music advertising medium: Commercial Radio. Wanna get radio play? sign right up... Don't wanna sign? sorry, no play for you. Radio play equates to CD and ticket sales in a very real way, and the RIAA knows it (now!) which was why payola was made illegal (which hasn't stopped the practice, just changed it to 'promoters').
So let's eliminate the RIAA completely and see where this goes:
Commercial radio isn't going to die if the RIAA doesn't payola them, so there's no loss there.
People will hear new music from a variety of sources: radio, internet, friends, etc so people will still get new music, so no loss there.
Will it be the same bands? Probably not, since we already know that the RIAA is pretty bad at picking good bands (by their own 1-in-20 numbers). Is that a loss? Not in the least: it's a major bonus for music enthusiasts. No more sifting through the crap they feel is most profitable (i.e. those that would sign away their artistic integrity). This decentralises the power of who gets to control what you hear. Friends and the 'net (blogs, last.fm whatever) become more important in determining what you listen to, and the local radio station might (again!) have a say in what they play. The title 'music director' might again be someone who actually picks up random recordings and plays them, or better, DJs might again get to do the same... 'music director' is an invention of the RIAA controlled marketplace.
So, do I want a system that continues to prop up a business that has outlived it's usefulness, and is harmful to artists and consumers? Nope, I won't pay for the buffet.
No - my point of view is that there was no proof in the original article on BoingBoing. They made statements as facts without anything upon which to base these statements.
Contrast this with the amount of work and detail Mark Russinovich put into the rootkit and I think you will see that one site is merely making wild accusations, and the other has a well documented computer problem which should be taken seriously.
Now maybe there are in fact problems with the StarForce software, but there is nothing other than unproven statements on BoingBoing.
So my point of view is merely unbiased: Until BoingBoing posts something in the way of proof, it's open season for the lawyers.
Precedent was set by Kyle Bennett of HardOCP when he successfully defended vs Infinium Labs last year.
I'll admit I only skimmed the OCP/Infinium article, but there is some major contrast in what I've read.
BoingBoing is presenting statements like "The software causes system instability and crashes." as fact without any backing links, resources, references or (in short) proof.
HardOCP made statements like "What we discovered was that the CEO of Infinium Labs, Timothy Roberts, has helmed several businesses that have failed or have gone bankrupt in the last six years." which they then back up with a lengthy list of businesses he was involved in and their demise, thus proving the statement.
It is slander/libel if it's not true, even if you as another individual happen to (want to) agree with it.
Things you can say without proof? Things that are an opinion, or stated as an opinion: I think the food at McDonald's sucks. I can publish this without fear because it's my opinion. What I can't say is McDonald's uses rat poison as seasoning unless I can prove it.
claiming libel and slander when, again, opinions of a entities buisness practices are protected free speech...
While opinions are protected, false 'facts' are not. The following (from the original) are not opinions, but were persented as statements of fact, not opinion:
The software causes system instability and crashes.
Starforce, on a regular basis, triggers this silent step down.
...the Starforce drivers, installed on your system, grant ring 0 (system level) privileges to any code under the ring 3 (user level) privileges.
An opinion might read like "It seems to me that my system became unstable after I installed some software. or I don't like the food at McDonald's.
A statement of fact should be presented with backing documentation, something like After installing on a clean machine, using SomeMonitoringSoftware and SomeSoftwareToBeTested, it was noted that there were packets lost and the silent step-down was initiated by WinXP. ...so if Mr BoingBoing can't prove his statements he might be in for a rough ride...
The word allegedly.
I saw nothing in the post the back up his assertions. While I don't doubt that it is possible that everything stated there was fact, there is nothing posted, nor did I see any links to evidence nor how he came to the conclusions that the software in question did any of the things he describes.
If the company can demonstrate that any one of the statements he made is false then there is grounds for a lawsuit...
(ignoring the fact that the program you mentioned above is NOT eligible for copyright protection because of its obviety, non-intellectual-novelty and other similar factors)
methinks you are confusing copyright with patent. AFAIK there is no non-obvious or novelty requirement for copyright. The PP could author a program that counts to 100 and copyright it, but (probably) not patent it; though the way the USTPO hands out patents, they probably could get a patent as well....:(
If we assume a rational patent office, the program could only achieve patent if the manner of counting to 100 were new and novel. The copyright, on the other hand, would be on the specific code/program, and in any other programmer that wrote another program to count to 100 could also copyright their work. In essence: there can be an unlimited number of copyright software that accomplish the same thing.
the GPL would be dramatically less effective: anyone could rip the code and use it in their own non-commercial product, without distributing the source.
But does that really matter? I guess it violates the spirit of the GPL (which is to encourage sharing of source-code) but since you couldn't make commercial use, who is going to publish executible code and not the source? Besides, under the current GPL you can make commercial use of GPLd code and not share it (as long as you write it, you use it, and you don't distribute either compiled or source forms.)
If copyright were only applied to commercial usage it would certainly change how things work, some good, some bad; but the system isn't perfect now either.
The point is that copyright infringement isn't just about whether the copier is profiting, it's also (and probably more importantly) about whether the copyright holder is losing some benefit as a result of someone else making the copy.
Actually, copyright has nothing to do with profit. It has everything to do with control. But in this capitalistic society, control is turned into money. (so is wheat, rocks, oil and paid-labour) It could just as easily be turned into prestige. The other half that you've failed to address is the benefit the artist gets when their work is shared: increased exposure. When commercial radio started playing music the RIAA stepped up and demanded payment since who would buy records if they could hear it for free? Well we know now that radio play is in fact a 5-min advert for the album...radio play (sharing!) actually increased, not decreased sales. So we can't talk about potential harm without talking potential gain. (and let's also remember that a shared file in no way shape or form harms anyone. The artist is not poorer after the share, and so has not suffered any harm. Is the author "harmed" when I read a book at the library or a friends house? In all the cases, I made use of copyright material without payment to the copyright holder.)
If not making a profit implied fair use, then the first person buying any CD could put it on P2P, everyone in the world could legally copy it from that seed within minutes, and any profit potential for the copyright holder would be dramatically reduced.
Since copyright doesn't protect profit (it protects content) the statement is as meaningful as saying that if country music falls out of favour Garth Brooks profit potential would be dramatically reduced. The second aspect is that there are a lot of people who even in the face of "free" media content will pay for the original with packaging, liner notes etc. People have experimented with publishing their book (free) on the internet, and discovered that people started requesting hard-copies. There is plenty of evidence to support that people will and do buy CDs from artists that give away their music.
I'm sure some of our members would support that view, but I'm betting not many of them know much about economics, nor rely entirely solely on art they produce to pay the rent.
I always enjoy it when the economics of having to pay rent comes into the copyright conversation. The majority of artists (signed and independant) make little to no income from the sales of recorded music (CDs etc). The top few 'artists' (as decided by the RIAA's payola) make money from the CDs. The vast, vast, vast majority make their money from touring. The zillion dollar profit that 100+/- 'artists' make is then paraded for all to see and held as the norm, to convince people that artists make money from CD sales. They don't.
Revoking copyright would hurt dozens of artists in a marginal way (those that were true top-artists would still make tons of cash on tours), but millions of others would not see any real change to their finances. Some would actually be richer w/o the RIAA. It might, however, effectiv
Let's think of this for a while, shall we ? The artist has a right to profit from his work. This right trumps all other rights anyone might have
First off... profit is not a right (it is just not illegal - and there is a difference. Rights would be "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", so even if you define profit as happiness, you are only granted the right to pursue them, not necessarily obtain them) and so profit is guaranteed to no one. There is currently a protection offered to "copyright holders" that they have exclusive control over their 'works'. Since there is no 'right to profit', it can not and does not "trump all other rights". Now copyright on the otherhand, does (under current law) get balanced against certain rights, and does (as currently interpretted/enforced) supercede certain rights under certain circumstances, including physical property rights.
Now then. If you publish copyrighted material, even if you own the copyrights in question, you are competing with that artist and, if you're any good, taking at least some potential profits from him. Therefore, by publishing your own stuff, you are violating the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
Publishing your own new material has nothing to with the DMCA except that your works (may) be protected by the DMCA. "Competing" with other copyright holders has nothing to do with the DMCA except that (both) (may) be protected by the DMCA. There is still no guarantee of profit, and so profit still has nothing to do with copyright work and the DMCA.
Publishing independent of the RIAA means that you are engaged in unlawfull competition and starving the poor artists,
There is absolutely nothing unlawful in publishing your own new work, and there is no such thing as "unlawful competition" in the context of copyright.
...and to prevent any possibility of competition from pesky new technologies.
The RIAA doesn't compete with technology - (hell, they barely know how to use it!) The RIAA is in the business of creating and distributing music. Until now they had an easy ability to ensure that most people couldn't have music and not pay them, but the internet and compressed audio file technologies changed that. They have never understood their customers, and have never understood that their real business was only the distribution (the artists do the 'create' part). Unfortunately (for them) the internet makes the distribution cost (basically) disappear, and makes it difficult for them to hide monopolistic profits (which they used to be able to do in records, tapes, CDs etc) and the public has become aware of this. So, we are now in a situation where a very rich group sees a decline in profit and has an easy scape-goat (real or imagined), and instead of trying to understand their customers and offer them service, they take them to court. If the RIAA had offered music for sale on the internet 10-years ago, there would not be an entire generation that believes that downloading music from the internet is not wrong. Sure, there would still be some that did, just as some trade in software. But that hasn't killed the software industry, has it?
Slashdot Mirror
Although the production quantities and profit have gone up for the farming conglomorates (from our moddern food production system), there is growing evidence that we are in essence poisoning ourselves. As an example, cows are fed steroids and antibiotics and these are then found in the milk. While this is good for the profits of large corporations, it doesn't do us any good. We can already produce more food than we can eat.
So, the RIAA is able to control music production to their own enrichment. The cost that we are paying is that the human spirit, the soul, the whole reason humans make music in the first place is lost. In other words: the music supply is poisoned.
The solution is to support free-range artists...
There was some debate here, so thanks for clearing up that it is a computer.
I guess this OT here, and should go in as an Ask/. but any help would be appreciated.
Not that I bother today, but let's face it: If companies try and exert control for profit, people will find ways to circumvent the controls. Whether is encryption or full-blown 'private' networks (of all types) as you're suggesting, people will find a way around it. If the broadcast range improves, ad-hoc wifi might be the result of all this...
bits is bytes is random 1s and 0s until they get parsed by the appropriate application...
I'm no fan of how the Chinese gvt behaves, but at the same time you must respect their sovereignty. But that's a political, not a commercial problem. You can't expect an organisation who's legal mandate is to maximize profits within the constraints of the law to have a social conscience.
So, while I empathise with your position, the problem is that (apparently) a majority of the country doesn't agree with you. They want corporations to provide maximum profit.
Maybe though, most people havn't thought about it. And maybe this will bring it to people's attention. This isn't a Google/China problem. Corporations are 'evil' to Americans in the name of profit as well. It is, as you have said, a problem with the legal requirements we have for a corporation to make profit job-'one' above all else.
Next step? Talk to your congress-critter. Until the law changes, Google et al are behaving exactly as we mandated them to.
There are some decent ideas in the proposal:
- Novelty as the only condition.
- Independant creation.
- Much shorter duration.
I think I could get behind something like this if and only if the current system were dropped in it's place.
It seems to me that the last thing we need is to effectively add yet another layer of mess to the existing problems...My fear is that all this will do is increase the legal fees, as you now need to defend on two fronts, and fill paperwork for two kinds of patents. From TFA:
He does address the issue that current patents aren't reviewed all that well
but I'm curious who this team of examiners would be? From my point of view, the non-obvious clause is one of the main problems in our current patent system. To anyone in the field, most solutions are obvious. Put a dozen random engineers in a seperate rooms with a puzzle, and odds are you only get a couple of different solutions. To me, that means they are obvious.I'm also unsure as to how one could prove prior art ... the files on my PC have the date/time stamp that I want them to have...
Oh, and he specifically wants this for software patents, which I think are absurd...patents (should they exist at all) should be reserved for real-world things. No patent or copyright should be allowed to cover a number.
A thousand bucks? That'll get you like TWO SHARES ... ...(where's the damn article when you need it?) the high share price is apparently part of Google's strategy. By keeping a higher share price they limit the number of little investors, leaving more shares in the hands of big institutions who are less likely to buy+sell a lot, which in turn leads to a more stable stock price...
I don't know if you could even get someone to part with just two shares. While it's not always the case, most shares are sold in lots, and a common lot size is a multiple of 100...Expensive shares like Google will definately have more exceptions, but I still doubt you will be able to buy only a $1000 worth of Google.
In fact
Most companies "manipulate" their stock price by splitting when it's too high, and do a reverse split (not so common as it's not always seen as a positive sign for the company) when they want to increase the price of the shares. They do this to attract certain levels of investors.
If Alice tells Bob to "be profitable before compassionate", Alice has no business get angry when Bob does just that.
Charlie, on the other hand, can quite justifiably be upset with Bob for not being compassionate. Charlie can be upset not just with Bob, though, but with Alice as well for making the orders.
There is no rational argument for punishing someone for doing what you told them to do.
If you and a friend visit a country that has mandatory murder, and you kill your friend... would you still be held accountable?
So, since murder is probably too vicious an example, let's try another one instead:
If you have a liquor store chain, (since in your home district (the US) private corporations like yours sell alcohol). You wish to expand to Canada and discover that the state has a lock on sales of alcohol. In defiance, since you're an American coroporation and should (by your logic) abide by American laws, you open shop and sell alcohol. The cops show up, charges are pressed. No question about it.
But what about the opressed Canadians!?! yells a congressman. They can only get state-provided and state-limited alcohol! This violates our principles of an open market place, and infringes on their rights! right.
The bottom line is that if any business wants to do business in any locality, the local laws are those that must be observed, not those at head-office.
Would you allow a Chinese company to run in the US using Chinese law?
Google et al are just doing what we told them they must do... Their shareholders can sue if the board takes an interest in the welfare of the people over profits...
This isn't a Google/China problem, it's a problem with our definition of a corporation, and it impacts us just the same. Don't like it? Change the definition such that Google can take an interest in the welfare of people (not just Chinese people -- all people).
You can't get mad at someone when they do what you told them to do, just because you don't like the end result.
imho, accepting a public number as a payment is irresponsible.
One implementation:
- No business is alowed to or able to store credit card numbers - the swipe-machine doesn't pass it out.
- Businesses would submit their merchant id plus the customer's credit card number and be given a unique response. This could be some kind of crypto algorithm
...
- If you swipe a card in a store, the merchant never sees the number on the card: the returning code, plus a transaction code is all they need, and they can store this and print this and publish this to their hearts content...
- The returning code is a link between a card-holder and a merchant. Since it's not a credit card number, it's useless to an individual.
- For recurring billing, the original return code (the one that tied the merchant and customer together) can be resubmitted and a new transaction id will be returned.
- For not-in-person transactions, the card holder could optionally obtain a unique number for use with a specific merchant. For on-line transactions this might be made mandatory and could be done in-line (visa already does something simliar at some sites).
The key point is that the only data that a merchant stores is a unique link between a cardholder and a merchant. The worst that can happen if this number is leaked is 'criminals' could give the merchant more money, never themselves. This kinda takes the point out of stealing these numbers... Since the merchant would no longer have actual credit card numbers in their system, a security breach wouldn't put anyone in danger of being defrauded.While everyone is angry with businesses for making mistakes we're ignoring the fact that the current system requires perfection. Not something that is real likely as long as humans are involved... Let's stop bitching about the mistakes being made and update the process to take imperfection into account.
No - mismanagement would be paying more than the market (apparently) bears. So if people are willing to deliver papers at a net loss to themselves, that's not really the companies problem is it? If there's mismanagement in what you're describing it's the carriers for working the contract ... If enough leave, the company will be forced to raise the pay... yada yada yada economics 101.
...and if you think that "a first rate product" is their goal, I'll refer you back to the line about maximising profit... Very few companies make a first rate product: most shoot for the big bulge in the bell curve.
Capitalism isn't about paying what you can afford to: it's about maximising profits. This is achieved by some combination of minimising expenses while maximising revenue. If management doesn't see any additional revenue for an expense they will (typically) balk at it...
We'll never know if the "bad guys" have been plotting these orbits since day-2.
The problem with any 'secret' is that it can leave you with a false sense of security - and that's often far more dangerous than knowing that the original information was public knowledge.
Organisations who rely on secrets that can be easily observed or discovered are setting themselves up for failure. So what decisions are/were made based on the assumption that these satelites were secret? how might they have behaved differently if the 'secret' assumption had not been made?
The problem is that if the RIAA is genuinely looking at this it means we may be getting closer to the (much needed) end of this obsolete organisation. It is obviously a desperation tactic to guarantee their profits.
This flat-rate model is the RIAA looking to maximise profits with minimum work. If anyone thinks that a company with guaranteed income is going to do any work needs to revisit the economics of what welfare does to people's desire to work.
So we are effectively going to eliminate any work the RIAA might be doing.
Since they only have one real job: Distribute media, they are really not doing anything in the internet age anyways
The argument that they discover and promote talent is bogus. They invent and market those that are most profitable to them. They prevent those that won't sign from getting exposure beyond clubs (i.e. no radio play for you!) Do you really want just the music that gets marketed to you? Marketing is a very real force, and you can pretend that ads don't work on you, but then everyone says that, but companies are still able to fabricate demand. Coca-Cola anyone? Purely fabricated demand.*
The 'discovery' and 'promotion' aspects are only there because it increases their bottom line. The only real job the RIAA has ever had is the distribution of media. The internet is now more efficient at performing this task, and I see no reason to pay the RIAA a royalty for doing nothing.
All those that want to pay me to do absolutely nothing for you, please reply here, I'll set up a paypal and you can fund me to your hearts content... no takers? hmmm, too bad.
So why do you want to prop up a bunch of millionaires who aren't doing anything for you either?
The RIAA is just looking to guarantee it's profits. Nothing more.
*I'm not saying coke's not a tastey beverage, just that it's popularity is based on slick marketing; which is how music is also marketed and sold. Art isn't made for profit. The profitability of art shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether or not it gets made or you get to see/hear it.
Currently the RIAA has two tasks:
- Find and/or fabricate artist(s) and promote them.
- Distribute physical media for a profit.
They don't produce content: Artists do, and always will.The problem for the RIAA is that internet+economics dictates that they are no longer the cheapest/most-efficient method for accomplishing Task#2.
So then comes the argument that We've never seen a mega-band come from non-RIAA promotion (i.e. internet alone). Well, that's simply not quite true (as in the whole truth). The reality is that the RIAA controls the single best music advertising medium: Commercial Radio. Wanna get radio play? sign right up... Don't wanna sign? sorry, no play for you. Radio play equates to CD and ticket sales in a very real way, and the RIAA knows it (now!) which was why payola was made illegal (which hasn't stopped the practice, just changed it to 'promoters').
So let's eliminate the RIAA completely and see where this goes:
Commercial radio isn't going to die if the RIAA doesn't payola them, so there's no loss there.
People will hear new music from a variety of sources: radio, internet, friends, etc so people will still get new music, so no loss there.
Will it be the same bands? Probably not, since we already know that the RIAA is pretty bad at picking good bands (by their own 1-in-20 numbers). Is that a loss? Not in the least: it's a major bonus for music enthusiasts. No more sifting through the crap they feel is most profitable (i.e. those that would sign away their artistic integrity).
This decentralises the power of who gets to control what you hear. Friends and the 'net (blogs, last.fm whatever) become more important in determining what you listen to, and the local radio station might (again!) have a say in what they play. The title 'music director' might again be someone who actually picks up random recordings and plays them, or better, DJs might again get to do the same... 'music director' is an invention of the RIAA controlled marketplace.
So, do I want a system that continues to prop up a business that has outlived it's usefulness, and is harmful to artists and consumers? Nope, I won't pay for the buffet.
Contrast this with the amount of work and detail Mark Russinovich put into the rootkit and I think you will see that one site is merely making wild accusations, and the other has a well documented computer problem which should be taken seriously.
Now maybe there are in fact problems with the StarForce software, but there is nothing other than unproven statements on BoingBoing.
So my point of view is merely unbiased: Until BoingBoing posts something in the way of proof, it's open season for the lawyers.
BoingBoing is presenting statements like "The software causes system instability and crashes." as fact without any backing links, resources, references or (in short) proof.
HardOCP made statements like "What we discovered was that the CEO of Infinium Labs, Timothy Roberts, has helmed several businesses that have failed or have gone bankrupt in the last six years." which they then back up with a lengthy list of businesses he was involved in and their demise, thus proving the statement.
It is slander/libel if it's not true, even if you as another individual happen to (want to) agree with it.
Things you can say without proof? Things that are an opinion, or stated as an opinion: I think the food at McDonald's sucks. I can publish this without fear because it's my opinion. What I can't say is McDonald's uses rat poison as seasoning unless I can prove it.
disclaimer McDonalds is uummm ummmm delicious! :)
An opinion might read like "It seems to me that my system became unstable after I installed some software. or I don't like the food at McDonald's.
...so if Mr BoingBoing can't prove his statements he might be in for a rough ride...
A statement of fact should be presented with backing documentation, something like After installing on a clean machine, using SomeMonitoringSoftware and SomeSoftwareToBeTested, it was noted that there were packets lost and the silent step-down was initiated by WinXP.
I saw nothing in the post the back up his assertions. While I don't doubt that it is possible that everything stated there was fact, there is nothing posted, nor did I see any links to evidence nor how he came to the conclusions that the software in question did any of the things he describes.
If the company can demonstrate that any one of the statements he made is false then there is grounds for a lawsuit...
If we assume a rational patent office, the program could only achieve patent if the manner of counting to 100 were new and novel. The copyright, on the other hand, would be on the specific code/program, and in any other programmer that wrote another program to count to 100 could also copyright their work. In essence: there can be an unlimited number of copyright software that accomplish the same thing.
oblig IANAL
But does that really matter? I guess it violates the spirit of the GPL (which is to encourage sharing of source-code) but since you couldn't make commercial use, who is going to publish executible code and not the source? Besides, under the current GPL you can make commercial use of GPLd code and not share it (as long as you write it, you use it, and you don't distribute either compiled or source forms.)
If copyright were only applied to commercial usage it would certainly change how things work, some good, some bad; but the system isn't perfect now either.
Actually, copyright has nothing to do with profit. It has everything to do with control. But in this capitalistic society, control is turned into money. (so is wheat, rocks, oil and paid-labour) It could just as easily be turned into prestige.
The other half that you've failed to address is the benefit the artist gets when their work is shared: increased exposure. When commercial radio started playing music the RIAA stepped up and demanded payment since who would buy records if they could hear it for free? Well we know now that radio play is in fact a 5-min advert for the album...radio play (sharing!) actually increased, not decreased sales. So we can't talk about potential harm without talking potential gain. (and let's also remember that a shared file in no way shape or form harms anyone. The artist is not poorer after the share, and so has not suffered any harm. Is the author "harmed" when I read a book at the library or a friends house? In all the cases, I made use of copyright material without payment to the copyright holder.)
Since copyright doesn't protect profit (it protects content) the statement is as meaningful as saying that if country music falls out of favour Garth Brooks profit potential would be dramatically reduced. The second aspect is that there are a lot of people who even in the face of "free" media content will pay for the original with packaging, liner notes etc. People have experimented with publishing their book (free) on the internet, and discovered that people started requesting hard-copies. There is plenty of evidence to support that people will and do buy CDs from artists that give away their music.
I always enjoy it when the economics of having to pay rent comes into the copyright conversation. The majority of artists (signed and independant) make little to no income from the sales of recorded music (CDs etc). The top few 'artists' (as decided by the RIAA's payola) make money from the CDs. The vast, vast, vast majority make their money from touring. The zillion dollar profit that 100+/- 'artists' make is then paraded for all to see and held as the norm, to convince people that artists make money from CD sales. They don't.
Revoking copyright would hurt dozens of artists in a marginal way (those that were true top-artists would still make tons of cash on tours), but millions of others would not see any real change to their finances. Some would actually be richer w/o the RIAA.
It might, however, effectiv
So, we are now in a situation where a very rich group sees a decline in profit and has an easy scape-goat (real or imagined), and instead of trying to understand their customers and offer them service, they take them to court. If the RIAA had offered music for sale on the internet 10-years ago, there would not be an entire generation that believes that downloading music from the internet is not wrong. Sure, there would still be some that did, just as some trade in software. But that hasn't killed the software industry, has it?