So, now, Microsoft could simply choose to SELL messenger and media player to the people in these places.
Yes, in the same way that AOL sells AIM, Yahoo! sells Yahoo! Messenger, Winamp sells their player (yes I know they have a pro version that is for a price, before anyone gets all "Oh let me aruge something I think I know about!" realize I'm talking about the basic player, which already does more than WMP) That's just to name the more popular ones. (Yeah iTunes as well...btw wtf is up with that, why does it decide it can just leave two processes running on my computer after I close it? I think they were iTunes Helper.exe and iPodService.exe, or something like that...asswipes.)
If they choose to sell media player, all I'd have to say is good freakin luck getting or retaining a customer base
Agreed that forcing them to provide links desn't seem like a very sensible solution though.
Not sure if it's a state thing only, but while driving through the lovely state of New Jersey I was ticketed for not driving in the right lane. Only traffic ticket I ever got. I wasn't even speeding at that time....thuogh if the cop had seen me maybe 15 minutes earlier that would have been a far worse ticket...
Problem I have with that is people are stupid. A larger portion of the (ignorant) masses than should be acceptable will allow themselves to be bullied around by the (not-so-ignorant, but oh so very arrogant) high-income execs. They'll keep pushing pricese up and up while the average buyer says to him or herself "yeah it seems a bit overpriced, but it's no big deal just this once." And we the knowledgeable, the concerned consumers, get stuck with no reasonable alternative but a) to give in to this inherently unfair system created by a tightly controlled supply of a commodity that we could all do without, but realistically most of us won't just based on how integral a part it is in most of our society, b) to pirate, or c) to actually do without said commodity and look for good music by independent artists. But who's got the time for that?
I'm still not sure how that relates to my point. Call me selfish (though I would not have to point out the irony in that) but I'm concerned with what information I can access. If some guy in Sri Lanka has an awesome webpage with whatever content, I want to be able to access it. For free. As things are with a single internet, I can do just that. If there were to be a SriLankaNet, I might not be able to. That's my main concern with segregated internets.
Serisouly, though, the problem I have with a segmented internet, especially as described by PP of my reply, is that I see that as putting more restrictions/obstacles in the way of me getting information that doesn't originate inside the US. You can at least agree that the best scenario would include no such restricions/obstacles. And yes, I do believe the internet the way it is now is doing a pretty reasonable job at doing that (not absolutely reasonable, for examples read other posts attached to this article). I also understand the fear of foreign countries that all of the above is currently under US control, which they might not see as such a shining example of absolute freedom of speech and expression. But my objection to the parent was not because I think control should be stripped from the US, but that other nations creating seperate internets would be a worse scenario for everyone except those content only accessing domains isnide their own country's internet. Which would absolutely not satisfy me.
Regarding your last point; I was unaware there were stil nations so poor such that the populace is not even be able to own comptuers...care to name a few examples for me?
The anti-monopoly sentiment for corporations comes from the fact that they are given an unfair advantage to pursue profit even at the customer's disadvantage, and given the time will almost inevitably corrupt themselves into doing just that.
The sentiment regarding control over the internet, I believe, regards the fact that we are perceived as having the unfair advantage of controlling the information, whether to push a particular political / ideological view or not, at the potential disadvantage to users with nonsimilar views to those in control. We may/may not do this already (read other posts attached to this article for examples), but the fear is analogous to that stated above with corporations--a particular body with that kind of power will almost inevitably develop a kind of subtly persisting corruption that will lead to, in this case, a restricting control over information. In my opinion, it is a reasonable fear to have of any government, foreign or not.
A: I currently use a stone to drive nails through a wall.
B: You shouldn't do that, there is a better tool.
A: What better tool than a stone? A twig? That's ridiculous, so therefor the stone is clearly the best tool.
I'd say that logic just about holds ups to yours. Not that I have a huge problem with the US maintaining control (though I think internatinoal control could possibly be more sensible), but if you're going to make arguments for it, please refrain from making this kind of argument that even Michael Moore could point out the flaws in.
Not gonna go that in-depth here, but I believe one of he main points behind hybrids is regenerative braking. This means the electricity is not being produced by some power plant further depleting our natural resources and polluting the environment, but it instead get the energy that would otherwise be lost to heat while braking. So it makes the vehicle more efficient by not wasting as much energy every time you use your brakes.
Probbaly more than that, too; they'll most likely keep a database of what ip addresses visit which sites how often, thus further boosting their ability to taget people with specific ads.
I guess I just don't understand the legal issues as much as I thought i did...is there not clearly plenty/ of prior art to this? Can Amazon claim they invented any of what they patented? Can someone please explain how this works--and if it is really good by the books and not just because of some dolt working at the patent office, how the hell we've allowed it to get into the books?
I've written two books that are "freely" copyable. In both I request $20 to acquire my official version and help motivate me to write more. Guess what? I get the money. Often. With the web, it is even easier to make money this way.
This works great for individuals, and perhaps even mom&pop businesses. Unfortunately it doesn't work so well for larger companies / corporations / research bodies. And, as much as hate to admit it, sometimes those larger companies/corporations are needed to develop some of the more complex innovations and products that we use today. Some things just take an extraordinary amonut of capital, reserachers and laborers, or both (And there, my friends, is an example of why you do use a comma before the word "and"). And yes, it does limit corporate motivation to develop new products/technology if nothing will prevent others from copying it. And yes, corporations are behind a lot of developing technology.
So whereas I do despise the current loopholes, obvious flaws, and plain stupidites in our current patent system that allow for patents such as these, I don't see justification in calling the entire concept of a patent bunk. But i'll agree hands down that some serious change is needed.
Valid != acceptable.
It was valid in that it explains why some people do it, even if that reason to most of us is morally reprehensible. But maybe i'm giving the GGP a little too much credit when I assume (s)he acknowldges that.
This is probably the most logical perspective on it I've seen. It seems everyone rushing to defend these means of keeping the music marketing/distribution business alive are forgetting/ignoring that there is no reason we need to do so, insofar as I can see.
With digital copying gone amuck, it is arguable that it would create a world that is more profitable for artists. It is also arguable that it would create a world that is less profitable for arists. Either way, that's the market, and if you wanna get in that market then know the risks and deal with it. If it's more profitable, great, hooray, everyone (except the former distributors/marketers) is happy. If it's less profitable, then only the artists who are truly in it for the music and not the money will stay. And don't try to say that it will stifle the art of music due to those that would get invovled but can't afford to risk their income source, because the only artists making money off of the current big-distributor scheme are doing so by passing off formulaically rehashed music as creativity. (Hmm, verse, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus. I, III, VI, IV anyone? Spice it up with a VI, IV, V, I! If you don't know what I'm talking about, then just move along...)
Parent post is right. Money needs to change hands, the huge marketers/distributors aren't needed anymore. I am interested in reading counter-arguments to that.
As simplistic as that was put, a second thought made me realize that it just makes so much sense.
I saw let the pirates pirate. Obviously it's on a much wider scale now than ever before due to technology--to a point where the RIAA would have you believe that it's threatening their business. Well guess what, that's what happens. Changes in technology destroys some markets and creates others. And if pirating does indeed reach such a large scale that it puts the RIAA out of business, well, personally I'd say all the better. Why do most artists sign up with the RIAA ni the first place? Publicity, no? Because a)they don't beleive they'll be able to get their music out any other way since they can't afford marketing/distributino/etc, or b)they're looking^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdreaming for the fastest way to get rich by playing music (we should all be so lucky^H^H^H^H^Hlazy). Well, and here i guess is my main point, if piracy has reached that level, then distribution / publicity shouldn't be a problem. Better music will spread its way around the world via word-of-mouth (or the internet equivalent, since the term's origins don't seem to really apply in this sense), and crappy music will get lost to the obscure pockets of the population that enjoy it.
Sure, there's a possiblity that no / few arist(s) will reach global recgnition as some do today, but I see nothing wrong with that. IMHO art is for expression, not profit / fame. Anyone in it for the latter two reasons doesn't deserve to make it big. And if there is less globalization of endorsed artists, it will sure open up more opportunities for each person to discover unique music for themselves instead of buying into top-40 crap. Besides, even without the RIAA shoving said crap down our throats and up our assholes (at the same time, mind you), the mass-media system we've got goin on I think is still pretty well-geared towards creating said types of trendy, short-lived fame. So I guess my point there is that there are many possible outcomes, with regard to the effect on the music industry, that destroying the business model of the RIAA currently pracitses could have, but whatever happens it should be interesting. Enjoy the show!
Too bad I don't actually believe that mere pirating, even if left unchecked, would destroy the RIAA as it currently exists. But a man can dream...
Nope, I didn't bother looking it up, but niether did I say it was illegal.
Now my questino to you is, did you bother to look it up?From projo.com:
Allofmp3: We pay monthly deductions to ROMS. The distribution of the royalties to the authors fully depends on ROMS. ROMS (as well as RAO [Russian Authors' Organisation]) distributes the royalties based on sales amount.
Now I wonder if you've read up on the falling out between ROMS and the RAO. My guess is no.
Now I'd have to ask if you sincerely believe that any significant portion of these licensing fees paid to the government body known as ROMS gets forwarded to the artists whose music is being sold on allofmp3.com. I'm thinkin 'round about none of it...but no, i cannot back that up. Prove me wrong. (It'd actually make me rather happy if you did)
So to reiterate my point, since you seem to have missed it: I have nothing against allofmp3.com, but I will still buy a CD if I know profits aren't going to the RIAA, and the CD is from an artist who I want to support. That's the way to truly foster the production of GOOD music--not corporate endorsed, mass-media overplayed drivel.
I buy CDs if I want to support the artist, though not before some background checking on the album. I think it's fairly obvious that allofmp3.com does not share profits with the artist, particularly since the RIAA tried to get them shut down. So if I think an artist has enough talent to deserve my support, and if I have no reason to beleive there is any sketchy software on the CD (ie if it has the Compact Disc label on it), and I am relatively confident that buying an album won't support the RIAA, then yes, I'll buy a CD. (And I can't back this up with anything more that a serach for sony on RIAA radar, but i'd say chances are the last two "if"s pretty much coincide other).
That being said, I'm still spreading the word about allofmp3.com to anyone I know.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, in the same way that AOL sells AIM, Yahoo! sells Yahoo! Messenger, Winamp sells their player (yes I know they have a pro version that is for a price, before anyone gets all "Oh let me aruge something I think I know about!" realize I'm talking about the basic player, which already does more than WMP) That's just to name the more popular ones. (Yeah iTunes as well...btw wtf is up with that, why does it decide it can just leave two processes running on my computer after I close it? I think they were iTunes Helper.exe and iPodService.exe, or something like that...asswipes.)
If they choose to sell media player, all I'd have to say is good freakin luck getting or retaining a customer base
Agreed that forcing them to provide links desn't seem like a very sensible solution though.
Not sure if it's a state thing only, but while driving through the lovely state of New Jersey I was ticketed for not driving in the right lane. Only traffic ticket I ever got. I wasn't even speeding at that time....thuogh if the cop had seen me maybe 15 minutes earlier that would have been a far worse ticket...
Your mommy buy you a 'puter for Christmas?
It has plenty to do with the RIAA.
Try a little research first before you make assumptions, or shut the hell up.
Problem I have with that is people are stupid. A larger portion of the (ignorant) masses than should be acceptable will allow themselves to be bullied around by the (not-so-ignorant, but oh so very arrogant) high-income execs. They'll keep pushing pricese up and up while the average buyer says to him or herself "yeah it seems a bit overpriced, but it's no big deal just this once." And we the knowledgeable, the concerned consumers, get stuck with no reasonable alternative but a) to give in to this inherently unfair system created by a tightly controlled supply of a commodity that we could all do without, but realistically most of us won't just based on how integral a part it is in most of our society, b) to pirate, or c) to actually do without said commodity and look for good music by independent artists. But who's got the time for that?
I'm still not sure how that relates to my point. Call me selfish (though I would not have to point out the irony in that) but I'm concerned with what information I can access. If some guy in Sri Lanka has an awesome webpage with whatever content, I want to be able to access it. For free. As things are with a single internet, I can do just that. If there were to be a SriLankaNet, I might not be able to. That's my main concern with segregated internets.
God I hope that was sarcastic.
Serisouly, though, the problem I have with a segmented internet, especially as described by PP of my reply, is that I see that as putting more restrictions/obstacles in the way of me getting information that doesn't originate inside the US. You can at least agree that the best scenario would include no such restricions/obstacles. And yes, I do believe the internet the way it is now is doing a pretty reasonable job at doing that (not absolutely reasonable, for examples read other posts attached to this article). I also understand the fear of foreign countries that all of the above is currently under US control, which they might not see as such a shining example of absolute freedom of speech and expression. But my objection to the parent was not because I think control should be stripped from the US, but that other nations creating seperate internets would be a worse scenario for everyone except those content only accessing domains isnide their own country's internet. Which would absolutely not satisfy me.
Regarding your last point; I was unaware there were stil nations so poor such that the populace is not even be able to own comptuers...care to name a few examples for me?
The anti-monopoly sentiment for corporations comes from the fact that they are given an unfair advantage to pursue profit even at the customer's disadvantage, and given the time will almost inevitably corrupt themselves into doing just that.
The sentiment regarding control over the internet, I believe, regards the fact that we are perceived as having the unfair advantage of controlling the information, whether to push a particular political / ideological view or not, at the potential disadvantage to users with nonsimilar views to those in control. We may/may not do this already (read other posts attached to this article for examples), but the fear is analogous to that stated above with corporations--a particular body with that kind of power will almost inevitably develop a kind of subtly persisting corruption that will lead to, in this case, a restricting control over information. In my opinion, it is a reasonable fear to have of any government, foreign or not.
A: I currently use a stone to drive nails through a wall.
B: You shouldn't do that, there is a better tool.
A: What better tool than a stone? A twig? That's ridiculous, so therefor the stone is clearly the best tool.
I'd say that logic just about holds ups to yours. Not that I have a huge problem with the US maintaining control (though I think internatinoal control could possibly be more sensible), but if you're going to make arguments for it, please refrain from making this kind of argument that even Michael Moore could point out the flaws in.
God I hope that was sarcastic.
Parent should not have been modded troll, amazon.com currently lists the book (same edition) for cheaper.
Am i just imagining it, or does that linke say "November 28, 1999"?
Thought so.
Not gonna go that in-depth here, but I believe one of he main points behind hybrids is regenerative braking. This means the electricity is not being produced by some power plant further depleting our natural resources and polluting the environment, but it instead get the energy that would otherwise be lost to heat while braking. So it makes the vehicle more efficient by not wasting as much energy every time you use your brakes.
Probbaly more than that, too; they'll most likely keep a database of what ip addresses visit which sites how often, thus further boosting their ability to taget people with specific ads.
Turns out jailtime might just end up "managing" a more related type of freedom...
I guess I just don't understand the legal issues as much as I thought i did...is there not clearly plenty/ of prior art to this? Can Amazon claim they invented any of what they patented? Can someone please explain how this works--and if it is really good by the books and not just because of some dolt working at the patent office, how the hell we've allowed it to get into the books?
This works great for individuals, and perhaps even mom&pop businesses. Unfortunately it doesn't work so well for larger companies / corporations / research bodies. And, as much as hate to admit it, sometimes those larger companies/corporations are needed to develop some of the more complex innovations and products that we use today. Some things just take an extraordinary amonut of capital, reserachers and laborers, or both (And there, my friends, is an example of why you do use a comma before the word "and"). And yes, it does limit corporate motivation to develop new products/technology if nothing will prevent others from copying it. And yes, corporations are behind a lot of developing technology.
So whereas I do despise the current loopholes, obvious flaws, and plain stupidites in our current patent system that allow for patents such as these, I don't see justification in calling the entire concept of a patent bunk. But i'll agree hands down that some serious change is needed.
Valid != acceptable. It was valid in that it explains why some people do it, even if that reason to most of us is morally reprehensible. But maybe i'm giving the GGP a little too much credit when I assume (s)he acknowldges that.
Don't be silly, everyone knows the metric system doesn't exist.
Valid point, as far as seeing it from the company's perspective. Still doesn't mean that we as a society should accept it.
This is probably the most logical perspective on it I've seen. It seems everyone rushing to defend these means of keeping the music marketing/distribution business alive are forgetting/ignoring that there is no reason we need to do so, insofar as I can see.
With digital copying gone amuck, it is arguable that it would create a world that is more profitable for artists. It is also arguable that it would create a world that is less profitable for arists. Either way, that's the market, and if you wanna get in that market then know the risks and deal with it. If it's more profitable, great, hooray, everyone (except the former distributors/marketers) is happy. If it's less profitable, then only the artists who are truly in it for the music and not the money will stay. And don't try to say that it will stifle the art of music due to those that would get invovled but can't afford to risk their income source, because the only artists making money off of the current big-distributor scheme are doing so by passing off formulaically rehashed music as creativity. (Hmm, verse, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, chorus. I, III, VI, IV anyone? Spice it up with a VI, IV, V, I! If you don't know what I'm talking about, then just move along...)
Parent post is right. Money needs to change hands, the huge marketers/distributors aren't needed anymore. I am interested in reading counter-arguments to that.
As simplistic as that was put, a second thought made me realize that it just makes so much sense.
I saw let the pirates pirate. Obviously it's on a much wider scale now than ever before due to technology--to a point where the RIAA would have you believe that it's threatening their business. Well guess what, that's what happens. Changes in technology destroys some markets and creates others. And if pirating does indeed reach such a large scale that it puts the RIAA out of business, well, personally I'd say all the better. Why do most artists sign up with the RIAA ni the first place? Publicity, no? Because a)they don't beleive they'll be able to get their music out any other way since they can't afford marketing/distributino/etc, or b)they're looking^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdreaming for the fastest way to get rich by playing music (we should all be so lucky^H^H^H^H^Hlazy). Well, and here i guess is my main point, if piracy has reached that level, then distribution / publicity shouldn't be a problem. Better music will spread its way around the world via word-of-mouth (or the internet equivalent, since the term's origins don't seem to really apply in this sense), and crappy music will get lost to the obscure pockets of the population that enjoy it.
Sure, there's a possiblity that no / few arist(s) will reach global recgnition as some do today, but I see nothing wrong with that. IMHO art is for expression, not profit / fame. Anyone in it for the latter two reasons doesn't deserve to make it big. And if there is less globalization of endorsed artists, it will sure open up more opportunities for each person to discover unique music for themselves instead of buying into top-40 crap. Besides, even without the RIAA shoving said crap down our throats and up our assholes (at the same time, mind you), the mass-media system we've got goin on I think is still pretty well-geared towards creating said types of trendy, short-lived fame. So I guess my point there is that there are many possible outcomes, with regard to the effect on the music industry, that destroying the business model of the RIAA currently pracitses could have, but whatever happens it should be interesting. Enjoy the show!
Too bad I don't actually believe that mere pirating, even if left unchecked, would destroy the RIAA as it currently exists. But a man can dream...
That's gotta be the closest I've come to bursting out into laughter at the office...
Nope, I didn't bother looking it up, but niether did I say it was illegal.
Now my questino to you is, did you bother to look it up?From projo.com:Now I wonder if you've read up on the falling out between ROMS and the RAO. My guess is no.
Now I'd have to ask if you sincerely believe that any significant portion of these licensing fees paid to the government body known as ROMS gets forwarded to the artists whose music is being sold on allofmp3.com. I'm thinkin 'round about none of it...but no, i cannot back that up. Prove me wrong. (It'd actually make me rather happy if you did)
So to reiterate my point, since you seem to have missed it: I have nothing against allofmp3.com, but I will still buy a CD if I know profits aren't going to the RIAA, and the CD is from an artist who I want to support. That's the way to truly foster the production of GOOD music--not corporate endorsed, mass-media overplayed drivel.
The RIAA can kiss my @$$
I buy CDs if I want to support the artist, though not before some background checking on the album. I think it's fairly obvious that allofmp3.com does not share profits with the artist, particularly since the RIAA tried to get them shut down. So if I think an artist has enough talent to deserve my support, and if I have no reason to beleive there is any sketchy software on the CD (ie if it has the Compact Disc label on it), and I am relatively confident that buying an album won't support the RIAA, then yes, I'll buy a CD. (And I can't back this up with anything more that a serach for sony on RIAA radar, but i'd say chances are the last two "if"s pretty much coincide other). That being said, I'm still spreading the word about allofmp3.com to anyone I know.