Proof by analogy is fraud, and the above analogy is too flawed to be useful.
Re:Inventors, innovation, and money.
on
Mundie Responds
·
· Score: 1
Does anyone think that Nicholas Wirth, Edsger Dijkstra, Grace Hopper, Steve Wozniak, Don Knuth, John von Neumann, Alan Turing, Brian Kernighan, Dennis Ritchie, Kenneth Thompson, Linus, etc, etc, were doing it all for the money?
Everyone has to put food on the table. Most of these guys were getting paid for their work, either by a university (from your taxpayers dollars) or by their employers.
The problem is that the RIAA is NOT going to find
a better, cheaper way to distribute music, because
it's not in their best interest.
You talk about "the RIAA" as though they are one company. They are not. They are an industry lobby.
They do actually compete with each other, and if one company can get rich at anothers expense, they will.
Of course, you could argue that they are some sort of collusive oligopoly, but the onus is upon you to show that (and indeed one doubts that an oligopoly containing so many companies would be viable).
f major artists get about 25 cents from the sale of a fifteen dollar CD, they should try to migrate to a tips-for-what-you-like model, as suggested by Courtney Love, among others.
Well, they're free to try. However, judging by the
way fairtunes is doing, I don't believe it's a
terribly successful strategy.
Packaging three (or fewer!) good songs among 12 shitty ones is NOT going to fly anymore. We won't pay.
Hahahaa... makes me wonder what kind of crap the napsterites are listening to. On one hand, they talk about how the RIAA only sell cheesy pop tunes (a lie), and on the other, comments like these indicate that they're listening to cr*p.
OTOH, a tipjar on the website asking for very-little e-gold might well pay more than selling the same
Yeah, it might, but there's no evidence that it does. (and some that it doesn't.) Catering to freeloaders is not a successful business strategy.
Of course, bad people will not give anything, but ask yourself what you do in an unfamiliar city at a place you'll never eat in again when tipping-time comes.
proof by analogy is fraud Bjarne Stroustrup
The flaw with this analogy is that tipping isn't
anonymous.
Anyway, I'm still working to get folks to see that e-gold is a solution to the Napster "problem." It's been slow, as more folks want to argue
I see what you're trying to do, and your heart is certainly in the right place. However, using a pricing model that is designed to appeal to freeloaders simply isn't a smart business strategy. I'm not saying that everyone who dislikes the present system is a freeloader, however, it seems that most of the zealous napsterites are freeloaders.
Currently with no shield 100 nukes could easily destroy the US's 70 largest cities. With a shield that's 28 cities.
This is not really accurate. Consider Chernobyl for example. It had a serious impact on nearby countries. Well aimed missiles would be considerably more damaging. (For example, have one detonate near a river, and you'll get a spectacular cloud, and one hell of a polluted river)
If 28 missiles really did hit the US, the lucky ones would be those standing right next to where it landed.
Are the companies competing (price is key in competition)?
Innocent until proven guilty -- until you can show there's some kind of illicit collusion, you're just whining. And whining about prices being "too expensive" is baseless, until you can cough up some hard data on how much it costs these companies to produce CDs
Can they raise their prices without much change in demand?
I take it you're referring to them all raising their prices at the same time. If they did indeed do such a thing, then they would be guilty of price fixing. (but they would not be a moponoly. They would be a collusive oligopoly).
On the other hand, if only one of the RIAA companies raised their prices, then they definitely would suffer. Not in the immediate term, but in the long-mid term, because bands would move away from them and choose better performing companies.
Did you do well in Economics?
You might ask the same of the napsterites, who keep raising these simple-minded (and often incorrect) arguments.
No, it's not. The fact that it can't be a monopoly does help, because that places the onus on the napsterites to show that they are somehow conspiring.
Which I should add these companies were penalized for.
Wrong again. Not all of the RIAA companies were penalised.
t's not stealing music anymore, all the labels songs are now public domain.
That's also a complete and utter lie, and little more than a cheap rationalisation of theft. This is the typical sort of looter mentality the napsterites always show if you push them a little.
(btw, who's going to comensate the artists if the material becomes public domain ? Oh, I forgot , since when did the napsterite commie thugs care about the artists anyway ?)
Is willful ignorance a defence ? And would you consider this morally defensible if it were used
to traffic (for example) child porn ? I don't see why child pornographers couldn't use the same response -- "we didn't know".
Well, this works fine for "sharing" with your buddies. However, encryption and anonymity don't mix well. If you want to allow anonymous downloads, how can you tell the difference between RIAA-mole and slashdot-warez-lamer ?
The point is that it's none of my business what you're drinking in the privacy of your apartment, but it is most certainly my business what you are drinking while you're sharing the road with me. The "right to privacy" does not include the right to endanger others (the usual analogy is, your right to swing your arms around stops where my nose starts)
The last thing we need to do is legitimize a rogue patch. IMO it was a bad move for them to release "gcc 2.96". Suffice it to say, I'm disappointed. I switched to Mandrake *because* Redhat used the rogue patch, and now Mandrake do the same.
Can it support a better development paradigm (see OS X)?
IMO Qt/KDE are enormous steps towards that.
Can it provide by default a more powerful security model (a la Kerberos)?
This would certainly be nice. RH and friends already godsend. (Certainly a tremendous improvement
over network intruder service)
use PAM, but working kerberos OOTB
be a godsend. (Certainly a tremendous improvement
over network intruder service)
Can we at long last ditch NFS into the trashbin of history and replace it with a decent and secure file server? Could we get rid of X windows, the worst UI to adorn a desktop since Windows 2.0?
I'm all for getting something better than NFS, but
it still needs to be supported for interoperatbility reasons.
As for X, it's not "X Windows", it's not a "UI",
and it's not going to go any time soon. However,
the implementation used on Linux, XFree86, is
constantly improving, with the addition of features
like true type font support, hardware acceleration
and anti-aliasing.
Excuse me Mr. Naked, exactly how much "Work" is invoved in doing something once and then sitting around absorbing money?
Are you trying to say that the music business is
easy money ? That's a laugh. Last I heard, all the
easy money people were going into the computing
industry.
It also speaks of a time when education was somewhat less inclusive. I believe you'll find even today that the exclusive schools tend to have low levels of gun violence.
It's worth noting that concealed weapons
probably have increased in availability. The
family of the 1800s might have owned a shotgun, but smuggling such a thing into school is not easy.
This has at least been a problem for quite a
while. Last I heard, school shootings were going
down, not up. The media and
police have a
tendency to manufacture "crime waves", this is a
convenient way to push for "getting tough" on crime (more draconian punishments, increased
police powers, and less emphasis on the rights of
the accused)
Slashdot Mirror
Proof by analogy is fraud, and the above analogy is too flawed to be useful.
Everyone has to put food on the table. Most of these guys were getting paid for their work, either by a university (from your taxpayers dollars) or by their employers.
You talk about "the RIAA" as though they are one company. They are not. They are an industry lobby. They do actually compete with each other, and if one company can get rich at anothers expense, they will.
Of course, you could argue that they are some sort of collusive oligopoly, but the onus is upon you to show that (and indeed one doubts that an oligopoly containing so many companies would be viable).
Isn't that what Craig Mundie said in his speach.
Irrelevant. (Was that supposed to be some sort of ad-hominem?)
The problem with everyone's math is they talk in statistic's.
On the contrary, the problem with the napsterites math is that they don't cite any statistics to support their assertions.
FWIW, I agree that the RIAA are not any better than the napsterites. Both are ruthless amoralists.
Well, they're free to try. However, judging by the way fairtunes is doing, I don't believe it's a terribly successful strategy.
Packaging three (or fewer!) good songs among 12 shitty ones is NOT going to fly anymore. We won't pay.
Hahahaa ... makes me wonder what kind of crap the napsterites are listening to. On one hand, they talk about how the RIAA only sell cheesy pop tunes (a lie), and on the other, comments like these indicate that they're listening to cr*p.
OTOH, a tipjar on the website asking for very-little e-gold might well pay more than selling the same
Yeah, it might, but there's no evidence that it does. (and some that it doesn't.) Catering to freeloaders is not a successful business strategy.
Of course, bad people will not give anything, but ask yourself what you do in an unfamiliar city at a place you'll never eat in again when tipping-time comes.
This is not really accurate. Consider Chernobyl for example. It had a serious impact on nearby countries. Well aimed missiles would be considerably more damaging. (For example, have one detonate near a river, and you'll get a spectacular cloud, and one hell of a polluted river)
If 28 missiles really did hit the US, the lucky ones would be those standing right next to where it landed.
Innocent until proven guilty -- until you can show there's some kind of illicit collusion, you're just whining. And whining about prices being "too expensive" is baseless, until you can cough up some hard data on how much it costs these companies to produce CDs
Can they raise their prices without much change in demand?
I take it you're referring to them all raising their prices at the same time. If they did indeed do such a thing, then they would be guilty of price fixing. (but they would not be a moponoly. They would be a collusive oligopoly).
On the other hand, if only one of the RIAA companies raised their prices, then they definitely would suffer. Not in the immediate term, but in the long-mid term, because bands would move away from them and choose better performing companies.
Did you do well in Economics?
You might ask the same of the napsterites, who keep raising these simple-minded (and often incorrect) arguments.
People often talk of "sharing" music that really isn't theres to share. The comment certainly seems applicable to the (ab)use of the word "share".
No, it's not. The fact that it can't be a monopoly does help, because that places the onus on the napsterites to show that they are somehow conspiring.
Wrong.
Which I should add these companies were penalized for.
Wrong again. Not all of the RIAA companies were penalised.
t's not stealing music anymore, all the labels songs are now public domain.
That's also a complete and utter lie, and little more than a cheap rationalisation of theft. This is the typical sort of looter mentality the napsterites always show if you push them a little. (btw, who's going to comensate the artists if the material becomes public domain ? Oh, I forgot , since when did the napsterite commie thugs care about the artists anyway ?)The RIAA are not a monopoly, because they are not one company. HTH,
-- Bjarne Stroustrup
"The RIAA" is NOT one company, therefore it is not a monopoly. Hope that helps,
Is willful ignorance a defence ? And would you consider this morally defensible if it were used to traffic (for example) child porn ? I don't see why child pornographers couldn't use the same response -- "we didn't know".
Well, this works fine for "sharing" with your buddies. However, encryption and anonymity don't mix well. If you want to allow anonymous downloads, how can you tell the difference between RIAA-mole and slashdot-warez-lamer ?
The point is that it's none of my business what you're drinking in the privacy of your apartment, but it is most certainly my business what you are drinking while you're sharing the road with me. The "right to privacy" does not include the right to endanger others (the usual analogy is, your right to swing your arms around stops where my nose starts)
The last thing we need to do is legitimize a rogue patch. IMO it was a bad move for them to release "gcc 2.96". Suffice it to say, I'm disappointed. I switched to Mandrake *because* Redhat used the rogue patch, and now Mandrake do the same.
IMO Qt/KDE are enormous steps towards that.
Can it provide by default a more powerful security model (a la Kerberos)?
This would certainly be nice. RH and friends already godsend. (Certainly a tremendous improvement over network intruder service)
use PAM, but working kerberos OOTB be a godsend. (Certainly a tremendous improvement over network intruder service)
Can we at long last ditch NFS into the trashbin of history and replace it with a decent and secure file server? Could we get rid of X windows, the worst UI to adorn a desktop since Windows 2.0?
I'm all for getting something better than NFS, but it still needs to be supported for interoperatbility reasons.
As for X, it's not "X Windows", it's not a "UI", and it's not going to go any time soon. However, the implementation used on Linux, XFree86, is constantly improving, with the addition of features like true type font support, hardware acceleration and anti-aliasing.
Are you trying to say that the music business is easy money ? That's a laugh. Last I heard, all the easy money people were going into the computing industry.
It also speaks of a time when education was somewhat less inclusive. I believe you'll find even today that the exclusive schools tend to have low levels of gun violence.
It's worth noting that concealed weapons probably have increased in availability. The family of the 1800s might have owned a shotgun, but smuggling such a thing into school is not easy.