Your dead on, I wouldn't go into commercial music now even as an artist, it's a dead end. The movie industry is different though, they have control of distribution at the movie theatre level. At the very least if the home movie market isn't profitable anymore, they can just cut it off, and stick with just theatre release. This would significantly lower their profits, but at least it's something.
Hype it is. Gmail is broken, just try using the forward and back button of your browser. It also keeps telling me I have new mail even though I just read the new mail. This is shoddy by any user's estimation.
For internal software used only at a customer site, the question naturally doesn't apply.
Of course it doesn't. Just keep telling yourself that. Other people's work should be free, but not mine. Just imagine if all software was free, not just the other guys.
The industry makes their money off of people replacing old formats. Now that pretty much everyone has converted their old collections to CD, that stream of money has pretty much dried up.
If the upgrade to the new format doesn't do you any good, don't upgrade. Plenty of people still have records, and didn't "upgrade" them.
Sheesh people complain like they have no choice but to buy stuff they hate, wake up!.
Given that Microsoft got caught lying to a Federal judge (during the antitrust case) why is anyone suprised that they'll lie to their customers?
Well if microsoft lied, why not put him/her/it in jail(what is a microsoft?). I suspect a *person* working for microsoft lied to a judge, and that person should be punished.
And what happens when you get bored with the same old thousand songs you liked from twenty years ago, and noone's making new music that you like cause there's no money in it?
Thats a good question, that everyone is going to have to ask themselves, since that's the road we're going down. My guess is that I probably couldn't listen to all the music that has been written and recorded in my life time, so maybe i'll be fine.
Even so I don't think the music industry would let that happen. At worst if they couldn't stop piracy through DRM, they would stop producing recorded music, and just put on live concerts. So that if you wanted to hear new music, you would have to go to see it/pay for it.
At $2/disc, would you really bother with P2P? If you factor in the value of your time, is it worth spending half an hour to save $2? That's less than minimum wage. Do you have a giant funnel in your front yard to catch rain water instead of paying the water bill? If tap water was priced at $18.99/gallon, we all would. At $0.05/gallon, there is no need. At a price of $0.00/gallon, there is no water company and therefore no external supply.
Maybe you've never used kazaa. I set it up, search for the music, download, play it. Now I have power in my house, so I don't have to get on an exercise bike to make power for my computer for the length of the download. So I can do other things while the download happens. 1/2 hour to type in my search, no way. It is about the same time it takes to get what you want from iTunes, only for free(maybe 10-30sec of actuall work). I only rarely have bad rips, so thats hardly an issue. Compare that to going to a music store and waiting in line to pay for my $2 cd.
In the long run, the Kazaa price of $0 is as unmaintainable as the RIAA price of $18.99
Only unmaintainable in that new music can't be made in the same way if it can't be sold. But all existing music can be traded at $0 forever. Currently the RIAA's price of $18.99 is unmaintainable, since I can get it for $0.
A price of $0 is not realistic. At that price, nothing will be produced. Everyone agrees that music is worth something although hardly anyone agrees with the current pricing. However, given the choice of paying $18.99/disc or paying nothing, the $0 option looks pretty good in the short run.
this is exactly my point. Most of the time Kaza is just as easy to get the music people want, as iTunes is, but at a lower price. Make no mistake about it, piracy is a response to the price of music. Until the RIAA lowers their price to what I can get it on Kaza, most people will stick with Kaza. $1 a song is to much. A penny a song is to much. The RIAA is in deep trouble, you know why? I never have to pay for my music again.
As you correctly point out, there is a problem in that current pricing has no link to the cost of production (which has dropped dramatically). Piracy happens when the product pricing motivates pirates.
Excatly, until the industry lowers their price to 0 so as to compete with kaza and the like, i'll stick with kaza and the like.
At a price of $1/song or $2/disc, piracy would be a waste of time, and the product could still be profitable. At some price higher than that, piracy would be tolerable and the product would be more profitable. Then we have today's prices -- the pirates are in the driver's seat.
Go ahead and pay $1 song or $2 disc. If you want to pay for something you could otherwise get for free, be my guest.
# 1. Artist makes music # 2. (optional) Music made without a producer because technology is cheap now # 3. Artist starts promotional website # 4. Artist gets on the radio and on P2P services # 5. Artist gets popular if he doesn't suck # 6. Artist makes money because of his popularity through advertising # 7. Profit!!!
You forgot #7. People strip advertising from song, and redistribute. #8. No profit !!!!
I use my computer to code. C/C++ and Java mostly. For me Linux is light years ahead of Mac in user interface and the reasons are simple. I have countless scripts and config files that I have tweaked to make my every day life easier. I wouldn't think I would need to say this on/. but I guess there are not that many coders on here any more. I want my GUI to grow with me, I change how I work at times, I need to change my scripts and pipe output to start gui's like debuggers and the like in different ways. This tweaking of scripts isn't a bad thing at all, it is a necessity. My co-workers have their own setups that are different then mine, is that wrong? No it's right for them. Macintosh is about doing things one way, and that way is the right way. But guess what, it's not the right way for me, and most of the people I work with. Maybe Macs just happen to be setup perfect for people who use photoshop right out of the box, I don't know I don't do that sort of thing, and if it is then that is great for them. But Mac's UI isn't perfect for me. To me Linux and Mac are on the oppisite end of the spectrum, I can't imagine why anyone would switch from Linux to Mac, if they do, then they weren't using the power of linux to start with, and maybe they didn't need it. In the end the endless configuration of linux is not a fault, it's a feature, one I can't live without.
Perhaps not for the end user, but for a developer this is certainly the case. The GPL gives me the freedom to see changes made to my software done by a (proprietary) company. Public domain software does not grant me this freedom.
But all you have done is made yourself better off by taking away someone elses freedom. If the same code that is released to the public domain is used and extended in a proprietary way, you are not made better off or worse off, and you have given everyone complete freedom.
Re:The GPL is *not* freer than public domain softw
on
SCO Madness Reigns Supreme
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
GPL is more free because you cannot not distribute source.
Right, by restricting freedom you can create more. You should work for SCO they need a minster of information. The GPL restricts freedom, whether that is good or bad can be argued, but at least call a spade a spade.
The GPL is a truly revolutionary license, it is *designed*, as SCO says, to reduce the financial value of proprietary software. Yes, GPL software is freer than public domain, in the sense that the source code can never be taken proprietary (other than by the original author) and redistributed.
Nothing is freerer then public domain, since anyone is free to do with it whatever they want. Also public domain software can never be taken proprietary. Unless some one some how manages to be the only one holding the source code. I don't think you actaully know what public domain means. Look it up, nothing is freeer.
Well you Obviously failed as well. Microsoft is a legal monopoly, not an economic one. A subtle distinction perhaps, but an important one none the less.
Economic Monopoly Definition: A firm that produces the entire market supply of a particular good or service.
By using a intelligent client model (using "fat" clients), you can vector off quite a bit of processing from the server, to the client machine. Unfortunatly, this means maintaining client machines (hardware, software, the whole nine). So the push nowadays is to move to a two tier intelligent server model, and use "thin" clients. You maintain 0 software on the client machine, it works or it doesn't, and if it doesn't you just swap out a new client machine (we pay $230 for linux powered neoware thin clients, connecting to our citrix metaframe xp farm).
Or maybe it's completly the other way around. P2P is the flavor of the month year etc. Every server is a client and every client is a server. If anything, Fat servers are dying as people start to realize that you don't have to centralize everything on to one machine. If anything the web proves him completly wrong, i'd have to ask him where is the www server? I mean there has to be one machine serving up all this stuff right? Nope.
Naaa they don't deserve that much respect. They have been screwing artists for years, and then have the audacity to say that file sharing is hurting the artists.
If the artists keep bending over to get screwed maybe they deserve it. You can't help people if they won't help themseleves. How many artists enter into these deals? "Uh, yeah it's a bad deal but i'm just an artist, i'm stupid, show me the pen i'll sign."
The RIAA screws the artists. They steal their songs, they pay them a tiny fraction of what they make from them, and they exercise creative control through the use of unfair contracts.
Since the RIAA doesn't hold a gun to their heads, your saying the artists are idiots. yeah right.
The RIAA screws the retailers. This is self evident, but in case you're not observant, the CD costs the record store around 85% as much as they sell it for. They dump products on the market in the forms of "deals" in order to bump up CD sales and manipulate music charts.
Retailers are also idiots for even trying to sell CD's.
The RIAA screws the public. We buy overpriced CDs for which we have no actual legal rights. Another industry would have been hit for price fixing, but since technically the RIAA isn't a company, they technically aren't a monopoly. We get treated like criminals for violating the monopoly they technically don't have.
So your saying that anyone who has bought a CD is an idiot. Well you've managed to insult the entire music industry and their customers. Congratulations eveyone is an idiot except you.
Yes, the entire x86 world, and AMD in particular, has a very poor track record at dealing with temperature issues. It's a good bet that the new AMD will be approximately at the same level as the old ones on this - if not worse, but of course we don't really know. Which is exactly why I expressed disappointment that this issue wasn't mentioned at all in the article - it would be good to know, not speculate.
I think you've taken this way to far. I have a 2 AMD computers, an intel one and a G4 and they all work just fine for me, and have never had a heat problem. Come to think of it I don't know any one who has had problems cooling their CPU if their not over clocking them to death.
Photoshop - The only relavant and fair app they bothered to test, and the G5 is noticablly faster than any of the Athlon 64 systems, beaten only by the Opteron.
I always here people talk about photoshop, what the heck is it? No one I know uses it, nor can they tell me what it would be used for. It gets talked about like everyone needs it and uses it. Maybe it's just not used in my field(bioinformatics). I need gcc, javac, an RDBMS, the odd 3D visualization program, and of course an office suite and mathematica just to start. I'll tell you the opteron and Athlon64 looks pretty good for CPU intensive stuff, but i wouldn't turn down any of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Your dead on, I wouldn't go into commercial music now even as an artist, it's a dead end. The movie industry is different though, they have control of distribution at the movie theatre level. At the very least if the home movie market isn't profitable anymore, they can just cut it off, and stick with just theatre release. This would significantly lower their profits, but at least it's something.
Hype it is. Gmail is broken, just try using the forward and back button of your browser. It also keeps telling me I have new mail even though I just read the new mail. This is shoddy by any user's estimation.
For internal software used only at a customer site, the question naturally doesn't apply.
Of course it doesn't. Just keep telling yourself that. Other people's work should be free, but not mine. Just imagine if all software was free, not just the other guys.
Why do the record companies hate this so much?
Because the underlings have undermined their authority.
Or maybe it's because I never have to *Buy* music again. Sometimes the most obvious answer is the right answer.
The industry makes their money off of people replacing old formats. Now that pretty much everyone has converted their old collections to CD, that stream of money has pretty much dried up.
If the upgrade to the new format doesn't do you any good, don't upgrade. Plenty of people still have records, and didn't "upgrade" them.
Sheesh people complain like they have no choice but to buy stuff they hate, wake up!.
Given that Microsoft got caught lying to a Federal judge (during the antitrust case) why is anyone suprised that they'll lie to their customers?
Well if microsoft lied, why not put him/her/it in jail(what is a microsoft?). I suspect a *person* working for microsoft lied to a judge, and that person should be punished.
And what happens when you get bored with the same old thousand songs you liked from twenty years ago, and noone's making new music that you like cause there's no money in it?
Thats a good question, that everyone is going to have to ask themselves, since that's the road we're going down. My guess is that I probably couldn't listen to all the music that has been written and recorded in my life time, so maybe i'll be fine.
Even so I don't think the music industry would let that happen. At worst if they couldn't stop piracy through DRM, they would stop producing recorded music, and just put on live concerts. So that if you wanted to hear new music, you would have to go to see it/pay for it.
At $2/disc, would you really bother with P2P? If you factor in the value of your time, is it worth spending half an hour to save $2? That's less than minimum wage. Do you have a giant funnel in your front yard to catch rain water instead of paying the water bill? If tap water was priced at $18.99/gallon, we all would. At $0.05/gallon, there is no need. At a price of $0.00/gallon, there is no water company and therefore no external supply.
Maybe you've never used kazaa. I set it up, search for the music, download, play it. Now I have power in my house, so I don't have to get on an exercise bike to make power for my computer for the length of the download. So I can do other things while the download happens. 1/2 hour to type in my search, no way. It is about the same time it takes to get what you want from iTunes, only for free(maybe 10-30sec of actuall work). I only rarely have bad rips, so thats hardly an issue. Compare that to going to a music store and waiting in line to pay for my $2 cd.
In the long run, the Kazaa price of $0 is as unmaintainable as the RIAA price of $18.99
Only unmaintainable in that new music can't be made in the same way if it can't be sold. But all existing music can be traded at $0 forever. Currently the RIAA's price of $18.99 is unmaintainable, since I can get it for $0.
A price of $0 is not realistic. At that price, nothing will be produced. Everyone agrees that music is worth something although hardly anyone agrees with the current pricing. However, given the choice of paying $18.99/disc or paying nothing, the $0 option looks pretty good in the short run.
this is exactly my point. Most of the time Kaza is just as easy to get the music people want, as iTunes is, but at a lower price. Make no mistake about it, piracy is a response to the price of music. Until the RIAA lowers their price to what I can get it on Kaza, most people will stick with Kaza. $1 a song is to much. A penny a song is to much. The RIAA is in deep trouble, you know why? I never have to pay for my music again.
As you correctly point out, there is a problem in that current pricing has no link to the cost of production (which has dropped dramatically). Piracy happens when the product pricing motivates pirates.
Excatly, until the industry lowers their price to 0 so as to compete with kaza and the like, i'll stick with kaza and the like.
At a price of $1/song or $2/disc, piracy would be a waste of time, and the product could still be profitable. At some price higher than that, piracy would be tolerable and the product would be more profitable. Then we have today's prices -- the pirates are in the driver's seat.
Go ahead and pay $1 song or $2 disc. If you want to pay for something you could otherwise get for free, be my guest.
Yeah, just imagine if Internet Explorer disabled Netscape when it was installed...
Yes, well i guess apple and microsoft are birds of a feather then aren't they.
Here's a thought:
# 1. Artist makes music
# 2. (optional) Music made without a producer because technology is cheap now
# 3. Artist starts promotional website
# 4. Artist gets on the radio and on P2P services
# 5. Artist gets popular if he doesn't suck
# 6. Artist makes money because of his popularity through advertising
# 7. Profit!!!
You forgot
#7. People strip advertising from song, and redistribute.
#8. No profit !!!!
Yes, that must be why Itunes are selling so many songs and people are raving about it. Because it's doomed.
Well of course there is a sucker born every minute.
Just what percentage of music dowloads are through p2p services vs pay sites I wonder.
I use my computer to code. C/C++ and Java mostly. For me Linux is light years ahead of Mac in user interface and the reasons are simple. I have countless scripts and config files that I have tweaked to make my every day life easier. I wouldn't think I would need to say this on /. but I guess there are not that many coders on here any more. I want my GUI to grow with me, I change how I work at times, I need to change my scripts and pipe output to start gui's like debuggers and the like in different ways. This tweaking of scripts isn't a bad thing at all, it is a necessity. My co-workers have their own setups that are different then mine, is that wrong? No it's right for them. Macintosh is about doing things one way, and that way is the right way. But guess what, it's not the right way for me, and most of the people I work with. Maybe Macs just happen to be setup perfect for people who use photoshop right out of the box, I don't know I don't do that sort of thing, and if it is then that is great for them. But Mac's UI isn't perfect for me. To me Linux and Mac are on the oppisite end of the spectrum, I can't imagine why anyone would switch from Linux to Mac, if they do, then they weren't using the power of linux to start with, and maybe they didn't need it. In the end the endless configuration of linux is not a fault, it's a feature, one I can't live without.
Perhaps not for the end user, but for a developer this is certainly the case. The GPL gives me the freedom to see changes made to my software done by a (proprietary) company. Public domain software does not grant me this freedom.
But all you have done is made yourself better off by taking away someone elses freedom. If the same code that is released to the public domain is used and extended in a proprietary way, you are not made better off or worse off, and you have given everyone complete freedom.
GPL is more free because you cannot not distribute source.
Right, by restricting freedom you can create more. You should work for SCO they need a minster of information. The GPL restricts freedom, whether that is good or bad can be argued, but at least call a spade a spade.
The GPL is a truly revolutionary license, it is *designed*, as SCO says, to reduce the financial value of proprietary software. Yes, GPL software is freer than public domain, in the sense that the source code can never be taken proprietary (other than by the original author) and redistributed.
Nothing is freerer then public domain, since anyone is free to do with it whatever they want. Also public domain software can never be taken proprietary. Unless some one some how manages to be the only one holding the source code. I don't think you actaully know what public domain means. Look it up, nothing is freeer.
Sorry, I meant Microsoft fits the legal definition of a monopoly and not the economic one.
Obviously failed economics 101.
Well you Obviously failed as well. Microsoft is a legal monopoly, not an economic one. A subtle distinction perhaps, but an important one none the less.
Economic Monopoly Definition: A firm that produces the entire market supply of a particular good or service.
By using a intelligent client model (using "fat" clients), you can vector off quite a bit of processing from the server, to the client machine. Unfortunatly, this means maintaining client machines (hardware, software, the whole nine). So the push nowadays is to move to a two tier intelligent server model, and use "thin" clients. You maintain 0 software on the client machine, it works or it doesn't, and if it doesn't you just swap out a new client machine (we pay $230 for linux powered neoware thin clients, connecting to our citrix metaframe xp farm).
Or maybe it's completly the other way around. P2P is the flavor of the month year etc. Every server is a client and every client is a server. If anything, Fat servers are dying as people start to realize that you don't have to centralize everything on to one machine. If anything the web proves him completly wrong, i'd have to ask him where is the www server? I mean there has to be one machine serving up all this stuff right? Nope.
Compared to what Kaza gives away.
Naaa they don't deserve that much respect. They have been screwing artists for years, and then have the audacity to say that file sharing is hurting the artists.
If the artists keep bending over to get screwed maybe they deserve it. You can't help people if they won't help themseleves. How many artists enter into these deals? "Uh, yeah it's a bad deal but i'm just an artist, i'm stupid, show me the pen i'll sign."
The RIAA screws the artists.
They steal their songs, they pay them a tiny fraction of what they make from them, and they exercise creative control through the use of unfair contracts.
Since the RIAA doesn't hold a gun to their heads, your saying the artists are idiots. yeah right.
The RIAA screws the retailers.
This is self evident, but in case you're not observant, the CD costs the record store around 85% as much as they sell it for. They dump products on the market in the forms of "deals" in order to bump up CD sales and manipulate music charts.
Retailers are also idiots for even trying to sell CD's.
The RIAA screws the public.
We buy overpriced CDs for which we have no actual legal rights. Another industry would have been hit for price fixing, but since technically the RIAA isn't a company, they technically aren't a monopoly. We get treated like criminals for violating the monopoly they technically don't have.
So your saying that anyone who has bought a CD is an idiot. Well you've managed to insult the entire music industry and their customers. Congratulations eveyone is an idiot except you.
Yes, the entire x86 world, and AMD in particular, has a very poor track record at dealing with temperature issues. It's a good bet that the new AMD will be approximately at the same level as the old ones on this - if not worse, but of course we don't really know. Which is exactly why I expressed disappointment that this issue wasn't mentioned at all in the article - it would be good to know, not speculate.
I think you've taken this way to far. I have a 2 AMD computers, an intel one and a G4 and they all work just fine for me, and have never had a heat problem. Come to think of it I don't know any one who has had problems cooling their CPU if their not over clocking them to death.
Photoshop - The only relavant and fair app they bothered to test, and the G5 is noticablly faster than any of the Athlon 64 systems, beaten only by the Opteron.
I always here people talk about photoshop, what the heck is it? No one I know uses it, nor can they tell me what it would be used for. It gets talked about like everyone needs it and uses it. Maybe it's just not used in my field(bioinformatics). I need gcc, javac, an RDBMS, the odd 3D visualization program, and of course an office suite and mathematica just to start. I'll tell you the opteron and Athlon64 looks pretty good for CPU intensive stuff, but i wouldn't turn down any of them.