I think you're right on the money. This case has had provided benefits for the Linux community. But I'm not sure that OSS zealots are the only ones who have cast this struggle as an epic good vs. evil conflict.
In Darl's infamous open letter, he clearly defines the combatants:
Despite the raw emotions, however, the issue is clear: do you support copyrights and ownership of intellectual property as envisioned by our elected officials in Congress and the European Union, or do you support "free" - as in free from ownership - intellectual property envisioned by the Free Software Foundation, Red Hat and others? There really is no middle ground. The future of the global economy hangs in the balance.
This is not a disinterested "I'm just thinking about my shareholders" approach. After bringing in discussion about competing interpretations of the Constitution, Darl ends the monologue with this:
We take these actions secure in the knowledge that our system of copyright laws is built on the foundation of the U.S. Constitution and that our rights will be protected under law. We do so knowing that those who believe "software should be free" cannot prevail against the U.S. Congress and voices of seven U.S. Supreme Court justices who believe that "the motive of profit is the engine that ensures the progress of science."
The stated intent of SCO is to eliminate free software, because SCO views the mere existence of free software as incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. To me that's about as extreme a position as you can take, given that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that creators are not free to give away their works as they see fit.
Now go look at how Red Hat or SUSE have worked with the open source community to see how it should be done.
OK, I buy the argument that Apple could be doing a better job of making it easier for the KDE developers to make use of the changes Apple has made. But comparing Apple's behavior to that of Red Hat and SuSE is a bit self-serving. Linux is what Red Hat and SuSE do. It is blindingly obvious that improving Linux and tools that are used most by the Linux community is in their best interest.
It is in Apple's interest to cooperate with KDE developers, and extra assistance would be great. But Apple's business model is completely different from that of Red Hat or SuSE. Improvements in KDE benefit Apple, but not nearly as directly as they benefit Red Hat and SuSE. A more appropriate comparison would be Sony or Sun.
I can't believe I'm responding to this post, but the Web Standards Project logo is a wasp. It's right there on the site. Their acronym really would be WSP, but it's their organization, so I figure they can call it whatever the fark they want.
with its Macromedia purchase doesn't seem so paranoid.
A combined FlashPaper/PDF format that leaps past current PDF capabilities is the way for Adobe to be sure that Microsoft doesn't take the PDF market from them.
I've got a feeling this is going to be like a lot of those WTO protests, where about 50 idiots in suits show up, along with 50 agents provocateurs, so that the remaining 4,000 dissidents can have the ever-lovin' shit beaten out of them for the entertainment of the local news media.
Interesting point. But also remember that until the WTO protests, most regular people knew nothing about the WTO or globalization. The protests did get attention, and they have even forced the WTO to broaden the scope of discussion
My feeling is that if nobody protested the WIPD, nothing would happen. But by raising the notion that not everyone believes in the validity of the WIPD's message, the CopyNight people may wake up a few regular citizens who might not otherwise care.
Then again, I may just be seeing the glass half full.
I've got a feeling this is going to be like a lot of those Klan marches, where about 50 idiots in white sheets show up, and 4,000 demonstrators are there to greet them.
WIPD is a protest-magnet, and the CopyNight people have simply used WIPD's big-money marketing of the event against them. It will be interesting to see if WIPD is "quietly" discontinued next year.
Etc. Jefferson was at the view that all governments will inevitably become corrupt, oppressive, and/or unrepresentative of its citizens; and when that time comes, the people must rise up and overthrow it.
Alone among the Founding Fathers, Jefferson's reputation as a man of the people has been enshrined in American popular belief. But when Jefferson made these pronouncements, two things were happening:
1) The French Revolution was creating the biggest political upheaval Europe had seen. Commoners were taking down the nobility and smashing everything associated with the rule of kings. Jefferson was a great admirer of Robespierre specifically and the Revolution in general, and he seemed oblivious to the carnage being wrought in France.
2) Jefferson was fighting against Washington and Hamilton, who felt that a strong central government was imperative in keeping the fledgeling United States alive. The Constitution was by no means a done deal, and the struggle between adherents of a loose confederation and proponents of a strong central government nearly made a Constitution impossible.
My feeling is that in Jefferson's romantic, naive appraisal of bloody, armed revolution is based on the fact that he lived his life in luxury. He never saw combat. He was treated like royalty and lived off the sweat of his slaves. So when I read passages from Jefferson about rising up and overthrowing governments in bloody revolution, I take them with a grain of salt.
Hmm... I wonder how many TV spin-offs Star Wars will generate before the last blood gets sucked out of the franchise and even die-hard fans throw in the towel.
Sure, it seems impossible, but look at what happend to Star Trek. For years Trek fans were livin' large, with several shows to choose from, but now it's all going out with a whimper.
Hopefully Lucas will learn something from the Trek saga, and he won't try to keep a deathgrip on the creative process in the Star Wars TV shows. If fresh talent is able to come in and mess around a bit with the tried-and-true formula, Star Wars could thrive on TV. If they stick to what they've done before, it's a doomed venture.
Microsoft has bought wholesale into the media-generated myth that religious issues matter to the majority of the populace...
If you live on the West or East Coast, religious issues may not matter to the majority of the populace, but if you've lived in Middle America or been in the military, you understand that while religious issues don't matter to everyone, they are hugely important across broad swaths of America.
I don't like it, but in my experience the upward climb of reactionary religion in America is far more widespread nationally than it is where I live (California). If anything, the mainstream media has been very slow in understanding this trend towards religious illiberalism.
Re:PR is evil, PR people are evil... blah blah bla
on
Paul Graham on PR
·
· Score: 1
I like this model much better but maybe I'm too idealistic.
I'm with you. I think it would be great if every truly excellent product could come out of nowhere and take over a market without any marketing or PR at all. But as a business owner there's no way I'd trust my success solely to the quality of my product. The simple fact is that most of the time just getting people to know your product or service even exists is very difficult.
Most of the time companies that get ahead without marketing or PR do so not by choice but because they simply can't afford to spend the money. If you're competing against a company that has big PR/advertising money, unless their product absolutely sucks, you'll have to spend money so people can hear about your new entry into the marketplace.
PR is evil, PR people are evil... blah blah blah..
on
Paul Graham on PR
·
· Score: 1
Look, the bottom line is that if you're selling an idea, a product, or a service, you need to get the word out. Otherwise, people won't hear about whatever it is you're selling, and your endeavor won't get anywhere.
You can advertise your product; plastering bus stations with posters, concocting radio jingles, creating spiffy adds with talking dogs; or you can use public relations. Generally speaking, public relations is far more cost-effective, because it more closely ties you and whatever it is you are selling to potential buyers. It is more likely to be paid attention to, is less expensive, and tends to have better staying power.
Some advertising is not inherently bothersome. If I pick up a game magazine, advertising from game companies is fine with me. Pop-under ads for some dating site when I'm at a tech website I find annoying. So some advertisers are just assholz, and some aren't.
The same is true of PR. Using a public relations firm to spread the word about your company's efforts to exceed EPA regulations so they know you're a clean company, is one thing. Using a PR firm to buy a reporter so he'll give your products more favorable reviews is deceitful. The PR firm in such cases has no ethics, nor does the company employing it, nor does the reporter receiving the kickback.
Business-types operate in a different environment than geeks do. But the persistence of this inane "we're geeks and we're living in the real world, but buisinesspeople are all stupid and evil" crap on Slashdot is really becoming tiresome.
The programmers who worked on Grand Theft auto did a great job, didn't they? The game has great flow and is lots of fun. But the game is about people robbing and killing and pimping and generally engaging in truly disgusting behavior. How come we never see *anything* on Slashdot about the ethical dilemmas faced (or not faced) by programmers?
"Yes, Java will be used for dinky mini-apps (writer/programmer Rob Hummel calls them "craplets") and as a way to add animation to stagnant Web pages, but not much more." - John C. Dvorak, 1996
"Folks, the Mac platform is through...." - John C. Dvorak, 1998
"Nobody is predicting the comeback of the IPO market except me." - John C. Dvorak, 2002
"Hollywood will begin to promote the new digital theater, using the latest movie projectors..." - John C. Dvorak, 2002
"Isn't it about time the Macintosh was simply discontinued--put down like an old dog?" - John C. Dvorak, 2004
"The Mac platform is essentially stagnant.... I'm now convinced that this stems mostly from Apple's inability to make the Mac a commodity computer by pricing it to compete with PCs made inexpensively in China and selling with razor-thin margins." - John C. Dvorak, 2004
The gist of the story was that there is an ongoing debate about the utility of iPods in the college classroom. That alone makes it hardly a shill for Apple.
Since the iPod is a very popular tech gadget, and it is being extended beyond its original function, the merits (or lack thereof) of this new use seems to be worth discussion in a geek forum.
Also, the impact of computer technology in classrooms has been a hotly debated topic for some time, so it seems to me worth discussing this latest round in that debate.
Yeah, amazing. How is using a modded iPod (they can't record out of the box) different from using a tape recorder? The hard disk?
Not having used an iPod in a classroom, I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the issue. But I am curious to read what other people think about it, and I'm guessing you fall into the "iPods are of limited utility in a classroom environment" camp.
"Success is a lousy teacher. It seduces smart people into thinking they can't lose." - The Road Ahead, by Bill Gates.
What's really fascinating to me about this is that Microsoft is even talking about Panther's search capabilities. The shift in the public's (and the stock market's) perception of Apple seems to be mirrored by a shift at Microsoft. They're no longer writing Apple off as an also-ran. Interestingly, in taking Apple seriously again, they only give more credence to the notion that Apple is a more powerful competitor than it has been in at least a decade.
This comic throwaway line coming from Obi-Wan at the end of the first of these trailers caused a serious disturbance in The Force. I just hope he wasn't referring to his bowels.
The lawsuit charges AOL and its parent company, Time Warner Inc. (TWX), with failing to supervise the employee and of falsely advertising that its online service was safe for children. It also charges the monitor with inflicting emotional distress.
America has become a place where if you can't absolutely guarantee 100% of the time that whatever you are providing is 100% safe, you are bad, bad, bad. Watch out Microsoft, you'll get sued soon as well, because someone will be pissed off that while they were using Windows XP, they saw something on a web site that offended their sensibilities, rendering them emotionally distressed to the tune of several million dollars.
Or did you just sign a 3 year 100 a month contract first, then bitch later?
Do you work at Verizon? I'm sensing hostility.
I had an existing contract and then moved down the road about three miles, where I encountered the loss of coverage. Besides, how am I supposed to know that I can give them my driver's license (I ride my bike home I guess, since I then don't have my license) in exchange for a test phone? It's not exactly something Verizon advertises, at least not in my area.
Verizon is still the least sucky choice in my area, which is proof to me that either implementation of cell phone technology is poor, or the technology itself has limitations that can only be surmounted through the use of other technologies. Cell phones are useful in many situations, but I think we've grown used to their annoyances, which keeps us from realizing that cell technology isn't the only way to build roaming voice capability.
Apple has done really well reaching out to the nerd set over the last few years. What acceptance they've gotten here is well-deserved.
I've been on Slashdot since '99, and I noticed initially there was quite a bit of resistence to most things Apple. The groupthink about Apple seemed to be, "Yeah, they make shiny widgets that graphic artists like, but they're toys unsuitable for people who know anything about computers."
The release of early builds of OS X started the ball rolling in the right direction. Apple's foray into Open Source with Darwin at first was greated with enormous skepticism, but after a while people started to realize that Apple wasn't just pulling a publicity stunt. The evolution of Apple hardware got more people interested in Apple, and the titanium PowerBooks in particular made quite a few Slashdotters to realize that OS X on a PowerBook was essentially a very capable UNIX machine with a great form factor and nifty features.
Subsequent events (the launch of the iPod, the foray into online music, the G5 boxes, and the continuing improvements to OS X) have changed a lot of minds. I seriously doubt that Slashdot has become infested with Apple fanboys who drool at the opportunity to mod up comments that make Apple look good. My take on it is that Apple has changed for the better, and they're coming out with hardware and software that many Slashdotters like.
I stand corrected about current price flexibility in music. I did a few online lookups and found that there is some variation in pricing on a per-album basis, depending on the artist and their popularity. But in essence these are bargain-bin sales, where the labels and retailers are simply trying to recoup some revenue from physical inventory they have sitting around gathering dust. The price elasticity has less to do with demand than with supply in this case.
My primary point is that mutterings from the music industry about their desire variable pricing are a red herring. Not once in any of the articles I've read have the music industry execs said anything about setting variable pricing other than in the context of raising prices. Here's an example of this mentality, from a late February article:
Music industry executives said introductory wholesale prices for digital tracks had been set low to stimulate demand for online music sales but the success of Apple's music store had prompted concern that they may now be too low.
This is exactly the reason that the industry's first forays into online music sales (pressplay and Rhapsody) were such abysmal failures. They are not concerned with expanding the volume of music sold. Instead, they are trying to shield themselves from what they see as the negative effects of P2P filesharing. Apple has the right idea, in that they are trying to grow the music market. They see it as an opportunity, a way to create an entirely new segment of the market. The guys at the labels seem to see it as a zero-sum game. Either Apple wins or they win.
This just shows that if an industry group (effectively a cartel as you said, despite protestations to the contrary from other people on Slashdot) is too inflexible and gets locked into a business model that is rapidly becoming outmoded, all they can do is fight a rearguard action until they are slowly but surely eliminated by new market forces.
I hadn't heard of AcidPlanet, so thanks for pointing it out. I like a lot of the Chemical Brothers' music, so I went to their contest page. Then I looked up the rules and found this:
By entering your Remix in the Contest, you acknowledge and agree that: (a) Astralwerks will maintain ownership of the Master and the Loops, and will own all Remixes entered by you in the Contest or otherwise uploaded to the Website (the Master, the Loops and the Remixes being collectively referred to herein as the "Materials"), and (b) as between you and 2004 Virgin Records, 2004 Virgin Records will own all publishing rights in and to the Materials. Each entrant into the Contest hereby grants, sells, transfers, assigns and conveys to Astralwerks, its successors and assigns, all present and future right, title and interest of every kind and nature whatsoever, including, without limitation, all copyrights, all music and music publishing rights, and all rights incidental, subsidiary, ancillary or allied thereto (including, without limitation, all derivative rights) in and to the Remix(es) for exploitation throughout the universe, in perpetuity, by means of any and all media and devices whether now known or hereafter devised (the "Rights"). Sponsors shall have the right, in their sole discretion, to edit, composite, morph, scan, duplicate, or alter, the Remix(es) for any purpose which Sponsors deems necessary or desirable, and each entrant irrevocably waives any and all so-called moral rights they may have in the Remix(es) submitted by him or her. Each entrant hereby acknowledges that such entrant does not reserve any rights in and to the Remixes. Notwithstanding the forgoing, an entrant will retain whatever rights such entrant had in and to any Additional Elements that may be incorporated into a particular Remix, subject to an irrevocable, royalty-free, worldwide, non-exclusive license to use such Additional Elements throughout the universe in perpetuity in any and all media now known or hereafter devised.
Essentially they let you borrow the loop, and if you enter the contest, whatever you create is theirs. So Sony owns anything you come up with and can do whatever they want with it, forever and ever, throughout the universe. The creative effort you put into transforming the loop is owned by Sony. You can't distribute it - in fact, you even waive all "so called moral rights." If that's not covering your legal bases, I don't know what is.
Interscope's agreement on the Reznor download is much more agreeable. They basically tell you that you can't make money by selling any alterations you make to the loop.
I just got off my cell phone, having stood in the correct corner of the house where my Verizon service gets two bars (unlike the no bars I get in the rest of the house). Then I hopped on Slashdot (oddly enough, my DSL and WiFi work great) and checked out this article. Then I saw your post, and just about fell off my chair laughing.
Perfect. Something about the term "buggy whip" makes me want to laugh anyway, but the comparison is apt. The telecoms think the world is going to slow down for them, so they can turn their behemoth organizations around and fight the next battle. While they're busy fighting their wars of industry consolidation, the technology is outpacing them.
Slashdot Mirror
In Darl's infamous open letter, he clearly defines the combatants:
Despite the raw emotions, however, the issue is clear: do you support copyrights and ownership of intellectual property as envisioned by our elected officials in Congress and the European Union, or do you support "free" - as in free from ownership - intellectual property envisioned by the Free Software Foundation, Red Hat and others? There really is no middle ground. The future of the global economy hangs in the balance.
This is not a disinterested "I'm just thinking about my shareholders" approach. After bringing in discussion about competing interpretations of the Constitution, Darl ends the monologue with this:
We take these actions secure in the knowledge that our system of copyright laws is built on the foundation of the U.S. Constitution and that our rights will be protected under law. We do so knowing that those who believe "software should be free" cannot prevail against the U.S. Congress and voices of seven U.S. Supreme Court justices who believe that "the motive of profit is the engine that ensures the progress of science."
The stated intent of SCO is to eliminate free software, because SCO views the mere existence of free software as incompatible with the U.S. Constitution. To me that's about as extreme a position as you can take, given that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that creators are not free to give away their works as they see fit.
Thank God for unregulated free enterprise. Bring back lead-based paint and cars that explode when you rear-end them!
OK, I buy the argument that Apple could be doing a better job of making it easier for the KDE developers to make use of the changes Apple has made. But comparing Apple's behavior to that of Red Hat and SuSE is a bit self-serving. Linux is what Red Hat and SuSE do. It is blindingly obvious that improving Linux and tools that are used most by the Linux community is in their best interest.
It is in Apple's interest to cooperate with KDE developers, and extra assistance would be great. But Apple's business model is completely different from that of Red Hat or SuSE. Improvements in KDE benefit Apple, but not nearly as directly as they benefit Red Hat and SuSE. A more appropriate comparison would be Sony or Sun.
It's NUKULAR, not nuclear!
A combined FlashPaper/PDF format that leaps past current PDF capabilities is the way for Adobe to be sure that Microsoft doesn't take the PDF market from them.
Interesting point. But also remember that until the WTO protests, most regular people knew nothing about the WTO or globalization. The protests did get attention, and they have even forced the WTO to broaden the scope of discussion
My feeling is that if nobody protested the WIPD, nothing would happen. But by raising the notion that not everyone believes in the validity of the WIPD's message, the CopyNight people may wake up a few regular citizens who might not otherwise care.
Then again, I may just be seeing the glass half full.
Good point. Now it's not even quivering.
WIPD is a protest-magnet, and the CopyNight people have simply used WIPD's big-money marketing of the event against them. It will be interesting to see if WIPD is "quietly" discontinued next year.
Alone among the Founding Fathers, Jefferson's reputation as a man of the people has been enshrined in American popular belief. But when Jefferson made these pronouncements, two things were happening:
1) The French Revolution was creating the biggest political upheaval Europe had seen. Commoners were taking down the nobility and smashing everything associated with the rule of kings. Jefferson was a great admirer of Robespierre specifically and the Revolution in general, and he seemed oblivious to the carnage being wrought in France.
2) Jefferson was fighting against Washington and Hamilton, who felt that a strong central government was imperative in keeping the fledgeling United States alive. The Constitution was by no means a done deal, and the struggle between adherents of a loose confederation and proponents of a strong central government nearly made a Constitution impossible.
My feeling is that in Jefferson's romantic, naive appraisal of bloody, armed revolution is based on the fact that he lived his life in luxury. He never saw combat. He was treated like royalty and lived off the sweat of his slaves. So when I read passages from Jefferson about rising up and overthrowing governments in bloody revolution, I take them with a grain of salt.
Sure, it seems impossible, but look at what happend to Star Trek. For years Trek fans were livin' large, with several shows to choose from, but now it's all going out with a whimper.
Hopefully Lucas will learn something from the Trek saga, and he won't try to keep a deathgrip on the creative process in the Star Wars TV shows. If fresh talent is able to come in and mess around a bit with the tried-and-true formula, Star Wars could thrive on TV. If they stick to what they've done before, it's a doomed venture.
If you live on the West or East Coast, religious issues may not matter to the majority of the populace, but if you've lived in Middle America or been in the military, you understand that while religious issues don't matter to everyone, they are hugely important across broad swaths of America.
I don't like it, but in my experience the upward climb of reactionary religion in America is far more widespread nationally than it is where I live (California). If anything, the mainstream media has been very slow in understanding this trend towards religious illiberalism.
I'm with you. I think it would be great if every truly excellent product could come out of nowhere and take over a market without any marketing or PR at all. But as a business owner there's no way I'd trust my success solely to the quality of my product. The simple fact is that most of the time just getting people to know your product or service even exists is very difficult.
Most of the time companies that get ahead without marketing or PR do so not by choice but because they simply can't afford to spend the money. If you're competing against a company that has big PR/advertising money, unless their product absolutely sucks, you'll have to spend money so people can hear about your new entry into the marketplace.
You can advertise your product; plastering bus stations with posters, concocting radio jingles, creating spiffy adds with talking dogs; or you can use public relations. Generally speaking, public relations is far more cost-effective, because it more closely ties you and whatever it is you are selling to potential buyers. It is more likely to be paid attention to, is less expensive, and tends to have better staying power.
Some advertising is not inherently bothersome. If I pick up a game magazine, advertising from game companies is fine with me. Pop-under ads for some dating site when I'm at a tech website I find annoying. So some advertisers are just assholz, and some aren't.
The same is true of PR. Using a public relations firm to spread the word about your company's efforts to exceed EPA regulations so they know you're a clean company, is one thing. Using a PR firm to buy a reporter so he'll give your products more favorable reviews is deceitful. The PR firm in such cases has no ethics, nor does the company employing it, nor does the reporter receiving the kickback.
Business-types operate in a different environment than geeks do. But the persistence of this inane "we're geeks and we're living in the real world, but buisinesspeople are all stupid and evil" crap on Slashdot is really becoming tiresome.
The programmers who worked on Grand Theft auto did a great job, didn't they? The game has great flow and is lots of fun. But the game is about people robbing and killing and pimping and generally engaging in truly disgusting behavior. How come we never see *anything* on Slashdot about the ethical dilemmas faced (or not faced) by programmers?
"Yes, Java will be used for dinky mini-apps (writer/programmer Rob Hummel calls them "craplets") and as a way to add animation to stagnant Web pages, but not much more." - John C. Dvorak, 1996
"Folks, the Mac platform is through... ." - John C. Dvorak, 1998
"Nobody is predicting the comeback of the IPO market except me." - John C. Dvorak, 2002
"Hollywood will begin to promote the new digital theater, using the latest movie projectors..." - John C. Dvorak, 2002
"Isn't it about time the Macintosh was simply discontinued--put down like an old dog?" - John C. Dvorak, 2004
"The Mac platform is essentially stagnant. ... I'm now convinced that this stems mostly from Apple's inability to make the Mac a commodity computer by pricing it to compete with PCs made inexpensively in China and selling with razor-thin margins." - John C. Dvorak, 2004
The guy is a GENIUS!
Since the iPod is a very popular tech gadget, and it is being extended beyond its original function, the merits (or lack thereof) of this new use seems to be worth discussion in a geek forum.
Also, the impact of computer technology in classrooms has been a hotly debated topic for some time, so it seems to me worth discussing this latest round in that debate.
Yeah, amazing. How is using a modded iPod (they can't record out of the box) different from using a tape recorder? The hard disk?
Not having used an iPod in a classroom, I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the issue. But I am curious to read what other people think about it, and I'm guessing you fall into the "iPods are of limited utility in a classroom environment" camp.
What's really fascinating to me about this is that Microsoft is even talking about Panther's search capabilities. The shift in the public's (and the stock market's) perception of Apple seems to be mirrored by a shift at Microsoft. They're no longer writing Apple off as an also-ran. Interestingly, in taking Apple seriously again, they only give more credence to the notion that Apple is a more powerful competitor than it has been in at least a decade.
America has become a place where if you can't absolutely guarantee 100% of the time that whatever you are providing is 100% safe, you are bad, bad, bad. Watch out Microsoft, you'll get sued soon as well, because someone will be pissed off that while they were using Windows XP, they saw something on a web site that offended their sensibilities, rendering them emotionally distressed to the tune of several million dollars.
Do you work at Verizon? I'm sensing hostility.
I had an existing contract and then moved down the road about three miles, where I encountered the loss of coverage. Besides, how am I supposed to know that I can give them my driver's license (I ride my bike home I guess, since I then don't have my license) in exchange for a test phone? It's not exactly something Verizon advertises, at least not in my area.
Verizon is still the least sucky choice in my area, which is proof to me that either implementation of cell phone technology is poor, or the technology itself has limitations that can only be surmounted through the use of other technologies. Cell phones are useful in many situations, but I think we've grown used to their annoyances, which keeps us from realizing that cell technology isn't the only way to build roaming voice capability.
I've been on Slashdot since '99, and I noticed initially there was quite a bit of resistence to most things Apple. The groupthink about Apple seemed to be, "Yeah, they make shiny widgets that graphic artists like, but they're toys unsuitable for people who know anything about computers."
The release of early builds of OS X started the ball rolling in the right direction. Apple's foray into Open Source with Darwin at first was greated with enormous skepticism, but after a while people started to realize that Apple wasn't just pulling a publicity stunt. The evolution of Apple hardware got more people interested in Apple, and the titanium PowerBooks in particular made quite a few Slashdotters to realize that OS X on a PowerBook was essentially a very capable UNIX machine with a great form factor and nifty features.
Subsequent events (the launch of the iPod, the foray into online music, the G5 boxes, and the continuing improvements to OS X) have changed a lot of minds. I seriously doubt that Slashdot has become infested with Apple fanboys who drool at the opportunity to mod up comments that make Apple look good. My take on it is that Apple has changed for the better, and they're coming out with hardware and software that many Slashdotters like.
My primary point is that mutterings from the music industry about their desire variable pricing are a red herring. Not once in any of the articles I've read have the music industry execs said anything about setting variable pricing other than in the context of raising prices. Here's an example of this mentality, from a late February article:
Music industry executives said introductory wholesale prices for digital tracks had been set low to stimulate demand for online music sales but the success of Apple's music store had prompted concern that they may now be too low.
This is exactly the reason that the industry's first forays into online music sales (pressplay and Rhapsody) were such abysmal failures. They are not concerned with expanding the volume of music sold. Instead, they are trying to shield themselves from what they see as the negative effects of P2P filesharing. Apple has the right idea, in that they are trying to grow the music market. They see it as an opportunity, a way to create an entirely new segment of the market. The guys at the labels seem to see it as a zero-sum game. Either Apple wins or they win.
This just shows that if an industry group (effectively a cartel as you said, despite protestations to the contrary from other people on Slashdot) is too inflexible and gets locked into a business model that is rapidly becoming outmoded, all they can do is fight a rearguard action until they are slowly but surely eliminated by new market forces.
By entering your Remix in the Contest, you acknowledge and agree that: (a) Astralwerks will maintain ownership of the Master and the Loops, and will own all Remixes entered by you in the Contest or otherwise uploaded to the Website (the Master, the Loops and the Remixes being collectively referred to herein as the "Materials"), and (b) as between you and 2004 Virgin Records, 2004 Virgin Records will own all publishing rights in and to the Materials. Each entrant into the Contest hereby grants, sells, transfers, assigns and conveys to Astralwerks, its successors and assigns, all present and future right, title and interest of every kind and nature whatsoever, including, without limitation, all copyrights, all music and music publishing rights, and all rights incidental, subsidiary, ancillary or allied thereto (including, without limitation, all derivative rights) in and to the Remix(es) for exploitation throughout the universe, in perpetuity, by means of any and all media and devices whether now known or hereafter devised (the "Rights"). Sponsors shall have the right, in their sole discretion, to edit, composite, morph, scan, duplicate, or alter, the Remix(es) for any purpose which Sponsors deems necessary or desirable, and each entrant irrevocably waives any and all so-called moral rights they may have in the Remix(es) submitted by him or her. Each entrant hereby acknowledges that such entrant does not reserve any rights in and to the Remixes. Notwithstanding the forgoing, an entrant will retain whatever rights such entrant had in and to any Additional Elements that may be incorporated into a particular Remix, subject to an irrevocable, royalty-free, worldwide, non-exclusive license to use such Additional Elements throughout the universe in perpetuity in any and all media now known or hereafter devised.
Essentially they let you borrow the loop, and if you enter the contest, whatever you create is theirs. So Sony owns anything you come up with and can do whatever they want with it, forever and ever, throughout the universe. The creative effort you put into transforming the loop is owned by Sony. You can't distribute it - in fact, you even waive all "so called moral rights." If that's not covering your legal bases, I don't know what is.
Interscope's agreement on the Reznor download is much more agreeable. They basically tell you that you can't make money by selling any alterations you make to the loop.
Perfect. Something about the term "buggy whip" makes me want to laugh anyway, but the comparison is apt. The telecoms think the world is going to slow down for them, so they can turn their behemoth organizations around and fight the next battle. While they're busy fighting their wars of industry consolidation, the technology is outpacing them.