"Record companies are keen to avoid repeating the mistake they believe they made when Viacom's MTV was set up 25 years ago -- allowing their artists' music to be aired for free.
Morris in his remarks to investors Tuesday said MTV "built a multibillion-dollar company on our (music)... for virtually nothing. We learned a hard lesson.""
Not unlike how the record companies built a multibillion-dollar business on the artists music for virtually nothing. Oh the irony.
"Courts around the world -- including the United States Supreme Court -- have ruled that businesses and individuals can be prosecuted for illegal downloading."
They don't sue you for downloading they sue you for uploading. If they sued you for downloading then they could only sue you for the value of the song that you downloaded (actual losses), and if you had a legally purchased copy they couldn't even sue you for that. They get you for "supply" not "possession" and work out the damages based on some tightly guarded "bullsh*t" formula meant to represent the losses caused by your actions.
Isn't this a little bit late for April first? Oh well they are Irish.
Seriously, anyone that doesn't think this is a joke is a retard. It's probably some college students pulling a prank. Anyone wanna buy a bonsai kitten?
In essence this is just government support for the arts.
What they "should" do is not give the money to the SGAE/RIAA/whoever but set up an independant body that is responsible for disbursement on a fair and equitable basis (to be determined).
The SGAE does not need (or deserve) to be included because with the above model of "digital distribution" and "goverment funding" the SGAE/record labels no longer have a purpose.
I have the patent on "accidental discoveries". I also have the patent on "non-accidental discoveries". Start paying royalties forthwith or I will have an immediate injunction placed upon your business.
I think one of the reasons MS is not competitive with VMWare is because VMWare actually benefits MS.
Since we introduced VMWare in our enterprise the number of MS virtual machines has skyrocketed.
Before if someone wanted a new MS server we had to purchase HW to run it on which is expensive and time consuming, where talking weeks to order and install.
Now we can provision a new MS virtual server in about 30 mins.
Once upon a time we would have tried to consolidate apps on physical servers to conserve HW, now each app gets it own VM, no more associability probs. MS is getting paid for all these new virtual servers that would not have existed.
I'd say that VMware is not eating MS but feeding MS
This also affects the other VM's running on that server. The dual CPU VM requires exclusive access to both pCPUs whenever it needs processing resources, no other VM can access either of the pCPUs. Thus if you have a dual CPU pserver that is running a dual CPU VM and other single CPU VM's, whenever the dual CPU VM has access to the pCPUs all other VM must wait for it to release the pCPUs before they can get access. This occurrs even if the app on the vserver only needs 1 vCPU. Of course if you have quad CPU pserver then this is not so much of an issue (unless you have 2 dual CPU VMs). ie Take all considerations into account before allocating dual CPU's to any of your VM's.
Re:more proof the RIAA/MPAA are insane
on
Death By DMCA
·
· Score: 1
I consider skipping ads to be the same as stopping popups while surfing the web. They are both a form of advertising, they are both annoying, and they both can be defeated by technology. If am allowed to install a device (XPSP2, Mozilla, etc etc) that allows me to eliminate popup ads why can't I use Tivo to skip TV ads.
Its funny how online advertisers are treated differently from TV advertisers. Or maybe its because it's not the advertisers that are worried, they can find other means to push their products, its the content providers, or more specifically the leeches that rely on the content providers for income ie TV execs, overpaid actors and sports stars.
Internet content providers have grown up with technology and have learned to adapt to the needs of their audience. Traditional content providers (TV) are unwilling to adapt so are trying to halt technology to maintain the status quo. That is why more people are getting their daily dose of entertainment from the Internet rather than the TV whether legally (legit online content) or illegaly (P2P etc). We all know what happens to species when they are unable to adapt, and with the growth of broadband it appears the commercial TV stations may go the way of the dinosaur. Note to advertisers: I already spend more time on the internet than watching TV, so if you want my dollar you need to ditch the TV stations and get online, but don't make the ads too obtrusive or you'll be blocked like a Congressional investigation during a Republican administration.
Maybe online content providers should start lobbying the good old US of A congress to get it made illegal to stop popup ads and make life fair for the poor TV networks.
Most of the world finds the US attitude to nudity as amusing. That whole Janet Jackson thing was the biggest beatup in history. Where i live (Australia) if you want to see a boob (breast) you just go to the nearest beach and see the real thing. The idea of downloading and applying a patch to a game just to cop an eyefull of animated tit is a joke, even the kids around here aren't that desperate.
This is still an over estimation. For example: Say I obtain 100 movies a year for free (I don't) and say most were good (yeah right). If someone doing a survey asked me if I'd pay to go and see any of those movies I would say yes (because they were worth seeing). BUT the truth is I would never go and see 100 movies a year because: 1. I can't afford it 2. If I had to pay I would only see movies I was pretty sure I'd like (which also means I'd see a few crap movies ("can I get my money back please")
Slashdot Mirror
OMG I've got 7 minutes to live!!!
Which raises an interesting question.
What would you do if you knew you only had 7 minutes to live?
"fool me once, shame on--shame on you. Fool me--you can't get fooled again."
George W Bush
Arnold Schwarzenneger
Adolf Hitler
Hamburgler
The Swedish Chef
Volvo
Attila the Hun
Asterix and Obelix
Inspector Clouseau
Joan of Arc
The BFG
"Record companies are keen to avoid repeating the mistake they believe they made when Viacom's MTV was set up 25 years ago -- allowing their artists' music to be aired for free. Morris in his remarks to investors Tuesday said MTV "built a multibillion-dollar company on our (music) ... for virtually nothing. We learned a hard lesson.""
Not unlike how the record companies built a multibillion-dollar business on the artists music for virtually nothing. Oh the irony.
"Courts around the world -- including the United States Supreme Court -- have ruled that businesses and individuals can be prosecuted for illegal downloading."
They don't sue you for downloading they sue you for uploading.
If they sued you for downloading then they could only sue you for the value of the song that you downloaded (actual losses), and if you had a legally purchased copy they couldn't even sue you for that.
They get you for "supply" not "possession" and work out the damages based on some tightly guarded "bullsh*t" formula meant to represent the losses caused by your actions.
Isn't this a little bit late for April first?
Oh well they are Irish.
Seriously, anyone that doesn't think this is a joke is a retard.
It's probably some college students pulling a prank.
Anyone wanna buy a bonsai kitten?
What they "should" do is not give the money to the SGAE/RIAA/whoever but set up an independant body that is responsible for disbursement on a fair and equitable basis (to be determined).
The SGAE does not need (or deserve) to be included because with the above model of "digital distribution" and "goverment funding" the SGAE/record labels no longer have a purpose.
Thus is acheived what was desired.
"ding...correct", the bzzzzttt is final and makes that person the definitive source, no further arguments can be entered into.
No, because you already have prior use on that.
I have the patent on "accidental discoveries".
I also have the patent on "non-accidental discoveries".
Start paying royalties forthwith or I will have an immediate injunction placed upon your business.
I think one of the reasons MS is not competitive with VMWare is because VMWare actually benefits MS.
Since we introduced VMWare in our enterprise the number of MS virtual machines has skyrocketed.
Before if someone wanted a new MS server we had to purchase HW to run it on which is expensive and time consuming, where talking weeks to order and install.
Now we can provision a new MS virtual server in about 30 mins.
Once upon a time we would have tried to consolidate apps on physical servers to conserve HW, now each app gets it own VM, no more associability probs.
MS is getting paid for all these new virtual servers that would not have existed.
I'd say that VMware is not eating MS but feeding MS
Oh my god, I'm shattered. Next thing you'll tell me is that Santa Claus isn't real and the 18yo virgin I've been chatting with is really a guy.
This also affects the other VM's running on that server.
The dual CPU VM requires exclusive access to both pCPUs whenever it needs processing resources, no other VM can access either of the pCPUs.
Thus if you have a dual CPU pserver that is running a dual CPU VM and other single CPU VM's, whenever the dual CPU VM has access to the pCPUs all other VM must wait for it to release the pCPUs before they can get access.
This occurrs even if the app on the vserver only needs 1 vCPU.
Of course if you have quad CPU pserver then this is not so much of an issue (unless you have 2 dual CPU VMs).
ie Take all considerations into account before allocating dual CPU's to any of your VM's.
I consider skipping ads to be the same as stopping popups while surfing the web.
They are both a form of advertising, they are both annoying, and they both can be defeated by technology.
If am allowed to install a device (XPSP2, Mozilla, etc etc) that allows me to eliminate popup ads why can't I use Tivo to skip TV ads.
Its funny how online advertisers are treated differently from TV advertisers.
Or maybe its because it's not the advertisers that are worried, they can find other means to push their products, its the content providers, or more specifically the leeches that rely on the content providers for income ie TV execs, overpaid actors and sports stars.
Internet content providers have grown up with technology and have learned to adapt to the needs of their audience.
Traditional content providers (TV) are unwilling to adapt so are trying to halt technology to maintain the status quo. That is why more people are getting their daily dose of entertainment from the Internet rather than the TV whether legally (legit online content) or illegaly (P2P etc).
We all know what happens to species when they are unable to adapt, and with the growth of broadband it appears the commercial TV stations may go the way of the dinosaur.
Note to advertisers: I already spend more time on the internet than watching TV, so if you want my dollar you need to ditch the TV stations and get online, but don't make the ads too obtrusive or you'll be blocked like a Congressional investigation during a Republican administration.
Maybe online content providers should start lobbying the good old US of A congress to get it made illegal to stop popup ads and make life fair for the poor TV networks.
No one knows because they cover the cameras before changing the lightbulb.
You've got to ask the question what are we still doing in Iraq?
The original "purpose" was to get rid of Sadam and WMD's.
Now that Sadam has gone and there were no WMD's it's time to "DUMP and RUN".
We screwed up and now its time to cut our losses.
So what if the country turns into a quagmire of internal mayhem, it's not the only one and we generally don't give a toss about the others.
Let them sort out there own problems.
Of course if they appear to pose a threat to us in the future (false or not)then we reserve the right to bomb the crap out of them again.
Insert witty sig here.
Most of the world finds the US attitude to nudity as amusing.
That whole Janet Jackson thing was the biggest beatup in history.
Where i live (Australia) if you want to see a boob (breast) you just go to the nearest beach and see the real thing.
The idea of downloading and applying a patch to a game just to cop an eyefull of animated tit is a joke, even the kids around here aren't that desperate.
This is still an over estimation.
For example:
Say I obtain 100 movies a year for free (I don't) and say most were good (yeah right).
If someone doing a survey asked me if I'd pay to go and see any of those movies I would say yes (because they were worth seeing).
BUT the truth is I would never go and see 100 movies a year because:
1. I can't afford it
2. If I had to pay I would only see movies I was pretty sure I'd like (which also means I'd see a few crap movies ("can I get my money back please")