Ok, then show me a way to have a song or a story without some form of physical medium (including RAM or a hard drive, or even a human brain) on which to store it. To separate the means of storage from the content is disingenuous; I've never seen someone walking around with "music", "a story", or "a performance" in their hand. I have, however, seen people walking around with a CD, a DVD, or a book.
That's great...why don't you try that with a bookstore? Walk in, grab a paperback of a book you already own in hardcover, and then walk out without paying. See how far your "But I already paid for the content once!" argument gets you with the judge.
As much as you don't like it, the current law says that a copy of a movie on DVD is *the same* as a copy of a novel on paper. If you damage said copy, you must purchase a new one.
I completely understand the argument that digital content reduces the marginal cost to produce a copy and so people feel that the marginal value of the copy has also declined. However, right now there is a disagreement between those who actually do legally own the right to make more copies, and those who have purchased one of those copies. As with most things that are the result of a disruptive technology, the laws take time to adjust - but nevertheless they will. This in no way excuses your willful violation of existing laws.
But lawyers for the FCC argued that the agency properly decided to abandon the regulations because they "imposed significant costs" on telephone companies, "thereby impeding innovation and investment in new broadband technologies and services."
Of course the big telcos don't want to roll out snazzy new broadband lines if they have to bear the cost of R&D and deployment, and then immediately allow competitors to use their brand new high-speed lines at the price the government insists on. I mean, their competitors can just lay new fiber optic lines themselves, right?
Oh, wait...the government created the whole mess in the first place with geographical monopolies on the right to run telephone lines, muddied the waters even more by declaring that cable companies are "information services" and thus don't have to share *their* lines, and now want to wash their hands of it and stand back and watch Joe Consumer take it up the ass.
On a *completely* unrelated note, I suggest that any group of politicians hereafter be called a clusterfuck. (e.g., A herd of cattle, a gaggle of geese, a murder of crows, a clusterfuck of politicians).
I don't want music in a proprietary streaming format any more than I want a subscription service for my Cheerios.
When will music companies get it? They have to compete with *free* mp3's that can be played anywhere, anytime, on a myriad of devices. Why would I pay a lot for "branded" streaming music that locks me into Verizon's craptastic service and force-feeds me what the MTV marketing nazguls think I should listen to?
Folks also rob banks for many reasons, one being a sense of getting money where they want, when they want.
Look, society curbs some personal freedoms in exchange for "the greater good" - it's the basis for civilized society and the reason government exists. So much for Pol. Sci. 101, which you might have missed.
Now, it looks like you're having a problem with this particular exchange. You seem to think that the government is charging these people just because it wants to make money. Actually, they just want to discourage people from driving there. I suppose that they could erect movable barriers and only let in the first x cars each day, or have a lottery for the right to drive in...but then fairness isn't justice, and some people have legitimate reasons to drive.
Additionally, it sounds like you either don't live in Manhattan, or are one of the people they're specifically targeting: people who drive (instead of an alternative) into Manhattan for no other real reason than that they feel like it.
But as this guy's project goes to show, in an open, transparent environment it doesn't matter... as a bonus it also serves to show who you can and can't trust.
So you pay for satellite or cable TV, but the television networks are un-willing to provide a few bytes of information in the form of scheduling information for future programming? I mean, do they want people to pay for their content and watch advertisements or not? $5/month for the few kb worth of data you receive is ridiculous as far as I'm concerned. The TV networks should just get together and standardize on some television scheduling format and release the data themselves.
After all, it would be in the best interests of their customers, the viewers.
I'm afraid you've got the wrong end of the stick. The viewers are their product. The advertisers are their customers.
As far as I can tell, the one and only reason that we lag behind in broadband is this: the current situation favors entrenched monopolies squeezing every last drop of revenue out of existing (government-subsidized) infrastructure while slowly rolling out higher bandwidth solutions in select areas.
If you want to fix this, I suggest the following it: take all of the cables away from the existing telcos and make one nationwide heavily regulated company that would just maintain the lines and sell bandwidth to whoever could afford it. That would go a long way towards leveling the playing field.
Sure, you could de-regulate: end geographical monopolies and grant any company wanting to run cables access to the public rights-of-way. However, this would needlessly duplicate infrastructure, and companies would use inter-networking contracts to limit competition. The biggest impediment to offering new services in a telecomm market is to connect to existing networks. Incumbent networks have a huge advantage because they already connect many, many customers. If you create a startup telco, your customers expect to be able to talk to people on the other network. The incumbents can simply price you out of the market by making it expensive for your customers to talk to theirs.
Whenever I hear a scheme like this, I wonder where these people got the idea that copyright gives them the right to tell people how they can use the copyrighted work after they've sold them the copy.
AFAIK, there's no law preventing me from purchasing a book then using a magnifying glass or opaque projector to read it. Why do they think that copyright for music or movies prevents me from using different technology to access the paid-for content?
Then we would see practical, market-driven, security. Because private companies have done sooooo well with the security for voting machines, credit cards (and credit information in general), etc.[/sarcasm]
iPhone's screen is bigger. Visual Voicemail. The fold-out keyboard makes you look like a dork when you use it. Typing with your thumbs is awkward slow.
And last but not least: some of us *prefer* software buttons to hardware buttons for several reasons. What happens when the "Z" key breaks? You can't type the letter "Z" anymore: this functionality isn't duplicated anywhere. Also, what happens when someone writes an application with a great new feature that you want a shortcut to? Oh noez...I don't have a button for that. Or even better, I have to remember a whole bunch of alt/ctrl/function+key combos for things...that's soooooo much better.
1. You're hosting ISP may not do this, but the ISPs of the people who view your webpage may. How would you know? Are you going to sign up for an account with every ISP in existence and test each one for yourself?
2. There are plenty of people who would never know: people who use adblocking software, for one. In any event, many commercial webpages are so overrun with advertising anyway, how would you know that one in the crowd was inserted by your ISP and not original to the page?
The subject doesn't make sense to you because you're not running a small ISP. The potential revenue vs. the loss of a few savvy customers might be a trade-off you'd be willing to make if the upside were big enough.
"Just any junk hardware"? I'll spare you the long list of systems I've worked on, but please allow me to ask you to get off my lawn.
I've done statistical analysis on a Zenith Data Systems 8088 system and written games for a Commodore 64, so please don't refer to anything with an 80 GB hard drive and 1 GB of RAM as "junk hardware". I know junk hardware, and that, sir, is no TRS-80.
The fact that the OS needs 1 GB of memory to function is what's wrong with the world! Seesh, kids these days...
It's just too bad that for those of us who have taken the time to educate ourselves that once we've done the research and decided on what to buy, we have to search for an inordinate amount of time to find a trustworthy place to buy from.
Expensive is relative too. Trust me, I don't have the problem of confusing "expensive" with "quality". As an example, in the past I've purchased Paradigm speakers. They are not by any means high-end speakers (I could name many boutique speakers costing $10k-$30k), but they offer very good "bang for the buck."
But part of me wishes that the majority of consumers in the U.S. would shop based on the quality of products and services, not just the price.
Anecdote: I've recently been looking in my area (D/FW, Texas) for a reputable consumer electronics dealer - specifically hi-fi equipment. Not too long ago, there were several good places to buy. One of my favorites was Hillcrest Hi-Fi, a local business well-known around here; they were purchased by Tweeter a couple years ago. Fast forward to today - all of the better shops that had knowledgeable people are gone; only Best Buy and Circuit City remain (ugh!).
Long story short: Due to a combination of grey market "deals" on the Internet, mega-chains buying out local businesses, and the HDTV pricing war, I no longer have any place that will meet my requirements for buying expensive electronic equipment. I don't buy cars over the Internet or from Uncle Al's Cars and Appliances, and I don't buy expensive electronics from places like Best Buy.
I a way, I sympathize with the few places left with a quality product and good service who just want a way to stay competitive and stay in business.
I'm not advocating voice recognition in crowded spaces...as you point out, it's silly. [OT:I always wondered what the computer in ST:TNG would do if the whole crew started yelling things at the same time] And, as I said in my post, I'm certainly not saying that people should write *code* via voice recognition. Imagine trying to write C++ by speaking... *shudder*
However, it would be great for my home computer. It would make responding to all my personal e-mail much quicker. Not to mention things like grocery lists, etc.
C'mon...the iPhone is a luxury item in the cell phone market. So, here's my daily bad car analogy: if you can't afford to put the right tires on your Porche, maybe you shouldn't have bought a Porche.
I mean, what's next, complaining to Ferrari because they don't advertise the cost of maintenance?
I don't know that geeks make a selective argument about the nature of the Internet. Most of the intelligent discussions I've seen center around legitimate differences between the Internet and other arenas - and there are real, discernable differences. I don't think anybody's arguing that behavior "on the Internet" should enjoy special protection. But it may not be as simple as you suggest. Because the bullying is occuring over the Internet, civil and criminal penalties might not apply if the bully is is another country - one that doesn't recognize the bullying as violating and laws or being grounds for a civil suit.
As you can see, it's not merely the fact that something happens "on the Internet" that should be the basis for our debate on an issue. Would there be such an uproar if someone was making international prank calls on the POTS network?
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, then show me a way to have a song or a story without some form of physical medium (including RAM or a hard drive, or even a human brain) on which to store it. To separate the means of storage from the content is disingenuous; I've never seen someone walking around with "music", "a story", or "a performance" in their hand. I have, however, seen people walking around with a CD, a DVD, or a book.
That's great...why don't you try that with a bookstore? Walk in, grab a paperback of a book you already own in hardcover, and then walk out without paying. See how far your "But I already paid for the content once!" argument gets you with the judge.
As much as you don't like it, the current law says that a copy of a movie on DVD is *the same* as a copy of a novel on paper. If you damage said copy, you must purchase a new one.
I completely understand the argument that digital content reduces the marginal cost to produce a copy and so people feel that the marginal value of the copy has also declined. However, right now there is a disagreement between those who actually do legally own the right to make more copies, and those who have purchased one of those copies. As with most things that are the result of a disruptive technology, the laws take time to adjust - but nevertheless they will. This in no way excuses your willful violation of existing laws.
now that the news has broken, Steve will have to punish us for spoiling his surprise.
Of course the big telcos don't want to roll out snazzy new broadband lines if they have to bear the cost of R&D and deployment, and then immediately allow competitors to use their brand new high-speed lines at the price the government insists on. I mean, their competitors can just lay new fiber optic lines themselves, right?
Oh, wait...the government created the whole mess in the first place with geographical monopolies on the right to run telephone lines, muddied the waters even more by declaring that cable companies are "information services" and thus don't have to share *their* lines, and now want to wash their hands of it and stand back and watch Joe Consumer take it up the ass.
On a *completely* unrelated note, I suggest that any group of politicians hereafter be called a clusterfuck. (e.g., A herd of cattle, a gaggle of geese, a murder of crows, a clusterfuck of politicians).
MTV, Verizon, and Real? It's the unholy trinity!
I don't want music in a proprietary streaming format any more than I want a subscription service for my Cheerios.
When will music companies get it? They have to compete with *free* mp3's that can be played anywhere, anytime, on a myriad of devices. Why would I pay a lot for "branded" streaming music that locks me into Verizon's craptastic service and force-feeds me what the MTV marketing nazguls think I should listen to?
I thought that spam will be the death of the Internet
Folks also rob banks for many reasons, one being a sense of getting money where they want, when they want.
Look, society curbs some personal freedoms in exchange for "the greater good" - it's the basis for civilized society and the reason government exists. So much for Pol. Sci. 101, which you might have missed.
Now, it looks like you're having a problem with this particular exchange. You seem to think that the government is charging these people just because it wants to make money. Actually, they just want to discourage people from driving there. I suppose that they could erect movable barriers and only let in the first x cars each day, or have a lottery for the right to drive in...but then fairness isn't justice, and some people have legitimate reasons to drive.
Additionally, it sounds like you either don't live in Manhattan, or are one of the people they're specifically targeting: people who drive (instead of an alternative) into Manhattan for no other real reason than that they feel like it.
But as this guy's project goes to show, in an open, transparent environment it doesn't matter... as a bonus it also serves to show who you can and can't trust.
I'm afraid you've got the wrong end of the stick. The viewers are their product. The advertisers are their customers.
If you want to fix this, I suggest the following it: take all of the cables away from the existing telcos and make one nationwide heavily regulated company that would just maintain the lines and sell bandwidth to whoever could afford it. That would go a long way towards leveling the playing field.
Sure, you could de-regulate: end geographical monopolies and grant any company wanting to run cables access to the public rights-of-way. However, this would needlessly duplicate infrastructure, and companies would use inter-networking contracts to limit competition. The biggest impediment to offering new services in a telecomm market is to connect to existing networks. Incumbent networks have a huge advantage because they already connect many, many customers. If you create a startup telco, your customers expect to be able to talk to people on the other network. The incumbents can simply price you out of the market by making it expensive for your customers to talk to theirs.
Whenever I hear a scheme like this, I wonder where these people got the idea that copyright gives them the right to tell people how they can use the copyrighted work after they've sold them the copy.
AFAIK, there's no law preventing me from purchasing a book then using a magnifying glass or opaque projector to read it. Why do they think that copyright for music or movies prevents me from using different technology to access the paid-for content?
So, how long will it be before they simply make the act of hiding things a crime in and of itself?
First you pay for the hardware, then you rent the software, and you still get advertisements.
No, thank you.
Heh. I don't even own a "smartphone" - I'm one of those backwards apes who use a cell phone as... a phone.
Counterpoints:
iPhone's screen is bigger. Visual Voicemail. The fold-out keyboard makes you look like a dork when you use it. Typing with your thumbs is awkward slow.
And last but not least: some of us *prefer* software buttons to hardware buttons for several reasons. What happens when the "Z" key breaks? You can't type the letter "Z" anymore: this functionality isn't duplicated anywhere. Also, what happens when someone writes an application with a great new feature that you want a shortcut to? Oh noez...I don't have a button for that. Or even better, I have to remember a whole bunch of alt/ctrl/function+key combos for things...that's soooooo much better.
1. You're hosting ISP may not do this, but the ISPs of the people who view your webpage may. How would you know? Are you going to sign up for an account with every ISP in existence and test each one for yourself?
2. There are plenty of people who would never know: people who use adblocking software, for one. In any event, many commercial webpages are so overrun with advertising anyway, how would you know that one in the crowd was inserted by your ISP and not original to the page?
The subject doesn't make sense to you because you're not running a small ISP. The potential revenue vs. the loss of a few savvy customers might be a trade-off you'd be willing to make if the upside were big enough.
"Just any junk hardware"? I'll spare you the long list of systems I've worked on, but please allow me to ask you to get off my lawn.
I've done statistical analysis on a Zenith Data Systems 8088 system and written games for a Commodore 64, so please don't refer to anything with an 80 GB hard drive and 1 GB of RAM as "junk hardware". I know junk hardware, and that, sir, is no TRS-80.
The fact that the OS needs 1 GB of memory to function is what's wrong with the world! Seesh, kids these days...
Oh, I understand and I agree with you.
It's just too bad that for those of us who have taken the time to educate ourselves that once we've done the research and decided on what to buy, we have to search for an inordinate amount of time to find a trustworthy place to buy from.
Expensive is relative too. Trust me, I don't have the problem of confusing "expensive" with "quality". As an example, in the past I've purchased Paradigm speakers. They are not by any means high-end speakers (I could name many boutique speakers costing $10k-$30k), but they offer very good "bang for the buck."
But part of me wishes that the majority of consumers in the U.S. would shop based on the quality of products and services, not just the price.
Anecdote:
I've recently been looking in my area (D/FW, Texas) for a reputable consumer electronics dealer - specifically hi-fi equipment. Not too long ago, there were several good places to buy. One of my favorites was Hillcrest Hi-Fi, a local business well-known around here; they were purchased by Tweeter a couple years ago. Fast forward to today - all of the better shops that had knowledgeable people are gone; only Best Buy and Circuit City remain (ugh!).
Long story short:
Due to a combination of grey market "deals" on the Internet, mega-chains buying out local businesses, and the HDTV pricing war, I no longer have any place that will meet my requirements for buying expensive electronic equipment. I don't buy cars over the Internet or from Uncle Al's Cars and Appliances, and I don't buy expensive electronics from places like Best Buy.
I a way, I sympathize with the few places left with a quality product and good service who just want a way to stay competitive and stay in business.
I'm not advocating voice recognition in crowded spaces...as you point out, it's silly. [OT:I always wondered what the computer in ST:TNG would do if the whole crew started yelling things at the same time]
And, as I said in my post, I'm certainly not saying that people should write *code* via voice recognition. Imagine trying to write C++ by speaking... *shudder*
However, it would be great for my home computer. It would make responding to all my personal e-mail much quicker. Not to mention things like grocery lists, etc.
That, and really good voice recognition would let me do everything I use a computer for except writing code.
For writing code, there's no good alternative (that I've seen) to having both hands on the keyboard.
D'oh!
Don't mess with me, boy! I know a genuine Porche when I see one! And look, there's Vorkswagen and Awdi!
C'mon...the iPhone is a luxury item in the cell phone market. So, here's my daily bad car analogy: if you can't afford to put the right tires on your Porche, maybe you shouldn't have bought a Porche.
I mean, what's next, complaining to Ferrari because they don't advertise the cost of maintenance?
I don't know that geeks make a selective argument about the nature of the Internet. Most of the intelligent discussions I've seen center around legitimate differences between the Internet and other arenas - and there are real, discernable differences. I don't think anybody's arguing that behavior "on the Internet" should enjoy special protection. But it may not be as simple as you suggest. Because the bullying is occuring over the Internet, civil and criminal penalties might not apply if the bully is is another country - one that doesn't recognize the bullying as violating and laws or being grounds for a civil suit.
As you can see, it's not merely the fact that something happens "on the Internet" that should be the basis for our debate on an issue. Would there be such an uproar if someone was making international prank calls on the POTS network?