If I spend $200 million making a movie, and get $250 million back in ticket sales, why not sell another 100 million copies of the movie for $3? It's not like it's going to cost more to sell as digital downloads.
That's what I can't figure out either.
So - ok, $15.00 on the average for a CD worth of digital music? Uhh no, why? Often, I can pay less for physical media.
So I buy physical media, which cuts into their profit more - more cost less profit.
With the advent of digital media, the 'cost' can be lessened to production costs + maintaining a data center with bandwidth.
I know it beats buying the plastic jewel cases, buying the CD's, buying the inserts, maintaining the supply chain and all that.
Why not charge a quarter a song and sell massive amounts of single songs. The data center is going to consume the same amount of resources if there are 50,000 downloads a day or 500,000 downloads a day, assuming bandwidth can provide that.
But the cost of extra bandwidth would seem to be a no-brainer if you could sell 500,000 songs at 25 cents each as opposed to 50,000 songs at a dollar each. The production costs still remain the same, but the supply chain costs drop dramatically. Sure, still make physical disks - I still prefer to buy those, even if digital media might be a bit cheaper, but that's just me.
The whole thing is - this can be argued if the cheaper cost will result in a larger net profit, but why not test it?
A dollar a song isn't too terrible I guess if you are 'sniping' what you want, but for a whole CD (15 songs or so) it's too much for digital.
And heck, most people, if they think something is 'cheap enough' will buy more than they need anyway.
The original storage media is "best evidence" and is far easier to have admitted to court than an image (copy). Had the FBI found evidence on the drives related to felony threats they most certainly would have retained the originals.
Mike is not narrow minded, you are ignorant.
But now then the question becomes - are they allowed to seize property and not even have an idea of what's on it?
So they can just grab whatever - look at it, and if there's nothing on it, just return it and act as though nothing has happened? That's what this seems to indicate.
What about probable cause now?
Can and will this company now sue them - after all, they have potentially (like so many copyright claims) lost revenue due to this.
Obviously - there was no good evidence on the server that would be needed in court since they have returned the server. And if they did image it, and will later use the image in court - why take the server in the first place?
But the big part is - anyone in IT should well know that the physical disks in an array are meaningless really. An image is all you really need.
If that server was using any type of RAID 0, 5, 6, etc - array, all of those physical disks could be swapped out, but the data would remain, assuming they were given time to rebuild the array between swaps - what good are the physical disks then?
Unless there is suspicion that data is being deleted to cover any evidence - but even then, a sector-by-sector image would still capture that, unless they are meaning to put the platters under an electron microscope - then the physical disks (assuming they haven't been swapped with other drives in the recent past) might be helpful, but really - only then.
The point is - if the FBI had a clue, they could have made an image of the server and only the operators of the facility would have known. The server would never have been offline, RiseUP wouldn't have lost any uptime or even known the image was taken.
It's both an IT fail and a police work Fail.
Now.. they have returned the server, without notifying the owner that is was ever being taken - which obviously means there was no warrant. In all likelihood - the right lawyer would have gotten that evidence tossed right out of court due to improper procedures in evidence gathering anyway.
Would seem to me, the best way to do this would be to - get a warrant - contact the data center facility - image the server (without Riseup knowing) - then if any potential evidence was on there - get a warrant to seize the server.
But the FBI doesn't really seem to be all to concerned with following the law from the start anymore.
Let me add this too: Have you considered that perhaps they took the server, copied the contents of the hard drives, and then returned it, because holding the actual server wasn't doing anything for them?
You are so narrow minded.
They could have used Symantec System Restore - for instance, and wouldn't have even had to take the server offline.
USB hard disk - run SSR - get image - go. No downtime. It's done all the time where I work - daily as a matter of fact, for DR.
"Actually, much simpler: just take the disks. They might need to do some forensics after all.
But if their only concern is data, they certainly wouldn't need the whole machine, right?"
Good point and they wouldn't even need the disks, I'm thinking too. Just an image would do, I would think, since the only concern was the data/logs - I'm guessing.
Perhaps this speaks to their ability... but maybe there's some other reason they would need all of the hardware.. heh...
"May First/People Link has removed the server from the facility and is in the process of analyzing it. The server will not be put back into production"
That's sad, if you think about it.
Millions may use it a day for web surfing - and they are ok with that, but let the FBI mess with it a couple days and the trust goes out the window.
That's basically saying, 'we trust the general population at large, more than the FBI'.
No, we want the internet to stay free of corporate and government chains. It's useful because it's non-corporate and non-government, as soon as that is no longer true, it looses it's value to many.
"If we followed your suggestion, we would have no home video or home music industry. There would be no VCR, no cassette tape, no CD, no DVD etc. All those were claimed to be the tools of pirates and criminals. Fortunately, wise judges saw that those tools had numerous valid uses and it would be more harmful for the world if we were to block their introduction."
If it wasn't for 'recording devices' - the Movie and Music industries would not even exist.
"Just because one person uses something for a perfectly okay process, doesn't mean we're supposed to put up with all negative uses. If that were the case, we would have no speed limits for cars because someone raced to the emergency room to deliver a baby. We would have no limits on shooting someone because someone somewhere fought off an attacker. "
Blizzard also used torrent to update WOW.
Ubuntu has official releases on Torrent.
Infowars.com fully allows users to download their videos via torrent.
So we have four totally legal uses, how many does it take to be legit?
50?
1000?
1.7 Trillion?
The POINT is that it *CAN* and *IS* used for some legitimate purposes.
And yes, I agree with the above too - Cars aren't limited to what speed they can go - EVEN THOUGH in the US exceeding 75 MPH is illegal just about everywhere, with some slim exceptions.
If I use my car to run people down, should we ban them?
Most people use cigarette paper to roll Pot - should those be banned?
Many people use cold medicine to make meth - should it be banned too?
When are people going to figure out that no matter what you ban - criminals will find a way around it.
But then - of course, if you have a lock on your house, banning public entry, you are 100% safe, right?
So why is one considered bad and one considered an important cultural point?
Same reason a game like 'Grand Theft Auto' is looked at as 'horrible child corrupting evil' - but movies like Saw and Debbie Does Dallas are just joked about.
Typical double standards.
Of course, that being said, I do find most social media pretty mindless - like TV. I'm more of the reading/gaming type.. :)
On the post: Nobody Cares About The Fixed Costs Of Your Book, Movie, Whatever
That's what I can't figure out either.
So - ok, $15.00 on the average for a CD worth of digital music? Uhh no, why? Often, I can pay less for physical media.
So I buy physical media, which cuts into their profit more - more cost less profit.
With the advent of digital media, the 'cost' can be lessened to production costs + maintaining a data center with bandwidth.
I know it beats buying the plastic jewel cases, buying the CD's, buying the inserts, maintaining the supply chain and all that.
Why not charge a quarter a song and sell massive amounts of single songs. The data center is going to consume the same amount of resources if there are 50,000 downloads a day or 500,000 downloads a day, assuming bandwidth can provide that.
But the cost of extra bandwidth would seem to be a no-brainer if you could sell 500,000 songs at 25 cents each as opposed to 50,000 songs at a dollar each. The production costs still remain the same, but the supply chain costs drop dramatically. Sure, still make physical disks - I still prefer to buy those, even if digital media might be a bit cheaper, but that's just me.
The whole thing is - this can be argued if the cheaper cost will result in a larger net profit, but why not test it?
A dollar a song isn't too terrible I guess if you are 'sniping' what you want, but for a whole CD (15 songs or so) it's too much for digital.
And heck, most people, if they think something is 'cheap enough' will buy more than they need anyway.
On the post: FBI Quietly Returns Anonymizing Server It Seized... Without Telling Anyone
Mike is not narrow minded, you are ignorant.
But now then the question becomes - are they allowed to seize property and not even have an idea of what's on it?
So they can just grab whatever - look at it, and if there's nothing on it, just return it and act as though nothing has happened? That's what this seems to indicate.
What about probable cause now?
Can and will this company now sue them - after all, they have potentially (like so many copyright claims) lost revenue due to this.
Obviously - there was no good evidence on the server that would be needed in court since they have returned the server. And if they did image it, and will later use the image in court - why take the server in the first place?
But the big part is - anyone in IT should well know that the physical disks in an array are meaningless really. An image is all you really need.
If that server was using any type of RAID 0, 5, 6, etc - array, all of those physical disks could be swapped out, but the data would remain, assuming they were given time to rebuild the array between swaps - what good are the physical disks then?
Unless there is suspicion that data is being deleted to cover any evidence - but even then, a sector-by-sector image would still capture that, unless they are meaning to put the platters under an electron microscope - then the physical disks (assuming they haven't been swapped with other drives in the recent past) might be helpful, but really - only then.
The point is - if the FBI had a clue, they could have made an image of the server and only the operators of the facility would have known. The server would never have been offline, RiseUP wouldn't have lost any uptime or even known the image was taken.
It's both an IT fail and a police work Fail.
Now.. they have returned the server, without notifying the owner that is was ever being taken - which obviously means there was no warrant. In all likelihood - the right lawyer would have gotten that evidence tossed right out of court due to improper procedures in evidence gathering anyway.
Would seem to me, the best way to do this would be to - get a warrant - contact the data center facility - image the server (without Riseup knowing) - then if any potential evidence was on there - get a warrant to seize the server.
But the FBI doesn't really seem to be all to concerned with following the law from the start anymore.
On the post: How Can You Tell If Uploading Your Cover Song To YouTube Is Infringing? You Can't
On the post: B&N Removes Magazine From Nook Store Due To Feature Article On 'Hacking'
Terrorism
Physics
Biology
Mechanical Engineering
The Occult
Human Anatomy
Chemistry
Crime
...
I mean - after all; they might give people ideas!! lol
Any of those books *could* be used for nefarious purposes, depending on the contents.
You could get conceptual ideas for 'terrorism' even in a Biology textbook!
Or know how to more efficiently kill a person using a book on Human Anatomy!!
OMG NO!!
On the post: FBI Quietly Returns Anonymizing Server It Seized... Without Telling Anyone
You are so narrow minded.
They could have used Symantec System Restore - for instance, and wouldn't have even had to take the server offline.
USB hard disk - run SSR - get image - go. No downtime. It's done all the time where I work - daily as a matter of fact, for DR.
On the post: FBI Quietly Returns Anonymizing Server It Seized... Without Telling Anyone
But if their only concern is data, they certainly wouldn't need the whole machine, right?"
Good point and they wouldn't even need the disks, I'm thinking too. Just an image would do, I would think, since the only concern was the data/logs - I'm guessing.
Perhaps this speaks to their ability... but maybe there's some other reason they would need all of the hardware.. heh...
On the post: FBI Quietly Returns Anonymizing Server It Seized... Without Telling Anyone
That's sad, if you think about it.
Millions may use it a day for web surfing - and they are ok with that, but let the FBI mess with it a couple days and the trust goes out the window.
That's basically saying, 'we trust the general population at large, more than the FBI'.
Can't blame them.
On the post: Do We Really Want Intellectual Ventures And Disney 'Governing' The Internet?
On the post: Apple Rejecting Apps That Use Dropbox Because *Gasp!* Users Might Sign Up For Dropbox Accounts
On the post: FBI Stops Yet Another (Yes Another) Of Its Own Terrorist Plots; This Time: Anarchists!
On the post: UK High Court Expands Censorship Regime: Orders The Pirate Bay To Be Blocked
If it wasn't for 'recording devices' - the Movie and Music industries would not even exist.
On the post: Dan Bull's Free Single Hits The Charts
HEARD MUSIC FOR FREE ON PANDORA!!!!
OMGz!!!!
IT was FREE!!!!
But it prompted me to buy CD's - HOW CAN THAT BE?!?!?!?!?!?
lol
On the post: Dan Bull's Free Single Hits The Charts
LOL, Radio - what's that? Is there 'free' music there? Is that legal?
OMGz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MUSIC IS FREE ON THE RADIO!!! THE ARTISTS ARE **DOOMED**!!!!
On the post: Dan Bull's Free Single Hits The Charts
On the post: UK High Court Expands Censorship Regime: Orders The Pirate Bay To Be Blocked
Blizzard also used torrent to update WOW.
Ubuntu has official releases on Torrent.
Infowars.com fully allows users to download their videos via torrent.
So we have four totally legal uses, how many does it take to be legit?
50?
1000?
1.7 Trillion?
The POINT is that it *CAN* and *IS* used for some legitimate purposes.
http://thepiratebay.se/tag/ubuntu
100% legal to download those.
Then go search for 'open source' there - TONS of legal content.
http://thepiratebay.se/search/open%20source/0/99/0
And yes, I agree with the above too - Cars aren't limited to what speed they can go - EVEN THOUGH in the US exceeding 75 MPH is illegal just about everywhere, with some slim exceptions.
If I use my car to run people down, should we ban them?
Most people use cigarette paper to roll Pot - should those be banned?
Many people use cold medicine to make meth - should it be banned too?
When are people going to figure out that no matter what you ban - criminals will find a way around it.
But then - of course, if you have a lock on your house, banning public entry, you are 100% safe, right?
On the post: UK High Court Expands Censorship Regime: Orders The Pirate Bay To Be Blocked
Doesn't matter if the RIAA and allied thugs didn't get their cut.
On the post: French Tweeters Get Around Ban On Tweeting Election Results Using WWII-Era Codes
On the post: French Tweeters Get Around Ban On Tweeting Election Results Using WWII-Era Codes
Why do they bother anymore? Just install whatever tyrant and get it all over with...
On the post: Why Do We Celebrate The 'Solitary' Experience Of Books But Decry The Social Experience Of Online Social Media?
Same reason a game like 'Grand Theft Auto' is looked at as 'horrible child corrupting evil' - but movies like Saw and Debbie Does Dallas are just joked about.
Typical double standards.
Of course, that being said, I do find most social media pretty mindless - like TV. I'm more of the reading/gaming type.. :)
On the post: Sen. Harry Reid: The Postal Service Must Be Saved Because 'Seniors Love Junk Mail'
Too late. If an individual doesn't own it - either the government already does - or will claim to.
And of course, if you don't pay whatever taxes - they'll take it anyway.
Next >>