As a nerd, an iPhone owner and a Red Sox fan, I'd like to say that you're confusing "fun" with pride/loyalty. (However misplaced)
If you've ever read the conversations we're speaking about, you'd realize that no one is having "fun". It usually results in name calling, each side claiming the other is a "fanboi" or a "sheep" or whatever the term happens to be that year. Even though, probably, neither side had in real hand in the development of either platform/religion/sports team/band/fast food chain/car/matress/domesticated animal. It's just loyalty for a product and pride in their choice.
Mostly misguided, more often than not.
On a side note, I can tether and cut and paste on my iphone-- though I do wish I could link up a small/portable bluetooth keyboard to my iphone for faster note-taking. The touch keyboard is really nice for short periods of time, but not idea for anything lengthy.
The video is obviously entertaining to some (12 million?) people.
So, who deserves money made off of this? Some would say that if you changed the song but kept the rest the same, it would still be as viral, but if you changed everything but the song, it would have never been noticed at all, so the couple/wedding party/etc should get money, for it was their creativity that brought all the hits, not the song.
And they have a point.
I, however, think that such thinking is just as foolish as if Sony had demanded the video be taken down.
More to the point, no one involved in this story *deserves* to get paid. This is **exactly** what Techdirt and like-minded folk have always said the Labels *should* do, and I applaud them. Also, the couple have a chance to make money off of this, they've already been on TV a few times, I'm sure they'd at least get hired to plan a wedding if they played their cards right. But they don't deserve anything.
In the same way, Sony didn't *deserve* to make more money, but by not over-reacting and demanding the video be taken down, they did make money. Maybe this will start the gears turning and this will be the first step into the Labels' realization that not all unsanctioned use of their IP is bad for them.
Ah, you would do so well in a world that made sense.
Allow me to fix that for you:
Company X's lobbyists pu$h through a new law that makes search engines pay a flat license fee to a collection agency per site listed. The collect agency then "finds" the each site's owner and sends them a check. There is no way to opt out of this system. This collection agency is run by board members for major news organizations, who, oddly enough, make the lion's share of money from this fee.
I have a GV account, and an iPhone. I'd hate my iPhone if it weren't jailbroken. I admit it to anyone who asks me how I like it. Apple's app policy is complete crap. Do they also control what can and can't be installed on their laptops? The creator of GV Mobile, a GV app that was approved and now removed, is putting up his app for free on Cydia (as I urged him to from the beginning, I might add!)
Also, you *do* make outgoing calls with GV. You have to call your own GV number. The "get around minutes" plan only works on networks where you can pick "favorite" numbers to not count towards your minutes-- because picking your GV number would then allow you to route everything through them, and nothing would cost minutes.
AT&T does not have a "favorite" type plan that I am aware of.
Sean Kovacs (The creator of GV mobile) got a phone call that said:
Richard Chipman from Apple just called - he told me they're removing GV Mobile from the App Store due to it duplicating features that the iPhone comes with (Dialer, SMS, etc). He didn't actually specify which features, although I assume the whole app in general. He wouldn't send a confirmation email either - too scared I would post it. I'll see what I can do to get it back up there gang!
I feel I should preface this with the fact that I am a happy iPhone owner. (Jailbroken, of course!)
I just don't get what Apple is doing here. They no longer have DRM on their music, so there's no need to lock buying that music down with a (heavily bloated and nearly useless) application. (That I can't even run on Linux!)
It seems to me that they'd make more money if anyone with a web browser could open it up and buy music from them. Since they give away iTunes, there's no real sense in forcing me to use it, except that it's the only way to buy music from them.
I've always wanted to try out Apple's OS, but for reasons I don't entirely understand I am not allowed to install it on my computer unless I buy that computer from them.
The price of all non-scarce (aka digital) content is fated (by basic economics) to fall to the price of reproduction (aka $0.00)
Does it make more sense now? Maybe not, I'll give an example.
If you and I are in the digital file selling business selling the *exact same* files, then the only difference between our goods is the price. So, you sell yours for $5, I'll sell for $4, then you go to $3, and I'll go to $2. Since there is no cost to reproduce a digital file, this trend will fall zero. You'll be selling files for $0.05 and I'll say, well, $0.02 profit is better than $0.00, and I'll drop my cost to 2 cents. Then you'll say the same about 1 cent. Then our business will fail unless we find a way to sell something that can't be easily reproduced and using our, now free, digital files as a selling point.
Ever wonder why the real world didn't work that way for digital files? Well, that's because, through misusing the purpose of copyright, big corporations are buying up all the rights to the music and wielding their money and the twisted law to prevent any competition. Without competition, the price will never fall.
Also, as for your original post:
That's not another business finding a more efficient (and thus, less costly) way of delivering the same product.
No, it's even worse, it's the consumers telling the business that the business is doing such a horrible job distributing their product that the consumers will just do it themselves.
Furthermore, if a business' customer base can perform the service that that business is trying to sell them more cheaply and more efficiently than the actual business, then there is no further need for that business.
Also, I rarely look at the speed limit, I simply drive at a comfortable speed for myself, taking into consideration weather, congestion, area and time of day. Sometimes I find myself driving under the speed limit (40 mph in a residential area is insane, I think) or over it (65 mph on a highway on a sunny day is way too slow, and even if I wanted to drive that slow, I'd be endangering everyone around me who is going a more standard speed)
Speed limits seem to be set lower than the average person drives (and I've lived all over) and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the reason it's not raised is because less people breaking the speed limit = less revenue.
I have always thought that speed limits should be completely abolished, and the police can simply pull people over for reckless/careless driving if things get too excessive.
Unfortunately for *everyone* involved, the caricature is also the reality.
When it comes to those pushing for stronger IP laws, I can read Techdirt to find out what they are doing now or I can read the Onion to find out what they will do tomorrow.
I want to know what makes it "basically impossible" for someone to come in and play music that is 1) in the public domain and 2) which bands just want played for free.
FTA:
All stations will be required to pay an annual minimum fee of $25,000, which they can apply to their royalty payments.
If this was really about making the general public safer, instead of making money, wouldn't the cameras be painted international orange and come with a large sign that says "RED LIGHT CAMERA" instead of a tiny black camera and no indication that it's there?
You could mix in that sign with a dummy camera at *every* intersection with only a handful being real cameras, to maximize the reduction in infractions with a minimal amount of taxpayer money.
Every month or so, send some guy out to move the real cameras around.
It seems to me that the current system is all about catching people who are running red lights instead of preventing people from running red lights.
Not sure if you're aware of this, but digital cameras "see" infrared light. The human eye does not.
All you need is a ballcap with a few infrared LEDs and a battery. Arrange the LEDs such that the infrared light obscures your face. (Check with any digital camera)
Wear your new red-light-camera-invisibility-hat, and try *not* to put things in front of your face while driving.
Side note: I wonder what would happen if you lined your license plate with high intensity IR LEDs. Then they wouldn't even know where to send the ticket. Just a thought.
You could have left your first "Note to Self" off and corrected the commenter on their mistake without looking like an immature, condecending douchebag.
On the post: iPhone Haters Are Stick-Shifters In An Automatic World
Re: Re: The iPhone is very secure...
WinMo.
One more time, for Mr. PC: WinMo.
The only reason they focused on the iPhone is because *gasp* it's so damn popular, so would draw the most eyes/ears.
I'm a Linux. It sounds sexier. :P
On the post: iPhone Haters Are Stick-Shifters In An Automatic World
Re: Re: Re: Now I feel I should clarify my opinions.
:P
On the post: iPhone Haters Are Stick-Shifters In An Automatic World
Re: Another reason for the argument
If you've ever read the conversations we're speaking about, you'd realize that no one is having "fun". It usually results in name calling, each side claiming the other is a "fanboi" or a "sheep" or whatever the term happens to be that year. Even though, probably, neither side had in real hand in the development of either platform/religion/sports team/band/fast food chain/car/matress/domesticated animal. It's just loyalty for a product and pride in their choice.
Mostly misguided, more often than not.
On a side note, I can tether and cut and paste on my iphone-- though I do wish I could link up a small/portable bluetooth keyboard to my iphone for faster note-taking. The touch keyboard is really nice for short periods of time, but not idea for anything lengthy.
On the post: Should Wedding Party In Viral YouTube Video Get A Cut Of Music Sale Profits?
Re: *Sigh*
So, who deserves money made off of this? Some would say that if you changed the song but kept the rest the same, it would still be as viral, but if you changed everything but the song, it would have never been noticed at all, so the couple/wedding party/etc should get money, for it was their creativity that brought all the hits, not the song.
And they have a point.
I, however, think that such thinking is just as foolish as if Sony had demanded the video be taken down.
More to the point, no one involved in this story *deserves* to get paid. This is **exactly** what Techdirt and like-minded folk have always said the Labels *should* do, and I applaud them. Also, the couple have a chance to make money off of this, they've already been on TV a few times, I'm sure they'd at least get hired to plan a wedding if they played their cards right. But they don't deserve anything.
In the same way, Sony didn't *deserve* to make more money, but by not over-reacting and demanding the video be taken down, they did make money. Maybe this will start the gears turning and this will be the first step into the Labels' realization that not all unsanctioned use of their IP is bad for them.
Just my thoughts.
On the post: Should Wedding Party In Viral YouTube Video Get A Cut Of Music Sale Profits?
Re: Re:
Try it. :)
On the post: Dutch Court Sides With Anti-Piracy Group; Says Pirate Bay Must Block Dutch Web Surfers
Re:
That you have been sued
That you should have known you were being sued even though you weren't told
That you lost because you weren't told and didn't show up
That you were sued for the continuing operation of a web site that you no longer run
That the verdict was to block access from a country that has no legal jurisdiction over the website you don't own.
What would *your* response be?
On the post: Did European Court Just Make Search Engines Illegal? 11-Word Snippet Can Be Copyright Infringement
Re:
Allow me to fix that for you:
Company X's lobbyists pu$h through a new law that makes search engines pay a flat license fee to a collection agency per site listed. The collect agency then "finds" the each site's owner and sends them a check. There is no way to opt out of this system. This collection agency is run by board members for major news organizations, who, oddly enough, make the lion's share of money from this fee.
There, that's better.
On the post: Apple Says No To Google Voice On The iPhone
Info.
Also, you *do* make outgoing calls with GV. You have to call your own GV number. The "get around minutes" plan only works on networks where you can pick "favorite" numbers to not count towards your minutes-- because picking your GV number would then allow you to route everything through them, and nothing would cost minutes.
AT&T does not have a "favorite" type plan that I am aware of.
Sean Kovacs (The creator of GV mobile) got a phone call that said:
Just FYI.
On the post: Only ISP In Town Pulling Plug On Suspected File Sharers With No Recourse [Update]
Re: What are you talking about?
On the post: Great Moments In Marketing: Disney Pulls Movie Trailer Off YouTube For Copyright Claims
Re: I don't think I saw it mentioned already
Huh, go figure.
On the post: Apple Withdraws Lawsuit Against Wiki Site Owner Over iPhone/iPod Interoperability Hack Discussion
Crazy Talk
I just don't get what Apple is doing here. They no longer have DRM on their music, so there's no need to lock buying that music down with a (heavily bloated and nearly useless) application. (That I can't even run on Linux!)
It seems to me that they'd make more money if anyone with a web browser could open it up and buy music from them. Since they give away iTunes, there's no real sense in forcing me to use it, except that it's the only way to buy music from them.
Why intentionally limit their customer base?
On the post: Apple Withdraws Lawsuit Against Wiki Site Owner Over iPhone/iPod Interoperability Hack Discussion
Re: Re: Re:
So, I'll stick with Linux.
On the post: Stephen Fry: Time For Politicians To Represent People's Interest On Copyright, Not Corporations
Re: Re: Re: Not competing with "free"
The price of all non-scarce (aka digital) content is fated (by basic economics) to fall to the price of reproduction (aka $0.00)
Does it make more sense now? Maybe not, I'll give an example.
If you and I are in the digital file selling business selling the *exact same* files, then the only difference between our goods is the price. So, you sell yours for $5, I'll sell for $4, then you go to $3, and I'll go to $2. Since there is no cost to reproduce a digital file, this trend will fall zero. You'll be selling files for $0.05 and I'll say, well, $0.02 profit is better than $0.00, and I'll drop my cost to 2 cents. Then you'll say the same about 1 cent. Then our business will fail unless we find a way to sell something that can't be easily reproduced and using our, now free, digital files as a selling point.
Ever wonder why the real world didn't work that way for digital files? Well, that's because, through misusing the purpose of copyright, big corporations are buying up all the rights to the music and wielding their money and the twisted law to prevent any competition. Without competition, the price will never fall.
Also, as for your original post:
That's not another business finding a more efficient (and thus, less costly) way of delivering the same product.
No, it's even worse, it's the consumers telling the business that the business is doing such a horrible job distributing their product that the consumers will just do it themselves.
Furthermore, if a business' customer base can perform the service that that business is trying to sell them more cheaply and more efficiently than the actual business, then there is no further need for that business.
I hope this clears things up for you.
On the post: DC Police Chief Says It's 'Cowardly' To Monitor Speed Traps With Your iPhone
Re: Re: Raise the speed limit
Also, I rarely look at the speed limit, I simply drive at a comfortable speed for myself, taking into consideration weather, congestion, area and time of day. Sometimes I find myself driving under the speed limit (40 mph in a residential area is insane, I think) or over it (65 mph on a highway on a sunny day is way too slow, and even if I wanted to drive that slow, I'd be endangering everyone around me who is going a more standard speed)
Speed limits seem to be set lower than the average person drives (and I've lived all over) and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that the reason it's not raised is because less people breaking the speed limit = less revenue.
I have always thought that speed limits should be completely abolished, and the police can simply pull people over for reckless/careless driving if things get too excessive.
On the post: Christian Engstrom Explains The Pirate Party's Position: Freedom To Communicate; Freedom From Privacy Invasion
Re: Re: re: Osno
Something has gone terribly wrong.
On the post: Christian Engstrom Explains The Pirate Party's Position: Freedom To Communicate; Freedom From Privacy Invasion
Re:
When it comes to those pushing for stronger IP laws, I can read Techdirt to find out what they are doing now or I can read the Onion to find out what they will do tomorrow.
It's disturbing.
On the post: Why Should Webcasters Pay 25% Of Revenue To Promote Musicians?
Re: Re: Re: Re: It isn't about the royalties
FTA:
All stations will be required to pay an annual minimum fee of $25,000, which they can apply to their royalty payments.
On the post: Redlight Cameras In Kansas City Are Too Successful
In reality.
You could mix in that sign with a dummy camera at *every* intersection with only a handful being real cameras, to maximize the reduction in infractions with a minimal amount of taxpayer money.
Every month or so, send some guy out to move the real cameras around.
It seems to me that the current system is all about catching people who are running red lights instead of preventing people from running red lights.
On the post: Redlight Cameras In Kansas City Are Too Successful
Re: Its definitely about the $$
All you need is a ballcap with a few infrared LEDs and a battery. Arrange the LEDs such that the infrared light obscures your face. (Check with any digital camera)
Wear your new red-light-camera-invisibility-hat, and try *not* to put things in front of your face while driving.
Side note: I wonder what would happen if you lined your license plate with high intensity IR LEDs. Then they wouldn't even know where to send the ticket. Just a thought.
On the post: As Jammie Thomas Seeks New Trial, RIAA Claims (Incorrectly) That She Distributed 1,700 Songs To Millions
Re: Re: Right!
Just an idea for the future.
Next >>