It's not REQUIRED, but they do try to shove it down your throat. I had to disable all Facebook integration in Spotify in order to get it to work under Wine in Ubuntu, but it was not a trivial process. Now it works, and it is not linked to Facebook in any way.
Like the laptops seized by DHS officials, smartphones increasingly contain tons of personal information that people carry around with them for convenience. Do you think it's reasonable to let a cop grab your laptop from the front passenger seat (that's where I keep my laptop case) since it's "within the arm reach area"? I sure don't.
This reminds me of Odysseus identifying himself as "Nobody" before poking out Cyclops' eye (in the case of Odysseus, this didn't work out since he identified himself in the end and incurred Poseidon's wrath as a result).
"End consumers should not be deciding what is free and what isn't, and they shouldn't be deciding which business model is right or wrong."
Sounds like your knowledge in economics is severely deficient. A central tenet of basic economics is that consumers decide what goods and services they spend their hard-earned income on ("voting with their wallets"). The "efficient mix" of goods and services produced is determined by the will of the consumer as such.
When considering the price of a good or service, the law of supply and demand comes into play. When there is an infinite supply, the price of a good (the intersection of the supply and demand curves) tends towards zero. The problem is that the RIAA wants to limit supply to drive the price up, but they can't because there are other (unauthorized) sources that make up for the shortfall of supply. At this juncture, there are three options: (1) continue trying to artificially reduce supply by begging the government to enact harsher penalties or "three strike" laws to kick users off the Internet in an attempt to deter unauthorized file sharers or remove them completely from the Internet; (2) completely stop producing new music, thereby driving supply to zero (rather counterproductive, because there is a zero chance of making money); and (3) adapt to the changing marketplace by enacting new business models that have some chance of actually making money and making consumers happy (and thus shifting demand to the right).
The only thing the consumers decide directly is whether or not to buy the music (you can substitute any other good or service here). The rest occurs indirectly through the law of supply and demand. If consumers don't buy music because they disapprove of a particular business model, they are in effect exerting pressure through their sharply decreased demand for a change in the business model.
Sorry for the double post, but for some reason my paragraphs got morphed into one big paragraph.
"End consumers should not be deciding what is free and what isn't, and they shouldn't be deciding which business model is right or wrong."
Sounds like your knowledge in economics is severely deficient. A central tenet of basic economics is that consumers decide what goods and services they spend their hard-earned income on ("voting with their wallets"). The "efficient mix" of goods and services produced is determined by the will of the consumer as such.
When considering the price of a good or service, the law of supply and demand comes into play. When there is an infinite supply, the price of a good (the intersection of the supply and demand curves) tends towards zero. The problem is that the RIAA wants to limit supply to drive the price up, but they can't because there are other (unauthorized) sources that make up for the shortfall of supply. At this juncture, there are three options: (1) continue trying to artificially reduce supply by begging the government to enact harsher penalties or "three strike" laws to kick users off the Internet in an attempt to deter unauthorized file sharers or remove them completely from the Internet; (2) completely stop producing new music, thereby driving supply to zero (rather counterproductive, because there is a zero chance of making money); and (3) adapt to the changing marketplace by enacting new business models that have some chance of actually making money and making consumers happy (and thus shifting demand to the right).
The only thing the consumers decide directly is whether or not to buy the music (you can substitute any other good or service here). The rest occurs indirectly through the law of supply and demand. If consumers don't buy music because they disapprove of a particular business model, they are in effect exerting pressure through their sharply decreased demand for a change in the business model.
It's too bad that the will of the consumer is falling on deaf ears... but hopefully if enough consumers decide that enough is enough, then the house of cards that is the recording industry (NOT the music industry) will finally come crashing down.
The question is not if, but when. I guess only time will tell.
I think the problem is not with capitalism but with companies wanting to ignore the fundamentals of capitalism - you know, "more competition is better".
No, the problem is with the political system that can be bought out by lobbyists and twisted to the ends of the corporations instead of the people. When the people who are supposed to represent you turn a cold shoulder to your concerns and take bribes from companies trying to acquire / preserve monopolies, you know there is a real problem.
All these new DRM initiatives seem like sneaky ways to get people to buy the console versions of games (and shell out $10 more in the process). Maybe the game companies have some back-room deals with Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by lbds137.
I'm not that surprised...
Re:
Re:
Re:
Re:
Re: Re: Re: Privacy should rule the day
Re: Re: Re: Journalist
"End consumers should not be deciding what is free and what isn't, and they shouldn't be deciding which business model is right or wrong."
Sounds like your knowledge in economics is severely deficient. A central tenet of basic economics is that consumers decide what goods and services they spend their hard-earned income on ("voting with their wallets"). The "efficient mix" of goods and services produced is determined by the will of the consumer as such.
When considering the price of a good or service, the law of supply and demand comes into play. When there is an infinite supply, the price of a good (the intersection of the supply and demand curves) tends towards zero. The problem is that the RIAA wants to limit supply to drive the price up, but they can't because there are other (unauthorized) sources that make up for the shortfall of supply. At this juncture, there are three options: (1) continue trying to artificially reduce supply by begging the government to enact harsher penalties or "three strike" laws to kick users off the Internet in an attempt to deter unauthorized file sharers or remove them completely from the Internet; (2) completely stop producing new music, thereby driving supply to zero (rather counterproductive, because there is a zero chance of making money); and (3) adapt to the changing marketplace by enacting new business models that have some chance of actually making money and making consumers happy (and thus shifting demand to the right).
The only thing the consumers decide directly is whether or not to buy the music (you can substitute any other good or service here). The rest occurs indirectly through the law of supply and demand. If consumers don't buy music because they disapprove of a particular business model, they are in effect exerting pressure through their sharply decreased demand for a change in the business model.
Sorry for the double post, but for some reason my paragraphs got morphed into one big paragraph.
Re: Re: Journalist
Re: Re: Re: If ACTA gets passed...
The sad thing is the amount of regulatory capture and successful bribing of politicians that is going on these days.
Re: Broken Record
The question is not if, but when. I guess only time will tell.
Re: If ACTA gets passed...
No, the problem is with the political system that can be bought out by lobbyists and twisted to the ends of the corporations instead of the people. When the people who are supposed to represent you turn a cold shoulder to your concerns and take bribes from companies trying to acquire / preserve monopolies, you know there is a real problem.
sneaky tactics
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by lbds137.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt