Err, MS don't have to notify Bing, do they? The fact that Bing simply scrapes Google to get their search results means that, shortly after it disappears from Google, it will also disappear from Bing, no?
Yes, another interesting thought - which would possibly be a violation of Google's terms of use. Assuming they are scraping it - they are indeed using it then.
This might make for a very interesting experiment with these take downs - I wonder if it will still be there in a couple days... on bing.
If Microsoft decides to sue me, I'll point this out. Since it appears that Microsoft's search engine is directing people to downloads of Microsoft's product, it is a reasonable assumption that Microsoft is supporting the distribution of their software via that means.
That's a good point actually... So since an 'official' Microsoft site is in fact pointing us there...
We don't even need a study, just look at the Volstead Act.
It didn't really help society, it certainly didn't do what it's zealots claimed it would do, but in the end - it made some people *very* rich.
Isn't that the purpose of most laws? To make some people rich?
While it's claimed that most laws are made for some sort of 'protection' or some such unbelievable hogwash, we all know that MOST are made to make someone rich... or perhaps keep the other guy from getting rich to sustain business models that the free market would otherwise crush.
But you know - socialism as such is all well and good, until everyone else runs out of money to take - then it dies all the same.
Of course, the Music Industry has had it so good and so easy for so long... Now they are getting the shaft so hard and so deep, it's just coming back around full circle.
For years and years, this industry gutted the public with over priced content that you would buy a whole disc/album/tape for just a single good song. Now, the consumer is gutting the industry. And they want sympathy?
Naaaa.
I'll still buy CD's, for ethical reasons (even though it's obvious the music industry NEVER sought to treat consumers with this same respect, but I'm above that) and because I like to have them, plus it's legal.
If the RIAA withers and dies, I'll buy digital media. The sooner the RIAA dies and let's the industry move on to the digital age - the better. Since you obviously won't evolve: go away RIAA.
Or else maybe the film is in the public domain if it is at all owned by the government and there can be no piracy. It's our government after all... Oh wait, I forgot, it's not our government. The corporations bought it out from under us.
Good point - so by proxy - we've already paid for the media and should feel free to download it? :)
Where does it say anywhere that a religious leader has to "live meagerly through charity?" I really want to know. Is it a rumor or something? I know Catholic Christian Priests take a vow of poverty, but it is of their own volition. Is this to what you are referring?
It's just a twisting of concepts in the bible is all.
I'm Christian - but I'm FAR from religious - two VERY different things. But the 'religious' and their profit mills don't like that being said.
Not all people in a 'religion' follow the teachings from which the 'religion' is derived for sure - actually, I would be willing to say - the vast majority of religions - all sorts of them - don't follow what their scriptures say.
People keep confusing the benefits of online marketing, with supposed benefits of piracy.
I think that the 'marketing' in online and other situations is part of what drives piracy. People hear the song, for free, on the radio, the web - and want to hear it again. So they either just download a copy, rip it at the library, or get it from a friend, etc...
But of course, in some cases people hear the music and want to buy it. I like to buy CD's just for the collection and I just like the physical disc...
But even before the web, it was no different. People heard music free, and perhaps liked it. Perhaps copied it from someone or the radio or perhaps bought it - depending on the value of them actually having the original.
Much of the music people get - download, copied - or such, for 'free' - just isn't compelling enough for them to buy it. I hear tons on Pandora I just don't think is worth the cost - to me.
If I could freely download it, I might, but even if I can't listen otherwise - it's not worth buying in many cases - to me, anyway. I like it 'enough' to settle with hearing it on the web, radio or whatever - on occasion.
But rewinding to the concept at hand - the marketing drives the music to be played to begin with. Simply put, there's no other way to sell it. After that point, it's up to the consumer if it's worth the cost. Some people just aren't going to pay - music or not music. I've always been a music customer (collector) that likes to buy. But even in the 80's, before the web - I knew a number of people that wouldn't buy anything - everything they had was a copy.
It's just that the visibility is more notable now, the ability to copy has been around as long as the music industry - since without the ability to copy the music somehow - we'd have to just go to live performances and in Mozart's day - music wasn't terribly profitable, even for a genius.
I think if the leaders in the music industry were to look back on their high school days - I would be *quite* willing to bet - they had dubbed tapes/8-tracks too. Unless maybe they pre-date 8-Tracks, but even then - record trading was common along with 'borrowing' records - my dad has been a long term music collector too.. :)
They need only look at their own buying habits of the time, and those of their friends to know that today's digital age just mimics that - albeit, on a much larger scale. Regardless of any laws made - their business models will *need* to change to stay profitable - ask "Barnes & Noble" or "Blockbuster" about that one.
It wasn't piracy that has and is forcing these two to close brick and mortar stores. It's on-demand cable and amazon.
(untitled comment)
Err, MS don't have to notify Bing, do they? The fact that Bing simply scrapes Google to get their search results means that, shortly after it disappears from Google, it will also disappear from Bing, no?
Yes, another interesting thought - which would possibly be a violation of Google's terms of use. Assuming they are scraping it - they are indeed using it then.
This might make for a very interesting experiment with these take downs - I wonder if it will still be there in a couple days... on bing.
(untitled comment)
If Microsoft decides to sue me, I'll point this out. Since it appears that Microsoft's search engine is directing people to downloads of Microsoft's product, it is a reasonable assumption that Microsoft is supporting the distribution of their software via that means.
That's a good point actually... So since an 'official' Microsoft site is in fact pointing us there...
(untitled comment)
Now when I see the Olympic rings, I know not to buy whatever product it's on.
^^^ Oh and that too ^^^
(untitled comment)
And yet just another year I will skip watching them at all. It's not about sporting anymore - it's about advertising and control.
Keep it, I can find better things to do.
(untitled comment)
So why do they keep their home addresses and phone numbers private?
(untitled comment)
Who is she again?
(untitled comment)
Human complacency and dependance on computers is scarey sometimes...
(untitled comment)
But really - to sum it up as a whole....
With some notable exceptions; such as Harvard in this instance - college is a **BAD** idea for an Entrepreneur.
If one just looks at the facts and analyzes them anyway.
(untitled comment)
We don't even need a study, just look at the Volstead Act.
It didn't really help society, it certainly didn't do what it's zealots claimed it would do, but in the end - it made some people *very* rich.
Isn't that the purpose of most laws? To make some people rich?
While it's claimed that most laws are made for some sort of 'protection' or some such unbelievable hogwash, we all know that MOST are made to make someone rich... or perhaps keep the other guy from getting rich to sustain business models that the free market would otherwise crush.
But you know - socialism as such is all well and good, until everyone else runs out of money to take - then it dies all the same.
(untitled comment)
Of course, the Music Industry has had it so good and so easy for so long... Now they are getting the shaft so hard and so deep, it's just coming back around full circle.
For years and years, this industry gutted the public with over priced content that you would buy a whole disc/album/tape for just a single good song. Now, the consumer is gutting the industry. And they want sympathy?
Naaaa.
I'll still buy CD's, for ethical reasons (even though it's obvious the music industry NEVER sought to treat consumers with this same respect, but I'm above that) and because I like to have them, plus it's legal.
If the RIAA withers and dies, I'll buy digital media. The sooner the RIAA dies and let's the industry move on to the digital age - the better. Since you obviously won't evolve: go away RIAA.
(untitled comment)
It would be so sweet to see someone win American Idol and be offered a contract and say, "No thanks."
And they should. For probably $100.00 a month, they could get a custom web site up and running and maintained.
If they sold MP3's at 25 cents each, they would likely make exponentially more than the RIAA will get them.
Heck, the artists themselves could cut CD-R's - advertise that too and people will buy them just because of that, lol.
(untitled comment)
We would expect no less from the King's iron fisted thugs.
(untitled comment)
Or else maybe the film is in the public domain if it is at all owned by the government and there can be no piracy. It's our government after all... Oh wait, I forgot, it's not our government. The corporations bought it out from under us.
Good point - so by proxy - we've already paid for the media and should feel free to download it? :)
(untitled comment)
On TV channels too - or just the web?
(untitled comment)
Where does it say anywhere that a religious leader has to "live meagerly through charity?" I really want to know. Is it a rumor or something? I know Catholic Christian Priests take a vow of poverty, but it is of their own volition. Is this to what you are referring?
It's just a twisting of concepts in the bible is all.
I'm Christian - but I'm FAR from religious - two VERY different things. But the 'religious' and their profit mills don't like that being said.
Not all people in a 'religion' follow the teachings from which the 'religion' is derived for sure - actually, I would be willing to say - the vast majority of religions - all sorts of them - don't follow what their scriptures say.
(untitled comment)
Separation of Church and State...
Unless it's profitable!
Back to the days of feudalism we go - step by step.
(untitled comment)
More like a zombie than back from the dead - lumbering, brainless, with no ideas - they only seek to leech off of the living.
(untitled comment)
If Coca-Cola had Pepsi's logo and the other way around - would it compel you to drink the other cola?
Doubt it. Seriously. At least in 98% of cases, anyway.
(untitled comment)
That would require planning, responsibility, ethics, and such. Most of which has no place in congress.
Conceptually, it would be a great idea - in reality, the chances of it happening are a bit less than snowfall in hell.
(untitled comment)
People keep confusing the benefits of online marketing, with supposed benefits of piracy.
I think that the 'marketing' in online and other situations is part of what drives piracy. People hear the song, for free, on the radio, the web - and want to hear it again. So they either just download a copy, rip it at the library, or get it from a friend, etc...
But of course, in some cases people hear the music and want to buy it. I like to buy CD's just for the collection and I just like the physical disc...
But even before the web, it was no different. People heard music free, and perhaps liked it. Perhaps copied it from someone or the radio or perhaps bought it - depending on the value of them actually having the original.
Much of the music people get - download, copied - or such, for 'free' - just isn't compelling enough for them to buy it. I hear tons on Pandora I just don't think is worth the cost - to me.
If I could freely download it, I might, but even if I can't listen otherwise - it's not worth buying in many cases - to me, anyway. I like it 'enough' to settle with hearing it on the web, radio or whatever - on occasion.
But rewinding to the concept at hand - the marketing drives the music to be played to begin with. Simply put, there's no other way to sell it. After that point, it's up to the consumer if it's worth the cost. Some people just aren't going to pay - music or not music. I've always been a music customer (collector) that likes to buy. But even in the 80's, before the web - I knew a number of people that wouldn't buy anything - everything they had was a copy.
It's just that the visibility is more notable now, the ability to copy has been around as long as the music industry - since without the ability to copy the music somehow - we'd have to just go to live performances and in Mozart's day - music wasn't terribly profitable, even for a genius.
I think if the leaders in the music industry were to look back on their high school days - I would be *quite* willing to bet - they had dubbed tapes/8-tracks too. Unless maybe they pre-date 8-Tracks, but even then - record trading was common along with 'borrowing' records - my dad has been a long term music collector too.. :)
They need only look at their own buying habits of the time, and those of their friends to know that today's digital age just mimics that - albeit, on a much larger scale. Regardless of any laws made - their business models will *need* to change to stay profitable - ask "Barnes & Noble" or "Blockbuster" about that one.
It wasn't piracy that has and is forcing these two to close brick and mortar stores. It's on-demand cable and amazon.