"The problem with just telling kids "murder is bad" is that is abstract."
It's more effective to tell a child why something is wrong and help him understand it then to just tell him it's wrong.
I see that issue happen all the time with friends of mine who have kids. They just wag the finger and say "Stop doing that" instead of taking the time to sit down and help the child understand why it's a bad thing or the effects it can have on someone else.
The recording companies have built themselves an artificial market that cannot maintain their expected bottom line.
They'll continue taking from the artists even when things like digital music reduce overhead. You remember when they tried to reduce royalty rates (http://gizmodo.com/352762/riaa-wants-to-cut-artist-royalties-to-9-apple-wants-them-at-4-artists-jus t-want-to-eat)? Or how about when multiple artists sue their record labels for unfair royalties (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/james-taylor-sues-warner-brothers-over-royalties-20120917)?
I guess you could say they're not screwing them over, but rather bending them over and sodomizing them for every last scent to maintain their profit.
"Discs with DRM schemes are not legitimately standards-compliant Compact Discs (CDs) but are rather CD-ROM media. Therefore they all lack the CD logotype found on discs which follow the standard (known as Red Book). Therefore these CDs could not be played on all CD players. Many consumers could also no longer play purchased CDs on their computers. Personal computers running Microsoft Windows would sometimes even crash when attempting to play the CDs."
Re: Re: Re: Mike NEVER deals with the morality of Napster.
I don't mind that a business has the prerogative to keep itself afloat and avoid making decisions that may cost it money (even if the decision means they make more money in the long run), but I hate that their shortsightedness gives them reason to affect the law and by extension the population.
Re: Mike NEVER deals with the morality of Napster.
Did you read Michael Carrier's paper?
Obviously there is a moral quandary over what Napster did, but they paid for it in court, end of story.
The fact that this technology was then offered in a legitimate way and subsequently shot down with legal threats proves these record labels were complacent with the current state of affairs and did not want to innovate any further.
One of the people interviewed in the paper said that if the record labels had embraced this technology, they'd could have made millions within those first few years.
In Colorado, you are only allowed a certain amount of solar panels on your home because Xcel Energy, our energy provider, doesn't want to lose out on all that precious money.
We could all be saving a ton of money due to the fact that solar technology has been getting rapidly cheaper and cheaper(http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/12/daily-chart-19), but myself and a lot of other people are restricted from innovating our homes because Xcel's profit margin is more important.
This is the constant with these companies. The monetary needs of the few over the majority.
"Vidich said he's the one who suggested that iTunes charge 99 cents per track and he remembers Jobs nearly hugged him. At the time, Sony Music execs wanted to charge more than $3 a track, according to Vidich. No doubt a $3 song price would have tied an anchor around iTunes' neck, stifling growth."
To be honest, I don't think the record labels are intentionally trying to stifle innovation in this case, but their short-term ideal of continued economic prosperity via sale of the physical medium has contributed to their maladaptive attitude and inability to maintain the bottom line.
For example, they still require ridiculous amounts of money as compensation for what they provide hence Spotify's inability to break even for the first few years it was out.