You folks forget that everyone else is perusing this in a comic book store where the cover is at least 11 inches tall. "And the" is quite clear. Also, the story isn't half bad and has nothing whatsoever to do with music or musicians. Just lots of shooting.
We have this already. On my cable box it's called Music On Demand and it sucks. I can pick a genre but I just get whatever crap they stream, I need more customization than that.
You make it sound like someone dies if they don't make it as a musician. Most musicians start with nothing and even a little something works out pretty well. Lesser known musicians are free to fling a lot of sh1t at the wall too, because they don't have anything to lose.
You have no proof of this and apparently little in the way of business or marketing savvy.
1. If you run a campaign offering uncapped services, you set the price point for that higher. It keeps all but the most serious users from going uncapped which means you get the cake and the delicious sensation of eating it too. You've also got the whales and those type also tend to be influencers in this particular sphere. So there's a little side benefit.
2. Saying you're uncapped is a great way to attract normal users who like to think that they use lots of bandwidth or will use it, or dammit they ought to be able to use it. Plus it's an easy campaign to run. You show people getting giant overage bills from the "other guys" or miserly dads cutting the network cable on teens, etc., etc. I could build a campaign for that in about 35 minutes.
Also, you're forgetting that once one companies offers it, the other(s) usually follows suit, so the field levels out again and the havoc continues to ensue.
But the question is, if it were not available in e-book format, would you have bought the book to begin with?
If you read other accounts of this report, specifically, http://cornfedgamer.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/nebraska-bureaucrat-says-games-and-libraries-dont-mix/, you'll find that the librarians in Nebraska made them relevant. "They’ve been especially effective in bringing young people into libraries … and then they discover other resources in libraries."
That's how the stuff was used and sure some kids see the awesomeness of libraries and some kids see musty old books, indigents and computer equipment older than they are and they stay away.
Oh, and the amount in question, $420.
Tempest meet teapot.
I thought so.
Kids cheated and talked and wasted time long before cell phones were invented and will do so long after cell phones are implanted in our brains at birth.
In my day we passed notes, used sign language and just plain talked behind the teacher's backs. Cheating happened too, and it involved nothing more complex than a little memorization.
If you've got a complaint about cheating and time wasting, why not address the problems and not the technology used t facilitate it?
Yes, but if your friend is keeping a copy of that email or photo in her inbox, then chances are it is also on the service provider's server. (Provided you both use the same service, which is the case here.)
I can see the potential for misuse, but I can also see how this is just explaining what is a fact of life.
My university has a copy of every message anyone has ever sent me. How and why? Because I keep all those messages and my e-mail inbox and archives are on their servers. That's it, and that's all. There's no way around that unless you force everyone to house all of their stuff on their personal computing device, and then we might as well go back to wearing flannel and listening to grunge rock.
OK, if I'm reading and have read this right, the terms basically say if you send a message, photo, mp3, what-have-you, to someone, then they're going to make a copy of it. You get a copy, the recipient(s) get a copy. If you cancel your account, anything you sent to people, facebook isn't going to take away from them.
Seems reasonable to me.
Isn't that how things work? I mean if Yahoo reached into my mailbox and took away all of the e-mails from someone who canceled their account, I'd be pretty damn pissed. Likewise with images. If I receive an image from God him/herself in my inbox, I can't imagine the situation where it would seem OK to take that image away from me.
I think most points being made here are valid, but I don't know for how long. 3G might be spotty for some people now, WiFi might not be everywhere now, but for how much longer? In the future, which is approaching at an alarming clip, the Internet is only going to be more present, maybe even omnipresent.
On the other hand, when's the last time you heard about exciting developments in the satellite industry? Are they getting better satellites? Will the satellites have stronger signals? Will satellites use cutting edge techniques that let me listen to the Verge even on stormy days? Or will they float up there getting older and less useful every year in an increasingly crowded region which might force them to be grounded for feat of damaging other more "important" satellites?
To succeed, you have to take care of today, but you must plan for tomorrow as well.
With this ruling, you can't take photos of police and security officials anymore.
You wouldn't want to violate their civil rights by taking photos of them doing authoritarian scaremongering. Funny how that worked out...
Spam works. People click on spam, not because they're stupid, but because they want some of that, whether it be larger equipment, online degrees, or a great deal on this undervalued stock.
Moreover, it is quite hard to systematically tell the difference between spam and mass e-mails, most people can't tell the difference and report it all as spam anyway.
I like the idea, it sounds cool, but in practice -- thumbs down.
Amen. This is a story that should be required reading for all politicians before they offer an opinion on copyright. I know it's science fiction, but I don't know for how much longer...
In case you have noticed, this is a valid business method these days. If Apple did sue Palm, get injunctions, etc., that's pretty much a guarantee that Palm is going down. They're hanging on by teeth and toenails right now.
Apple has absolutely no reason not to, and every reason to, take full advantage of every business method at their disposal. Unfortunately suing someone to stop them competing is not only valid, it's popular. Everyone's doing it and the only way to change that reality is to change the system that encourages this hijinkery.
And to a certain extent, correct grammar and such are not that important. For instance in the original post, the person uses re-enforcement when, in fact, it should be reinforcement. The two words mean completely separate things, but we all got the idea.
True story. For the longest time I thought "loose" for "lose" was some Canadian thing, because I couldn't imagine so many people using the word incorrectly.
Has any generation had a qualm about copying? Before you say yes, I have two words for you, Industrial Revolution.
Also, everyone knows the textbook is worthless. I'm in grad school right now and I only use the book to see what problems I need to do. I use the Internet for everything else. So far, 3 As, 1 B and over $1,000 in books I could have done without.
That's a reasonable suggestion on the face of it, except that in all likelihood the effort required for this is already done. The work is already done. The additional steps necessary are negligible and I'm betting they do this with someone else already, just not a private company.
What we really don't want is Google paying for the data, because then, they, by no convoluted stretch of the imagination, own the data. The same sort of thing is talked about here all the time. Some asshat company publishes the state laws and all of a sudden bloggers can't publish those same laws because of "copyright." Doesn't make sense, but it happens. I don't particularly fancy that happening to anyone's transit schedule. I like Google, but I don't want them to own any more data than they do already, especially if they're happy just to get access to it.
Actually streaming might technically equal downloading, but it by no means automatically equals copying. That's what they want you to think, 'cause that makes us all criminals and so probably terrorists and so they can do what they want to us.
Some of us are not. For example, I've been "streaming" Pandora all day. I have not "copied" a single thing. Therefore I am not a criminal and therefore not a terrorist.
However, what our man is saying is that this company is just streaming stuff that is available on-line for free. It isn't necessarily an online radio station, and if I were in their shoes I would fight like hell to keep from being labeled as such. Online radio stations are getting screwed seven ways from Sunday.
It takes you three paragraphs to say Mike is wrong and in that wordspan you've hedged and qualified numerous times. I can't evaluate the truth of what you've said, and you provide no support for your last statement about limited and trial.
Here's a little gem I pulled out from Warner's response to techdirt
"Therefore, we are undertaking an effort to develop new voluntary business models that seek something other than - and we believe, better than - a litigation-based approach."
Based on this, I would wager that a way to get more universities to sit down at the table would be to quit suing. Otherwise, how is the rationale actor to believe Warner or the RIAA will carry through on their promises?
It's something of a dilemma, because Warner and the RIAA aren't exactly in sync, so no matter what Warner said I wouldn't necessary take it as scripture.
Moreover, even if they did get in accord, I wouldn't trust that would do what they say they will. Past actions indicate that would be a poor choice.
Look at it like this, would you trust someone not to knock you on the head and take your wallet, if they were currently whacking other people on the head and taking their wallets. Even if they were assuring you that they weren't going to do it to you?