Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Scalpers provide a needed service as well, though, by providing last minute tickets for people who don't think far enough ahead to purchase them at the box office.
While their net impact maybe negative, they also provide a service.
If Eve's EULA states specifically that the sale of ingame assets in the real world is against the agreement and can result in termination, then they should be fully covered. It would imply that really any sale made in the real world was essentially a "black market" sale and a breach of contract by the user. They'd be doubly protected if there was a clause in the EULA that stated that ISK were not transferred property and were retained by EVE. Regardless though, as long as EVE followed the terms of their EULA they shouldn't have any exposure for lawsuits.
Maybe I'm wrong...but I doubt it.
1) Reliability: 5 9's (99.999%)
2) Backward compatibility, there are people still running applications written 40 years ago
3) Security: Physical (hard to move a refrigerator), Network (no external network when applications working internally), RACF, Highest level of security rating of ANY server, ever.
4) Architecture: Redundant everything: Spare processors, spare power, spare, everything. Predictive failure/automatic fail over for individual components. Memory Bus greater than anything out there. Pipes to Storage extreme. Cryptographic processors to do SSL, etc.
5) Scale up: 64 processors (4.4GHz), 1.5 TB of Memory, etc.
6) Scale out: GDPS (Geographically Disperse Parallel Sysplex) up to 32 boxes?
7) Hipervisor: Its a network in a box. Applications talking to each other use IP, not TCP/IP, so you aren't sending 35% data, 65% header when applications talk. Network is at the speed of memory. zVM has been developed for over 20 years.
8) Power Efficiency: Compared to a server cluster + cooling + redundant power, etc.
9) Network Simplicity: No need for a rats nest for your rack, cable simplicity in some cases from over 1000 cables down to 12. From 14 switches (which are very expensive) to 4.
10) Management simplicity: Less staff needed to keep it up and running. Instead they are focused on adding business value
11) Running Legacy (aka Business Critical) applications, your web presence, your portal, and a myriad of other disparate applications in one place.
12) Create new servers in minutes without needing hardware "on standby."
13) Compartmentalization in a single box
14) Shared everything while still fully separate
15) Workload manager: able to on the fly change how much resources are allocated to images AND (this is the cool thing, cause other VMs do that) give it goal times for operations. As in: Complete this task in 1/100th of a second, and it will allocate, on the fly, for that to happen, and it will guarantee it.
Mainframes are NOT the answer to all questions. Intel is NOT the answer to all questions. Itanium, Solaris, Power, etc...none are the answer to all questions.
Buy the right tool for the right purpose.
I understand your agrument, and it is one commonly made, but I disagree. My disagreement goes to the core of your argument. You are arguing that given the option between downloading music illegally and downloading it legally that a significant population of the industries target market will choose to download illegally. This returns to the premise of "if someone is pretty sure they won't get caught that they will commit a crime."
I think that belief is fundamentally flawed. I believe that people are, for the most part, good and, given the ability to do so, will follow socially accepted laws. Given the financial capability to do so, and a perception that the price is fair, a reasonable individual would choose to pay someone for the work they have done.
There are many arguments as to why college students are the biggest group of offenders. These include, but are not limited to: lack of money, first generation that was internet savvy enough, first generation with immediate access to digital media from the get go, etc. As such, it is really impossible to tell what will happen as they mature. Will they, as their parents do, elect to pay for music and movies or will they get stuck into the habit of downloading music.
I made no recommendation that the music industry adapt a business model with zero revenue in it though. Price is not everything. There are two strategic marketting plans out there: Cost and Differentiation. The RIAA cannot compete on Price, that's not possible, so they must compete based on differentiation. What are some ways they can differentiate their product? These are off the cuff ideas and are by no means complete or intended for debate, just some possible examples.
- Distribution Channels: Make it more easily available. Amazon, iTunes, etc are examples of this.
- Additional Content: Similar to the special features found on DVDs. What could you add to an mp3? Album covers in the mp3 (done today), lyrics, song number, Artist Notes (like the story behind the song), access to music videos.
- Portability: Not sure how this one would work. Some Innovation Required.
- Legality: This one is obvious.
- Continued Music: If people stopped buying CDs, mp3s, etc. then artists and the companies that make them possible wouldn't make any money and it wouldn't exist. There are a lot of points here that a rational person would figure out eventually. Without the distribution arms of the RIAA we wouldn't have access to as diverse a set of music.
- Backups: What if your computer crashes? If you bought it all from amazon or iTunes, you might be able to download it all without additional cost? If you downloaded illegally you'd have to find it all again, remember what it was, etc. This even would make it a better long term product than a CD as CD's degrade overtime, get scratched, etc, and if they become unreadable or you lose it, you have to buy a new one.
What I did suggest, however, is that the industry embrace their customer's demand: "We want music electronically." They've made the first set of steps into that market. But they haven't, from what I can tell, really taken advantage of the market yet. They are treating it like they treat their CDs, and they need to understand and act upon the fact that this is a different product all together.
Oh yeah, here's another idea for a way to help their revenue. For the first month, or even two, after a CD is released, what if you could only buy a full album. After 1-2 months they make the mp3s sold individually. What if the "big hits" cost 1.50 each, as those are the ones that people are going to buy more than others, and then the rest of the songs were 89-99 cents a piece?
I've gone back and reformatted the comment for readability, again, my apologies
I'm sure this will be flamed, but I'm so very happy to see this happen.
Suing their customers was one of the stupidest moves in the world. They alienated their customer base. They initially chose to fight the market instead of working with it and the long term consequences will probably be dire. When the market started to demand a digital format they should have immediately reacted (or perhaps should have seen the writing on the wall and been proactive) and begun selling online, as they do now.
Consider this: College students, on the whole, have low disposable income. The "goal" of college is to increase your earnings potential and have more disposable income. If you sue a college student there is a good chance that you will force them to leave school for lack of time, energy and funds to finish college. The earnings potential of that college student lowers to near zero.
Most people don't steal or commit crimes, even if they know they won't get caught, if they have a choice. Once these college students become professionals and increase their disposable income the time/cost of "stealing" music becomes not worth it and they'll start to pay for their music (assuming a good product, of course). Most industries work with law enforcement and law creation to mold the system into what they want. Although I agree that lobbying will make it harder to download in the long run, that's the point and that is their goal. They will try to take a mile and other groups will have to fight against them to limit how much they take. That is the system that we live in, and that is acceptable and accepted behavior from an industry.
Music Piracy, in a way, is a new entrant into the Music industry's marketplace. A competitor as it were and should be treated as such. I'm glad to see that is finally happening. Now they have new challenges to face. Album sales, and total sales, are declining. If the average album has 11 songs and they sold 840 million singles, then they sold about 80 million albums worth of music, plus the 500 million albums, bringing them to 580, about a 12% drop from 650 million.
They have a product set, they have a set of target markets, now it is time to go back to the drawing board and create a new strategic marketing plan. Product, Place, Price and Promotion. Cost vs Differentiation. Leadership vs Adequacy.
- Why are most songs the same price, or differ by only 10 cents?
- Wouldn't it make sense for the most popular songs to be the most expensive?
- Or as music gets older and less popular for the prices to adjust (like DVDs do?)?
- If you have a digital medium, why couldn't a vendor, like Amazon, be able to compile/sell an "album" with their greatest hits to date?
- There would be no need to wait for it to be printed. Compilation albums could be generated on the fly, quickly and cheaply, using something similar to the "Genius Playlist" in iTunes or using the same data that is used to determine "People who liked that, also like this."
That's just a few ideas that come to mind immediately on ways that they might consider improving their marketing, more research is obviously needed.