Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

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).


Comment: Re:Economically rational, isn't. (Score 3, Informative) 224

by grege222 (#26352401) Attached to: Phishing Is a Minimum-Wage Job
I recently heard Stephen Levitt (Freakonomics) speak, and he actually addressed your first example. It's actually the title example in his next book "Why Drug Dealers Live With Their Mothers." The gist of it being that while dealing drugs may make less money and certainly has more risk than McDonalds, their is greater opportunity for upward mobility. Just because you don't understand what's going on doesn't mean that it's irrational.

RIAA Still Can't Understand That The Product Is More Important Than The Price->

From feed by techdirtfeed
Despite some universities refusing to act as the RIAA's henchmen in its campaign against their students, the group says the effort to bully students into paying "discounted settlements" is working to help stop file-sharing. Of course, it says that about everything it tries (even when it's not true), but you'd imagine if any of these attempts really were successful, it wouldn't need to keep coming up with new ones. Anyhow, just in case there was any doubt as to how out of touch the RIAA is with the market and its customers, its general counsel and EVP wonders why students would continue to download from file-sharing networks when they have access to discounted or free subscription services. Uh, maybe it's because students realize how lame those services are? When students choose to keep illegally downloading even though they have free legal alternatives available, it illustrates that this isn't just an issue of them wanting to not have to pay for music, as the RIAA would like you to believe. It's an issue of the RIAA and its member labels not being able to deliver an attractive product to consumers. But why bother to innovate and come up with something people would want to buy, when you can just sue all your customers instead?
Link to Original Source

C for yourself.