How is that different from the status quo?
How is that different from the status quo?
How many writers still sell their books more than 14 years after they're first published?
Same thing with the anti-depressants which are distributed like candy. Of course now that we've begun to call mental illness a "disease" it works great for the pharmaceutical companies to sell their crap. Medication for a disease, right. But mostly it's just a wrecked mental state, how can you call that disease?
How are you, Tom Cruise?
It may be a cultural difference, but in the Netherlands, a great cycling nation, (seriously: http://images.google.nl/images?q=amsterdam%20bikes) pretty much no-one wears a helmet. The only people I see wearing helmets are the racing bikers (but by no means all of them) and some soccer moms.
You can take that for what it's worth.
> The writer of this sloppy piece did a quick dash and look, almost willfully avoiding putting in the most minimal effort it would take to really find out what's there
He "lived inside SL" for a week, albeit three years ago. You can hardly call that a quick dash and look.
Why does a dog lick its balls?
I don't know if you're just nitpicking, but try to see it this way.
- the recording industry lobbied for this bill
- the government passes the bill (not yet, but hypothetically)
- the bill forces raised cost for internet providers
- the cost will be passed on to customers
How is this different from a tax? And your use of scare quotes around tax makes it even more right: it definitely is a "tax".
The point is, if there would not be a recording industry or powerful lobby, this law would not have been proposed. The only reason that the recording industry is trying to get bills like this passed is because they're not making a profit like they're used to. They're not making that profit because they lost the easy (government supported!) monopoly on distribution. They lost it because the internet made it easy to copy material. The entire point of the story is that because the recording industries did not update their business model, they're not making the profit which they feel they're entitled to.
Sure, you and I know this. Slashdot knows this. Over here, it's like preaching to the choir, but you'll be amazed at how many people think that the RIAAs of this world are decent and right, while downloading the latest Britney from the Piratebay.
Or my client could pay me 'money' to create these alternate versions you speak of.
What's the problem? You can buy a netbook from any number of manufacturers. If a "Mac user" really wants a netbook, he can get one as well. He could even put OSX on it, although not legally. If these Mac users really really want an Apple Mac, they've probably weighed the pros and the cons and found that the Mac has more benefits for them that make it worth lugging around a larger piece of hardware.
So, what's the exact problem? There are so many people whining about what Apple is and is not selling them, I just don't get it. Apple is doing terrific even though the economy is in a major slump. I think they're on to something.
Except when they still ass rape you for killing their system. Yes, this happens. You're the admin, you're responsible! Sucks to be you! Sure, you have some bullshit in writing, but who cares? Go look for another job! Oh, you want to sue us now? Go right ahead, see who has the deeper pockets.
Either way, you lose.
Why? The internet is many-to-many, but that includes one-to-many. So what if the public can talk back? Either the tv-sites are going to do something with the feedback (interactive gameshow?) or they're not going to offer a service that permits backtalk.
What's more, the internet routes around damage. TV signals don't, or at least not as easily. Given enough servers (host @ Google?) the internet is a far better way to deliver disaster updates, from a technical point of view.
What's the problem?
Then again, your vote counts more than all those suckers' packed up in the cities, so there's that.
...while Google's search engine 'prevents them from making decent money online... There is only one way that newspapers can break out of the prison...
Or they could find other ways to make money with news online in this new century. Looking at the Netherlands, nu.nl (Dutch online newspaper, started out as a news aggregator, employs its own journalists now) is doing fine. Bailing out of Google is bad for traffic, even if Bing would start to see more users. If there's something that newspapers do not want, it's less traffic to their sites. So, if they're not stupid, they'd find some other way to make money and just stay listed in the Google index (and with Bing and all the others).
That's a big "if", though.
That's rich. First you disregard the correct terms the law has set for copyright infringement and theft of property, then you admonish people for not obeying that same law. All without the use of proper punctuation!
> ultimately that will screw poor people who don't have money to buy it.
You mean HEALTHY poor people.
Real Users are afraid they'll break the machine -- but they're never afraid to break your face.