Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:I am going to say this just once. (Score 1) 216

Artists make money when you go to their show, buy a ticket, and buy swag from the booth. They might even make money off the CD sales at the concert booth.

This is generally true regardless of whatever deal they signed with a record company. Also, performing is most of the work that a performer should be doing. So it makes sense.

If they write their own songs, they also get paid when it plays on the radio.

Artists who complain about their record deal should be touring more. They're not really even in the "record" business.

Comment Re: Here's an idea (Score 1) 216

If the RIAA vanished tomorrow, new mechanisms would form to help people find music they like. And those new mechanisms would be better for both the artists and listener.

Or worse. Some places have mechanisms where people who listen to music have their heads removed from their torsos.

If a group of people is vanishing, I have a few questions before I know if it is better or worse.

Comment Re:Here's an idea (Score 1) 216

I'm sitting here listening to Rolling Stones recordings from the 70s, and I was reading their history on wikipedia... they got their first UK chart hit by having fan club members buy the single at the record shops that were being polled for the chart! LOL That's what let them get bookings outside of London. They were way ahead of the game. The labels didn't have the payola locked up yet, so their band manager was able to finagle that stuff directly.

One of my other common listening choices is the Clancy Brothers. They were folk fans trying to be theater actors in NY, they opened a theater and production company and they only starting performing as a folk act to promote their venue. Commercial success as a promo was hoped for, but artistic success and recognition was perhaps a (welcome) surprise.

The money doesn't bother me. I also listen to Madonna, her money doesn't bother me either.

What people don't realize is that when their friend tells them about a show somewhere, it was probably promoted to them using money. "Word of mouth" often consists of happy customers simply repeating the ad copy for free to their friends. People miss that part.

Comment Re:Terrible decision, regardless of patent feeling (Score 1) 100

... instead you wrote some enormous history of how SCOTUS totally misunderstood Congress's intent in 1885 and Congress stepped in and rewrote the law, even though that has nothing whatsoever to do with the case in hand.

If you read the ruling, it actually does matter, in that the Court looked at it and it made their decision easy here. Reading the ruling is really easy, it is only a few pages of plain English. What Congress did when they re-wrote the law was to make the law consistent with what was already the precedent, that's what the fanbois are getting a bit confused about. Sometimes, the Court smacks down a law, and Congress rewrites it trying to get their way. That is what some smucks would have you believe here. But if you read the ruling it explains it very clearly; that isn't what happened here. Here Congress just fixed the law to say the same thing as what the Court had interpreted the old law as meaning.

And it doesn't take more than five pages to explain "You're doing it wrong...

Granted, it is 9 pages. But these "pages" are a single narrow column of text with large print. A more typical business format would only reach 3 pages. And most of it is spent explaining the dispute; the part explaining the ruling and its reasoning is only three pages, starting with:

The text resolves this case. The term “article of manu-
facture,” as used in 289, encompasses both a product sold
to a consumer and a component of that product.

followed by a detailed explanation. That Congress didn't even try to change the precedent when they last visited the law makes it clear to the Court what their intent was.

Comment Re:Terrible decision, regardless of patent feeling (Score 4, Informative) 100

You're close, but it isn't the incremental profits as it is with other types of IP; here it is 100% of the profit directly attributable to the component. So it doesn't matter how much profit they made, or how much less they would have made had they not infringed.

What matters is the profit that they made from the physical component that infringed. It doesn't matter what the differential would be if they used something else. Unfortunately for Apple, the design patent covers primarily the plastic bezel, for which Samsung probably doesn't even have any profits, and the software screen layout, which is software, and likely don't have any profits from the software either.

The reality is that design patents aren't as useful as Apple claimed; on a decorative item, which is what they're intended for, they offer a lot of protection because the design actually is the value; a decorative plate is the typical example. Complex items that are mostly functional aren't well protected by design patents, because most of the device is functional and by definition isn't covered, and you're not going to get paid for the functional components just because the case copied your case. If a regular functional-but-ugly smarthphone cost $5, and the one with the fancy design code $500, as is the case with decorative plates, then it would make sense to protect it that way.

Comment Re:Terrible decision, regardless of patent feeling (Score 3, Interesting) 100

The really funny part is that 50 years ago Congress rewrote the law to say exactly what the Court said today, which was already the precedent under the old law. So 100+ years ago Congress wrote the law in an unclear way, the Court clarified, and then 50 years ago Congress fixed the law to say the same thing as the precedent. Then a couple years ago, the appeals court made up some nonsense that was exactly the same as what the Court had thrown out 100 years ago. Most slashdot readers are on one side or the other of this issue, and either way, they don't/won't/can't comprehend the basic facts in dispute.

The whole thing is only a few pages, and it was written by Sotomayor so it is easy to read. They upheld the exact wording of the statute here, which is in agreement with precedent. The only thing thrown out was the awful ruling.

The Federal Circuit would have us believe that the word "article" in "article of manufacture" means only things available for sale by themselves. As Justice Sotomayor explains, article actually means any item, it is a very broad word. So an "article of manufacture" is a thing you make; the definition has nothing to do with if it is sold to the end consumer in a single box or not. According to Apple and the Federal Circuit, even the toys in a Happy Meal wouldn't be articles of manufacture, since they're not sold by themselves! A toy in a crackerjack box? Not an article of manufacture. A car stereo? Oh, only if it is a brand available in the store. A brand only sold as an OEM unit would not be an article of manufacture! Complete absurdity.

Also clear in the ruling is that if Samsung had had better SCOTUS lawyers, they could have got more of the issues decided; there were issues briefed by the government that would likely have gone Samsung's way, that are instead being sent back down to the Federal Circuit. But the Court did make clear that they're ready to do more work on this case when it comes back, and it likely will because Apple can't resist asking for the moon, and the Federal Circuit can't resist giving Apple whatever they ask for.

Comment Re:Here come the science deniers (Score 1) 560

Because with prohibition the federal government could take whatever steps it wanted to do enforcement!

With drugs, it is only a federal matter in the first place when certain conditions are present, such as involving interstate commerce.

The vast majority of situations involving law enforcement are only going to be dealing with State law.

Like if you're watching a cop or lawyer show, and there is some Federal cop tagging along. They can go anywhere and look at files and stuff, but the locals call the shots unless something happens that lets the Feds take over, then the local cops are out of the loop. See also: Roe v. Wade; the right of privacy requires that the government have a reason to mess with you.

Comment Re:Here come the science deniers (Score 1) 560

Real research is in early stages in stages that have legalized. There is actually funding, and a shortage of grant proposals at this stage. That is expected to change, as there are presumably a large number of in-progress proposals.

It is certainly true that California's first try was defeated partly by the pot exporters, but there were other problems too. Like in Oregon, we voted on it multiple times because the early efforts were bad laws, poorly written, poorly designed.

Comment Re: Here come the science deniers (Score 1) 560

Totally anecdotal, but a friend of mine smoked a large quantity of ayahuasca (the plant, not the drink) and went on a trip into the sprit world... for a few months. He spent most of it in the hospital. It was a few years before he was back to "normal."

I'm so glad I was the party pooper who said, "Uhm, no thanks, I have no idea what that actually does."

Slashdot Top Deals

"I got everybody to pay up front...then I blew up their planet." "Now why didn't I think of that?" -- Post Bros. Comics