OK.
So the RIAA has been issuing lawsuits faster than George W. spits lies. And towards what? Users of P2P, or peer-to-peer, networks. They claim that the "rampant downloading of free music is damaging" to their bottom line, and that the "blantant stealing causes CD prices to go up as a result".
Let me tell you something.
I've been paying $18 for a CD (not including tax) for as long as I can remember. The part about increasing prices is a crock. Recent studies also have shown that, in fact, p2p can help sales. How? Look at the facts:
- the RIAA says that everyone who downloads music off of the net is yet another consumer who's not paying for the music. However, studies show that these same people are, for the most part, not financially inclined. They're the kids with allowances, highschoolers with lunch money, etc. They're not your working stiffs. That's not to say there aren't working stiffs that p2p. It's saying that they're the minority. That means that the minority are the losses to the artists, and truth be told, with the price gouging that CDs endure, they make more than enough to compensate.
- the RIAA says that people like to go online and download whole CD's of music. This isn't true, because anything transmitted over the internet, even with the fastest of connectons, is not near as good quality as the physical copy. A lot of people use p2p to sample music -OR- to get a single - something a lot of stores stopped selling. The thing is, if people get a chance to hear one or a few songs from an artist that they end up enjoying, they WILL buy the person's album: one, because they're impatient to wait for it to download; two, because there's no guarantee it won't be a corrupted file (and most people don't have the patience), and 3, they want to get the best possible quality. They'll buy it.
- the RIAA says that p2p is stealing. It's not. It's sampling music and I'll tell you truthfully - I would welcome p2p to anyone, because it means people actually get a chance to hear my music, and maybe even find songs that they enjoy that didn't get air play. That's sales for me.
- the RIAA says that MP3 files should be outlawed, and songs not be able to be burned to CD due to the rampant burning and selling. It's so hard to find a good quality version nowadays that it's more time effective to just go buy it.
Friday, June 25, 2004
Monday, June 21, 2004
It's getting crazy now people.
OK.
So I'm looking and I see that now we have:
- T1
- DSL
- ISDN
- Cable
- Satellite
- Wi-Fi
- Wireless (Digital cell phone)
- Dialup
All for internet access types. Instead of trying to improve the existing, we're making more types. I remember when dialup was all that was available, and even that was limited speed-wise. T1 connections are still too expensive; DSL isn't available to every home; Cable is bandwidth limited in most markets; Satellite is not only slow but does not support uploading (necessary to request packets, so you have to have a dialup account in order to surf); Wi-Fi is so new that we don't know how Wi-Fi will affect our health, not to mention it's unsecure and VERY easy to hack people's computers through it; Wireless is not only slow but it's expensive for how slow it is.
What about dialup? Believe it or not, it's the connection of choice. Why you ask? Why would anyone want something so slow? I'll give you 3 reasons.
1 - Grandma from Pasadena who only checks emails isn't going to pay $29.95-$49.95 for a high speed connection that she won't notice anyway, not when she could pay $4.95-$12.95 for a connection that suits her needs just fine.
2 - Dialup doesn't care how far you are from what. All you're doing is making a phone call, which you could make to just about anyone with a phone number. That means everyone can have it.
3 - Faxing without external software requires a phone line. Manual fax machines have not evolved in over 8 years, and they probably never will. I'm itching to see if VoIP will allow for broadband Ethernet connections to initiate and establish a dialtone, but in the meantime, if people want to fax over their line, they'd rather just get a main line and a fax line, because they'd get a discount on it. People don't want to disconnect their phone lines for just a broadband connect, knowing they lose the ability to fax or receive calls.
I hope some of these technologies drop off, because a lot are great ideas, but pointless (wireless and satellite).
So I'm looking and I see that now we have:
- T1
- DSL
- ISDN
- Cable
- Satellite
- Wi-Fi
- Wireless (Digital cell phone)
- Dialup
All for internet access types. Instead of trying to improve the existing, we're making more types. I remember when dialup was all that was available, and even that was limited speed-wise. T1 connections are still too expensive; DSL isn't available to every home; Cable is bandwidth limited in most markets; Satellite is not only slow but does not support uploading (necessary to request packets, so you have to have a dialup account in order to surf); Wi-Fi is so new that we don't know how Wi-Fi will affect our health, not to mention it's unsecure and VERY easy to hack people's computers through it; Wireless is not only slow but it's expensive for how slow it is.
What about dialup? Believe it or not, it's the connection of choice. Why you ask? Why would anyone want something so slow? I'll give you 3 reasons.
1 - Grandma from Pasadena who only checks emails isn't going to pay $29.95-$49.95 for a high speed connection that she won't notice anyway, not when she could pay $4.95-$12.95 for a connection that suits her needs just fine.
2 - Dialup doesn't care how far you are from what. All you're doing is making a phone call, which you could make to just about anyone with a phone number. That means everyone can have it.
3 - Faxing without external software requires a phone line. Manual fax machines have not evolved in over 8 years, and they probably never will. I'm itching to see if VoIP will allow for broadband Ethernet connections to initiate and establish a dialtone, but in the meantime, if people want to fax over their line, they'd rather just get a main line and a fax line, because they'd get a discount on it. People don't want to disconnect their phone lines for just a broadband connect, knowing they lose the ability to fax or receive calls.
I hope some of these technologies drop off, because a lot are great ideas, but pointless (wireless and satellite).
Friday, June 18, 2004
WWE: Come on now.
OK.
SO I turn on the TV yesterday, and what do I see? WWE Smackdown!. More to the point, JBL, otherwise known as John Bradshaw Layfield. He's spouting off and ranting about CNBC, Americans, Mexicans, Indians, just about everyone. In fact, he even goes so far as to say that it's Americans "that are wrong with America". Well, that's funny Mr. Layfield, and you're saying this why? Because you got fired from a syndicated show that was making you money? No. Because you're upset at the fact that you just can't lose the gut? No. It's because you're starting to finally realize that you're not what you thought you were. You're not a true athlete; you're a joke of yourself. And before some of the anti-wrestling people come on talking about how it's fake, it's not. It's scripted. Scripted is NOT faking. It's predetermining the outcome. What he said in that interview was not scripted. I strongly doubt Vince McMahon would have told him to go out and bash America. He would have said, "go out there and say something that will get people talking about us", and 'JBL' took it from there.
As entertained as I was watching Smackdown, I find it very sad that this is what the industry called "sports entertainment" has come to. A tired man with a beer belly complaining because he got fired from a show he had no business on in the first place.
SO I turn on the TV yesterday, and what do I see? WWE Smackdown!. More to the point, JBL, otherwise known as John Bradshaw Layfield. He's spouting off and ranting about CNBC, Americans, Mexicans, Indians, just about everyone. In fact, he even goes so far as to say that it's Americans "that are wrong with America". Well, that's funny Mr. Layfield, and you're saying this why? Because you got fired from a syndicated show that was making you money? No. Because you're upset at the fact that you just can't lose the gut? No. It's because you're starting to finally realize that you're not what you thought you were. You're not a true athlete; you're a joke of yourself. And before some of the anti-wrestling people come on talking about how it's fake, it's not. It's scripted. Scripted is NOT faking. It's predetermining the outcome. What he said in that interview was not scripted. I strongly doubt Vince McMahon would have told him to go out and bash America. He would have said, "go out there and say something that will get people talking about us", and 'JBL' took it from there.
As entertained as I was watching Smackdown, I find it very sad that this is what the industry called "sports entertainment" has come to. A tired man with a beer belly complaining because he got fired from a show he had no business on in the first place.
Thursday, June 17, 2004
Abolish the FCC? ReV's Thoughts.
OK.
SO I turn on my computer and log onto CNET News.com to take a look at what's new and noteworthy. What do I see? There's some guy talking about abolishing the FCC; that they serve no useful purpose. My initial reaction is, "how can you get rid of a government agency?" After thinking about it with more fair considerations, I decide that the FCC is not only important, they're necessary to manage CERTAIN aspects of communications. Let me go into more detail about what I mean.
People talked about the whole Janet Jackson deal; how it was raunchy, inappropriate, distasteful, and just plain wrong. Now, the "ripple effect" is in effect, where everything else is being affected by this one incident. I'll tell you that I've seen the video of the performance from two different angles, both close up, and you can clearly tell that it was not intentional. One, you can see the hint of her sheer blue bra peeking out from the leather, an obvious sign that Timberlake was going to strip her piece by piece until she was finally in full on lingerie. Two, this is Janet Jackson we're talking about: easily the biggest tease in the history of music aside from Madonna. She's all about seductive poses and licks. She's not about baring herself - sure, there is that occasional stressing of cleavage, but that's as far as she goes. TO me, it's an insult (and understandably why Janet feels this way) to even suggest that she and Timberlake did this on purpose.
Now let me play Devil's Advocate. I used to be an SBC customer, and when fradulent charges of about $6000 to Jamaica came on the bill, SBC refused to take them off, demanding payment. What'd I do? Contacted the FCC. Next thing I know, a supervisor calls me back and credits $4000 off. The other $2000 they say "since there was a 10-10 code used it means it had to have been your phone" (which since I worked there, I know is a bunch of crap, but whatever, I didn't pay it). What was my purpose in telling you that? The FCC were on top of it. They're on top of complaints like nobody's business, and that's their shine. They can take a dispute or a problem or whatnot and address it faster than any other part of the government. It's their best attribute as well as their worst curse.
For that reason, here's what I think:
- FCC should regulate the telecom industry. By telecom, I mean telephone. ANY company that offers telephone service in any way, shape, form, or fashion. By giving them that type of power, the price gouging that is currently happening will eventually stave off ($7 for Caller ID alone? What a racket).
- FCC should NOT regulate the TV/radio airwaves. This covers satellite, cable, AM/FM/XM, and web broadcasts. Why? IT's simple. All of the soccer moms of the world who complain about the quality of programming because of their kids, NEWSFLASH! It's not the FCC's responsibility to raise YOUR kids right. It's yours. If you don't want them watching TV shows that show suggestive content, maybe you should better control their TV habits. Give them curfews. Do hobbies. If you don't like the quality of music they listen to (and you know you can't fully control this because of other kids at school), then change the station. TV stations can be blocked; just about every TV now comes with this functionality. It's called V-Chip. Use it, and let these stations show what they want without censorship. It's our First Amendment right to see and hear what we wish.
- Finally, whose dumb idea was it to regulate the max speed of a 56K modem? Dumbest thing I'd ever heard. We've got connections that push 6000Kbps, and yet a dialup connection can't even go past 53Kbps, even though you pay for that plus 3. What's the deal with that? And don't give me some crock about tying up circuits, because if that were really the case, all of the ISDN lines would have done that long ago.
Anyway, that's my thoughts. If anyone has anything to add, subtract, comment, rant, rave, whatever, please do.
SO I turn on my computer and log onto CNET News.com to take a look at what's new and noteworthy. What do I see? There's some guy talking about abolishing the FCC; that they serve no useful purpose. My initial reaction is, "how can you get rid of a government agency?" After thinking about it with more fair considerations, I decide that the FCC is not only important, they're necessary to manage CERTAIN aspects of communications. Let me go into more detail about what I mean.
People talked about the whole Janet Jackson deal; how it was raunchy, inappropriate, distasteful, and just plain wrong. Now, the "ripple effect" is in effect, where everything else is being affected by this one incident. I'll tell you that I've seen the video of the performance from two different angles, both close up, and you can clearly tell that it was not intentional. One, you can see the hint of her sheer blue bra peeking out from the leather, an obvious sign that Timberlake was going to strip her piece by piece until she was finally in full on lingerie. Two, this is Janet Jackson we're talking about: easily the biggest tease in the history of music aside from Madonna. She's all about seductive poses and licks. She's not about baring herself - sure, there is that occasional stressing of cleavage, but that's as far as she goes. TO me, it's an insult (and understandably why Janet feels this way) to even suggest that she and Timberlake did this on purpose.
Now let me play Devil's Advocate. I used to be an SBC customer, and when fradulent charges of about $6000 to Jamaica came on the bill, SBC refused to take them off, demanding payment. What'd I do? Contacted the FCC. Next thing I know, a supervisor calls me back and credits $4000 off. The other $2000 they say "since there was a 10-10 code used it means it had to have been your phone" (which since I worked there, I know is a bunch of crap, but whatever, I didn't pay it). What was my purpose in telling you that? The FCC were on top of it. They're on top of complaints like nobody's business, and that's their shine. They can take a dispute or a problem or whatnot and address it faster than any other part of the government. It's their best attribute as well as their worst curse.
For that reason, here's what I think:
- FCC should regulate the telecom industry. By telecom, I mean telephone. ANY company that offers telephone service in any way, shape, form, or fashion. By giving them that type of power, the price gouging that is currently happening will eventually stave off ($7 for Caller ID alone? What a racket).
- FCC should NOT regulate the TV/radio airwaves. This covers satellite, cable, AM/FM/XM, and web broadcasts. Why? IT's simple. All of the soccer moms of the world who complain about the quality of programming because of their kids, NEWSFLASH! It's not the FCC's responsibility to raise YOUR kids right. It's yours. If you don't want them watching TV shows that show suggestive content, maybe you should better control their TV habits. Give them curfews. Do hobbies. If you don't like the quality of music they listen to (and you know you can't fully control this because of other kids at school), then change the station. TV stations can be blocked; just about every TV now comes with this functionality. It's called V-Chip. Use it, and let these stations show what they want without censorship. It's our First Amendment right to see and hear what we wish.
- Finally, whose dumb idea was it to regulate the max speed of a 56K modem? Dumbest thing I'd ever heard. We've got connections that push 6000Kbps, and yet a dialup connection can't even go past 53Kbps, even though you pay for that plus 3. What's the deal with that? And don't give me some crock about tying up circuits, because if that were really the case, all of the ISDN lines would have done that long ago.
Anyway, that's my thoughts. If anyone has anything to add, subtract, comment, rant, rave, whatever, please do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)