I'm not sure where it shows any anti-trust. It is an internal memo discussing how to counter Dell's marketing of Linux, basically discussing what they can do to leverage their position. The same thing happens when Kroger markets Pepsi instead of Coke, Lay's instead of Pringles, etc. They each want to figure out what their best move as a company, and that is all this is.
Honestly, *IF* this is considered anti-trust type behavior then every company in the world has in the past and continues to perform anti-trust activities.
I agree with MLB, if this wasnt microsoft nobody would care about it, but it does show that they view Linux as a threat, at least a little bit anyways.
"understand that every day they lead with Linux over Windows in Unix migrations they turn our field against them."
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:"understand that every day they lead with Linux over Windows in Unix migrations they turn our field against them."
Yeah... so what? All they are saying is that the people who back Microsoft (especially the support engineers) will turn on Dell if they feel like Windows is getting a back seat to Linux. Once again, I don't see where it is an anti-trust violation.
I see it as the tip of a much larger iceberg.
If I'm Bi-Lo, I would have a problem if Coca-Cola refused to bring their product into my store, or raised the price, just b/c I have a Pepsi display near the checkout lines.
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:I see it as the tip of a much larger iceberg.
If I'm Bi-Lo, I would have a problem if Coca-Cola refused to bring their product into my store, or raised the price, just b/c I have a Pepsi display near the checkout lines.
i wouldn't. that's business.
The free market pawns.
Terpy Wrote:The free market pawns.
The Music, Movie, Telecom, Radio, and Operating System markets in this country are NOT free markets.
They are all:
- Politically powerful
- Law-affecting
- Frequently unlawful
- Always unethical
And if you think ANY of the above are free markets, I defy you to make any serious per-capita headway into any of those markets, even with a very generous venture capital investment. You will be summarily bullied out of the market or bought outright.
Hey, when you get down to it all they are trying to do is protect their investments and ensure profitability. As a music theif, I dont like it much, but as a capitalist I cant really find fault.
Terpy Wrote:Hey, when you get down to it all they are trying to do is protect their investments and ensure profitability. As a music theif, I dont like it much, but as a capitalist I cant really find fault.
PFFFFFFFT. They're trying to make a fair market place ridiculously unfair, and in the above instances they've succeeded. The real music thief is the labels. They squash all but the biggest of the ind. artists on the national level, and care only about quantity and not quality. If the labels had it their way, you'd have to pop a dollar into your radio to hear Metallica. Then pay for a $20 Metallica CD. Of course you've already purchased the Metallica cassette tape, but that's no matter. Then we're gonna ring you up a dollar and change so you can hear it on your computer, because even the high priced $0.99 iTunes isn't enough money for them. Then of course you're going to have to purchase it AGAIN for every single extra computer you want to listen to it on. And if we catch you deviating from this and committing piracy, we'll charge you the ludicrous sum of $125,000 per copyright violation. And where is all this money going? Here's a big hint: Not the artists.
BTW, the RIAA sued Russia over AllofMP3.com .... for over one trillion dollars... which is larger than the Gross Domestic Product of Russia.....
But in the end, it is still the market that determines how much of that stuff they will be able to get away with, and is the reason why you dont get charged every time you here a song on the radio.
Terpy Wrote:But in the end, it is still the market that determines how much of that stuff they will be able to get away with, and is the reason why you dont get charged every time you here a song on the radio.
That's only enough free market forces to prevent what would amount to utter collapse of the industry. In a true free market:
- Labels would be alot less rich
- Artists would be alot more rich
- There would be less releases per artist but more artists
- "Lesser" genres such as electronica would flourish
- The cost of music would be very low, for an online download I'm thinking in the range of $0.25
- Piracy would be virtually eliminated compared to its current levels
- DRM wouldn't exit
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Terpy Wrote:The free market pawns.
The Music, Movie, Telecom, Radio, and Operating System markets in this country are NOT free markets.
They are all:
- Politically powerful
- Law-affecting
- Frequently unlawful
- Always unethical
And if you think ANY of the above are free markets, I defy you to make any serious per-capita headway into any of those markets, even with a very generous venture capital investment. You will be summarily bullied out of the market or bought outright.
You could list the airlines markets as being "not free markets" either. But the big giant airlines have done so much to push out the competition, there's not much competition left except for the big airlines themselves. MLB is definitely NOT a free market. A giant cartel if I've ever seen one.
I have faults with all your points there but ill start with this one.
Quote:Labels would be alot less rich
These are the people who put up the capital. Why should they not get the majority of the profits? The point of making an investment is to get a return. Is it not?
I can move on to the rest of your points if you would like.
Terpy Wrote:I have faults with all your points there but ill start with this one.
Quote:Labels would be alot less rich
These are the people who put up the capital. Why should they not get the majority of the profits? The point of making an investment is to get a return. Is it not?
I can move on to the rest of your points if you would like.
You realize of course that in a typical contract the artist is virtually in debt to the label, despite making millions of dollars off their first album release, right?
The costs of producing and making CDs is cheap. An awful lot of money is coming in for what amounts to a small initial investment. And next to nothing reaches the artist.
If you really think that producing quality CDs is really that expensive, then you should talk to Mark Shuttleworth of Canonical Inc. (the company that oversees production of Ubuntu Linux and its various forms). He's shipped hundreds of thousands of Linux CDs around the globe for free. Doesn't look like he's going broke....
And lastly, the RIAA's legal strategy is indicative of the money they have. They are essentially pouring millions of dollars down the drain in legal fees ... probably every week. The return on that investment is pathetic, as most of these cases are getting thrown out due to flagrant lack of evidence. Those that aren't thrown out are settled at a farrrrrr lower price than the $125,000 per violation the RIAA seeks. In fact, recently a judge ruled that he sees no reason why the RIAA should get more than fair market value for each illegally acquired. If that's the case, literally every lawsuit the RIAA enters into is a huge loss of money.
Initial cost doesnt matter, its just the idea that if you font the money you are entitled to the returns. It is like someone who bought a couple hundred dollars worth of Microsoft stock in the early 80's its worth millions now, and they are entitled to every penny of it.
And really I dont want to hear that multimillion dollar artists arent getting enough money, even if their relative piece of the pie is small, they are still making a killing.
Terpy Wrote:Initial cost doesnt matter, its just the idea that if you font the money you are entitled to the returns. It is like someone who bought a couple hundred dollars worth of Microsoft stock in the early 80's its worth millions now, and they are entitled to every penny of it.
And really I dont want to hear that multimillion dollar artists arent getting enough money, even if their relative piece of the pie is small, they are still making a killing.
Danger danger danger! False analogy alert!
Microsoft retains full control and ownership of their actions, and they pay dividends which are small fractions of the initial investment, over time as the company grows.
Whereas the label, which the artist must sign to if he/she is to have access to nearly every radio station, make the store shelves, etc... uses a very strict CONTRACT, and keeps (generally speaking) well over 90% of all profit. Usually closer to 98% IIRC. Even if the artist pays back the full label investment plus some ridiculous sum of interest (say 200%) they are STILL contractually bound and STILL surrendering nearly all the money to the label.
Those two situations share NOTHING in common.