Will Ebooks Kill Print Books? By John Dvorak
Lynn McGuire
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2384785,00.asp
And he's back already after his previous scare-um article.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2383938,00.asp
And this time he says, "The publishing companies are running
around like chickens with their heads cut off, because they
think the ebook will kill the print book, but actually it
will make book publishing more profitable. "
OK Dvorak, make up your mind ! Are ebooks gonna kill
printed books or not ?
Lynn
Quadibloc
> And this time he says, "The publishing companies are running
> around like chickens with their heads cut off, because they
> think the ebook will kill the print book, but actually it
> will make book publishing more profitable. "
>
> OK Dvorak, make up your mind ! Are ebooks gonna kill
> printed books or not ?
I thought that would be clear. The E-book makes book publishing more
profitable, because they no longer have to spend money on paper, ink,
and binding.
So where is the contradiction? It kills the printed book, but it
doesn't kill the publisher.
John Savard
Lynn McGuire
Dvorak's new theory is that people are going to switch to
buying ebooks in quantity and then buy the dead tree version
of any ebook that they really like. He may be correct.
Lynn
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>
> Dvorak's new theory is that people are going to switch to
> buying ebooks in quantity and then buy the dead tree version
> of any ebook that they really like. He may be correct.
It's certainly true of some fraction of my audience, some of whom have
bought TWO e-book versions of my novels AND purchased at least one and
sometimes two physical versions.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Lynn McGuire
> it, I'd have to *really* like it to buy a dead-tree version and I'd
> want it leather-bound with top-quality paper etc etc.
www.lulu.com will do that for you for anything they have
in their publishing rights.
Lynn
Howard Brazee
items virtually free. If you have the rights to print a book you
have a copy of, you can do so cheaply.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Quadibloc
> Dvorak's new theory is that people are going to switch to
> buying ebooks in quantity and then buy the dead tree version
> of any ebook that they really like. He may be correct.
I remember John Dvorak most vividly for a column in InfoWorld where he
expressed doubts about IBM going from the keyboard style used with the
AT to the model M. For example, why add two function keys - F11 and
F12, he asked, when clearly no software would dare to use them, as it
wouldn't work with any computer that still had the older keyboards?
Normally, that would have been a very sensible question to ask.
But, in fact, it was a really stupid question - and I was astounded at
his ignorance. IBM, before the IBM PC even existed, made a line of
terminals for its mainframes that had twelve function keys.
Having only ten function keys on the PC keyboard meant that terminal
emulation programs which allowed a PC to connect to an IBM mainframe
as a 3270 had to use awkward key substitutions, and could not just use
the function keys of the PC as the terminal function keys.
And, of course, the Model M was vitally necessary and long overdue for
other reasons - while the AT had improved significantly on the
original PC keyboard by correcting the position of the Enter key and
of the left-hand Shift key, the Backspace key was now in an
inappropriate position. The Model M corrected that, finally putting
all the important keys adjacent to the main typing area of the
keyboard in their correct classic electric typewriter positions.
John Savard
Moriarty
In my case he is. For example Jim Butcher's new Dresden book _Ghost
Story_ is due out in hardback in July, presumably paperback a year
later. Normally, I'd wait until the paperback and stick my fingers in
my ears whenever someone starts talking about it here or elsewhere.
Now, I'll buy the kindle edition on release and buy the paperback a
year or two down the track to fill the collection.
Of course, there are a LOT of books that I'll buy on kindle and never
bother getting the physical edition on the grounds they aren't good
enough. I'll simply keep soft copies off-kindle somewhere so if I
ever get the urge to read them again, they'll be handy.
There are also some books I'll never get on kindle. Pratchett, for
example. I love his footnotes and they just don't work as e-books.
And don't get me started on fantasy maps on kindle editions...
-Moriarty
Ken from Chicago
"Lynn McGuire" <l...@winsim.com> wrote in message
news:ips6k5$29i$1...@dont-email.me...
Can't you print out pert near any ebook you own at a printer? even have it
bound in fancy covers and / or print on special paper?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:b1c69204-ccb2-4931...@p13g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Ebooks might "kill" "fast food" paperbooks, the "disposable" pop fiction
that are the equivalent of summer "popcorn" flicks. Meanwhile the major
works might become more valuable the way horse and carriage travel is
reserved for special occassions in countries were automobiles are
commonplace.
-- Ken from Chicago
David Dyer-Bennet
> "Lynn McGuire" <l...@winsim.com> wrote in message
> news:ips6k5$29i$1...@dont-email.me...
> > On 5/4/2011 12:55 PM, Norm D. Plumber wrote:
> >> Lynn McGuire<l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 5/4/2011 9:42 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
You *can*, but it's expensive. And depending on printing tech and paper,
possibly not too time-resistant (though fused toner xerography has gotten
better over the years).
Lynn McGuire
I would think you would need to own the publishing rights.
Owning a copy of the book does not get you publishing rights.
Lynn
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> Can't you print out pert near any ebook you own at a printer? even have it bound in fancy covers and / or print on special paper?
>>
>> -- Ken from Chicago
>
>I would think you would need to own the publishing rights.
>Owning a copy of the book does not get you publishing rights.
Why would printing your own copy be considered "publishing"?
If I own a copy of a book on my computer, I have the right to also
have a copy on my e-reader and on my backups.
Is there a market for e-scores to be read on pads on someone's music
stand? That could be useful - don't print it at all, and maybe even
make it smart enough to scroll or page.
Someday, I expect "The Diamond Age" type technology to be real enough
that virtual ownership rights are more important than physical
ownership rights.
Lynn McGuire
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 10:43:41 -0500, Lynn McGuire<l...@winsim.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Can't you print out pert near any ebook you own at a printer? even have it bound in fancy covers and / or print on special paper?
>>>
>>> -- Ken from Chicago
>>
>> I would think you would need to own the publishing rights.
>> Owning a copy of the book does not get you publishing rights.
>
> Why would printing your own copy be considered "publishing"?
>
> If I own a copy of a book on my computer, I have the right to also
> have a copy on my e-reader and on my backups.
>
> Is there a market for e-scores to be read on pads on someone's music
> stand? That could be useful - don't print it at all, and maybe even
> make it smart enough to scroll or page.
>
> Someday, I expect "The Diamond Age" type technology to be real enough
> that virtual ownership rights are more important than physical
> ownership rights.
To me, it depends if you use your own printer in your home
or a commercial printer like www.lulu.com. Most commercial
printers will not print something that you obviously do not
have the publishing rights for.
Lynn
David Dyer-Bennet
> On 5/5/2011 3:31 AM, Ken from Chicago wrote:
> >
> >
> > "Lynn McGuire" <l...@winsim.com> wrote in message news:ips6k5$29i$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> On 5/4/2011 12:55 PM, Norm D. Plumber wrote:
> >>> Lynn McGuire<l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 5/4/2011 9:42 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
Format conversion is considered fair-use; taping albums onto
cassettes, for example. Even though it creates a physical copy,
and so naturally falls under copywrite. So, your basic idea is
correct, but there's a special case. (And, technically, you can't
then sell off your original, unless you destroy the copy.)
Tim McDaniel
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>Why would printing your own copy be considered "publishing"?
>
>If I own a copy of a book on my computer, I have the right to also
>have a copy on my e-reader and on my backups.
I believe that that varies by national law. I have the dim memory
that Norway and Australia allow or used to allow personal copies and
the US doesn't, but I have no sources to point to and don't care to
research it, especially while at work.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Tim McDaniel
<8642708d-ca62-4e1d...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>,
David Dyer-Bennet <rec.arts....@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>Format conversion is considered fair-use; taping albums onto
>cassettes, for example. Even though it creates a physical copy,
>and so naturally falls under copywrite.
"Copyright".
Cite?
"Fair use" appears to be a national concept. For example, if
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Canada> be believed,
Commonwealth countries may have "fair dealing" which differs in some
respects from the US; for example, Canadian laws does not expressly
protect parody.
<http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html>, a U.S. Copyright Office
page on Fair Use, lists criteria including
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of,
the copyrighted work
and later "The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the
General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of
activities that courts have regarded as fair use: '... reproduction by
a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy
...". But it doesn't say reproduction of an entire work by a private
individual, and point 3 would seem to tilt against it.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
W. Citoan
In the US, the Audio Home Recording Act (1992) specifically modified
copyright law to permit copying albums to cassettes for personnel use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act
- W. Citoan
--
These are the times that try men's souls.
-- Thomas Paine
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:iput92$6r3$1...@reader1.panix.com:
Actually, DMCA specifically allows that sort of backup (as did
Title 17 prior to DMCA). It also prohibits the tools necessary to
make them, elsewhere.
Despite the claims of a lot of people who have no clue what they're
talking about, US law is still unclear (because it hasn't gotten to
the Supreme Court yet), but is very, very likely to be that yes, we
do have the right to make backups of encrypted electronic files,
even if we have to break the encryption to do it.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:slrnis5vm5....@wcitoan-via.eternal-september.org:
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 12 > § 1201 (f) would seem to apply rather
directly to digital files.
Tim McDaniel
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"W. Citoan" <wci...@NOSPAM-yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:slrnis5vm5....@wcitoan-via.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Tim McDaniel wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <8642708d-ca62-4e1d...@glegroupsg2000goo.googleg
>>> roups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet
>>> <rec.arts....@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>> >Format conversion is considered fair-use; taping albums onto
>>> >cassettes, for example. Even though it creates a physical
>>> >copy, and so naturally falls under copywrite.
>>>
>>> "Copyright".
>>>
>>> Cite?
>>
>> modified copyright law to permit copying albums to cassettes for
>> personnel use.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act
>>
>TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 12 > § 1201 (f) would seem to apply rather
>directly to digital files.
Thank you both for the citations! It's refreshing to see citations in
a discussion.
For the second: I'm not familiar with how to cite and use the US Code,
Is
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001201----000-.html>
the correct section, on Reverse Engineering? I don't have time for
more than a quick read, but the quick glance looks like it's more
appropriate for reverse-engineering a driver to work on Linux, for
example, than making a copy of a DVD. But maybe there are
inferences that I haven't thought of.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> In article <Xns9EDC8D3A164...@69.16.186.7>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"W. Citoan" <wci...@NOSPAM-yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:slrnis5vm5....@wcitoan-via.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> Tim McDaniel wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <8642708d-ca62-4e1d...@glegroupsg2000goo.googl
>>>> eg roups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet
>>>> <rec.arts....@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>> >Format conversion is considered fair-use; taping albums onto
>>>> >cassettes, for example. Even though it creates a physical
>>>> >copy, and so naturally falls under copywrite.
>>>>
>>>> "Copyright".
>>>>
>>>> Cite?
>>>
>>> In the US, the Audio Home Recording Act (1992) specifically
>>> modified copyright law to permit copying albums to cassettes
>>> for personnel use.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act
>>>
>>TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 12 > § 1201 (f) would seem to apply rather
>>directly to digital files.
>
> Thank you both for the citations! It's refreshing to see
> citations in a discussion.
We violated the laws of creation doing it on usenet, you know.
>
> For the second: I'm not familiar with how to cite and use the US
> Code, Is
> <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001
> 201----000-.html> the correct section, on Reverse Engineering?
Yes.
> I don't have time for more than a quick read, but the quick
> glance looks like it's more appropriate for reverse-engineering
> a driver to work on Linux, for example, than making a copy of a
> DVD. But maybe there are inferences that I haven't thought of.
>
The DVD isn't the "computer program" it applies to, it's the _data_
it applies to. If you want to play the content of the DVD on a
different device, say, your computer, but can't because of DRM, it
explicitly allows you to crack the encryption to do so. (A little
above that is the section about making or distributing tools to do
so, which is fuzzy at best, and is therefore likely to not take
precedence of the cited section when it gets to the Supreme Court.)
It's far from resolved in US law, however.
Ken from Chicago
"Lynn McGuire" <l...@winsim.com> wrote in message
news:ipugji$lfj$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 5/5/2011 3:31 AM, Ken from Chicago wrote:
<snip>
>> Can't you print out pert near any ebook you own at a printer? even have
>> it bound in fancy covers and / or print on special paper?
>>
>> -- Ken from Chicago
>
> I would think you would need to own the publishing rights.
> Owning a copy of the book does not get you publishing rights.
>
> Lynn
>
I meant print a copy for your personal use.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9EDC9AB7435...@69.16.186.7...
We violate the laws of usenet by having a civil discussion instead of a
raging flamewar filled with ad hominem attacks against anyone who dares
disagree with us.
>> For the second: I'm not familiar with how to cite and use the US
>> Code, Is
>> <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001
>> 201----000-.html> the correct section, on Reverse Engineering?
>
> Yes.
>
>> I don't have time for more than a quick read, but the quick
>> glance looks like it's more appropriate for reverse-engineering
>> a driver to work on Linux, for example, than making a copy of a
>> DVD. But maybe there are inferences that I haven't thought of.
>>
> The DVD isn't the "computer program" it applies to, it's the _data_
> it applies to. If you want to play the content of the DVD on a
> different device, say, your computer, but can't because of DRM, it
> explicitly allows you to crack the encryption to do so. (A little
> above that is the section about making or distributing tools to do
> so, which is fuzzy at best, and is therefore likely to not take
> precedence of the cited section when it gets to the Supreme Court.)
>
> It's far from resolved in US law, however.
>
> --
> Terry Austin
Yes, the music, movie and book industry would still argue that people don't
and shouldn't have the right to copy a work even for merely personal use but
should pay for each copy. Some would even want people to pay license fee for
each time they view or listen to said work.
It makes as much sense as the cellular carriers charging uses $20 bucks to
"tether" your computer to your cell phone as a modem even tho you are
already paying for the data--not to mention paying separately for voice and
text and data plans since its all data anyway.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Norm D. Plumber" <nom-de...@non.com> wrote in message
news:4ifas61vh9sf9tntn...@4ax.com...
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Yes, the music, movie and book industry would still argue that people
>>don't
>>and shouldn't have the right to copy a work even for merely personal use
>>but
>>should pay for each copy. Some would even want people to pay license fee
>>for
>>each time they view or listen to said work.
>
> The greedy bastards will just have to find some way to live without
> the dollars that fail to flow from my pockets into theirs.
>
> --
> discussion is for the open-minded, argument is for the mind that wants
> the light turned out so it can go back to sleep.
NO! You HAVE to pay for their outdated business model! Ya gotta!
-- Ken from Chicago
Quadibloc
wrote:
> NO! You HAVE to pay for their outdated business model! Ya gotta!
But, on the other hand, it's not as if they have much in the way of
lawful competition.
Some artists are bypassing the labels, and distributing their own
songs electronically instead. But that isn't the music that's in
demand. People want the big name artists like Britney Spears and
Celine Dion.
Nobody's found a "new" business model for music that monetizes as well
as the old one. And copyright law isn't going away, either.
So, while I do disapprove of some of the more extreme antics of the
music industry, I can't view their rear-guard action as wholly
misguided - I don't really see that they've got a choice. Their only
choice is when to throw in the towel and accept oblivion - not to move
to a better business model, because there isn't one that'll work for
them - and there's no reason to think that they could invent one
either.
John Savard
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:DKKdnXhWOPSQuljQ...@giganews.com:
>
>
> "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:Xns9EDC9AB7435...@69.16.186.7...
>> tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote in
>> news:ipv53c$irk$1...@reader1.panix.com:
>>
>>> In article <Xns9EDC8D3A164...@69.16.186.7>,
>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>"W. Citoan" <wci...@NOSPAM-yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>news:slrnis5vm5....@wcitoan-via.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> Tim McDaniel wrote:
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <8642708d-ca62-4e1d...@glegroupsg2000goo.goo
>>>>>> gl eg roups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet
>>>>>> <rec.arts....@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >Format conversion is considered fair-use; taping albums
>>>>>> >onto cassettes, for example. Even though it creates a
>>>>>> >physical copy, and so naturally falls under copywrite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Copyright".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cite?
>>>>>
>>>>> In the US, the Audio Home Recording Act (1992) specifically
>>>>> modified copyright law to permit copying albums to cassettes
>>>>> for personnel use.
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act
>>>>>
>>>>TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 12 > § 1201 (f) would seem to apply rather
>>>>directly to digital files.
>>>
>>> Thank you both for the citations! It's refreshing to see
>>> citations in a discussion.
>>
>> We violated the laws of creation doing it on usenet, you know.
>
> We violate the laws of usenet by having a civil discussion
> instead of a raging flamewar filled with ad hominem attacks
> against anyone who dares disagree with us.
That's what I said, you pinko commie librul poopy head.
>
>>> For the second: I'm not familiar with how to cite and use the
>>> US Code, Is
>>> <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_000
>>> 01 201----000-.html> the correct section, on Reverse
>>> Engineering?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> I don't have time for more than a quick read, but the quick
>>> glance looks like it's more appropriate for
>>> reverse-engineering a driver to work on Linux, for example,
>>> than making a copy of a DVD. But maybe there are inferences
>>> that I haven't thought of.
>>>
>> The DVD isn't the "computer program" it applies to, it's the
>> _data_ it applies to. If you want to play the content of the
>> DVD on a different device, say, your computer, but can't
>> because of DRM, it explicitly allows you to crack the
>> encryption to do so. (A little above that is the section about
>> making or distributing tools to do so, which is fuzzy at best,
>> and is therefore likely to not take precedence of the cited
>> section when it gets to the Supreme Court.)
>>
>> It's far from resolved in US law, however.
>>
>> --
>> Terry Austin
>
> Yes, the music, movie and book industry would still argue that
> people don't and shouldn't have the right to copy a work even
> for merely personal use but should pay for each copy. Some would
> even want people to pay license fee for each time they view or
> listen to said work.
Even if it's only in their own head.
>
> It makes as much sense as the cellular carriers charging uses
> $20 bucks to "tether" your computer to your cell phone as a
> modem even tho you are already paying for the data--not to
> mention paying separately for voice and text and data plans
> since its all data anyway.
>
Their argument is that you significantly up the amount of bandwidth
you'll be using that way. Which isn't exactly a stupid argument at
face value, though nobody would have suggested 15 years ago that
you should have to pay extra for a land line if you were going to
hook up a modem to it.
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. -
David Bilek
Yeah, I had Terry confused with Hannibal Lecter. - Mike Schilling
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Yes, the music, movie and book industry would still argue that
>>people don't and shouldn't have the right to copy a work even
>>for merely personal use but should pay for each copy. Some would
>>even want people to pay license fee for each time they view or
>>listen to said work.
>
> The greedy bastards will just have to find some way to live
> without the dollars that fail to flow from my pockets into
> theirs.
>
Like you ever paid for anything you could pirate.
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. - David
Bilek
Yeah, I had Terry confused with Hannibal Lecter. - Mike Schilling
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Ken from Chicago
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:adff131c-3d1b-4088...@y27g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 7, 7:32 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> NO! You HAVE to pay for their outdated business model! Ya gotta!
>
> But, on the other hand, it's not as if they have much in the way of
> lawful competition.
>
> Some artists are bypassing the labels, and distributing their own
> songs electronically instead. But that isn't the music that's in
> demand. People want the big name artists like Britney Spears and
> Celine Dion.
Why do "big name" artists need middlefolk between themselves and the
audience?
> Nobody's found a "new" business model for music that monetizes as well
> as the old one. And copyright law isn't going away, either.
Artists selling there own music for say $1 a song but getting to keep all
the revenue, minus a few cents for processing internet sales.
> So, while I do disapprove of some of the more extreme antics of the
> music industry, I can't view their rear-guard action as wholly
> misguided - I don't really see that they've got a choice. Their only
> choice is when to throw in the towel and accept oblivion - not to move
> to a better business model, because there isn't one that'll work for
> them - and there's no reason to think that they could invent one
> either.
>
> John Savard
Just because there isn't a business model as exorbitantly excessively as
profitable as overcharging customers to buy whole cds just to get the one
song they are interested in, doesn't mean there isn't another business model
that's profitable even if it's not as profitable as before.
-- Ken from Chicago
David DeLaney
>> songs electronically instead. But that isn't the music that's in
>> demand. People want the big name artists like Britney Spears and
>> Celine Dion.
>
>Why do "big name" artists need middlefolk between themselves and the
>audience?
Some of the same reasons that 'big name' writers need publishers/editors
between themselves and _their_ audience. For the record/8-track/cassette
tape/CD/DVD/etc. releases, anyway; it's different for live concerts.
>> Nobody's found a "new" business model for music that monetizes as well
>> as the old one. And copyright law isn't going away, either.
>
>Artists selling there own music for say $1 a song but getting to keep all
>the revenue, minus a few cents for processing internet sales.
Which means each individual artist has to master teh Intarwebz, and sales,
and setting up an Internet website, and stuff. Or else you get a middlefolk
again, like iTunes.
Now whether the current record labels are the CORRECT middlefolk, or are
doing things well or correctly, is an entirely different question...
>Just because there isn't a business model as exorbitantly excessively as
>profitable as overcharging customers to buy whole cds just to get the one
>song they are interested in, doesn't mean there isn't another business model
>that's profitable even if it's not as profitable as before.
Right ... but, having staked their claim on the former, transitioning to the
latter even IF they had a clear view of where they were going to head to is
likely to make all sorts of stockholders and lawyers and investors and things
really unhappy. Which has much the same effect as "staying there because there
isn't a business model that actually works now".
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Walter Bushell
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Their argument is that you significantly up the amount of bandwidth
> you'll be using that way. Which isn't exactly a stupid argument at
> face value, though nobody would have suggested 15 years ago that
> you should have to pay extra for a land line if you were going to
> hook up a modem to it.
I remember when it was illegal (or at least against phone company
regulations) to hook a modem to a phone line. We therefore used acoustic
couplers. If you wanted a direct connect that was extra for a *big* fee.
In fact you could not connect anything they did not supply to their
lines.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Jack Tingle
I was nodding in agreement until you got to:
> Right ... but, having staked their claim on the former, transitioning to the
> latter even IF they had a clear view of where they were going to head to is
> likely to make all sorts of stockholders and lawyers and investors and things
> really unhappy. Which has much the same effect as "staying there because there
> isn't a business model that actually works now".
That last statement isn't really true. _One_ of the responsibilities of
managers is to safeguard the investor's capital over the long haul. As
you point out, it isn't the only one, but it is important. If you can
see the train coming towards you, stepping to the side is a good idea,
even if you can't get that last gold nugget out of the bag stuck in the
railroad track. Where you wind up is less important that avoiding the
=splat=. It's not grounds for a _successful_ lawsuit.
BOINK! (sound of forehead slap)
I'm sorry, what was I thinking? Most corporate managers are gutless.
Never mind.
(microwaving popcorn)
I love a good train wreck. Let the mass extinction begin! May the
fittest die least. KA-PLAH!
(sotto voce)
If you stand over there, many of the previously hoarded gold nuggets
should bounce towards you.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
>
>
> "Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
> news:adff131c-3d1b-4088...@y27g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 7, 7:32 am, "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> NO! You HAVE to pay for their outdated business model! Ya gotta!
>>
>> But, on the other hand, it's not as if they have much in the way of
>> lawful competition.
>>
>> Some artists are bypassing the labels, and distributing their own
>> songs electronically instead. But that isn't the music that's in
>> demand. People want the big name artists like Britney Spears and
>> Celine Dion.
>
> Why do "big name" artists need middlefolk between themselves and the
> audience?
Well, a big name artist didn't get that way by accident; the middlefolk
were the ones who PUT them there, basically.
It's a matter of publicity. Distribution through the interwebs makes
distribution no longer the choke point, but someone who isn't yet a Big
Name and wants to be -- how exactly does he or she become one?
Given that there are probably 100+ other artists AT LEAST AS GOOD as
they are in every particular, all of them vying for the one Big Name
spot -- and that is indeed a given truth -- how does that particular
artist get that spot?
By having people hear about him/her, preferably multiple times in
multiple different venues.
This *can* happen purely by accident/grassroots "ripple" effect, but
it's Not Bloody Likely. A coordinated -- and expensive and
complicated-to-arrange -- marketing plan is MUCH more likely to succeed.
Even things you didn't THINK had much publicity -- like the original
Star Wars -- had a HUGE amount of monetary and logistical backing
compared to what the average independent could imagine. Just getting
your movie into a regular run theater (rather than "art house", or your
music played on a large radio station (rather than "local college
station"), is a nontrivial achievement.
The internet isn't by itself a solution. EACH of those 100 other
artists has friends trying to spread the word by word of mouth, and
those who AREN'T their friends have no way of telling which of the 100
is the one they really want -- unless they hear all 100. So what happens
is a random spread of recommendations, and the lucky one is the guy
whose stuff just HAPPENS to spread to the ears/screen of someone who
DOES have a very large audience, and who likes this new thing enough to
push it from his or her MUCH more powerful vantage point.
Of course, the other thing the middlepeople do is eliminate the
grindwork of DOING any of that. Regardless of whether you COULD do all
of your advertising and distribution and so on, do you WANT to? I sure
as hell don't, I want to do more WRITING, not running around.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
David DeLaney
>On 5/8/2011 5:23 AM, David DeLaney wrote:
>I was nodding in agreement until you got to:
>>Right ... but, having staked their claim on the former, transitioning to the
>>latter even IF they had a clear view of where they were going to head to is
>>likely to make all sorts of stockholders and lawyers and investors and things
>>really unhappy. Which has much the same effect as "staying there because there
>>isn't a business model that actually works now".
>
>That last statement isn't really true. _One_ of the responsibilities of
>managers is to safeguard the investor's capital over the long haul. As
>you point out, it isn't the only one, but it is important. If you can
>see the train coming towards you, stepping to the side is a good idea,
>even if you can't get that last gold nugget out of the bag stuck in the
>railroad track. Where you wind up is less important that avoiding the
>=splat=. It's not grounds for a _successful_ lawsuit.
>
>BOINK! (sound of forehead slap)
>
>I'm sorry, what was I thinking? Most corporate managers are gutless.
>Never mind.
And given a choice between a) large profits now for a little while and b)
smaller profits now but extends beyond fiscal year 2014... which choice will
most stockholders/investors take?
(Please use both sides of the screen if necessary. Do not begin until you hear
the plummet.)
>(sotto voce)
>
>If you stand over there, many of the previously hoarded gold nuggets
>should bounce towards you.
Dave 'no worries mate, Glenn Beck is ultra-absorbent' DeLaney
Michael A. Terrell
Walter Bushell wrote:
>
> In article <Xns9EDE891D986...@69.16.186.7>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Their argument is that you significantly up the amount of bandwidth
> > you'll be using that way. Which isn't exactly a stupid argument at
> > face value, though nobody would have suggested 15 years ago that
> > you should have to pay extra for a land line if you were going to
> > hook up a modem to it.
>
> I remember when it was illegal (or at least against phone company
> regulations) to hook a modem to a phone line. We therefore used acoustic
> couplers. If you wanted a direct connect that was extra for a *big* fee.
> In fact you could not connect anything they did not supply to their
> lines.
Until the 'Carterphone Decision'.
--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a Band-Aid™ on it, because it's
Teflon coated.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>> Why do "big name" artists need middlefolk between themselves and the
>>> audience?
>>
>> Well, a big name artist didn't get that way by accident; the middlefolk
>> were the ones who PUT them there, basically.
>
> AUDIENCE that put them there.
>
Nope. The Audience put *SOMEONE* there. Someone that got put in front
of them enough so that Audience found OUT about them, and that was good
enough for Audience to buy lots of. But the first part is JUST as
important as the second.
There's always lots 'n lots of people as good as you, or better, out
there, unless you're the equivalent of Michaelangelo or DaVinci. I'm
not, and I don't think I know any equivalents in modern writing, music,
etc.
So the key is, how do YOU end up being the one that gets well known?
But you know this, you just want to argue.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:proto-78AA1A....@news.panix.com:
> In article <Xns9EDE891D986...@69.16.186.7>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Their argument is that you significantly up the amount of
>> bandwidth you'll be using that way. Which isn't exactly a
>> stupid argument at face value, though nobody would have
>> suggested 15 years ago that you should have to pay extra for a
>> land line if you were going to hook up a modem to it.
>
> I remember when it was illegal (or at least against phone
> company regulations) to hook a modem to a phone line. We
> therefore used acoustic couplers. If you wanted a direct connect
> that was extra for a *big* fee. In fact you could not connect
> anything they did not supply to their lines.
>
Which hasn't been the case since 1968. (Plus, it was actually
illegal, only a violation of Bell's policies, as you suggest.)
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:5bCdnVmlm714ylvQ...@giganews.com:
>
>
> "Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
> news:adff131c-3d1b-4088...@y27g2000prb.googlegroup
> s.com...
>> On May 7, 7:32 am, "Ken from Chicago"
>> <kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> NO! You HAVE to pay for their outdated business model! Ya
>>> gotta!
>>
>> But, on the other hand, it's not as if they have much in the
>> way of lawful competition.
>>
>> Some artists are bypassing the labels, and distributing their
>> own songs electronically instead. But that isn't the music
>> that's in demand. People want the big name artists like Britney
>> Spears and Celine Dion.
>
> Why do "big name" artists need middlefolk between themselves and
> the audience?
They make more money that way. Really, they do, because they are
the primary beneficiaries of the corporate marketing machines.
>
>> Nobody's found a "new" business model for music that monetizes
>> as well as the old one. And copyright law isn't going away,
>> either.
>
> Artists selling there own music for say $1 a song but getting to
> keep all the revenue, minus a few cents for processing internet
> sales.
The choice for most artists at this point is selling a handful of
copies at $1 each and keeping it all, or selling several handfuls
and getting nothing, it's true. But for the big names, it's selling
a few thousand copies at $1 each and keep it all, or selling
millions and keeping a few cents of each $1. The math isn't tough,
whether you believe it or not (and we know you don't, but hey,
you're a dumbass, and always have been).
>
>> So, while I do disapprove of some of the more extreme antics of
>> the music industry, I can't view their rear-guard action as
>> wholly misguided - I don't really see that they've got a
>> choice. Their only choice is when to throw in the towel and
>> accept oblivion - not to move to a better business model,
>> because there isn't one that'll work for them - and there's no
>> reason to think that they could invent one either.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> Just because there isn't a business model as exorbitantly
> excessively as profitable as overcharging customers to buy whole
> cds just to get the one song they are interested in, doesn't
> mean there isn't another business model that's profitable even
> if it's not as profitable as before.
>
That alternate has always been there. It's a bit easier now, and
the costs a bit lower, but it's always been there, and hasn't
successfully competed for a reason.
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. -
David Bilek
Yeah, I had Terry confused with Hannibal Lecter. - Mike Schilling
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:iq65ht$bv0$1...@dont-email.me:
> On 5/8/2011 5:23 AM, David DeLaney wrote:
>
> I was nodding in agreement until you got to:
>
>> Right ... but, having staked their claim on the former,
>> transitioning to the latter even IF they had a clear view of
>> where they were going to head to is likely to make all sorts of
>> stockholders and lawyers and investors and things really
>> unhappy. Which has much the same effect as "staying there
>> because there isn't a business model that actually works now".
>
> That last statement isn't really true. _One_ of the
> responsibilities of managers is to safeguard the investor's
> capital over the long haul. As you point out, it isn't the only
> one, but it is important.
It's the safest one, especially in a world where heading up a
failed company will often get you _more_ money on your next job,
not less.
> If you can see the train coming
> towards you, stepping to the side is a good idea, even if you
> can't get that last gold nugget out of the bag stuck in the
> railroad track. Where you wind up is less important that
> avoiding the =splat=. It's not grounds for a _successful_
> lawsuit.
>
> BOINK! (sound of forehead slap)
>
> I'm sorry, what was I thinking? Most corporate managers are
> gutless. Never mind.
Not at all. Your mistake is in thinking that people who run large
corporations are in any wya interested in the long term interests
of a company they will run for a few years, before moving on. It's
not. It's in their own bank accounts. And they'll be gone in a few
years, after posting enough big quarterly returns to get a better
offer.
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. -
David Bilek
Yeah, I had Terry confused with Hannibal Lecter. - Mike Schilling
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>> Why do "big name" artists need middlefolk between themselves
>>> and the audience?
>>
>> Well, a big name artist didn't get that way by accident;
>> the middlefolk
>>were the ones who PUT them there, basically.
>
> Bullshit, all the middlefolk did was skim a profit, it's their
> AUDIENCE that put them there.
>
The retard troll trolls retardedly, again. No surprise there, is
there, troll-boy?
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. - David
Bilek
Yeah, I had Terry confused with Hannibal Lecter. - Mike Schilling
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:iq73mf$lib$3...@dont-email.me:
> On 5/8/11 4:13 PM, Norm D. Plumber wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Why do "big name" artists need middlefolk between themselves
>>>> and the audience?
>>>
>>> Well, a big name artist didn't get that way by accident;
>>> the middlefolk
>>> were the ones who PUT them there, basically.
>>
>> Bullshit, all the middlefolk did was skim a profit, it's their
>> AUDIENCE that put them there.
>>
>
> Nope. The Audience put *SOMEONE* there. Someone that got
> put in front
> of them enough so that Audience found OUT about them, and that
> was good enough for Audience to buy lots of. But the first part
> is JUST as important as the second.
I'll use smaller words so Normie can ignore them, too (since he is
fully aware of all this, and is just trolling with the most
retarded lies he can come up with):
The audience does not _ever_ buy anything it is unaware of.
>
> But you know this, you just want to argue.
>
Argue? Hardly. He wants to *troll*. Arguing implies there are two
sides to the conversation. He's _admitted_ he'll revserse his
position if necessary to just disagree.
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. -
David Bilek
Yeah, I had Terry confused with Hannibal Lecter. - Mike Schilling
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Lonnie Clay
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> >On 5/8/11 4:13 PM, Norm D. Plumber wrote:
> >> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Why do "big name" artists need middlefolk between themselves and the
> >>>> audience?
> >>>
> >>> Well, a big name artist didn't get that way by accident; the middlefolk
> >>> were the ones who PUT them there, basically.
> >>
> >> Bullshit, all the middlefolk did was skim a profit, it's their
> >> AUDIENCE that put them there.
> >>
> >
> > Nope. The Audience put *SOMEONE* there. Someone that got put in front
> >of them enough so that Audience found OUT about them, and that was good
> >enough for Audience to buy lots of. But the first part is JUST as
> >important as the second.
> >
> >there, unless you're the equivalent of Michaelangelo or DaVinci. I'm
> >not, and I don't think I know any equivalents in modern writing, music,
> >etc.
> >
> > So the key is, how do YOU end up being the one that gets well known?
> >
>
> to give a flying fuck about your readership. I don't do killfiles but
> I can try to remember to ignore all your posts.
>
> --
> discussion is for the open-minded, argument is for the mind that wants
> the light turned out so it can go back to sleep.
Hiya Norm, are ye laying around idle, got time on yer hands?...
Lonnie Courtney Clay
Jack Tingle
> Not at all. Your mistake is in thinking that people who run large
> corporations are in any wya interested in the long term interests
> of a company they will run for a few years, before moving on. It's
> not. It's in their own bank accounts. And they'll be gone in a few
> years, after posting enough big quarterly returns to get a better
> offer.
That varies widely by industry. Publishing is (or once was) a subspecies
of heavy manufacturing[1], where hire/fire cycles run quite long.
High-tech (light manufacturing), retail, finance, other low physical
capital intensive, short-product-cycle industries have much shorter
hire/fire cycles.
Since publishing outsourced almost all of its capital intensive parts
over the last decades, the managers may have become short-timers. It
would be interesting to find an insider who'd talk about that.
I do maintain, based on experience, that general managers and above
(with some notable exceptions) are gutless.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
[1] Printing presses, inventory, warehouses, distribution networks, etc.
for truckloads of dead trees are expensive fixed resources.
Lonnie Clay
> "Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
> > On May 3, 4:46 pm, Lynn McGuire <l....@winsim.com> wrote:
> >
> >> And this time he says, "The publishing companies are running
> >> around like chickens with their heads cut off, because they
> >> think the ebook will kill the print book, but actually it
> >> will make book publishing more profitable. "
> >>
> >> OK Dvorak, make up your mind ! Are ebooks gonna kill
> >> printed books or not ?
> >
> > I thought that would be clear. The E-book makes book publishing more
> > profitable, because they no longer have to spend money on paper, ink,
> > and binding.
> >
> > So where is the contradiction? It kills the printed book, but it
> > doesn't kill the publisher.
> >
> > John Savard
>
> Ebooks might "kill" "fast food" paperbooks, the "disposable" pop fiction
> that are the equivalent of summer "popcorn" flicks. Meanwhile the major
> works might become more valuable the way horse and carriage travel is
> reserved for special occassions in countries were automobiles are
> commonplace.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
Absolutely positively brilliant observation, better buy them while they are so cheap...
Lonnie Courtney Clay
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> On 5/8/2011 6:07 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>> Not at all. Your mistake is in thinking that people who run
>> large corporations are in any wya interested in the long term
>> interests of a company they will run for a few years, before
>> moving on. It's not. It's in their own bank accounts. And
>> they'll be gone in a few years, after posting enough big
>> quarterly returns to get a better offer.
>
> That varies widely by industry.
Yes. And more widely by individual.
> Publishing is (or once was) a
> subspecies of heavy manufacturing[1], where hire/fire cycles run
> quite long. High-tech (light manufacturing), retail, finance,
> other low physical capital intensive, short-product-cycle
> industries have much shorter hire/fire cycles.
>
> Since publishing outsourced almost all of its capital intensive
> parts over the last decades, the managers may have become
> short-timers. It would be interesting to find an insider who'd
> talk about that.
The publishing industry, entirely owned these days by big media
companies, has sins of its own.
>
> I do maintain, based on experience, that general managers and
> above (with some notable exceptions) are gutless.
And, usually, brainless. Which is good, because if they were
smarter, they'd be far more dangerous.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article
> David Dyer-Bennet <rec.arts....@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >Format conversion is considered fair-use; taping albums onto
> >cassettes, for example. Even though it creates a physical copy,
> >and so naturally falls under copywrite.
>
> "Copyright".
>
> Cite?
Not finding anything that qualifies as a citation, but I'm finding
it a background assumption in most university and library
discussions of media conversion.
> "Fair use" appears to be a national concept. For example, if
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Canada> be believed,
> Commonwealth countries may have "fair dealing" which differs in some
> respects from the US; for example, Canadian laws does not expressly
> protect parody.
Copyright historically was very different in the US vs. the rest
of the world; I was taking for granted that this deep in the
discussion we'd lost the people who didn't know that.
Michael Stemper
>Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote in news:proto-78AA1A....@news.panix.com:
>> In article <Xns9EDE891D986...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> suggested 15 years ago that you should have to pay extra for a
>>> land line if you were going to hook up a modem to it.
>>
>> I remember when it was illegal (or at least against phone
>> company regulations) to hook a modem to a phone line. We
>> therefore used acoustic couplers. If you wanted a direct connect
>> that was extra for a *big* fee. In fact you could not connect
>> anything they did not supply to their lines.
>>
>Which hasn't been the case since 1968. (Plus, it was actually
>illegal, only a violation of Bell's policies, as you suggest.)
I'm pretty sure that parenthetical statement is missing a "not". But,
it's less than clear whether it belongs before "actually" or befor
"only". Of course, the two potential placements give slightly
different meanings.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
A preposition is something that you should never end a sentence with.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:iq97qh$7n1$1...@dont-email.me:
> In article <Xns9EDF98BBC4A...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless
> Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>>Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote in
>>news:proto-78AA1A....@news.panix.com:
>>> In article <Xns9EDE891D986...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless
>>> Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> suggested 15 years ago that you should have to pay extra for
>>>> a land line if you were going to hook up a modem to it.
>>>
>>> I remember when it was illegal (or at least against phone
>>> company regulations) to hook a modem to a phone line. We
>>> therefore used acoustic couplers. If you wanted a direct
>>> connect that was extra for a *big* fee. In fact you could not
>>> connect anything they did not supply to their lines.
>>>
>>Which hasn't been the case since 1968. (Plus, it was actually
>>illegal, only a violation of Bell's policies, as you suggest.)
>
> I'm pretty sure that parenthetical statement is missing a "not".
You are correct.
> But, it's less than clear whether it belongs before "actually"
> or befor "only". Of course, the two potential placements give
> slightly different meanings.
>
Adjacent to "actually," either side works.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Ken from Chicago
"Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9EE075593AF...@69.16.186.7...
> mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote in
> news:iq97qh$7n1$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> In article <Xns9EDF98BBC4A...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless
>> Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote in
>>>news:proto-78AA1A....@news.panix.com:
>>>> In article <Xns9EDE891D986...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless
>>>> Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> suggested 15 years ago that you should have to pay extra for
>>>>> a land line if you were going to hook up a modem to it.
>>>>
>>>> I remember when it was illegal (or at least against phone
>>>> company regulations) to hook a modem to a phone line. We
>>>> therefore used acoustic couplers. If you wanted a direct
>>>> connect that was extra for a *big* fee. In fact you could not
>>>> connect anything they did not supply to their lines.
>>>>
>>>Which hasn't been the case since 1968. (Plus, it was actually
>>>illegal, only a violation of Bell's policies, as you suggest.)
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that parenthetical statement is missing a "not".
>
> You are correct.
Oooh, I despise the "omitted 'not'" typo most of all. You end up saying the
diametrically opposite of what you meant to say.
>> But, it's less than clear whether it belongs before "actually"
>> or befor "only". Of course, the two potential placements give
>> slightly different meanings.
>>
> Adjacent to "actually," either side works.
>
> --
> Terry Austin
-- Ken from Chicago
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
>
>
> "Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:Xns9EE075593AF...@69.16.186.7...
>> mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote in
>> news:iq97qh$7n1$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> In article <Xns9EDF98BBC4A...@69.16.186.7>, Gutless
>>> Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote in
>>>>news:proto-78AA1A....@news.panix.com:
>>>>> In article <Xns9EDE891D986...@69.16.186.7>,
>>>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> suggested 15 years ago that you should have to pay extra
>>>>>> for a land line if you were going to hook up a modem to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember when it was illegal (or at least against phone
>>>>> company regulations) to hook a modem to a phone line. We
>>>>> therefore used acoustic couplers. If you wanted a direct
>>>>> connect that was extra for a *big* fee. In fact you could
>>>>> not connect anything they did not supply to their lines.
>>>>>
>>>>Which hasn't been the case since 1968. (Plus, it was actually
>>>>illegal, only a violation of Bell's policies, as you suggest.)
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure that parenthetical statement is missing a
>>> "not".
>>
>> You are correct.
>
> Oooh, I despise the "omitted 'not'" typo most of all. You end up
> saying the diametrically opposite of what you meant to say.
Indeed. Fortrunately, at least one person other than me in this
newsgroup isn't an idiot.
>
>>> But, it's less than clear whether it belongs before "actually"
>>> or befor "only". Of course, the two potential placements give
>>> slightly different meanings.
>>>
>> Adjacent to "actually," either side works.
>>
>> --
>> Terry Austin
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
>
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. -
David Bilek
Yeah, I had Terry confused with Hannibal Lecter. - Mike Schilling
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Ken from Chicago
<snip>
>> Oooh, I despise the "omitted 'not'" typo most of all. You end up
>> saying the diametrically opposite of what you meant to say.
>
> Indeed. Fortrunately, at least one person other than me in this
> newsgroup isn't an idiot.
<snip>
Who? I'd like to meet him or her.
-- Ken from Chicago
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
I don't doubt it, but how could you tell?