Remember high school and all of the various fads and gimmicks that flowed like water out of dam? Ya, it was that evident. Such a comparison can be made with the latest digital rip off titled (politically correct title that is) “Blu-ray Managed Copies”. Essentially it is another way movie studios and labels somehow get away with controlling how we use our purchased content. The way this service works is when copying a Blue-ray disc, the player sends out a signal to the “mother ship” via the internet. That mother ship/server will then relay back to your player the specifics to make the copy and authorize it. Sounds like a legitimate solution that should appease both sides right? Wrong. Epic failure in fact.
- October 28, 2009 12:20 pm
That Google Chrome OS just got finished gushing about? Ya it’s fake. Sucks I know. Damn scammers. I’ve already and gone ahead and updated the original post. This is just so it gets to the top of people’s feed lists. Again, it’s a fake. Resist temptation and do not download. You’ve been warned.
Daring Fireball
{Image source}
This is pretty much disgusting and makes me actually lean towards hating any label or collection agency. If you’ve been out of the loop, the RIAA’s Radio Performance tax is currently the biggest scam this side of hell. Remember in the good ‘ol days when new artists and labels would “beg” (by way of monetary payments) radio stations to play new music. Such a model promotes upcoming new artists and music which equates into more money spend on the respective artists down the road. Everyone’s happy right? Ha. With morons such as the RIAA involved, you though grossly wrong.
The whole idea of the Performance Rights Act is to pull a complete 180 on the typical model that radio stations play in promoting music. Instead of being paid to play music, now radio stations themselves are going to have to pay the RIAA and fellow scam artist companies to promote music. Kind of backwards don’t you think? This grand plan could very easily collapse. If radio stations refuse to play big label content and instead go independent, good-bye tax, good-bye income. Of course, the chances of that are pretty much 0 and they know that. What will happen however is those local bands looking to make it big will now have an ever greater mountain to climb. If radio stations have to pay to play music, why bother with smaller bands that don’t indirectly pay them? Why not just play the big names. Hey, they’re paying for it right?
Of course, RIAA and their love child “SoundExchange” will continue to beat their chest highlighting all the good they stand for, helping musicians, and doling out royalties from bogus taxes accordingly. Though, as TechDirt notes, they seem to have a small hoarding problem when money is concerned. You know, $100 million or so dollars sitting in their bank accounts — give or take.
Leaving off, a commenter on TechDirt also highlighted another point by posting a section of the wordage:
“Establishes a flat annual fee in lieu of payment of royalties for individual terrestrial broadcast stations with gross revenues of less than $1.25 million and for noncommercial, public broadcast stations.”
……………………..
“(D) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraphs (A) through (C), each individual terrestrial broadcast station that has gross revenues in any calendar year of less than $1,250,000 may elect to pay for its over-the-air nonsubscription broadcast transmissions a royalty fee of $5,000 per year, in lieu of the amount such station would otherwise be required to pay under this paragraph. Such royalty fee shall not be taken into account in determining royalty rates in a proceeding under chapter 8, or in any other administrative, judicial, or other Federal Government proceeding.
`(E) Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraphs (A) through (C), each individual terrestrial broadcast station that is a public broadcasting entity as defined in section 118(f) may elect to pay for its over-the-air nonsubscription broadcast transmissions a royalty fee of $1,000 per year, in lieu of the amount such station would otherwise be required to pay under this paragraph.”
I’m not a lawyer. Though, they aren’t exactly the most “honest” sources of information so I guess that can be seen as a small blessing. Does anyone care to clear up verbal lingo above? Am I correctly assuming that radio stations can simply “cash out” (for lack of better words) on their royalty tax in favor of a lower yearly payment? Gee, that’s not questionable at all….
TechDirt
Image Source
- September 23, 2009 11:38 am
Love computing outside in all the gloriousness that is sweet mother nature but have a problem with Mr. Sun creating glare, squinting, and headaches? You’re apparently not alone. Thank god the makers of the “Laptop Burka” came along. Featuring a name that may anger some and a design that is anything except original or innovative, the makers of said accessory take you for a complete idiot. A quick look at the image above will come across to most as a bed sheet on top of some moron’s head. But in fact it is a…..uhh…..ya it’s a damn sheet on someone’s head. You can’t fool us Laptop Burka maker….
The most comical yet simultaneously infuriating feature of the LB is the price tag: $36. You read that right and yes the decimal point is in the right spot. This company is charging $36 for a bed sheet made to block out glare and other natural annoyances that may hinder your outdoor computing. If you’ve really got that much of a problem with glare and or mother nature, take your happy ass back inside the house.
One honorable mention from the feature list includes:
- lettoing you work and play on your laptop without the glare of sunlight or stares from uninvited strangers.
I’m pretty sure privacy screens/films were invented for this sole reason. They’re much smaller and won’t make you look like a mental patient when used in public (bonus). You’re best bet is to avoid this at all costs. If threatened with death….it’s not really a hard choice. Move along.
Dvice > Gadget Lab > Worst “invention” of all time, Biggest scam of all time, Laptop Burka
Gadgets take electricity. It’s the nature of the beast. Naturally, running around the world with gadgets in tow means bringing tons of mobile energy. Whether it be solar chargers, wind power, or good ‘ol classic battery power, we need a way to bring energy on the go. Similarly, Energizer has been a household name for decades, providing reliable energy on the run. But is their credibility about to take a major turn downward? Apparently, Energizer’s “High Capacity” “D” sized batteries are no more than “AA” batteries encased in a cheap plastic shell to make them look bigger. While this may not be new news to you, it certainly is to me. While I always read technical specs and dig deeper than the average consumer, I haven’t purchased a “D” sized battery in over 8 years so I don’t even remember what was on their labeling that long ago. But the here and now is a different issue. Just look at the image above. The dishonesty isn’t anything new from a large company though still is disturbing.
