<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Death of Sony BMG</title>
	<link>http://www.emailbattles.com/2005/11/15/virus_aacbjiagfi_gg/</link>
	<description>Spam, Security, Privacy, Spyware, Phishing &#038; Viruses from the Front Lines.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 20:46:40 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Kevan</title>
		<link>http://www.emailbattles.com/2005/11/15/virus_aacbjiagfi_gg/#comment-149</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2006 20:48:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.emailbattles.com/2005/11/15/virus_aacbjiagfi_gg/#comment-149</guid>
					<description>Sony should split from BMG or Buy BMG from Bertlsmann so sony could do things there way. Sony never used copy protection BMG Always has.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sony should split from BMG or Buy BMG from Bertlsmann so sony could do things there way. Sony never used copy protection BMG Always has.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Chip Burkitt</title>
		<link>http://www.emailbattles.com/2005/11/15/virus_aacbjiagfi_gg/#comment-148</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:34:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.emailbattles.com/2005/11/15/virus_aacbjiagfi_gg/#comment-148</guid>
					<description>There is no viable business model for content providers if they insist on retaining ownership of the content. There is no other business where the manufacturer sells a product and also expects to retain ownership of it. I know that the media companies "actually" sell a license. Nevertheless, the common understanding of consumers is that when they buy something it is theirs to do with what they like. If I buy The Brothers Karamazov, I can read it as amny times as I want. I can lend it to friends to read. And if I have the patience to do so, I can sit down and copy it all out by hand on notebook paper--all without violating the law. The rub for the media companies is that copying has become so easy and inexpensive. The problem is: that is not going to change. No amount of legal maneuvering or technological hocus pocus is going to alter the fact that copying is easy and inexpensive. The same technology that allows me to rip a CD so I can play songs from my hard drive also allows pirates to produce thousands of illegal copies. What's more, even if media companies manage to push through protections for digitally stored information, there is no viable method, nor can there be one, that will prevent re-recording form analog outputs. For the pirates this somewhat complicates but does not stop them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is no viable business model for content providers if they insist on retaining ownership of the content. There is no other business where the manufacturer sells a product and also expects to retain ownership of it. I know that the media companies &#8220;actually&#8221; sell a license. Nevertheless, the common understanding of consumers is that when they buy something it is theirs to do with what they like. If I buy The Brothers Karamazov, I can read it as amny times as I want. I can lend it to friends to read. And if I have the patience to do so, I can sit down and copy it all out by hand on notebook paper&#8211;all without violating the law. The rub for the media companies is that copying has become so easy and inexpensive. The problem is: that is not going to change. No amount of legal maneuvering or technological hocus pocus is going to alter the fact that copying is easy and inexpensive. The same technology that allows me to rip a CD so I can play songs from my hard drive also allows pirates to produce thousands of illegal copies. What&#8217;s more, even if media companies manage to push through protections for digitally stored information, there is no viable method, nor can there be one, that will prevent re-recording form analog outputs. For the pirates this somewhat complicates but does not stop them.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Editor</title>
		<link>http://www.emailbattles.com/2005/11/15/virus_aacbjiagfi_gg/#comment-147</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Nov 2005 14:15:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.emailbattles.com/2005/11/15/virus_aacbjiagfi_gg/#comment-147</guid>
					<description>RE: "Samsung passed Sony."&lt;br&gt; The statement becomes more precise with a few more words: "Samsung passed Sony in Brand Value." &lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt; LetsGoDigital, 8 November 2005: Samsung Belongs To Best Consumer Electronics Brand&lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt; IIse Jurrien writes: "In a survey of the top 100 global brands, BusinessWeek magazine &#038; Interbrand Consultancy have valued Samsung's brand at $14.9 billion in 2005, making it the world's topmost consumer electronics brand, a position long held by more entrenched player Sony. Furthermore, Samsung's brand, now ranked at No. 20 position among the top 100 global brands, has posted the biggest gain in value of any global brand with a 186 per cent surge over the past five years.&lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt; "Samsung is presently ranked at the 20th position, an improvement on its 21st place in 2004, 25th place in 2003 and 34th place in 2002, and occupies a slot ahead of Japan's Sony which has moved down to the 28th position this year, after seeing a drop in value by 16 per cent to US$10.7 billion. The 2005 rankings rewarded companies that focused on every detail of their brands, developed simple, cohesive identities consistent in every product, every market around the world, and every contact with consumers."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RE: &#8220;Samsung passed Sony.&#8221;<br /> The statement becomes more precise with a few more words: &#8220;Samsung passed Sony in Brand Value.&#8221; </p>
<p> LetsGoDigital, 8 November 2005: Samsung Belongs To Best Consumer Electronics Brand</p>
<p> IIse Jurrien writes: &#8220;In a survey of the top 100 global brands, BusinessWeek magazine &#038; Interbrand Consultancy have valued Samsung&#8217;s brand at $14.9 billion in 2005, making it the world&#8217;s topmost consumer electronics brand, a position long held by more entrenched player Sony. Furthermore, Samsung&#8217;s brand, now ranked at No. 20 position among the top 100 global brands, has posted the biggest gain in value of any global brand with a 186 per cent surge over the past five years.</p>
<p> &#8220;Samsung is presently ranked at the 20th position, an improvement on its 21st place in 2004, 25th place in 2003 and 34th place in 2002, and occupies a slot ahead of Japan&#8217;s Sony which has moved down to the 28th position this year, after seeing a drop in value by 16 per cent to US$10.7 billion. The 2005 rankings rewarded companies that focused on every detail of their brands, developed simple, cohesive identities consistent in every product, every market around the world, and every contact with consumers.&#8221;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: CantElope</title>
		<link>http://www.emailbattles.com/2005/11/15/virus_aacbjiagfi_gg/#comment-146</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:34:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.emailbattles.com/2005/11/15/virus_aacbjiagfi_gg/#comment-146</guid>
					<description>1970 - 1995 Sony: Biggest &#038; Best&lt;br&gt; 2003: Matsushita wins in sales &#038; profit&lt;br&gt; 2005: Samsung passes them.&lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt; It took Sony 50 years to build a reputation they killed in less than 10. Sony BMG is just another nail in the coffin. Pity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1970 - 1995 Sony: Biggest &#038; Best<br /> 2003: Matsushita wins in sales &#038; profit<br /> 2005: Samsung passes them.</p>
<p> It took Sony 50 years to build a reputation they killed in less than 10. Sony BMG is just another nail in the coffin. Pity.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: CentralCasting</title>
		<link>http://www.emailbattles.com/2005/11/15/virus_aacbjiagfi_gg/#comment-145</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2005 08:54:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.emailbattles.com/2005/11/15/virus_aacbjiagfi_gg/#comment-145</guid>
					<description>They may not be dead now, but they will be, if they keep treating legitimate customers like criminals.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They may not be dead now, but they will be, if they keep treating legitimate customers like criminals.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: telly</title>
		<link>http://www.emailbattles.com/2005/11/15/virus_aacbjiagfi_gg/#comment-144</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2005 08:49:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.emailbattles.com/2005/11/15/virus_aacbjiagfi_gg/#comment-144</guid>
					<description>I know that Sony/BMG is shooting themselves in the foot, but it might be overstating to call them dead...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know that Sony/BMG is shooting themselves in the foot, but it might be overstating to call them dead&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
