Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sued in France for iPod Music Royalties
alex_guy_CA writes "A musicians rights group in France is suing Apple Computer for back royalties due from iPod sales. It seems in France, all CDs, hard drives, and the like owe musicians money in case any of it is used for piracy. Only Apple isn't paying up." I want compensation from sales of Microsoft Windows just in case it is used for spreading viruses.
Great, maybe /. can't but you have to admit that M$FT is a great target for this sort of thing. In reality MS Windows is the greatest vector ever for distributing viruses. Period. One can argue that it's because of its ubiquitous presence or because of its inherent insecurity or its user base which does not seem to understand that outlook is too dangerous for them to use. In any case if M$FT and its attending cheerleaders wish to see this /. practice stop then fix MS windows or encourage M$FT to fix it: each as your roll may allow.
This is absolutely disgusting. What is the deal with some people?
And Jesus was a socialist, btw ;)
Good one. Is this the same European 'international diplomacy' that gave us two World Wars, the Iron Curtain and the Bosnian Civil War?
That's some accomplishment there.
And the US just doesn't use its "big boy voice", we can back them with guns and nukes.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
Unfortunately... And now, the slightly conservative government we have is being bashed by all the communist/socialist idiots. I am sometimes ashamed of being french, seeing all this...
yep, and just like the french, they resort to restricting the religious rights of its citizens.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Then why isn't the US invading North Korea? There is much evidence of the same kind of Human Rights violations and atrocities that existed in Iraq. Well, the answer is that North Korea is not the World's Second Largest Producer of Oil nor do they have any other natural resource the US Military Industrial Complex can take advantage of. You may be sick (I agree) but you are also horribly misguided, and the GOP is using your hatred of the horrors of evil leaders against you. You better believe that if Iraq did not have a huge amount of resources, the US would have not even blinked at Saddam. In all actuallity, if it weren't for the resources in Iraq, Saddam would have never been trained by the CIA and put in power in the first place. Our country is being run by OIL companies and thier ex-leaders, do not ever forget that. Even damn Condoleeze Rice was and Senior Executive and Chevron for 9 years prior to her so called position. You are so fooled!
Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
I Hate \.
The US isn't invading North Korea for three reasons:
North Korea has Nukes.
North Korean nukes can hit South Korean cities.
Kim Il Jong is willing to talk. Saddam wasn't.
This whole oil idea is so stupid I'm surprised people still bring it up. You'd think they'd be ashamed at looking like total morons.
If you wanted cheap oil, all you had to do was lift the sanctions. Saddam didn't have a problem selling his oil to the US at all.
If you wanted cheap oil, invading Kuwait is a whole lot easier than invading Iraq.
Iraq was simply what it was stated to be: The removal of a threat to the United States while the threat was still manageable. We're safer because of it, and the Iraqi people are better off because of it.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Lets examine the differences...
1) Close Allies: (Iraq) Saudi A, Kuaitt; (Korea) Russia, S. Korea, Japan.
2) Risk to Allies if us attacks: (Iraq) Low, (Korea) High.
3) Destabiliztion Risk: (Iraq) Low as Iran, SaudiA, Kuaitt, and Turkey were not close friends of Iraq only one neighbor Syria was a serios risk; (Korea) HIGH! China could become involved (as they did in the Korean War), and the conflict could spread into a Taiwan/China conflict.
As Oil if a fungable commodity if the US wanted cheap oil they could have voted with France to releasse sancations it would have cost a lot less money and driven down the cost of oil far quicker.
Oh, I thought we invaded Iraq becuase they DID have WMD. Which is it? We know NK has WMD, we know they treat their people like shit; Shouldn't we do something about it? OH THE HUMANITY!
Slashdot Eds Link Anonymous Posts With Logged Posts
They Are Vermin Feeding On Each Other's Feces.
I Hate \.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sure, that makes plenty of sense! If you consider Kim Il Jong's "Screw the US and screw the UN; we are going to go ahead and build nukes whether you like it or not" stance as a sign of willingness to talk, I guess you could definitely see the impotent dictator Saddam "Look how long my fox-hole-grown beard is now!" Hussein as the bigger threat.
I'm not pretending that he should have been left alone or that the Iraqis won't _eventually_ be better off without him, but you can't defend Bush's actions by pretending that Saddam was a threat.
We're safer because of it, and the Iraqi people are better off because of it.
Don't make me laugh. You were never in danger because he was never a threat, and the Iraqi people will only be better off when the US military is gone and the country can put itself back together.
This whole oil idea is so stupid I'm surprised people still bring it up. You'd think they'd be ashamed at looking like total morons.
This whole "we are acting in the best interest of the Iraqi people out of goodwill and benevolence" idea is so stupid I'm surprised people still bring it up. You'd think they'd be ashamed at looking like total morons.
Oh no, politics again :-( anyway, the US invaded Iraq for a great many reasons. But one of the reasons is that the Middle East is an area of the world that is of great strategic importance to the US.
Why is this part of the world so important? One of the reasons is the abundance of oil, a vital resource.
Therefore the Iraq war was fought, indirectly and only in part, for oil.
And how exactly? because of not being allowed to wear very visible religious symbols while in class in public schools? You are not allowed to wear a hat there either.
Is this a restriction of religious rights? definitely not. You can believe whatever you believe, and if you are so insistent on wearing whatever religious symbols in class then you better go visit a private school.
This all has to do with 2 things:
- Not being allowed to wear other things that hide part of the face because it simply gets in the way of normal contact between teacher and student, counter argument was that it had to be allowed because of being a religious symbol.
- Actual provocations usign such 'symbols' in schools.
Many countries mandate school uniforms, you also screaming about them? because that definitely also restricts peoples rights to wear what they feel they should wear, including things they'd wear as a religious symbol.
Last but not least, the real problem is a very small group of very vocal muslim people, many muslims of the younger generations here in Erope don't wear a veil and those who do do so more for fashion reasons then religious ones usually (there are exceptions, but see above, those really do have a choice and can wear them almost always if they feel like that, even at school if they dont go to public school but to a private one that allows it)
Most people seem to only know the stereotype muslim woman with veil, well, within the muslim world there is disagreement over if this is actually a required thing, and if it has to do with the religion at all.
At any rate, before you americans scream religious restrictions, you should really look at what the situation is about, and take a look at how the school system there actually works, this is not what it seems, and is definitely not what you (and some small but very vocal muslims) seem to make out of it.
Of course this is modded as "Insightful". Come on folks. You can come up with examples of "oppression" by ANY country.
/. readers seem to have this extreme left fantasy view of what they want government to be. (I would love to see LESS of it, which neither major party seems interested in) But that's a whole other argument.
The US has problems, sure. Get OVER it. It is also a GREAT country. Anywhere you have millions of people living together, you have problems. That's why we have government. Most
And on the Guantanamo subject, lay off. Those people won't be there forever. They are in better condition now than they were in Afghanistan. They are not being abused, just isolated (yes I realize that can be viewed as a form of abuse). Whatever value they might have as sources of information will be gone soon (if not already), and they'll send them home. You DO remember why they're there, right? Taliban? Extreme fundamentalist terrorism? Abuse of women? Al Quaeda?
And how is that any different than the U.S.'s reasons for terrorizing Iraq?
We're protecting Dick Cheney's oil.
Too bad Haiti doesn't have Oil. We could 'solve' their problems too.
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
"He was CIA trained"
Nope, that was Osama bin Laden. Saddam trained himself. Keep the Evil Doers straight!
That's pretty funny, seeing as the US Dollar is now trading at roughly the same exchange with the Euro as the Canadian dollar is to the US Dollar.
This "weak dollar" policy of the Bush administration is likely what's drving the economy at the moment, not the silly tax cuts to the rich.
No we supposedly went in because they were seeking to develop them.. not becuase they had them...
The UN pretty much ignored the genocide in Rwanda too. The was a lot of decrying and bewailing going on in the General Assembly, but I didn't see a lot of blue helmest with rifles on the ground.
Which is the key point. Two intermingled ethnic groups are killing each other. One has the upper hand. Many individuals on both sides have weapons and there are some quasi-organized militias. Both parties (not to put too fine a point on it) look similar to outsiders.
Assume one US airmobile brigade (Rwanda is the size of Maryland at 25k sq km, but it is the most densely populated country in Africa). Plenty of artillery, air, support and satellite assets are available. However, Rwanda is landlocked and bases for supply planes are limited to local civilian and military fields (1 paved strip over 3000m in the country) so you're operating at the end of a long, lousy supply line. Remember how much trouble we have with languages in the Middle East, how little intelligence we have on the ground there ? Absolutely nobody on the planet has a good intelligence picture of that part of Africa. We had a decade to upgrade our sources in the Middle East and it didn't help much what we did, how bad is the Africa desk at the CIA ?
What exactly do you do with the troops ? Seriously. How do you use the men with the rifles ? Round up the Huttu ? Guard the Tutsi ? For how long ? Confiscate all the guns ? Does that *ever* work ?
Rwanda was terrible, but there was nothing anyone could do to bring force to bear on the issue. Not that soon after our well-intentioned misadventure in Somalia - which has ports and many times the airfield capacity. And, incidentally is strategically located near the outlet of the Suez Canal. But that wasn't the deciding factor - accessibility was. You simply can't project enough force into Central Africa to do any good, and there isn't really anything they could do if they were there.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951