The RIAA is not suing someone because they ripped their CDs. Their allegation is the same old story: defender made songs available for download.
In the course of their case they are trying to sneak in the idea that ripping a CD is unauthorized, which they think will help their main allegation (the unlawful distribution of the songs on the Internet).
I guess they will regret it in the end. The way I understand it, case law is what establishes fair use and if the judge rules that ripping a CD for personal use is OK, then fair use defense is forever strengthened.
But none of that means that the RIAA is starting to sue customers just because they are ripping CDs, which makes the main point of the article completely inaccurate.
I don't think the author's argument was that Apple shouldn't maximize its profits, but that they are doing it the wrong way. He even gives Sony as an example of platform lock-in that doesn't work (BetaMax, DAT tape, the MiniDisc, the UMD, the CDs with rootkits, and now even Blu-Ray).
I wonder how many more iPhones Apple would have sold if people could just use any SIM cards with it. I wonder how many more iPhones would've been sold if people had Java, Flash, and even Skype as third-party options.
I think Apple would've sold one million of those highly profitable $600 devices on that first weekend alone!
The article about Apple, RIAA, and ringtones was very informative, but it departs from a premise that's not always true.
And here it is: what if the sounds I want to use as ringtones are my own creation, or public domain, or licensed under a CC license, or cleared by means other than an iTunes purchase?
And what about new business models? What if some upcoming artists (or established ones like They Might be Giants) want to release samples and allow them to be used as ringtones and copied around?
The author mentions that people are used to think they can do anything they want with the "music they own". Well, he forgets that sometimes those people do indeed own that music (or broad rights to it).
The truth is, complicated as Copyright law may be, Apple and the RIAA went too far. Way too far. Those companies behave as if there is nothing other than their rights to look after and I deeply resent them for that (as do most music lovers) and they deserve the bashing.
In the month that everybody and their mothers are talking about the iPhone, TiVo and Verizon decide to announce a service (yep, $2 a month to use it) that allows you to... drum rolls please... schedule recordings from your cell phone! Wow! It's not like everybody could do that already from their web-capable cell phones, is it? Wait. They can!? And for free! Now, the one good marketing move would be to release the online scheduling site optimized for the iPhone, which is something their developers could do overnight. The reason for doing that? Well, lots of free PR, what else? Everybody was already talking about the iPhone, so why not get that crowd to talk about TiVo as well?
And they also launched a new service where you can upload a home movie to a web site and your friends and family members can watch it on their TiVos. Wait. Wouldn't it be simpler to just upload your home movie to YouTube and send them an e-mail with the link? Yes it would. And it would be free too. Now if TiVo supported YouTube just like AppleTV, now that would be something...
Then there's the whole TiVo Series3 thing: it was released without TiVoToGo because the HD content owners would sue TiVo. But wait... couldn't TiVo just allow transfers of standard definition shows and block HD content? Yes, they could. But it took them months to figure that out. If you traded up from a Series 2, you suddenly couldn't copy your shows to your PC anymore. You actually *lost* functionality when you upgraded. Phew!
Amazon Unbox was also a miss. It makes no sense to me to buy a movie from them. It may make sense to rent one though, but Unbox rentals are expensive and expire in 24 hours. Tell me, what's the point of having a DVR if you can't spread your viewing across multiple nights? Honestly, if you can't finish the movie you just rented tonight, too bad. Tomorrow night it won't even be in your TiVo anymore. And for $4? Give me a break. Netflix rules!
Finally, last but not least, the TiVoCast, where you can get just a fraction of the hundreds of video podcasts you can already get for free on the Internet. Why they chose to limit their offerings is beyond me. Maybe they want to help AppleTV sales.
TiVo, get smart. And quickly, please. Just fire your entire marketing team and start over, please.
From now on, whenever Microsoft signs any agreement with anybody, there will be a Linux patent agreement included. Not because it makes any sense to have one, but because Microsoft wants to tell a consistent story. They know too well that corporate America will just fall in line like cattle, so MS is making sure that CIOs everywhere hear the same "lie", that Linux violates MS patents.
Yes, I'm calling it a lie until I see an actual list of patents. Half truths are lies.
Intellectual property doesn't even exist. It's a myth that was created in the hope that people will confuse things like this author did.
Some special interest groups call Copyright, Trademarks and Patents "Intellectual property". It's a big lie that's been told so many times that now people just take it for granted.
Copyright is merely a concession. It shouldn't even be called copyright, it should be called "temporary authorship privilege".
Calling copyright "intellectual property" and even going as far as trying to compare it with other kinds of property is the big crime being done here.
Not only do I think copyright isn't property rights, I also think there should be another differentiator: authors should be prohibited from transferring copyrights. Authors should be allowed two options: either assert or deny your rights (public domain). No transfers or assignments.
They had already given the breakdown in the Fortune article:
"He says that the Linux kernel - the deepest layer of the free operating system, which interacts most directly with the computer hardware - violates 42 Microsoft patents. The Linux graphical user interfaces - essentially, the way design elements like menus and toolbars are set up - run afoul of another 65, he claims. The Open Office suite of programs, which is analogous to Microsoft Office, infringes 45 more. E-mail programs infringe 15, while other assorted FOSS programs allegedly transgress 68."
And this new article even admits that: "The patent figures were first reported by Fortune magazine."
Well, he doesn't say which software or which patents. I wish they would get to it soon, because I'm getting tired of this. It's also a very risky move by Microsoft. It's likely half of those patents will be voided in the process.
But if you wanted proof that the SCO vs IBM lawsuit was over, this is it. Microsoft knows SCO won't be eating Linux's lunch anytime soon, and figured that they will need to get their hands dirty.
I say bring it on bitch! If they sue, I hereby pledge $400 (the price of Windows Vista Ultimate) if the victim opens a defense fund.
Meanwhile, I'm making a donation to the Public Patent Foundation (Pubpat.org). You should too if you care about Open Source. Actually, you should even if you don't care about open source. Bad patents are bad for everyone.
A Google search now will bring a lot more results for "David Mullins", won't it?
This guy should not have sued. Now he's that much more famous, and for the wrong reasons.
Good luck finding a job now, pal. And pay your lawyers.
Some psychiatrists estimate that 5-10% of the male population are sociopaths (about 2% for females). The Internet puts a lower bar for comments in general. That factor combined with the perception of anonymity makes those sociopaths more willing to come out of the closet, so to speak.
It's a real problem, but you can't really just arrest 5% of the male population, right? Suppressing comments or removing anonymity is like throwing the baby away with the bath water. I don't think we should give up anonymity, and I don't agree we should stop blogging.
I think we just need to speak out when it happens, and call the police whenever the bad behavior escalates to death threats. If IP addresses are enough for the RIAA to use against file sharers, it should be enough to go after the sociopaths.
I'm sorry for what happened to this particular blogger, but I wish she wouldn't just retract from public life. Be brave, Kathy. Don't give in to fear.
Maybe. But if the ad should be pulled, then maybe children should be blindfolded to ride on cars, right? Otherwise, they will see a parent driving the car and will get "ideas"...
Kids regard their parents as models much more than something from the telly. Even bad parents.
If you assume that Steve Ballmer is decent, then he would blush and indeed thrive to have the truth be known and Linux fixed of any violation. That is, if there is any infringement at all. I'm also of the opinion that there isn't, unless he's talking about FAT. And why in the world are people still using that crap anyway? We should be campaigning for the digital devices industry (digital camera and MP3 players for the most part) to support some other file system for their memory modules.
But here's the deal: this is not about truth or logic. It's about uncertainty. As long as Microsoft says nothing, people will be uncertain whether he's bluffing. And as long as people are uncertain, they will behave like roaches and run towards any furniture that might offer some protection.
That's all he has to do. Be quiet. And he wins as long as he stays quiet. Nothing will happen in May, no matter how much you wish for it or how many companies and people come forward to ask the question. By the way, I think the only hope is for someone in the mainstream media to catch Steve Ballmer stuttering when asked to disclose the patents in national television channel. And we know how likely that is!
Of course this will eventually desensitize the victims, unless Microsoft actually sues somebody. But Steve and his gang know that they just need to slow down the loss of customers to Linux for a while longer, while Microsoft entrenches itself more and more. Just a while longer...
Sorry for sounding so negative about this initiative. It's DOA. Nothing short of a lawsuit will bring this matter to light. If Microsoft does the stupid thing of actually threatening someone or some company (not the unspecified, general threats so far), that victim can preemptively sue to force their hand. It will provide some entertainment after SCO vs IBM is closed.
1. The "big 4" want their music protected by DRM. Shame on them.
2. Many indie bands and small record labels don't care about (or even want) DRM.
3. Many bands, many records would just like to be listed by Apple and show up in the search results. Some of those artists would even want to give away their songs for no money at all.
So I ask:
Why not sell both DRM and non-DRM music?
Why not embrace the revolution and turn iTunes into a universal music search tool?
Why not have iTunes interpret CC licenses and automatically aggregate music found online without applying DRM to music licensed without such requirement?
And a nice touch: Why not create an ugly icon (a monster?) to indicate those songs protected by the hateful DRM?
It would be a fun fact to track, if it resisted at least a little bit of scrutiny.
For instance, embedded in the price of each iPod in Brazil is a 60% import tax that has no relation to any other economic indicators.
Should Apple decide to open a factory in the Amazon region to assemble iPods, that would lower the price of the little devices by at least 30%. But what does that tell anyone in terms of Brazilian economy? I think not much.
Google is not creating a bandwidth shortage. It's predicting future demand and preparing for it. They know there's not going to be enough for everybody.
Slashdot Mirror
The University did not "Bow to RIAAs Demands", they obeyed a court order.
That's a World of difference, my friend.
The RIAA is not suing someone because they ripped their CDs. Their allegation is the same old story: defender made songs available for download.
In the course of their case they are trying to sneak in the idea that ripping a CD is unauthorized, which they think will help their main allegation (the unlawful distribution of the songs on the Internet).
I guess they will regret it in the end. The way I understand it, case law is what establishes fair use and if the judge rules that ripping a CD for personal use is OK, then fair use defense is forever strengthened.
But none of that means that the RIAA is starting to sue customers just because they are ripping CDs, which makes the main point of the article completely inaccurate.
This case is still about P2P distribution.
I agree. John shows his own prejudice clearly: he thinks there are only two kinds of people in the World: Americans and 6 billion starving people.
I don't think the author's argument was that Apple shouldn't maximize its profits, but that they are doing it the wrong way. He even gives Sony as an example of platform lock-in that doesn't work (BetaMax, DAT tape, the MiniDisc, the UMD, the CDs with rootkits, and now even Blu-Ray).
I wonder how many more iPhones Apple would have sold if people could just use any SIM cards with it. I wonder how many more iPhones would've been sold if people had Java, Flash, and even Skype as third-party options.
I think Apple would've sold one million of those highly profitable $600 devices on that first weekend alone!
The article about Apple, RIAA, and ringtones was very informative, but it departs from a premise that's not always true.
And here it is: what if the sounds I want to use as ringtones are my own creation, or public domain, or licensed under a CC license, or cleared by means other than an iTunes purchase?
And what about new business models? What if some upcoming artists (or established ones like They Might be Giants) want to release samples and allow them to be used as ringtones and copied around?
The author mentions that people are used to think they can do anything they want with the "music they own". Well, he forgets that sometimes those people do indeed own that music (or broad rights to it).
The truth is, complicated as Copyright law may be, Apple and the RIAA went too far. Way too far. Those companies behave as if there is nothing other than their rights to look after and I deeply resent them for that (as do most music lovers) and they deserve the bashing.
In the month that everybody and their mothers are talking about the iPhone, TiVo and Verizon decide to announce a service (yep, $2 a month to use it) that allows you to... drum rolls please... schedule recordings from your cell phone! Wow! It's not like everybody could do that already from their web-capable cell phones, is it? Wait. They can!? And for free! Now, the one good marketing move would be to release the online scheduling site optimized for the iPhone, which is something their developers could do overnight. The reason for doing that? Well, lots of free PR, what else? Everybody was already talking about the iPhone, so why not get that crowd to talk about TiVo as well?
And they also launched a new service where you can upload a home movie to a web site and your friends and family members can watch it on their TiVos. Wait. Wouldn't it be simpler to just upload your home movie to YouTube and send them an e-mail with the link? Yes it would. And it would be free too. Now if TiVo supported YouTube just like AppleTV, now that would be something...
Then there's the whole TiVo Series3 thing: it was released without TiVoToGo because the HD content owners would sue TiVo. But wait... couldn't TiVo just allow transfers of standard definition shows and block HD content? Yes, they could. But it took them months to figure that out. If you traded up from a Series 2, you suddenly couldn't copy your shows to your PC anymore. You actually *lost* functionality when you upgraded. Phew!
Amazon Unbox was also a miss. It makes no sense to me to buy a movie from them. It may make sense to rent one though, but Unbox rentals are expensive and expire in 24 hours. Tell me, what's the point of having a DVR if you can't spread your viewing across multiple nights? Honestly, if you can't finish the movie you just rented tonight, too bad. Tomorrow night it won't even be in your TiVo anymore. And for $4? Give me a break. Netflix rules!
Finally, last but not least, the TiVoCast, where you can get just a fraction of the hundreds of video podcasts you can already get for free on the Internet. Why they chose to limit their offerings is beyond me. Maybe they want to help AppleTV sales.
TiVo, get smart. And quickly, please. Just fire your entire marketing team and start over, please.
I guess we'll just need to get used to this crap.
From now on, whenever Microsoft signs any agreement with anybody, there will be a Linux patent agreement included. Not because it makes any sense to have one, but because Microsoft wants to tell a consistent story. They know too well that corporate America will just fall in line like cattle, so MS is making sure that CIOs everywhere hear the same "lie", that Linux violates MS patents.
Yes, I'm calling it a lie until I see an actual list of patents. Half truths are lies.
Intellectual property doesn't even exist. It's a myth that was created in the hope that people will confuse things like this author did.
Some special interest groups call Copyright, Trademarks and Patents "Intellectual property". It's a big lie that's been told so many times that now people just take it for granted.
Copyright is merely a concession. It shouldn't even be called copyright, it should be called "temporary authorship privilege".
Calling copyright "intellectual property" and even going as far as trying to compare it with other kinds of property is the big crime being done here.
Not only do I think copyright isn't property rights, I also think there should be another differentiator: authors should be prohibited from transferring copyrights. Authors should be allowed two options: either assert or deny your rights (public domain). No transfers or assignments.
Dupe.
They had already given the breakdown in the Fortune article:
"He says that the Linux kernel - the deepest layer of the free operating system, which interacts most directly with the computer hardware - violates 42 Microsoft patents. The Linux graphical user interfaces - essentially, the way design elements like menus and toolbars are set up - run afoul of another 65, he claims. The Open Office suite of programs, which is analogous to Microsoft Office, infringes 45 more. E-mail programs infringe 15, while other assorted FOSS programs allegedly transgress 68."
And this new article even admits that: "The patent figures were first reported by Fortune magazine."
Nothing new to see here.
Well, he doesn't say which software or which patents. I wish they would get to it soon, because I'm getting tired of this. It's also a very risky move by Microsoft. It's likely half of those patents will be voided in the process.
But if you wanted proof that the SCO vs IBM lawsuit was over, this is it. Microsoft knows SCO won't be eating Linux's lunch anytime soon, and figured that they will need to get their hands dirty.
I say bring it on bitch! If they sue, I hereby pledge $400 (the price of Windows Vista Ultimate) if the victim opens a defense fund.
Meanwhile, I'm making a donation to the Public Patent Foundation (Pubpat.org). You should too if you care about Open Source. Actually, you should even if you don't care about open source. Bad patents are bad for everyone.
I wish at least once they wouldn't milk the cow until the milk is sour...
And the worst that could happen is if they "think" it will come back, leave us in a cliffhanger, and then end the series abruptly.
They should know that DVD sets of unfinished series sell less.
A Google search now will bring a lot more results for "David Mullins", won't it? This guy should not have sued. Now he's that much more famous, and for the wrong reasons. Good luck finding a job now, pal. And pay your lawyers.
If this subject interests you, then you should also read Joel Spolsky's account of his first BillG review: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/06/16.htm l
If the Sims were more sexually satisfying, I think rapers wouldn't even bother to go to Second Life to find a victim.
Some psychiatrists estimate that 5-10% of the male population are sociopaths (about 2% for females). The Internet puts a lower bar for comments in general. That factor combined with the perception of anonymity makes those sociopaths more willing to come out of the closet, so to speak.
It's a real problem, but you can't really just arrest 5% of the male population, right? Suppressing comments or removing anonymity is like throwing the baby away with the bath water. I don't think we should give up anonymity, and I don't agree we should stop blogging.
I think we just need to speak out when it happens, and call the police whenever the bad behavior escalates to death threats. If IP addresses are enough for the RIAA to use against file sharers, it should be enough to go after the sociopaths.
I'm sorry for what happened to this particular blogger, but I wish she wouldn't just retract from public life. Be brave, Kathy. Don't give in to fear.
Maybe. But if the ad should be pulled, then maybe children should be blindfolded to ride on cars, right? Otherwise, they will see a parent driving the car and will get "ideas"...
Kids regard their parents as models much more than something from the telly. Even bad parents.
If you assume that Steve Ballmer is decent, then he would blush and indeed thrive to have the truth be known and Linux fixed of any violation. That is, if there is any infringement at all. I'm also of the opinion that there isn't, unless he's talking about FAT. And why in the world are people still using that crap anyway? We should be campaigning for the digital devices industry (digital camera and MP3 players for the most part) to support some other file system for their memory modules.
But here's the deal: this is not about truth or logic. It's about uncertainty. As long as Microsoft says nothing, people will be uncertain whether he's bluffing. And as long as people are uncertain, they will behave like roaches and run towards any furniture that might offer some protection.
That's all he has to do. Be quiet. And he wins as long as he stays quiet. Nothing will happen in May, no matter how much you wish for it or how many companies and people come forward to ask the question. By the way, I think the only hope is for someone in the mainstream media to catch Steve Ballmer stuttering when asked to disclose the patents in national television channel. And we know how likely that is!
Of course this will eventually desensitize the victims, unless Microsoft actually sues somebody. But Steve and his gang know that they just need to slow down the loss of customers to Linux for a while longer, while Microsoft entrenches itself more and more. Just a while longer...
Sorry for sounding so negative about this initiative. It's DOA. Nothing short of a lawsuit will bring this matter to light. If Microsoft does the stupid thing of actually threatening someone or some company (not the unspecified, general threats so far), that victim can preemptively sue to force their hand. It will provide some entertainment after SCO vs IBM is closed.
1. The "big 4" want their music protected by DRM. Shame on them.
2. Many indie bands and small record labels don't care about (or even want) DRM.
3. Many bands, many records would just like to be listed by Apple and show up in the search results. Some of those artists would even want to give away their songs for no money at all.
So I ask:
Why not sell both DRM and non-DRM music?
Why not embrace the revolution and turn iTunes into a universal music search tool?
Why not have iTunes interpret CC licenses and automatically aggregate music found online without applying DRM to music licensed without such requirement?
And a nice touch: Why not create an ugly icon (a monster?) to indicate those songs protected by the hateful DRM?
It would be a fun fact to track, if it resisted at least a little bit of scrutiny.
For instance, embedded in the price of each iPod in Brazil is a 60% import tax that has no relation to any other economic indicators.
Should Apple decide to open a factory in the Amazon region to assemble iPods, that would lower the price of the little devices by at least 30%. But what does that tell anyone in terms of Brazilian economy? I think not much.
Google is not creating a bandwidth shortage. It's predicting future demand and preparing for it. They know there's not going to be enough for everybody.