Nikon and Canon are hardware manufacturers. Nikon's Nikkor lens technology was very popular among photographers (possibly still is - it's been a while I was active in photography), and for a lens it basically doesn't matter whether there's a CCD or a chemical film behind. A relatively easy transition as it "just" requires changes to the body of the camera. The optics are the hardest part of the camera to get right, and still are what make a good camera expensive. Those parts also won't come down in price like electronic parts do.
Kodak was known primarily for it's film and related products. That of course is not an easy transition to digital as it negates the need for film. It's hard for a company to do away with their core business voluntarily.
Fuji I also know for it's film, but indeed they (like many Japanese companies) were very broad based. And then picking up electronics production as needed to make their snapshot cameras like FinePix is also a less big transition.
It is probably because patents mostly work as intended: basically to promote the disclosure of trade secrets by giving a temporary monopoly in return (yes yes I know patent trolls are there as well and so, it's not perfect). As a result the companies benefit from both the issuing of patents, and the expiry of other companies' patents.
While issuing copyrights benefit the creators, but expiry of copyrights mainly benefits consumers. Media creators have generally very little benefit, if at all, from the expiry of other creator's copyrights, as there are plenty of ways that a creator can benefit from other people's works while under copyright: by getting inspiration, by parodying, etc.
Yes, wings have quite some flexibility. During take-off you can really see the wing slowly bend upwards while it takes up more and more of the weight of the plane.
That said, sometimes talking to people they would also mention that they feel so scared when they see an airplane wing flex. Especially during flight. Then I always tell them that they have to flap their wings to fly, just like birds. It's just the natural thing to do when you have wings. Birds do it, bats, insects - they all flap their wings. So why shouldn't airplanes do the same?
Well insofar MPAA et.al. may provide support and so, when e.g. Sony is listed as plaintiff, then Sony is fully responsible for the suit. They won't allow some third party to take care of it - third party messes up, Sony gets to pick up the pieces. And also I don't think courts will allow someone to file suit in name of someone else. They may be able to do "on behalf of", but even that will be severely limited (see Righthaven and how they got kicked out).
RIAA and MPAA do not initiate law suits. Righthaven did. That's where Righthaven went wrong, and where the RIAA and MPAA do not have a problem. RIAA as organisation is just a scapegoat; you also fell for it obviously; it's the labels themselves that initiate the legal action against infringers. RIAA/MPAA is just a lobby group, and a forum for the individual members to discuss business strategies and cooperation.
There may very well be Internet-only news papers (I don't know any though) that have their own newsroom and do their own writing as well, but this is about aggregators that automatically take content published on other sites and don't get their news directly from agencies like AP/Reuters.
This sounds like it would facilitate real Internet-only news organisations. That do some selection of the news, make it interesting for a certain demographic/locality and can publish complete articles on their own web site - including reprints of article from many other papers without having to ask time and again. Which actually could allow a boost to these web sites as they don't have to link out anymore, and can go about their business legally. Basically just like any traditional paper.
The summary and the article (which itself is a blog post) are not clear on what they mean with aggregators. Do they indeed only post headlines? Summaries too? Or even complete articles? Do they use RSS feeds or other ways to get to the content?
If it's only headlines: there is no case for this business. They drive traffic to the main sites, no doubt about it.
If it includes summaries: well I don't know the details of "fair use" other than that it's ambiguous. You argue it is, others may argue it's not. This should also be a traffic driver, but probably less so than when just posting headlines.
Reposting the complete article well that's of course a copyright violation. Aggregators that do this, should simply pay for the right to do so.
RightHaven didn't have the actual rights to the materials they sued about, and that's what took them down. In this case it are the original content produces, i.e. the actual right holders, that are trying to collect royalties.
And there are no "secret agreements". Most of the time the company forbids such things is because there is no support, or because there is no ability of the in-house technical support to provide assistance with it.
There is a difference between white-listing certain applications because that's what a company decides to support, and adding to this list whenever there is a need, and a blanket ban on free or open source software where it's banned for being free and/or open source.
The first I can totally understand. You can't support just everything.
The second totally not. There is no reason why a software packed becomes easier to support by an IT department because the source code is not available.
Of long nights going through large stacks of 3.5" disks trying to re-install a crashed system, only to find that the final disk has a CRC check failure.
Honestly I can do a complete wipe and restore in under 5 days for a company that has 1000 employees and 20 servers.
That's not too bad. But of course any machine that's not been wiped and restored can not be allowed on the network. And for the employees that means up to five days of not being able to do much. That's a long time to wait.
Well it did take them eight years to come with a decent alternative to WinXP... so not that unreasonable to have support extended to five years from the first serious upgrade option (Vista is not considered a serious option here). Otherwise there would have been only two years for the world to upgrade, while most big businesses have 3-5 year cycles.
And I wouldn't be surprised if that AlphaServer of yours and WinNT 3.5 were already not current but tried-and-tested for at least a few years by the time they were deployed.
First of all such a nuclear control system (and industrial control systems in general) tend to be closed systems, not connected to any outside network. At all. So external vulnerabilities are mostly thwarted there and then - sure it can be breached, think Stuxnet, but it's getting pretty hard.
Then, Win NT was considered a pretty stable version of Windows. Win2000 just so. And with a long term experience with the software and its applications we can be quite sure we know its quirks. Not so for Win7. It's new and shiny but does that make it any more stable? Maybe it is but it's definitely not that well tested.
And for those industrial systems: why would you want to change a working system to being with? It worked when it was built, and it will continue to work for a very very long time. There has to be a really good reason to replace your existing control infrastructure, especially when it comes to critical systems like a power plant - critical both in safety and general reliability respects - to warrant an upgrade of the underlying OS.
If you mean with instant search "search while typing in your search terms" then that also works fine in Firefox. I don't use Gmail so no idea about those notifications.
I wouldn't call advertising on your own sites "leveraging a monopoly". It's not like MS that started to bundle IE with Windows, made it harder to install competing browsers (Netscape) and used hidden Windows API calls to have IE outperform Netscape. Also they made their own web sites accessible IE-only, and heavily promoted other web sites to do the same.
Now if Google's search service would give better, faster results when using Chrome than other browsers you're leveraging. Or if they would make their pages accessible by Chrome only, leaving just a basic search page for other browsers out there. They don't do that; they're just using their existing web pages to advertise Chrome, just like they did/do for gmail, g+, google docs, etc.
Netherlands comes to mind. For now at least pretty good legislations, and Amsterdam is historically a major connection point for communications cables between US and Europe. So the place is very well connected too. Europe is generally much more pro-consumer than the US anyway.
Limiting this to the US only would possibly give an even stronger message. It would highlight the advantage the rest of the world has by still having access to those services. Remember the rest of the world may follow the US a lot but they're not downright stupid. If they see the losses causes in the US by the loss of these important services (primarily search; there is no alternative for online search as there is for communications - can always fall back on e-mail for that), they would probably be wise enough not to enact similar legislations.
There is nothing wrong with being a monopoly. And with their current market share it's not that hard to argue they already are a monopoly and have been for the most part of the past decade or so.
The only problem with a monopoly follows if they would leverage that to enter other markets. And that I have yet to see Google do.
And that's not just because I'm out of the US; it's mainly to show the US politicians on how much in a disadvantage they're going to be if Google et.al. would decide to move out of the country and set up shop somewhere in Europe or so, and stop services there (how the actual move would be done I don't know but pushed hard enough they would find a way).
The pay-off being likely to make something where else they would make nothing at all. The cost of running a movie projector can not be that great. The largest costs would be aircon and cleaning afterwards.
Your average politician doesn't seem to have much of a problem with it. Same for many journalists. I know many names, even faces of those that are on TV or with photo in the paper often, but for most of them I don't know where they live, whether they're married or not, what car they drive, etc. That info may be available for those that actively search for it, but it's not posted with their opinions or so.
Posting your opinion about issues is one thing; posting all other personal information all over the place is another thing. Point in case: how much do you know about newyorkcountrylawyer? Well his real name (Ray Beckerman), information about his law firm (see web site), law specialties. That's important, and gives weight to his opinions on copyright law related issues. He probably lives in New York or not far from there. That we know. For the rest we don't know much. Is he married? Children? Previous relations/girlfriends/boyfriends? Crazy escapades while in college? Home telephone number? Car? We don't know. Do you care you don't know? Does that make you "know" him any more or less? Does it make his opinions less important?
Slashdot Mirror
Nikon and Canon are hardware manufacturers. Nikon's Nikkor lens technology was very popular among photographers (possibly still is - it's been a while I was active in photography), and for a lens it basically doesn't matter whether there's a CCD or a chemical film behind. A relatively easy transition as it "just" requires changes to the body of the camera. The optics are the hardest part of the camera to get right, and still are what make a good camera expensive. Those parts also won't come down in price like electronic parts do.
Kodak was known primarily for it's film and related products. That of course is not an easy transition to digital as it negates the need for film. It's hard for a company to do away with their core business voluntarily.
Fuji I also know for it's film, but indeed they (like many Japanese companies) were very broad based. And then picking up electronics production as needed to make their snapshot cameras like FinePix is also a less big transition.
It is probably because patents mostly work as intended: basically to promote the disclosure of trade secrets by giving a temporary monopoly in return (yes yes I know patent trolls are there as well and so, it's not perfect). As a result the companies benefit from both the issuing of patents, and the expiry of other companies' patents.
While issuing copyrights benefit the creators, but expiry of copyrights mainly benefits consumers. Media creators have generally very little benefit, if at all, from the expiry of other creator's copyrights, as there are plenty of ways that a creator can benefit from other people's works while under copyright: by getting inspiration, by parodying, etc.
Yes, wings have quite some flexibility. During take-off you can really see the wing slowly bend upwards while it takes up more and more of the weight of the plane.
That said, sometimes talking to people they would also mention that they feel so scared when they see an airplane wing flex. Especially during flight. Then I always tell them that they have to flap their wings to fly, just like birds. It's just the natural thing to do when you have wings. Birds do it, bats, insects - they all flap their wings. So why shouldn't airplanes do the same?
Well insofar MPAA et.al. may provide support and so, when e.g. Sony is listed as plaintiff, then Sony is fully responsible for the suit. They won't allow some third party to take care of it - third party messes up, Sony gets to pick up the pieces. And also I don't think courts will allow someone to file suit in name of someone else. They may be able to do "on behalf of", but even that will be severely limited (see Righthaven and how they got kicked out).
RIAA and MPAA do not initiate law suits. Righthaven did. That's where Righthaven went wrong, and where the RIAA and MPAA do not have a problem. RIAA as organisation is just a scapegoat; you also fell for it obviously; it's the labels themselves that initiate the legal action against infringers. RIAA/MPAA is just a lobby group, and a forum for the individual members to discuss business strategies and cooperation.
There may very well be Internet-only news papers (I don't know any though) that have their own newsroom and do their own writing as well, but this is about aggregators that automatically take content published on other sites and don't get their news directly from agencies like AP/Reuters.
This sounds like it would facilitate real Internet-only news organisations. That do some selection of the news, make it interesting for a certain demographic/locality and can publish complete articles on their own web site - including reprints of article from many other papers without having to ask time and again. Which actually could allow a boost to these web sites as they don't have to link out anymore, and can go about their business legally. Basically just like any traditional paper.
The summary and the article (which itself is a blog post) are not clear on what they mean with aggregators. Do they indeed only post headlines? Summaries too? Or even complete articles? Do they use RSS feeds or other ways to get to the content?
If it's only headlines: there is no case for this business. They drive traffic to the main sites, no doubt about it.
If it includes summaries: well I don't know the details of "fair use" other than that it's ambiguous. You argue it is, others may argue it's not. This should also be a traffic driver, but probably less so than when just posting headlines.
Reposting the complete article well that's of course a copyright violation. Aggregators that do this, should simply pay for the right to do so.
RightHaven didn't have the actual rights to the materials they sued about, and that's what took them down. In this case it are the original content produces, i.e. the actual right holders, that are trying to collect royalties.
And there are no "secret agreements". Most of the time the company forbids such things is because there is no support, or because there is no ability of the in-house technical support to provide assistance with it.
There is a difference between white-listing certain applications because that's what a company decides to support, and adding to this list whenever there is a need, and a blanket ban on free or open source software where it's banned for being free and/or open source.
The first I can totally understand. You can't support just everything.
The second totally not. There is no reason why a software packed becomes easier to support by an IT department because the source code is not available.
Everybody knows it is dead already. We don't even NEED NetCraft to confirm it!
That brings memories.
Bad memories.
Of long nights going through large stacks of 3.5" disks trying to re-install a crashed system, only to find that the final disk has a CRC check failure.
You mean to this day BIOS updates require one to have to boot DOS?
Honestly I can do a complete wipe and restore in under 5 days for a company that has 1000 employees and 20 servers.
That's not too bad. But of course any machine that's not been wiped and restored can not be allowed on the network. And for the employees that means up to five days of not being able to do much. That's a long time to wait.
Well it did take them eight years to come with a decent alternative to WinXP... so not that unreasonable to have support extended to five years from the first serious upgrade option (Vista is not considered a serious option here). Otherwise there would have been only two years for the world to upgrade, while most big businesses have 3-5 year cycles.
And I wouldn't be surprised if that AlphaServer of yours and WinNT 3.5 were already not current but tried-and-tested for at least a few years by the time they were deployed.
Well... think about it.
First of all such a nuclear control system (and industrial control systems in general) tend to be closed systems, not connected to any outside network. At all. So external vulnerabilities are mostly thwarted there and then - sure it can be breached, think Stuxnet, but it's getting pretty hard.
Then, Win NT was considered a pretty stable version of Windows. Win2000 just so. And with a long term experience with the software and its applications we can be quite sure we know its quirks. Not so for Win7. It's new and shiny but does that make it any more stable? Maybe it is but it's definitely not that well tested.
And for those industrial systems: why would you want to change a working system to being with? It worked when it was built, and it will continue to work for a very very long time. There has to be a really good reason to replace your existing control infrastructure, especially when it comes to critical systems like a power plant - critical both in safety and general reliability respects - to warrant an upgrade of the underlying OS.
If you mean with instant search "search while typing in your search terms" then that also works fine in Firefox. I don't use Gmail so no idea about those notifications.
I wouldn't call advertising on your own sites "leveraging a monopoly". It's not like MS that started to bundle IE with Windows, made it harder to install competing browsers (Netscape) and used hidden Windows API calls to have IE outperform Netscape. Also they made their own web sites accessible IE-only, and heavily promoted other web sites to do the same.
Now if Google's search service would give better, faster results when using Chrome than other browsers you're leveraging. Or if they would make their pages accessible by Chrome only, leaving just a basic search page for other browsers out there. They don't do that; they're just using their existing web pages to advertise Chrome, just like they did/do for gmail, g+, google docs, etc.
Netherlands comes to mind. For now at least pretty good legislations, and Amsterdam is historically a major connection point for communications cables between US and Europe. So the place is very well connected too. Europe is generally much more pro-consumer than the US anyway.
The loss of one day's worth is far less than the potential losses caused by SOPA. Which include downright closure of your business.
Limiting this to the US only would possibly give an even stronger message. It would highlight the advantage the rest of the world has by still having access to those services. Remember the rest of the world may follow the US a lot but they're not downright stupid. If they see the losses causes in the US by the loss of these important services (primarily search; there is no alternative for online search as there is for communications - can always fall back on e-mail for that), they would probably be wise enough not to enact similar legislations.
There is nothing wrong with being a monopoly. And with their current market share it's not that hard to argue they already are a monopoly and have been for the most part of the past decade or so.
The only problem with a monopoly follows if they would leverage that to enter other markets. And that I have yet to see Google do.
I hope they would make this black-out US only.
And that's not just because I'm out of the US; it's mainly to show the US politicians on how much in a disadvantage they're going to be if Google et.al. would decide to move out of the country and set up shop somewhere in Europe or so, and stop services there (how the actual move would be done I don't know but pushed hard enough they would find a way).
The pay-off being likely to make something where else they would make nothing at all. The cost of running a movie projector can not be that great. The largest costs would be aircon and cleaning afterwards.
Your average politician doesn't seem to have much of a problem with it. Same for many journalists. I know many names, even faces of those that are on TV or with photo in the paper often, but for most of them I don't know where they live, whether they're married or not, what car they drive, etc. That info may be available for those that actively search for it, but it's not posted with their opinions or so.
Posting your opinion about issues is one thing; posting all other personal information all over the place is another thing. Point in case: how much do you know about newyorkcountrylawyer? Well his real name (Ray Beckerman), information about his law firm (see web site), law specialties. That's important, and gives weight to his opinions on copyright law related issues. He probably lives in New York or not far from there. That we know. For the rest we don't know much. Is he married? Children? Previous relations/girlfriends/boyfriends? Crazy escapades while in college? Home telephone number? Car? We don't know. Do you care you don't know? Does that make you "know" him any more or less? Does it make his opinions less important?