Rewriting history much ? In October 1998, Internet Explorer barely had 40% (source : http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/survey-1998-10/graphs/technology/q41.htm). It plummets from there, and many sites report that by the beginning of 1999, IE had jumped to over 60%. Windows 98 bundling didn't help uh ? You guys ignoring history is very funny. It used to be Browsers could get bundling deals with ISP. Windows 98 pretty much ended the need for ISP "install disks" and pushed Internet Explorer unto the users. The DOJ agrees, trying to say it ain't so 10 years later doesn't change the facts.
Same argument you made in a different article about IE. Funny how you always seem to reply to these with the same boiler plate responses. Microsoft's dominance over the Web came with Windows 98's bundling of Internet Explorer 4. The Netscape rewrite had nothing to do with it, and there were other rendering engines and browsers out at the time besides Internet Explorer and Netscape.
Since you're just a paid Microsoft shill, this conversation is pretty much over. You'll always make false claims and bend the truth to make it seem like IE's rise to fame was based on merit, rather than monopoly abuse.
I've been on the Internet since about 1995. You rewriting history in order to make it seem Microsoft actually got where they are through merit is laughable at best.
Only a Microsoft shill or troll would believe that people actually choose Windows. Windows as been imposed on the whole population through vendor lock-in and monopoly abuse. This has been tried and proven twice already. Microsoft today doesn't need its tactics of old to get Windows on all computers, they just have to prevent user education. This is as worse as when they would threaten OEMs to ship Windows and only Windows or have their right to even ship Windows be revoked.
Actually, as long as Microsoft keep pushing their one-vendor lock-in agenda, the icon is appropriate and not past its due date. When Microsoft becomes a beacon of openess that respects diversity, then the icon should be changed. The Borgs represent uniformity and control. Exactly what Microsoft stands for.
Of course, that couldn't happen, because unlike Microsoft, other browsers don't have a monopoly market they can exploit to force OEMs to bundle their browsers and only their browsers.
It's far from pointless. People don't browse the web using a rendering engine, they use a browser. An HTML rendering engine is useless on its own. People need a way to tell the rendering engine what pages to load and render and a way to store caches, cookies, etc.. Leave the rendering engine on the system for help files, display in other apps, etc... that doesn't matter at all. As long as people are free to choose what they browse the web with, you remove Microsoft's dominance over web technologies and web evolution and that is the true goal.
The cost of the browser is not the issue, the control over what technologies get used on the Web is. Microsoft have proven that they don't want to play fair, by ignoring standards for so long and promoting their proprietary stuff. If Microsoft were to have a really poor market share, they'd have to write all their stuff for the open web, respecting standards so that everything works for every user. If they have 90% of all users on their platform, they can make sure that the other 10% are stuck trying to be compatible.
This is basically what IE6 was and what IE represents. Their browser might be free as in beer to the user, but the indirect costs are enormous.
You're 12 right ? At least, you think and act like a 12 year old. Sharing a file to millions of people around the globe is the same thing as cranking up the volume in your car in traffic ? Of course it isn't, and that defense would fly about as well as Tennebaum's defense in a court room. One is fair use, the other is mass unlicensed distribution.
Like you're free to make your own sandwich, you're free to make your own music. If you want to listen to what the RIAA is peddling, you pay their price. Why is that so hard to understand ? What you think is a fair value for the music doesn't matter and isn't justification for infringing on the RIAA's copyright.
What does lines of code even represent as harm ? Your original project is intact, all your lines of code are there, it still works, it's still available. There is no harm, only loss of opportunity. Hey, that's exactly like the RIAA. They don't actually lose anything (if you listen to all the anti-RIAA zealots), they don't even lose a sale according to some, because they listen to RIAA crap all day, but would never buy it. What the RIAA loses is opportunity to make a sale.
So in a sense, a GPL project suffers the same damages as the RIAA when someone doesn't respect the license. That's why you have statutory damages in place, in order to deter such activities in the first place.
The problem isn't downloading of the songs, it's the uploading (unlicensed distribution). People throwing around the "downloading songs" are about as cluefull as the guys claiming it's "stealing music". Both camps don't even understand the issue at hand here and are just biased.
All of the RIAA cases are against people that have uploaded music to MediaSentry (the company that finds culprits for the RIAA). So it's counter-intuitive to say these guys were "merely downloading" when they were in fact distributing copyrighted material. Think about people having their download folder as their share folder in older P2P apps or people using BitTorrent. The high damages awarded by copyright law is for unlicensed distribution, which this guy admitted to doing.
Of course, the solution is quite simple : Don't copy songs that are still covered under copyright. If you want music made by RIAA affiliated artists, they pay for it. If it's not worth it to you, why are you even encouraging them ?
And as I said, you need to recoup the costs of making said movie. Not to mention what you say is again patently false. Online distribution, retail distribution, marketing, customer service, none of that is free and is all things that need to be done in order to get the copy from Disney to your TV/PC/portable device. So spouting BS like it's fact when you're wrong.
Your teachers were amateurs. Word count was a much better metric and harder to circumvent. Sure you could over-abuse propositions, but then your text sounded like it was written by a first grader and you failed.
Libraries have an implied license to such temporary distribution. Usually, the distro groups don't have said license. The only hypocrisy is expecting something for nothing when you yourself expect to be paid for your work. Change the laws if you don't like them, for now, the lawsuits are legit, if not carried in a legitimate way.
So I guess digital artists, render farms, scripters, voice actors, offices, studios, storage, marketing, bandwidth, online store servers, customer service representatives are all free and cost zero right ? Sure they are fixed cost except for bandwidth, and one more or less copy doesn't change these, but the cost of distribution is not zero, it is just a bit smaller for every copy sold. So let's stop saying it's free and pure profit for them. That is as true as saying that downloading your copy is stealing.
You need to crack the baseband in order to use the phone on another provider. So no, that wouldn't fix the problem has you put it, as jailbreaking the phone is done mostly to use the damn thing on another provider.
Wait a minute, you mean errors can't be willful ? So if someone does something willfully, deliberately and with an intent, he can't later realise his mistake and make amends ? I think you need to review your position on this.
What rubbish! You're just like the MPAA/RIAA. You need to stop being such a greedy bastard and just put up the ISO for download on some public tracker. Just had a.txt file to the root of the image that says that if people like the game, they can send you money. That's how it should be and you'll make tons of money that way! I read it here on slashdot.
Do I really need to put the sarcasm end tag here now ?
Except that here, the case is about someone distributing copyrighted material to which they had no license. In a sense, to use your analogy, the guy who sold you the gun didn't have the right to do it in the first place.
No, it's closer to someone uploading said music to other people on the Internet. Let's face it, there is no analogy that is going to be 100% perfect. It still is copyright infrigment to distribute the music without a proper license to do so, and this is why these people are getting sued.
Slashdot Mirror
Rewriting history much ? In October 1998, Internet Explorer barely had 40% (source : http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys/survey-1998-10/graphs/technology/q41.htm). It plummets from there, and many sites report that by the beginning of 1999, IE had jumped to over 60%. Windows 98 bundling didn't help uh ? You guys ignoring history is very funny. It used to be Browsers could get bundling deals with ISP. Windows 98 pretty much ended the need for ISP "install disks" and pushed Internet Explorer unto the users. The DOJ agrees, trying to say it ain't so 10 years later doesn't change the facts.
Same argument you made in a different article about IE. Funny how you always seem to reply to these with the same boiler plate responses. Microsoft's dominance over the Web came with Windows 98's bundling of Internet Explorer 4. The Netscape rewrite had nothing to do with it, and there were other rendering engines and browsers out at the time besides Internet Explorer and Netscape.
Since you're just a paid Microsoft shill, this conversation is pretty much over. You'll always make false claims and bend the truth to make it seem like IE's rise to fame was based on merit, rather than monopoly abuse.
I've been on the Internet since about 1995. You rewriting history in order to make it seem Microsoft actually got where they are through merit is laughable at best.
Only a Microsoft shill or troll would believe that people actually choose Windows. Windows as been imposed on the whole population through vendor lock-in and monopoly abuse. This has been tried and proven twice already. Microsoft today doesn't need its tactics of old to get Windows on all computers, they just have to prevent user education. This is as worse as when they would threaten OEMs to ship Windows and only Windows or have their right to even ship Windows be revoked.
Actually, as long as Microsoft keep pushing their one-vendor lock-in agenda, the icon is appropriate and not past its due date. When Microsoft becomes a beacon of openess that respects diversity, then the icon should be changed. The Borgs represent uniformity and control. Exactly what Microsoft stands for.
Of course, that couldn't happen, because unlike Microsoft, other browsers don't have a monopoly market they can exploit to force OEMs to bundle their browsers and only their browsers.
It's far from pointless. People don't browse the web using a rendering engine, they use a browser. An HTML rendering engine is useless on its own. People need a way to tell the rendering engine what pages to load and render and a way to store caches, cookies, etc.. Leave the rendering engine on the system for help files, display in other apps, etc... that doesn't matter at all. As long as people are free to choose what they browse the web with, you remove Microsoft's dominance over web technologies and web evolution and that is the true goal.
The cost of the browser is not the issue, the control over what technologies get used on the Web is. Microsoft have proven that they don't want to play fair, by ignoring standards for so long and promoting their proprietary stuff. If Microsoft were to have a really poor market share, they'd have to write all their stuff for the open web, respecting standards so that everything works for every user. If they have 90% of all users on their platform, they can make sure that the other 10% are stuck trying to be compatible. This is basically what IE6 was and what IE represents. Their browser might be free as in beer to the user, but the indirect costs are enormous.
You're 12 right ? At least, you think and act like a 12 year old. Sharing a file to millions of people around the globe is the same thing as cranking up the volume in your car in traffic ? Of course it isn't, and that defense would fly about as well as Tennebaum's defense in a court room. One is fair use, the other is mass unlicensed distribution.
Like you're free to make your own sandwich, you're free to make your own music. If you want to listen to what the RIAA is peddling, you pay their price. Why is that so hard to understand ? What you think is a fair value for the music doesn't matter and isn't justification for infringing on the RIAA's copyright.
What does lines of code even represent as harm ? Your original project is intact, all your lines of code are there, it still works, it's still available. There is no harm, only loss of opportunity. Hey, that's exactly like the RIAA. They don't actually lose anything (if you listen to all the anti-RIAA zealots), they don't even lose a sale according to some, because they listen to RIAA crap all day, but would never buy it. What the RIAA loses is opportunity to make a sale.
So in a sense, a GPL project suffers the same damages as the RIAA when someone doesn't respect the license. That's why you have statutory damages in place, in order to deter such activities in the first place.
The problem isn't downloading of the songs, it's the uploading (unlicensed distribution). People throwing around the "downloading songs" are about as cluefull as the guys claiming it's "stealing music". Both camps don't even understand the issue at hand here and are just biased.
All of the RIAA cases are against people that have uploaded music to MediaSentry (the company that finds culprits for the RIAA). So it's counter-intuitive to say these guys were "merely downloading" when they were in fact distributing copyrighted material. Think about people having their download folder as their share folder in older P2P apps or people using BitTorrent. The high damages awarded by copyright law is for unlicensed distribution, which this guy admitted to doing.
Of course, the solution is quite simple : Don't copy songs that are still covered under copyright. If you want music made by RIAA affiliated artists, they pay for it. If it's not worth it to you, why are you even encouraging them ?
But it all works. Too bad that stick up your ass won't let you figure it out.
And as I said, you need to recoup the costs of making said movie. Not to mention what you say is again patently false. Online distribution, retail distribution, marketing, customer service, none of that is free and is all things that need to be done in order to get the copy from Disney to your TV/PC/portable device. So spouting BS like it's fact when you're wrong.
Your teachers were amateurs. Word count was a much better metric and harder to circumvent. Sure you could over-abuse propositions, but then your text sounded like it was written by a first grader and you failed.
Libraries have an implied license to such temporary distribution. Usually, the distro groups don't have said license. The only hypocrisy is expecting something for nothing when you yourself expect to be paid for your work. Change the laws if you don't like them, for now, the lawsuits are legit, if not carried in a legitimate way.
So I guess digital artists, render farms, scripters, voice actors, offices, studios, storage, marketing, bandwidth, online store servers, customer service representatives are all free and cost zero right ? Sure they are fixed cost except for bandwidth, and one more or less copy doesn't change these, but the cost of distribution is not zero, it is just a bit smaller for every copy sold. So let's stop saying it's free and pure profit for them. That is as true as saying that downloading your copy is stealing.
You need to crack the baseband in order to use the phone on another provider. So no, that wouldn't fix the problem has you put it, as jailbreaking the phone is done mostly to use the damn thing on another provider.
Monopolist ? You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
Wait a minute, you mean errors can't be willful ? So if someone does something willfully, deliberately and with an intent, he can't later realise his mistake and make amends ? I think you need to review your position on this.
What rubbish! You're just like the MPAA/RIAA. You need to stop being such a greedy bastard and just put up the ISO for download on some public tracker. Just had a .txt file to the root of the image that says that if people like the game, they can send you money. That's how it should be and you'll make tons of money that way! I read it here on slashdot.
Do I really need to put the sarcasm end tag here now ?
Except that here, the case is about someone distributing copyrighted material to which they had no license. In a sense, to use your analogy, the guy who sold you the gun didn't have the right to do it in the first place.
No, it's closer to someone uploading said music to other people on the Internet. Let's face it, there is no analogy that is going to be 100% perfect. It still is copyright infrigment to distribute the music without a proper license to do so, and this is why these people are getting sued.