Nader's advocacy can be broken down into two points (i) Government procurement should have a policy of looking for more than one vendor and have provisions for preventing vendor lock in. (ii) OSS companies seem to answer well to these software procuement calls.
There's aboslutely nothing wrong with (i). Once we have that legislation in place, (ii) will happen once (i) happens. For MS, or anyone to argue in this way seems to me to be backwards - arguing against the government's RIGHT, as a customer, to ensure that minimal standards of interoperability on the software it purchases are adhered to.
What is force? Is bringing a gun to a negotiation force? A lawyer? Is blackmail "force"?
The equation of the "use of law" == "force" is exactly the problem of you libertarians. If one has any acquaintance with the mafia or other criminal organizations, you will know that force can be used without resort of weapons. I'd rather deal against a government that wields guns but has laws, than a mafia boss that wields no guns, but is willing to do a anything to make a buck.
Respect goes both ways. A file format should not deprive the owner of rights. Reverse engineering should be allowed. That's why the DMCA, which forbids reverse engineering of copyright protection, is a bad piece of legislation.
Alright. Suppose a company makes a proprietry image format and locks their customers to it. Suppose these customers used it for 10-20 years and have been paying it. Now they realise how foolish they have been and want out. Company A refuses. Should company A have that right to refuse, given that they have already been profitting for 10-20? Should they not be FORCED, at least, to write a file converter?
The FORCE aspect is right, but you fail to be specific about what actions is being compelled. These details are the heart of the argument and should not be glossed over.
I think you are right, but ONLY when we are at the initial stage of deciding if we should use the proprietry program. The fact is that saome of these poor decisions have been made by people. It was not the best of all decisions. Now these people with not so much foresight are stuck with these propritry format. Consider for example a photographer who has put his life work into a proprietry image format. What is this guy to do?
If you were to tell this guy "hard luck", then this is just as unjust as the guy who is profiting from this fellow's poor judgement.
Because when the copier sells the copies, he is making money without compensating the writer. This is copyright law. COPYRIGHT LAW IS ABOUT CONTROL, not profits. It is presumed that control over the distribution would allow the writer to determine how much profit he makes. But the writer's motivations need not be profit - don't assume this is so. (For example, what if the author feels the work is unfinished and is embarrased about it?)
And along comes the internet and destroys the idea that writers have control over who distributes or does not distribute his works. So even if the guys who distribute it pay up, you have undermined this simple right of the author.
So the choice is clear - we as a society seem to value interconnectivity and convenience, and all that it implies, more than respect for each other.
I don't know, but I have very mixed feelings about Harlan Ellison suing AOL. He is the writer of his works, and his wishes should be respected. Unfortunately, going after AOL for usenet postings is like hitting out at the poor geek in the corner when one gets bullied.
I wish Mr Ellison would just realize the futility and injustice of doing what he is doing and fight his fine cause elsewhere.
If this becomes widespread, then fingerprint laundering would become widespread. Don't hold that drinking glass at the restaurant too tightly - the waiter may decide to lift the prints and sell it to the Mafia for money. So people will start wearing gloves. Buy stock in glove copmanies!
Whereupon the BLFN (Bin Laden Forever Network) claims responsibility for the damage.
Meanwhile, the FBI arrests Pricilla and her two kids for terrorism. Priscilla refuses to talk citing her right to access to her lawyer. The FBI meanwhile has questioned her two kids and both of them - the brats - say that "they are just one of the tourists".
What do you mean by who else? The users! Maybe car makers should move the steering wheel to the right too upon their whim, nevermind what the American laws says. How about if we sit down and come out with a list of rules about how the APIs should be revealed and frozen? How about if we require MS to give the rest of the software development world a heads up whenever it decides to move core functionality into Windows?
If MS were any good, they would do this, like most OSS projects. But they don't and they lie about this to nontechnical folks.
(5) Microsoft is practicing good design skills by moving needed functionality to a shared library. There's no reason to rewrite an HTML renderer for each component/program that needs to display HTML. IMO, integrated IE is nothing more than an #include file.
I think you will be surprised to note that I agree 100%. I only used IE as an *example*, and couldn't care if netscape loses this argument.
In the light of this, the objection to the above is not that this is a bad thing. It is this: Can we legally replace this IE component wqith the Gecko rendering engine. After all, Gecko is more standards compliant than IE is! It handles tables better too.
Exactly. The argument should be thus: Is IE the core component of Windows? Should we believe Bill Gates who defines "innovation" as the total freedom to move all sorts of things into the core component of Windows? Shouldn't the users of Windows have a say in the matter, rather than assuming that it must be one way or the other?
The dealer is the OEM. You can cut lots of deals with the car dealers. You can ask for a BOSE speakers, without the radio. YOu can request leather seats without heated ones, etc. And if the dealer refuses to negotiate, you have a choice of dealers.
Who are the dealers in the PC world? Dell, Gateway, HP. In each case, MS mandates that they cannnot make such deals with their customers. There was a time when Dell offered Netscape instead of IE. IBM offers Norton Antivirus, not McAffee scan. But if you don't like it, nothing prevents you from doing so. But to replace IE is to reduce the functionality of explorer.exe!
Thank you for giving good reasons for liking TPM. You see, the people complaining about TPM are complaining about the weak plot and bad acting. And in those terms, TPM is worse tham Episode 4-6. But TPM does have that incredible detail that a CGI movie should have, and for noticing that, and having a different viewpoint than the rest of the slashdot crowd - Thank you.
Rosen is asking kids to understand the feeling behind having your work taken and copied and used, and she is doing it from the perspective of an industry that depends upon the sale of creative (no jokes about N'Sync) works to consumers.
That is true and I agree. But I would say that this feeling is vague. She is confusing the two different shades of feeling, one for not being credited for the work, and one for not receiving compensation. In terms of feelings you can identify both as feeling cheated, but the distinction is entirely essential for the fine shades of meaning behind copyright infringement of digital works. Becuase artists are not being compensated, yet credit is still given (at least when copying MP3's wholesale).
Thanks for posting though. For once, Slashdot has a poster who has great insight and intelligence to understand the issue from both sides, yet still have a well-argued stand for one against the other. And the patience to reply to all. You wouldn't happen to be a professor, teacher, or lawyer, would you?
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry - you are a bunch of computer geeks. These guys are Mathematical Nerds. There's a difference.
(i) Government procurement should have a policy of looking for more than one vendor and have provisions for preventing vendor lock in. (ii) OSS companies seem to answer well to these software procuement calls.
There's aboslutely nothing wrong with (i). Once we have that legislation in place, (ii) will happen once (i) happens. For MS, or anyone to argue in this way seems to me to be backwards - arguing against the government's RIGHT, as a customer, to ensure that minimal standards of interoperability on the software it purchases are adhered to.
It only takes extra time if you design with no forethought.
The equation of the "use of law" == "force" is exactly the problem of you libertarians. If one has any acquaintance with the mafia or other criminal organizations, you will know that force can be used without resort of weapons. I'd rather deal against a government that wields guns but has laws, than a mafia boss that wields no guns, but is willing to do a anything to make a buck.
Respect goes both ways. A file format should not deprive the owner of rights. Reverse engineering should be allowed. That's why the DMCA, which forbids reverse engineering of copyright protection, is a bad piece of legislation.
That's a valid comment. In other words, we should find a better way of resolving the inequity of thew issue than a recourse to law. I wholly agree.
Just curious: have you ever done jury duty before?
The FORCE aspect is right, but you fail to be specific about what actions is being compelled. These details are the heart of the argument and should not be glossed over.
And consequences that outweigh the initial folly cannot be called just.
If you were to tell this guy "hard luck", then this is just as unjust as the guy who is profiting from this fellow's poor judgement.
How so? All this means is that people to switch to electricity and nuclear power.
Buinesses will only change pricing to increase profits, never decrease it!
Some dudes go to a mountain to throw the ring into the pit. The ring gets snatched, but the thief and ring falls in.
Sorry, but Roger Ebert is not one of those snooty critics. He understands SF films
They could have just opted not to say anything.
Because when the copier sells the copies, he is making money without compensating the writer. This is copyright law. COPYRIGHT LAW IS ABOUT CONTROL, not profits. It is presumed that control over the distribution would allow the writer to determine how much profit he makes. But the writer's motivations need not be profit - don't assume this is so. (For example, what if the author feels the work is unfinished and is embarrased about it?)
And along comes the internet and destroys the idea that writers have control over who distributes or does not distribute his works. So even if the guys
who distribute it pay up, you have undermined this simple right of the author.
So the choice is clear - we as a society seem to value interconnectivity and convenience, and all that it implies, more than respect for each other.
I wish Mr Ellison would just realize the futility and injustice of doing what he is doing and fight his fine cause elsewhere.
If this becomes widespread, then fingerprint laundering would become widespread. Don't hold that drinking glass at the restaurant too tightly - the waiter may decide to lift the prints and sell it to the Mafia for money. So people will start wearing gloves. Buy stock in glove copmanies!
Meanwhile, the FBI arrests Pricilla and her two kids for terrorism. Priscilla refuses to talk citing her right to access to her lawyer. The FBI meanwhile has questioned her two kids and both of them - the brats - say that "they are just one of the tourists".
If MS were any good, they would do this, like most OSS projects. But they don't and they lie about this to nontechnical folks.
Keep whitewashing MS!
I think you will be surprised to note that I agree 100%. I only used IE as an *example*, and couldn't care if netscape loses this argument.
In the light of this, the objection to the above is not that this is a bad thing. It is this: Can we legally replace this IE component wqith the Gecko rendering engine. After all, Gecko is more standards compliant than IE is! It handles tables better too.
Exactly. The argument should be thus: Is IE the core component of Windows? Should we believe Bill Gates who defines "innovation" as the total freedom to move all sorts of things into the core component of Windows? Shouldn't the users of Windows have a say in the matter, rather than assuming that it must be one way or the other?
Who are the dealers in the PC world? Dell, Gateway, HP. In each case, MS mandates that they cannnot make such deals with their customers. There was a time when Dell offered Netscape instead of IE. IBM offers Norton Antivirus, not McAffee scan. But if you don't like it, nothing prevents you from doing so. But to replace IE is to reduce the functionality of explorer.exe!
Thank you for giving good reasons for liking TPM. You see, the people complaining about TPM are complaining about the weak plot and bad acting. And in those terms, TPM is worse tham Episode 4-6. But TPM does have that incredible detail that a CGI movie should have, and for noticing that, and having a different viewpoint than the rest of the slashdot crowd - Thank you.
That is true and I agree. But I would say that this feeling is vague. She is confusing the two different shades of feeling, one for not being credited for the work, and one for not receiving compensation. In terms of feelings you can identify both as feeling cheated, but the distinction is entirely essential for the fine shades of meaning behind copyright infringement of digital works. Becuase artists are not being compensated, yet credit is still given (at least when copying MP3's wholesale).
Thanks for posting though. For once, Slashdot has a poster who has great insight and intelligence to understand the issue from both sides, yet still have a well-argued stand for one against the other. And the patience to reply to all. You wouldn't happen to be a professor, teacher, or lawyer, would you?