"If oil prices in the US were truly based on global demand, then we'd be suffering the same fate that Europe has for the last decade. We don't pay ~$6 per gallon like everyone in Europe does."
I think you are confusing oil and gasoline. A European can buy a barrel of oil for pretty much the same price as an American (subject to minor shipping costs factored into the price). A European cannot buy a gallon of gasoline for the same price as an American because of localised factors, like sales taxes (much higher in Europe than the US) and labour costs at gas stations etc.
"Gasoline is just not economically feasible for the US anymore"
Yes it is. As you've already noticed, gasoline prices in the US are about half what they are in Europe despite people in the US being generally richer than people in Europe. Gasoline at its current price is economically feasible because people are still using it.
Maybe one day in the future gasoline will cease to be economic for consumers, but that day has not yet arrived.
"and we've now got Harper over here, who thinks dropping 1% from GST, which benefits the poor the least (least amount of disposible income) and raising the income tax rate for the poor (.5% for the lower income bracket) is a good thing."
It *is* a good thing - for Harper. Harper was an economist and is now a politician. He knows perfectly well that cutting GST and raising income tax is bad economics and good politics (Don't underestimate the extent to which people here hate the GST).
As this is a Canadian article, it's worth pointing out at least one artist who has already worked this out. You can download Sarah McLachlan's albums from her website in non-DRM lossless (FLACC I believe) format. Indeed you should, because her CDs are crippled with nasty DRM shit.
This is generally a good post, but we have to be clear about licences.
An EULA is a contractual licence and as such is governed by contract law.
The GPL is a copyright licence and is governed by copyright law.
The difference is not just semantic: it is because the GPL is a copyright licence that even if someone abusing the licence managed to persuade a court that it was unenforceable, they still wouldn't be able to use or distribute the offending work (they only ever had the right to distribute the work because it was given to them by the GPL).
Also, a valid contract requires things like consideration (which a court might find lacking if the GPL was a contractual licence), whereas copyright licences do not.
I submitted the following to Forbes. I am not entirely convinced that it will be published in full:
Sir,
I found the tone of your article most interesting. I am not a regular reader of your magazine so I am not familiar with your attitude to the law.
As you are no doubt aware, the GPL is a perfectly standard copyright license, protecting copyrighted software. By way of analogy, the contents of Forbes magazine is protected by copyright. One might expect that if another business entity copied the contents of the magazine, changed the name and sold it on, Forbes might consider taking legal action. I am not sure why the author of this article believes the owners of the copyrights over software released under the GPL should be deprived their legal right to sue for breach of copyright.
As for Cisco, I am unsure as to why we should be feeling sympathy for them. Cisco acquired Linksys for some half a billion dollars. One might reasonably expect Cisco to perform some due diligence work in an acquisition of that scale. Moreover, the fact that Linksys acted illegally prior to the acquisition surely does not absolve Cisco (who now own Linksys) of liability for the illegal acts.
In respect of your author's point regarding the FSF's 'secret meetings', it is my understanding that the early stages of litigation are generally conducted in private between the interested parties. I am not sure why your author feels that it should be different in this case.
I should be grateful if you would explain why the enforcement of the law, within the proper framework of the law, is somehow morally reprehensible when the plaintiff is not for profit organisation.
Sorry about the above,/. didn't seem to agree with my comment...
Anyway, what I tried to say was this - the whole "Dos is Dead" thing, and the Windows splash screen to give the illusion that Windows95 WAS the operating system was primarily legal. As Microsoft couldn't bundle a separate Windows with DOS, they had to give the illusion that there was no Windows+DOS. Somewhat analogous to being unable to bundle IE with Windows, so giving the illusion that IE was part of Windows.
My understanding is that the primary reason for the system booting straight into Win95 and all the "Dos is dead" malarky is legal: Microsoft weren't allowed to bundle Windows as an add-on to DOS, so they gave the illusion that Windows was part of DOS. A bit like Internet Explorer couldn't be bolted onto Windows, so became 'part' of Windows.
"The hinted-at levy in the position paper would be solely to reimburse the music industry for the losses they would be incurring when users ripped their own CDs to MP3 for use on their own MP3 players or PCs"
Am I missing something? Surely the music industry makes no losses when users rip their own CDs to MP3 for use on their own MP3 players or PCs?
The industry ONLY makes losses when someone copies a track from someone else that they WOULD otherwise have purchased.
Alternatively there is the situation where they sell you the item on CD, then you have to buy it again on 'super' audio CD, then on DVD-A etc. But I don't see that happening a great deal, not for a while anyway.
Yeah, Ford _do_ own Aston Martin, but they let the Aston Martin folk (who are British) do pretty much whatever they want, plus the AM guys get access to Ford's bankroll and stuff.
So in reality, Aston Martin might as well be British, as although ownership resides in the States; to all intents and purposes, control is in Britain.
That said, I was disappointed by the extent to which the Vanquish raided from the Ford parts bin (things like passenger air vents etc).
As far as I am concerned, the V8 was the last REAL Aston Martin (hopefully they'll depreciate enough that I'll be able to afford to buy one some day).
Chances are that this [only outlaws using crypto] is the whole point:
a) if only criminals use crypto, then these folks can gather information just by looking at _who_ is sending encrypted mail and to whom;
b) currently we aren't sure about just how good these agencies are at decrypting mail. It may be that they can decrypt good encryption at the moment, but it takes time (say for example, 1 day per message). If loads of people are sending boring encrypted messages that each take a day to decode, the agencies are not going to get very far, but if every message they decode has a value (because only the crooks are using it), then suddenly its worth spending a day on each message.
"One. Patents are not made to stifle business. They are made to protect the inventor."
That is actually merely a by-product of the stated true aim of patents (or any intellectual property protection).
IP is created insofar as it "promotes progress in science and the useful arts" (apologies for the misquote, but I don't have the US Constitution in front of me).
It has been discussed by some pretty weighty academics over the last 200 years. Patents are not designed to "reward" an "inventor" but to encourage people to invent who otherwise wouldn't bother.
It is this goal of patents that most clearly shows the manifest failure of patents in the technology sector: online auctions were bound to happen sooner or later, by giving a patent on it, no-one has been encouraged to invent, but someone is being rewarded.
Well, here's some economics for you. Beware: the comparison is not 100% perfect, but it should paint a picture...
Over the course of 2001, CD sales were down 6.4% (per the article). Let's look at some share indices:
(closing prices)
Jan 02 2001 UK FTSE-ASE: 2963.67 US DJIA: 10646.2
Dec 31 2001 UK FTSE-ASE: 2523.9 US DJIA: 10021.6
This gives a decline of 14.8% for the UK and 5.9% for US.
Now, you might think that the stock market is just some esoteric thing that economists use, but in reality the value and performance of the market reflects the real economic performance of a nation very closely. Remember that many people's incomes depend on the performance of listed companies (and non-listed companies are usually indirectly dependent on the performance of listed suppliers/customers). Even things like pensions (in which there has been a massive UK crisis lately) are VERY closely related to the stock market (this is particularly important given that according to the article over 40% of the CD market are people over the age of 40 - ie people at an age who are pretty worried about their pensions, and their jobs etc.).
I have been using a GF2 pro on my main PC for a while now. When I bought it, I deliberately chose a version with TV out as I have a big telly but only a 17" monitor.
Last weekend, I finally got round to plugging the TV into my Geforce, and what did it tell me? "You can't use the TV-out feature for DVDs". WTF?!? I hardly want to use my TV for writing word docs or doing spreadsheets - the only time I want to be watching TV is for DVDs.
I know that there is some software available to enable TVout for DVDs but it is a real hassle (and you have to pay for it) - and I think I've already spent enough on that card.
As a result I had to rip the card out of the machine and bung my old Matrox G400Max in there. It might not be anywhere near as fast as the GF2 but it does do REALLY good TV-out.
"And the "effect on the market" cannot be used as a defense, since even legitimate backup copies take sales away from the industry."
I agree with the rest of your comment, but I'm not sure how legitimate backups take sales away from the industry. If I had to buy another copy of, say, Windows in order to have a backup, I'd just learn to live without a backup. Let's face it, people are generally pretty poor at backups when its free - I can't see a lot of people buying two of every album/software/etc just to have a backup available...
AFAIK the licensing conditions are generally distinct from ordinary contract rules (which is why the GPL is legally uncertain).
The license as described above is of the same type as the GPL (the world is licensed to use the product under the following conditions).
If ordinary contract rules apply to licensing, both this 'contract' and the GPL would fail (the GPL would fail for lack of consideration).
I suspect that ordinary contract rules do NOT apply, as proper lawyers seem to think the GPL is enforceable, and there are plenty of licenses around that present conditions that would not be permitted by contract rules.
In summary, I guess I shoulda paid more attention during my law degree...
Re:Foregone conclusions
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 1
It seems that everytime there is a story about copy protection, the MPAA/RIAA/government get accused of being ignorant about the effect of legal/technological measures on legitimate users - e.g., these measures stopping people from being able to make mixes of stuff they've already bought etc.
However, as far as I can tell, the MPAA/etc aren't ignorant about this in the least - they just don't care. Or more accurately, they do care - every use that we keep saying is legitimate is a use that the industry would like us to either cough up more money for, or not do at all.
Let's face it, the record industry would much rather that I bought their crap, than produced something of my own.
I have to be honest - I'm not sure what the solution is to all this. The industry will have their way as they have the political muscle. However, I'm sure that there will be a few countries that won't bend over to copy all US law - I guess we're going to have to start packing and find somewhere else to make a new home.
With the greatest respect, I feel that you are missing the point: I may be perfectly happy for the whole world to read a comment a post within a thread, it's entirely possible that the meaning of my post will change if removed from the context of the thread in which it is posted. For that reason alone, Slashdot ought (although is not legally obliged) to seek permission to reuse posts.
The G400 is apparently to be phased out soon, to be replaced by the G450, and then the G800 towards the end of the year. A great website for Matrox stuff is www.matroxusers.com. AL ============ Btw, I've got a G400 MAX, and it's Great
Although I agree with the principle that you are stating (ie that in an ideal world, the best stuff would rise to the top and the rest would die off), Microsoft history does not seem to bear this out: One only has to look back to the DOS days, when a major MS DOS developer says to the MS brass, "Hey DR DOS is miles better than MS DOS, we can't create a better version" [very paraphrased], and MS still wins, I'm not sure that it is so wise to just sit back and let the marketplace decide what goes on.
Things to consider:
Was MSDOS better than DR DOS? Was VHS better than BETAMAX? etc.
Just my 2pence (or, as this is EU jurisdiction, just my 200 Euros:-P )
I couldn't help but notice the style of flames that they have posted (and the number).
Firstly, there are only a few, so I suspect that there is some degree of 'screening' going on.
This leads me on to the second thing: that the flames are generally lacking in well-considered criticisms of LinuxOne, and that they are generally contain a good deal more vitriol than fact (I appreciate that this is pretty standard for a flame), but bear with me for a sec
It seems likely that the purpose behind this little display is to give the impression that a lot of the (very vocal) detractors of LinuxOne don't really have much of merit to say- they are merely slagging off the company for being too close to Windows (the Linux in Windows theme of the flames seems to be getting a disproportionate amount of attention in these flames).
If the average newbie waltzes by and sees this flame gallery, he(or she) may get the mistaken impression that the now infamous venom against LinuxOne lacks any real ground.
I would bet money that the winning flames of the week do not draw attention to ANY of the (substantial) serious dodginess of this company ant its vacuous product.
Slashdot Mirror
"If oil prices in the US were truly based on global demand, then we'd be suffering the same fate that Europe has for the last decade. We don't pay ~$6 per gallon like everyone in Europe does."
I think you are confusing oil and gasoline. A European can buy a barrel of oil for pretty much the same price as an American (subject to minor shipping costs factored into the price). A European cannot buy a gallon of gasoline for the same price as an American because of localised factors, like sales taxes (much higher in Europe than the US) and labour costs at gas stations etc.
"Gasoline is just not economically feasible for the US anymore"
Yes it is. As you've already noticed, gasoline prices in the US are about half what they are in Europe despite people in the US being generally richer than people in Europe. Gasoline at its current price is economically feasible because people are still using it.
Maybe one day in the future gasoline will cease to be economic for consumers, but that day has not yet arrived.
"and we've now got Harper over here, who thinks dropping 1% from GST, which benefits the poor the least (least amount of disposible income) and raising the income tax rate for the poor (.5% for the lower income bracket) is a good thing."
It *is* a good thing - for Harper. Harper was an economist and is now a politician. He knows perfectly well that cutting GST and raising income tax is bad economics and good politics (Don't underestimate the extent to which people here hate the GST).
I was thinking about the DVD/CD Afterglow Live, which may have been a US import.
As this is a Canadian article, it's worth pointing out at least one artist who has already worked this out. You can download Sarah McLachlan's albums from her website in non-DRM lossless (FLACC I believe) format. Indeed you should, because her CDs are crippled with nasty DRM shit.
This is generally a good post, but we have to be clear about licences.
An EULA is a contractual licence and as such is governed by contract law.
The GPL is a copyright licence and is governed by copyright law.
The difference is not just semantic: it is because the GPL is a copyright licence that even if someone abusing the licence managed to persuade a court that it was unenforceable, they still wouldn't be able to use or distribute the offending work (they only ever had the right to distribute the work because it was given to them by the GPL).
Also, a valid contract requires things like consideration (which a court might find lacking if the GPL was a contractual licence), whereas copyright licences do not.
Etc
Cheers
Al
I submitted the following to Forbes. I am not entirely convinced that it will be published in full:
Sir,
I found the tone of your article most interesting. I am not a regular reader of your magazine so I am not familiar with your attitude to the law.
As you are no doubt aware, the GPL is a perfectly standard copyright license, protecting copyrighted software. By way of analogy, the contents of Forbes magazine is protected by copyright. One might expect that if another business entity copied the contents of the magazine, changed the name and sold it on, Forbes might consider taking legal action. I am not sure why the author of this article believes the owners of the copyrights over software released under the GPL should be deprived their legal right to sue for breach of copyright.
As for Cisco, I am unsure as to why we should be feeling sympathy for them. Cisco acquired Linksys for some half a billion dollars. One might reasonably expect Cisco to perform some due diligence work in an acquisition of that scale. Moreover, the fact that Linksys acted illegally prior to the acquisition surely does not absolve Cisco (who now own Linksys) of liability for the illegal acts.
In respect of your author's point regarding the FSF's 'secret meetings', it is my understanding that the early stages of litigation are generally conducted in private between the interested parties. I am not sure why your author feels that it should be different in this case.
I should be grateful if you would explain why the enforcement of the law, within the proper framework of the law, is somehow morally reprehensible when the plaintiff is not for profit organisation.
Sorry about the above, /. didn't seem to agree with my comment...
Anyway, what I tried to say was this - the whole "Dos is Dead" thing, and the Windows splash screen to give the illusion that Windows95 WAS the operating system was primarily legal. As Microsoft couldn't bundle a separate Windows with DOS, they had to give the illusion that there was no Windows+DOS. Somewhat analogous to being unable to bundle IE with Windows, so giving the illusion that IE was part of Windows.
My understanding is that the primary reason for the system booting straight into Win95 and all the "Dos is dead" malarky is legal: Microsoft weren't allowed to bundle Windows as an add-on to DOS, so they gave the illusion that Windows was part of DOS. A bit like Internet Explorer couldn't be bolted onto Windows, so became 'part' of Windows.
"The hinted-at levy in the position paper would be solely to reimburse the music industry for the losses they would be incurring when users ripped their own CDs to MP3 for use on their own MP3 players or PCs"
Am I missing something? Surely the music industry makes no losses when users rip their own CDs to MP3 for use on their own MP3 players or PCs?
The industry ONLY makes losses when someone copies a track from someone else that they WOULD otherwise have purchased.
Alternatively there is the situation where they sell you the item on CD, then you have to buy it again on 'super' audio CD, then on DVD-A etc. But I don't see that happening a great deal, not for a while anyway.
Yeah, Ford _do_ own Aston Martin, but they let the Aston Martin folk (who are British) do pretty much whatever they want, plus the AM guys get access to Ford's bankroll and stuff.
So in reality, Aston Martin might as well be British, as although ownership resides in the States; to all intents and purposes, control is in Britain.
That said, I was disappointed by the extent to which the Vanquish raided from the Ford parts bin (things like passenger air vents etc).
As far as I am concerned, the V8 was the last REAL Aston Martin (hopefully they'll depreciate enough that I'll be able to afford to buy one some day).
Chances are that this [only outlaws using crypto] is the whole point:
a) if only criminals use crypto, then these folks can gather information just by looking at _who_ is sending encrypted mail and to whom;
b) currently we aren't sure about just how good these agencies are at decrypting mail. It may be that they can decrypt good encryption at the moment, but it takes time (say for example, 1 day per message). If loads of people are sending boring encrypted messages that each take a day to decode, the agencies are not going to get very far, but if every message they decode has a value (because only the crooks are using it), then suddenly its worth spending a day on each message.
Ah well, not a million miles off. Frankly I'm quite pleased with myself. Not bad for a lazy no-good limey...
"One. Patents are not made to stifle business. They are made to protect the inventor."
That is actually merely a by-product of the stated true aim of patents (or any intellectual property protection).
IP is created insofar as it "promotes progress in science and the useful arts" (apologies for the misquote, but I don't have the US Constitution in front of me).
It has been discussed by some pretty weighty academics over the last 200 years. Patents are not designed to "reward" an "inventor" but to encourage people to invent who otherwise wouldn't bother.
It is this goal of patents that most clearly shows the manifest failure of patents in the technology sector: online auctions were bound to happen sooner or later, by giving a patent on it, no-one has been encouraged to invent, but someone is being rewarded.
Well, here's some economics for you. Beware: the comparison is not 100% perfect, but it should paint a picture...
Over the course of 2001, CD sales were down 6.4% (per the article). Let's look at some share indices:
(closing prices)
Jan 02 2001
UK FTSE-ASE: 2963.67
US DJIA: 10646.2
Dec 31 2001
UK FTSE-ASE: 2523.9
US DJIA: 10021.6
This gives a decline of 14.8% for the UK and 5.9% for US.
Now, you might think that the stock market is just some esoteric thing that economists use, but in reality the value and performance of the market reflects the real economic performance of a nation very closely. Remember that many people's incomes depend on the performance of listed companies (and non-listed companies are usually indirectly dependent on the performance of listed suppliers/customers). Even things like pensions (in which there has been a massive UK crisis lately) are VERY closely related to the stock market (this is particularly important given that according to the article over 40% of the CD market are people over the age of 40 - ie people at an age who are pretty worried about their pensions, and their jobs etc.).
Anyways, make of it what you will...
"If you stop buying CD's as I have the RIAA will eventually listen"
Err no, they will simply chalk it down to "piracy" and bribe (aka "lobby") the government for laws that give them more power.
I have been using a GF2 pro on my main PC for a while now. When I bought it, I deliberately chose a version with TV out as I have a big telly but only a 17" monitor.
Last weekend, I finally got round to plugging the TV into my Geforce, and what did it tell me? "You can't use the TV-out feature for DVDs". WTF?!? I hardly want to use my TV for writing word docs or doing spreadsheets - the only time I want to be watching TV is for DVDs.
I know that there is some software available to enable TVout for DVDs but it is a real hassle (and you have to pay for it) - and I think I've already spent enough on that card.
As a result I had to rip the card out of the machine and bung my old Matrox G400Max in there. It might not be anywhere near as fast as the GF2 but it does do REALLY good TV-out.
AFAIK the deal is the same on GF3s and GF4s.
Just my two cents.
AL
"And the "effect on the market" cannot be used as a defense, since even legitimate backup copies take sales away from the industry."
I agree with the rest of your comment, but I'm not sure how legitimate backups take sales away from the industry. If I had to buy another copy of, say, Windows in order to have a backup, I'd just learn to live without a backup. Let's face it, people are generally pretty poor at backups when its free - I can't see a lot of people buying two of every album/software/etc just to have a backup available...
AFAIK the licensing conditions are generally distinct from ordinary contract rules (which is why the GPL is legally uncertain).
The license as described above is of the same type as the GPL (the world is licensed to use the product under the following conditions).
If ordinary contract rules apply to licensing, both this 'contract' and the GPL would fail (the GPL would fail for lack of consideration).
I suspect that ordinary contract rules do NOT apply, as proper lawyers seem to think the GPL is enforceable, and there are plenty of licenses around that present conditions that would not be permitted by contract rules.
In summary, I guess I shoulda paid more attention during my law degree...
It seems that everytime there is a story about copy protection, the MPAA/RIAA/government get accused of being ignorant about the effect of legal/technological measures on legitimate users - e.g., these measures stopping people from being able to make mixes of stuff they've already bought etc.
However, as far as I can tell, the MPAA/etc aren't ignorant about this in the least - they just don't care. Or more accurately, they do care - every use that we keep saying is legitimate is a use that the industry would like us to either cough up more money for, or not do at all.
Let's face it, the record industry would much rather that I bought their crap, than produced something of my own.
I have to be honest - I'm not sure what the solution is to all this. The industry will have their way as they have the political muscle. However, I'm sure that there will be a few countries that won't bend over to copy all US law - I guess we're going to have to start packing and find somewhere else to make a new home.
Umm, hope that makes sense.
The G400 is apparently to be phased out soon, to be replaced by the G450, and then the G800 towards the end of the year. A great website for Matrox stuff is www.matroxusers.com. AL ============ Btw, I've got a G400 MAX, and it's Great
Things to consider:
Was MSDOS better than DR DOS?
Was VHS better than BETAMAX?
etc.
Just my 2pence (or, as this is EU jurisdiction, just my 200 Euros :-P )
Firstly, there are only a few, so I suspect that there is some degree of 'screening' going on.
This leads me on to the second thing: that the flames are generally lacking in well-considered criticisms of LinuxOne, and that they are generally contain a good deal more vitriol than fact (I appreciate that this is pretty standard for a flame), but bear with me for a sec
It seems likely that the purpose behind this little display is to give the impression that a lot of the (very vocal) detractors of LinuxOne don't really have much of merit to say- they are merely slagging off the company for being too close to Windows (the Linux in Windows theme of the flames seems to be getting a disproportionate amount of attention in these flames).
If the average newbie waltzes by and sees this flame gallery, he(or she) may get the mistaken impression that the now infamous venom against LinuxOne lacks any real ground.
I would bet money that the winning flames of the week do not draw attention to ANY of the (substantial) serious dodginess of this company ant its vacuous product.
Something to think about perhaps?