Is this your legal opinion, or the opinion of OSTG's lawyers? No, it's my literary opinion. Words have meaning. Theft can only happen to physical items. Copyright infringement is illegal, it is similar to theft, but it is not theft.
As for the legal definition, I think a *HUGE* clue here is that it's not called "theft", it's called "copyright infringement". Theft is just something those with vested interests call it in order to gain sympathy from the unobservant.
So now it's trespassing? The license keys in Windows were first equated to theft, now trespassing. Both of which are impossible with Windows.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but any attempt to use physical examples to justify the Windows activation system are doomed to fail.
There are certainly arguments for intellectual property laws, but trying to pretend they equate to physical analogs is the wrong way to go about it. You'll end up with laws that don't match reality (because they match the flawed analogies), and you end up alienating the people who see through the illusion, causing them to have no respect for any form of intellectual property.
He's not giving it away, he's selling it. What he does with the money doesn't change that. Yes, it does. You might have a point if he sold it, then later decided to give the money away. But he's already promised the proceeds to charity. Functionally, it's no different than had he donated the notebook to the EFF directly for them to auction off.
That point of my comment is that key management for Windows is designed as a unauthorized use mitigation system much in the same way that a vehicle's keys and car alarm is designed as an unauthorized use mitigation system. WTF is "unauthorized use" of a car, and how is it different from stealing? You are trying to conflate theft with copyright infringement.
You're right that the key management issues do weigh into the cost, but that's not what your car analogy was in response to. It was in response to, "If Microsoft wasn't so bent on keeping everything proprietary, there really would only be the cost of the media."
No one is denying that MS's predilection for excessive authentication adds to the cost of Windows.
Where did I infer that an honest reaction should not be given? Implied. But anyway, when you put down how he responded. At least, that's how I inferred it.
He's auctioning the notebook and donating to the EFF is clearly a statement of protest against MS.
As for breaking the agreement, he's essentially giving away the notebook.
In other words, if someone (let's not dissemble, some corporation--you don't make a "gentlemen's" agreement with a corporation. It's not like the MS employee paid for the laptop himself) gives you a free laptop for review, you should not give your honest reaction?
Given Vista's steep hardware requirements, I doubt if just sending out CDs would have done much good. I disagree, I think it would have done a lot of good, just not from MS's point of view.
That's like saying if it weren't for car thieves necessitating keys and alarm systems, then the price of cars would only be the cost of the materials that go into it.
It's possible to steal a car (and it happens quite often). It's impossible to steal Windows (and has never happened, ever).
Unless you simply mean stealing the physical disc, which the key doesn't really do much to prevent.
The Cell processor, the Blu-ray drive, the bluetooth controllers are all innovations.
You may not like them, you may hate Sony, but it's absolutely seeping with innovative technologies. It's really a next-gen console, not a last-gen.5.
Xbox 360 has no innovation whatsoever, it's just a faster Xbox with nicer software. The Wii has an innovative controller, and a cool virtual console service. It's certainly not a gaming powerhouse nor an HD superstar.
The PS3s processor is handicapped for AI, and since no one wants one, you won't find anyone online to play with it. Are you mad? The PS3 is a hot seller this holiday. *Every* gamer I know, except one, bought a PS3. Only one bought a Wii. None have an Xbox 360. These gamers run the gamut, from hardcore PC gamer, to casual console player. Most of the people in my list did have an original Xbox, slightly more had the PS2, and there was a lot of overlap between the two.
I know it's popular to dump on the PS3, mostly because it's so easy to hate Sony (rootkit CDs), but seriously, the average consumer couldn't care less, and seriously want the PS3 and Blu-ray.
While I expected the PS3 to do well (better than the gamer-geek crowd has been forecasting), it's actually done even better than I expected. Interestingly, every single person was really excited about Blu-ray.
Don't let your hatred of Sony blind you to the truth. The PS3 will have to seriously suck in order to lose this round of the console wars. A bunch of navel-gazing analysis of whether the Cell is optimal for AI is nice and all, but the real metric is going to be whether people buy the system.
Er, they charge $80 for a series because people pay it, and they're selling very well. I'm not buying, but I know plenty of people who do, and while that's just anecdotal, the numbers back me up. Er (I hate that arrogant bullshit, "er", "uhhh", etc), all it states is that sales are increasing. Even if the price stayed at $80 (actually, the trend seems to be lower prices for TV series), it would be reasonable to expect more people willing to buy as the market grows.
Without more useful numbers, it's impossible to say how lower prices would *actually* affect the market in any specific sense, but in general, it's logical to conclude that more people would buy TV series at $30 over $80 (the only way this would be false is if the market was already maxed out at $80/season). The question, of course, is if the market will grow by the almost 3x required to keep the same amount of revenue?
Markets seek equilibrium, they do not automatically reflect equilibrium. I suspect that equilibrium for TV series will be closer to $30 than $80.
My problem with iTunes is that $2 per show (regardless of time) is just too damn much. That comes out to $40 per season for a 20 episode season. Most (all?) seasons on iTunes are cheaper than $1.99 times the number of episodes. The ones I've looked at are $35.
Why buy on iTunes?
They are available the day after the show airs.
With a season pass, they show up automatically.
They are immediately and easily played on your computer (where I watch my TV).
Can be played on iPods, and soon iTVs, which covers absolutely every (non-contrived) scenario for TV viewing.
iTunes downloads are very fast.
Price-point is acceptable (to me).
Of course, YMMV (and in fact, clearly does), but iTunes provides a lot of value, for me, over all the other methods, including bittorrent. Think of it as being a better a la carte cable than the actual (presently nonexistent) a la carte cable. You can pay for only the shows you want to watch and you get them as they come out.
I also see not having to buy a physical disc as a benefit. A movie locked into a disc is much less useful for me than one stored on my computer. I can back up files on my computer far more easily (and infinitely more legally) than I can with a DVD. I can transfer the files from computer-to-computer, get them onto my iPod or (soon) my TV, with extreme convenience.
I did not buy a single iTunes video until after they upgraded to 640x480. Now, the value really is there for me.
To oversimplify, it would be like the US government printing money to pay debts.
Which, coincidentally, is exactly what we do.
Think about it. If the total number of dollars remained constant, a dollar today would be *more* valuable than in the past since there are now more people and more things to buy than ever before.
Every time the fed prints more money than is destroyed, they are deliberately devaluing the money in your pocket.
Well, for two reasons. The first is that it makes it easier for new users to switch to GNU/Linux, and the second is that it is a pretty good system (*gasp*).
Wrong and wrong.
Your first reason makes no sense. Who's going to switch to an OS whose UI just a bad copy of another bad UI?
Your second reason is even worse. The Windows system is not pretty good. It's "good enough".
For example, my setup is as follows:
Shuffling widgets around and changing text does not fundamentally change the UI.
Two things that are highly broken in the Windows (and GNOME and KDE) UI are the Start menu and the task bar. Moving them around the screen does not fix their flaws.
In response to your first answer above, the reason the Linux UIs copy Windows is that the filesystem layout and application format of Linux is very much like Windows, leading to Windows-like end-user metaphors. In Linux, you *have* to have a Start menu (or some analog). You can't just have an Applications folder, or any other automatically-updated application browser like you can in OS X.
Suprisingly, linux separates userland utilities already - well at least debian does. Check your/usr/bin folder and compare to/usr/sbin. Alternatively, compare/sbin and/bin.
utilities (by which you mean "command-line utilities" != Applications.
The reason it doesn't work so well to do it the way you suggested is because there is a lot of gray area. Every person, company, shareware maker, vendor, etc. is going to have a different opinion of where software should go.
That's not the problem, that's the symptom. The problem is *that there's no specific place for them to put things*. Linux would gain 100-fold in usability were it to embrace application and framework/library bundles.
Apple can do it without few issues because they are the sole authority on their OS.
WTF? Ubuntu is the sole authority on its OS. RedHat is the sole authority on its OS. Debian is the.. well, you get the picture.
What's the difference between MS and Apple again?
WTF? take 2. That doesn't even make any sense in the normal way "Apple == MS" doesn't make sense.
Linux advocates love to deride OS X for "eye candy", but in OS X, pretty much all eye candy serves a purpose, makes things easier, and doesn't significantly degrade the user experience.
Yet constantly, the Linux crowd comes up with nonsensical things, like the "cube" desktop. The irony is the "cube" desktop is an actual case of eye candy over substance.
The cube adds only one usability enhancement, which is to make working with virtual desktops more graphically usable. No longer do you have to deal with little rectangles, you can actually *see* the actual desktop, live, and interact with the windows on the desktops.
The problems it introduces are you can long longer see the entirety of your virtual desktops. By the very nature of the cube, you can only see, at most, three desktops at once, although more realistically, two. And even with two, they are going to be highly deformed.
With a cube, you also loose any universal spatial perspective. With a grid, the top-left is always top-left. Center is always center. Etc. With the cube, all positions are relative. This might seem superior (less restrictive) at a superficial glance, but in the long run, it makes the UI less usable.
If you want to look at the "cube" desktop done right, look at the pager in OS X. Full 3d interactivity on a 2d plane. The 3d cube does look 10x cooler, but you lose in usability what you gain in looks.
I've used just about every X11 desktop there is, and their UIs do vary quite a bit. But there are four general types:
1. TWM (FVWM and Enlightenment are essentially more advanced variations of the style) 2. Windows clones (GNOME and KDE fall into this category, which, incidentally, is what the OP was referring to) 3. NeXT clones 4. "Experimental" desktops
Limiting our discussion to KDE and GNOME, adding tabs and a desktop pager do not change the underlying UI design, they merely augment it. Both UIs are very much derived from the Windows UI.
Well, I can't speak for how everyone else is using it, but I use Linux much the way I use Windows 2000 - each window is maximized, which makes it almost like one application == one desktop. I have some sort of button in the corner I push to start stuff.
I think you're highlighting a fundamental UI flaw with Windows and whatever desktop system you are using in Linux.
The reason people tend towards full-screen windows is that the UI naturally leads to it. I highly prefer how OS X works, which naturally leads to having multiple windows open at once, more readily accessible than being hidden behind a full-screen window and a crowded task bar.
I realize different people will like different UIs, but I personally *really* like having multiple windows open at once, unobscured by a full-screen window.
I highly doubt those are the *reasons* they copied Windows. It seems more likely that copying Windows was the best they could do.
Linux lacks any useful means to list apps directly in the filesystem. Instead, like Windows, it needs a menu that references the applications, while hiding all the support files since it's not supported at the binary or filesystem level. You mention that you don't use a Windows theme. We're not talking about superficially copying Windows (same colors, same widget designs, etc). We're talking about the UI acting like Windows in fundamentally important ways.
If the designs behind KDE and/or GNOME are based on copying Windows as much as possible, I'd rather just use Windows (and trust me, I neither like, nor use, Windows).
What would make a better selling point?
A. Use Linux, the interface is just like Windows. B. Use Linux, the interface is far superior to Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
As for the legal definition, I think a *HUGE* clue here is that it's not called "theft", it's called "copyright infringement". Theft is just something those with vested interests call it in order to gain sympathy from the unobservant.
Which is why I stated, in my original post, "unless you simply mean stealing the physical disc".
So now it's trespassing? The license keys in Windows were first equated to theft, now trespassing. Both of which are impossible with Windows.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but any attempt to use physical examples to justify the Windows activation system are doomed to fail.
There are certainly arguments for intellectual property laws, but trying to pretend they equate to physical analogs is the wrong way to go about it. You'll end up with laws that don't match reality (because they match the flawed analogies), and you end up alienating the people who see through the illusion, causing them to have no respect for any form of intellectual property.
You're right that the key management issues do weigh into the cost, but that's not what your car analogy was in response to. It was in response to, "If Microsoft wasn't so bent on keeping everything proprietary, there really would only be the cost of the media."
No one is denying that MS's predilection for excessive authentication adds to the cost of Windows.
He's auctioning the notebook and donating to the EFF is clearly a statement of protest against MS.
As for breaking the agreement, he's essentially giving away the notebook.
Actually, it's sillier than that.
He actually *is* giving the laptop away. He's giving it (the monetary value) to the EFF. He's not profiting from it directly at all.
In other words, if someone (let's not dissemble, some corporation--you don't make a "gentlemen's" agreement with a corporation. It's not like the MS employee paid for the laptop himself) gives you a free laptop for review, you should not give your honest reaction?
Unless you simply mean stealing the physical disc, which the key doesn't really do much to prevent.
Copyright infringement != theft.
The Cell processor, the Blu-ray drive, the bluetooth controllers are all innovations.
You may not like them, you may hate Sony, but it's absolutely seeping with innovative technologies. It's really a next-gen console, not a last-gen.5.
Xbox 360 has no innovation whatsoever, it's just a faster Xbox with nicer software. The Wii has an innovative controller, and a cool virtual console service. It's certainly not a gaming powerhouse nor an HD superstar.
I know it's popular to dump on the PS3, mostly because it's so easy to hate Sony (rootkit CDs), but seriously, the average consumer couldn't care less, and seriously want the PS3 and Blu-ray.
While I expected the PS3 to do well (better than the gamer-geek crowd has been forecasting), it's actually done even better than I expected. Interestingly, every single person was really excited about Blu-ray.
Don't let your hatred of Sony blind you to the truth. The PS3 will have to seriously suck in order to lose this round of the console wars. A bunch of navel-gazing analysis of whether the Cell is optimal for AI is nice and all, but the real metric is going to be whether people buy the system.
The Democrats are not in power until next year.
Without more useful numbers, it's impossible to say how lower prices would *actually* affect the market in any specific sense, but in general, it's logical to conclude that more people would buy TV series at $30 over $80 (the only way this would be false is if the market was already maxed out at $80/season). The question, of course, is if the market will grow by the almost 3x required to keep the same amount of revenue?
Markets seek equilibrium, they do not automatically reflect equilibrium. I suspect that equilibrium for TV series will be closer to $30 than $80.
- They are available the day after the show airs.
- With a season pass, they show up automatically.
- They are immediately and easily played on your computer (where I watch my TV).
- Can be played on iPods, and soon iTVs, which covers absolutely every (non-contrived) scenario for TV viewing.
- iTunes downloads are very fast.
- Price-point is acceptable (to me).
Of course, YMMV (and in fact, clearly does), but iTunes provides a lot of value, for me, over all the other methods, including bittorrent. Think of it as being a better a la carte cable than the actual (presently nonexistent) a la carte cable. You can pay for only the shows you want to watch and you get them as they come out.I also see not having to buy a physical disc as a benefit. A movie locked into a disc is much less useful for me than one stored on my computer. I can back up files on my computer far more easily (and infinitely more legally) than I can with a DVD. I can transfer the files from computer-to-computer, get them onto my iPod or (soon) my TV, with extreme convenience.
I did not buy a single iTunes video until after they upgraded to 640x480. Now, the value really is there for me.
Think about it. If the total number of dollars remained constant, a dollar today would be *more* valuable than in the past since there are now more people and more things to buy than ever before.
Every time the fed prints more money than is destroyed, they are deliberately devaluing the money in your pocket.
It relates to Mac OS in two, and only two, ways.
1. Nautilus is spatial, like the old Mac OS Finder.
2. GNOME has a set of HIGs that are intended to provide usability.
If anything, GNOME is like starting with the Windows UI and trying to make it as usable as a Mac.
Your first reason makes no sense. Who's going to switch to an OS whose UI just a bad copy of another bad UI?
Your second reason is even worse. The Windows system is not pretty good. It's "good enough".
Shuffling widgets around and changing text does not fundamentally change the UI.
Two things that are highly broken in the Windows (and GNOME and KDE) UI are the Start menu and the task bar. Moving them around the screen does not fix their flaws.
In response to your first answer above, the reason the Linux UIs copy Windows is that the filesystem layout and application format of Linux is very much like Windows, leading to Windows-like end-user metaphors. In Linux, you *have* to have a Start menu (or some analog). You can't just have an Applications folder, or any other automatically-updated application browser like you can in OS X.
That's not the problem, that's the symptom. The problem is *that there's no specific place for them to put things*. Linux would gain 100-fold in usability were it to embrace application and framework/library bundles.
WTF? Ubuntu is the sole authority on its OS. RedHat is the sole authority on its OS. Debian is the.. well, you get the picture.
WTF? take 2. That doesn't even make any sense in the normal way "Apple == MS" doesn't make sense.
Linux advocates love to deride OS X for "eye candy", but in OS X, pretty much all eye candy serves a purpose, makes things easier, and doesn't significantly degrade the user experience.
Yet constantly, the Linux crowd comes up with nonsensical things, like the "cube" desktop. The irony is the "cube" desktop is an actual case of eye candy over substance.
The cube adds only one usability enhancement, which is to make working with virtual desktops more graphically usable. No longer do you have to deal with little rectangles, you can actually *see* the actual desktop, live, and interact with the windows on the desktops.
The problems it introduces are you can long longer see the entirety of your virtual desktops. By the very nature of the cube, you can only see, at most, three desktops at once, although more realistically, two. And even with two, they are going to be highly deformed.
With a cube, you also loose any universal spatial perspective. With a grid, the top-left is always top-left. Center is always center. Etc. With the cube, all positions are relative. This might seem superior (less restrictive) at a superficial glance, but in the long run, it makes the UI less usable.
If you want to look at the "cube" desktop done right, look at the pager in OS X. Full 3d interactivity on a 2d plane. The 3d cube does look 10x cooler, but you lose in usability what you gain in looks.
I've used just about every X11 desktop there is, and their UIs do vary quite a bit. But there are four general types:
1. TWM (FVWM and Enlightenment are essentially more advanced variations of the style)
2. Windows clones (GNOME and KDE fall into this category, which, incidentally, is what the OP was referring to)
3. NeXT clones
4. "Experimental" desktops
Limiting our discussion to KDE and GNOME, adding tabs and a desktop pager do not change the underlying UI design, they merely augment it. Both UIs are very much derived from the Windows UI.
The reason people tend towards full-screen windows is that the UI naturally leads to it. I highly prefer how OS X works, which naturally leads to having multiple windows open at once, more readily accessible than being hidden behind a full-screen window and a crowded task bar.
I realize different people will like different UIs, but I personally *really* like having multiple windows open at once, unobscured by a full-screen window.
I highly doubt those are the *reasons* they copied Windows. It seems more likely that copying Windows was the best they could do.
Linux lacks any useful means to list apps directly in the filesystem. Instead, like Windows, it needs a menu that references the applications, while hiding all the support files since it's not supported at the binary or filesystem level. You mention that you don't use a Windows theme. We're not talking about superficially copying Windows (same colors, same widget designs, etc). We're talking about the UI acting like Windows in fundamentally important ways.
If the designs behind KDE and/or GNOME are based on copying Windows as much as possible, I'd rather just use Windows (and trust me, I neither like, nor use, Windows).
What would make a better selling point?
A. Use Linux, the interface is just like Windows.
B. Use Linux, the interface is far superior to Windows.