Exactly, and Google and Amazon are the enablers, just like MP3.com before them (even though they have a key difference in how their service works compared with how MP3.com did).
I haven't read their EULAs, but I suspect the way it's worded is that you're effectively renting that storage. I very much doubt that you can't copy an MP3 on a storage you own - I mean, if I rent a laptop, and load it with my MP3s, am I "distributing"?
Law supersedes contracts.
Otherwise, couldn't you just make a bittorrent EULA that says you are only "borrowing" space on other people's computers and that they have no right to use the copy themselves?
The EULA doesn't alter the fact that you are copying the file to a hard drive that is owned by Google or Amazon.
All in all, the main reason I think they're good is because both Google and Amazon have went ahead without any license deals. That means that at least two independent lawyer teams - and, I would imagine, pretty expensive ones at that - have reviewed the law on this matter.
That's not how the law works. Legal teams don't get to decide the law, judges, juries, and legislatures do. Every day, lawyers sign off on things that are later found to be illegal.
I do hope you're right though. But to act like there is no risk or exposure here is irrational.
The consequences of such an event shouldn't be ignored.
And they weren't. End of story.
No, *not* end of story. They still launch RTGs, in spite of the real risks involved. They didn't "ignore" the risks completely (they did shield the reactors), but they still went ahead with these launches, even though there are risks involved.
Everything else you wrote is either wrong or completely irrelevant. There are no lessons from Chernobyl and Fukushima that can be applied to RTGs, and no analogies between them can be drawn except for ones comparing apples with spoons.
The lessons are that you can't engineer away disaster. Not a single thing ever invented is disaster-proof (in fact, there have been some notable "disaster-proof" inventions famously succumbing to disaster. Raise your hand if you can name two). Nuclear reactors are apt examples because they involve severe effects when things go wrong. Fukushima and Chernobyl suffered meltdowns. Something which RTGs cannot do, but they dispersed radioactive material (*especially* Fukushima), which RTGs very much can do.
RTGs don't work even remotely like a nuclear reactor of any type, well-engineered, poorly-engineered, or otherwise.
First off, that's absolutely false. They *are* nuclear reactors. However, I'll cut you some slack on that and assume you meant that they aren't similar in danger to traditional large-scale nuclear power plants. This is true, but I've never claimed otherwise.
It's not clear that plutonium is as dangerous as people have been told it is. In particular, there seems to be no scientific backing for the usual claim that a single inhaled particle is 'guaranteed' to cause cancer.
No one claimed a "single particle" would guarantee cancer. And the link you posted made the case that plutonium is very dangerous. Did you not read it first?
RTGs containing various radioisotopes have been damaged in accidents before with no apocalyptic consequences,.
No one is claiming "apocalyptic consequences". Speaking for myself alone, I'm talking about completely innocent bystanders being killed as a consequence of disaster, without being aware of any impact, decades later.
At least with most disasters, you know when you are at risk, the disaster is localized, and when it's over, it's over. Nuclear disasters have the distinction of not being so forthcoming with the aftermath.
When you build an RTG you use such a small amount of radioactive material that it's feasible to encapsulate it in a manner that renders it reasonably safe under any reasonably conceivable failure conditions. (Launch-pad explosions are not all that violent, frankly -- Kaku's major concern with Cassini was the Earth flyby, where a miscalculation would have exposed the RTG to much greater heat and higher mechanical stress.)
I'm not talking about "reasonably conceivable failure conditions". It's not the things you've planned for, it's the things you *didn't* plan for (which is why I brought up Fukushima and Chernobyl. Both were engineered for reasonable expectations, but they still failed because not everything that happens is reasonable).
The launch will probably be successful, and if it's not, it's very unlikely that anyone will die from plutonium exposure as a result. Those are the only guarantees you'll get from any honest engineer. They're good enough for me, they're good enough for you, and they're good enough for the good Dr. Kaku.
Who are you to speak for others? They may be good enough for you, but you have no business speaking on behalf of others.
I'm not saying that I'm particularly concerned about RTGs in general. I'm just trying to show that concern is reasonable. Engineer-types tend to mischaracterize anyone who dares question the safety of nuclear systems as some sort of crazy person.
And then Uncle Sam will ride in on a majestic bald eagle and spread jingoism across the land. Well, Uncle Sam was busy today with the fireworks and what not, but never fear, he sent his trusty sidekick sethstorm!
Hahaha... Google and Yahoo are your shining examples? They were the first to bow down to China. (well, you sort of have a point about Altavista. I don't suppose Obsorne Computer doesn't do much business with China either)
Google might be on the outs with China lately, but that bad blood took some while to accrue.
No, you are copying it to a network drive that only you can access - no different than hosting your own server or copying it to an external hard drive (or even iPod for that matter).
The difference is who owns the drive. If you are copying it to Google's hard drive, that's quite different from copying it to your own.
No one is able to make copies from another person's drive, which would be copyright infringement.
You will be making a copy onto Google's or Amazon's drive, then making another copy from it to your device or computer.
I'm not saying this difference will necessarily alter the legality of it, that can only happen in the courts or the legislature. What I am saying is that it's a key difference that opens Google and Amazon up to attack in a way that hosting your own server does not.
The main problem is that you are looking at it as an overall impact. The overall impact is the same. It's your file, you are putting it on a service that has a space reserved for you and you alone, and you are copying back to your own device. The entire time, you are (assuming no funny business on the part of Google or Amazon, no hacking, and you aren't giving out your login information, all of which are reasonable assumptions) in control of the file, which is functionally the same as having your own server. But it's not *legally* the same.
Copyright isn't simply about being in control of the file. It's about being in control of the ability to copy the file. And it's a tough case to say you can't copy it around on your own hardware (although they have taken that very opinion at one time), it's a much easier case to say you can't copy it to third parties.
And even if personal file shares violate copyright, they are too small and too difficult to go after. On the other hand, Google and Amazon make big, easy targets.
I'm not saying I agree with this opinion. In fact, I think it's fairly asinine. But I am saying that it fits with copyright law and the way the system tends to work enough to be a potential legal issue.
So basically the RIAA is trying to claim that if you legally own an MP3 and legally join a service that lets you store said MP3 on a server
We need to stop right there. The RIAA, if they pursue this, will make the point that that the service itself isn't legal.
It's not even clear that they, or any of the major players involved, have any plans to enter into such a lawsuit, but it's pretty much exactly what happened to MP3.com. Amazon and Google have a fairly key difference in how they work compared to how MP3.com worked, but the weakness is the same.
you are not legally allowed to play it directly from the server and must download it to your car / computer / phone / mp3 player first?
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the copying (whether streaming or fully cached) is the part that makes it vulnerable to copyright law.
Sorry, but I doubt that'll hold up in court (though with the morons we have in the "justice" system, you never know).
Why not? That's exactly what happened to MP3.com. There is one key difference, and hopefully that's enough (ironically, there's *more* copying involved with Google's and Amazon's services than with MP3.com, but the copying is more reasonable).
EXACTLY THIS. How is my home media server (I have two) any different from Amazon's cloud? Answer: There IS no difference.
The difference is you are copying the file to yourself on your own home media server. Whereas with Google and Amazon, you are copying your file to them. Whether that difference counts legally has yet to be determined, but it's a fairly important difference.
The RIAA and Co. have never sued anyone for using their own music digitally. They have sued when a third party is involved. The issue isn't that you are able to stream your music to you from your own system, or even from a web server somewhere else that you operate. The problem is that you are uploading your songs to Google or Amazon, which may very well be copyright infringement.
Or maybe it isn't. The problem is that Google and Amazon, like MP3.com before them, make an easy target. If it *is* infringement, they can have it shut down. If it's not, well, hooray for the rest of us for a change.
Strictly speaking, I don't think the way Google and Amazon operates should count as copyright infringement (even though it does involve making a copy without permission, this isn't the sort of thing that should require explicit permission IMO), and they stand a reasonable chance. However, "reasonable" isn't the first word that comes to mind regarding US copyright laws.
They rejected every deal these services had to offer, not realizing the obvious financial advantage of having an agreement before launch.
"Rejected"? Neither Google nor Amazon sought permission. Only Apple did. And thanks to Google's and Amazon's hubris, Apple was able to negotiate a pretty sweet deal. So the real question is whether Google's and Amazon's risk will pay off. I really hope it does. It would be a great precedent for consumer's rights with what they can do with their own music, but realistically, American law doesn't exactly leave one with optimism here.
Sigh. Someone on the negotiating team should have known that these companies feel that they could absorb whatever the costs of being sued would be and still walk away profitable. But they didn't. So they have the business sense of gnats.
No, what will happen, if Google or Amazon are sued and they lose, is they have to completely shut down their service, find a new way to operate it (which doesn't seem feasible, their systems are pretty simple as it is, the user uploads their music. If that's the problem, there isn't much of a way to work around it), or enter into a licensing agreement with the studios and labels.
Apple's deal also allows them to match music so the user doesn't have to upload their music for it to be available. Google and Amazon really missed the boat here in not going for a deal. But it does make sense, the fact that they didn't seek permission may help their case if they are going to claim they don't need permission. Had they asked and not come up with a deal, it might make their position harder to defend later on.
Something people seem to misunderstand about this is that the concern is that rockets are known to fail at launch. It's a *huge* failure point. The consequences of such an event shouldn't be ignored.
Statistically, the radiation risk seems below the threshold of concern, but it's not distributed like one would think. With plutonium especially, it only takes a very small amount to be breathed in or ingested to essentially guarantee cancer. If it were to pass through the body completely, it wouldn't be a big deal (this is where it looks statistically negligible), but if it stays in the body it will sit there emitting gamma rays and alpha particles throughout the rest of your life.
This is also the major problem with (for example) Fukushima. There are other radioactive isotopes which are much more dangerous over the short term, but they don't last as long (which is primarily why they are more dangerous), but something like plutonium or uranium lasts a very long time, and provides a low but constant dose.
Fortunately, RTGs tend to be well protected (at least, I'm led to believe), but unfortunately, rockets can explode quite impressively, and somethings shit just happens. Also, some missions (although not generally for Mars) involve multiple Earth flybys. This increases the risks.
Engineers *LOVE* to get all worked in promoting nuclear power. That's because, from an engineering point of view, it's fucking fantastic. It's *AMAZINGLY* fantastic. But the problem isn't with the theory, it's with the practice. You can design yourself the best reactor, with all the safeguards, then an earthquake and a fucking tsunami ("which nobody could expect", it's claimed after the fact, even though this is on the coast of Japan), or a test goes awry and multiple points of human error happen in Chernobyl, which "isn't the fault of the reactor or the technology", even though somehow it still happened.
The point being, even if you are the best engineer in the world, and you manage to build a rock-solid device (and, seriously, what kind of ego do you have to have to think you've built a fail-proof reactor?), you can't account for the rocket engineers not realizing the o-rings become brittle as the temperature cools, or the guidance engineers are working in metric and the thruster engineers are working in imperial, or any of a billion other little things that can lead to the failure of your "perfect" design. Failure that is not your fault, sure, but failure none the less.
Yes, there is an ever declining minority of people, such as yourself, who are choosing to keep their feet firmly planted in the past.
I'm willing to open my mind. How do you recommend that I step into the present without paying ten times as much per month?
Your choice in phones isn't really any of my business. I was only responding as it regards the discussion at hand. If you are happy with your current situation, I don't see any reason to suggest you change things.
If you are interested in smartphones at more discount pricing, I know there are prepaid (such as Cricket) Android phones, and Apple is rumored to be working on a cheap, pre-paid friendly iPhone (although I'll assume you'd be more interested in the Android handset). On the other hand, it's not like we're talking a Droid X or Nexus S or anything.
As regards the topic at hand, people are increasingly willing to pay for smartphone voice and data plans. Enough so that smartphones either just have, or are just about to, become the dominant mobile phone subcategory.
But, like I said, if *you're* happy with your current state of things, by all means carry on. I'm not here to persuade you otherwise.
PS why on earth would you want an Android based music player?
Exactly my point. Why would someone want an Android music player? Why would they want an Android tablet?
They don't. Not in any great numbers.
So the *real* question, is why do they want Android phones? I suggest, they don't. The reasons that some nerds use to prefer Android over iOS are things that don't even register as things to think about to most people. The cellphone market is subject to significant artificial market influences, and that's the *one* market where Android actually does well in. It sticks out like a sore thumb.
Apple made the iPod Touch because they have their own music store and also want to sell apps.
That's backwards. Apple has their stores to add value to their hardware.
What benefit would Samsung or Motorola have in making a music device?
None. Those are phone makers. But there are proper MP3 makers out there.
As for third parties, regular MP3 players are so cheap to manufacture, why compete at the iPod Touch price with a touch screen and Android interface when they compete on price instead?
That's because people don't want Android. If they did, people would buy Android MP3 players, even if they were priced the same as iPod touches (technically, even a bit higher, if people actually preferred Android over iOS)! Hell, the hardware makers don't even have to pay for the OS, and Google even offers to share ad revenue in the phone market. That's better than free!
But there's no consumer demand for Android itself.
Your market assumptions seem pre-biased.
Perhaps, but my biases match reality. Reality is that people really don't want Android specifically. Not in any great numbers.
Your market assumptions are pre-biased as well. The main difference is that you don't know where to apply your biases and where not to. I understand that there are some nerds who can't stand Apple, or who relish in the "freedom" of Android (Android is *not* nearly as free or open as fandroids like to think) and don't mind the rough edges. These people do not share my biases, but I fully understand that these people exist, and I don't discount them.
On the other hand, the people you seem to be either discounting, or misunderstanding, are the vast majority of non-nerds (and plenty of nerds as well) who don't share those biases. They don't get their panties in a wad over the "walled garden". They prefer things that just work and that are aesthetically pleasing.
They also have to deal with the hell that is the reality of the cellphone market. Carrier subsidies, plans, contracts, ETFs, coverage, family plans, promotions, etc. These things do lead to people not necessarily buying (or even being able to buy) the phone of their choice. And because pretty much everyone buys a phone, there are plenty who simply don't give a shit and will buy the cheapest one that seems remotely appealing.
Just as I asked icebraining above, are you trying to suggest that if the Android Market was available for Android MP3 players, that these players would outsell the iPod touch?
No they don't. Apple sold its 100 millionth iPhone in March, Android shipped on its 100 millionth device last month. And that's just iPhones vs all Android devices combined!
For total devices, Apple has shipped over 200 million iOS devices. That's more than double the total number of Android devices.
iOS's lead in phones is still in the double-digits
That simply isn't true. There are more Android phones than there are iPhones.
Apple sold it's 100 millionth iPhone in March. Android shipped it's 100 millionth product (across all device types, although to be honest this is about ~98% phones) last month.
But congratulations on falling prey to the Fandroid fever here on Slashdot, which has had people believe all sorts of nonsense about Android vs iOS for over a year now. This particular milestone for Android has not yet happened.
People don't particularly want Android. They don't particularly *like* Android. Not on the whole. But people *do* want iPads.
Based on you and your mates from round the corner, or what? What mystical tree did you pluck this fact from?
Umm.... Based on well over 25 million iPads sold, while Android tablets have *shipped* in the very low millions, and no one ever admits to how many of those are actually *sold*. I call this "mystical tree" reality. Yes, I do realize "reality" is something of a myth here on Slashdot, but trust me, it really does exist.
The only time it ever occured to me to install an alternate media player on a PhoneOS device is when there was some sort of really big flaw with the default option.
I'm referring to hardware players, like the highly successful iPod touch. If people liked Android, the OS specifically, so much, there would be a vast untapped market for Android music players.
But there isn't. That's because people simply don't particularly want Android itself. Remove the artificial market influences in the cellphone market, such as in PMPs and tablets, and Android is a dead duck.
That's what this whole slashdot story is about. People misunderstanding why people buy Android phones, and scratching their heads at lack of supply of Honeycomb apps. There's no supply because there's simply no demand.
Android subjects you to less bullsh*t in some ways and has better default application behavior. It does things by default that require jailbreaking and hacks on an iPhone. The idea that there is no "consumer user" reason to buy an Android phone is just fanboy self-delusion.
The "delusion" is thinking this "less bullshit" is anything that anyone other than hardcore geeks of the nerdliest kind give half a shit about. Reality, unlike fandroid fantasy, is that Android gives users *far* more "bullshit" and worse "default application behavior".
It's quite a bit like Linux vs Windows. If you are a nerd, Linux can be much less annoying to use. But if you are a normal person, Windows, with all its warts, is the better system. Between Android and iOS it's similar, except iOS doesn't have the sort of usability warts as Windows has, but it has technical limitations that Android doesn't (although don't kid yourself, Android isn't as open as many here seem to think).
Those limits are all but invisible to most people, while they can feel oppressive to a nerd. That's why slashdot regulars, like yourself, tend to get this whole thing so completely wrong. You can't stand those limits, while normal people don't even know they're there. Conversely, the rough edges on Android are major annoyances to regular people, and because you're more technically savvy, you barely register them as a hinderance.
Yes, there is an ever declining minority of people, such as yourself, who are choosing to keep their feet firmly planted in the past.
Have you ever wondered why there are no Android music players? Google places some limits on them
It's not Google that places limits on the Archos 43 Internet Tablet as much as short-sighted developers who make their applications available only on Android Market, not on Amazon Appstore or on AppsLib.
Apple had no problem selling iPod touches before the App Store.
People just don't really want Android specifically. From a consumer perspective, it's really just not that compelling. Look at all the arguments for Android (or against iPhones). They are almost universally about things that normal people could care less about.
It's pretty simple. Either people like iPhones better, and slashdot Android fans are in a bubble. Or they like Android better, and and I'm in an RDF.
Looking at how Android compares in any market that isn't as artificially affected as the cellphone market is, iOS handily stomps all over Android. More iPhones have been sold to date than Android phones. iPhones aren't as broadly available as Android phones, nor as heavily discounted, subsidized, or promo'd, yet one phone line is holding its own against a hoard of Android phones. When iPhone became available on Verizon, Android *lost* market share to the iPhone. Apple makes more money on iPhones than all Android makers make from Android combined.
There's a lot to indicate that current sales rates don't adequately reflect consumer opinion on Android vs iPhone specifically. When people have a fair choice (tablets) they choose iOS hands down. When people buy higher end smartphones, they overwhelmingly choose iPhones. When they buy a decent phone on their carrier, where iPhones might not even be available, for a lower price and potentially lower rate plan, only then do they really start buying Android.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct, people in China often speak one of the two major forms of Chinese.
This seems sufficiently apparent, I'm not exactly sure what's meant to be pedantic about it. Redundant might be a better word.
Not sure what that's even supposed to mean. I'm just calling sethstorm out on his jingoism.
Exactly, and Google and Amazon are the enablers, just like MP3.com before them (even though they have a key difference in how their service works compared with how MP3.com did).
I haven't read their EULAs, but I suspect the way it's worded is that you're effectively renting that storage. I very much doubt that you can't copy an MP3 on a storage you own - I mean, if I rent a laptop, and load it with my MP3s, am I "distributing"?
Law supersedes contracts.
Otherwise, couldn't you just make a bittorrent EULA that says you are only "borrowing" space on other people's computers and that they have no right to use the copy themselves?
The EULA doesn't alter the fact that you are copying the file to a hard drive that is owned by Google or Amazon.
All in all, the main reason I think they're good is because both Google and Amazon have went ahead without any license deals. That means that at least two independent lawyer teams - and, I would imagine, pretty expensive ones at that - have reviewed the law on this matter.
That's not how the law works. Legal teams don't get to decide the law, judges, juries, and legislatures do. Every day, lawyers sign off on things that are later found to be illegal.
I do hope you're right though. But to act like there is no risk or exposure here is irrational.
The consequences of such an event shouldn't be ignored.
And they weren't. End of story.
No, *not* end of story. They still launch RTGs, in spite of the real risks involved. They didn't "ignore" the risks completely (they did shield the reactors), but they still went ahead with these launches, even though there are risks involved.
Everything else you wrote is either wrong or completely irrelevant. There are no lessons from Chernobyl and Fukushima that can be applied to RTGs, and no analogies between them can be drawn except for ones comparing apples with spoons.
The lessons are that you can't engineer away disaster. Not a single thing ever invented is disaster-proof (in fact, there have been some notable "disaster-proof" inventions famously succumbing to disaster. Raise your hand if you can name two). Nuclear reactors are apt examples because they involve severe effects when things go wrong. Fukushima and Chernobyl suffered meltdowns. Something which RTGs cannot do, but they dispersed radioactive material (*especially* Fukushima), which RTGs very much can do.
RTGs don't work even remotely like a nuclear reactor of any type, well-engineered, poorly-engineered, or otherwise.
First off, that's absolutely false. They *are* nuclear reactors. However, I'll cut you some slack on that and assume you meant that they aren't similar in danger to traditional large-scale nuclear power plants. This is true, but I've never claimed otherwise.
It's not clear that plutonium is as dangerous as people have been told it is. In particular, there seems to be no scientific backing for the usual claim that a single inhaled particle is 'guaranteed' to cause cancer.
No one claimed a "single particle" would guarantee cancer. And the link you posted made the case that plutonium is very dangerous. Did you not read it first?
RTGs containing various radioisotopes have been damaged in accidents before with no apocalyptic consequences,.
No one is claiming "apocalyptic consequences". Speaking for myself alone, I'm talking about completely innocent bystanders being killed as a consequence of disaster, without being aware of any impact, decades later.
At least with most disasters, you know when you are at risk, the disaster is localized, and when it's over, it's over. Nuclear disasters have the distinction of not being so forthcoming with the aftermath.
When you build an RTG you use such a small amount of radioactive material that it's feasible to encapsulate it in a manner that renders it reasonably safe under any reasonably conceivable failure conditions. (Launch-pad explosions are not all that violent, frankly -- Kaku's major concern with Cassini was the Earth flyby, where a miscalculation would have exposed the RTG to much greater heat and higher mechanical stress.)
I'm not talking about "reasonably conceivable failure conditions". It's not the things you've planned for, it's the things you *didn't* plan for (which is why I brought up Fukushima and Chernobyl. Both were engineered for reasonable expectations, but they still failed because not everything that happens is reasonable).
The launch will probably be successful, and if it's not, it's very unlikely that anyone will die from plutonium exposure as a result. Those are the only guarantees you'll get from any honest engineer. They're good enough for me, they're good enough for you, and they're good enough for the good Dr. Kaku.
Who are you to speak for others? They may be good enough for you, but you have no business speaking on behalf of others.
I'm not saying that I'm particularly concerned about RTGs in general. I'm just trying to show that concern is reasonable. Engineer-types tend to mischaracterize anyone who dares question the safety of nuclear systems as some sort of crazy person.
And then Uncle Sam will ride in on a majestic bald eagle and spread jingoism across the land. Well, Uncle Sam was busy today with the fireworks and what not, but never fear, he sent his trusty sidekick sethstorm!
Hahaha... Google and Yahoo are your shining examples? They were the first to bow down to China. (well, you sort of have a point about Altavista. I don't suppose Obsorne Computer doesn't do much business with China either)
Google might be on the outs with China lately, but that bad blood took some while to accrue.
A story about China? Somebody alert the jingoism brigade!
That, or people in China speak Chinese.
No, you are copying it to a network drive that only you can access - no different than hosting your own server or copying it to an external hard drive (or even iPod for that matter).
The difference is who owns the drive. If you are copying it to Google's hard drive, that's quite different from copying it to your own.
No one is able to make copies from another person's drive, which would be copyright infringement.
You will be making a copy onto Google's or Amazon's drive, then making another copy from it to your device or computer.
I'm not saying this difference will necessarily alter the legality of it, that can only happen in the courts or the legislature. What I am saying is that it's a key difference that opens Google and Amazon up to attack in a way that hosting your own server does not.
The main problem is that you are looking at it as an overall impact. The overall impact is the same. It's your file, you are putting it on a service that has a space reserved for you and you alone, and you are copying back to your own device. The entire time, you are (assuming no funny business on the part of Google or Amazon, no hacking, and you aren't giving out your login information, all of which are reasonable assumptions) in control of the file, which is functionally the same as having your own server. But it's not *legally* the same.
Copyright isn't simply about being in control of the file. It's about being in control of the ability to copy the file. And it's a tough case to say you can't copy it around on your own hardware (although they have taken that very opinion at one time), it's a much easier case to say you can't copy it to third parties.
And even if personal file shares violate copyright, they are too small and too difficult to go after. On the other hand, Google and Amazon make big, easy targets.
I'm not saying I agree with this opinion. In fact, I think it's fairly asinine. But I am saying that it fits with copyright law and the way the system tends to work enough to be a potential legal issue.
So basically the RIAA is trying to claim that if you legally own an MP3 and legally join a service that lets you store said MP3 on a server
We need to stop right there. The RIAA, if they pursue this, will make the point that that the service itself isn't legal.
It's not even clear that they, or any of the major players involved, have any plans to enter into such a lawsuit, but it's pretty much exactly what happened to MP3.com. Amazon and Google have a fairly key difference in how they work compared to how MP3.com worked, but the weakness is the same.
you are not legally allowed to play it directly from the server and must download it to your car / computer / phone / mp3 player first?
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the copying (whether streaming or fully cached) is the part that makes it vulnerable to copyright law.
Sorry, but I doubt that'll hold up in court (though with the morons we have in the "justice" system, you never know).
Why not? That's exactly what happened to MP3.com. There is one key difference, and hopefully that's enough (ironically, there's *more* copying involved with Google's and Amazon's services than with MP3.com, but the copying is more reasonable).
Anyway, only time will tell.
EXACTLY THIS. How is my home media server (I have two) any different from Amazon's cloud? Answer: There IS no difference.
The difference is you are copying the file to yourself on your own home media server. Whereas with Google and Amazon, you are copying your file to them. Whether that difference counts legally has yet to be determined, but it's a fairly important difference.
The RIAA and Co. have never sued anyone for using their own music digitally. They have sued when a third party is involved. The issue isn't that you are able to stream your music to you from your own system, or even from a web server somewhere else that you operate. The problem is that you are uploading your songs to Google or Amazon, which may very well be copyright infringement.
Or maybe it isn't. The problem is that Google and Amazon, like MP3.com before them, make an easy target. If it *is* infringement, they can have it shut down. If it's not, well, hooray for the rest of us for a change.
Strictly speaking, I don't think the way Google and Amazon operates should count as copyright infringement (even though it does involve making a copy without permission, this isn't the sort of thing that should require explicit permission IMO), and they stand a reasonable chance. However, "reasonable" isn't the first word that comes to mind regarding US copyright laws.
They rejected every deal these services had to offer, not realizing the obvious financial advantage of having an agreement before launch.
"Rejected"? Neither Google nor Amazon sought permission. Only Apple did. And thanks to Google's and Amazon's hubris, Apple was able to negotiate a pretty sweet deal. So the real question is whether Google's and Amazon's risk will pay off. I really hope it does. It would be a great precedent for consumer's rights with what they can do with their own music, but realistically, American law doesn't exactly leave one with optimism here.
Sigh. Someone on the negotiating team should have known that these companies feel that they could absorb whatever the costs of being sued would be and still walk away profitable. But they didn't. So they have the business sense of gnats.
No, what will happen, if Google or Amazon are sued and they lose, is they have to completely shut down their service, find a new way to operate it (which doesn't seem feasible, their systems are pretty simple as it is, the user uploads their music. If that's the problem, there isn't much of a way to work around it), or enter into a licensing agreement with the studios and labels.
Apple's deal also allows them to match music so the user doesn't have to upload their music for it to be available. Google and Amazon really missed the boat here in not going for a deal. But it does make sense, the fact that they didn't seek permission may help their case if they are going to claim they don't need permission. Had they asked and not come up with a deal, it might make their position harder to defend later on.
Something people seem to misunderstand about this is that the concern is that rockets are known to fail at launch. It's a *huge* failure point. The consequences of such an event shouldn't be ignored.
Statistically, the radiation risk seems below the threshold of concern, but it's not distributed like one would think. With plutonium especially, it only takes a very small amount to be breathed in or ingested to essentially guarantee cancer. If it were to pass through the body completely, it wouldn't be a big deal (this is where it looks statistically negligible), but if it stays in the body it will sit there emitting gamma rays and alpha particles throughout the rest of your life.
This is also the major problem with (for example) Fukushima. There are other radioactive isotopes which are much more dangerous over the short term, but they don't last as long (which is primarily why they are more dangerous), but something like plutonium or uranium lasts a very long time, and provides a low but constant dose.
Fortunately, RTGs tend to be well protected (at least, I'm led to believe), but unfortunately, rockets can explode quite impressively, and somethings shit just happens. Also, some missions (although not generally for Mars) involve multiple Earth flybys. This increases the risks.
Engineers *LOVE* to get all worked in promoting nuclear power. That's because, from an engineering point of view, it's fucking fantastic. It's *AMAZINGLY* fantastic. But the problem isn't with the theory, it's with the practice. You can design yourself the best reactor, with all the safeguards, then an earthquake and a fucking tsunami ("which nobody could expect", it's claimed after the fact, even though this is on the coast of Japan), or a test goes awry and multiple points of human error happen in Chernobyl, which "isn't the fault of the reactor or the technology", even though somehow it still happened.
The point being, even if you are the best engineer in the world, and you manage to build a rock-solid device (and, seriously, what kind of ego do you have to have to think you've built a fail-proof reactor?), you can't account for the rocket engineers not realizing the o-rings become brittle as the temperature cools, or the guidance engineers are working in metric and the thruster engineers are working in imperial, or any of a billion other little things that can lead to the failure of your "perfect" design. Failure that is not your fault, sure, but failure none the less.
Yes, there is an ever declining minority of people, such as yourself, who are choosing to keep their feet firmly planted in the past.
I'm willing to open my mind. How do you recommend that I step into the present without paying ten times as much per month?
Your choice in phones isn't really any of my business. I was only responding as it regards the discussion at hand. If you are happy with your current situation, I don't see any reason to suggest you change things.
If you are interested in smartphones at more discount pricing, I know there are prepaid (such as Cricket) Android phones, and Apple is rumored to be working on a cheap, pre-paid friendly iPhone (although I'll assume you'd be more interested in the Android handset). On the other hand, it's not like we're talking a Droid X or Nexus S or anything.
As regards the topic at hand, people are increasingly willing to pay for smartphone voice and data plans. Enough so that smartphones either just have, or are just about to, become the dominant mobile phone subcategory.
But, like I said, if *you're* happy with your current state of things, by all means carry on. I'm not here to persuade you otherwise.
PS why on earth would you want an Android based music player?
Exactly my point. Why would someone want an Android music player? Why would they want an Android tablet?
They don't. Not in any great numbers.
So the *real* question, is why do they want Android phones? I suggest, they don't. The reasons that some nerds use to prefer Android over iOS are things that don't even register as things to think about to most people. The cellphone market is subject to significant artificial market influences, and that's the *one* market where Android actually does well in. It sticks out like a sore thumb.
Apple made the iPod Touch because they have their own music store and also want to sell apps.
That's backwards. Apple has their stores to add value to their hardware.
What benefit would Samsung or Motorola have in making a music device?
None. Those are phone makers. But there are proper MP3 makers out there.
As for third parties, regular MP3 players are so cheap to manufacture, why compete at the iPod Touch price with a touch screen and Android interface when they compete on price instead?
That's because people don't want Android. If they did, people would buy Android MP3 players, even if they were priced the same as iPod touches (technically, even a bit higher, if people actually preferred Android over iOS)! Hell, the hardware makers don't even have to pay for the OS, and Google even offers to share ad revenue in the phone market. That's better than free!
But there's no consumer demand for Android itself.
Your market assumptions seem pre-biased.
Perhaps, but my biases match reality. Reality is that people really don't want Android specifically. Not in any great numbers.
Your market assumptions are pre-biased as well. The main difference is that you don't know where to apply your biases and where not to. I understand that there are some nerds who can't stand Apple, or who relish in the "freedom" of Android (Android is *not* nearly as free or open as fandroids like to think) and don't mind the rough edges. These people do not share my biases, but I fully understand that these people exist, and I don't discount them.
On the other hand, the people you seem to be either discounting, or misunderstanding, are the vast majority of non-nerds (and plenty of nerds as well) who don't share those biases. They don't get their panties in a wad over the "walled garden". They prefer things that just work and that are aesthetically pleasing.
They also have to deal with the hell that is the reality of the cellphone market. Carrier subsidies, plans, contracts, ETFs, coverage, family plans, promotions, etc. These things do lead to people not necessarily buying (or even being able to buy) the phone of their choice. And because pretty much everyone buys a phone, there are plenty who simply don't give a shit and will buy the cheapest one that seems remotely appealing.
Just as I asked icebraining above, are you trying to suggest that if the Android Market was available for Android MP3 players, that these players would outsell the iPod touch?
Just so we're clear, you're saying that the reason Android music players haven't taken off is that people don't know where to buy apps?
I'm saying it's a very plausible explanation. A priori, I'd tend to believe it.
Simply put, you suggesting that if the Android Market were available for Android MP3 players, they'd outsell the iPod touch?
> The vast majority of tablets is iOS.
FTFY.
Android devices in general outnumber iOS devices.
No they don't. Apple sold its 100 millionth iPhone in March, Android shipped on its 100 millionth device last month. And that's just iPhones vs all Android devices combined!
For total devices, Apple has shipped over 200 million iOS devices. That's more than double the total number of Android devices.
iOS's lead in phones is still in the double-digits
That simply isn't true. There are more Android phones than there are iPhones.
Apple sold it's 100 millionth iPhone in March. Android shipped it's 100 millionth product (across all device types, although to be honest this is about ~98% phones) last month.
But congratulations on falling prey to the Fandroid fever here on Slashdot, which has had people believe all sorts of nonsense about Android vs iOS for over a year now. This particular milestone for Android has not yet happened.
People don't particularly want Android. They don't particularly *like* Android. Not on the whole. But people *do* want iPads.
Based on you and your mates from round the corner, or what? What mystical tree did you pluck this fact from?
Umm.... Based on well over 25 million iPads sold, while Android tablets have *shipped* in the very low millions, and no one ever admits to how many of those are actually *sold*. I call this "mystical tree" reality. Yes, I do realize "reality" is something of a myth here on Slashdot, but trust me, it really does exist.
The only time it ever occured to me to install an alternate media player on a PhoneOS device is when there was some sort of really big flaw with the default option.
I'm referring to hardware players, like the highly successful iPod touch. If people liked Android, the OS specifically, so much, there would be a vast untapped market for Android music players.
But there isn't. That's because people simply don't particularly want Android itself. Remove the artificial market influences in the cellphone market, such as in PMPs and tablets, and Android is a dead duck.
That's what this whole slashdot story is about. People misunderstanding why people buy Android phones, and scratching their heads at lack of supply of Honeycomb apps. There's no supply because there's simply no demand.
Android subjects you to less bullsh*t in some ways and has better default application behavior. It does things by default that require jailbreaking and hacks on an iPhone. The idea that there is no "consumer user" reason to buy an Android phone is just fanboy self-delusion.
The "delusion" is thinking this "less bullshit" is anything that anyone other than hardcore geeks of the nerdliest kind give half a shit about. Reality, unlike fandroid fantasy, is that Android gives users *far* more "bullshit" and worse "default application behavior".
It's quite a bit like Linux vs Windows. If you are a nerd, Linux can be much less annoying to use. But if you are a normal person, Windows, with all its warts, is the better system. Between Android and iOS it's similar, except iOS doesn't have the sort of usability warts as Windows has, but it has technical limitations that Android doesn't (although don't kid yourself, Android isn't as open as many here seem to think).
Those limits are all but invisible to most people, while they can feel oppressive to a nerd. That's why slashdot regulars, like yourself, tend to get this whole thing so completely wrong. You can't stand those limits, while normal people don't even know they're there. Conversely, the rough edges on Android are major annoyances to regular people, and because you're more technically savvy, you barely register them as a hinderance.
Also, pretty much everyone is getting a phone
Getting a phone != getting a smartphone.
Yes, there is an ever declining minority of people, such as yourself, who are choosing to keep their feet firmly planted in the past.
Have you ever wondered why there are no Android music players? Google places some limits on them
It's not Google that places limits on the Archos 43 Internet Tablet as much as short-sighted developers who make their applications available only on Android Market, not on Amazon Appstore or on AppsLib.
Apple had no problem selling iPod touches before the App Store.
People just don't really want Android specifically. From a consumer perspective, it's really just not that compelling. Look at all the arguments for Android (or against iPhones). They are almost universally about things that normal people could care less about.
The question is which is the case here?
It's pretty simple. Either people like iPhones better, and slashdot Android fans are in a bubble. Or they like Android better, and and I'm in an RDF.
Looking at how Android compares in any market that isn't as artificially affected as the cellphone market is, iOS handily stomps all over Android. More iPhones have been sold to date than Android phones. iPhones aren't as broadly available as Android phones, nor as heavily discounted, subsidized, or promo'd, yet one phone line is holding its own against a hoard of Android phones. When iPhone became available on Verizon, Android *lost* market share to the iPhone. Apple makes more money on iPhones than all Android makers make from Android combined.
There's a lot to indicate that current sales rates don't adequately reflect consumer opinion on Android vs iPhone specifically. When people have a fair choice (tablets) they choose iOS hands down. When people buy higher end smartphones, they overwhelmingly choose iPhones. When they buy a decent phone on their carrier, where iPhones might not even be available, for a lower price and potentially lower rate plan, only then do they really start buying Android.