Your argument is that buying an app 'is a waste of money because you are inherently required to re-purchase the exact same application if you want to change platforms'.
My problem with that line of reasoning is that it assumes that the value/cost ratio of the application is so low that you have no benefit in purchasing the app in the first place. So even if there was a 'universal app store' that let you purchase an app and have it freely transferred to any OS, the value of buying the app from there would be only slightly increased.
I might concede your point if you only purchased apps as some kind of investment where the inherent value of the app had nothing to do with its utility. But, like most things in life, you pay for services at a rate that suits your needs/desires.
Think of it like renting a video, going to the cinema, hiring a taxi, staying in a hotel, or eating in a restaurant; the money is gone, but not necessarily wasted (unless, of course, you spend extravagantly for no reason).
No one is saying that you don't "value the money that you work hard for". What I'm saying is that you're misunderstanding the reason that you're not purchasing these 'apps'. You say it's because of lack of portability - I say it's because those apps are of no or little value to you irrespective of portability.
If you don't want to spend $1 for a game app that would give you a few weeks of fun, then that's fine. If, however, you were only holding out because of lack of inter-platform portability, AND if that same game became available for $2 from the aforementioned 'universal app store' would you then purchase it? I doubt it, as for most people it would be more economical to spend the $1 again, rather than $2 under the assumption that they'd change platforms at least twice before they got bored of the game app (or a utility/productivity app was superseded by something better).
Most of the apps in the App stores are priced at almost rental levels - with the benefit of having no time limit. If you can't afford a few dollars for a productive or utilitarian app, or even a few dollars for a few weeks of gaming fun before you're bored of the game, then owning a smartphone is probably not for you.
Most people don't buy hundreds of random useless apps, they buy things that they feel are worthwhile. And since most people don't change their phone/OS every six months, it's not an issue. Also, your stubbornness assumes that these apps are never going to become obsolete, and that you'd otherwise never consider upgrading to another app with improved functionality (or looking for new games that are new and interesting).
You are correct. The ability to publish for up to 12 months prior to patenting is US only. But, this is more of an annoyance in comparison to the other 'features' that are common to all patent systems.
Submarining is a term normally applied to patents that are periodically 'continued' and amended in such a way as to keep them out of the public eye until the applicant is ready to start suing. IMO, even if a patent is not intentionally kept in endless processing, it is effectively in the same unpublished state for a not insignificant period of time. That 18 months is an eternity in today's fast pace of development - especially when most patents seem to be obvious evolutionary improvements and have very little unique inventiveness (if any at all).
But, you have to remember that a device or process that is a subset of a larger device/process was always and is still inherently patentable as a separate entity/idea. A single patent makes a number of claims of inventive steps that make up the invention. As long as what is covered in that patent is new/novel/useful/inventive it will be approved. This was always the case.
As much as any patent on a manufacturing process still covers the single inventive step that was claimed in the patent. For example, just because an invention was for mixing paints, doesn't mean someone can apply it to mixing fruit juice and not be infringing. If the patent was worded in the best legal light, it would have been written as a general mixing process for liquids. The fact that the original usage was in a paint factory is beside the point.
The same applies to algorithms and software constructions. They are simply processes that are used in the construction or operation of a device.
The problem is where to draw the line on what constitutes 'enough' of an invention to qualify as patentable. The fact that it is software, hardware or another process is irrelevant. The real problem is that the bar for what is a novel/inventive step has been reduced to a point that it now includes obvious evolutionary concepts. And the duration of most patents far exceeds the useful life of their claimed novelties - many of which are no longer useful by the time they expire into the public domain.
This is a problem for all fields of engineering/manufacturing and design, not just for the software world.
If you can access Slashdot in the office, you might be tempted to read and post on the forum. If your boss blocks access to the slashdot.org domain, you might now spend time reading and posting elsewhere. Then your IT department sets up a white list so you can only access sites that are necessary for company operation. You can now get back to work and stop goofing off.
...there is a BIG difference between real hardware patents and the mess that is software patents.
People keep saying this, but it is a semantic argument more than anything else.
The reality is that the patent system is so systemically broken due to its lack of scalability, that the effects are most heavily felt by the fastest growing/moving industries.
Patents have always been there to describe both processes and physical manifestations, so there's nothing new there. However, the term lengths and acceptance of obvious ideas are too far removed from what could be considered sane in the current technological climate.
Concepts such as:
1. 'future' patents, or patenting the 'goal' instead of the steps to get there.
2. being allowed to patent something that has already been published (for up to 12 months)
3. obvious 'innovations' (eg. $prior_art$ on the internet)
4. non-immediate disclosure of the patent at the time of submission (eg. submarine patents - disclosure that occurs after numerous other parties have 'innovated' along the same line.)
5. an incredibly low bar for novelty (eg. 'inventive' steps that are a natural evolution of the state of the art and will be discovered in short order (if they haven't been already) by multiple independent parallel 'inventors')
6. etc, etc.
The above are unsustainable in an industry where the half life of a product is under 3 years and the shear volume of 'inventors and implementors' number in the millions. As the number of players grows, the bar for acceptability must be raised proportionally. There is still room for patents on ideas that are truly clever and novel and would have little chance of being 'rediscovered' by multiple other parties without significant effort, investment and/or serendipity. But, the more players there are, the more likelihood that what is being claimed is far from being unique. (To quantise this, term lengths could be made relative to how inventive the patent actually is. More inventiveness, longer protection. Very little inventiveness, very short term length. However, measuring 'inventiveness' is probably just as difficult a question.)
In addition to fixing the above, it should also be recognised that anything that ends up being deemed an industry standard should be considered a special case and handled by the public trust.
'Fixing' the patent system by trying to create a disconnection between software/hardware/manufacturing processes/business processes/etc is not the right way to go about it. Even if a distinction can be made, it is so arbitrary as to end up flip/flopping every time a clever legal argument is made or sneaky 'word-around' starts getting written into new patents. (eg. "A device that..." or "A method to create...")
So, the answer is not to "deny all 'software' patents". The answer is FIX the system. Now.
1st strike, they cut of your service until you contact the main office.
2nd strike - there is no second strike, as you didn't bother contacting their office after the first strike. Of course, now you are connecting to the internet via a competing ISP that doesn't take random infringement notices as irrefutable evidence.
Filling plausible data into a boilerplate email is the easy part. If the ISP was logging all inbound and outbound port connections, then you'd have a harder time, because you'd need to match the ISP's logs with your data.
Keep in mind that email headers contain a lot of information regarding the IP address, the time that the user was online sending their email, the ISP domain information, etc. It's not much of a step to send out a fake notice with details that were completely plausible.
A diligent ISP would then confirm these 'takedown' notices with the complainant and verify their validity before disconnecting the user. But, we know how likely that is.
China is doing about as much to stop "piracy" as they are to stop anything else they're doing. For example, executing their head of food safety over taking bribes to ignore unsafe food for export instead of actually doing something to prevent the next guy from doing the same thing.
I would think that fear of execution is a rather effective deterrent for the next guy. It's also infinitely more effective than rewarding the offender with a huge bonus and a pat on the back.
No, the scientists have shown an indicative bias in a simplified controlled study. If you want a more concise conclusion, you'll either have to wait for someone to perform further study with a different sampling of people/environments, or you can formulate another hypothesis and provide some test data.
Making the exact opposite statement is equally untested in a scientific sense and also requires proof. Many scientific theories can never be proven with 100% certainty, however, by definition, they must be falsifiable in some way, and in this case provide a numeric analyses that can be refined with improved test methods and data.
What the students have done is formulate a hypothetical argument and provided data to support that position. If further confounding variables are established, then the confidence in the hypothesis is weakened, but doesn't automatically default to an opposite viewpoint. In this case, it merely defaults to a lower confidence of accuracy. The conclusion is what it is, and does support the hypothesis. If contrary evidence is provided, then the hypothesis may be weakened to the point where it does support the opposing argument.
A follow-up study to this one could include a random sampling of people from the greater population. Beyond that, they could use actors. Beyond that, they could provide analyses of numerous real case studies and normalise against various background variables. etc.
At some point, the confidence level of the original hypothesis will increase to a point that extrapolating into the real justice system could produce highly accurate results.
The article author implies that the result extrapolates to the real justice system. However, the actual scientific study is really about human reasoning being influenced by emotional bias. So, I suspect the author of the article has taken liberties to generate their own more sensationalist conclusion.
It also means you will probably come better prepared to provide quality information regarding your own body.
In the process of trying to Google a diagnosis, you may be keyed into preparing otherwise non-obvious external information regarding things like consumed substances, genetic conditions, and/or infectious diseases that the doctor may not know about (ie. a vitamin supplement, a friend with mono, an uncle that died of heart failure at 30, etc).
Then when the Doctor asks those questions, you'll have a quick answer for him. You may also come better prepared (both mentally and physically) to go through a series of possibly intrusive tests.
For many results that otherwise appear quite simple, an incredibly technical process was required to gather and analyse the information to formulate a conclusion.
So, unless you happen to have an in-depth education in an appropriate field of study, chances are you won't be able to make a validly informed determination of merit. Well, not beyond anything that isn't already obvious.
Absolutely, the sample size is inversely relative to how close the differential result is to the 'noise floor'.
In this respect, your first example is slightly flawed. As the expected determinant gets closer to the noise floor (ie. if the margin for a Republican or Democrat victory is going to be 0.01%, or 50.01% vs 49.99%), then a much greater sample size is needed to maintain confidence in the resultant prediction.
As you say, 60% is a landslide. So if that is the expected result, then a few percent error either way isn't going to change your final determination of the winner.
There are several FOSS projects where I have spent more time at my hourly rate trying to get the crap working, than the full-price commercial alternatives have cost. When you charge for your time, no software is free.
Every time I hear this argument it is almost always bollocks.
The same argument can be applied to everything you do outside of work. Do you pay someone else to do your shopping/wait in queues/pay your bills/do the laundry/tidy the house/etc while you're elsewhere earning your hourly rate?
I have a friend (who earns stupid money as some kind of financier in the banking industry) that pulls that argument all the time. My response is always, "you pay me half your post-tax hourly wage and I'll do it for you". For some reason, he never ponies up the cash and prefers to do all those 'waste of time' things himself.
The reality is that even though he's paid a huge amount of money, he doesn't actually earn it in a way that lets him do extra work and claim extra wages. He also appears to sort of enjoy those 'annoying time wasters' as a way of escaping 'life in the fast lane'.
The purpose of schooling (ignoring all the 'crush the free thinkers' conspiracy theories) isn't about making things unnecessarily hard so only one or two nerds can succeed. It's about teaching the students fundamental principles in a way that can be further applied to learn more advanced principles.
Your implication is that, for example, turning up to a maths class and learning trigonometry without already having a good base in algebra is a valid approach. True, you might learn something. But, it isn't in the best interests of the majority of the students, both GPAwise, or from an educational standpoint.
It's worse than that, he also had to secure his wifi as part of the court order. That may cause more trouble (for friends and neighbours that otherwise use it) than the 100 euro 'fine'.
In theory, the AI could learn (and/or be taught) just about every conceivable road surface and driving condition and how the parameters are inter-related. With appropriate external sensors, and for a single test manoeuvre, it is likely to be able to best just about any human driver.
This is simply an example of a robotic driver AI being demonstrated with more flare than the usual run-of-the-mill reverse park.
A vehicle AI driving blindly is equivalent to letting a blind man drive a car. The real innovation comes in having the AI interpret the input from a variety of sensors, including 360 degree cameras, speedometer, multi-axis accelerometers, radar/sonar, laser surface friction estimators, tyre temperature, forward looking road surface temperature/IR sensor, etc.
Driving is as much about anticipation as it is about dexterity and control. AI driving is similar in that it needs a base level of control over the vehicle and some simple programmed sequences. However, AI can also be trained with various anticipatory capabilities where various sensors are used to predict likely outcomes.
With increases in processing power and memory, AI driving 'skill' will one day surpass that of human drivers. At that point, it won't be long before AI drivers exceed even the best race/stunt drivers, and will of course not suffer from human distractions such as road rage, mental fatigue or testosterone.
Napster was forced to change their approach so dramatically that their audience was no longer able to make use of their services.
The original Napster was a MASSIVE boon to anyone that loved collecting gigs of decent quality mp3s. Nothing that followed even comes close to the indexing and file sharing service that was Napster.
If the RIAA could put something like Napster online in a legitimate capacity, illegal file sharing would cease overnight.
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument is that buying an app 'is a waste of money because you are inherently required to re-purchase the exact same application if you want to change platforms'.
My problem with that line of reasoning is that it assumes that the value/cost ratio of the application is so low that you have no benefit in purchasing the app in the first place. So even if there was a 'universal app store' that let you purchase an app and have it freely transferred to any OS, the value of buying the app from there would be only slightly increased.
I might concede your point if you only purchased apps as some kind of investment where the inherent value of the app had nothing to do with its utility. But, like most things in life, you pay for services at a rate that suits your needs/desires.
Think of it like renting a video, going to the cinema, hiring a taxi, staying in a hotel, or eating in a restaurant; the money is gone, but not necessarily wasted (unless, of course, you spend extravagantly for no reason).
No one is saying that you don't "value the money that you work hard for". What I'm saying is that you're misunderstanding the reason that you're not purchasing these 'apps'. You say it's because of lack of portability - I say it's because those apps are of no or little value to you irrespective of portability.
If you don't want to spend $1 for a game app that would give you a few weeks of fun, then that's fine. If, however, you were only holding out because of lack of inter-platform portability, AND if that same game became available for $2 from the aforementioned 'universal app store' would you then purchase it? I doubt it, as for most people it would be more economical to spend the $1 again, rather than $2 under the assumption that they'd change platforms at least twice before they got bored of the game app (or a utility/productivity app was superseded by something better).
Your line of reasoning is seriously flawed.
Most of the apps in the App stores are priced at almost rental levels - with the benefit of having no time limit. If you can't afford a few dollars for a productive or utilitarian app, or even a few dollars for a few weeks of gaming fun before you're bored of the game, then owning a smartphone is probably not for you.
Most people don't buy hundreds of random useless apps, they buy things that they feel are worthwhile. And since most people don't change their phone/OS every six months, it's not an issue. Also, your stubbornness assumes that these apps are never going to become obsolete, and that you'd otherwise never consider upgrading to another app with improved functionality (or looking for new games that are new and interesting).
Way up to the top right [+5, Insightful][+5, Informative].
You are correct. The ability to publish for up to 12 months prior to patenting is US only. But, this is more of an annoyance in comparison to the other 'features' that are common to all patent systems.
Submarining is a term normally applied to patents that are periodically 'continued' and amended in such a way as to keep them out of the public eye until the applicant is ready to start suing. IMO, even if a patent is not intentionally kept in endless processing, it is effectively in the same unpublished state for a not insignificant period of time. That 18 months is an eternity in today's fast pace of development - especially when most patents seem to be obvious evolutionary improvements and have very little unique inventiveness (if any at all).
But, you have to remember that a device or process that is a subset of a larger device/process was always and is still inherently patentable as a separate entity/idea. A single patent makes a number of claims of inventive steps that make up the invention. As long as what is covered in that patent is new/novel/useful/inventive it will be approved. This was always the case.
As much as any patent on a manufacturing process still covers the single inventive step that was claimed in the patent. For example, just because an invention was for mixing paints, doesn't mean someone can apply it to mixing fruit juice and not be infringing. If the patent was worded in the best legal light, it would have been written as a general mixing process for liquids. The fact that the original usage was in a paint factory is beside the point.
The same applies to algorithms and software constructions. They are simply processes that are used in the construction or operation of a device.
The problem is where to draw the line on what constitutes 'enough' of an invention to qualify as patentable. The fact that it is software, hardware or another process is irrelevant. The real problem is that the bar for what is a novel/inventive step has been reduced to a point that it now includes obvious evolutionary concepts. And the duration of most patents far exceeds the useful life of their claimed novelties - many of which are no longer useful by the time they expire into the public domain.
This is a problem for all fields of engineering/manufacturing and design, not just for the software world.
Think of it like taking away the temptation.
If you can access Slashdot in the office, you might be tempted to read and post on the forum. If your boss blocks access to the slashdot.org domain, you might now spend time reading and posting elsewhere. Then your IT department sets up a white list so you can only access sites that are necessary for company operation. You can now get back to work and stop goofing off.
Oops, my boss is coming, gotta hide my iPhone...
...there is a BIG difference between real hardware patents and the mess that is software patents.
People keep saying this, but it is a semantic argument more than anything else.
The reality is that the patent system is so systemically broken due to its lack of scalability, that the effects are most heavily felt by the fastest growing/moving industries.
Patents have always been there to describe both processes and physical manifestations, so there's nothing new there. However, the term lengths and acceptance of obvious ideas are too far removed from what could be considered sane in the current technological climate.
Concepts such as:
1. 'future' patents, or patenting the 'goal' instead of the steps to get there.
2. being allowed to patent something that has already been published (for up to 12 months)
3. obvious 'innovations' (eg. $prior_art$ on the internet)
4. non-immediate disclosure of the patent at the time of submission (eg. submarine patents - disclosure that occurs after numerous other parties have 'innovated' along the same line.)
5. an incredibly low bar for novelty (eg. 'inventive' steps that are a natural evolution of the state of the art and will be discovered in short order (if they haven't been already) by multiple independent parallel 'inventors')
6. etc, etc.
The above are unsustainable in an industry where the half life of a product is under 3 years and the shear volume of 'inventors and implementors' number in the millions. As the number of players grows, the bar for acceptability must be raised proportionally. There is still room for patents on ideas that are truly clever and novel and would have little chance of being 'rediscovered' by multiple other parties without significant effort, investment and/or serendipity. But, the more players there are, the more likelihood that what is being claimed is far from being unique. (To quantise this, term lengths could be made relative to how inventive the patent actually is. More inventiveness, longer protection. Very little inventiveness, very short term length. However, measuring 'inventiveness' is probably just as difficult a question.)
In addition to fixing the above, it should also be recognised that anything that ends up being deemed an industry standard should be considered a special case and handled by the public trust.
'Fixing' the patent system by trying to create a disconnection between software/hardware/manufacturing processes/business processes/etc is not the right way to go about it. Even if a distinction can be made, it is so arbitrary as to end up flip/flopping every time a clever legal argument is made or sneaky 'word-around' starts getting written into new patents. (eg. "A device that ..." or "A method to create ...")
So, the answer is not to "deny all 'software' patents". The answer is FIX the system. Now.
Actually, it goes more like this:
1st strike, they cut of your service until you contact the main office.
2nd strike - there is no second strike, as you didn't bother contacting their office after the first strike. Of course, now you are connecting to the internet via a competing ISP that doesn't take random infringement notices as irrefutable evidence.
Since it's in the place where you'd expect a progressive verb to be, it could mean something along the lines of 'screwing' or 'bastardising'.
Either that, or you could go with what Wikipedia has to say: "...the most widely known and accepted Maori name for New Zealand."
Filling plausible data into a boilerplate email is the easy part. If the ISP was logging all inbound and outbound port connections, then you'd have a harder time, because you'd need to match the ISP's logs with your data.
Keep in mind that email headers contain a lot of information regarding the IP address, the time that the user was online sending their email, the ISP domain information, etc. It's not much of a step to send out a fake notice with details that were completely plausible.
A diligent ISP would then confirm these 'takedown' notices with the complainant and verify their validity before disconnecting the user. But, we know how likely that is.
China is doing about as much to stop "piracy" as they are to stop anything else they're doing. For example, executing their head of food safety over taking bribes to ignore unsafe food for export instead of actually doing something to prevent the next guy from doing the same thing.
I would think that fear of execution is a rather effective deterrent for the next guy. It's also infinitely more effective than rewarding the offender with a huge bonus and a pat on the back.
It could if the rate grew exponentially at each point of renewal.
No, the scientists have shown an indicative bias in a simplified controlled study. If you want a more concise conclusion, you'll either have to wait for someone to perform further study with a different sampling of people/environments, or you can formulate another hypothesis and provide some test data.
Making the exact opposite statement is equally untested in a scientific sense and also requires proof. Many scientific theories can never be proven with 100% certainty, however, by definition, they must be falsifiable in some way, and in this case provide a numeric analyses that can be refined with improved test methods and data.
What the students have done is formulate a hypothetical argument and provided data to support that position. If further confounding variables are established, then the confidence in the hypothesis is weakened, but doesn't automatically default to an opposite viewpoint. In this case, it merely defaults to a lower confidence of accuracy. The conclusion is what it is, and does support the hypothesis. If contrary evidence is provided, then the hypothesis may be weakened to the point where it does support the opposing argument.
A follow-up study to this one could include a random sampling of people from the greater population. Beyond that, they could use actors. Beyond that, they could provide analyses of numerous real case studies and normalise against various background variables. etc.
At some point, the confidence level of the original hypothesis will increase to a point that extrapolating into the real justice system could produce highly accurate results.
The article author implies that the result extrapolates to the real justice system. However, the actual scientific study is really about human reasoning being influenced by emotional bias. So, I suspect the author of the article has taken liberties to generate their own more sensationalist conclusion.
It also means you will probably come better prepared to provide quality information regarding your own body.
In the process of trying to Google a diagnosis, you may be keyed into preparing otherwise non-obvious external information regarding things like consumed substances, genetic conditions, and/or infectious diseases that the doctor may not know about (ie. a vitamin supplement, a friend with mono, an uncle that died of heart failure at 30, etc).
Then when the Doctor asks those questions, you'll have a quick answer for him. You may also come better prepared (both mentally and physically) to go through a series of possibly intrusive tests.
For many results that otherwise appear quite simple, an incredibly technical process was required to gather and analyse the information to formulate a conclusion.
So, unless you happen to have an in-depth education in an appropriate field of study, chances are you won't be able to make a validly informed determination of merit. Well, not beyond anything that isn't already obvious.
Absolutely, the sample size is inversely relative to how close the differential result is to the 'noise floor'.
In this respect, your first example is slightly flawed. As the expected determinant gets closer to the noise floor (ie. if the margin for a Republican or Democrat victory is going to be 0.01%, or 50.01% vs 49.99%), then a much greater sample size is needed to maintain confidence in the resultant prediction.
As you say, 60% is a landslide. So if that is the expected result, then a few percent error either way isn't going to change your final determination of the winner.
How did this get modded +5, Insightful?
It is completely incorrect as shown in the 3 replies above this one.
That is something that is more wrong than right with the patent system.
There are several FOSS projects where I have spent more time at my hourly rate trying to get the crap working, than the full-price commercial alternatives have cost. When you charge for your time, no software is free.
Every time I hear this argument it is almost always bollocks.
The same argument can be applied to everything you do outside of work. Do you pay someone else to do your shopping/wait in queues/pay your bills/do the laundry/tidy the house/etc while you're elsewhere earning your hourly rate?
I have a friend (who earns stupid money as some kind of financier in the banking industry) that pulls that argument all the time. My response is always, "you pay me half your post-tax hourly wage and I'll do it for you". For some reason, he never ponies up the cash and prefers to do all those 'waste of time' things himself.
The reality is that even though he's paid a huge amount of money, he doesn't actually earn it in a way that lets him do extra work and claim extra wages. He also appears to sort of enjoy those 'annoying time wasters' as a way of escaping 'life in the fast lane'.
YMMV.
No.
The purpose of schooling (ignoring all the 'crush the free thinkers' conspiracy theories) isn't about making things unnecessarily hard so only one or two nerds can succeed. It's about teaching the students fundamental principles in a way that can be further applied to learn more advanced principles.
Your implication is that, for example, turning up to a maths class and learning trigonometry without already having a good base in algebra is a valid approach. True, you might learn something. But, it isn't in the best interests of the majority of the students, both GPAwise, or from an educational standpoint.
It's worse than that, he also had to secure his wifi as part of the court order. That may cause more trouble (for friends and neighbours that otherwise use it) than the 100 euro 'fine'.
In theory, the AI could learn (and/or be taught) just about every conceivable road surface and driving condition and how the parameters are inter-related. With appropriate external sensors, and for a single test manoeuvre, it is likely to be able to best just about any human driver.
This is simply an example of a robotic driver AI being demonstrated with more flare than the usual run-of-the-mill reverse park.
A vehicle AI driving blindly is equivalent to letting a blind man drive a car. The real innovation comes in having the AI interpret the input from a variety of sensors, including 360 degree cameras, speedometer, multi-axis accelerometers, radar/sonar, laser surface friction estimators, tyre temperature, forward looking road surface temperature/IR sensor, etc.
Driving is as much about anticipation as it is about dexterity and control. AI driving is similar in that it needs a base level of control over the vehicle and some simple programmed sequences. However, AI can also be trained with various anticipatory capabilities where various sensors are used to predict likely outcomes.
With increases in processing power and memory, AI driving 'skill' will one day surpass that of human drivers. At that point, it won't be long before AI drivers exceed even the best race/stunt drivers, and will of course not suffer from human distractions such as road rage, mental fatigue or testosterone.
Someone mod me offtopic, I meant S&W.
Napster was forced to change their approach so dramatically that their audience was no longer able to make use of their services.
The original Napster was a MASSIVE boon to anyone that loved collecting gigs of decent quality mp3s. Nothing that followed even comes close to the indexing and file sharing service that was Napster.
If the RIAA could put something like Napster online in a legitimate capacity, illegal file sharing would cease overnight.
That is correct.
If you're running a file sharing/indexing site, then you shouldn't even admit to yourself what your true motives are.
Even a small hole in your argument will inevitably lead to a much bigger hole in your wallet.
That led to a boycott and a lot of pissed-off gun-nuts.
Those are the people that most of us would prefer didn't buy S&W products. So it seems like a win-win for everyone.