In Canada the copying is not illegal in the first place, so your point loses a lot of merit there. Ah, thanks for the info! It appears as though the original private copying levy, is where my objections raised in previous posts would come into play. From what I can tell (IANAC [I am not a Canadian]) this is just someone with their hand out asking for money.
The private copying levy and associated laws mean that making personal private copies of works is in fact perfectly legitimate. We don't get sued for downloading music, or for recording TV shows like baseball and football either. All over the air broadcasts are also free to redistribute unmodified. We're a lot more open minded about these things, much like the early Americans were about designing their Copyright laws.
Thanks again, I was aware of this levy on optical media, but I was unaware of the other aspects of this levy (mp3 players etc.).
It is somewhat ironic that our Canadian friends' more closely resemble the U.S. forefathers than the present day U.S.
I am still a little confused by this passage from the article however... Most Canadians are aware that the Internet and mobile phone networks have become major sources of music. What they may not know is that songwriters and performers typically receive no compensation of any kind when their music is shared or illegally downloaded.
The article speaks of "illegally downloaded" music. Is this just hot air from the music industry? If true, this is one of the more shameless money grabs I have seen!
And like so many other things in a country with many socialized programs, some of the people who don't use the programs still pay taxes for them. Just like those that don't drive still pay for road work. And those who are healthy still pay into the health care system. And those who don't have children still pay into the education system. In this case, those who don't use file sharing (a number which is counted in the minority) would be paying into a system that would allow those that do to do so without repercussions.
As for injustice being institutionalized, the ideals to which we hold and by which we determine what is just are artificial social constructs. Surely man has innate rights that none can refute or take away. If I am living peaceably and not bothering anyone, do I not have the innate right to my own life? Do you deny the right to life is innate to human beings? Is the morale outrage against murder merely an artificial construct? Is not the right to life something that is unalienable to mankind? If this is true, then I submit these innate rights supersede and are superior to any written Law which contradicts them.
The people determine what is just and what is not are far as the rule of law is concerned. One need only look at various laws that have been implemented and then later repealed to see this. Prohibition in the US is a prime example that springs to mind. And now here in Canada, there is a proposal for a tax levy that in return would allow Canadians for download music. I don't see anything wrong with this. We're already being taxed on our blank DVDs and CDs. This is a symptom of the law which is taken out its proper domain. This is a symptom of the law maker using the nation of their laboratory, which inevitably leads to many failed experiments (laws). You admit that the lawmaker is an imperfect being because he makes mistakes and causes injustice. Why then should we trust the "wise and morale politician" to lead people to a better social arrangement? Inevitably this much of power is abused and degrades into tyranny over time, even if the intentions are initially good. Surely we can all see the rot in our political systems, and how it has become systemic over the passage of time.
Unfortunately, Slashdot is a terrible forum for extended debates. I would heartily recommend that you read or listen to Bastiat's "The Law" for a different perspective on the proper function of law and government. When I read "The Law" it brought about a revolution in my thinking on the proper domain of the government and the law. Perhaps you will find something interesting in it as well.
"The Law" holds answers to all of the questions you pose below, and does so more eloquently than I ever could. However, in the interest of discourse I will do my best to answer your points.
You make an excellent point, so let me flip it on you. The law is nothing more than an averaging medium. Again, as always, I speak outside of matters of bodily harm. It simply sets the environment to a known standard if you will.
Who could argue that this is what the law has become? Yet, this is a perversion of the law in my eyes. Law's purpose is to prevent injustice, and thus ensuring a reign of freedom and justice for everyone. The Law is the extension of man's natural right to his life, liberty and his property. How can the law can be extended any further than this without violating man's other natural rights is beyond me.
If the law is merely an arbitrary framework of rules that we make up, how can it's existence be justified? Without morale authority the law will inevitably become arbitrary, irrational, and the tool of the few to plunder and suppress the many.
No one is punishing anybody here. We're saying that the majority of people want music sharing to be legal. Therefore, by the rules of democracy, it must become legal.
Because something is popular and made into law, does that make it just? History is littered with popular policies that upon reflection were profoundly wrong and unjust.
I wonder how can you say no one is being punished when you take money from someone and give it to another? Tell me, is the law just, merely because it is the law? If the law becomes the instrument of injustice, then it becomes a tool of the few to plunder the many. Laws of this sort should be abolished without delay.
Look at driving. I pay for inssurance -- I'm forced to....
Look at health care. Another wonderful thing,...
We cannot use the status quo to defend a new law. The status quo may not be just.
So over-all, our country is better. Welcome to Canada. Instead of seeing everything as someone else punishing us, we tend to see things as our helping someone else. There's a Karma modifier on your profile. There's another one on our passports. It reads: "Canadian"; and it comes with a little flag.
This is what Bastiat called "false philanthropy". Government cannot give something to someone, without by force taking it from someone else. Additionally, you rely upon the "wise and virtuous legislator" to mold man into something better than what he would become, left to his own devices.
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.
They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally sup
What illegal acts? The levy makes downloading perfectly legal.
What is proposed is the following: It is illegal to freely download the movie "Return of the King". It is legal to freely download the soundtrack "Return of the King".
If the law is to be just, it must be consistent and applicable to all. The above policies makes no rational sense and makes the law arbitrary, and therefore not just. The failure to maintain justice makes the law immoral. It forces the citizen to choose between that which is respectable and just, and that which is lawful. How can the law be defended when it institutionalizes injustice?
Why should I pay for the illegal acts of people buying guns? Owning guns is only legal in my country (Germany) if you have proper training and the proper permissions. If we stopped issuing those permissions, the country could save a bit of money. Guns would become illegal, but that's not a problem. I don't own one.
I submit that you should not have to pay for any such regulation, and that regulation should be repealed without delay. If someone is irresponsible with their weapon, they should be punished according to their deeds, that is all.
Newsflash, countries do things even if only relatively few people actually profit from that. The relatively few people downloading msuic are still absolutely many, so Canada decides that they should be helped and not criminalized. That makes everything a bit more expensive for everyone else. That's the cost of living in a social (not socialist) country as opposed to a everyone-fights-for-themselves country like the USA.
Then you would make the law arbitrary, not respectable, and revoke its morale authority. If you apply the law unevenly then how can you say that this is justice? For some crimes, all must share in the punishment, but for others, only those responsible are held accountable. How can this be reasonably argued? Because something is popular, it does not follow that it is just and respectable.
As I have done elsewhere I would heartily recommend that you read or listen to Bastiat's "The Law" for a different perspective on the proper domain of law and government. I hope you will find it as interesting as I did when I first read it.
The others aren't whining.. only the music industry. Yes, we can say no to others... we will *change the law* so that in exchange for a small fee, we Canadians no longer have to worry about frivolous lawsuits from the music industry and can move on to other things, like enjoying music.
Is the law just, because it is law? Or is the law only just when it prevents others from depriving others of their life, liberty or property?
The position you suggest places the ordinary citizen between two cruel choices. You force each person to choose between justice, and that which is lawful. What you advocate is telling the butcher that theft of his steaks is injustice, and that all must pay for the crimes of some. However later you would tell the baker that the theft of his property is likewise unjust, however only the persons responsible should pay for their crime. Surely the law cannot be applied arbitrarily and remain a respectable institution.
We simply cannot punish the innocent along with the guilty and still call it justice, no matter how small or large the issue.
The suddenoutbreakofcommonsense might work in Canada, but in the U.S., it's a very different story.
In my eyes it is anything but common sense but is merely the rule of man, substituted for the rule of law.
Why should the innocent be forced to pay for the illegal acts of others? Many of these people broke no law, yet they are being penalized for others' lawlessness. The guilty and the innocent are both treated equally. By any reasonable definition, this is surely injustice.
One of the reasons people moved to the New World was to establish a system of laws where every person was responsible for their actions, but not that of his brother or sister (e.g. debtor prisons). How then can you justly explain to your neighbor that he must pay for your illegal acts, without calling it legalized theft?
Surely $5 sounds like a trivial matter, hardly worth even debating, but what happens to the cries of all the others who claim they are wronged by thievery of all kinds on the Internet? Can you say yes to the music industry but no to movie studios, books, newspapers, TV, and the host of others sure to claim their victim status? Will you pay all of these groups, and ask your neighbor on dial-up to help? This is justice perverted and the police powers of the state made corrupt.
Is the rule of law not debased when it allows and even requires injustice to be institutionalized?
I guess we all get the kind government we deserve.
If this is the case, then I hope we are never worthy of such institutions.
Panama is service oriented therefore economic issues with the devaluation of goods in a deflationary economy are reduced.
Both Panama and the US have roughly 80% of their economies geared towards the service sector. The two countries are very similar in this regard. This doesn't explain the disparity in inflation rates between the two countries.
Much of the wealth of the country comes from international sources (Panama Canal, banking, etc), so the primary economic engines are not internal.
How does the source of wealth impact inflationary pressures? Additionally, while the U.S. has an extremely powerful economic engine of its own, a large part of that engine is fueled by international sources (credit extended to US businesses and the US Govt).
Also, Panama has one of the greatest disparities of income in the world and an extremely high poverty rate; so while a Panamanian economic model works well for the banking industry and the wealthy, it does not necessarily translate into economic health for much of the population.
Panamanian poverty levels are in line with other countries in the region. Large disparities are typical for an emerging market, although the disparities are a greater than normal in Panama as you mentioned. However, the poverty level has been steadily falling. The World Bank has an interesting report about poverty in Panama here.
Basically, small inflation is devastating, because it means that the "real" risk free rate is negative. If expected inflation is 3%, and people expect a 2% rate of return for 0-risk, then the nominal interest rate for treasury bills is 5%. If inflation rises to 4%, then the interest rate foes to 6%, with no major change. If instead we get 3% deflation, then the "interest rate" SHOULD become -1% (-3% deflation + 2% required rate of return = -1%)... Now, who would buy a bond for -1%? Instead the money sits in the mattress. As a result, you might see an interest rate of 1% or 2%, but that means that the real interest rate is 4%.
What you are describing is Keynesian Economics. To my knowledge (IANAEconomist), the Keynesian theory has no explanation for the Panamanian economy.
Panama has had long periods of very low inflation, and even some deflationary periods. Yet, the Panamanian economy kept ticking right along. Panama has the highest GDP per capita of any Central American country, and yet their inflation rate has been consistently lower than in the U.S.
Their currency is completely market driven, has no Central Bank, and the government cannot print fiat currency. Their currency must be backed by "hard" goods or services, purchased at prices tied to the USD. This has led to an extremely stable economy, which hasn't suffered a major financial collapse since their independence in 1904.
Perhaps someone with a better understanding of economics can explain the Panamanian phenomenon, from a Keynesian perspective.
No matter how you slice it, if an appreciable number of slaves depart, it will be felt and recorded.
Consider these points: The egyptians would have done their best to erase any mention of the Israelites, these events occurred thousands of years ago, and mummies (to say nothing of their written records) were used as kindling in Europe.
It is almost a certainty that we don't know about major events in ancient history, especially in Egypt.
There was a vigorous debate whether or not King David was a even a real person, until very recently. If the history of the greatest King in Isreal's history was lost, what do you think might occur to a bit of history the Egyptians would like for us to forget?
Ancient Egyptians were meticulous record keepers, but notorious revisionists. In their written records the ancient Egyptians sought to hide their military defeats.
Undoubtably the pharaoh would seek to blot out anything connected to what would have been one of Egypt's more embarrassing military defeats.
If you build your own PC's and put up screenshots on your desktop on your website, then it's 'fun' to have dozens of versions of everything. If you are a CIO, it's a pain in the ass and a huge, huge, problem with Linux adoption.
Go read most recent surveys about why the enterprises are considering / deploying Linux. The biggest reason given is that with Linux, they don't have to rely on one vendor, like they do for MS. This is basic business sense, don't rely on one vendor unless you have to for anything business critical.
You gave no reason for you assertion that multiple versions is not a problem, but allow me give you some for reasons for why it is: # You can't even use "linux" because there really is no such thing.
How is this a problem? Linux is simply a general term to include all the various flavors of Linux.
# And you can't hire Linux people because there is no Linux people, there are Fedora, RHEL, Suse, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, BSD, FreeBSd,Openbsd people,
Now you're confusing your peas with your carrots. BSD is unix. Linux is.. well, Linux.:-)
This notion that Linux distros is so far from reality that it isn't even funny. If Linux versions are *so* different from one another, then how does Oracle support Red Hat, Novell and Ubuntu?
etc, etc. And the "linux" crowd tends to rush off on whatever the latest trend is, remember when Caldera Open Linux was trendy? Now it's Ubuntu, whoops, Kubuntu, whoops, linspire, whoops now back to Fedora. Like little kids running after the shiniest candy.
Surprise surprise, technology enthusiasts go after the latest and greatest thing. Go look at Red Hat Enterprise Linux, something that was built for business. Let me know if they go chasing after the latest fad.
By your reasoning, people who like PC hardware should make terrible technicians, since they chase after the newest, shiniest stuff. Often times they are the best techs, since they are passionate about PCs.
# And no they are not all 'the same'. They have wildly different directory structures, gui, lib version, kernel version support options, kernel versions, etc.
Organizations endure this same pain with MS. The jump from Win2k, to XP SP2, to Vista are all dramatically different. This is why standardization is good in an enterprise. You don't have to deal with these complexities if you run the same OS everywhere. It keeps costs down, simplifies administering your environment and allows you to run with a smaller IT staff. Tell me how the differences in RH, SLED and Ubuntu matter, if you only have one deployed in your environment?
# Oh but any *good* linux admin can use any system, right? How many is that? If a CIO hires 100 Windows admins, thee will be 10 good ones, ten useless ones and 80 somewhere in between. If he hires 100 linux there will be 2 good RHEL, 2 good SUSE, 2 good Ubuntu, 2 good Fedora and 2 good 'weird brand', 10 useless and 80 somewhere in between. That is spreading the talent pool pretty thin... It's no wonder Oracle on Windows is so popular, at least you can hire someone to install the thing!
Last time I checked Oracle recommends Linux over MS. Again, Linux is Linux. The differences are quite minor. Any decent admin will be able to effectively take care of any Linux box.
Sorry, but multiple versions is holding Linux back at the enterprise level and will keep doing so until there is a clear winner aka 'standard' that can be relied on for stability, industry support, and support personnel. RH and Suse as a 1 - 2 combo were looking very good, but now ubuntu has wandered in and taken most of the community's time...until the next shiny candy shows up...
Red Hat is the de facto standard for business. The fact that people play with shiny new technology is great for business. The tech enthusiasts test new technologies and drop the losers. This creates low hanging fruit for smart businesses to deploy in their environments as they see fit.
None of your objections matter one bit in a well run Enterprise. Having a choice of more than one vendor is GOOD thing. You only have to pick one in the end.
Software development is almost pure labor. Labor is the most expensive part of any endeavor. You can't take from the huge pot of $ without an equal amount of $ comming in. And there is a boatload of competition.
A couple of points... You don't need huge budgets to create quality software. Just look at what Apache, Linux and even Blender did with little or no budget. If people are willing to donate their time, then you have just taken the most expensive component of software development, and you have driven it to virtually zero. The largest part of work in Ryzom has already been completed, since Ryzom already functions in a production environment. There's an artwork pipeline, production-worthy server, and a functioning client. Sure, things need improving, but regular, small, incremental improvements is what the Free Software / Open Source software model does best, in my opinion.
About money... The organization behind this effort would be a non-profit. They would only need to break even on their infrastructure costs to keep development going. Lots of people and organizations are even willing to donate infrastructure to Free Software / Open Source projects, so they might not even have to pay for infrastructure.
What's with this comparison to the DS? The DS is a large upgrade in processing power over the GBA, equivalent to the difference between the N64 and SNES . A touch screen GBA wouldn't have had the success the DS has.
The point I was trying to make, rather clumsily apparently, is that hardware specs don't matter as much as most people think.
A product with weaker hardware specs, like the DS, will beat a stronger speced product, like the PSP, if the games are compelling for the "weaker" product.
The latest round of handhelds and console wars illustrate this perfectly: DS vs. PSP PS2 vs. Xbox
It's not a vastly underpowered (for the current generation) game system being sold for more than the parts are worth (when the competition is selling hot new tech at a loss), propped up by a gimmicky controller.
Honestly, none of what you've mentioned matters at all. The PSP is light years better than the DS from a technological point of view, but the DS is mopping the floor with the PSP. Why?
In the end, it all comes down to games.
If Nintendo has the games that are the most fun they will sell the most consoles. The same is true for MS and Sony... If the controller is gimmicky and the games are not very fun, it will become very clear in due course. How anyone can declare winners and losers in the console war at this point is beyond me. The party is really just getting started.
You forgot #6 - Pirate a DRM-less, restrictionless, non-phoning-home VLK version, just like we all have for every version (that didn't come with the machine) since Win 95.
That's not an option any longer thanks to Volume Licensing 2.0. Even large companies with expensive agreements and VLKs will have to activate their products.
I plan on giving our MS TAM an earful about this when he gets back from vacation.
That is true enough, although the problem is usually between the chair and keyboard. The biggest problem with ActiveX, and the way it got it's bad reputation is users who click 'Yes' to everything. Give Firefox enough market share and it will become profitable for these malware authors to write extensions that screw a computer/browser the same way ActiveX can.
The ID10T issue is not just the domain of ActiveX. Almost all programs / application platforms are exposed to ID10Ts. What makes ActiveX so special? Java hasn't seen near the security issues (it has had it's share though) that ActiveX has over the years, and it is exposed to ID10T all the time. The sieves that are "Zone Boundaries" is ActiveX's real problem.
The idea that they are inherently insecure is an oft-proclaimed falsehood on Slashdot. IE's implementation has had problems, but that's not the same thing as the technology behind it.
Who cares about theory or if the idea is a good one? All that matters is that MS' implementation is pervasive and it is what most people use. The implementation of ActiveX in Windows *really* sucks from a security standpoint. What else matters?
And the guilty members are stepping down and also under investigation by law enforcement officials. What more do you want? Perhaps you'd like to completely ruin HP so that they can lay off more employees?
Corporate culture is starts from the top and moves its way down throughout the organization. Why would I give my business to a company whose executives illegally monitor their own board members and try to illegally spy on journalists. If they're willing to do this to their own, as a customer should I expect better treatment?
I work for a large corporation and this is a huge tick mark against HP in my book. When it comes time to evaluate their products again, this will definitely be one thing I take into account.
As for ruining the company, there is no innate right for corporations to stay in business. If the public deems them untrustworthy, then the company got what they deserve for hiring these people.
Luthien and Huan gave him his first ass kicking/death.
How come nobody ever remembers that one?
Because Morgoth was the bad ass of that story. Sauron was only a lesser bad ass at the time.:)
Oh, and it is the Silmarillion, which gets read a lot less than LoTRs.:(
Nice pull by the way!
"But as she went he swiftly came and called he with the tender name of nightingales in elvish tongue, that all the woods now sudden rung : 'Tinúviel ! Tinúviel !'"
Win2k and XP are *very* similar when trying to build a common image. The GUI for sysprep has changed, but the guts are pretty much the same (with a few small differences).
Once of the most important things to remember in your [SysprepMassStorage] section in your sysprep.inf file is to include the following two lines (from the web site): Primary_IDE_Channel=%systemroot%\inf\mshdc.inf Secondary_IDE_Channel=%systemroot%\inf\mshdc.inf
This will save you from blue screening when Windows can't find it's ide driver (stupid thing).
Anyhow, hope this site helps. It helped me out a lot when I was building a common image.
Second... I discovered that the oh-so-lovely disk partitioner has the added feature that on some systems (including mine) it borks the MBR of the resized Windows partition in such a way that Windows will refuse to boot. Even after uninstalling Ubuntu. And even after applying various fixes via UBCD and friends. (Right now this system is sitting disconnected under my desk because I refuse to reinstall Ubuntu, but reinstalling Windows is a horrible half-day affair on its own...)
That sucks about your MBR.:(
No need to reinstall windows or go through anything involving boot disks to fix the MBR. So just boot from your XP cd, go into repair mode / recovery console, use the command prompt console (that's close to what it is called, but perhaps not exactly the right name). Then just use the fixmbr command and presto, your MBR is fixed and windows will boot (although it will likely wipe out your Linux boot loader GRUB).
First... this is an nForce2 machine with built-in video, and the default config refused to let me select a screen-res larger than 1024x768.
As someone else mentioned, you have to download and install a driver from nVidia to get nice video and 3d acceleration. At least while you're downloading and installing your divers you have serviceable video, which is a bit better than Windows I guess.:) Unfortunately, the video card manufacturers (nVidia / ATI) are pretty adament about not providing specs on their cards so people can write drivers for Linux (or any other OS). So we have to resort to downloading drivers from nVidia. It pretty much sucks, but not much can be done at the moment. Perhaps when Linux becomes more popular, Linux will have more clout and perhaps be able to get some traction on this issue (ok, I can dream:).
I would advise you to use a LiveCD when checking out new Linux distros. Sure, it is a bit slower, but you can kick the tires first, before reconfiguring your box.
Many on these boards will argue it's because Microsoft's products are such easy targets. And many others will say it's because Microsoft has such a large installed base. However, I think the reasons Microsoft products are targeted the most have more to do with the motivations of the hackers, which, in my estimation, are envy and resentment. After all, inflating the number of machines infected or damaged does not really materially benefit the hackers.
Based on this comment, I believe you don't really understand how the organized black hat / cracker community largely works. Now I don't know everything about this underground and somewhat secretive community but I do know a few things.
Exploiting and taking control of under protected PCs is now big money. Most of the biggest crackers do this stuff for money and to amass control of thousands of home PCs (and servers to a much lesser degree). When I say "under protected PCs", I'm talking about PCs owned by people who don't use Windows Update at all / often enough, don't have firewalls and don't have any / adequate antivirus solutions on their PCs.
If you control a bot net of 10's or even 100's of thousands of PCs, then you have a lot of power. You can use these zombies as spam sending boxes, or rent them out to people who use them for DDoS attacks and what have you. Also, crackers get paid good money for finding unpublised exploits that malicious groups will use to exploit windows to take control of PCs. The reason you see fewer servers exploited is because home PCs are such easy pickings, why go after a server where there may be added protection in your way, or worse, a responsible admin watching the box?
Sure there are still some losers in living in their mom's basement who create a virus and unleash it on the Internet "just for fun", but the big players are far more organized and sinister.
Microsoft seems to have a good strong competative pattern that they've been doing. I don't know if Intel can compete. Microsoft's pattern is:
1. Create an Operating System 2. Look at what software is successful and making money on that Operating System. 3. Create Microsoft version of same software 4. Integrate said software into the OS and use Windows leverage to force OEM's and manufacturers to bundle preinstalled on most computers.
So far, this has pretty much worked and usually kills whatever piece of software was successful on Windows. I think its about to happen with antivirus software. I dont know if Intel or the other antivirus companies can compete with this. What do you think?
Microsoft has a couple of unique challenges in the AV and spyware markets that they don't have elsewhere...
Microsoft's reputation on the security front is in tatters from their past actions / inaction. Granted, lately they have gotten a lot better but it takes quite a long time to gain that trust back, especially when you're talking about the tin foil hat crowd in computer security communities.
I don't know about you but where I work MS whitelisting some Claria products (the creators of the infamous Gator spyware) in their AntiSpyware product raised a bunch of eyebrows. Whether the whitelisting was justified or not isn't the point of that example. I mention it to point out that people just don't trust Microsoft yet with the security of their enterprise.
Add to the fact that it is probably a good idea to separate your anti-virus and OS vendor and MS has a pretty steep hill to climb.
That's an invalid comparison to the issue at hand. Flowers are a commodity and therefore marginal players have no pricing power since there is no way to differentiate yourself from your competition.
CPUs are in no way a commodity since there is plenty of room to innovate and differentiate yourself from the competition (AMD-64 anyone)?
Also, you cannot take microeconomic theories and apply them to macroeconomics wholesale. While some theories hold, others do not. It is dangerous to mix apples and oranges.
If your theory about monopolies were true then almost all of the US' markets would be dominated by monopolies. The US is amongst the most free wheeling capitalist societey, where laissez-fair government is generally the rule. IANAE(conomist)
really want to understand how it is you and the moderators that marked the post as insightful came to believe otherwise. Give me some feedback here. Is it that you never bothered to read a single EULA? You haven't formulated an opinion on the matter yet?
Please read a bit about the First-sale doctrine. It is a very grey area pertaining to software. Even the courts are confused about the enforceability of EULAs as they have ruled on both sides of the issue. The software companies would like to say that you only purchased the right to use the software (in a way they specify). Others contend that software is purchased and you own the redistribution rights for that particular copy of software.
Here is some case law to bolster the arguement that software is purchased like any other good from the above mentioned link (IANAL but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night).
in 1997 in Novell v. Network Trade Center 25 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (C.D. Utah 1997)[1] purchaser is an "owner" by way of sale and is entitled to the use and enjoyment of the software with the same rights as exist in the purchase of any other good. Said software transactions do not merely constitute the sale of a license to use the software. The shrinkwrap license included with the software is therefore invalid as against such a purchaser insofar as it purports to maintain title to the software in the copyright owner. Under the first sale doctrine, NTC was able to redistribute the software to end-users without copyright infringement. Transfer of a copyrighted work that is subject to the first sale doctrine extinguishes all distribution rights of the copyright holder upon transfer of title.
District courts in California and Texas have issued decisions applying the doctrine of first sale for bundled computer software in Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) even if the software contains a EULA prohibiting resale. In the Softman case, after purchasing bundled software (A box containing many programs that are also available individually) from Adobe Systems, Softman unbundled it and then resold the component programs. The California District Court ruled that Softman could resell the bundled software, no matter what the EULA stipulates, because Softman had never assented to the EULA. Specifically, the ruling decreed that software purchases be treated as sales transactions, rather than explicit license agreements. In other words, the court ruling argued that Californian consumers should have the same rights they would enjoy under existing copyright legislation when buying a CD or a book.
Slashdot Mirror
The private copying levy and associated laws mean that making personal private copies of works is in fact perfectly legitimate. We don't get sued for downloading music, or for recording TV shows like baseball and football either. All over the air broadcasts are also free to redistribute unmodified. We're a lot more open minded about these things, much like the early Americans were about designing their Copyright laws.
Thanks again, I was aware of this levy on optical media, but I was unaware of the other aspects of this levy (mp3 players etc.).
It is somewhat ironic that our Canadian friends' more closely resemble the U.S. forefathers than the present day U.S.
I am still a little confused by this passage from the article however...
Most Canadians are aware that the Internet and mobile phone networks have become major sources of music. What they may not know is that songwriters and performers typically receive no compensation of any kind when their music is shared or illegally downloaded.
The article speaks of "illegally downloaded" music. Is this just hot air from the music industry? If true, this is one of the more shameless money grabs I have seen!
Unfortunately, Slashdot is a terrible forum for extended debates. I would heartily recommend that you read or listen to Bastiat's "The Law" for a different perspective on the proper function of law and government. When I read "The Law" it brought about a revolution in my thinking on the proper domain of the government and the law. Perhaps you will find something interesting in it as well.
...
...
"The Law" holds answers to all of the questions you pose below, and does so more eloquently than I ever could. However, in the interest of discourse I will do my best to answer your points.
You make an excellent point, so let me flip it on you. The law is nothing more than an averaging medium. Again, as always, I speak outside of matters of bodily harm. It simply sets the environment to a known standard if you will.
Who could argue that this is what the law has become? Yet, this is a perversion of the law in my eyes. Law's purpose is to prevent injustice, and thus ensuring a reign of freedom and justice for everyone. The Law is the extension of man's natural right to his life, liberty and his property. How can the law can be extended any further than this without violating man's other natural rights is beyond me.
If the law is merely an arbitrary framework of rules that we make up, how can it's existence be justified? Without morale authority the law will inevitably become arbitrary, irrational, and the tool of the few to plunder and suppress the many.
No one is punishing anybody here. We're saying that the majority of people want music sharing to be legal. Therefore, by the rules of democracy, it must become legal.
Because something is popular and made into law, does that make it just? History is littered with popular policies that upon reflection were profoundly wrong and unjust.
I wonder how can you say no one is being punished when you take money from someone and give it to another? Tell me, is the law just, merely because it is the law? If the law becomes the instrument of injustice, then it becomes a tool of the few to plunder the many. Laws of this sort should be abolished without delay.
Look at driving. I pay for inssurance -- I'm forced to.
Look at health care. Another wonderful thing,
We cannot use the status quo to defend a new law. The status quo may not be just.
So over-all, our country is better. Welcome to Canada. Instead of seeing everything as someone else punishing us, we tend to see things as our helping someone else. There's a Karma modifier on your profile. There's another one on our passports. It reads: "Canadian"; and it comes with a little flag.
This is what Bastiat called "false philanthropy". Government cannot give something to someone, without by force taking it from someone else. Additionally, you rely upon the "wise and virtuous legislator" to mold man into something better than what he would become, left to his own devices.
"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.
They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally sup
What illegal acts? The levy makes downloading perfectly legal.
What is proposed is the following:
It is illegal to freely download the movie "Return of the King".
It is legal to freely download the soundtrack "Return of the King".
If the law is to be just, it must be consistent and applicable to all. The above policies makes no rational sense and makes the law arbitrary, and therefore not just. The failure to maintain justice makes the law immoral. It forces the citizen to choose between that which is respectable and just, and that which is lawful. How can the law be defended when it institutionalizes injustice?
Why should I pay for the illegal acts of people buying guns? Owning guns is only legal in my country (Germany) if you have proper training and the proper permissions. If we stopped issuing those permissions, the country could save a bit of money. Guns would become illegal, but that's not a problem. I don't own one.
I submit that you should not have to pay for any such regulation, and that regulation should be repealed without delay. If someone is irresponsible with their weapon, they should be punished according to their deeds, that is all.
Newsflash, countries do things even if only relatively few people actually profit from that. The relatively few people downloading msuic are still absolutely many, so Canada decides that they should be helped and not criminalized. That makes everything a bit more expensive for everyone else. That's the cost of living in a social (not socialist) country as opposed to a everyone-fights-for-themselves country like the USA.
Then you would make the law arbitrary, not respectable, and revoke its morale authority. If you apply the law unevenly then how can you say that this is justice? For some crimes, all must share in the punishment, but for others, only those responsible are held accountable. How can this be reasonably argued? Because something is popular, it does not follow that it is just and respectable.
As I have done elsewhere I would heartily recommend that you read or listen to Bastiat's "The Law" for a different perspective on the proper domain of law and government. I hope you will find it as interesting as I did when I first read it.
The others aren't whining.. only the music industry. Yes, we can say no to others... we will *change the law* so that in exchange for a small fee, we Canadians no longer have to worry about frivolous lawsuits from the music industry and can move on to other things, like enjoying music.
Is the law just, because it is law? Or is the law only just when it prevents others from depriving others of their life, liberty or property?
The position you suggest places the ordinary citizen between two cruel choices. You force each person to choose between justice, and that which is lawful. What you advocate is telling the butcher that theft of his steaks is injustice, and that all must pay for the crimes of some. However later you would tell the baker that the theft of his property is likewise unjust, however only the persons responsible should pay for their crime. Surely the law cannot be applied arbitrarily and remain a respectable institution.
We simply cannot punish the innocent along with the guilty and still call it justice, no matter how small or large the issue.
The suddenoutbreakofcommonsense might work in Canada, but in the U.S., it's a very different story.
In my eyes it is anything but common sense but is merely the rule of man, substituted for the rule of law.
Why should the innocent be forced to pay for the illegal acts of others? Many of these people broke no law, yet they are being penalized for others' lawlessness. The guilty and the innocent are both treated equally. By any reasonable definition, this is surely injustice.
One of the reasons people moved to the New World was to establish a system of laws where every person was responsible for their actions, but not that of his brother or sister (e.g. debtor prisons). How then can you justly explain to your neighbor that he must pay for your illegal acts, without calling it legalized theft?
Surely $5 sounds like a trivial matter, hardly worth even debating, but what happens to the cries of all the others who claim they are wronged by thievery of all kinds on the Internet? Can you say yes to the music industry but no to movie studios, books, newspapers, TV, and the host of others sure to claim their victim status? Will you pay all of these groups, and ask your neighbor on dial-up to help? This is justice perverted and the police powers of the state made corrupt.
Is the rule of law not debased when it allows and even requires injustice to be institutionalized?
I guess we all get the kind government we deserve.
If this is the case, then I hope we are never worthy of such institutions.
Panama is service oriented therefore economic issues with the devaluation of goods in a deflationary economy are reduced.
Both Panama and the US have roughly 80% of their economies geared towards the service sector. The two countries are very similar in this regard. This doesn't explain the disparity in inflation rates between the two countries.
Much of the wealth of the country comes from international sources (Panama Canal, banking, etc), so the primary economic engines are not internal.
How does the source of wealth impact inflationary pressures? Additionally, while the U.S. has an extremely powerful economic engine of its own, a large part of that engine is fueled by international sources (credit extended to US businesses and the US Govt).
Also, Panama has one of the greatest disparities of income in the world and an extremely high poverty rate; so while a Panamanian economic model works well for the banking industry and the wealthy, it does not necessarily translate into economic health for much of the population.
Panamanian poverty levels are in line with other countries in the region. Large disparities are typical for an emerging market, although the disparities are a greater than normal in Panama as you mentioned. However, the poverty level has been steadily falling. The World Bank has an interesting report about poverty in Panama here.
Basically, small inflation is devastating, because it means that the "real" risk free rate is negative. If expected inflation is 3%, and people expect a 2% rate of return for 0-risk, then the nominal interest rate for treasury bills is 5%. If inflation rises to 4%, then the interest rate foes to 6%, with no major change. If instead we get 3% deflation, then the "interest rate" SHOULD become -1% (-3% deflation + 2% required rate of return = -1%)... Now, who would buy a bond for -1%? Instead the money sits in the mattress. As a result, you might see an interest rate of 1% or 2%, but that means that the real interest rate is 4%.
What you are describing is Keynesian Economics. To my knowledge (IANAEconomist), the Keynesian theory has no explanation for the Panamanian economy.
Panama has had long periods of very low inflation, and even some deflationary periods. Yet, the Panamanian economy kept ticking right along. Panama has the highest GDP per capita of any Central American country, and yet their inflation rate has been consistently lower than in the U.S.
http://www.mises.org/story/2533
Their currency is completely market driven, has no Central Bank, and the government cannot print fiat currency. Their currency must be backed by "hard" goods or services, purchased at prices tied to the USD. This has led to an extremely stable economy, which hasn't suffered a major financial collapse since their independence in 1904.
Perhaps someone with a better understanding of economics can explain the Panamanian phenomenon, from a Keynesian perspective.
No matter how you slice it, if an appreciable number of slaves depart, it will be felt and recorded.
Consider these points: The egyptians would have done their best to erase any mention of the Israelites, these events occurred thousands of years ago, and mummies (to say nothing of their written records) were used as kindling in Europe.
It is almost a certainty that we don't know about major events in ancient history, especially in Egypt.
There was a vigorous debate whether or not King David was a even a real person, until very recently. If the history of the greatest King in Isreal's history was lost, what do you think might occur to a bit of history the Egyptians would like for us to forget?
Archaeology is the Bible's truest friend...
Ancient Egyptians were meticulous record keepers, but notorious revisionists. In their written records the ancient Egyptians sought to hide their military defeats.
Undoubtably the pharaoh would seek to blot out anything connected to what would have been one of Egypt's more embarrassing military defeats.
If you build your own PC's and put up screenshots on your desktop on your website, then it's 'fun' to have dozens of versions of everything. If you are a CIO, it's a pain in the ass and a huge, huge, problem with Linux adoption.
:-)
Go read most recent surveys about why the enterprises are considering / deploying Linux. The biggest reason given is that with Linux, they don't have to rely on one vendor, like they do for MS. This is basic business sense, don't rely on one vendor unless you have to for anything business critical.
You gave no reason for you assertion that multiple versions is not a problem, but allow me give you some for reasons for why it is:
# You can't even use "linux" because there really is no such thing.
How is this a problem? Linux is simply a general term to include all the various flavors of Linux.
# And you can't hire Linux people because there is no Linux people, there are Fedora, RHEL, Suse, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, BSD, FreeBSd,Openbsd people,
Now you're confusing your peas with your carrots. BSD is unix. Linux is.. well, Linux.
This notion that Linux distros is so far from reality that it isn't even funny. If Linux versions are *so* different from one another, then how does Oracle support Red Hat, Novell and Ubuntu?
etc, etc. And the "linux" crowd tends to rush off on whatever the latest trend is, remember when Caldera Open Linux was trendy? Now it's Ubuntu, whoops, Kubuntu, whoops, linspire, whoops now back to Fedora. Like little kids running after the shiniest candy.
Surprise surprise, technology enthusiasts go after the latest and greatest thing. Go look at Red Hat Enterprise Linux, something that was built for business. Let me know if they go chasing after the latest fad.
By your reasoning, people who like PC hardware should make terrible technicians, since they chase after the newest, shiniest stuff. Often times they are the best techs, since they are passionate about PCs.
# And no they are not all 'the same'. They have wildly different directory structures, gui, lib version, kernel version support options, kernel versions, etc.
Organizations endure this same pain with MS. The jump from Win2k, to XP SP2, to Vista are all dramatically different. This is why standardization is good in an enterprise. You don't have to deal with these complexities if you run the same OS everywhere. It keeps costs down, simplifies administering your environment and allows you to run with a smaller IT staff. Tell me how the differences in RH, SLED and Ubuntu matter, if you only have one deployed in your environment?
# Oh but any *good* linux admin can use any system, right? How many is that? If a CIO hires 100 Windows admins, thee will be 10 good ones, ten useless ones and 80 somewhere in between. If he hires 100 linux
there will be 2 good RHEL, 2 good SUSE, 2 good Ubuntu, 2 good Fedora and 2 good 'weird brand', 10 useless and 80 somewhere in between. That is spreading the talent pool pretty thin... It's no wonder Oracle on Windows is so popular, at least you can hire someone to install the thing!
Last time I checked Oracle recommends Linux over MS. Again, Linux is Linux. The differences are quite minor. Any decent admin will be able to effectively take care of any Linux box.
Sorry, but multiple versions is holding Linux back at the enterprise level and will keep doing so until there is a clear winner aka 'standard' that can be relied on for stability, industry support, and support personnel. RH and Suse as a 1 - 2 combo were looking very good, but now ubuntu has wandered in and taken most of the community's time...until the next shiny candy shows up...
Red Hat is the de facto standard for business. The fact that people play with shiny new technology is great for business. The tech enthusiasts test new technologies and drop the losers. This creates low hanging fruit for smart businesses to deploy in their environments as they see fit.
None of your objections matter one bit in a well run Enterprise. Having a choice of more than one vendor is GOOD thing. You only have to pick one in the end.
Software development is almost pure labor. Labor is the most expensive part of any endeavor. You can't take from the huge pot of $ without an equal amount of $ comming in. And there is a boatload of competition.
A couple of points... You don't need huge budgets to create quality software. Just look at what Apache, Linux and even Blender did with little or no budget. If people are willing to donate their time, then you have just taken the most expensive component of software development, and you have driven it to virtually zero. The largest part of work in Ryzom has already been completed, since Ryzom already functions in a production environment. There's an artwork pipeline, production-worthy server, and a functioning client. Sure, things need improving, but regular, small, incremental improvements is what the Free Software / Open Source software model does best, in my opinion.
About money... The organization behind this effort would be a non-profit. They would only need to break even on their infrastructure costs to keep development going. Lots of people and organizations are even willing to donate infrastructure to Free Software / Open Source projects, so they might not even have to pay for infrastructure.
What's with this comparison to the DS? The DS is a large upgrade in processing power over the GBA, equivalent to the difference between the N64 and SNES . A touch screen GBA wouldn't have had the success the DS has.
The point I was trying to make, rather clumsily apparently, is that hardware specs don't matter as much as most people think.
A product with weaker hardware specs, like the DS, will beat a stronger speced product, like the PSP, if the games are compelling for the "weaker" product.
The latest round of handhelds and console wars illustrate this perfectly:
DS vs. PSP
PS2 vs. Xbox
It's not a vastly underpowered (for the current generation) game system being sold for more than the parts are worth (when the competition is selling hot new tech at a loss), propped up by a gimmicky controller.
Honestly, none of what you've mentioned matters at all. The PSP is light years better than the DS from a technological point of view, but the DS is mopping the floor with the PSP. Why?
In the end, it all comes down to games.
If Nintendo has the games that are the most fun they will sell the most consoles. The same is true for MS and Sony... If the controller is gimmicky and the games are not very fun, it will become very clear in due course. How anyone can declare winners and losers in the console war at this point is beyond me. The party is really just getting started.
You forgot #6 - Pirate a DRM-less, restrictionless, non-phoning-home VLK version, just like we all have for every version (that didn't come with the machine) since Win 95.
That's not an option any longer thanks to Volume Licensing 2.0. Even large companies with expensive agreements and VLKs will have to activate their products.
I plan on giving our MS TAM an earful about this when he gets back from vacation.
That is true enough, although the problem is usually between the chair and keyboard. The biggest problem with ActiveX, and the way it got it's bad reputation is users who click 'Yes' to everything. Give Firefox enough market share and it will become profitable for these malware authors to write extensions that screw a computer/browser the same way ActiveX can.
The ID10T issue is not just the domain of ActiveX. Almost all programs / application platforms are exposed to ID10Ts. What makes ActiveX so special? Java hasn't seen near the security issues (it has had it's share though) that ActiveX has over the years, and it is exposed to ID10T all the time. The sieves that are "Zone Boundaries" is ActiveX's real problem.
The idea that they are inherently insecure is an oft-proclaimed falsehood on Slashdot. IE's implementation has had problems, but that's not the same thing as the technology behind it.
Who cares about theory or if the idea is a good one? All that matters is that MS' implementation is pervasive and it is what most people use. The implementation of ActiveX in Windows *really* sucks from a security standpoint. What else matters?
ActiveX richly deserves the reputation is has.
And the guilty members are stepping down and also under investigation by law enforcement officials. What more do you want? Perhaps you'd like to completely ruin HP so that they can lay off more employees?
Corporate culture is starts from the top and moves its way down throughout the organization. Why would I give my business to a company whose executives illegally monitor their own board members and try to illegally spy on journalists. If they're willing to do this to their own, as a customer should I expect better treatment?
I work for a large corporation and this is a huge tick mark against HP in my book. When it comes time to evaluate their products again, this will definitely be one thing I take into account.
As for ruining the company, there is no innate right for corporations to stay in business. If the public deems them untrustworthy, then the company got what they deserve for hiring these people.
Luthien and Huan gave him his first ass kicking/death.
How come nobody ever remembers that one?
Because Morgoth was the bad ass of that story. Sauron was only a lesser bad ass at the time.
Oh, and it is the Silmarillion, which gets read a lot less than LoTRs.
Nice pull by the way!
"But as she went he swiftly came
and called he with the tender name
of nightingales in elvish tongue,
that all the woods now sudden rung :
'Tinúviel ! Tinúviel !'"
This is the best site I've ever seen about building a common image and I've looked quite a bit:t o-build-a-common-windows-image/
http://www.oneforthelittleguy.com/2006/03/30/how-
Win2k and XP are *very* similar when trying to build a common image. The GUI for sysprep has changed, but the guts are pretty much the same (with a few small differences).
Once of the most important things to remember in your [SysprepMassStorage] section in your sysprep.inf file is to include the following two lines (from the web site):
Primary_IDE_Channel=%systemroot%\inf\mshdc.inf
Secondary_IDE_Channel=%systemroot%\inf\mshdc.inf
This will save you from blue screening when Windows can't find it's ide driver (stupid thing).
Anyhow, hope this site helps. It helped me out a lot when I was building a common image.
Second... I discovered that the oh-so-lovely disk partitioner has the added feature that on some systems (including mine) it borks the MBR of the resized Windows partition in such a way that Windows will refuse to boot. Even after uninstalling Ubuntu. And even after applying various fixes via UBCD and friends. (Right now this system is sitting disconnected under my desk because I refuse to reinstall Ubuntu, but reinstalling Windows is a horrible half-day affair on its own...)
:(
w indows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/bootcons_fixmbr.mspx? mfr=true
:) Unfortunately, the video card manufacturers (nVidia / ATI) are pretty adament about not providing specs on their cards so people can write drivers for Linux (or any other OS). So we have to resort to downloading drivers from nVidia. It pretty much sucks, but not much can be done at the moment. Perhaps when Linux becomes more popular, Linux will have more clout and perhaps be able to get some traction on this issue (ok, I can dream :).
That sucks about your MBR.
No need to reinstall windows or go through anything involving boot disks to fix the MBR. So just boot from your XP cd, go into repair mode / recovery console, use the command prompt console (that's close to what it is called, but perhaps not exactly the right name). Then just use the fixmbr command and presto, your MBR is fixed and windows will boot (although it will likely wipe out your Linux boot loader GRUB).
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/
First... this is an nForce2 machine with built-in video, and the default config refused to let me select a screen-res larger than 1024x768.
As someone else mentioned, you have to download and install a driver from nVidia to get nice video and 3d acceleration. At least while you're downloading and installing your divers you have serviceable video, which is a bit better than Windows I guess.
I would advise you to use a LiveCD when checking out new Linux distros. Sure, it is a bit slower, but you can kick the tires first, before reconfiguring your box.
Many on these boards will argue it's because Microsoft's products are such easy targets. And many others will say it's because Microsoft has such a large installed base. However, I think the reasons Microsoft products are targeted the most have more to do with the motivations of the hackers, which, in my estimation, are envy and resentment. After all, inflating the number of machines infected or damaged does not really materially benefit the hackers.
Based on this comment, I believe you don't really understand how the organized black hat / cracker community largely works. Now I don't know everything about this underground and somewhat secretive community but I do know a few things.
Exploiting and taking control of under protected PCs is now big money. Most of the biggest crackers do this stuff for money and to amass control of thousands of home PCs (and servers to a much lesser degree). When I say "under protected PCs", I'm talking about PCs owned by people who don't use Windows Update at all / often enough, don't have firewalls and don't have any / adequate antivirus solutions on their PCs.
If you control a bot net of 10's or even 100's of thousands of PCs, then you have a lot of power. You can use these zombies as spam sending boxes, or rent them out to people who use them for DDoS attacks and what have you. Also, crackers get paid good money for finding unpublised exploits that malicious groups will use to exploit windows to take control of PCs. The reason you see fewer servers exploited is because home PCs are such easy pickings, why go after a server where there may be added protection in your way, or worse, a responsible admin watching the box?
Sure there are still some losers in living in their mom's basement who create a virus and unleash it on the Internet "just for fun", but the big players are far more organized and sinister.
I've seen Taco Bell / KFC combo places which run Linux in their drive thru displays here in the US.
Autozone uses Linux POSes (see SCO suit).
Circuit City is moving at least 600 of their stores to Linux POSes too.
Microsoft seems to have a good strong competative pattern that they've been doing. I don't know if Intel can compete. Microsoft's pattern is:
1. Create an Operating System
2. Look at what software is successful and making money on that Operating System.
3. Create Microsoft version of same software
4. Integrate said software into the OS and use Windows leverage to force OEM's and manufacturers to bundle preinstalled on most computers.
So far, this has pretty much worked and usually kills whatever piece of software was successful on Windows. I think its about to happen with antivirus software. I dont know if Intel or the other antivirus companies can compete with this. What do you think?
Microsoft has a couple of unique challenges in the AV and spyware markets that they don't have elsewhere...
Microsoft's reputation on the security front is in tatters from their past actions / inaction. Granted, lately they have gotten a lot better but it takes quite a long time to gain that trust back, especially when you're talking about the tin foil hat crowd in computer security communities.
I don't know about you but where I work MS whitelisting some Claria products (the creators of the infamous Gator spyware) in their AntiSpyware product raised a bunch of eyebrows. Whether the whitelisting was justified or not isn't the point of that example. I mention it to point out that people just don't trust Microsoft yet with the security of their enterprise.
Add to the fact that it is probably a good idea to separate your anti-virus and OS vendor and MS has a pretty steep hill to climb.
That's an invalid comparison to the issue at hand. Flowers are a commodity and therefore marginal players have no pricing power since there is no way to differentiate yourself from your competition.
CPUs are in no way a commodity since there is plenty of room to innovate and differentiate yourself from the competition (AMD-64 anyone)?
Also, you cannot take microeconomic theories and apply them to macroeconomics wholesale. While some theories hold, others do not. It is dangerous to mix apples and oranges.
If your theory about monopolies were true then almost all of the US' markets would be dominated by monopolies. The US is amongst the most free wheeling capitalist societey, where laissez-fair government is generally the rule. IANAE(conomist)
Please read a bit about the First-sale doctrine. It is a very grey area pertaining to software. Even the courts are confused about the enforceability of EULAs as they have ruled on both sides of the issue. The software companies would like to say that you only purchased the right to use the software (in a way they specify). Others contend that software is purchased and you own the redistribution rights for that particular copy of software.
Here is some case law to bolster the arguement that software is purchased like any other good from the above mentioned link (IANAL but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night).