"But in the long run, who do you sue when a hacker breaks into a financial bank insitution and withdraws a couple million dollars?"
Who do you sue today? Do you think you can sue Microsoft? If you think you can, I'd advise you to read that EULA you agreed to.
I'm finding the support argument mostly a myth. If you had a Windows server that crashes from time to time for no reason, what would you do? Call MS? What happens when they shrug and say "We have no idea". What happens when your Oracle DB is inaccessible, and Oracle can't figure it out?
The simple truth is that while support from a vendor is helpful, the ultimate responsibility for software's use lies with the people who actually use the software, that is, the end user.
In my opinion, at one time, software vendors used to be very helpful with their software; indeed, some software is better supported than others. For example, IBM supports their proprietary OS's very well. They'll really try to help you figure out what's going on. In the early days of microcomputers/PC's, software vendors were helpful because they had to be.
But as the market got bigger, as shareholders called the shots, and as margins got smaller, the support for most software has effectively disappear.
I'm using Windows XP right now. If it crashes and eats my data, Microsoft won't help me, about the best I can do is go online and ask for help from a user community which is precisely all I can do for open source software.
So this myth of support for software needs to be put to bed, because from my vantage point, it simply isn't true.
"If you're a shareware developer looking to make a living, forget it. Shareware is dead"...and yet, there is plenty of shareware out there. I suppose not shareware in the classic sense where you let out the whole version and hope people pay. But in the more contemporary sense where you release crippleware and then you attempt to force people to pay because features are limited or there is a time-bomb built in.
I just bought two piece of software this way...SpySweeper, which and WinAmp. WinAmp comes closest to being real freeware, with only a few minor features disabled. But they only charge $15.
So either I'm not typical or the "shareware" industry is alive and well. And perhaps because they're not charging a lot of money.
Maybe piracy is more rampant when you're charging $500 for what is just an update to an existing program? I don't know, and the people who really do know are telling us the truth.
"For a format to be very successful it has to be compelling to the masses and not offer something so boringly incremental that it doesn't even matter."
A CD sounds fine, but it doesn't hold much music. Same form factor, but holding perhaps 40-100x as much music would be compelling.
Of course, I don't imagine the RIAA members all the eager to sell us something like this, but that's about the only thing left.
The arguments he makes for simultaneously calling PPC open and IBM keeping control are precisely the arguments Sun makes for not opening up Java (and are subsequently criticized by IBM).
I'm not saying its wrong, I just wanted to see if anybody else caught the irony.
"Kinda important for those of us who shop there from time to time and don't want to re-encode those files"
Perhaps it would be nifty if there was a program that would take files that you bought, you would supply your key, and then it would strip the DRM from the file so you could use your iTMS purchased tunes fairly?
Then you wouldn't be locked into an apple-only solution. Does that make sense?
There is a dispute brewing because the RIAA has arbitrarily defined online music sales as an extension of CD/Album sales, which cuts the royalty rates to the artist significantly.
I find the RIAA's crocodile tears about protecting the artists, er, Amusing.
In front of my office, a woman got stopped for some traffic violation, she had a cell phone in hand yakking away.
The officer came to the window, and she wouldn't hang up the phone. He got her license and registration, and she wouldn't hang up the phone. She sat there for 10 minutes while he did the radio check, wrote up the ticket, and still she wouldn't hang up the phone. He handed her the ticket, he drove off, she drove off and last I saw here, she was still on the phone.
Based on the cop's reaction, I've got to believe this wasn't' the first time it happened.
I didn't say knowledge of why VHS beat Beta was a prerequisite for understanding the browser wars (please re-read).
But the author himself presented Beta vs VHS as an example of the market rewardarding an inferior technology because of "other" reasons. The example, while appealing, is not backed up by facts and would appear to be false based not only on serious analysis but on anecdotal evidence of people who were alive and choosing a format those many years ago.
And if his primary example is wrong that he is using as a parallel to the browser wars, then it removes a large part of his assumptions, and without those assumptions, he hasn't properly supported his conclusion.
While I'm sure I have used non-sequiters in the past, and will unwittingly use them in the future, this is a case where it is not a non-sequiter, but goes right to the heart of his argument.
"Examined objectively, VHS just wasn't as good as Betamax."
I stopped not because of a difference of opinion, but simply because the author displays an ignorance of why VHS "won". Hundreds of authors have rehashed this canard so I won't repeat it here
But if the author doesn't understand why VHS won, then its a good bet why he can't or won't understand which browser will win and why.
...we say that he goes down for the 3rd time to mean that he used up his chances for life and he's finally going under for good.
This is really the RIAA and its members going down for the 3rd time.
What I'm really waiting for is for the sh*t to hit the fan when Joe Six Pack buys his $3K HDTV, and pays Comcast $150 a month for HDTV content and then another $2K for his Digital VCR (or DVD or whatever), and he presses the RECORD button to tape the latest Victoria Secret underwear show, and a message pops up that says "Due to copyright restrictions, you may not record".
All of the sudden people will understand what people like the EFF have been complaining about for years.
Right now, congress and the FCC is passing these goofy laws and regulations because there's no downside; broadcast flag? Sure. DRM? Sure. Whatever will keep Hollywood happy.
But when people begin to complain about losing their ability to do what they do today, people are going to be very unhappy, and that's the stuff that brings people out to vote. Remember, Florida? It only take a few people to tip an entire election.
DRM on consumer audio in the past has been the death of a new format. I don't think things have changed that much. Unhappy consumers won't buy stuff.
And if consumers aren't buying TV's, Radio's and Computers because of Hollywood/RIAA lobbying, things will change quickly.
"You can critise the 'timbral change in the cymbals' but why do we worry so much about this when, in many cases came off a synthesizer anyway."
Not everybody listens to pop music.
Some people like orchestral works, or baroque music or choral music, or bop, or dixieland, or a whole host of genres where synthesizers are never (or rarely) used.
If a lossy codec sounds fine, then you should be glad; you've found something inexpensive that works well for you. For other types of music, even CD's struggle to maintain good sonic quality and so my frustration is that we're currently undercutting quality for more convenience.
There is a creative process involved with writing software, but its no more invention than the act of writing music is called "inventing music".
Music is "composed". Software is "developed".
There's nothing "inventable" about software.
Unless you think Hayden should have took out a patent on the "Symphony"
"Collection of music that is played by many musicians such that music is broken into theme, counterpart, resolution in 1 to multiple parts. Music is group together to form a sound picture which is then used to inspire both performer and audience. It includes the following elements:
1) White pages with black dots on them to represent exact musical score
2) Wood or metal instrument which is plucked or blown to create sound
3) Sound in claim #2 is used in accordance with claim #1 to produce sound that has coherence
4) Each musician has a slightly different copy of the music
5) The claims in #4 when performed in exact time increments produces sound variations that are impossible with a single instrument.
6) Additional performer (known as conductor) will stand and wave arms
7) Said conductor in claim 6 will wave arms in unique motion depending on type of time in part 5 above such that there is a distinct way of waving arms according to number of beat in measure
8) As music is broken into movements, time may be taken to give audience a rest. Audience may leave to get drinks in the lobby at this time.
" If the government mandates things like number portability and location, this makes a change to the company's bottom line. "
Well, of course it does. Every regulation does that.
Does the restaurant you go to have a surcharge for "meeting government health regulation excise"? Do you get to charge your boss at work a "Commuting cost excise" because the subway raised the cost of tokens?
There are all kinds of fees that business have to endure, ranging from rent, salaries, taxes, and all kinds of compliance with legal and regulatory mandate. That doesn't make it legitimate to pass this cost on as it were a tax.
I'm all for businesses doing what they want; I think they can charge the fees; I think they should be allowed to charge fees for "the boss wants more money fee". But I'm also in favor of fees being explicit as to their purpose and the advertised price being an accurate reflection of what you're going to be charged.
In other words, if your cell phone is advertised at $20/month, then that should be the price. Not $20 plus $2 for "fuel pass along". In that case the price should be advertised as $22.
"You have purchased a copy, but not a dispensation to copy."
I know vaguely what you mean, but if what you're saying is true, then he has no right to:
a) Back up his music collection b) move it from one folder to another c) do anything with it except press the "play" button.
If the argument is that "he can't change it", then does that mean he can't: a) Change the name of the file b) Change any kind of ID3 tags in the file (if AAC supports that) c) go in and change 1 bit
I don't know the right answer, but I suggest that copyright in this case has to be a little bit more sophisticated that what you say.
Perhaps that's why everyone relies on EULA's, because copyright cannot be as encompassing as you suggest; it has to leave leeway, but not too much?
Meanwhile, the law would suggest that for personal use, copying and modifying something you've purchased is okay, and thus we have a dilemna here.
Either we have to grant content producers (and law enforcement) draconian measures to enforce these new super-copyrights, or the concept of DRM will fail and copyright will be forced into a circa 1990's model. I don't see how you can go much beyond DMCA at this point and not make a significant portion of the population a criminal for copying a TV program or music.
Remember that IBM may have a substantial claim against SCO, Novell, claims it actually owns the IP, and even Red Hat may get a whack.
Best case scenario is (a) Novell does in fact show that it owns SYS V (because all claims against Unix would be gone because Novell has released GPL code (b) IBM wins the suit and owns the remaining SCO assets (c) Daryl freaks and essentially closes the company (d) Baystar is left holding the bag (e) some DA grows a set and starts an investigation and indicts a lot of people
You've got to admit, that would be justice in every quarter. Complete win for Linux.
No, but the original poster's comment is one of several comments on the matter.
Several people have discussed treating IP as actual property. In most jurisdictions, real property is assesed at fair market value and then taxed at a standard rate. Anybody who owns a house can attest to this, and in many jurisdictions, cars and luxury items are taxed annually through a form of property tax.
If something is a "hot" property (i.e. Finding Nemo), then it is generating income and therefore could be taxed at a fair market value. Something like Pinnochio sitting in a vault might be worth a significant amount of money, but its not generating income. So Disney would have to balance letting the thing sit idle versus having it readily availabile and generating income.
It would discourage companies from hoarding IP (holding the rights, but not making it available), since stockholders would not be interesting in holding IP for its own sake, but instead would insist on a return.
The effects of such a law would be interesting to say the least.
Slashdot Mirror
"Did you know Rolling Stone said the same thing about every Led Zeppelin album released?"
4 93 2&pageid=rs.ArtistDiscography&pageregion=tripl e1
No, actually, Rolling Stone loved several of Zep's albums. They certainly loved the Led Zeppelin I:
http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album?id=10
I'd call that a gushing review.
They have similar opinions on "Houses of the Holy". I suspect they liked IV (ZOSO) just as much, but the review isn't online.
"But in the long run, who do you sue when a hacker breaks into a financial bank insitution and withdraws a couple million dollars?"
Who do you sue today? Do you think you can sue Microsoft? If you think you can, I'd advise you to read that EULA you agreed to.
I'm finding the support argument mostly a myth. If you had a Windows server that crashes from time to time for no reason, what would you do? Call MS? What happens when they shrug and say "We have no idea". What happens when your Oracle DB is inaccessible, and Oracle can't figure it out?
The simple truth is that while support from a vendor is helpful, the ultimate responsibility for software's use lies with the people who actually use the software, that is, the end user.
In my opinion, at one time, software vendors used to be very helpful with their software; indeed, some software is better supported than others. For example, IBM supports their proprietary OS's very well. They'll really try to help you figure out what's going on. In the early days of microcomputers/PC's, software vendors were helpful because they had to be.
But as the market got bigger, as shareholders called the shots, and as margins got smaller, the support for most software has effectively disappear.
I'm using Windows XP right now. If it crashes and eats my data, Microsoft won't help me, about the best I can do is go online and ask for help from a user community which is precisely all I can do for open source software.
So this myth of support for software needs to be put to bed, because from my vantage point, it simply isn't true.
"If you're a shareware developer looking to make a living, forget it. Shareware is dead" ...and yet, there is plenty of shareware out there. I suppose not shareware in the classic sense where you let out the whole version and hope people pay. But in the more contemporary sense where you release crippleware and then you attempt to force people to pay because features are limited or there is a time-bomb built in.
I just bought two piece of software this way...SpySweeper, which and WinAmp. WinAmp comes closest to being real freeware, with only a few minor features disabled. But they only charge $15.
So either I'm not typical or the "shareware" industry is alive and well. And perhaps because they're not charging a lot of money.
Maybe piracy is more rampant when you're charging $500 for what is just an update to an existing program? I don't know, and the people who really do know are telling us the truth.
Only a terrorist would question the government.
-- John Ashcroft
...and I'm sure this is a dupe...
But a working iPod is worth significantly more than $100, unless its broken, or its cosmetically poor.
Then again, I think most people like their iPods, so I doubt Dell is worried about paying up.
Don't you think if you were spending the money to buy this stuff that you might collect in person?
"For a format to be very successful it has to be compelling to the masses and not offer something so boringly incremental that it doesn't even matter."
A CD sounds fine, but it doesn't hold much music. Same form factor, but holding perhaps 40-100x as much music would be compelling.
Of course, I don't imagine the RIAA members all the eager to sell us something like this, but that's about the only thing left.
"it unfairly favors some users over others."
I'm not sure if you're right or not. Which users does it favor?
The arguments he makes for simultaneously calling PPC open and IBM keeping control are precisely the arguments Sun makes for not opening up Java (and are subsequently criticized by IBM).
I'm not saying its wrong, I just wanted to see if anybody else caught the irony.
"Kinda important for those of us who shop there from time to time and don't want to re-encode those files"
Perhaps it would be nifty if there was a program that would take files that you bought, you would supply your key, and then it would strip the DRM from the file so you could use your iTMS purchased tunes fairly?
Then you wouldn't be locked into an apple-only solution. Does that make sense?
RIAA forgets to pay royalties
RIAA sues consumers but forgets to pay artists
RIAA members forget to pay pension for artists
RIAA redefines online sales to lower royalties to artists
There is a dispute brewing because the RIAA has arbitrarily defined online music sales as an extension of CD/Album sales, which cuts the royalty rates to the artist significantly.
I find the RIAA's crocodile tears about protecting the artists, er, Amusing.
In front of my office, a woman got stopped for some traffic violation, she had a cell phone in hand yakking away.
The officer came to the window, and she wouldn't hang up the phone. He got her license and registration, and she wouldn't hang up the phone. She sat there for 10 minutes while he did the radio check, wrote up the ticket, and still she wouldn't hang up the phone. He handed her the ticket, he drove off, she drove off and last I saw here, she was still on the phone.
Based on the cop's reaction, I've got to believe this wasn't' the first time it happened.
I didn't say knowledge of why VHS beat Beta was a prerequisite for understanding the browser wars (please re-read).
But the author himself presented Beta vs VHS as an example of the market rewardarding an inferior technology because of "other" reasons. The example, while appealing, is not backed up by facts and would appear to be false based not only on serious analysis but on anecdotal evidence of people who were alive and choosing a format those many years ago.
And if his primary example is wrong that he is using as a parallel to the browser wars, then it removes a large part of his assumptions, and without those assumptions, he hasn't properly supported his conclusion.
While I'm sure I have used non-sequiters in the past, and will unwittingly use them in the future, this is a case where it is not a non-sequiter, but goes right to the heart of his argument.
I stopped right when I ran into this sentence:
"Examined objectively, VHS just wasn't as good as Betamax."
I stopped not because of a difference of opinion, but simply because the author displays an ignorance of why VHS "won". Hundreds of authors have rehashed this canard so I won't repeat it here
But if the author doesn't understand why VHS won, then its a good bet why he can't or won't understand which browser will win and why.
Its hardly even worth discussing the article.
" you dont own it so what divine rights do you have to it?"
Pray tell, why do you think there is a divine right to copyright protection?
...we say that he goes down for the 3rd time to mean that he used up his chances for life and he's finally going under for good.
This is really the RIAA and its members going down for the 3rd time.
What I'm really waiting for is for the sh*t to hit the fan when Joe Six Pack buys his $3K HDTV, and pays Comcast $150 a month for HDTV content and then another $2K for his Digital VCR (or DVD or whatever), and he presses the RECORD button to tape the latest Victoria Secret underwear show, and a message pops up that says "Due to copyright restrictions, you may not record".
All of the sudden people will understand what people like the EFF have been complaining about for years.
Right now, congress and the FCC is passing these goofy laws and regulations because there's no downside; broadcast flag? Sure. DRM? Sure. Whatever will keep Hollywood happy.
But when people begin to complain about losing their ability to do what they do today, people are going to be very unhappy, and that's the stuff that brings people out to vote. Remember, Florida? It only take a few people to tip an entire election.
DRM on consumer audio in the past has been the death of a new format. I don't think things have changed that much. Unhappy consumers won't buy stuff.
And if consumers aren't buying TV's, Radio's and Computers because of Hollywood/RIAA lobbying, things will change quickly.
Comcast has been having lots of DNS problems, so I used Posadis (http://www.possadis.org) as what amounts to a caching DNS server on my local network.
The new version works very well, and will make your network connection seem much faster.
"You can critise the 'timbral change in the cymbals' but why do we worry so much about this when, in many cases came off a synthesizer anyway."
Not everybody listens to pop music.
Some people like orchestral works, or baroque music or choral music, or bop, or dixieland, or a whole host of genres where synthesizers are never (or rarely) used.
If a lossy codec sounds fine, then you should be glad; you've found something inexpensive that works well for you. For other types of music, even CD's struggle to maintain good sonic quality and so my frustration is that we're currently undercutting quality for more convenience.
"I'm sorry, sir, I'm not sure what you are talking about."
To be fair, he gave you an honest answer. The alternative is worse, that is, pretending to know the answer and then giving you bad advice.
If you explained to the clerk what you were looking for, then he could potentially help many other customers. We've all got to learn someplace.
My apologies; I am a musician, so I should know better. Put it down to sloppiness rather than ignorance.
There is a creative process involved with writing software, but its no more invention than the act of writing music is called "inventing music".
Music is "composed".
Software is "developed".
There's nothing "inventable" about software.
Unless you think Hayden should have took out a patent on the "Symphony"
"Collection of music that is played by many musicians such that music is broken into theme, counterpart, resolution in 1 to multiple parts. Music is group together to form a sound picture which is then used to inspire both performer and audience. It includes the following elements:
1) White pages with black dots on them to represent exact musical score
2) Wood or metal instrument which is plucked or blown to create sound
3) Sound in claim #2 is used in accordance with claim #1 to produce sound that has coherence
4) Each musician has a slightly different copy of the music
5) The claims in #4 when performed in exact time increments produces sound variations that are impossible with a single instrument.
6) Additional performer (known as conductor) will stand and wave arms
7) Said conductor in claim 6 will wave arms in unique motion depending on type of time in part 5 above such that there is a distinct way of waving arms according to number of beat in measure
8) As music is broken into movements, time may be taken to give audience a rest. Audience may leave to get drinks in the lobby at this time.
" If the government mandates things like number portability and location, this makes a change to the company's bottom line. "
Well, of course it does. Every regulation does that.
Does the restaurant you go to have a surcharge for "meeting government health regulation excise"? Do you get to charge your boss at work a "Commuting cost excise" because the subway raised the cost of tokens?
There are all kinds of fees that business have to endure, ranging from rent, salaries, taxes, and all kinds of compliance with legal and regulatory mandate. That doesn't make it legitimate to pass this cost on as it were a tax.
I'm all for businesses doing what they want; I think they can charge the fees; I think they should be allowed to charge fees for "the boss wants more money fee". But I'm also in favor of fees being explicit as to their purpose and the advertised price being an accurate reflection of what you're going to be charged.
In other words, if your cell phone is advertised at $20/month, then that should be the price. Not $20 plus $2 for "fuel pass along". In that case the price should be advertised as $22.
That shouldn't even be a controversial concept.
"You have purchased a copy, but not a dispensation to copy."
I know vaguely what you mean, but if what you're saying is true, then he has no right to:
a) Back up his music collection
b) move it from one folder to another
c) do anything with it except press the "play" button.
If the argument is that "he can't change it", then does that mean he can't:
a) Change the name of the file
b) Change any kind of ID3 tags in the file (if AAC supports that)
c) go in and change 1 bit
I don't know the right answer, but I suggest that copyright in this case has to be a little bit more sophisticated that what you say.
Perhaps that's why everyone relies on EULA's, because copyright cannot be as encompassing as you suggest; it has to leave leeway, but not too much?
Meanwhile, the law would suggest that for personal use, copying and modifying something you've purchased is okay, and thus we have a dilemna here.
Either we have to grant content producers (and law enforcement) draconian measures to enforce these new super-copyrights, or the concept of DRM will fail and copyright will be forced into a circa 1990's model. I don't see how you can go much beyond DMCA at this point and not make a significant portion of the population a criminal for copying a TV program or music.
Remember that IBM may have a substantial claim against SCO, Novell, claims it actually owns the IP, and even Red Hat may get a whack.
Best case scenario is (a) Novell does in fact show that it owns SYS V (because all claims against Unix would be gone because Novell has released GPL code (b) IBM wins the suit and owns the remaining SCO assets (c) Daryl freaks and essentially closes the company (d) Baystar is left holding the bag (e) some DA grows a set and starts an investigation and indicts a lot of people
You've got to admit, that would be justice in every quarter. Complete win for Linux.
No, but the original poster's comment is one of several comments on the matter.
Several people have discussed treating IP as actual property. In most jurisdictions, real property is assesed at fair market value and then taxed at a standard rate. Anybody who owns a house can attest to this, and in many jurisdictions, cars and luxury items are taxed annually through a form of property tax.
If something is a "hot" property (i.e. Finding Nemo), then it is generating income and therefore could be taxed at a fair market value. Something like Pinnochio sitting in a vault might be worth a significant amount of money, but its not generating income. So Disney would have to balance letting the thing sit idle versus having it readily availabile and generating income.
It would discourage companies from hoarding IP (holding the rights, but not making it available), since stockholders would not be interesting in holding IP for its own sake, but instead would insist on a return.
The effects of such a law would be interesting to say the least.