I really don't have a problem with the network logos, since most are transparent and fairly unintrusive. I was watching some channel last night, though, and they did a Southwestern Bell "Bug" right next to their logo for about 30 seconds. Had nothing to do with the show I was watching, or even the channel I was on. It was a stupid ad, pure and simple. That just looked like too much of a banner ad to me, and really put me off.
Any marketer who's followed the internet should know that adding ads to your content doesn't work very often. Most people just tune them out mentally. Why even bother, when the only thing you're going to accomplish is making people change the channel? Logos and even adverts for coming shows are fine, since they do have something to do with the watching experience, but irrelevant ads like for phone companies have no place and should be discouraged with a quick change of the dial.
Things are going pretty much the way I figured they would. Linux is making progress in the areas it shines in. If it keeps up, I see the following happening in 5-10 years:
The market will split into 3 basic genres. You'll still have the Apple/Macintosh vanguard, as those diehards won't disappear. Apple's done a good job of keeping that core audience, and they'll still have them. Microsoft will become less of a business solution and more of a home system. People still want an easy to set up system, and Microsoft gives them that. However, companies are already getting sick of MS licsensing and bugs. That leads to the major change, Linux will become the system of choice for businesses. Given 5-10 years, install and administration of Linux distros will be as simple as Microsoft's are now. Look at how far the last 5 years has brought Linux if you don't believe me. Businesses will go with the low cost implementation that Linux provides over the headaches that come with MS. Programs like StarOffice will make the transition of the business side less painful. Companies like Sun will find themselves having to shift priorities away from the OS in order to survive.
In short, Microsoft will stay a dominant player in the home PC field, with Apple being the secondary choice. However, businesses will tend to go with the cheaper and less bug prone Linux for their own installs. Of course, that's just my viewpoint on things. Your mileage may vary.
If DVD movies ARE found to be software, does that give users the legal right to make backup copies? Could this suit actually legitimize DeCSS?
Remember the DMCA folks. You might have the right to make backup copies, but DeCSS is still circumventive and thus illegal by current interpretation of the DMCA. Besides, all they have to do is slap a EULA on the front of a movie, and bye bye backup rights. Now you don't own the copy of the movie, you're just licensing the right to view it on your system and your system alone. Betcha they could even restrict the resale of DVDs doing that ala Microsoft.
The more I talk about this, the worse it seems things could get if Warner actually succeeds.
I would say that it's in the marketing. DVD movies are presented and marketed in a similar fashion to VHS movies. Thus the expectation is created that they would be treated identical. Computer games and software are marketed differently, thus fall under different expectations. What Warner apparently wants here is to market their DVDs like movies, but have them called software in order to avoid problems with existing copyright laws on movies. That reeks of a double standard.
You have a very valid point about entertainment blurring. As more companies seek to blend interactive capabilities with a cinematic experience, the line between strict movies and strict software gets blurry. The problem is there are different standards for both, so how do you come to a compromise? The desires of the industry must be tempered with the rights of the consumers, both business and home.
If it was software, then it falls under the whole licensing rigamarole that most software does. However, they use the same type of legal warnings that VHS movies use. Plus, it's basically the same content. Yeah, it's got some flashy menus and such, but as many have said before if you classify this as software then CDs become software too. The content's the same, it's the media it's on that's different.
This is YADL (yet another dumb lawsuit) perpetrated by a company who wants to improve its bottom line. Should be interesting to see if the Aussies have more sense in their digital media policies than we do. It sickens me when a company tries to muck with laws in the digital era just because the lawmakers are ignorant about new technology. "Oh, it's the same movie, just on a different media, but let's call it software so we can charge more". Disgusting.
Ok, here's my point of view. M$ is a proven OS monopoly using illegal means of furthering that monopoly into other areas. Any time they get bashed on by another company, it puts a smile on my face. Why? Because the more companies make a big deal of M$'s monopoly, the more people are aware of it and do something about it. This, however, wasn't a company bashing on Microsoft, this was a company not supporting something new. No big deal.
As for companies not supporting Linux, it's that bottom line again. They're not going to pay to train people for what they see as a niche OS. It's not worth spending the time to train 10 agents to support Linux when you get one call a week on it. See my point? It's not pro-Microsoft or anti-Linux, it's a matter of saving money.
I hate replying to myself, but this point I forgot to mention. If you read the article, it pretty much makes the same point I just stated. I like to laugh at MS getting bashed on as much as the next person, but this really isn't a worthy bash.
It's very typical for companies to not support a new or different OS when it comes out. It's got nothing to do with ill feelings and everything to do with training. Most support desks will not put a lot of effort into training their reps on a new OS until it's proven there is a demand for the support. I used to work for a helpdesk that wouldn't support Win98 when it came out, even though it was very similar to 95. It was just a matter of liability and training.
If XP takes off and becomes commonplace, they'll end up supporting it. It just takes time. I've seen companies that swore they'd never support Linux turn around a couple years later and start supporting it. The rule is if supporting it makes a dramatic impact on customer satisfaction, they'll do it.
As far as I can tell, the format is still Sony's to control. They're just letting others use it. Technically, they could do the whole proprietary thing (as you joked), but it's really not in their best interests. One really can learn a lesson from Microsoft in how NOT to do business in the longterm:)
Hmmm...MP3 is pretty much a standard, as is the CD format. Mini-CDs are just a smaller capacity version of a CD, and they play on >90% of the CD players out there. I can't put a minidisc in my standard CD-ROM drive, so that makes a difference.:)
Thank you for correcting me on the Sony thing though. I do appreciate a level-headed correction.
What is the advantage of this over 10-year-old minidisc technology?
The difference is mini-cds can be played in a regular CD player too. Ever noticed the indention in the middle of a CD player's tray? That's for a mini-CD. Minidisc is proprietary and requires you use a Sony licensed player.
If you read the article, you'll see this only applies to telecommunications and electronic devices. No mention made about software or Internet technology. So no worries, folks, I'm sure we'll still have plenty of silly "one-click" patents to talk about here on/.
Anyone who has the Ep 1 DVD knows they've been hyping November 9th. It was just kinda assumed that was the release date for the new teaser for Ep 2. Anyone check lately to see if 11/9 is still being promoted, or if they've changed that to 11/2 (the release date of Monsters Inc)?
Sorry my reply is a day late and a buck short, but just FYI, there's a difference between bundling other manufacturer's apps and bundling your own versions of them:) Part of MS strategy is to bundle their own software to eliminate competition in any software field. They want a One World Order under Microsoft.
Aside from that, you've got a real point. Forcing those apps down your throat is the other method they use. Of course, the real danger here is not that we don't have a choice (you do), but that most people won't bother to look to see that they have a choice. They just quietly hand their mindshare over to Microsoft.
Yeah, but it'll still open up if you go to Hotmail. The web page runs an object that is associated with Messenger, so the $#(&ing app comes up whether you want it to or not. That little bit of annoyance really makes me mad. Know how to kill that one without removing MSN Messenger or Hotmail? Unfortunately, I need them both to converse with family.
Regardless of whether XP gets stopped or not (and at this late juncture I doubt that it's even feasible), Microsoft's practices need to be reviewed by the government. It's pretty much a given that what they are doing with XP is more of the same bundling that they were found guilty of previously (in short, this time they're attacking AOL, Winamp, Real, Adaptec, and more). If anyone in the judicial branch were to see this, it might make a much better case for a very harsh penalty against Microsoft.
Personally, I'd like to see them make the OS free and force them to open a lot of their proprietary APIs. That way, they can't continue to lock things down into a proprietary format. That should compensate for the amount of innovation they've snuffed over the last 7 years. Your mileage may vary, so I expect someone to disagree. That's just fine, I'm just stating my opinion.
Can't wait to see how this proposal flies with other nations that might have more strigent privacy laws. We might just end up with a USNet and an Internet (that includes everyone else but us). We're doing a real good job of isolating ourselves from the rest of the world tech community with things like this and things like the DMCA.
Hopefully this is all just talk that will get rationalized out. Then again, we are a nation in fear (don't let the red, white, and blue fool ya), and fearful people don't do rational things. How much further do we have to go before we get a big wake up call in the form of not being the #1 nation technologically?
Here's where the whole thing gets messy. Yes, it's expected that email that is sent should be received. But the Internet isn't regulated like that, so it's not really a right. I had a big long spiel about this and the Usenet Blackhole list a while back.
The point is that if your ISP is blacklisted, there's usually a good reason for it. It's because they don't control spam like they should, and thus they degrade email service for many many people. The blackhole list is designed to be a wake up call, and it usually isn't used until repeated requests to fix the problem have been ignored. If you find your ISP on the blacklist, complain to them to fix the problem that got them there. Either that, or switch to an ISP that isn't on the list. It's not your right to send email that's curtailed, it's the privilege to send it through that ISP that's restricted. Complaining about the lists themselves won't accomplish anything.
ISPs who have contracts that don't allow them to block email don't use the RBLs, but many ISPs specifically retain the right to block email if they need or want to. As companies, it's in their interests to protect their bottom line, and spam email is a bandwidth and storage killer. We won't see those lists go away until a better way of stopping spam comes along.
That's an observation I made too. Of course, what I think would be neat is if these NAN's stayed off the internet for the most part. Imagine a localized network disseminating that stuff that the members want and ignoring the rest of the garbage. Find something interesting, upload it on the main neighbor-net server for everyone to enjoy. Oh wait, that's the old BBS world, isn't it? Who says history doesn't repeat?:D
Thanks for the info:) Although I'm sure the DSL companies would probably change their contracts if they thought they'd lose money. Still, good to know.
Don't the broadband licenses already keep this sort of thing limited? I mean, how would you support multiple people using one connect without the cable company or phone company saying "you can't do that, it's a breach of contract" and closing you down? It's easy for the companies to keep this from happening, regardless of wht the FCC does.
Now if the NAN could hook up to their own T1 or a piece of one (using membership fees to pay for the cost), I could see it happening. But don't think for one minute the broadband companies would let something like this cut into their profit margins.
The reason for the FISA court is intelligence and security. I don't understand why that would be neccessary against domestic hackers. Are you saying we need secrecy against our own people? That smacks of a government not for the people and not by the people. This just sounds like more paranoid prattle that furthers someone's agenda in the wake of a major tragedy.
I've got a good recommendation for a law. Mandatory debate in both houses, a mandatory review time, and possibly mandatory vote by the people on any law that is being pushed to increase national security in the wake of the tragedy. Yes, we need to tighten things up, but the public should be aware and able to have their voice heard above the political din. I wish we could completely trust our representatives, but they're people too, and checks and balances need to be in place to keep them from acting irrationally...and this recommendation is a fine example of said irrational acts.
Slashdot Mirror
They're not yet attracting enough attention to get shut down by the court system
Too late... they're already under the gun. At least EFF has decided to support MusicCity now.
I really don't have a problem with the network logos, since most are transparent and fairly unintrusive. I was watching some channel last night, though, and they did a Southwestern Bell "Bug" right next to their logo for about 30 seconds. Had nothing to do with the show I was watching, or even the channel I was on. It was a stupid ad, pure and simple. That just looked like too much of a banner ad to me, and really put me off.
Any marketer who's followed the internet should know that adding ads to your content doesn't work very often. Most people just tune them out mentally. Why even bother, when the only thing you're going to accomplish is making people change the channel? Logos and even adverts for coming shows are fine, since they do have something to do with the watching experience, but irrelevant ads like for phone companies have no place and should be discouraged with a quick change of the dial.
Things are going pretty much the way I figured they would. Linux is making progress in the areas it shines in. If it keeps up, I see the following happening in 5-10 years:
The market will split into 3 basic genres. You'll still have the Apple/Macintosh vanguard, as those diehards won't disappear. Apple's done a good job of keeping that core audience, and they'll still have them. Microsoft will become less of a business solution and more of a home system. People still want an easy to set up system, and Microsoft gives them that. However, companies are already getting sick of MS licsensing and bugs. That leads to the major change, Linux will become the system of choice for businesses. Given 5-10 years, install and administration of Linux distros will be as simple as Microsoft's are now. Look at how far the last 5 years has brought Linux if you don't believe me. Businesses will go with the low cost implementation that Linux provides over the headaches that come with MS. Programs like StarOffice will make the transition of the business side less painful. Companies like Sun will find themselves having to shift priorities away from the OS in order to survive.
In short, Microsoft will stay a dominant player in the home PC field, with Apple being the secondary choice. However, businesses will tend to go with the cheaper and less bug prone Linux for their own installs. Of course, that's just my viewpoint on things. Your mileage may vary.
See this comment that I just made earlier in the thread. Someone already adressed this.
If DVD movies ARE found to be software, does that give users the legal right to make backup copies? Could this suit actually legitimize DeCSS?
Remember the DMCA folks. You might have the right to make backup copies, but DeCSS is still circumventive and thus illegal by current interpretation of the DMCA. Besides, all they have to do is slap a EULA on the front of a movie, and bye bye backup rights. Now you don't own the copy of the movie, you're just licensing the right to view it on your system and your system alone. Betcha they could even restrict the resale of DVDs doing that ala Microsoft.
The more I talk about this, the worse it seems things could get if Warner actually succeeds.
I would say that it's in the marketing. DVD movies are presented and marketed in a similar fashion to VHS movies. Thus the expectation is created that they would be treated identical. Computer games and software are marketed differently, thus fall under different expectations. What Warner apparently wants here is to market their DVDs like movies, but have them called software in order to avoid problems with existing copyright laws on movies. That reeks of a double standard.
You have a very valid point about entertainment blurring. As more companies seek to blend interactive capabilities with a cinematic experience, the line between strict movies and strict software gets blurry. The problem is there are different standards for both, so how do you come to a compromise? The desires of the industry must be tempered with the rights of the consumers, both business and home.
If it was software, then it falls under the whole licensing rigamarole that most software does. However, they use the same type of legal warnings that VHS movies use. Plus, it's basically the same content. Yeah, it's got some flashy menus and such, but as many have said before if you classify this as software then CDs become software too. The content's the same, it's the media it's on that's different.
This is YADL (yet another dumb lawsuit) perpetrated by a company who wants to improve its bottom line. Should be interesting to see if the Aussies have more sense in their digital media policies than we do. It sickens me when a company tries to muck with laws in the digital era just because the lawmakers are ignorant about new technology. "Oh, it's the same movie, just on a different media, but let's call it software so we can charge more". Disgusting.
Ok, here's my point of view. M$ is a proven OS monopoly using illegal means of furthering that monopoly into other areas. Any time they get bashed on by another company, it puts a smile on my face. Why? Because the more companies make a big deal of M$'s monopoly, the more people are aware of it and do something about it. This, however, wasn't a company bashing on Microsoft, this was a company not supporting something new. No big deal.
As for companies not supporting Linux, it's that bottom line again. They're not going to pay to train people for what they see as a niche OS. It's not worth spending the time to train 10 agents to support Linux when you get one call a week on it. See my point? It's not pro-Microsoft or anti-Linux, it's a matter of saving money.
I hate replying to myself, but this point I forgot to mention. If you read the article, it pretty much makes the same point I just stated. I like to laugh at MS getting bashed on as much as the next person, but this really isn't a worthy bash.
It's very typical for companies to not support a new or different OS when it comes out. It's got nothing to do with ill feelings and everything to do with training. Most support desks will not put a lot of effort into training their reps on a new OS until it's proven there is a demand for the support. I used to work for a helpdesk that wouldn't support Win98 when it came out, even though it was very similar to 95. It was just a matter of liability and training.
If XP takes off and becomes commonplace, they'll end up supporting it. It just takes time. I've seen companies that swore they'd never support Linux turn around a couple years later and start supporting it. The rule is if supporting it makes a dramatic impact on customer satisfaction, they'll do it.
As far as I can tell, the format is still Sony's to control. They're just letting others use it. Technically, they could do the whole proprietary thing (as you joked), but it's really not in their best interests. One really can learn a lesson from Microsoft in how NOT to do business in the longterm :)
Hmmm...MP3 is pretty much a standard, as is the CD format. Mini-CDs are just a smaller capacity version of a CD, and they play on >90% of the CD players out there. I can't put a minidisc in my standard CD-ROM drive, so that makes a difference. :)
Thank you for correcting me on the Sony thing though. I do appreciate a level-headed correction.
What is the advantage of this over 10-year-old minidisc technology?
The difference is mini-cds can be played in a regular CD player too. Ever noticed the indention in the middle of a CD player's tray? That's for a mini-CD. Minidisc is proprietary and requires you use a Sony licensed player.
Yeppers, that's what I'm talking about.
If you read the article, you'll see this only applies to telecommunications and electronic devices. No mention made about software or Internet technology. So no worries, folks, I'm sure we'll still have plenty of silly "one-click" patents to talk about here on /.
Anyone who has the Ep 1 DVD knows they've been hyping November 9th. It was just kinda assumed that was the release date for the new teaser for Ep 2. Anyone check lately to see if 11/9 is still being promoted, or if they've changed that to 11/2 (the release date of Monsters Inc)?
Sorry my reply is a day late and a buck short, but just FYI, there's a difference between bundling other manufacturer's apps and bundling your own versions of them :) Part of MS strategy is to bundle their own software to eliminate competition in any software field. They want a One World Order under Microsoft.
Aside from that, you've got a real point. Forcing those apps down your throat is the other method they use. Of course, the real danger here is not that we don't have a choice (you do), but that most people won't bother to look to see that they have a choice. They just quietly hand their mindshare over to Microsoft.
Yeah, but it'll still open up if you go to Hotmail. The web page runs an object that is associated with Messenger, so the $#(&ing app comes up whether you want it to or not. That little bit of annoyance really makes me mad. Know how to kill that one without removing MSN Messenger or Hotmail? Unfortunately, I need them both to converse with family.
Regardless of whether XP gets stopped or not (and at this late juncture I doubt that it's even feasible), Microsoft's practices need to be reviewed by the government. It's pretty much a given that what they are doing with XP is more of the same bundling that they were found guilty of previously (in short, this time they're attacking AOL, Winamp, Real, Adaptec, and more). If anyone in the judicial branch were to see this, it might make a much better case for a very harsh penalty against Microsoft.
Personally, I'd like to see them make the OS free and force them to open a lot of their proprietary APIs. That way, they can't continue to lock things down into a proprietary format. That should compensate for the amount of innovation they've snuffed over the last 7 years. Your mileage may vary, so I expect someone to disagree. That's just fine, I'm just stating my opinion.
Can't wait to see how this proposal flies with other nations that might have more strigent privacy laws. We might just end up with a USNet and an Internet (that includes everyone else but us). We're doing a real good job of isolating ourselves from the rest of the world tech community with things like this and things like the DMCA.
Hopefully this is all just talk that will get rationalized out. Then again, we are a nation in fear (don't let the red, white, and blue fool ya), and fearful people don't do rational things. How much further do we have to go before we get a big wake up call in the form of not being the #1 nation technologically?
Here's where the whole thing gets messy. Yes, it's expected that email that is sent should be received. But the Internet isn't regulated like that, so it's not really a right. I had a big long spiel about this and the Usenet Blackhole list a while back.
The point is that if your ISP is blacklisted, there's usually a good reason for it. It's because they don't control spam like they should, and thus they degrade email service for many many people. The blackhole list is designed to be a wake up call, and it usually isn't used until repeated requests to fix the problem have been ignored. If you find your ISP on the blacklist, complain to them to fix the problem that got them there. Either that, or switch to an ISP that isn't on the list. It's not your right to send email that's curtailed, it's the privilege to send it through that ISP that's restricted. Complaining about the lists themselves won't accomplish anything.
ISPs who have contracts that don't allow them to block email don't use the RBLs, but many ISPs specifically retain the right to block email if they need or want to. As companies, it's in their interests to protect their bottom line, and spam email is a bandwidth and storage killer. We won't see those lists go away until a better way of stopping spam comes along.
That's an observation I made too. Of course, what I think would be neat is if these NAN's stayed off the internet for the most part. Imagine a localized network disseminating that stuff that the members want and ignoring the rest of the garbage. Find something interesting, upload it on the main neighbor-net server for everyone to enjoy. Oh wait, that's the old BBS world, isn't it? Who says history doesn't repeat? :D
Thanks for the info :) Although I'm sure the DSL companies would probably change their contracts if they thought they'd lose money. Still, good to know.
Don't the broadband licenses already keep this sort of thing limited? I mean, how would you support multiple people using one connect without the cable company or phone company saying "you can't do that, it's a breach of contract" and closing you down? It's easy for the companies to keep this from happening, regardless of wht the FCC does.
Now if the NAN could hook up to their own T1 or a piece of one (using membership fees to pay for the cost), I could see it happening. But don't think for one minute the broadband companies would let something like this cut into their profit margins.
The reason for the FISA court is intelligence and security. I don't understand why that would be neccessary against domestic hackers. Are you saying we need secrecy against our own people? That smacks of a government not for the people and not by the people. This just sounds like more paranoid prattle that furthers someone's agenda in the wake of a major tragedy.
I've got a good recommendation for a law. Mandatory debate in both houses, a mandatory review time, and possibly mandatory vote by the people on any law that is being pushed to increase national security in the wake of the tragedy. Yes, we need to tighten things up, but the public should be aware and able to have their voice heard above the political din. I wish we could completely trust our representatives, but they're people too, and checks and balances need to be in place to keep them from acting irrationally...and this recommendation is a fine example of said irrational acts.