If this is true, it's one of the smartest lawsuit moves I ever seen. One where you literally want to loose (as long as it's not a loss where their victim is granted the "trademark") to set a precedent so you can stop the other company from doing the same all over the country. That is priceless.
1) Remote friendly. There is no reason that it couldn't be run on my "normal" computer anyways.
2) Pre installed on a toaster like device. Again no reason that I or someone couldn't offer something similar running on x86 with win7, flash 10.1 and such already to go.
Despite you finding no reason why it can't be run in a normal computer, there is obviously a reason why no one is doing it. Either that or corporations hate money, and we know that is not true.
Many have tried to do these things and no one has succeeded so far. The best results have always been where the entire thing is just packaged as a setup box and made plug and play.
The distinction off the devices is not blurred just because you potentially can emulate the setup-box experience in your PC with some geeky work that would be impossible for the average Joe.
BTW, [from what I have heard] the reason Hulu blocked Boxee initially, was precisely due to realizing Boxee allowed to watch Hulu on your TV via Windows Media Center extender (specially with the XBox.) So this is not about you blocking something that can potentially be used on the PC, but to block something that can potentially be used to do "easy" TV streaming.
A personal computer (PC) is any general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end user with no intervening computer operator.
That is from Wikipedia, emphasis mine. A device like the GoogleTV or other appliances are specialized purpose "computers". Your cellphone is a specialized device, it can do many other things, but it is built around it's cellphone capabilities.
I think you are splitting hairs, just as RIAA did when they claimed "DVDs are not home video" and demanded additional payments for the songs used.
Not really, saying they are the same just because they have CPUs and hard drives is splitting hairs. Would you recommend your boss to get a GoogleTV box if he told you you needed to get a new computer for the new sales guy?
The point is, they are very different and the licensing agreement the web hosting services in question have for certain content is only for personal computer use, not for dedicated TV video streaming services.
Your car has a computer, your cellphone is a computer (even the oldest) They are not PCs though. I perhaps should had phrased my original statement this way:
Studios license their content to these sites with explicit conditions that it's for Personal Computer [including Laptops] viewing only.
And no, Boxee or Google Box would not be personal computers. PCs are general purpose computers, while these boxes are very specialized.
So, what if i connect my computer to that 37" computer monitor with HDTV tuner, that is in my living room?
As far as networks care, cases like this are just outliers and they just don't worry too much about them.
I'm failing to see how a pc hooked to my TV is different than the googleTV computer hooked to my tv? Care to explain that to me?
Easy and yet complex. In short: If there is no difference between hooking your computer to the TV or Google TV, then GoogleTV is redundant and should not exist.
If you can think off any reason for GoogleTV to exist, you answer your question on why they are different. I can think of many reasons but I'll let you think off the ones you very likely already know.
Note, I'm not saying I LOVE the fact that this is happening, but I understand it.
From TFA: "Ironically, NBC -- one of the networks blocking Google TV -- offers a CNBC Google TV application for fans of its news channel."
This seems to clearly be a case of one hand not knowing the other hand is doing.
Not really. The thing is, news streaming and show streaming are not the same thing. When was the last time you saw "The NBC Night Time News 2010 Season Complete DVD Box Set" for sale at Best Buy? Networks don't fear as much to put news streaming online because they live off current news (unlike print-to-web news that now wants to live on yesterday's news.) They do sell Chuck and other Shows on DVD, and they license it to Netflix and Hulu Plus for hard cash, so they reuse that content a lot. Allowing anyone to leach it off is not something they will do without heavy considerations on how this will impact their other licensing deals.
When you think about it, it just makes sense that they will treat News and Entertainment content in different ways.
We cant blame them, at least from what I have read. From what I read a while back, Studios license their content to these sites with explisit conditions that it's for computer viewing only. When a setup box can leach the videos, the service providers (like Hulu) get in trouble with the content owners and are forced to take action to stop it.
To be able to stream to TVs they need to get special licenses, that is why Hulu Plus does not have the same content as regular PC Web Hulu.
Netflix sort of dodges that bullet by foresight. They jumped into video streaming early, and they also got license for console streaming before launching the XBox version (some may recall Sony pictures did not grant license right away and were restricted to only play in PCs.)
At the end of the day, they want different fees and licensing terms if the stuff is going to be streamed to TVs, and I bet viewership be tracked by device and reported back.
Although I generally agree with this feeling, if you read TFA, you would find this quote:
There’s now little reason for these GNOME developers to recommend Ubuntu as an operating system.
So as you can see, it's not something the summary writter made up, he just pasted something that was already in TFA, with just one word changed by a short phrace to better fit the short summary context: "There's" with "The move means there is"
If you want to insult the article itself, go for it, but at least in this one case, your insult of the summary is horrendously out of place.
Because of this post alone, Canada will enact a car piracy tax on all 3D printers and 3D "ink" to cover the losses car manufacturers will suffer due to pirated printed cars.
See what you have done!!!! Poor Canadians!!!!
PS. Please do not note all the other things that can be pirated with a 3D Printer else they will include additional taxes for the toy, furniture, and decoration industries!!!
Although that can be true for many OSS projects, I'd say this case in question is far from "someone not being too happy", we are talking about 22 developers right now going to the same project, along with the ones that already were there.
Up to now I see no hints at LibreOffice going the crazy branching path. I would not rule it out, but for now I'll be testing LibreOffice, if I find it's as useful as OpenOffice then I'll be removing OO from my computers.
Even in the tiny keyboards, I always found writing by hand is extremely slower than typing. Mini-keyboards (touch or physical) for cellphones and PDA will still be the best option until someone comes up with a mental link that will recognize thought words, because let's face it, you don't want to be dictating text messages to your wife in a meeting.
What a sad, sad state of affairs. Any moron given enough time fiddling with several devices will come up with the idea that maybe it would be cool to sync email, calendars, and contacts. Maybe even schedule a meeting or two.
Exchange is just one way of doing that stuff, and it's one that belongs to Microsoft. If you try to go around it, well, good luck fighting off the deserved lawsuit.
Copyright is a legal restriction. DRMis the "artificial" restriction. Btw, its a digital restriction for digital "goods" and if its artificial so is the digital property.
Dead wrong. Copyright is what helps creators earn money off their creations.
Why should writers spend years working full time writing a book only to sell a couple copies and have the world share free copies?
Why would a game studios pay developers for years of full time work if they can't make profit?
I will never approve the practice of legally pursuing individual pirates, in part because it's a waste of money, in part because it just destroys some poor sap's life, and in part because it's as effective as attempting to kill a roach infestation by shooting individual roaches (ineffective and overkill at the same time).
At the same time, I'm not fond of overly restrictive DRMSs, and I say this as a developer.
I like Apple's app approach. It does not attempt to emulate physical traits, and ends up more open than the physical thing. Buy an app once, and use it across any device you own. Simultaneously if you want. If so you desire, you can have your entire family under your account sharing all your purchases. Apple won't stop you.
This is perhaps the issue they may face with their Mac app store. Many devs may refuse to accept selling their apps to entire families as just one item.
Then ask your library why they did not license more copies of their digital books, or at least of the ones in higher demand. It's very likely if they worked out a deal like this, they also picked how many digital licenses they were allowed to lend for each specific title.
The lend once only is very onerous and I have never seen a good reason why. Can anyone tell me?
I lend my book(s) more than once, even to the same person.
I hate it when they try to force non-physical objects to behave like physical objects.
I guess next they will implement missing pages....
Have to be VERY careful with this logic. If you claim we should not, ever, attempt digital objects to behave like physical ones, then what argument can you use to ask for the ability to lend/gift/transfer digital goods?
I understand the desire to lend/gift/transfer digital goods, but to be honest, there are inherent issues with it. You have to be careful how to handle it without falling into plainly encouraging piracy.
Wrong. The downloadable widget on that page is the tool used by web authors to embed the player. The user that visits a page that implements it won't need to download anything, as long as the user has a browser that supports HTML5 video (one of the two contesting formats anyways) or Flash installed.
Seeing as it's rather new, I'd say it will take a while for it to show up used somewhere. I'm stranged they didn't set up a demo page, though. Perhaps I should re-scan the article for links to one.
Don't take me wrong, I am a proud owner of an iPhone 3G, an iPad WiFi, an iPod Touch 4G, a Mac Mini, and just got from Best Buy from buying a Powerbook for my wife (her choice, not mine, I insisted she could handle with my current laptop.) This is on top of my Windows Desktop (main system,) Windows Netbook (very effecctive paperweight) and $500 Compaq Laptop (I get what I pay for, it just developed battery incontinence... it poops the battery out every 5 minutes.)
My point? I'm not a mac guy, but at the same time I obviously love my iStuff. I am extremely happy Apple embraced open standards and stood firm against force feed a slow/buggy Flash into their devices.
Adobe is not in the business of selling Flash Plugins, they are in the business of selling Flash Authoring Tools and Server Side technology. iTechnology has been selling like crazy, and hate as you may, it has started to result in pages that are designed to run in iDevices.
With all these pages now out there, Flash suddenly becomes optional, it will not take long before Flash's buggy security issues make many to opt out of using Flash and just fall back on the HTML5 pages that were designed for the iDevices. It is wise of them to try to stop the flocking early, avoid people from developing their own home grown HTML5 Plug N Play migration tools, and offer them first.
Once the big players opt to go Adobe's route, they may secure their web authoring dominance in a Flash Free World Wide Web.
Slashdot Mirror
If this is true, it's one of the smartest lawsuit moves I ever seen. One where you literally want to loose (as long as it's not a loss where their victim is granted the "trademark") to set a precedent so you can stop the other company from doing the same all over the country. That is priceless.
1) Remote friendly. There is no reason that it couldn't be run on my "normal" computer anyways. 2) Pre installed on a toaster like device. Again no reason that I or someone couldn't offer something similar running on x86 with win7, flash 10.1 and such already to go.
Despite you finding no reason why it can't be run in a normal computer, there is obviously a reason why no one is doing it. Either that or corporations hate money, and we know that is not true.
Many have tried to do these things and no one has succeeded so far. The best results have always been where the entire thing is just packaged as a setup box and made plug and play.
The distinction off the devices is not blurred just because you potentially can emulate the setup-box experience in your PC with some geeky work that would be impossible for the average Joe.
BTW, [from what I have heard] the reason Hulu blocked Boxee initially, was precisely due to realizing Boxee allowed to watch Hulu on your TV via Windows Media Center extender (specially with the XBox.) So this is not about you blocking something that can potentially be used on the PC, but to block something that can potentially be used to do "easy" TV streaming.
A personal computer (PC) is any general-purpose computer whose size, capabilities, and original sales price make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end user with no intervening computer operator.
That is from Wikipedia, emphasis mine. A device like the GoogleTV or other appliances are specialized purpose "computers". Your cellphone is a specialized device, it can do many other things, but it is built around it's cellphone capabilities.
I think you are splitting hairs, just as RIAA did when they claimed "DVDs are not home video" and demanded additional payments for the songs used.
Not really, saying they are the same just because they have CPUs and hard drives is splitting hairs. Would you recommend your boss to get a GoogleTV box if he told you you needed to get a new computer for the new sales guy?
The point is, they are very different and the licensing agreement the web hosting services in question have for certain content is only for personal computer use, not for dedicated TV video streaming services.
Your car has a computer, your cellphone is a computer (even the oldest) They are not PCs though. I perhaps should had phrased my original statement this way:
Studios license their content to these sites with explicit conditions that it's for Personal Computer [including Laptops] viewing only.
And no, Boxee or Google Box would not be personal computers. PCs are general purpose computers, while these boxes are very specialized.
Didn't you ask this to me already in another post? As I stated there: If there is no difference then GoogleTV is redundant and should not exist.
If you can think off a reason for it to exist, then you answer your own question on why they are different.
So, what if i connect my computer to that 37" computer monitor with HDTV tuner, that is in my living room?
As far as networks care, cases like this are just outliers and they just don't worry too much about them.
I'm failing to see how a pc hooked to my TV is different than the googleTV computer hooked to my tv? Care to explain that to me?
Easy and yet complex. In short: If there is no difference between hooking your computer to the TV or Google TV, then GoogleTV is redundant and should not exist.
If you can think off any reason for GoogleTV to exist, you answer your question on why they are different. I can think of many reasons but I'll let you think off the ones you very likely already know.
Note, I'm not saying I LOVE the fact that this is happening, but I understand it.
From TFA: "Ironically, NBC -- one of the networks blocking Google TV -- offers a CNBC Google TV application for fans of its news channel."
This seems to clearly be a case of one hand not knowing the other hand is doing.
Not really. The thing is, news streaming and show streaming are not the same thing. When was the last time you saw "The NBC Night Time News 2010 Season Complete DVD Box Set" for sale at Best Buy? Networks don't fear as much to put news streaming online because they live off current news (unlike print-to-web news that now wants to live on yesterday's news.) They do sell Chuck and other Shows on DVD, and they license it to Netflix and Hulu Plus for hard cash, so they reuse that content a lot. Allowing anyone to leach it off is not something they will do without heavy considerations on how this will impact their other licensing deals.
When you think about it, it just makes sense that they will treat News and Entertainment content in different ways.
We cant blame them, at least from what I have read. From what I read a while back, Studios license their content to these sites with explisit conditions that it's for computer viewing only. When a setup box can leach the videos, the service providers (like Hulu) get in trouble with the content owners and are forced to take action to stop it.
To be able to stream to TVs they need to get special licenses, that is why Hulu Plus does not have the same content as regular PC Web Hulu.
Netflix sort of dodges that bullet by foresight. They jumped into video streaming early, and they also got license for console streaming before launching the XBox version (some may recall Sony pictures did not grant license right away and were restricted to only play in PCs.)
At the end of the day, they want different fees and licensing terms if the stuff is going to be streamed to TVs, and I bet viewership be tracked by device and reported back.
This.
Mine says SKIP :P
Although I generally agree with this feeling, if you read TFA, you would find this quote:
There’s now little reason for these GNOME developers to recommend Ubuntu as an operating system.
So as you can see, it's not something the summary writter made up, he just pasted something that was already in TFA, with just one word changed by a short phrace to better fit the short summary context: "There's" with "The move means there is"
If you want to insult the article itself, go for it, but at least in this one case, your insult of the summary is horrendously out of place.
But then you have Quicktime installed, which means you have iTunes installed. No thanks. And people think Adobe software is bloated
QuickTime can be installed in a windows machine without installing iTunes. iTunes requires QuickTime but not the other way around.
You wouldn't steal a car.
But would you download one?
Because of this post alone, Canada will enact a car piracy tax on all 3D printers and 3D "ink" to cover the losses car manufacturers will suffer due to pirated printed cars.
See what you have done!!!! Poor Canadians!!!!
PS. Please do not note all the other things that can be pirated with a 3D Printer else they will include additional taxes for the toy, furniture, and decoration industries!!!
Although that can be true for many OSS projects, I'd say this case in question is far from "someone not being too happy", we are talking about 22 developers right now going to the same project, along with the ones that already were there.
Up to now I see no hints at LibreOffice going the crazy branching path. I would not rule it out, but for now I'll be testing LibreOffice, if I find it's as useful as OpenOffice then I'll be removing OO from my computers.
Even in the tiny keyboards, I always found writing by hand is extremely slower than typing. Mini-keyboards (touch or physical) for cellphones and PDA will still be the best option until someone comes up with a mental link that will recognize thought words, because let's face it, you don't want to be dictating text messages to your wife in a meeting.
Yea, it reminds me The Onion's Apple Wheel parody. Funny that it was not Apple that actually implemented it!
What a sad, sad state of affairs. Any moron given enough time fiddling with several devices will come up with the idea that maybe it would be cool to sync email, calendars, and contacts. Maybe even schedule a meeting or two.
Unless they are specific to syncing meetings, emails, and contacts with Exchange servers without first getting a licensing deal like HTC and Apple did.
Exchange is just one way of doing that stuff, and it's one that belongs to Microsoft. If you try to go around it, well, good luck fighting off the deserved lawsuit.
I bet IMAP syncing is not being argued over.
Copyright is a legal restriction. DRMis the "artificial" restriction. Btw, its a digital restriction for digital "goods" and if its artificial so is the digital property.
Dead wrong. Copyright is what helps creators earn money off their creations.
Why should writers spend years working full time writing a book only to sell a couple copies and have the world share free copies?
Why would a game studios pay developers for years of full time work if they can't make profit?
I will never approve the practice of legally pursuing individual pirates, in part because it's a waste of money, in part because it just destroys some poor sap's life, and in part because it's as effective as attempting to kill a roach infestation by shooting individual roaches (ineffective and overkill at the same time).
At the same time, I'm not fond of overly restrictive DRMSs, and I say this as a developer.
I like Apple's app approach. It does not attempt to emulate physical traits, and ends up more open than the physical thing. Buy an app once, and use it across any device you own. Simultaneously if you want. If so you desire, you can have your entire family under your account sharing all your purchases. Apple won't stop you.
This is perhaps the issue they may face with their Mac app store. Many devs may refuse to accept selling their apps to entire families as just one item.
Then ask your library why they did not license more copies of their digital books, or at least of the ones in higher demand. It's very likely if they worked out a deal like this, they also picked how many digital licenses they were allowed to lend for each specific title.
The lend once only is very onerous and I have never seen a good reason why. Can anyone tell me?
I lend my book(s) more than once, even to the same person.
I hate it when they try to force non-physical objects to behave like physical objects.
I guess next they will implement missing pages....
Have to be VERY careful with this logic. If you claim we should not, ever, attempt digital objects to behave like physical ones, then what argument can you use to ask for the ability to lend/gift/transfer digital goods?
I understand the desire to lend/gift/transfer digital goods, but to be honest, there are inherent issues with it. You have to be careful how to handle it without falling into plainly encouraging piracy.
Wrong. The downloadable widget on that page is the tool used by web authors to embed the player. The user that visits a page that implements it won't need to download anything, as long as the user has a browser that supports HTML5 video (one of the two contesting formats anyways) or Flash installed.
Seeing as it's rather new, I'd say it will take a while for it to show up used somewhere. I'm stranged they didn't set up a demo page, though. Perhaps I should re-scan the article for links to one.
Don't take me wrong, I am a proud owner of an iPhone 3G, an iPad WiFi, an iPod Touch 4G, a Mac Mini, and just got from Best Buy from buying a Powerbook for my wife (her choice, not mine, I insisted she could handle with my current laptop.) This is on top of my Windows Desktop (main system,) Windows Netbook (very effecctive paperweight) and $500 Compaq Laptop (I get what I pay for, it just developed battery incontinence... it poops the battery out every 5 minutes.)
My point? I'm not a mac guy, but at the same time I obviously love my iStuff. I am extremely happy Apple embraced open standards and stood firm against force feed a slow/buggy Flash into their devices.
Elementary, my dear Watson.
Adobe is not in the business of selling Flash Plugins, they are in the business of selling Flash Authoring Tools and Server Side technology. iTechnology has been selling like crazy, and hate as you may, it has started to result in pages that are designed to run in iDevices.
With all these pages now out there, Flash suddenly becomes optional, it will not take long before Flash's buggy security issues make many to opt out of using Flash and just fall back on the HTML5 pages that were designed for the iDevices. It is wise of them to try to stop the flocking early, avoid people from developing their own home grown HTML5 Plug N Play migration tools, and offer them first.
Once the big players opt to go Adobe's route, they may secure their web authoring dominance in a Flash Free World Wide Web.