I suppose if Ford pulled this kind of stunt, I'd be inclined to not buy a Ford.
So...if you've got a mad on about MS, don't buy MS. You might not like the EULA, but once you rip off the shrinkwrap, they've got you. You can keep on shouting that you believe the EULA is worthless but you'd have to go to court to defend that claim. My guess is their lawyers are bigger than your lawyers.
You're a brave soul to toss an adult opinion into this den of pubescent hormones. You'll be castigated as if you were pulling the rug out from under Peter Pan and all the little children in NeverNever Land. If you are really lucky, you might attract a nibble from an otherwise coherent grownup who happens to think that open source/free software is a philosophy capable of running the world, rather than an alternative software development model.
Mostly, though, what goes on here is just a bunch of metaphoric foot stomping. E.g.: MS, the DMCA, and the RIAA are all evil. Someone should do something. But not me. I still need to buy my games and my music. Still gotta be a trained consumer doing what I'm supposed to do. Me, me me; mine mine, mine
Of course, it's business for Apple. They're a business.
The controversy surrounding DRM is political. Regardless of the side you take, your political allies will be few and far between if they have to first pass an ideological litmus test.
By my definition. a "monopoly" only exists if no competition exists. I.e., if no alternative sources are available. Obviously, by that definition, Microsoft is not a monopoly because alternative X86 operating systems and software are available.
However, Microsoft has engaged in illegal monopolistic practices intended to increase their market share by damaging and eliminating the ability of their competition to market their products.
Like all businesses, both Microsoft and Apple engage in legal practices intended to increase their market share.
Apple is the only business that markets a line of personal computers called "Apple". Apple is the only business that markets operating systems called MacOS and MacOS X. They protect that by trademark and copyright, and are not adverse to taking legal action, if necessary. The fact that Apple has a "monopoly" on the sales of PC's and software carrying the "Apple" brand does not make Apple a monopoly vendor of pesonal computer products. Consumers have many alternative sources. Likewise, anyone is free to market any kind of PC. If they slap an "Apple" label on it, that s illegal and Apple will send lawyers. As would Ford if somone started putting the "Ford" logo on a new line of cars, or as OSDN would if someone opened up a new discussion web site and called it "Slashdot".
Now, if you decide to market an MP3 player to the Mac market and Apple pays off software distributors to keep you out of the game, that's illegal and it's monopolistic. If you try to market a new PPC machine that happens to run OS X and Apple pays off Motorola and IBM to keep them from selling you chips, that's illegal and it's monopolistic. If Apple does nothing and no one wants to buy your MP3 player or your new box, you're just out of luck. If Apple simply buys up all available chip production for the forseeable future, I don't call that illegal, but lawyers would likely be able to buy more timeshares.
I'd prefer to look at deliberate and unethical atempts tp eliminate competition, rather than ability to set price in an industry, as a mark of a monopoly. (Note that it is, obviously, possible to attempt to eliminate competition by ethical means.) By that standard, I don't consider Apple a monopoly.
Apple doesn't determine the price for personal computers. They only determine the price for their brand of PC. Same as tomato sellers. If you think tomatoes cost too much in the Apple store, go somewhere else.
Anyone can try to bring suit against anyone for anything. Apple's suits might not be considered the greatest PR moves in some circles, but they have nothing to do with whether or not it is a monopoly. Monopoly has to do with eliminating the competition, not with style and tactics/
The point is: a personal computer is a generic device. So is an automobile. Every manufacturer of PC's and cars wants to create a unqiue brand identity an image for his product, because they need to create a reason for people to choose their product instead of the competition's, when, in fact, they are all very equivalent products. Ford has a brand identity, as do Mercedes, Volkswagen, Ferrari and all the rest. Ditto Dell, Compaq, HP, Apple and the shop on the corner that sells beige boxes. None of these companies are monopolies: You can buy PC's from many vendors; you can buy cars from many manufacturers.
Apple built and retains its market by tightly controlling integrated hardware and software. (Even then, an aftermarket industry does exist.) They have successfully managed to convince people to pay a premium price for personal computers that bear the Apple logo. That makes them good business people , not monopolists.
Apple is the only company that makes Apple computers and Apple software. Ford is the only company that makes Ford automobiles and parts. Neither is a monopoly in their industries. There are lots of other people willing to sell you PC's, operating systems, and cars.
Hemos has thrown a bone to the open source Luddite crowd. Given the pronounced lack of original and innovative software coming from open source, that's ironic.
Typically, some advocate abolition of the patent system entirely, a comfortable way to avoid dealing with a real problem by campaigning for the untenable. Still, I guess, it gets them street cred around here.
How about going after legislation that loosens the corporate grip on employees' inventions? How about going after legislation that would compel real reform of the Patent Office? How about going after legislation that resolves the issue of software patents?
Given that open source is increasingly confronting broader political issues sparked by attempts to apply open source doctrine beyond the software development model, why the lack of serious political lobbying and organized effort?
People looking for word processor and spreadsheet work must know Word and Excel.
Unless you are their instructor, I'd lay back. Answer any questions that come our way, but don't roll out an alernate list of readings. Let them spend the time trying to get an edge with the two programs the business world thinks are synonymous with word processing and spreadsheets.
I read it, which proves something about my memory.
I can't take Cringely's proposed tactic seriously, though. The local police probably never heard of the DMCA, but they might arrest you as a public nuisance.
>> ummm no, you had to subscribe to msn and pay them.
Ummm, that's what I said, I think.:-) Buy a $399 computer, sign a deal with MSN, and get the $400 rebate. I remember seeing lines stretching around the inside of the store and out onto the sidewalk when my local MicroCenter advertised this deal.
Re:Choice of OS != intelligence? (Re:The problem)
on
AOL's new Linux PC
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I used to run this little test of computer savviness: 1. Using a program of your choice, create a file and save it. 2. Now, using any other program of your choice, find that file.
Most people flunked. Many were stumped at "create a file".
Sigh.
On the other hand, I tend to think we often equate "capabilities" with "complex and difficult" because many new capabilities are rolled out in a CLI-only versiond. Building a GUI adds more cost and complexity. If a GUI presents the same capabilities as a CLI, that's OK with me. Capabilities will likely always be ahead of the curve, but, in the end, it's an interface issue. For example, if an interface allows all of a machine's capabilities to be exploited while eliminating the need to be aware of an underlying file system, dropping to a command line doesn't add to the user's capabilities.
It's the other way around: getting AOL users to use Linux.
Forget about mainstreaming Linux by convincing everyone to learn Unix. Hasn't happened in 30 years; ain't gonna happen. If/when Linux becomes a mainstream desktop OS, it will be as WIMP-ish as all the rest. OSX is a good precursor of what it will take.
That's not that farfetched. More than a year ago, MicroCenter was selling $399 eMachines packaged with a rebatable $400 commitment to MSN. Get the rebate, and you made one buck on the deal.
Companies "give away" or sell below cost things to entice you to spend even more money with them. E.g. game consoles.
This is why we have lawyers and courts, but it seems to me that the user is as much a victim as the affiliates. I don't know what the Kazaa EULA says, but I doubt it acknowledges that the user is agreeing to engage in illegal activity.
The effectiveness of civil disobedience often relies on the disobedient deliberately getting arrested so a court challenge to legislation can be launched. Absent those legal challenges, you face the much more daunting task of altering the political landscape in your favor.
Cringley says: Sociologists tell us that e-mail does a kind of social leveling that makes people bolder... Sending a flame message...embrutes us, making us less sensitive to our own harsh words...(as a result) we just don't have any energy left to actually do something about the real issue at hand..
Very true, and it happens on Slashdot all the time. No one knows who you are, so posters, including myself, often turn off our brains and resort to intemperate language and ad hominem attacks. Then we walk away from the field of battle, our ego boosted.
If we cut out the ranting and started using our heads, the/. crowd might actually start addressing their issues.
Ever take you car to a mechanic and notice the signs that say something like "Customers Not Permitted in Work Area. Not Responsible for Damages or Injuries"? Well, that doesn't absolve the garage from legal liability if you walk into the work area and they drop a transmission on your head.
Ditto EULA's. Someone could walk into a bank and get a clerk to sign a license that says "Give Me All Your Money". Still illegal.
Seems to me that language could be faulted for not explicitly stating that revenue from the purchase will accrue to Kazaa, not the original affiliate. By itself, that might support civil action. Certainly seems deceptive by omission.
As others have noted, language in a EULA stating that the user agrees to commit an illegal act does not legitimize the act or absolve anyone from legal liability.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose if Ford pulled this kind of stunt, I'd be inclined to not buy a Ford.
So...if you've got a mad on about MS, don't buy MS. You might not like the EULA, but once you rip off the shrinkwrap, they've got you. You can keep on shouting that you believe the EULA is worthless but you'd have to go to court to defend that claim. My guess is their lawyers are bigger than your lawyers.
You're a brave soul to toss an adult opinion into this den of pubescent hormones. You'll be castigated as if you were pulling the rug out from under Peter Pan and all the little children in NeverNever Land. If you are really lucky, you might attract a nibble from an otherwise coherent grownup who happens to think that open source/free software is a philosophy capable of running the world, rather than an alternative software development model.
Mostly, though, what goes on here is just a bunch of metaphoric foot stomping. E.g.: MS, the DMCA, and the RIAA are all evil. Someone should do something. But not me. I still need to buy my games and my music. Still gotta be a trained consumer doing what I'm supposed to do. Me, me me; mine mine, mine
Of course, it's business for Apple. They're a business.
The controversy surrounding DRM is political. Regardless of the side you take, your political allies will be few and far between if they have to first pass an ideological litmus test.
By my definition. a "monopoly" only exists if no competition exists. I.e., if no alternative sources are available. Obviously, by that definition, Microsoft is not a monopoly because alternative X86 operating systems and software are available.
However, Microsoft has engaged in illegal monopolistic practices intended to increase their market share by damaging and eliminating the ability of their competition to market their products.
Like all businesses, both Microsoft and Apple engage in legal practices intended to increase their market share.
Apple is the only business that markets a line of personal computers called "Apple". Apple is the only business that markets operating systems called MacOS and MacOS X. They protect that by trademark and copyright, and are not adverse to taking legal action, if necessary. The fact that Apple has a "monopoly" on the sales of PC's and software carrying the "Apple" brand does not make Apple a monopoly vendor of pesonal computer products. Consumers have many alternative sources. Likewise, anyone is free to market any kind of PC. If they slap an "Apple" label on it, that s illegal and Apple will send lawyers. As would Ford if somone started putting the "Ford" logo on a new line of cars, or as OSDN would if someone opened up a new discussion web site and called it "Slashdot".
Now, if you decide to market an MP3 player to the Mac market and Apple pays off software distributors to keep you out of the game, that's illegal and it's monopolistic. If you try to market a new PPC machine that happens to run OS X and Apple pays off Motorola and IBM to keep them from selling you chips, that's illegal and it's monopolistic. If Apple does nothing and no one wants to buy your MP3 player or your new box, you're just out of luck. If Apple simply buys up all available chip production for the forseeable future, I don't call that illegal, but lawyers would likely be able to buy more timeshares.
I'd prefer to look at deliberate and unethical atempts tp eliminate competition, rather than ability to set price in an industry, as a mark of a monopoly. (Note that it is, obviously, possible to attempt to eliminate competition by ethical means.) By that standard, I don't consider Apple a monopoly.
Apple doesn't determine the price for personal computers. They only determine the price for their brand of PC. Same as tomato sellers. If you think tomatoes cost too much in the Apple store, go somewhere else.
Anyone can try to bring suit against anyone for anything. Apple's suits might not be considered the greatest PR moves in some circles, but they have nothing to do with whether or not it is a monopoly. Monopoly has to do with eliminating the competition, not with style and tactics/
The point is: a personal computer is a generic device. So is an automobile. Every manufacturer of PC's and cars wants to create a unqiue brand identity an image for his product, because they need to create a reason for people to choose their product instead of the competition's, when, in fact, they are all very equivalent products. Ford has a brand identity, as do Mercedes, Volkswagen, Ferrari and all the rest. Ditto Dell, Compaq, HP, Apple and the shop on the corner that sells beige boxes. None of these companies are monopolies: You can buy PC's from many vendors; you can buy cars from many manufacturers.
Apple built and retains its market by tightly controlling integrated hardware and software. (Even then, an aftermarket industry does exist.) They have successfully managed to convince people to pay a premium price for personal computers that bear the Apple logo. That makes them good business people , not monopolists.
Apple is the only company that makes Apple computers and Apple software. Ford is the only company that makes Ford automobiles and parts. Neither is a monopoly in their industries. There are lots of other people willing to sell you PC's, operating systems, and cars.
Leave Palo Alto today and arrive in Columbus on Friday, including stops at "retirement and mobile homes"?
Glad I'm not driving.
Hemos has thrown a bone to the open source Luddite crowd. Given the pronounced lack of original and innovative software coming from open source, that's ironic.
Typically, some advocate abolition of the patent system entirely, a comfortable way to avoid dealing with a real problem by campaigning for the untenable. Still, I guess, it gets them street cred around here.
How about going after legislation that loosens the corporate grip on employees' inventions? How about going after legislation that would compel real reform of the Patent Office? How about going after legislation that resolves the issue of software patents?
Given that open source is increasingly confronting broader political issues sparked by attempts to apply open source doctrine beyond the software development model, why the lack of serious political lobbying and organized effort?
People looking for word processor and spreadsheet work must know Word and Excel.
Unless you are their instructor, I'd lay back. Answer any questions that come our way, but don't roll out an alernate list of readings. Let them spend the time trying to get an edge with the two programs the business world thinks are synonymous with word processing and spreadsheets.
He said: Stop wasting bandwidth with dumb-ass comments...
...MacOSX=ppc hardware only=not worth the money. Of course, morons like you don't get that.
You said:
I guess you felt a compulsion to combine a gratuitous insult with an unsupportable assertion. Thanks for proving the guy's point.
I read it, which proves something about my memory.
I can't take Cringely's proposed tactic seriously, though. The local police probably never heard of the DMCA, but they might arrest you as a public nuisance.
>> ummm no, you had to subscribe to msn and pay them.
:-) Buy a $399 computer, sign a deal with MSN, and get the $400 rebate. I remember seeing lines stretching around the inside of the store and out onto the sidewalk when my local MicroCenter advertised this deal.
Ummm, that's what I said, I think.
I used to run this little test of computer savviness: 1. Using a program of your choice, create a file and save it. 2. Now, using any other program of your choice, find that file.
Most people flunked. Many were stumped at "create a file".
Sigh.
On the other hand, I tend to think we often equate "capabilities" with "complex and difficult" because many new capabilities are rolled out in a CLI-only versiond. Building a GUI adds more cost and complexity. If a GUI presents the same capabilities as a CLI, that's OK with me. Capabilities will likely always be ahead of the curve, but, in the end, it's an interface issue.
For example, if an interface allows all of a machine's capabilities to be exploited while eliminating the need to be aware of an underlying file system, dropping to a command line doesn't add to the user's capabilities.
It's the other way around: getting AOL users to use Linux.
Forget about mainstreaming Linux by convincing everyone to learn Unix. Hasn't happened in 30 years; ain't gonna happen. If/when Linux becomes a mainstream desktop OS, it will be as WIMP-ish as all the rest. OSX is a good precursor of what it will take.
That's not that farfetched. More than a year ago, MicroCenter was selling $399 eMachines packaged with a rebatable $400 commitment to MSN. Get the rebate, and you made one buck on the deal.
Companies "give away" or sell below cost things to entice you to spend even more money with them. E.g. game consoles.
You know, choice of OS or ISP isn't a measure of intelligence. The idea is to make computers easier to use, not more difficult.
This is why we have lawyers and courts, but it seems to me that the user is as much a victim as the affiliates. I don't know what the Kazaa EULA says, but I doubt it acknowledges that the user is agreeing to engage in illegal activity.
The effectiveness of civil disobedience often relies on the disobedient deliberately getting arrested so a court challenge to legislation can be launched. Absent those legal challenges, you face the much more daunting task of altering the political landscape in your favor.
Cringley says:
/. crowd might actually start addressing their issues.
Sociologists tell us that e-mail does a kind of social leveling that makes people bolder... Sending a flame message...embrutes us, making us less sensitive to our own harsh words...(as a result) we just don't have any energy left to actually do something about the real issue at hand..
Very true, and it happens on Slashdot all the time. No one knows who you are, so posters, including myself, often turn off our brains and resort to intemperate language and ad hominem attacks. Then we walk away from the field of battle, our ego boosted.
If we cut out the ranting and started using our heads, the
Do these guys use any Gnu or open source code? If so, what are the implications? What do those licenses have to say about this kind of usage?
Ever take you car to a mechanic and notice the signs that say something like "Customers Not Permitted in Work Area. Not Responsible for Damages or Injuries"? Well, that doesn't absolve the garage from legal liability if you walk into the work area and they drop a transmission on your head.
Ditto EULA's. Someone could walk into a bank and get a clerk to sign a license that says "Give Me All Your Money". Still illegal.
>> Does this make the end user liable for any infractions?
Unlikely, I'd think, since the user was also a victim of fraud and deception.
Seems to me that language could be faulted for not explicitly stating that revenue from the purchase will accrue to Kazaa, not the original affiliate. By itself, that might support civil action. Certainly seems deceptive by omission.
As others have noted, language in a EULA stating that the user agrees to commit an illegal act does not legitimize the act or absolve anyone from legal liability.
You can't legitimize illegal actions by putting language in a EULA. If it's illegal, it stays illegal.
How about someone suing these guys? Eight hundred thousand Amazon associates ought to make for some nice class action litigation.