See, but that's just it. These aren't news sites. They aren't taking traffic away from the Review-Journal. If anything they can drive traffic TO them thru links.
Copyright laws were not designed to be used as an alternative profit stream. Nor to be used as extortion leverage against those who cannot realistically defend themselves in court.
And these weren't "timely" news stories either, so that argument fails too.
If he was really interested in "protecting" his copyright he would just issue cease and desist letters. These guys aren't in competition with him, so it's not like they are causing any kind of financial harm. Hell, they aren't even in the news business.
No, this is all about extorting money from these schlumps in order to generate revenue to save his dying newspaper empire.
Why bother trying to reinvent yourself for the 21st century when you can make up for lost profits thru extortion?
Sherm and the rest of his Journal pals are pure right wing jackasses. I lived in Vegas for 2 years and promptly cancelled my paper subscription because I couldn't put up with it anymore.
It's one thing when their views are limited to the Opinions section, but when it's pervasive throughout the entire paper it's too much. And then he wonders why no one is buying his rag.
Exactly. The publishers want to take control away from the retailers like Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc., and it's just not going to happen.
I mean, what exactly would be the retailer's motivation? There is none. If anything they would readily acknowledge it would hurt them. So why would they go for this?
I'm not portraying myself as anything. I'm just saying the issue is a lot more complicated than "it's stealing and you're a thief".
Stopping people from illegally downloading content is not going to fix the music and movie industries. They have brainwashed people like you into believing this fallacy.
Are you trying to say you've never copied a friend's CDs or VHS tapes? Never taped a TV program and held onto it for more than a week? Never used a tape recording to skip commercials? Never used a shareware program for longer than 30 days? Never watched a porn clip you didn't pay for? Never watched ANY copyrighted material on YouTube? Somehow I doubt it.
So spare us the high and mighty routine. Bottom line is you're a thief too, just like everyone else.
Yeah, I'd be hosed as most of the TV I watch is HD from the Internet.
The thing that gets me is that they'd rather ban someone from their service for a year (a roughly $600 per subscriber loss) than allow them to use more than 250 GBs a month. Doesn't seem right to me.
Not stealing. A candy bar is a physical item. A computer file isn't.
Netflix and Redbox do have agreements. They agree to buy the copies they rent out. And that's it. It doesn't matter if 5,000 or 5 million people rent it, the movie makers get exactly the same amount of money.
Streaming video is different because there is no physical media involved.
But here's food for thought -- if the library buys a copy and let's anyone take it home and watch it for free, how exactly does this differ from someone buying a copy and sharing it on bittorent (other than the pesky DMCA bit about making a copy of the disc, which is NOT what they're suing for)?
If you want some coin then persuade people to buy your product, not sue them because your movie sucked (despite winning an Oscar) and that some people saw no value in paying for it.
The whole thing is really dickish. He should be glad that 5,000 people want to see this drivel, even for free.
Logic would also tell you that a.) not everyone who downloaded it watched it, b.) not everyone who downloaded it would have paid for it otherwise, and c.) there is always a small % that will buy it only AFTER they've seen it.
And there is a bit of a problem with the "Netflix defense". This douche doesn't get a cut from Netflix rentals. So if you say "hell, get it on Netflix or Redbox" that only gives money to Netflix and Redbox, not the distributor or artists. So maybe Netflix and Redbox should be suing for depriving them of money too. Cause we all know that a downloaded movie is a lost rental right?
1 million units is a drop in the bucket. And I can guarantee you that 1.) These numbers, given out from Apple, are grossly exaggerated, and 2.) Sales for the iPad will slow dramatically over the next 6-12 months.
Compare this to the 85 million or so netbooks that have been sold. 1 million units is not a success. It's pretty anemic, especially when you consider it has NO significant competition.
Then they will fail. No one other than a small number of tech minded people will buy them. And there aren't enough of us to support the entire tablet market. It's that simple.
Unless they are dirt cheap (and we know they won't be) people are going to expect them to work like a computer, not a smartphone. Apple flunkies are used to paying 3x as much for a sub-standard product. PC users won't tolerate that. You can't offer them a $500 tablet running WebOS and expect them to buy it. The first question is going to be "what the hell can I do with this if it doesn't run Windows?"
Who in their right mind will pay that kind of money for a tablet that does 1/10th of what a laptop does for the same price or more? You'd have to be really retarded (or an Apple fanboi, or both).
You have to remember that 90%+ of people that use smartphones have the costs subsidized thru their carrier. This is going to be another barrier as they think to themselves "gee, my Android smartphone only cost me $100, why would I spend $500 on the same thing just with a bigger screen?"
I really don't see how you're going to get enough people excited about an expensive, limited-use device to sell the kind of quantities needed for them to become a viable, lasting product.
And these aren't my own personal feelings. Hell, I'm frothing at the mouth at the thought of an Android tablet. And I have no qualms about paying $500 for one. But I'm in the minority, and I fully understand that.
If you want your target audience to be as large as possible you need to appeal to as many people as possible. And that unfortunately means Windows.
You do realize the iPad is running a modified version of OS X right?
The iPad also benefits from the established framework provided by the iPhone and iPod. Such a framework does not exist outside the Appleverse. You can't compare Apple products to non-Apple products any more than you can compare the Asian market to the US.
We've already gone thru this with the netbook. Linux netbooks didn't sell. Not because they didn't perform well but because people wanted a platform they were familiar with and that was compatible with the software they already own. Why does anyone think it's going to be any different with tablets? You think people are just gonna say "hey, so what if I need to learn to use a new OS, can't run any of the programs I normally use, and have to buy all-new apps from a locked down store?" No, they're gonna go "what the hell am I supposed to do with this thing that I don't know how to use and isn't compatible with anything I already own?"
Why is this so difficult to understand? The tablet market is already a limited one, much more so than the netbook. Why do you want to further marginalize it with the use of crippled OSs?
It's not magic. You write a GUI that is designed for a touch screen. Applications communicate with the GUI thru API calls. If you're writing a new GUI you can make the results of those calls be anything you want. It doesn't affect the ability to run a program. Windows 3.11 had a radically different GUI than Windows 95, but all the apps ran just fine.
Look at Linux. There are a bazillion versions of Linux and a dozen or more different GUI shells available. Hell, Android is Linux-based. There are Linux versions designed solely for the smaller screens of netbooks. And guess what? They can run all the same programs (porting and re-compilation aside).
Here's the bottom line: no one will buy a tablet running Linux or a smartphone OS. They just won't. They are too big to tote around with you like you would a smartphone or music player. And if they don't integrate into your network and can run/share the same apps and data what good will they be? Much like netbooks they'll have a tough time being someone's primary computing device. So if they don't play well with other computers in the environment no one is going to bother.
Look at the ratio of Linux netbooks compared to Windows netbooks. Do you think the netbook would have been as successful as it was had they not run Windows?
Manufacturers better find a way to make these things run Windows or tablets are going to stay an Apple niche.
Why do you assume a different GUI means it won't run the same apps? That's not true. Apps may look different but they will still run exactly the same way.
Hell, alternative GUIs are nothing new. They already exist for Windows. Using one certainly doesn't stop programs from running.
A phone OS is not going to work on a tablet. People will expect more. It's not gonna fly. They won't sell.
If the Windows GUI was altered to conform to the limitations of a tablet it wouldn't matter what the underlying OS was. As long as it was compatible and ran the apps people wanted. The problem with Windows on a tablet is the GUI, not the OS.
It's not a "hoping this time will be different", it's "do it right this time and it WILL be different". Doing the same thing again will result in the same failure. We know the standard Windows GUI doesn't work. Fix that, and it's a different ballgame.
Not necessarily. It would depend upon the app. Obviously certain apps are going to be less suited for a slate than others, but that's going to be true no matter what the OS.
And if there is broad enough support for the new GUI, app developers shouldn't balk so much if they do indeed need to rewrite parts of their code to make it better suited for the slate environment. Much like how some apps simply won't run or look right under Vista or Win 7 but were fine in XP. This is nothing new.
Slashdot Mirror
Well good. But does this mean I have to give up bacon?
See, but that's just it. These aren't news sites. They aren't taking traffic away from the Review-Journal. If anything they can drive traffic TO them thru links.
Copyright laws were not designed to be used as an alternative profit stream. Nor to be used as extortion leverage against those who cannot realistically defend themselves in court.
And these weren't "timely" news stories either, so that argument fails too.
If he was really interested in "protecting" his copyright he would just issue cease and desist letters. These guys aren't in competition with him, so it's not like they are causing any kind of financial harm. Hell, they aren't even in the news business.
No, this is all about extorting money from these schlumps in order to generate revenue to save his dying newspaper empire.
Why bother trying to reinvent yourself for the 21st century when you can make up for lost profits thru extortion?
Sherm and the rest of his Journal pals are pure right wing jackasses. I lived in Vegas for 2 years and promptly cancelled my paper subscription because I couldn't put up with it anymore.
It's one thing when their views are limited to the Opinions section, but when it's pervasive throughout the entire paper it's too much. And then he wonders why no one is buying his rag.
Exactly. The publishers want to take control away from the retailers like Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc., and it's just not going to happen.
I mean, what exactly would be the retailer's motivation? There is none. If anything they would readily acknowledge it would hurt them. So why would they go for this?
It actually becomes less complicated when you're talking about physical necessities like food, water, and medicine, because your motives are clear.
I'm not portraying myself as anything. I'm just saying the issue is a lot more complicated than "it's stealing and you're a thief".
Stopping people from illegally downloading content is not going to fix the music and movie industries. They have brainwashed people like you into believing this fallacy.
Are you trying to say you've never copied a friend's CDs or VHS tapes? Never taped a TV program and held onto it for more than a week? Never used a tape recording to skip commercials? Never used a shareware program for longer than 30 days? Never watched a porn clip you didn't pay for? Never watched ANY copyrighted material on YouTube? Somehow I doubt it.
So spare us the high and mighty routine. Bottom line is you're a thief too, just like everyone else.
A gross exaggeration of a complicated issue. It's not about entitlement. It's about perceived value.
If it were that simple we'd all do it. Which we don't. So there is obviously more to it.
Yeah, I'd be hosed as most of the TV I watch is HD from the Internet.
The thing that gets me is that they'd rather ban someone from their service for a year (a roughly $600 per subscriber loss) than allow them to use more than 250 GBs a month. Doesn't seem right to me.
How would you know if you like or don't like vegemite if you've never tasted it before?
Not stealing. A candy bar is a physical item. A computer file isn't.
Netflix and Redbox do have agreements. They agree to buy the copies they rent out. And that's it. It doesn't matter if 5,000 or 5 million people rent it, the movie makers get exactly the same amount of money.
Streaming video is different because there is no physical media involved.
But here's food for thought -- if the library buys a copy and let's anyone take it home and watch it for free, how exactly does this differ from someone buying a copy and sharing it on bittorent (other than the pesky DMCA bit about making a copy of the disc, which is NOT what they're suing for)?
Taking a physical item is stealing. A series of 1s and 0s ordered in a particular way is not a physical item and therefore is not stealing.
This is a pretty basic concept, it amazes me that people still equate copyright infringement with stealing.
I'd sooner watch an Uwe Boll film.
If you want some coin then persuade people to buy your product, not sue them because your movie sucked (despite winning an Oscar) and that some people saw no value in paying for it.
The whole thing is really dickish. He should be glad that 5,000 people want to see this drivel, even for free.
Logic would also tell you that a.) not everyone who downloaded it watched it, b.) not everyone who downloaded it would have paid for it otherwise, and c.) there is always a small % that will buy it only AFTER they've seen it.
And there is a bit of a problem with the "Netflix defense". This douche doesn't get a cut from Netflix rentals. So if you say "hell, get it on Netflix or Redbox" that only gives money to Netflix and Redbox, not the distributor or artists. So maybe Netflix and Redbox should be suing for depriving them of money too. Cause we all know that a downloaded movie is a lost rental right?
If they're going to make people pay for their download then they should get to keep it, right? Cause then who's stealing whose money?
The air must be really thin waaaaay up there on your high horse.
1 million units is a drop in the bucket. And I can guarantee you that 1.) These numbers, given out from Apple, are grossly exaggerated, and 2.) Sales for the iPad will slow dramatically over the next 6-12 months.
Compare this to the 85 million or so netbooks that have been sold. 1 million units is not a success. It's pretty anemic, especially when you consider it has NO significant competition.
Then they will fail. No one other than a small number of tech minded people will buy them. And there aren't enough of us to support the entire tablet market. It's that simple.
Unless they are dirt cheap (and we know they won't be) people are going to expect them to work like a computer, not a smartphone. Apple flunkies are used to paying 3x as much for a sub-standard product. PC users won't tolerate that. You can't offer them a $500 tablet running WebOS and expect them to buy it. The first question is going to be "what the hell can I do with this if it doesn't run Windows?"
Who in their right mind will pay that kind of money for a tablet that does 1/10th of what a laptop does for the same price or more? You'd have to be really retarded (or an Apple fanboi, or both).
You have to remember that 90%+ of people that use smartphones have the costs subsidized thru their carrier. This is going to be another barrier as they think to themselves "gee, my Android smartphone only cost me $100, why would I spend $500 on the same thing just with a bigger screen?"
I really don't see how you're going to get enough people excited about an expensive, limited-use device to sell the kind of quantities needed for them to become a viable, lasting product.
And these aren't my own personal feelings. Hell, I'm frothing at the mouth at the thought of an Android tablet. And I have no qualms about paying $500 for one. But I'm in the minority, and I fully understand that.
If you want your target audience to be as large as possible you need to appeal to as many people as possible. And that unfortunately means Windows.
You do realize the iPad is running a modified version of OS X right?
The iPad also benefits from the established framework provided by the iPhone and iPod. Such a framework does not exist outside the Appleverse. You can't compare Apple products to non-Apple products any more than you can compare the Asian market to the US.
We've already gone thru this with the netbook. Linux netbooks didn't sell. Not because they didn't perform well but because people wanted a platform they were familiar with and that was compatible with the software they already own. Why does anyone think it's going to be any different with tablets? You think people are just gonna say "hey, so what if I need to learn to use a new OS, can't run any of the programs I normally use, and have to buy all-new apps from a locked down store?" No, they're gonna go "what the hell am I supposed to do with this thing that I don't know how to use and isn't compatible with anything I already own?"
Why is this so difficult to understand? The tablet market is already a limited one, much more so than the netbook. Why do you want to further marginalize it with the use of crippled OSs?
Believe what you want. Don't say I didn't warn you.
It's not magic. You write a GUI that is designed for a touch screen. Applications communicate with the GUI thru API calls. If you're writing a new GUI you can make the results of those calls be anything you want. It doesn't affect the ability to run a program. Windows 3.11 had a radically different GUI than Windows 95, but all the apps ran just fine.
Look at Linux. There are a bazillion versions of Linux and a dozen or more different GUI shells available. Hell, Android is Linux-based. There are Linux versions designed solely for the smaller screens of netbooks. And guess what? They can run all the same programs (porting and re-compilation aside).
Here's the bottom line: no one will buy a tablet running Linux or a smartphone OS. They just won't. They are too big to tote around with you like you would a smartphone or music player. And if they don't integrate into your network and can run/share the same apps and data what good will they be? Much like netbooks they'll have a tough time being someone's primary computing device. So if they don't play well with other computers in the environment no one is going to bother.
Look at the ratio of Linux netbooks compared to Windows netbooks. Do you think the netbook would have been as successful as it was had they not run Windows?
Manufacturers better find a way to make these things run Windows or tablets are going to stay an Apple niche.
Why do you assume a different GUI means it won't run the same apps? That's not true. Apps may look different but they will still run exactly the same way.
Hell, alternative GUIs are nothing new. They already exist for Windows. Using one certainly doesn't stop programs from running.
A phone OS is not going to work on a tablet. People will expect more. It's not gonna fly. They won't sell.
If the Windows GUI was altered to conform to the limitations of a tablet it wouldn't matter what the underlying OS was. As long as it was compatible and ran the apps people wanted. The problem with Windows on a tablet is the GUI, not the OS.
It's not a "hoping this time will be different", it's "do it right this time and it WILL be different". Doing the same thing again will result in the same failure. We know the standard Windows GUI doesn't work. Fix that, and it's a different ballgame.
Not necessarily. It would depend upon the app. Obviously certain apps are going to be less suited for a slate than others, but that's going to be true no matter what the OS.
And if there is broad enough support for the new GUI, app developers shouldn't balk so much if they do indeed need to rewrite parts of their code to make it better suited for the slate environment. Much like how some apps simply won't run or look right under Vista or Win 7 but were fine in XP. This is nothing new.