It's very likely that they would allow you to "bundle" Joost with your Internet connection. So that extra fee is why Joost is exempt.
This really walks the line with regard to the arguments of Net Neutrality, since you're paying for a service that is "outside" your internet connection.
Just have a package for getting your system Photoshop ready, that installs everything you need to run Photoshop in wine. (Sure, it's an extra step, but if Adobe let customers know about it, it wouldn't be much of a hassle)
As for iTunes, I'm pretty sure Amarok and other media library managers can interact with plenty of mp3 players over MTP. Something similar could be done with iTunes if they absolutely must use iTunes.
What does ported to windows have to do with it, or even where it started? Windows still costs money and has a rights restricting license. FOSS devs will build software where they need it. But the fact that Linux can keep you just as productive while having zero upfront cost, and a much more free license is the point.
When nearly all the classes I attend are a glorified power point lecture. I'd take a cheaper (but equivocal) degree online in a heartbeat. Assuming there is an instructor available to email or participate in a message board then there would be no difference.
Get cracking on that standard, then convince the television makers it's better than going with flash.
To remove flash you really need to offer something better. I think the Microsoft model could work well. Start adding "non-standard" features to the flash players, and convince a bunch of people to use these features. Then when they can't play your stuff, link to the download of the new and improved open flash player.
I agree, it is theft. However, these companies are trying to compete with something as simple as ThePirateBay.org, or KaZa, or Napster, or whatever the flavor of the month is. Crime is a valid form of competition when (like many corporations) the probability and cost of being punished for the crime isn't enough incentive to choose the legal route.
They are participating in trade, but competing against something that is
Easy to find / Is well known
Comes to you (i.e. Internet)
Has nearly everything you're looking for
Very easy payment system
Happens to be free
Is illegal but difficult to enforce.
Piracy is not going to be easy to beat while companies are
Refusing to sell to certain people
Including restrictions on my rights to use the product
Linux : you're trusting everyone, everywhere with the basic smarts of getting code accepted in an open source project.
OR They don't trust those people and take the code, get some talented people to audit it, tweak it to perform well for their purpose and use that version. Auditing/Creating future patches and updates also.
With Windows you can't do that, you MUST trust Microsoft. With FOSS, you don't have to trust anybody.
If the government gave M$ a monopoly for providing an OS for x86 computers, you can be damn sure Vista Ultimate could easily cost $700 and scales down to some Home Basic version affordable to those with a low-end Dell.
Your argument is correct, not everyone will pay $700 for an OS, but some will. For others, that $700 OS makes buying a $300 computer a $1000 purchase which is too much, so they sell it for cheaper to those who could do without.
What if we start getting less and less for that $700? What if there becomes an alternative for $0? Guess we just HAVE to keep paying up to $700 because of the monopoly granted.
Why do you not want people using your software?
Who are you to solve a problem, but only allow certain people to see it?
Imagine if Newton had a copyright on calculus. Assuming the way current copyright laws (in the USA at least) keep growing in terms, it could still be under copyright. There would be DMCA takedown notices over sharing how to use an integral.
if people don't pay for the apps I make, then my kids don't eat
Don't bring your kids into this. Seriously, if you can write software then you can answer phones and write memos to feed your kids. Also, life isn't fair. Aside from what your mother may have told you, you can't "have your cake and eat it to" everyday of your life. Not everything we "enjoy more" can provide for us or our family.
Software as a product is dying. Developing as a service will always be around. Get paid for writing software, not for having written software. People will always come up with new problems they want their computing devices to solve, but to expect that a single solution obtained through you is forever to be the only solution is short-sighted, and arrogant.
To answer your "ethic side of things," I feel you are the one who is unethical. You have figured out a solution to a problem, but you're withholding it from everyone else, because you don't want to "find something else to do that [you would] probably enjoy less."
This doesn't really apply to music and movies so much, but an argument could be made that there is a need for entertainment, so such IP would be a "solution"
The Internet is nothing more than a worldwide infastructure that is capable of linking any 2 devices that can communicate over IP.
If someone wants to deliver media, simply setup a device that can serve it over IP. If someone wants to organize a group of people for some purpose, setup a device that uses IP to let people do that.
Just say you have lowered your prices, have a few token tracks that are actually cheaper (that you post everywhere you mention lower prices) and almost everyone will believe you lowered your prices.
Slashdot Mirror
It's very likely that they would allow you to "bundle" Joost with your Internet connection. So that extra fee is why Joost is exempt.
This really walks the line with regard to the arguments of Net Neutrality, since you're paying for a service that is "outside" your internet connection.
Won't someone please think of the children!!??
Just have a package for getting your system Photoshop ready, that installs everything you need to run Photoshop in wine. (Sure, it's an extra step, but if Adobe let customers know about it, it wouldn't be much of a hassle)
As for iTunes, I'm pretty sure Amarok and other media library managers can interact with plenty of mp3 players over MTP. Something similar could be done with iTunes if they absolutely must use iTunes.
What does ported to windows have to do with it, or even where it started? Windows still costs money and has a rights restricting license. FOSS devs will build software where they need it. But the fact that Linux can keep you just as productive while having zero upfront cost, and a much more free license is the point.
When nearly all the classes I attend are a glorified power point lecture. I'd take a cheaper (but equivocal) degree online in a heartbeat. Assuming there is an instructor available to email or participate in a message board then there would be no difference.
I'm very certain he's referring to the newest version. As a side note though, I too loved the first one.
Get cracking on that standard, then convince the television makers it's better than going with flash.
To remove flash you really need to offer something better. I think the Microsoft model could work well. Start adding "non-standard" features to the flash players, and convince a bunch of people to use these features. Then when they can't play your stuff, link to the download of the new and improved open flash player.
I agree, it is theft. However, these companies are trying to compete with something as simple as ThePirateBay.org, or KaZa, or Napster, or whatever the flavor of the month is. Crime is a valid form of competition when (like many corporations) the probability and cost of being punished for the crime isn't enough incentive to choose the legal route.
They are participating in trade, but competing against something that is
Piracy is not going to be easy to beat while companies are
Linux : you're trusting everyone, everywhere with the basic smarts of getting code accepted in an open source project.
OR They don't trust those people and take the code, get some talented people to audit it, tweak it to perform well for their purpose and use that version. Auditing/Creating future patches and updates also.
With Windows you can't do that, you MUST trust Microsoft. With FOSS, you don't have to trust anybody.
If the government gave M$ a monopoly for providing an OS for x86 computers, you can be damn sure Vista Ultimate could easily cost $700 and scales down to some Home Basic version affordable to those with a low-end Dell.
Your argument is correct, not everyone will pay $700 for an OS, but some will. For others, that $700 OS makes buying a $300 computer a $1000 purchase which is too much, so they sell it for cheaper to those who could do without.
What if we start getting less and less for that $700? What if there becomes an alternative for $0?
Guess we just HAVE to keep paying up to $700 because of the monopoly granted.
Why do you not want people using your software?
Who are you to solve a problem, but only allow certain people to see it?
Imagine if Newton had a copyright on calculus. Assuming the way current copyright laws (in the USA at least) keep growing in terms, it could still be under copyright. There would be DMCA takedown notices over sharing how to use an integral.
if people don't pay for the apps I make, then my kids don't eat
Don't bring your kids into this. Seriously, if you can write software then you can answer phones and write memos to feed your kids. Also, life isn't fair. Aside from what your mother may have told you, you can't "have your cake and eat it to" everyday of your life. Not everything we "enjoy more" can provide for us or our family.
Software as a product is dying. Developing as a service will always be around. Get paid for writing software, not for having written software.
People will always come up with new problems they want their computing devices to solve, but to expect that a single solution obtained through you is forever to be the only solution is short-sighted, and arrogant.
To answer your "ethic side of things," I feel you are the one who is unethical. You have figured out a solution to a problem, but you're withholding it from everyone else, because you don't want to "find something else to do that [you would] probably enjoy less."
This doesn't really apply to music and movies so much, but an argument could be made that there is a need for entertainment, so such IP would be a "solution"
The Internet is nothing more than a worldwide infastructure that is capable of linking any 2 devices that can communicate over IP.
If someone wants to deliver media, simply setup a device that can serve it over IP. If someone wants to organize a group of people for some purpose, setup a device that uses IP to let people do that.
Of all the comments about what can/should happen, I deem this one to be the most likely. Or they choose the sites for you like a TWC version of hulu.
If I had mod points I'd give this +1 Insightful.
SyFi is just an ad campaign to rebrand a cable television channel.
If ECW (or whatever other wrestling clubs they show) is SyFy. Then, perhaps a SyFy MMO has potential.
Just say you have lowered your prices, have a few token tracks that are actually cheaper (that you post everywhere you mention lower prices) and almost everyone will believe you lowered your prices.
So like google's Chrome?