How bout this.. You wanna sue me for selling you something over ebay and not providing the goods as promised.. You goto your local small claims court, you give them my information and address, They WILL issue me a summons to appear in court in the UK, if I do not show, you can take your judgement that you will doubtless win, and file it in my home jurisdiction and they WILL accept it, and they WILL attach a lien against my real property in your name, which will screw up my credit, and force payment to you before I can sell that property with clear title.
The same happens in reverse.. which is why spamhaus still owes 27,000$ to e360, because rather than showup, and defend themselves, they chose to mock the court and not show up.. Tell me how do judges in the UK take it if you fail to appear? I am betting they are not very happy either.
Umm no you see because once you have said legal judgement you are now able to exercise that judgement, its merely a matter of presenting it to a british court and getting an order of attachment/seizure which happens *all* the time.. you dont get a pass on paying bills just because you are not physically in the country where you owe the money. Check it out sometime.. see how long it takes before you get a garnishment vs paycheck, or a lien against your house/real property filed in your home jurisdiction.
We are not talking about a country run by a dictator with no local court system etc.. we are talking about 2 countries with a *long* history of legal cooperation.. remember spamhaus is treating this is a political statement.. but a political statement or not (nor the reason why the judgement was issued) matter.. once the judgement exists.. it makes no matter to the LOCAL BRITISH COURT *why* the judgement was issued, only that it was issued at all.. for all the court knows or cares, spamhaus bought services from e360 and didnt pay.
Except that they where wrong as this was a civil case, which makes them responsible to appear to defend themselves in the matter or accept potential summary judgement
Even in a country where X is legal, you cannot legally provide/do/share/publish said items in jurisdictions where it is illegal.. You cannot ship alcohol into Lynchburg, TN as it is still a legally "Dry" county..
Whether or not the Local Court can force you to get on a plane and come defend yourself is not relevant to the discussion.. the fact of the matter is that you cannot just "ignore" the rule of law, just because you are trying to be vigilante in another country.
Example incoming to fix the problem you have in your brain that cannot tell the difference between civil and criminal law
You sit in a country and post what in your country is perfectly legal content , you then decide to start charging for access to said content.. *IF* you sell content to a jurisdiction and someone in that jurisdiction (wherever that may be in the world) has a problem with your content/service/etc they are perfectly able to sue you for whatever reason the court accepts in civil cases.
As long as spamhaus (their actual name not haus) decides to only operate in their home country they are only bound to that country's laws.. by actively marketing products and services *outside* of that country it opens you up to the laws of the land in every country where you are actively doing business...
Microsoft cannot "ignore" the laws of germany and ship games into germany for the 360/windows that ignore the local anti-violence laws (green blood/etc) if they did.. germany and its residents could sue MS in german courts and MS would either have to appear and defend their actions, or lose the case and be compelled to pay fines/etc (whatever the local law allows.. usually a judgement that can be attached to assets owned by the person/company in question. spamhaus cannot ignore US court's either unless they want to be held responsible for doing so.
The screwy part of all of this, is that this was political (on spamhaus part) rather than anything else.. they see themselves as internet vigilantes, much the way that the idiots on the boats attacking international ships on the high seas in defense of whales think they are not pirates, and do not think that sooner or later japan will pressure the US into seizing the ship and sending all parties involved to japan to be put on trial for piracy.
that your out with your girlfriend.. you deserve what you get in a divorce proceeding.. not sure how thats a privacy issue tbh... Hell just having an iphone and your wife knowing how to do "find my iphone" is more than enough for you to get caught?
Besides a civil suit is still a legal proceeding and is really no different from having coworkers or others subpoenaed for a civil case? It just seems to me this is more an issue of "use your tools and toys in an aware/responsible manner" than any inherent privacy issue?
Quick question there.. do you think that the word establishment means a "religious location such as a church" or do you think that it means "creating a church of the united states" ?
You see your reading is implying that you believe the former, when the document is referring to the latter.
Given your statement about the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it implies that you are attempting a revisionist read of the document.. Unfortunately for you in our system of government, the words do not change meaning over time.. the document has to change via amendment to change the meaning of the words.
Pay attention buddy, the idiot user of the system installed a MS branded toolbar.. which when installed will install an extension in firefox if it is installed.. understand? Lemme spell it out in BIG GIANT LETTERS
Person decides he wants the bing toolbar from MS.. he happens to have firefox and IE8 on his system..
The bing toolbar being a toolbar.. that is a bloody browser extension
Now it has to add itself to both IE and Firefox..
So when that toolbar gets updated
Still following along? GOOD
Yep thats right.. when the original toolbar which installs both IE and firefox extensions is updated...
SO ARE THE FIREFOX AND IE EXTENSIONS
This is not news, this is dumb people who forget that they clicked download installed something in IE a year or more ago, and now suddenly get emo that they restarted firefox and see a new extension (or updated extension)
For some reason this triggers them to go into a frenzy of posting on slashdot and elsewhere about how evil MS is for updating the product that the dumb user installed and forgot about.
The problem with Doom was that they tried to turn it into something it is not..
Doom is about 1 guy alone going rambo on some aliens.. and trying to get out alive... NOT about a group of people getting saved along tthe way by a heroic soldier.. which is what they tried to turn the movie into.
The funny thing is.. for as bad as game to movie conversions are (generally speaking), the movie to game conversions are far worse (perhaps its because there are so many more movies to game than the reverse?)
I disagree that the director/author need to play the game, the problem is often that hollywood wants to take a HUGE hit that has little to no story, and convert it into something it is not (such as doom) or worse, they don't add anything at all to it.. and leave it as a special effects set piece..
this is also prolly caused by the fact that most games have plots that are essentially ripped off from 1 scene in a movie from 20 years ago.. its kinda hard to stretch "that cool scene with the zombies and the dude with the chainsaw" into a game.. its even harder to then stretch that back into a 90 minute movie.
That depends entirely on the reason why you are getting the new car, which one is older, which one is in better shape, which one gets driven more etc..
You cannot replace a yukon with a rav4, nor can you replace a prius with.. well anything atm. In short the article mistakes patterns for failure to be able to read/do math.
Heres an example.. you drive to work in your sedan that gets 25 miles per gallon, every day 30 mile commute each way.. you also own a big honkin truck gets 11 mpg, that you only drive to take the boat out once a month or so (or for special occasions such as sporting events, etc) Now you can replace your sedan with just about anything that will get from point a to point b in moderate comfort without getting you killed along the way.. the suv is another issue entirely.. we are not talking about being able to "upgrade" from a 11mpg truck to a rav4.. (gonna totally ignore the other major factor in this which is price to upgrade) Which do you upgrade? the truck from 11mpg to the "hybrid" version which gets 18? or the sedan to a 33mpg version? Clearly you upgrade the sedan as you will use less gas overall.. but more importantly these decisions just dont happen in the real world..
If the wife owns a 2000 corolla and wants a camry.. and you have a 2000 pickup.. even if you could use 1/3 the gas overall by replacing your truck.. the decision was not to "buy a car to save on gas" it was to "buy a new car for the wife"
Nearly every "buying decision" is made on factors outside of the article's premise.. and in that real world it is perfectly useful and acceptable to compare option a @22 mpg with option b@28 mpg and option C@27mpg but even then that number will *never* make the whole decision (if it even factors in will be a minor miracle).
actually the amount saved is always gonna be more dependent on driving patterns of the driver than any stat of the car..
If the 10mpg car drive only goes from home to work and back 5 days a week a distance of 5 miles round trip.. and the driver who has the 33mpg car drives 100 miles a day.. the roughly 50% savings in gas on the 33-50mpg upgrade is gonna save way more fuel and money despite being LESS by % of efficiency.
Its not got anything to do with that it has to do with statutory damages of 750$ per song based on the other inflated 200,000,000 illegal downloads facilitated by limewire..
This is the same 750$ per song number that they use vs private parties to come up with outrageous scare letters saying "if we win in court you owe us 200,000$, but we will settle for 20,000"
ehh I think alot of "professional journalists" pay for stories, the thing is this case crosses a line that most people calling themselves journalists would not cross...
But buttering up a source with dinner, etc is not unethical or unheard of even among "professional journalists". IMO its all about scale.. oddly enough thats how the law on the subject falls as well.. (i speak specifically about enticing someone to commit a crime via offering rewards/incentives). Its ok to discuss wanting something that someone else has.. its another entirely to do so with a known catburglar and imply/state that if it happens to come into the cat-burglar's possession that you would be happy to buy it from him.
Paying for stories follows a similar set of unwritten rules.. offering octomom a million dollars for the rights to her story.. is not unethical or illegal or even frowned upon EVEN by "serious journalists" every "exclusive" you see anywhere had some sort of quid pro quo exchange or understanding happen.. This is not just TMZ or "the insider", but the grey lady, the washington post, LA times, the major news networks etc.. they all do it.. and its fine.. As long as it doesn't color/create the story by the fact that the items of value change hands OR incite illegal activity.
Putting this all on "tabloids" and the sort of "celebrity gossip" shows like TMZ etc as "not real journalists" is not fair, or even true (outside of idealistic journalism students still in college)
Paying for articles has a long history, much as cops and other law enforcement pay for confidential informants (either via "deals" to avoid prosecution or cash payments, or even protection) that in and of itself is not what is "wrong" with what gizmodo did.. it was crossing over a line.
Much in the same way that paying someone an extreme amount of cash to lie to a judge is 'crossing the line' in terms of confidential informants, i mean lets face it the bulk of the gadget blogging world is being "paid" with favors and products to hopefully generate favorable reviews/press.. which is fine (buyer beware and all that jazz) That does not make it "ok" to buy stolen property, and attempt to extort or leverage your possession of that stolen property for a scoop.
If Giz had been a "real journalistic enterprise" such as a newspaper or tv news etc.. they would have met with the guy who had it.. taken as many pictures as possible and published the article without taking posession of the device, and then once that was done said "no we cannot reveal our sources, as we are a news organization".. and they would have been fully on the side of the light, and in fact could have gotten tons of mileage out of apple pressuring them for info, and perhaps even getting taken to court by apple to reveal those sources.
Instead they chose to take the low road in hopes of parlaying it into webhits and got burned. Given what we know about the case, it would not surprise me at all to find out that gizmodo never tried to get press credentials for WWDC but rather tried to play the wounded victim by implying that apple wouldn't let them in. (or waiting too long to ask so that they knew that there would be no more "room" making apples decision moot.
Ever use the guys app? It was far more than scores.. regardless of what it was (copyright wise) the fact that he was taking a feed he was paying for as a single user, and reselling the data violated his terms with the company in question)
The company then asked for more money (hence why he mentions paying thousands over the last several months)
The fact that they reported this to apple, who proceeded to remove the app.. is not really relevant.. nor is it iphone specific..
Go make an android app that repackages data from starwars.com or disney owned properties (espn or any other doesnt really matter) the app will be removed from app store instantly, and you will have lawyers all over you..
This app was far more than "just scores" and regardless of what it was.. he was paying a third party for the data as a "user" with a subscription.. which he turned around and resold..
This was not a guy getting scores from newspaper, or watching games, or any other method..
Think of it more in the line of me setting up a site with a paywall and using abc/cbs/nbc/fox content from their website as the "paid content"
Regardless of the copyright issues, or anything else "after the fact" the guy was violating his license to use the data he paid for as a single user.. the company got pissed, told him to give them more money.. and when they had their own app ready they (the content owner) reported to apple that his app was in violation of their terms (the guy and the company.. not apple)
This would have happened on all the OS that are out both desktop AND mobile.. even android..
Look this is not even an iphone deal.. this is a story about a guy who was stealing content from a source, and reselling it as his own.. he got caught and somehow is blaming it on apple.. this is so not "news"
Would it be apple's fault if a guy made a third party zune app, using his personal zunepass monthly and MS said "sorry thats illegal shut him down" ? or would it be developer stupidity/scamming? There is an overriding "rule" that has nothing to do with app store, apple, or iphone.. and if you think your being clever because your "free" tiny website happens to reuse subscription data slides through the cracks doesn't get a takedown notice because its hosted in a location that doesnt respond or care about takedown notices and forces local court cases.. does not mean that you are legally able to turn that site into an iphone app.. more importantly trying to sell it.
Yah i know, but that is my point.. thats not including machine readable source with the device.. which is what people keep implying that the GPL requires.
Remember this thread got started by people trying to say that apple via itunes was not a retailer but rather "the author who was making copies of a gpl product by distributing it" etc etc etc
he knows that but was illustrating the points between lockin and sticky..
Lockin == something that forces you to either abandon the idea, or start over, sticky is something that makes it much easier to just stay with what you have..
Re:It just proves today's Apple customers are chea
on
Why Apple Is So Sticky
·
· Score: 1
heres the scenario creating "sticky" in this case.. or what he is referring to..
Say you buy a generic dumbphone, or a non apple MP3 player... when you go to switch from the old to the new... all you are looking at is "the cost of the device" since theres nothing attached to that device that wont transfer.. so your not "tied in" by anything beyond the merits of the devices when choosing whether to replace a Sansa MP3 player with another brand.. since the new device will still play all your old MP3 players they are not "tied" to the brand or the device... the same sort of situation applies to PC's.. as long as the NEW PC runs windows, then your still only comparing the old hardware to the new.. "will I go with HP again? build it myself? or go with Dell?"
The situation turns when you are comparing stuff like MP3s bought with DRM that only works on idevices/macs, or switching from a PC to Mac and having to justify swapping out what could be many thousands in software that you will have to replace.. the iDevices definately have alot of stickyness in this regard.. even though the avg person may spend only 10 cents a day on additional content.. the fact remains that its a huge psychological barrier to making the jump from platform to platform..
At any rate thats where "relatively high" comes into play, the funny thing is.. that between the psychological factors, and the inherent "goodness" (in the eyes of the user) and the merits of the "new" platform all come into play.. this is not new, we have known this for many many many years.. and its not limited to merely PCs and Smartphones.. we saw it with the music industry format switches over the years, the VHS to DVD to HD-DVD/Blueray switches.. *not* all of the changes went as one would expect.. for a variety of reasons. I mean many people would have bet that HD DVD would have won based on the sony track record with attempting to rule format shifts in the past which where essentially.. disasters, and yet blue ray came out on top.. i suspect that the fact that you could play standard dvd's on both formats was the ultimate decision maker for most people (they took the "investment in prior tech" out of the equation)
Anyhow thats the long winded way of saying why "high" is relative to "nonexistant" heh
That logic is precisely the definition of slippery slope... if tommorrow it is announced that a brand new version of wifi needs to be installed to prevent "breaches in security" does that mean that everyone who does not spend $$ to update immediately is deserving of being considered (legally at any rate) having "opened their network on purpose for any and all to use in any way they see fit" ?
There are *alot* of ancient B devices, not to mention a huge number of newer G devices that simply do not interact properly (or at all) given the not always overlapping security choices.. IE Device A can use X version of G security, device B can use X Y Z and device C can only use Z type. but all support "open"
Does that mean that because this combination of devices only works properly with open security (and requires broadcasting SSID) that these networks are LEGALLY fair game for any and all to do whatever they please with?
Ultimately it comes down to "just because you can do it, does that make it morally and legally the right thing to do? I would say that historically the legal allowance of behavior hinges far less on the "is it possible" and more on the "is it the right thing to do"
As far as Google vs "others" is concerned.. its again about slippery slopes.. allowing Google to capture supposedly "unidentifiable information to determine location" is a great way to open the door for others to do things that perhaps we do not as a society want them to do.. the "do no evil" mantra that Google tries to portray around itself.. should extend to not opening the door to evil, even if they are not doing the evil themselves (which is open to debate in many ways but that is a subject for another post.
Your again reading too much into the distribution entity, which is legally the person who created and allows to be distributed the code, NOT the physical means of distribution.
The "distributor" of the binary, is the person who does the initial distribution NOT the actual place you downloaded said code/binary from.
Until you realize/recognize/understand who the various terms apply to and how, this argument will go on forever. LEGALLY in this case ITUNES is exactly the same as walmart, bestbuy, ingram micro, or any other retailer/distributor of physical devices. We can argue about the basic incompatibility of the IPHONE/IPOD/IPAD SDK- the itunes connect agreement (for distribution of apps created with the sdk) and the Itunes end user license.. but they are not related to the issue that everyone here seems to be jumping on related to distribution..
As much as everyone here likes to bitch and moan about itunes "approval" of apps, trust me.. the very same thing happens at EVERY single retailer in the world.. or every store everywhere would sell every product. Picking and choosing what you sell, is in no way "accepting liability" for what a vendor you buy from does or doesn't do with regards to copyright.
If you want to think things through logically, the GPL and the various apple licenses (sdk for idevices in this case + others on the apple side) ARE INCOMPATIBLE.. in short before there was a distribution issue, there was a violation of the SDK terms by an attempt to combine incompatible code in an illegal manner by the person who took the original GPL code and created a derivative work using apple's code in the SDK..
In short apple was the victim of the developer who tried to cheat the 2 licenses together, before any sort of infringement in distribution could have happened. And even that implies that somehow "apple" acting as itunes is a distributor under the license which they are not, any moreso than there is legal standing versus sourceforge, or any number of websites hosting open source projects and creating copies of same.. the only remedy under the license is to "remove the offending code" when it is brought to their attention.
In short dreaming and hoping and praying is not gonna change the license to say stuff that it does not say, or somehow create liability where none exists. The day that retailers are involved in copyright violations by vendors, will be new case law, and is not likely to suddenly appear now, after more than 200 years of long established precedence when dealing with this sort of thing.
Again, if you cannot wrap your head around the fact that "physical objects" such as routers, tv's, cellphones, and the like are not copies under the license.. then compare instead to the established laws relating to music/movies/books which are all direct copies of works, which may or may not contain copyright violations.. and are as a general rule created by 3rd parties (or 4th parties in the case of dvds, or better still streaming/downloadable content with drm)
If an author/director/movie studio makes a copyright infringing work, there is *no* legal wrongdoing on the part of the distribution/manufacturing 3rd parties or even first party who do the copying.. as the infringement was done in the compilation of the original work. The only time copyright is applied to the finished material as a copy.. is in regards to other entity (such as a website/pirate who sells dvd in hongkong/malaysia) who copies the entire work without permission from its author and resells it.. AND EVEN THEN the pirate is only liable for copying the compilation, not for any root violations such as not licensed music or images used in the work)
In short.. if i use the latest pop songs in my movie, and do not get the rights to use them.. i am the violator of copyright.. (the legal entity that owns the work that violates).. if the movie is then copied 40,000 times for distribution to movie theaters worldwide.. the film that the 3rd part
It does not have an ad-blocker, it has an ad-hider which is VERY different given that the bulk of the ads that need blocking are bandwidth sucking or privacy infringing evil.. hiding them does NOTHING in either case..
I am saying that as much as the various forms of the GPL try to taint everything they touch, there are times when that is not the case, and yet still the zealots try to make it the case
Trying to get the OP to name names so that the local fanatics can get their panties in a wad over something that they know next to nothing about on "principle" is not gonna change anything, nor will it do anything other than cause headaches for a likely 100% compliant company.. due to the general lack of understanding of how all the various GPL licenses/versions work, and what they actually entail
The one thing that noone seems to understand is that the FSF doesn't give a flying fig whether or not you can put custom firmware on your router, or install whatever you want in your tivo.. They do not care at all that the Tivo Recordings are not able to be "pulled out" and slapped into torrents automagically.. it is not what they are about.. it is not their goal.. and it never will be..
It is about making sure that the CODE is not hidden away from prying eyes, and is there for others to use and expand on/fix/change/whatever.. sadly the bulk of Free Software Fanatics, are actually more interested in free beer, than free software.
Not so much.. you are trying to say that by exercising whatever "policing" an ISP may do for objectionable content (even if its only malware/phishing sites) on its network, that now the ISP/Hosting company is responsible for making copies/providing all support for GPL code on the internet?
Please think before you type, then read the license a few times, and then goto the FSF website and read their take on the GPL and how it applies to various entities.. then come back and post again
yah cause the distributor (bestbuy/walmart) are responsible for distributing the GPL code in the electronics it sells for 500 companies right? Seriously folks, at least read the damn license, and if you are still unclear talk to a lawyer friend before showing your ignorance with statements like this.
Nope, that is wishful thinking/poor reading of the license.. I challenge you to find a device that uses GPL code in it.. that includes at time of delivery a copy of the source code in machine readable form.. You cannot because its not a requirement.. nor is it a requirement for software..
Slashdot Mirror
How bout this.. You wanna sue me for selling you something over ebay and not providing the goods as promised.. You goto your local small claims court, you give them my information and address, They WILL issue me a summons to appear in court in the UK, if I do not show, you can take your judgement that you will doubtless win, and file it in my home jurisdiction and they WILL accept it, and they WILL attach a lien against my real property in your name, which will screw up my credit, and force payment to you before I can sell that property with clear title.
.. which is why spamhaus still owes 27,000$ to e360, because rather than showup, and defend themselves, they chose to mock the court and not show up.. Tell me how do judges in the UK take it if you fail to appear? I am betting they are not very happy either.
The same happens in reverse
Umm no you see because once you have said legal judgement you are now able to exercise that judgement, its merely a matter of presenting it to a british court and getting an order of attachment/seizure which happens *all* the time.. you dont get a pass on paying bills just because you are not physically in the country where you owe the money. Check it out sometime.. see how long it takes before you get a garnishment vs paycheck, or a lien against your house/real property filed in your home jurisdiction.
We are not talking about a country run by a dictator with no local court system etc.. we are talking about 2 countries with a *long* history of legal cooperation.. remember spamhaus is treating this is a political statement.. but a political statement or not (nor the reason why the judgement was issued) matter.. once the judgement exists.. it makes no matter to the LOCAL BRITISH COURT *why* the judgement was issued, only that it was issued at all.. for all the court knows or cares, spamhaus bought services from e360 and didnt pay.
Except that they where wrong as this was a civil case, which makes them responsible to appear to defend themselves in the matter or accept potential summary judgement
.. germany and its residents could sue MS in german courts and MS would either have to appear and defend their actions, or lose the case and be compelled to pay fines/etc (whatever the local law allows.. usually a judgement that can be attached to assets owned by the person/company in question. spamhaus cannot ignore US court's either unless they want to be held responsible for doing so.
Even in a country where X is legal, you cannot legally provide/do/share/publish said items in jurisdictions where it is illegal.. You cannot ship alcohol into Lynchburg, TN as it is still a legally "Dry" county..
Whether or not the Local Court can force you to get on a plane and come defend yourself is not relevant to the discussion.. the fact of the matter is that you cannot just "ignore" the rule of law, just because you are trying to be vigilante in another country.
Example incoming to fix the problem you have in your brain that cannot tell the difference between civil and criminal law
You sit in a country and post what in your country is perfectly legal content , you then decide to start charging for access to said content.. *IF* you sell content to a jurisdiction and someone in that jurisdiction (wherever that may be in the world) has a problem with your content/service/etc they are perfectly able to sue you for whatever reason the court accepts in civil cases.
As long as spamhaus (their actual name not haus) decides to only operate in their home country they are only bound to that country's laws.. by actively marketing products and services *outside* of that country it opens you up to the laws of the land in every country where you are actively doing business...
Microsoft cannot "ignore" the laws of germany and ship games into germany for the 360/windows that ignore the local anti-violence laws (green blood/etc) if they did
The screwy part of all of this, is that this was political (on spamhaus part) rather than anything else.. they see themselves as internet vigilantes, much the way that the idiots on the boats attacking international ships on the high seas in defense of whales think they are not pirates, and do not think that sooner or later japan will pressure the US into seizing the ship and sending all parties involved to japan to be put on trial for piracy.
that your out with your girlfriend.. you deserve what you get in a divorce proceeding.. not sure how thats a privacy issue tbh... Hell just having an iphone and your wife knowing how to do "find my iphone" is more than enough for you to get caught?
Besides a civil suit is still a legal proceeding and is really no different from having coworkers or others subpoenaed for a civil case? It just seems to me this is more an issue of "use your tools and toys in an aware/responsible manner" than any inherent privacy issue?
Quick question there.. do you think that the word establishment means a "religious location such as a church" or do you think that it means "creating a church of the united states" ?
You see your reading is implying that you believe the former, when the document is referring to the latter.
Given your statement about the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it implies that you are attempting a revisionist read of the document.. Unfortunately for you in our system of government, the words do not change meaning over time.. the document has to change via amendment to change the meaning of the words.
Pay attention buddy, the idiot user of the system installed a MS branded toolbar.. which when installed will install an extension in firefox if it is installed.. understand? Lemme spell it out in BIG GIANT LETTERS
Person decides he wants the bing toolbar from MS.. he happens to have firefox and IE8 on his system..
The bing toolbar being a toolbar.. that is a bloody browser extension
Now it has to add itself to both IE and Firefox..
So when that toolbar gets updated
Still following along? GOOD
Yep thats right.. when the original toolbar which installs both IE and firefox extensions is updated...
SO ARE THE FIREFOX AND IE EXTENSIONS
This is not news, this is dumb people who forget that they clicked download installed something in IE a year or more ago, and now suddenly get emo that they restarted firefox and see a new extension (or updated extension)
For some reason this triggers them to go into a frenzy of posting on slashdot and elsewhere about how evil MS is for updating the product that the dumb user installed and forgot about.
The problem with Doom was that they tried to turn it into something it is not..
Doom is about 1 guy alone going rambo on some aliens.. and trying to get out alive... NOT about a group of people getting saved along tthe way by a heroic soldier.. which is what they tried to turn the movie into.
The funny thing is.. for as bad as game to movie conversions are (generally speaking), the movie to game conversions are far worse (perhaps its because there are so many more movies to game than the reverse?)
I disagree that the director/author need to play the game, the problem is often that hollywood wants to take a HUGE hit that has little to no story, and convert it into something it is not (such as doom) or worse, they don't add anything at all to it.. and leave it as a special effects set piece..
this is also prolly caused by the fact that most games have plots that are essentially ripped off from 1 scene in a movie from 20 years ago.. its kinda hard to stretch "that cool scene with the zombies and the dude with the chainsaw" into a game.. its even harder to then stretch that back into a 90 minute movie.
That depends entirely on the reason why you are getting the new car, which one is older, which one is in better shape, which one gets driven more etc..
.. well anything atm. In short the article mistakes patterns for failure to be able to read/do math.
.. we are not talking about being able to "upgrade" from a 11mpg truck to a rav4.. (gonna totally ignore the other major factor in this which is price to upgrade) Which do you upgrade? the truck from 11mpg to the "hybrid" version which gets 18? or the sedan to a 33mpg version? Clearly you upgrade the sedan as you will use less gas overall.. but more importantly these decisions just dont happen in the real world..
You cannot replace a yukon with a rav4, nor can you replace a prius with
Heres an example.. you drive to work in your sedan that gets 25 miles per gallon, every day 30 mile commute each way.. you also own a big honkin truck gets 11 mpg, that you only drive to take the boat out once a month or so (or for special occasions such as sporting events, etc) Now you can replace your sedan with just about anything that will get from point a to point b in moderate comfort without getting you killed along the way.. the suv is another issue entirely
If the wife owns a 2000 corolla and wants a camry.. and you have a 2000 pickup.. even if you could use 1/3 the gas overall by replacing your truck.. the decision was not to "buy a car to save on gas" it was to "buy a new car for the wife"
Nearly every "buying decision" is made on factors outside of the article's premise.. and in that real world it is perfectly useful and acceptable to compare option a @22 mpg with option b@28 mpg and option C@27mpg but even then that number will *never* make the whole decision (if it even factors in will be a minor miracle).
actually the amount saved is always gonna be more dependent on driving patterns of the driver than any stat of the car..
If the 10mpg car drive only goes from home to work and back 5 days a week a distance of 5 miles round trip.. and the driver who has the 33mpg car drives 100 miles a day.. the roughly 50% savings in gas on the 33-50mpg upgrade is gonna save way more fuel and money despite being LESS by % of efficiency.
Its not got anything to do with that it has to do with statutory damages of 750$ per song based on the other inflated 200,000,000 illegal downloads facilitated by limewire..
This is the same 750$ per song number that they use vs private parties to come up with outrageous scare letters saying "if we win in court you owe us 200,000$, but we will settle for 20,000"
ehh I think alot of "professional journalists" pay for stories, the thing is this case crosses a line that most people calling themselves journalists would not cross...
/create the story by the fact that the items of value change hands OR incite illegal activity.
But buttering up a source with dinner, etc is not unethical or unheard of even among "professional journalists". IMO its all about scale.. oddly enough thats how the law on the subject falls as well.. (i speak specifically about enticing someone to commit a crime via offering rewards/incentives). Its ok to discuss wanting something that someone else has.. its another entirely to do so with a known catburglar and imply/state that if it happens to come into the cat-burglar's possession that you would be happy to buy it from him.
Paying for stories follows a similar set of unwritten rules.. offering octomom a million dollars for the rights to her story.. is not unethical or illegal or even frowned upon EVEN by "serious journalists" every "exclusive" you see anywhere had some sort of quid pro quo exchange or understanding happen.. This is not just TMZ or "the insider", but the grey lady, the washington post, LA times, the major news networks etc.. they all do it.. and its fine.. As long as it doesn't color
Putting this all on "tabloids" and the sort of "celebrity gossip" shows like TMZ etc as "not real journalists" is not fair, or even true (outside of idealistic journalism students still in college)
Paying for articles has a long history, much as cops and other law enforcement pay for confidential informants (either via "deals" to avoid prosecution or cash payments, or even protection) that in and of itself is not what is "wrong" with what gizmodo did.. it was crossing over a line.
Much in the same way that paying someone an extreme amount of cash to lie to a judge is 'crossing the line' in terms of confidential informants, i mean lets face it the bulk of the gadget blogging world is being "paid" with favors and products to hopefully generate favorable reviews/press.. which is fine (buyer beware and all that jazz) That does not make it "ok" to buy stolen property, and attempt to extort or leverage your possession of that stolen property for a scoop.
If Giz had been a "real journalistic enterprise" such as a newspaper or tv news etc.. they would have met with the guy who had it.. taken as many pictures as possible and published the article without taking posession of the device, and then once that was done said "no we cannot reveal our sources, as we are a news organization".. and they would have been fully on the side of the light, and in fact could have gotten tons of mileage out of apple pressuring them for info, and perhaps even getting taken to court by apple to reveal those sources.
Instead they chose to take the low road in hopes of parlaying it into webhits and got burned. Given what we know about the case, it would not surprise me at all to find out that gizmodo never tried to get press credentials for WWDC but rather tried to play the wounded victim by implying that apple wouldn't let them in. (or waiting too long to ask so that they knew that there would be no more "room" making apples decision moot.
Ever use the guys app? It was far more than scores.. regardless of what it was (copyright wise) the fact that he was taking a feed he was paying for as a single user, and reselling the data violated his terms with the company in question) The company then asked for more money (hence why he mentions paying thousands over the last several months)
The fact that they reported this to apple, who proceeded to remove the app.. is not really relevant.. nor is it iphone specific..
Go make an android app that repackages data from starwars.com or disney owned properties (espn or any other doesnt really matter) the app will be removed from app store instantly, and you will have lawyers all over you..
This app was far more than "just scores" and regardless of what it was.. he was paying a third party for the data as a "user" with a subscription.. which he turned around and resold.. This was not a guy getting scores from newspaper, or watching games, or any other method.. Think of it more in the line of me setting up a site with a paywall and using abc/cbs/nbc/fox content from their website as the "paid content" Regardless of the copyright issues, or anything else "after the fact" the guy was violating his license to use the data he paid for as a single user.. the company got pissed, told him to give them more money.. and when they had their own app ready they (the content owner) reported to apple that his app was in violation of their terms (the guy and the company.. not apple) This would have happened on all the OS that are out both desktop AND mobile .. even android..
Look this is not even an iphone deal.. this is a story about a guy who was stealing content from a source, and reselling it as his own.. he got caught and somehow is blaming it on apple.. this is so not "news"
Would it be apple's fault if a guy made a third party zune app, using his personal zunepass monthly and MS said "sorry thats illegal shut him down" ? or would it be developer stupidity/scamming? There is an overriding "rule" that has nothing to do with app store, apple, or iphone.. and if you think your being clever because your "free" tiny website happens to reuse subscription data slides through the cracks doesn't get a takedown notice because its hosted in a location that doesnt respond or care about takedown notices and forces local court cases.. does not mean that you are legally able to turn that site into an iphone app.. more importantly trying to sell it.
Yah i know, but that is my point.. thats not including machine readable source with the device.. which is what people keep implying that the GPL requires.
Remember this thread got started by people trying to say that apple via itunes was not a retailer but rather "the author who was making copies of a gpl product by distributing it" etc etc etc
he knows that but was illustrating the points between lockin and sticky..
Lockin == something that forces you to either abandon the idea, or start over, sticky is something that makes it much easier to just stay with what you have..
heres the scenario creating "sticky" in this case .. or what he is referring to..
... when you go to switch from the old to the new... all you are looking at is "the cost of the device" since theres nothing attached to that device that wont transfer.. so your not "tied in" by anything beyond the merits of the devices when choosing whether to replace a Sansa MP3 player with another brand.. since the new device will still play all your old MP3 players they are not "tied" to the brand or the device... the same sort of situation applies to PC's .. as long as the NEW PC runs windows, then your still only comparing the old hardware to the new.. "will I go with HP again? build it myself? or go with Dell?"
Say you buy a generic dumbphone, or a non apple MP3 player
The situation turns when you are comparing stuff like MP3s bought with DRM that only works on idevices/macs, or switching from a PC to Mac and having to justify swapping out what could be many thousands in software that you will have to replace.. the iDevices definately have alot of stickyness in this regard.. even though the avg person may spend only 10 cents a day on additional content.. the fact remains that its a huge psychological barrier to making the jump from platform to platform..
At any rate thats where "relatively high" comes into play, the funny thing is.. that between the psychological factors, and the inherent "goodness" (in the eyes of the user) and the merits of the "new" platform all come into play.. this is not new, we have known this for many many many years.. and its not limited to merely PCs and Smartphones.. we saw it with the music industry format switches over the years, the VHS to DVD to HD-DVD/Blueray switches.. *not* all of the changes went as one would expect.. for a variety of reasons. I mean many people would have bet that HD DVD would have won based on the sony track record with attempting to rule format shifts in the past which where essentially.. disasters, and yet blue ray came out on top.. i suspect that the fact that you could play standard dvd's on both formats was the ultimate decision maker for most people (they took the "investment in prior tech" out of the equation)
Anyhow thats the long winded way of saying why "high" is relative to "nonexistant" heh
That logic is precisely the definition of slippery slope... if tommorrow it is announced that a brand new version of wifi needs to be installed to prevent "breaches in security" does that mean that everyone who does not spend $$ to update immediately is deserving of being considered (legally at any rate) having "opened their network on purpose for any and all to use in any way they see fit" ?
There are *alot* of ancient B devices, not to mention a huge number of newer G devices that simply do not interact properly (or at all) given the not always overlapping security choices.. IE Device A can use X version of G security, device B can use X Y Z and device C can only use Z type. but all support "open"
Does that mean that because this combination of devices only works properly with open security (and requires broadcasting SSID) that these networks are LEGALLY fair game for any and all to do whatever they please with?
Ultimately it comes down to "just because you can do it, does that make it morally and legally the right thing to do? I would say that historically the legal allowance of behavior hinges far less on the "is it possible" and more on the "is it the right thing to do"
As far as Google vs "others" is concerned.. its again about slippery slopes.. allowing Google to capture supposedly "unidentifiable information to determine location" is a great way to open the door for others to do things that perhaps we do not as a society want them to do.. the "do no evil" mantra that Google tries to portray around itself.. should extend to not opening the door to evil, even if they are not doing the evil themselves (which is open to debate in many ways but that is a subject for another post.
Your again reading too much into the distribution entity, which is legally the person who created and allows to be distributed the code, NOT the physical means of distribution.
/movies/books which are all direct copies of works, which may or may not contain copyright violations.. and are as a general rule created by 3rd parties (or 4th parties in the case of dvds, or better still streaming/downloadable content with drm)
The "distributor" of the binary, is the person who does the initial distribution NOT the actual place you downloaded said code/binary from.
Until you realize/recognize/understand who the various terms apply to and how, this argument will go on forever. LEGALLY in this case ITUNES is exactly the same as walmart, bestbuy, ingram micro, or any other retailer/distributor of physical devices. We can argue about the basic incompatibility of the IPHONE/IPOD/IPAD SDK- the itunes connect agreement (for distribution of apps created with the sdk) and the Itunes end user license.. but they are not related to the issue that everyone here seems to be jumping on related to distribution..
As much as everyone here likes to bitch and moan about itunes "approval" of apps, trust me.. the very same thing happens at EVERY single retailer in the world.. or every store everywhere would sell every product. Picking and choosing what you sell, is in no way "accepting liability" for what a vendor you buy from does or doesn't do with regards to copyright.
If you want to think things through logically, the GPL and the various apple licenses (sdk for idevices in this case + others on the apple side) ARE INCOMPATIBLE.. in short before there was a distribution issue, there was a violation of the SDK terms by an attempt to combine incompatible code in an illegal manner by the person who took the original GPL code and created a derivative work using apple's code in the SDK..
In short apple was the victim of the developer who tried to cheat the 2 licenses together, before any sort of infringement in distribution could have happened. And even that implies that somehow "apple" acting as itunes is a distributor under the license which they are not, any moreso than there is legal standing versus sourceforge, or any number of websites hosting open source projects and creating copies of same.. the only remedy under the license is to "remove the offending code" when it is brought to their attention.
In short dreaming and hoping and praying is not gonna change the license to say stuff that it does not say, or somehow create liability where none exists. The day that retailers are involved in copyright violations by vendors, will be new case law, and is not likely to suddenly appear now, after more than 200 years of long established precedence when dealing with this sort of thing.
Again, if you cannot wrap your head around the fact that "physical objects" such as routers, tv's, cellphones, and the like are not copies under the license.. then compare instead to the established laws relating to music
If an author/director/movie studio makes a copyright infringing work, there is *no* legal wrongdoing on the part of the distribution/manufacturing 3rd parties or even first party who do the copying.. as the infringement was done in the compilation of the original work. The only time copyright is applied to the finished material as a copy.. is in regards to other entity (such as a website/pirate who sells dvd in hongkong/malaysia) who copies the entire work without permission from its author and resells it.. AND EVEN THEN the pirate is only liable for copying the compilation, not for any root violations such as not licensed music or images used in the work)
In short.. if i use the latest pop songs in my movie, and do not get the rights to use them.. i am the violator of copyright.. (the legal entity that owns the work that violates).. if the movie is then copied 40,000 times for distribution to movie theaters worldwide.. the film that the 3rd part
It does not have an ad-blocker, it has an ad-hider which is VERY different given that the bulk of the ads that need blocking are bandwidth sucking or privacy infringing evil.. hiding them does NOTHING in either case..
I am saying that as much as the various forms of the GPL try to taint everything they touch, there are times when that is not the case, and yet still the zealots try to make it the case
Trying to get the OP to name names so that the local fanatics can get their panties in a wad over something that they know next to nothing about on "principle" is not gonna change anything, nor will it do anything other than cause headaches for a likely 100% compliant company.. due to the general lack of understanding of how all the various GPL licenses/versions work, and what they actually entail
The one thing that noone seems to understand is that the FSF doesn't give a flying fig whether or not you can put custom firmware on your router, or install whatever you want in your tivo.. They do not care at all that the Tivo Recordings are not able to be "pulled out" and slapped into torrents automagically.. it is not what they are about.. it is not their goal.. and it never will be..
It is about making sure that the CODE is not hidden away from prying eyes, and is there for others to use and expand on/fix/change/whatever.. sadly the bulk of Free Software Fanatics, are actually more interested in free beer, than free software.
Not so much.. you are trying to say that by exercising whatever "policing" an ISP may do for objectionable content (even if its only malware/phishing sites) on its network, that now the ISP/Hosting company is responsible for making copies/providing all support for GPL code on the internet?
Please think before you type, then read the license a few times, and then goto the FSF website and read their take on the GPL and how it applies to various entities.. then come back and post again
yah cause the distributor (bestbuy/walmart) are responsible for distributing the GPL code in the electronics it sells for 500 companies right? Seriously folks, at least read the damn license, and if you are still unclear talk to a lawyer friend before showing your ignorance with statements like this.
Nope, that is wishful thinking/poor reading of the license.. I challenge you to find a device that uses GPL code in it.. that includes at time of delivery a copy of the source code in machine readable form.. You cannot because its not a requirement.. nor is it a requirement for software..