Small to medium business is the largest target market out there. A small business can invest $5,000 in a Microsoft software/ Intel hardware solution, and $5,000 in consulting, and get a solution that will work. The consulting market price is low due to competition. The system will run, and there are many people that can provide this service.
Linux.. I can get the Intel hardware cheap, and the OS out of a book, or free. Not for the novice. I have to find someone who really knows what they are doing to get the apps set up and running. This takes time, and the cost can go through the roof.
Don't confuse inexpensive aquisition costs with inexpensive solutions. Until the mom and pop shops of the world can get accounting systems and small business software up and running inexpensively and easily, Microsoft will be around and making money.
Could security be thought of as an additional feature, or maybe, another add on product? By including "security", or "bundling" it with the operating system, would Microsoft be opening itself up to another day in court?
Basically, by charging for "security" as an additional product, they will compete in the security market for Microsoft operating system add ons.
WARNING: May contain quoted copyrighted material that is being used without permission.
I just got a cool new game, in one of those little boxes.
On my receipt from CompUSA, it "clearly" states the return policy for software, and it looks like I cannot open the media if I want to return it.
On the side of the CD case, it says: "Important: Read notice on the back of package before opening"
On the back side of the CD case, and on the packaging it says: "Important: You must accept the enclosed License Agreement before you can use this product. If you do not accept the terms of the License Agreement, you should promptly return the product for a refund."
The CD is sealed.
This all sounds fine and dandy, but there is nothing in the box but this CD and some advertising! I have to load the CD, or "use" the media to read the damn EULA.
According to CompUSA, in order to read the EULA, I give up my right to return the software.
I am sure that I can challenge this in small claims court, but who has the time for that? It is not worth the effort for $50.
That is where they get you.
I checked some of the other games that I have purchased in the past few months, similar story.
The constitution is about the individual, and not the corporation. Corporations can't vote, individuals can. Corporations are not protected by the "Bill of Rights." Indviduals are. It would be nice if political people remembered these facts. Copyright policy was supposed to be about protecting the revenue stream of works for the individuals that created them.
Current copyright law is about protecting the corporation, and not protecting the individual.
Hopefully, the court will see it this way and fix this situation.
Digital and IBM sold Solid State Drives YEARS ago for mainframes and mini's. They were insanely expensive ($20k USD for a couple hundred megs) due to the high cost of RAM. They were primarily used for scratch area work, such as paging files for the OS, databases, etc. Some models would even work on a SCSI interface.
Whatever happened to the notion of "it is what it is" regarding contract law. ie: you cannot write a contract that states your cat is a dog, because your cat is not a dog.. it is what it is..
When an author sells a work to a newspaper, it is being sold to put in the newspaper ( and all its editions ). If the article is in turn sold for a profit, in a different medium (Lex/Nex), then the author of the work should be compensated as well.
Selling articles in a database is not the same as selling an article to a newspaper.
I realize that the author won't be compensated, because they signed over their writes to be compensated. Sounds like the authors need a union like the screen actors do.
According to the article, in the future, I may be buying CD's that will not run on any of the high end CD playing devices that I own. Keep in mind, many car CD players the support some sort of anti skipping technology won't play back the new copy protected CD's. It will also be criminal to make a copy of the CD that strips the protection off, so that I CAN play it in my "high end" CD devices. I can't figure out which criminal behavior is worse: the fraud being perpetrated by the labels for selling CD's with content that can't be played back, or the consumer for going to the extra effort to legally pay for this content (which includes the rights to listen to it) and put this content on a medium in which they can play it back.
Will labels like Sony be dumb enough to put out content that can't be played back on their own devices?
Similar story here. Had a bank account in Texas, and one in Washington state (Wells Fargo). It was the same bank by name. The bank was going through a merger (with Norwest). The Texas bank changed over its database systems three months before the Washington division of the bank did.
I got notice from the Texas bank that I had a closed account with a -118 balance, and that I needed to go to a local branch to pay the balance. I went to my local Washington branch. They would type in the account number, and it would come up as a closed account, with a $0 balance. I did this four times over the course of 6 weeks (showing the teller the letter from Texas each time). My Washington account had more than enough money to cover this balance, and was in fact set up to cover overdrafts for my Texas account. For the record, I no longer used the Texas account and did not close it out, those bank fees add up!
I was traveling out of state in CA, and found that my ATM card did not work. I called Wells Fargo. My Washinton account (and the $11k + balance in it) was frozen. I had no access to my money. The $118 owed was reported to Chex Systems. I went to a local CA branch of Wells Fargo, and explained my problem. They pulled up the Texas account, and verified that it was closed, and that the balance was $0.
I called a VP at Wells Fargo on Monday, and got the usual run around. I explained my situation. I was forwarded to the "fraud division" I was then told that the teller's had been checking the wrong database (and treated like this problem was my fault for not knowing this). The Wells folks told me to contact an attorney (after I accused them of stealing my money in the WA account). I had an attorney contact Wells Fargo. Wells unfroze my account so that I could pay the $118.
This happened three months ago. I have moved my accounts to another bank. I have not verified with Chex to make sure that my record has been removed.
I know that I have legal recourse for this in the court system, but I still was not able to access my cash for 2 weeks because of this!
Just letting those "perfect" people out there know that this type of thing can happen to anyone.
If the system gets cracked now, the system gets fixed and may be harder to crack. If the system gets released in its present state, (largely untested), then the damage is much greater if the crack happens after the system is released. The longer the system is out in the marketplace, the greater the damage to the credibility of SDMI if it is proven insecure.
Slashdot Mirror
$1.00 USD for showing up on short notice
$10,000.00 USD for getting your business back in operation.
Sounds fair to me....
Small to medium business is the largest target market out there. A small business can invest $5,000 in a Microsoft software/ Intel hardware solution, and $5,000 in consulting, and get a solution that will work. The consulting market price is low due to competition. The system will run, and there are many people that can provide this service.
Linux.. I can get the Intel hardware cheap, and the OS out of a book, or free. Not for the novice. I have to find someone who really knows what they are doing to get the apps set up and running. This takes time, and the cost can go through the roof.
Don't confuse inexpensive aquisition costs with inexpensive solutions. Until the mom and pop shops of the world can get accounting systems and small business software up and running inexpensively and easily, Microsoft will be around and making money.
Could security be thought of as an additional feature, or maybe, another add on product? By including "security", or "bundling" it with the operating system, would Microsoft be opening itself up to another day in court?
Basically, by charging for "security" as an additional product, they will compete in the security market for Microsoft operating system add ons.
Isn't this what we all wanted?
WARNING: May contain quoted copyrighted material that is being used without permission.
I just got a cool new game, in one of those little boxes.
On my receipt from CompUSA, it "clearly" states the return policy for software, and it looks like I cannot open the media if I want to return it.
On the side of the CD case, it says: "Important: Read notice on the back of package before opening"
On the back side of the CD case, and on the packaging it says: "Important: You must accept the enclosed License Agreement before you can use this product. If you do not accept the terms of the License Agreement, you should promptly return the product for a refund."
The CD is sealed.
This all sounds fine and dandy, but there is nothing in the box but this CD and some advertising! I have to load the CD, or "use" the media to read the damn EULA.
According to CompUSA, in order to read the EULA, I give up my right to return the software.
I am sure that I can challenge this in small claims court, but who has the time for that? It is not worth the effort for $50.
That is where they get you.
I checked some of the other games that I have purchased in the past few months, similar story.
The constitution is about the individual, and not the corporation. Corporations can't vote, individuals can. Corporations are not protected by the "Bill of Rights." Indviduals are. It would be nice if political people remembered these facts. Copyright policy was supposed to be about protecting the revenue stream of works for the individuals that created them.
Current copyright law is about protecting the corporation, and not protecting the individual.
Hopefully, the court will see it this way and fix this situation.
Digital and IBM sold Solid State Drives YEARS ago for mainframes and mini's. They were insanely expensive ($20k USD for a couple hundred megs) due to the high cost of RAM. They were primarily used for scratch area work, such as paging files for the OS, databases, etc. Some models would even work on a SCSI interface.
Whatever happened to the notion of "it is what it is" regarding contract law. ie: you cannot write a contract that states your cat is a dog, because your cat is not a dog.. it is what it is.. When an author sells a work to a newspaper, it is being sold to put in the newspaper ( and all its editions ). If the article is in turn sold for a profit, in a different medium (Lex/Nex), then the author of the work should be compensated as well. Selling articles in a database is not the same as selling an article to a newspaper. I realize that the author won't be compensated, because they signed over their writes to be compensated. Sounds like the authors need a union like the screen actors do.
According to the article, in the future, I may be buying CD's that will not run on any of the high end CD playing devices that I own. Keep in mind, many car CD players the support some sort of anti skipping technology won't play back the new copy protected CD's. It will also be criminal to make a copy of the CD that strips the protection off, so that I CAN play it in my "high end" CD devices. I can't figure out which criminal behavior is worse: the fraud being perpetrated by the labels for selling CD's with content that can't be played back, or the consumer for going to the extra effort to legally pay for this content (which includes the rights to listen to it) and put this content on a medium in which they can play it back. Will labels like Sony be dumb enough to put out content that can't be played back on their own devices?
Similar story here. Had a bank account in Texas, and one in Washington state (Wells Fargo). It was the same bank by name. The bank was going through a merger (with Norwest). The Texas bank changed over its database systems three months before the Washington division of the bank did. I got notice from the Texas bank that I had a closed account with a -118 balance, and that I needed to go to a local branch to pay the balance. I went to my local Washington branch. They would type in the account number, and it would come up as a closed account, with a $0 balance. I did this four times over the course of 6 weeks (showing the teller the letter from Texas each time). My Washington account had more than enough money to cover this balance, and was in fact set up to cover overdrafts for my Texas account. For the record, I no longer used the Texas account and did not close it out, those bank fees add up! I was traveling out of state in CA, and found that my ATM card did not work. I called Wells Fargo. My Washinton account (and the $11k + balance in it) was frozen. I had no access to my money. The $118 owed was reported to Chex Systems. I went to a local CA branch of Wells Fargo, and explained my problem. They pulled up the Texas account, and verified that it was closed, and that the balance was $0. I called a VP at Wells Fargo on Monday, and got the usual run around. I explained my situation. I was forwarded to the "fraud division" I was then told that the teller's had been checking the wrong database (and treated like this problem was my fault for not knowing this). The Wells folks told me to contact an attorney (after I accused them of stealing my money in the WA account). I had an attorney contact Wells Fargo. Wells unfroze my account so that I could pay the $118. This happened three months ago. I have moved my accounts to another bank. I have not verified with Chex to make sure that my record has been removed. I know that I have legal recourse for this in the court system, but I still was not able to access my cash for 2 weeks because of this! Just letting those "perfect" people out there know that this type of thing can happen to anyone.
If the system gets cracked now, the system gets fixed and may be harder to crack. If the system gets released in its present state, (largely untested), then the damage is much greater if the crack happens after the system is released. The longer the system is out in the marketplace, the greater the damage to the credibility of SDMI if it is proven insecure.