You must register with the copyright office before infringement or within 3 months of publication. It seems like this video was uploaded Sep. 6, so the author still has plenty of time to register.
you probably can't get punitive damages.
I believe you mean statutory damages. The copyright act does not provide for punitive damages, and therefore registration would not be a prerequisite for trying for them.
96% of incoming students have their own computer (at least at my past unis). Yes, disproportionately many have a Mac compared to the general population, but they are usually in the arts and humanities. In computer science (again at the 4 unis I've attended) the vast majority have PCs (as opposed to Macs), and the software the university requires for technical majors (engineering, comp sci) is only provided for Windows. The students most likely to develop for these platforms are those in comp sci and technical programs, who get free access to tech net and dream spark, and who have access to development machines in linux and windows even if they don't have a computer. I've never seen OSX based development machines at any University, as macs usually tend to be in public-facing locations like libraries, and are not set up for development.
Sorry, I didn't realize Mac Minis start at $599, not $500. Desktop PCs start at about $300, with some respectable specs these days (dual core 2.7 Ghz, 4GB RAM is enough for an entry level development machine), and I can build one myself for even cheaper. Can't build a Mac... I guess I could build a hackintosh though, although from my experience with those a couple years ago I wouldn't do it again: many incompatibility issues and eventually completely unusable for iOS development after about a year due to required Xcode/OSX updates.
Strange how an article about Microsoft wooing college kids fails to mention technet and dreamspark. VS 2012 and Windows 8 are now on dreamspark for students. Making this stuff available for free is a big boost over Apple, where I have to purchase at least a $500 mac mini to gain access to iOS development tools.
So the iPad wins on the screen and that's about it. Now, the iPad is about 6 months old, so it's a bit of an unfair comparison, but this is the comparison people will make until the iPad 4 is released. This particular tablet has more horsepower, better cameras, equivalent sensors and storage, included Office, native USB port.... What's left to know is size/weight/battery, but those should be comparable as well. All for the same price as the iPad.
It's probably true that the 16 gb sells more than the 32 gb, but the 32 gb still sells, and sells well.
So let's go out on a limb and say the $600 Asus tablet is 32 gb. So that leaves a void for a $500 tablet that again, *someone* in the market will produce. This is the joy of not relying on a single hardware vendor.
If you can't list the full specs, you can't talk about any prices and compare across devices. iPad *starts* at $500 for 16GB, but it gets as expensive as $830. But this still neglects the facts that many manufacturers will be making Windows 8 tablets. If you don't like the specs or price of one manufacturer's tablets, then there's a market void that *will* be filled by a different manufacturer.
Even two years ago, I configured my then new laptop with a 160 gig SSD for $150 more and I felt it was worth it given the speed gains. That same SSD now boots Windows 8 in 7 seconds, Photoshop CS6 in 5 seconds (first boot), Word 2010 (first boot) in a fraction of a second. I use an external drive for media. After that first SSD, I now always configure my laptops and desktops now with a SSD on the primary partition for the OS install and application installs.
It's like that Jimmy Kimmel sketch where he gives people an "iPhone 5" (really a 4S) and they tell him how much faster and lighter it is compared to their current 4S.
I still don't really understand the rationale behind the new connector. It seems the whole motivation for it was to make the iPhone thinner... which, I don't see as a real selling point at this point, especially given all the frustration with having to replace accessories or buy a new set of $30 adapters, and the fact that the iPhone 4s is really thin enough. As for simplicity, it really goes against the Apple aesthetic. One picture from the event made that evident.
Meanwhile, the rest of the industry seems to be moving away from wires and toward wireless. Wireless payments, wireless charging, wireless audio, etc. with NFC and other related technologies. Apple is for some strange reason the last to adopt these innovations, and it will be a whole year before they come up with an answer. In the mean time, they're piling on connectors and dongles galore. It's very strange.
Totally disagree, I think Nokia hardware is good enough they could be the only one. Works for Apple.
I love the new crop of Nokia hardware, and own a Lumia 900 myself. But I still want choice and variety, as do many others. iPhone is a counterpoint to this, but the success of Android supports my position. But yes, it has worked for Apple in the past, but I don't know for how much longer. Apple has enjoyed being ahead of the pack for a very long time, and manufacturers have spent a good 5 years catching up. In the past, every year the iPhone announced a new set of amazing capabilities that all manufacturers had to scramble to adopt. But this year, the iPhone 5 appears pretty lackluster compared to all other offerings, lacking the advanced screen and camera stabilization technologies or wireless charging of the Lumia 920; lacking NFC technology, found on any flagship phone; adding LTE capabilities and panorama modes when those have been available by the competition for ages... seriously, when Apple themselves say "perhaps the most amazing new feature in the iPhone 5 is called panorama" there is something very wrong.
The problem with the iPhone is that it only refreshes once a year, and while that worked in the past, now that might be too slow. When you have multiple manufacturers they stagger releases: Nokia in the fall, HTC in the spring (maybe trumping Nokia), Samsung in the summer (maybe trumping HTC) then Nokia again. A constant cycle of innovation. Next year, with the iPhone 6 or iPhone 5s or whatever, Apple will not only have to add everything it missed this year, but everything introduced in the coming year by Nokia, Samsung, HTC, Acer, LG, etc..
No, you're missing the point. If you're killing 1.8% of your customer base in each iteration (and let's assume 0.2% walk away when you sue one of their friends), there are two ways things can end up.
Nowhere did I imply that. You're losing 1.8% of your pirate base. Or not, it doesn't matter if they keep pirating or not. Copyright holders have found a way to monetize pirates which is far more appealing that actually keeping them as customers. As long as you make something people want, you will have customers and you will have pirates. This is proven by the sheer magnitude of shitty movies, games, and music that still goes on to sell to millions of people despite DRM lockdown and shitty content, and is also unabashedly pirated. You will never trail off to absolutely zero customers, and I'd love to see any evidence you have to back that up. I think you're extrapolating in a way you shouldn't be.
You're completely missing the point: some copyright owners can generate revenue in the tens of millions of dollars by settling with only a few thousand people, which is only a fraction of your customer base and only a fraction of those actually pirating. The numbers presented above are very very generous, in that you can lose 500 customers (50% of your customer base), and as long as you settle with only 9 of them who go on to pirate your game instead (1.8% of lost customers) you're breaking even on revenue. Yes, this whole discussion doesn't talk about profits, which a DRM scheme and a litigation scheme is going to eat into. But litigating settlements is lucrative (as evidenced by its continued existence) and a DRM server isn't going to change that equation.
The article touches on really non of what, as a user, I think Windows Phone 8 needs. The experience in Windows 7 is great, but they're still lacking on apps, carrier support, new hardware, and advertising. So this is my list:
1) Support new hardware on all major carriers. Verizon currently has backwater outdated Windows Phones. That cannot happen with Windows Phone 8.
2) App parity with other platforms. With Windows 8 compatibility, this will likely be the case for Windows Phone 8. All the major players will write apps for Windows 8, and will most likely make the investment to bring their app over to WP8. However, this is still yet to be seen. Micosoft can ensure this will happen by making the transition as easy as possible, possibly by preserving all logic code and allowing a dev to make changes just to the interface.
3) A variety of hardware. Nokia is a great hardware partner but they cannot be the only one. I don't like some of the decisions on the 920, like no micro SD. I need to be able to go to Samsung or HTC to find a phone that fits me perfectly.
4) Integration with Windows 8, Xbox, Skydrive, Skype, and the various media properties like Xbox Music and especially Xbox Live.
In terms of what the article suggests I have these comments:
1) Take Advantage of Google Android’s Current Issues - Yes, I believe Microsoft is already capitalizing on this by offering indemnity for parters. I don't know how Samsung's verdict will really affect the market, but Microsoft can't rely on Android getting worse or less appealing; they have to make WP more appealing.
2) Stop the Upgrading Uncertainty - With the WP8 foundation this is probably already fixed, but I don't think it's that big of an issue. Still the majority of Android customers are two versions behind on Gingerbread, and many WP users are happy with the additional support provided with WP7.8. Yes it sucks WP won't be upgraded to 8, but then again we've had more certainty with our upgrades to Android until this point, with the vast majority of devices old and new being on 7.5. If they can continue this trend onto 8, they should be good.
3) Push Cloud Apps and Services - This is a foregone conclusion. Microsoft account integrates across Windows 8, Xbox, and Windows Phone, and carries all settings, mail, contacts, etc. between phone and desktop, and carries media between all three. With Office, the cloud trend will continue. I think this doesn't necessarily make WP more competitive, but it makes the ecosystem at least as appealing as the others. Microsoft has at least the advantage of Xbox and Office over Google and Apple, who cannot really offer parity in those respects.
Yeah, I'm waiting for the day. They've targeted 300,000 people so far, and they hang over their head the potential that their life will be ruined if they don't pay up. It's only a matter of time before they go after someone who really has nothing left to lose, and their extortion attempt is the last straw.
Let's say you sell a video game for $60. You don't put any DRM in it and 1000 people buy it. You make $60,000. Now let's say you put DRM in your video game, and 50% of the people who would have bought your game don't. Now you only make $30,000. But you set up a spy on bittorrent, and you record 30 addreses downloading your game, DRM free. You get a subpoena for those addresses and send settlement letters to those people for $3400. Let's say 30% of those people settle without a fight, netting you $60,000. You're breaking even with just 9 people settling with you.
From the lawsuits though, we see that copyright holders are suing thousands of users and seeing a 25-35% settlement rate for multiple thousands of dollars each. So as the math works out, for a $60 game, settling with one alleged pirate (remember, it doesn't matter if you actually did the infringing, it could have been someone on your account, someone hacking, someone spoofing your IP etc.) compensates for losing 50+ sales.
The bittorrent infringers have not been sued for $150k each.
True, but that doesn't really matter. It's the mere fact that they could be sued for that much is enough to make settling for $3,400 seem reasonable. That and attorney's fees + time of fighting a lawsuit. But if the law were sane, and you could only sue an infringer for say treble damages, copyright holders would only be able to sue for $100 at most. Of course, their side of the argument is going to be "Actual damages are incalculable because the file sharer influenced not only one sale but every other share in the future forever," which in my opinion is complete bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
you probably can't get punitive damages.
I believe you mean statutory damages. The copyright act does not provide for punitive damages, and therefore registration would not be a prerequisite for trying for them.
Filing only costs $350, and you can save yourself some money and file it per se. They're not very likely to bother you after that.
It's a OK word processor, a mediocre but adequate spreadsheet
With a shining endorsement like that, who wouldn't want to use it?
96% of incoming students have their own computer (at least at my past unis). Yes, disproportionately many have a Mac compared to the general population, but they are usually in the arts and humanities. In computer science (again at the 4 unis I've attended) the vast majority have PCs (as opposed to Macs), and the software the university requires for technical majors (engineering, comp sci) is only provided for Windows. The students most likely to develop for these platforms are those in comp sci and technical programs, who get free access to tech net and dream spark, and who have access to development machines in linux and windows even if they don't have a computer. I've never seen OSX based development machines at any University, as macs usually tend to be in public-facing locations like libraries, and are not set up for development.
Sorry, I didn't realize Mac Minis start at $599, not $500. Desktop PCs start at about $300, with some respectable specs these days (dual core 2.7 Ghz, 4GB RAM is enough for an entry level development machine), and I can build one myself for even cheaper. Can't build a Mac... I guess I could build a hackintosh though, although from my experience with those a couple years ago I wouldn't do it again: many incompatibility issues and eventually completely unusable for iOS development after about a year due to required Xcode/OSX updates.
Strange how an article about Microsoft wooing college kids fails to mention technet and dreamspark. VS 2012 and Windows 8 are now on dreamspark for students. Making this stuff available for free is a big boost over Apple, where I have to purchase at least a $500 mac mini to gain access to iOS development tools.
With Google you have to choose to be tracked.
Huh?.
and at $600 for mediocre specs(2 GB of RAM is high by tablet standards; but cheap shit by Windows-machine standards)
Windows RT should be judged by tablet standards, as it is optimized for such hardware. 2GB of RAM on Windows RT should be plenty enough.
So, I found the almost full specs.
Vivo Tab RT | iPad
Resolution: 1366×768 | 2048 × 1536
Screen Size: 10.1" | 9.7"
CPU: 1.4 GHz quad-core ARM Cortex-A9 | 1.0 GHz dual-core
GPU: 12-core ULP GeForce | quad-core PowerVR SGX543MP4
RAM: 2 GB | 1 GB
Rear Camera: 8 MP LED Flash | 5 MP no Flash
Front Camera: 2 MP | 0.3 MP
Sensors: Mag, Accel, Gyro, Light | Mag, Accel, Gyro, Light
Wireless: 802.11 a/b/g/n, Bluetooth 4.0 | 802.11 a/b/g/n, Bluetooth 4.0
Expansion: USB port | Apple 30 pin + $30 dongles Office: Office RT (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, OneNote) | None Storage: 32GB | 32GB
Price: $599 | $599
So the iPad wins on the screen and that's about it. Now, the iPad is about 6 months old, so it's a bit of an unfair comparison, but this is the comparison people will make until the iPad 4 is released. This particular tablet has more horsepower, better cameras, equivalent sensors and storage, included Office, native USB port.... What's left to know is size/weight/battery, but those should be comparable as well. All for the same price as the iPad.
It's probably true that the 16 gb sells more than the 32 gb, but the 32 gb still sells, and sells well.
So let's go out on a limb and say the $600 Asus tablet is 32 gb. So that leaves a void for a $500 tablet that again, *someone* in the market will produce. This is the joy of not relying on a single hardware vendor.
If you can't list the full specs, you can't talk about any prices and compare across devices. iPad *starts* at $500 for 16GB, but it gets as expensive as $830. But this still neglects the facts that many manufacturers will be making Windows 8 tablets. If you don't like the specs or price of one manufacturer's tablets, then there's a market void that *will* be filled by a different manufacturer.
less than $1 per gigabyte or about .74 cents per gig
$0.74/gig is very different from $0.0074/gig...
Right, add to that noise. You don't really notice how noisy an HDD is until it's silent.
Even two years ago, I configured my then new laptop with a 160 gig SSD for $150 more and I felt it was worth it given the speed gains. That same SSD now boots Windows 8 in 7 seconds, Photoshop CS6 in 5 seconds (first boot), Word 2010 (first boot) in a fraction of a second. I use an external drive for media. After that first SSD, I now always configure my laptops and desktops now with a SSD on the primary partition for the OS install and application installs.
Isn't this pretty much a repeat of the PC wars all over again?
It's like that Jimmy Kimmel sketch where he gives people an "iPhone 5" (really a 4S) and they tell him how much faster and lighter it is compared to their current 4S.
Plus the EC is fine if they simply include an adapter from USB, IIRC.
How do creating adapters fit with the goal of producing less waste?
I still don't really understand the rationale behind the new connector. It seems the whole motivation for it was to make the iPhone thinner... which, I don't see as a real selling point at this point, especially given all the frustration with having to replace accessories or buy a new set of $30 adapters, and the fact that the iPhone 4s is really thin enough. As for simplicity, it really goes against the Apple aesthetic. One picture from the event made that evident.
Meanwhile, the rest of the industry seems to be moving away from wires and toward wireless. Wireless payments, wireless charging, wireless audio, etc. with NFC and other related technologies. Apple is for some strange reason the last to adopt these innovations, and it will be a whole year before they come up with an answer. In the mean time, they're piling on connectors and dongles galore. It's very strange.
Totally disagree, I think Nokia hardware is good enough they could be the only one. Works for Apple.
I love the new crop of Nokia hardware, and own a Lumia 900 myself. But I still want choice and variety, as do many others. iPhone is a counterpoint to this, but the success of Android supports my position. But yes, it has worked for Apple in the past, but I don't know for how much longer. Apple has enjoyed being ahead of the pack for a very long time, and manufacturers have spent a good 5 years catching up. In the past, every year the iPhone announced a new set of amazing capabilities that all manufacturers had to scramble to adopt. But this year, the iPhone 5 appears pretty lackluster compared to all other offerings, lacking the advanced screen and camera stabilization technologies or wireless charging of the Lumia 920; lacking NFC technology, found on any flagship phone; adding LTE capabilities and panorama modes when those have been available by the competition for ages... seriously, when Apple themselves say "perhaps the most amazing new feature in the iPhone 5 is called panorama" there is something very wrong.
The problem with the iPhone is that it only refreshes once a year, and while that worked in the past, now that might be too slow. When you have multiple manufacturers they stagger releases: Nokia in the fall, HTC in the spring (maybe trumping Nokia), Samsung in the summer (maybe trumping HTC) then Nokia again. A constant cycle of innovation. Next year, with the iPhone 6 or iPhone 5s or whatever, Apple will not only have to add everything it missed this year, but everything introduced in the coming year by Nokia, Samsung, HTC, Acer, LG, etc..
No, you're missing the point. If you're killing 1.8% of your customer base in each iteration (and let's assume 0.2% walk away when you sue one of their friends), there are two ways things can end up.
Nowhere did I imply that. You're losing 1.8% of your pirate base. Or not, it doesn't matter if they keep pirating or not. Copyright holders have found a way to monetize pirates which is far more appealing that actually keeping them as customers. As long as you make something people want, you will have customers and you will have pirates. This is proven by the sheer magnitude of shitty movies, games, and music that still goes on to sell to millions of people despite DRM lockdown and shitty content, and is also unabashedly pirated. You will never trail off to absolutely zero customers, and I'd love to see any evidence you have to back that up. I think you're extrapolating in a way you shouldn't be.
You're completely missing the point: some copyright owners can generate revenue in the tens of millions of dollars by settling with only a few thousand people, which is only a fraction of your customer base and only a fraction of those actually pirating. The numbers presented above are very very generous, in that you can lose 500 customers (50% of your customer base), and as long as you settle with only 9 of them who go on to pirate your game instead (1.8% of lost customers) you're breaking even on revenue. Yes, this whole discussion doesn't talk about profits, which a DRM scheme and a litigation scheme is going to eat into. But litigating settlements is lucrative (as evidenced by its continued existence) and a DRM server isn't going to change that equation.
The article touches on really non of what, as a user, I think Windows Phone 8 needs. The experience in Windows 7 is great, but they're still lacking on apps, carrier support, new hardware, and advertising. So this is my list:
1) Support new hardware on all major carriers. Verizon currently has backwater outdated Windows Phones. That cannot happen with Windows Phone 8.
2) App parity with other platforms. With Windows 8 compatibility, this will likely be the case for Windows Phone 8. All the major players will write apps for Windows 8, and will most likely make the investment to bring their app over to WP8. However, this is still yet to be seen. Micosoft can ensure this will happen by making the transition as easy as possible, possibly by preserving all logic code and allowing a dev to make changes just to the interface.
3) A variety of hardware. Nokia is a great hardware partner but they cannot be the only one. I don't like some of the decisions on the 920, like no micro SD. I need to be able to go to Samsung or HTC to find a phone that fits me perfectly.
4) Integration with Windows 8, Xbox, Skydrive, Skype, and the various media properties like Xbox Music and especially Xbox Live.
In terms of what the article suggests I have these comments:
1) Take Advantage of Google Android’s Current Issues - Yes, I believe Microsoft is already capitalizing on this by offering indemnity for parters. I don't know how Samsung's verdict will really affect the market, but Microsoft can't rely on Android getting worse or less appealing; they have to make WP more appealing.
2) Stop the Upgrading Uncertainty - With the WP8 foundation this is probably already fixed, but I don't think it's that big of an issue. Still the majority of Android customers are two versions behind on Gingerbread, and many WP users are happy with the additional support provided with WP7.8. Yes it sucks WP won't be upgraded to 8, but then again we've had more certainty with our upgrades to Android until this point, with the vast majority of devices old and new being on 7.5. If they can continue this trend onto 8, they should be good.
3) Push Cloud Apps and Services - This is a foregone conclusion. Microsoft account integrates across Windows 8, Xbox, and Windows Phone, and carries all settings, mail, contacts, etc. between phone and desktop, and carries media between all three. With Office, the cloud trend will continue. I think this doesn't necessarily make WP more competitive, but it makes the ecosystem at least as appealing as the others. Microsoft has at least the advantage of Xbox and Office over Google and Apple, who cannot really offer parity in those respects.
Yeah, I'm waiting for the day. They've targeted 300,000 people so far, and they hang over their head the potential that their life will be ruined if they don't pay up. It's only a matter of time before they go after someone who really has nothing left to lose, and their extortion attempt is the last straw.
Let's say you sell a video game for $60. You don't put any DRM in it and 1000 people buy it. You make $60,000. Now let's say you put DRM in your video game, and 50% of the people who would have bought your game don't. Now you only make $30,000. But you set up a spy on bittorrent, and you record 30 addreses downloading your game, DRM free. You get a subpoena for those addresses and send settlement letters to those people for $3400. Let's say 30% of those people settle without a fight, netting you $60,000. You're breaking even with just 9 people settling with you.
From the lawsuits though, we see that copyright holders are suing thousands of users and seeing a 25-35% settlement rate for multiple thousands of dollars each. So as the math works out, for a $60 game, settling with one alleged pirate (remember, it doesn't matter if you actually did the infringing, it could have been someone on your account, someone hacking, someone spoofing your IP etc.) compensates for losing 50+ sales.
The bittorrent infringers have not been sued for $150k each.
True, but that doesn't really matter. It's the mere fact that they could be sued for that much is enough to make settling for $3,400 seem reasonable. That and attorney's fees + time of fighting a lawsuit. But if the law were sane, and you could only sue an infringer for say treble damages, copyright holders would only be able to sue for $100 at most. Of course, their side of the argument is going to be "Actual damages are incalculable because the file sharer influenced not only one sale but every other share in the future forever," which in my opinion is complete bullshit.