In Minnesota primaries, you are given a ballot with all of the parties on it, each in a separate section. You are allowed to vote for candidates for one party only. If you vote for candidates in two or more parties, your ballot is invalidated. You do not have declare party membership or preference. There is nothing on the ballot to identify the voter. You simply go to the registrar first with your proof of elgibility or your voter registration, then a check box next to your name is filled to record that you voted (to prevent you from voting again, obviously), then you are given the multi-party ballot and you go into the booth and do your thing. Then you vote. Then you leave. You vote for only one party or you effectively do not vote. You drop your ballot into a reading machine on your way out.
In the general election, you can vote all over the map (and I often do, having voted for Democrats, Greens, Independence, and, yes, occasionally Republicans)
I think the confusion arises because the Sherman Act sections in question (15 USC 1 and 15 USC 2) include criminal provisions.
A casual reading of the statute followed by a casual reading of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law could easily lead even an intelligent layman into the error.
Point people to the opening sentence of the Conclusions of Law:
The United States, nineteen individual states, and the District of Columbia ("the plaintiffs") bring these consolidated civil enforcement actions against defendant Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 and 2.
(Emphasis added). It is also confusing to the layman that the DoJ brought the action. Instead of smugly telling people how stupid they are, maybe explain the reality to those less informed than you. That might do more to cut down on these irritations.
I have to correct something in my own post. I meant to say "I've NEVER downloaded a song I didn't buy." I know a lot of people find that hard to believe, but it is true. And I have to stay that way if I'm going to be able to make my argument with integrity.
Now, just so that folks do not think I'm some tower of moral arrogance, I doubt I'd have a completely clean copyright record if GNU, Apache, Linux, *BSD, etc. did not exist. If I had to buy all the software I use, I might have copied a thing or two by now.
Yes, I argue that we shouldn't violate copyright, and I stand by everything I've written in this thread, but that doesn't mean that I don't understand why people violate copyright, and why they often feel justified in doing so.
How do you explain the dramatic downturn in record sales if it has only increased sales? (Personally, I explain it by saying the music is utter crap, but I'm an old guy who'd hate anything these d--ned kids are listening to anyways). The recording industry has seen an incredibly large decrease in sales that coincides nicely with the emergence of file sharing. Now I'd be the first to say that this might be "post hoc ergo propter hoc," but I don't think the claim can be made that P2P increases record sales. I recall seeing an article to that effect a couple of years ago, but I haven't seen much since, and the article was long on assertion and short on data.
That said, I will grant you that the disruption is perhaps "potential" more than actual. Certainly people aren't swapping DVD quality movies in great quantity yet. But IMHO both MP3 and Ogg, while lossy, sound pretty darned good. (I've downloaded a song I didn't buy, but I have ripped plenty of my CD's to MP3 and Ogg Vorbis formats for my personal use).
I think we are violently agreeing with one another. I thought this was what I was saying.
Nobody has a "divine right to make money," in any profession, trade, or craft. But here I will disagree with you. That doesn't mean that laws should not exist to protect and encourage enterprise.
I was thinking about this the other day. I'm in the middle of selling my house. I found myself thinking that the real-estate trade is, without a doubt, the scummiest profession on earth. It is one of those purely parasitic professions. I then began to blame legislators and lawyers for their existence. Realtors are needed (or at least a market for them exists) because of the complexity and bureacracy that exists around real-estate transactions. I began to share the Bard's sentiment towards the legal profession ("Kill all the lawyers." Henry VI Part 2). I began to think like a Libertarian (don't worry! It passed!) -- let's have no county recorders. What was so bad before government got into land transactions? Oh yeah. People used to kill each other over lot boundaries. Maybe the laws, lawyers, and bureacracy amount to a public good.
We can argue all day about the "natural state" of creative works. But the natural state of man is naked, ignorant, and hungry. I'm always a bit dubious of arguments based the "rightness" of "nature." I'll take civilization, thanks.
Throughout this discussion I have maintained my belief that present state of IP law is lamentable. I share your disdain, in particular, for retroactive copyright extension. But I do not believe that copyright (or the core idea of copyright -- a temporary ownership vested in the author or creator) is wrong. I think it is clear that at one time it benefitted society enormously.
The present situation -- digital media and ubiquitous internetworking -- is without historical precedent. I wonder what the laws would have looked like in 1710 if 60% of the population had printing presses and if printing on one caused a copy to appear on all of them? That's the effect of the technology of today. My worry is that, just as with the technology that drove the Statute of Anne into being, the misuse of the present technology will drive a propotionally draconian set of new laws (in fact, it has already started to do so, with the DMCA being merely the opening act).
I believe that these laws must be fought, however. Not so that people may go on violating present law, but because my ability to own and use a free, open, owner-controlled information tool is an important freedom, perhaps even the first new civil liberty of the 21st century, and the laws that are coming will, in the name of protecting copyright, take away my ability to own and use such a device for non-infringing purposes.
So what can someone do? To steal from Frederick Douglass, "Agitate, agitate, agitate." Educate your legislators. Tell your friends. Discourage copyright violation (because it creates demand for laws and technologies of control). Think about society and your place in it. Ask yourself if getting this song now, for nothing, is worth losing control of your computer. Because that is what is at stake here. That is the consequence of your selfish act.
Should copyright exist? We can debate that. I think it should. But that debate aside, it does exist. It is the law. You violate it at your peril. Is the law too extreme? We can debate that. I think it is. I've already said that I'd like to see terms reduced. I'd like to see retroactive extension deemed unconstitutional (since it fails to meet the first purpose stated in the copyright clause of the constitution). But that debate aside, the law is the law. I won't tell you that you can't engage in civil disobedience. That is a perfectly reasonable form of the agitation I talked about earlier. But engaging in civil disobedience includes accepting the consequences, civil and criminal, for those acts. I'm not brave enough to engage in civil disobedience. I'll stick to writ
This is a direct consequence (IMHO) of the neverending extension of copyright terms; of the conversion of intellectual property to effectively real property.
That was my point when I condemned the status quo after I justified and stated my support for copyright. The problem isn't with the idea of intellectual property, it is with the monopoly on production that publishers and record companies now have. This is what is truly threatened by the 'net.
But it isn't terribly simple. The barrier to entry for writers serves a good purpose. There are a lot of people ready to dump a lot of crap writing on the world (as the web clearly demonstrates). The selectivity of editors is, in this sense, a good thing. Sure, there's bestselling crap, but there are also small presses who take the risks and publish the future makers of culture.
But the barrier to entry also produces the unbearable power of the media companies to force nearly all of the profit from creativity away from artists and to those same media companies.
So, while I meant my post to be both a historical sketch of the background to IP law, and to be a support for the idea of IP law, I would happily welcome a return to the original American copyright law which, IIRC, protected a work for 14 years from publication date. In my opinion, such a term protects authors and doesn't create a perpetuity for "Superman" and "Mickey Mouse" and "Tom Clancy" to be "brand names" for 140 years.
I'd go so far as to accept up to 30 years from date of publication. Rare is the writer who has even one book still in demand 30 years after initial publication. I think most writers (myself included) would love to have the problem of having a book still selling well that was about to expire its copyright. Very few such books exist. And those few that do are not making money for their authors. They are making money for the corporations that own the copyright.
Okay, maybe I could have been less long-winded. There is some sort of bug in/. (which I've reported on their sourceforge bug report form) that is truncating my comment. If you actually would like to read all of my blather, if you hit "reply," it displays the whole comment. I don't know why. Maybe/. has some sort of "pompous pedant" filter...
Anyways, I can distill my point down to: P2P file sharing is a disruptive technology that is directly analogous to the printing press itself, and, like the printing press, using it to avoid payment to creators and publishers is likely to lead to radical new protective laws. In fact, P2P is more disruptive than the printing press, since the means of production are much smaller, much cheaper, and much more widely distributed.
The first copyright law (in Occidental history anyways) was the Statute of Anne, passed in England in 1710. The law was passed because of another technological innovation (albeit, by that time, a 250 year old one): the printing press.
Prior to printing, "artists" (in this case, mostly writers) were generally supported by "patrons," wealthy individuals who supported the arts for prestige or out of sense of religious need (which is why so much pre-printing western culture is directly related to the mass).
The arrival of printing created a market for books. A market that didn't previously exist. Printing commoditized literacy and literature. At first, the vast collection of classical literature was the source. Printers like Aldus Manutius made personal fortunes by printing vast numbers of classical texts. This re-emergence of classical learning spurred the Renaissance, and literally transformed European culture.
The pressure for a copyright law didn't exist. All of the "artists" being plundered were centuries dead. Over time, however, the vast distribution of learning and classical knowledge led to the existence of a significant community of educated men, and to the vast expansion of that radical late medieval institution: the University.
As the community of learned people grew, the reverence for the classics began to wane as people began to observe things that were, well, WRONG in those classical texts. (Take a look at the history of the University of Paris to see what questioning classical authority could lead to).
Printing can be said to be a major factor in both the Renaissance and in the Reformation. The Reformation is the other important ingredient in how printing made copyright law happen. The Reformation broke the absolute authority of the Roman Catholic Church. It became much easier to be an original scholar.
An era of intellectual freedom (some would say chaos) began. And for the first time in a millenium, Europe began to produce culture instead of merely to echo classical or biblical culture.
Prior to printing, writing was not terribly distinct in its mode of production from, say, painting or sculpting. The production of a book was an intensive labor, and a book was as unique an artifact, or almost as unique, as a painting or a sculpture.
Printing changed that. Printing made a book a commodity. Writers came to be paid by publishers, rather than being church men, wealthy men, or employed by patrons. Writers came to depend on payment by publishers. And this led to the problem.
The problem was that there were no laws to protect ownership of literary works. It was common practice for a publisher to take a book published by someone else, set it himself, knock off a few hundred copies, and sell it himself. In fact, this was much more profitable than seeking out new work. New work was risky -- it might not sell. But find yourself a popular book and then print a few hundred knock-offs and you'd make money for sure! Especially since you didn't have to pay for the creative act itself.
This was the situation engendered by printing technology, the Renaissance and its spread of universal literacy (universal compared to pre-printing anyways), and the Reformation (itself fueled by printing) and the intellectual freedom that came with it. Writers were making deals with publishers and then those publishers were being undercut by "fly-by-night" printers who would take no risk, make no investment, encourage no cultural production, and make fortunes off those writers and printers who were contributing to the culture.
The situation became so bad in England that the Statute of Anne was passed.
Without some legal protection, a living could not be made by creators. Nor could the owners of the means of production be encouraged to take risks on new material. When there is no exclusivity of right
I like this. All the uninformed and irrelevant speculation by armchair lawyers put into one slashdotted source. A great timesaver.
That said, we all know that in the long run Linux has to be unaffected. If they prove infringement a great deal of effort will go into producing non-infringing code. In the long run, it will be just fine. This is mainly about a dying company trying to get some money to pay the receiver.
I don't know where you guys (you and the previous reply post) get the idea that I'm saying music should be free. I'm saying the markup on CD's is too large and that the marginal cost of a server full of digital recordings is even smaller than that of CD's.
I'm saying consumers should pay those costs and should pay for the use of the artist's IP.
I'm saying that the recording industry is ignoring a new market (on-line music) because they want to protect the huge profit margins they have on recorded media and in the process they are driving themselves out of business. Rather than respond to the market, they are attempting to legislate protections on their old markets. These protections prevent me from doing legal things with my equipment.
The only thing the irritates me more than greedy recording companies abusing their power are greedy little consumers abusing their power (to copy and distribute music they do not have rights to).
And, yes, the $0.35 figure was pulled directly out of the air, but I know the cost per CD (even including janitors and heat) is very small. Cost per unit of production must recoup the costs of the original master recording too, and all the cocaine snorted by everyone from the artists to the A&R people. You have to sell quite a few before you are down to only your marginal cost.
I go back to my original post: So long as the RIAA is going after people who are actually violating their copyrights, then I am all for what they are doing. What I am not for is their effort to apply total control over my equipment, or their efforts to make illegal my fair use of recordings I have paid for.
This is precisely and exactly what they should be doing. Their attempts to ban useful technologies just because they can be used for copyright infringement can and should fail. Their attempts to mandate technologies of control ("My Computer" indeed!) can and should fail.
If you are caught violating copyright law hundreds of times with a flagrant disregard for that law, you can and should pay for the crime.
The laws we have are adequate. We don't need new IP law (unless it be to roll back terms -- retroactive extension should never have been allowed).
I have tons of MP3 and Ogg files, all cut from CDs I purchased. I've never downloaded a song. Really and truly.
What the "content industry" needs to wake up and realize is that the digital technology has changed the marketplace. People no longer want to pay $20 for a CD that costs $0.35 to make (marginal cost). Peoplw want to download music. They want to use it, convert its format, burn it to disc themselves, store it in SD cards, whatever. The music industry should be doing market research and offering "Napster-like" subscription services ($5/Gig/month, for example). People want to be legal.
Meanwhile, I'm all for suing the actual people violating the law. My gripe has been attacking ISPs, P2P server operators, etc. who are not actually engaged in violation of the law. By the RIAA's logic, there should be no such thing as a copier or a fax machine. They can be used to infringe copyright, therefore they should not be allowed. Mind you, they tried to say that about copiers, and abaout VCRs, and about cassette recorders, and...
I agree with what you are saying in principle, but they haven't quit using DRM, nor have they sworn it off for the future. They are backing down from this particular technique. That's not adequate. I'm not proposing vengeance. I'm proposing non-violent consumer action.
They haven't moved past DRM. They just regret upsetting their customers.
Also, I think you should bear in mind that human psychology and corporate psychology are not the same thing. Corporations do not behave like people. People in corporations do, but the collective psychology is fantastically different from indivdual psychology.
I think they owe their customers an apology and a promise that they will not use such technology again, at all.
I also think we need to show the industry and the government that we (consumers) will not stand for this effort to control our computers. Ask youself, before you go back to Intuit (who had better than forecast earnings this quarter), whose computer you think it is. Then decide if you want to see Intuit profit after this breach of trust.
You do what you will (that's called "freedom"), but I will not give another dime (and they've got hundreds of dollars out of me, every version of Quicken from 5 to 2001; six years of TurboTax) to them until they apologize and pledge not to use DRM.
If I might be allowed to quote and respond to myself...
3. Have integrity. Don't violate copyright. Don't copy software illegally. Don't copy music illegally. Don't copy anything illegally. This is the least popular thing I have to say, but it is IMPORTANT. Every copy is bullet in the other side's arsenal. Evey copy is an argument for them to push legislation that takes away our freedoms. We must not be hypocrites if we want to have the moral ground to expose their hypocrisy.
Please note that this is as strong an argument for Free Software as any. I do not know if my own integrity would be as intact as it is if there weren't lots of Free Software already that allows me to go without the temptation of copyright violation.
Let me add one other thing. I think on the EFF/write congress/talk front, I not only advocate resistance to things like DMCA and PATRIOT, but I also favor some IP reform. Consider joining in the effort to roll back copyright terms. Personally, I'd like to see us return to the original 14 year protection. I guess what I'm saying is don't limit your efforts to resisting BAD legislation, advocate some BETTER legislation!
Why wasn't their a backlash like this for Microsoft?
Haven't we already talked about the difference in power between a company with a monopoly on the market and one that is in a competitive market?
I'm a die-hard GNU/Linux and Free Software advocate (even to the point of occasionally prefixing "linux" with "GNU"), but seriously, what alternative to Microsoft exists in the marketplace?
The home user gets a copy of Windows on the PC s/he buys through virtually every common outlet. (Wal-Mart on line offers Linux based PCs, but not in their stores yet). The games they want to run are Windows-only.
In business, it is hard to find OEMs pushing Linux for desktop machines. Sure, you could go to one of the Linux-friendly VARs, but most of them aren't geared up to provide sales and support to large corporations.
I'm not saying this situation is forever. Linux is gaining ground in all markets. But, for the present, Microsoft still has their effective monopoly power. They're strongarming the motherboard OEMs into implementing Palladium. They'll have it in a future version of Windows. And what choice will consumers have? There won't be a choice. And that, my friends, is what monopolies and cartels do.
A plan for consumer friendly computing:
1. Educate. Talk to your friends about DRM and what it means.
2. Agitate. Join the EFF. Write your congressional delegation. Boycott companies (like Intuit) that use DRM.
3. Have integrity. Don't violate copyright. Don't copy software illegally. Don't copy music illegally. Don't copy anything illegally. This is the least popular thing I have to say, but it is IMPORTANT. Every copy is bullet in the other side's arsenal. Evey copy is an argument for them to push legislation that takes away our freedoms. We must not be hypocrites if we want to have the moral ground to expose their hypocrisy.
4. Exercise the rights you have. Rip every single one of your CDs to mp3 or ogg files. Copy them onto every kind of media you have. Make use of your fair use rights. Return hardware that doesn't let you do this. Return (or better, don't buy) copy protected media. Even if that Macrovision protected DVD is your favorite movie (here you are hampered by the fact that products are not labeled adequately -- that's where writing congress comes in -- lobby for consumer protection laws. Our opoonents have lobbyists -- be one yourself for our side. Believe me, letters make a difference).
5. Talk. (Actually a variation on item 1, but it is really important, so I'll repeat it). Spread these ideas. Put up a web site. Join in onine discussions here and elsewhere. Get the "idea" of digital freedom into the popular conciousness at every opportunity. True, this isn't slavery or Jim Crow, but this is a civil liberties issue, and it is time we started drawing people's attention to it.
I'm one of those people who protested to Intuit. I had purchased the software, so I used it, but never again.
While I am very glad they have seen the light, there is still their implicit accusation that every single one of their customers is a thief (which, IMHO, is what DRM implies). I'm glad they're dropping DRM, but they should be groveling to their customers. Until they do, I'll be buying from their competitors (that don't use DRM, of course). Intuit should be made to feel pain, and I mean deep hurting where it counts, their bottom line. While the RIAA and MPAA are out there making examples of people, it is time we made an example of Intuit. Despite this turnaround, they should be made an example to the whole corporate world that technologies of control are unacceptable to consumers. If Intuit's revenue were to drop 50%, believe me, it will chill the market for DRM products.
Here's what I suggest if you, like me, are a user of Intuit software:
1. If you are a TurboTax user, switch to a competitor next year (one that doesn't use DRM either).
2. If you are a Quicken user, either switch to something else, MoneyDance, GNUCash, etc., or at least DO NOT UPGRADE. If you seriously think about it, what could a new version do for you that the current one doesn't?
Hit 'em. Hurt 'em. Teach 'em a lesson.
No more Intuit products for me. And I have NEVER copied a single product of theirs. EVER. In fact, that's why I'm so angry with them.
There is the dictionary, and then there is the law. A company does not have to control 100% of a market to have a monopoly. Microsoft has a legal monopoly on the desktop market. Read the Sherman Act, not the dictionary, if you want a legal definition of a monopoly. Moreover, what the law means is always based on the statute, viewed through the filter of previous litigation. In other words, the legal definition of monopoly is the Sherman Act, the case law, and, ultimately, the opinion of the judge who is looking at all of the above plus the submissions in the case before him or her.
You may disagree with the Findings of Fact in US v. Microsoft, but you weren't wearing the black robe, so your opinion on the subject doesn't mean a thing (and netiher, for that matter, does mine).
That what makes it a "court" and not a "legislature."
This is an aside (and not a criticism of your witticism), but have you noticed how many people who post on slashdot do so in a manner that suggests they are not slashdotters? Have you noticed that sometimes this is done by registered users?
Sadly many companies today are ready to jump on the.net train even though they are critizing Microsoft's licensing practices. They will surely be locked in. Infact according to the Gartner group %50 of all companies are looking at.net migration! They just do not get it. Today its mostly Unix based but they are afraid that java might die under the almighty Microsoft view.net as a safe way to avoid risk managment.
First, let me let you know my prejudices. I am a Linux advocate. I like Linux. I've developed software for Unix systems professionally for 14 years now. I have also become a Free Software advocate. This took a fair amount of time. I thought the right way to make money with software was to keep it closed and secret. I now think this is the right way for a small number of investors to make the largest possible amount of money out of skilled people who are not so well compensated. In a Free Software economy, programmers become like lawyers, doctors, and architects: professionals compensated for the quality of their practice.
So much for background. Even as an advocate, I think we must recognize the validty of the argument quoted above. When you have choices between propretary platforms, you must manage the risk. You must try to choose the winner. And it is difficult to find a market Microsoft has chosen to move into where it has not become the winner (most often by leveraging their OS monopoly, but we've had that fight already).
The only products that have gained ground against Microsoft in a market Microsoft dominates are Free Software products. Why? The corollary to the above argument. Microsoft can't destroy a Free product. Sun should GPL or BSD license their Java VM and SDK as soon as possible (given my view, I'd prefer the GPL, but I would welcome any license that meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines). They should invite public development. I think everyone in the open deveopment community would welcome their sitting as benevolent dictator over the project, a la Thorvalds, and it would guarantee that whatever happened to Sun, Java would go on.
Sure, businesses are careful, and belief in the Free Software model is ony slowly winning acceptance (with Linux, Apache, and Samba leading that), but one of the reasons people accept those products is the confidence in knowing those projects will go on. No risk of vendor disappearence. Sun's best bet to keep Java in front and on top is to open it up. They already give it away, now they need to let go.
As for the general topic of Microsoft vs. Free, obviously I believe Free can do the job and will eventually (I think) completely replace all closed commodity market niches, leaving only specialty vertical markets as potential closed markets. But this will take quite a while. It will take a generation or two, simply because the generation of programmers raised on Free Software has to become the generation of technical people making the decisions. People do not make choices on a rational basis, they rationalize their prejudices. They come up with evidence for what they already believe (me too -- objectivity is extremely difficult to attain) and reject evidence to the contrary.
Money is the thing that drives what little rationality there is in this debate.
One of the reasons I think the Free Software will ultimately win is simply that Free Software is always free, whereas Microsoft gets its developer mindshare on the pusher model (first few hits are free). Universities and Technical Colleges are using and teaching with Free Software more and more. The current high price of Linux people is due to the last decade of Microsoft pushing. The people who know *nix are the older, more experienced folks -- the more expensive folks. But the next generation is going to have broader background and skills. The cheap folks will know *nix AND Windows.
Moreover, it was always strongly typed. Generics simply move type enforcement from run-time to compile time. Also, you dont have to use it. You can still rely on descent from Object and run-time type checking if you want to do so.
I think these are great changes. That leaves only my desire for operator overloading (or at least a String-like kludge to give operators to the BogDecimal type) and for GPL'ing the VM and SDK as my remaining "Java fantasies."
You know, I agree with you. The Matrix does have some interesting philisophical ideas in its mix. My problem is that I find one of its themes to be so utterly repugnant: An individual is not capable, and therefore not responsible, for his own survival and the survival of his community. Instead, one should wait for the arrival of a superman/messiah who is the only one capable of saving the community. Not only that, but that superman does not arrive at this capability through a hero's journey where he is challenged and improved, rather this ability is latent, nascent, and all that is required is that he become aware of it.
The Matrix didn't invent this idea either, but it is one of the clearest examples of it.
At best, this idea is lazy storytelling -- a deus ex machina plot resolution. At worst, this is an anti-humanist, elitist, fascist point of view that holds that if all men are created equal, some are more equal than others. (Note that the liberal democratic ideas in the American Declation of Independence isn't so pie-eyed as to say that "all men are equal," but rather that they are all "created equal.")
I would contrast the story of Neo with the fictional story of Arthur, or the real story of Ghandi. Neo is no hero. Ghandi is a hero. Arthur is a hero who falls. He fails. Neo never risks failure. He either is "The One" or the story will simply end. Did you doubt that he was the one at any point? Was there any chance he would not be?
How much more interesting would the story be if it had focused primarily on Morpheus, the character who is actually taking a risk by putting his faith in Neo, and then the sequel could have been about what happens when agent Smith takes Neo apart at the end of the movie because Morpheus made a mistake? What if it then became about Morpheus and company having to save THEMSELVES by their own resources because of their misplaced faith in a mystical savior?
Chosen One plots make good religions, but they make generally poor stories. Even the gospels hold more dramatic interest (and I'm not talking about their truth or revelatory nature here -- just their story) since Jesus is both human and divine and he has doubts and struggles with this dual nature. He must sacrifice his human life to the higher demands of his divine life. Neo doesn't even have to do this. He simply is "The One."
Well, I think this interview shows the man has his head on straight. He understands the real issues that keep "joe six-pack" from buying and using Linux and he understands why there is is little ISV support for Linux. He has a strategy for solving it. I don't know if it will work. I don't know if it is any good.
But $200 PCs from Wal-Mart with Linux pre-installed is a big step on the way to adoption.
I do not know Lindows (yet). I don't know if I think it is evil or not. But I bought one of the cheap PCs to find out. I figure that if I hate it, I can put another distro on the box.
I, frankly, look forward to to seeing Lindows on PCs actually in Wal-Mart stores. You see, I'd rather have a substantial number of the people who don't care what their OS is running Linux (or at least having the choice) than being locked in to a Microsoft-only world. It will lead to better hardware and software support for the OS. Nothing this man does can take away our Free Software or our other distros. If some of the people today locked in to Microsoft become locked in to Lindows, does that really hurt anything or anyone?
I disagree with him about the "running as root" issue. I understand his logic, but a "root only" Linux box is a Linux box that might very well come to need its virus scanner! Non-priv'd users are a big part of why Linux viruses are NOT a big issue.
Anyways, I know I'm rambling. I'm not likely to ever buy a Lindows subscription. I'll end up putting Debian, RedHat, or SuSE on the box first (heck, maybe my first Gentoo box, who knows). But I think there is a supply of users for whom a product like Lindows is theoretically perfect. My mother-in-law, for example.
Those of us who care about Free Software as a freedom issue wont be hurt by Lindows. And we might be at least indirectly helped.
Slashdot Mirror
In Minnesota primaries, you are given a ballot with all of the parties on it, each in a separate section. You are allowed to vote for candidates for one party only. If you vote for candidates in two or more parties, your ballot is invalidated. You do not have declare party membership or preference. There is nothing on the ballot to identify the voter. You simply go to the registrar first with your proof of elgibility or your voter registration, then a check box next to your name is filled to record that you voted (to prevent you from voting again, obviously), then you are given the multi-party ballot and you go into the booth and do your thing. Then you vote. Then you leave. You vote for only one party or you effectively do not vote. You drop your ballot into a reading machine on your way out.
In the general election, you can vote all over the map (and I often do, having voted for Democrats, Greens, Independence, and, yes, occasionally Republicans)
A casual reading of the statute followed by a casual reading of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law could easily lead even an intelligent layman into the error.
Point people to the opening sentence of the Conclusions of Law:
(Emphasis added). It is also confusing to the layman that the DoJ brought the action. Instead of smugly telling people how stupid they are, maybe explain the reality to those less informed than you. That might do more to cut down on these irritations.
I have to correct something in my own post. I meant to say "I've NEVER downloaded a song I didn't buy." I know a lot of people find that hard to believe, but it is true. And I have to stay that way if I'm going to be able to make my argument with integrity.
Now, just so that folks do not think I'm some tower of moral arrogance, I doubt I'd have a completely clean copyright record if GNU, Apache, Linux, *BSD, etc. did not exist. If I had to buy all the software I use, I might have copied a thing or two by now.
Yes, I argue that we shouldn't violate copyright, and I stand by everything I've written in this thread, but that doesn't mean that I don't understand why people violate copyright, and why they often feel justified in doing so.
How do you explain the dramatic downturn in record sales if it has only increased sales? (Personally, I explain it by saying the music is utter crap, but I'm an old guy who'd hate anything these d--ned kids are listening to anyways). The recording industry has seen an incredibly large decrease in sales that coincides nicely with the emergence of file sharing. Now I'd be the first to say that this might be "post hoc ergo propter hoc," but I don't think the claim can be made that P2P increases record sales. I recall seeing an article to that effect a couple of years ago, but I haven't seen much since, and the article was long on assertion and short on data.
That said, I will grant you that the disruption is perhaps "potential" more than actual. Certainly people aren't swapping DVD quality movies in great quantity yet. But IMHO both MP3 and Ogg, while lossy, sound pretty darned good. (I've downloaded a song I didn't buy, but I have ripped plenty of my CD's to MP3 and Ogg Vorbis formats for my personal use).
I think we are violently agreeing with one another. I thought this was what I was saying.
Nobody has a "divine right to make money," in any profession, trade, or craft. But here I will disagree with you. That doesn't mean that laws should not exist to protect and encourage enterprise.
I was thinking about this the other day. I'm in the middle of selling my house. I found myself thinking that the real-estate trade is, without a doubt, the scummiest profession on earth. It is one of those purely parasitic professions. I then began to blame legislators and lawyers for their existence. Realtors are needed (or at least a market for them exists) because of the complexity and bureacracy that exists around real-estate transactions. I began to share the Bard's sentiment towards the legal profession ("Kill all the lawyers." Henry VI Part 2). I began to think like a Libertarian (don't worry! It passed!) -- let's have no county recorders. What was so bad before government got into land transactions? Oh yeah. People used to kill each other over lot boundaries. Maybe the laws, lawyers, and bureacracy amount to a public good.
We can argue all day about the "natural state" of creative works. But the natural state of man is naked, ignorant, and hungry. I'm always a bit dubious of arguments based the "rightness" of "nature." I'll take civilization, thanks.
Throughout this discussion I have maintained my belief that present state of IP law is lamentable. I share your disdain, in particular, for retroactive copyright extension. But I do not believe that copyright (or the core idea of copyright -- a temporary ownership vested in the author or creator) is wrong. I think it is clear that at one time it benefitted society enormously.
The present situation -- digital media and ubiquitous internetworking -- is without historical precedent. I wonder what the laws would have looked like in 1710 if 60% of the population had printing presses and if printing on one caused a copy to appear on all of them? That's the effect of the technology of today. My worry is that, just as with the technology that drove the Statute of Anne into being, the misuse of the present technology will drive a propotionally draconian set of new laws (in fact, it has already started to do so, with the DMCA being merely the opening act).
I believe that these laws must be fought, however. Not so that people may go on violating present law, but because my ability to own and use a free, open, owner-controlled information tool is an important freedom, perhaps even the first new civil liberty of the 21st century, and the laws that are coming will, in the name of protecting copyright, take away my ability to own and use such a device for non-infringing purposes.
So what can someone do? To steal from Frederick Douglass, "Agitate, agitate, agitate." Educate your legislators. Tell your friends. Discourage copyright violation (because it creates demand for laws and technologies of control). Think about society and your place in it. Ask yourself if getting this song now, for nothing, is worth losing control of your computer. Because that is what is at stake here. That is the consequence of your selfish act.
Should copyright exist? We can debate that. I think it should. But that debate aside, it does exist. It is the law. You violate it at your peril. Is the law too extreme? We can debate that. I think it is. I've already said that I'd like to see terms reduced. I'd like to see retroactive extension deemed unconstitutional (since it fails to meet the first purpose stated in the copyright clause of the constitution). But that debate aside, the law is the law. I won't tell you that you can't engage in civil disobedience. That is a perfectly reasonable form of the agitation I talked about earlier. But engaging in civil disobedience includes accepting the consequences, civil and criminal, for those acts. I'm not brave enough to engage in civil disobedience. I'll stick to writ
This is a direct consequence (IMHO) of the neverending extension of copyright terms; of the conversion of intellectual property to effectively real property.
That was my point when I condemned the status quo after I justified and stated my support for copyright. The problem isn't with the idea of intellectual property, it is with the monopoly on production that publishers and record companies now have. This is what is truly threatened by the 'net.
But it isn't terribly simple. The barrier to entry for writers serves a good purpose. There are a lot of people ready to dump a lot of crap writing on the world (as the web clearly demonstrates). The selectivity of editors is, in this sense, a good thing. Sure, there's bestselling crap, but there are also small presses who take the risks and publish the future makers of culture.
But the barrier to entry also produces the unbearable power of the media companies to force nearly all of the profit from creativity away from artists and to those same media companies.
So, while I meant my post to be both a historical sketch of the background to IP law, and to be a support for the idea of IP law, I would happily welcome a return to the original American copyright law which, IIRC, protected a work for 14 years from publication date. In my opinion, such a term protects authors and doesn't create a perpetuity for "Superman" and "Mickey Mouse" and "Tom Clancy" to be "brand names" for 140 years.
I'd go so far as to accept up to 30 years from date of publication. Rare is the writer who has even one book still in demand 30 years after initial publication. I think most writers (myself included) would love to have the problem of having a book still selling well that was about to expire its copyright. Very few such books exist. And those few that do are not making money for their authors. They are making money for the corporations that own the copyright.
It is good idea, and a bad system.
Yes, but I'm in love with sound of my own typing.
Okay, maybe I could have been less long-winded. There is some sort of bug in /. (which I've reported on their sourceforge bug report form) that is truncating my comment. If you actually would like to read all of my blather, if you hit "reply," it displays the whole comment. I don't know why. Maybe /. has some sort of "pompous pedant" filter...
Anyways, I can distill my point down to: P2P file sharing is a disruptive technology that is directly analogous to the printing press itself, and, like the printing press, using it to avoid payment to creators and publishers is likely to lead to radical new protective laws. In fact, P2P is more disruptive than the printing press, since the means of production are much smaller, much cheaper, and much more widely distributed.
Here's the funny thing to me about this debate.
The first copyright law (in Occidental history anyways) was the Statute of Anne, passed in England in 1710. The law was passed because of another technological innovation (albeit, by that time, a 250 year old one): the printing press.
Prior to printing, "artists" (in this case, mostly writers) were generally supported by "patrons," wealthy individuals who supported the arts for prestige or out of sense of religious need (which is why so much pre-printing western culture is directly related to the mass).
The arrival of printing created a market for books. A market that didn't previously exist. Printing commoditized literacy and literature. At first, the vast collection of classical literature was the source. Printers like Aldus Manutius made personal fortunes by printing vast numbers of classical texts. This re-emergence of classical learning spurred the Renaissance, and literally transformed European culture.
The pressure for a copyright law didn't exist. All of the "artists" being plundered were centuries dead. Over time, however, the vast distribution of learning and classical knowledge led to the existence of a significant community of educated men, and to the vast expansion of that radical late medieval institution: the University.
As the community of learned people grew, the reverence for the classics began to wane as people began to observe things that were, well, WRONG in those classical texts. (Take a look at the history of the University of Paris to see what questioning classical authority could lead to).
Printing can be said to be a major factor in both the Renaissance and in the Reformation. The Reformation is the other important ingredient in how printing made copyright law happen. The Reformation broke the absolute authority of the Roman Catholic Church. It became much easier to be an original scholar.
An era of intellectual freedom (some would say chaos) began. And for the first time in a millenium, Europe began to produce culture instead of merely to echo classical or biblical culture.
Prior to printing, writing was not terribly distinct in its mode of production from, say, painting or sculpting. The production of a book was an intensive labor, and a book was as unique an artifact, or almost as unique, as a painting or a sculpture.
Printing changed that. Printing made a book a commodity. Writers came to be paid by publishers, rather than being church men, wealthy men, or employed by patrons. Writers came to depend on payment by publishers. And this led to the problem.
The problem was that there were no laws to protect ownership of literary works. It was common practice for a publisher to take a book published by someone else, set it himself, knock off a few hundred copies, and sell it himself. In fact, this was much more profitable than seeking out new work. New work was risky -- it might not sell. But find yourself a popular book and then print a few hundred knock-offs and you'd make money for sure! Especially since you didn't have to pay for the creative act itself.
This was the situation engendered by printing technology, the Renaissance and its spread of universal literacy (universal compared to pre-printing anyways), and the Reformation (itself fueled by printing) and the intellectual freedom that came with it. Writers were making deals with publishers and then those publishers were being undercut by "fly-by-night" printers who would take no risk, make no investment, encourage no cultural production, and make fortunes off those writers and printers who were contributing to the culture.
The situation became so bad in England that the Statute of Anne was passed.
Without some legal protection, a living could not be made by creators. Nor could the owners of the means of production be encouraged to take risks on new material. When there is no exclusivity of right
I like this. All the uninformed and irrelevant speculation by armchair lawyers put into one slashdotted source. A great timesaver.
That said, we all know that in the long run Linux has to be unaffected. If they prove infringement a great deal of effort will go into producing non-infringing code. In the long run, it will be just fine. This is mainly about a dying company trying to get some money to pay the receiver.
I don't know where you guys (you and the previous reply post) get the idea that I'm saying music should be free. I'm saying the markup on CD's is too large and that the marginal cost of a server full of digital recordings is even smaller than that of CD's.
I'm saying consumers should pay those costs and should pay for the use of the artist's IP.
I'm saying that the recording industry is ignoring a new market (on-line music) because they want to protect the huge profit margins they have on recorded media and in the process they are driving themselves out of business. Rather than respond to the market, they are attempting to legislate protections on their old markets. These protections prevent me from doing legal things with my equipment.
The only thing the irritates me more than greedy recording companies abusing their power are greedy little consumers abusing their power (to copy and distribute music they do not have rights to).
And, yes, the $0.35 figure was pulled directly out of the air, but I know the cost per CD (even including janitors and heat) is very small. Cost per unit of production must recoup the costs of the original master recording too, and all the cocaine snorted by everyone from the artists to the A&R people. You have to sell quite a few before you are down to only your marginal cost.
I go back to my original post: So long as the RIAA is going after people who are actually violating their copyrights, then I am all for what they are doing. What I am not for is their effort to apply total control over my equipment, or their efforts to make illegal my fair use of recordings I have paid for.
This is precisely and exactly what they should be doing. Their attempts to ban useful technologies just because they can be used for copyright infringement can and should fail. Their attempts to mandate technologies of control ("My Computer" indeed!) can and should fail.
If you are caught violating copyright law hundreds of times with a flagrant disregard for that law, you can and should pay for the crime.
The laws we have are adequate. We don't need new IP law (unless it be to roll back terms -- retroactive extension should never have been allowed).
I have tons of MP3 and Ogg files, all cut from CDs I purchased. I've never downloaded a song. Really and truly.
What the "content industry" needs to wake up and realize is that the digital technology has changed the marketplace. People no longer want to pay $20 for a CD that costs $0.35 to make (marginal cost). Peoplw want to download music. They want to use it, convert its format, burn it to disc themselves, store it in SD cards, whatever. The music industry should be doing market research and offering "Napster-like" subscription services ($5/Gig/month, for example). People want to be legal.
Meanwhile, I'm all for suing the actual people violating the law. My gripe has been attacking ISPs, P2P server operators, etc. who are not actually engaged in violation of the law. By the RIAA's logic, there should be no such thing as a copier or a fax machine. They can be used to infringe copyright, therefore they should not be allowed. Mind you, they tried to say that about copiers, and abaout VCRs, and about cassette recorders, and...
I agree with what you are saying in principle, but they haven't quit using DRM, nor have they sworn it off for the future. They are backing down from this particular technique. That's not adequate. I'm not proposing vengeance. I'm proposing non-violent consumer action.
They haven't moved past DRM. They just regret upsetting their customers.
Also, I think you should bear in mind that human psychology and corporate psychology are not the same thing. Corporations do not behave like people. People in corporations do, but the collective psychology is fantastically different from indivdual psychology.
I think they owe their customers an apology and a promise that they will not use such technology again, at all.
I also think we need to show the industry and the government that we (consumers) will not stand for this effort to control our computers. Ask youself, before you go back to Intuit (who had better than forecast earnings this quarter), whose computer you think it is. Then decide if you want to see Intuit profit after this breach of trust.
You do what you will (that's called "freedom"), but I will not give another dime (and they've got hundreds of dollars out of me, every version of Quicken from 5 to 2001; six years of TurboTax) to them until they apologize and pledge not to use DRM.
Please note that this is as strong an argument for Free Software as any. I do not know if my own integrity would be as intact as it is if there weren't lots of Free Software already that allows me to go without the temptation of copyright violation.
Let me add one other thing. I think on the EFF/write congress/talk front, I not only advocate resistance to things like DMCA and PATRIOT, but I also favor some IP reform. Consider joining in the effort to roll back copyright terms. Personally, I'd like to see us return to the original 14 year protection. I guess what I'm saying is don't limit your efforts to resisting BAD legislation, advocate some BETTER legislation!
Haven't we already talked about the difference in power between a company with a monopoly on the market and one that is in a competitive market?
I'm a die-hard GNU/Linux and Free Software advocate (even to the point of occasionally prefixing "linux" with "GNU"), but seriously, what alternative to Microsoft exists in the marketplace?
The home user gets a copy of Windows on the PC s/he buys through virtually every common outlet. (Wal-Mart on line offers Linux based PCs, but not in their stores yet). The games they want to run are Windows-only.
In business, it is hard to find OEMs pushing Linux for desktop machines. Sure, you could go to one of the Linux-friendly VARs, but most of them aren't geared up to provide sales and support to large corporations.
I'm not saying this situation is forever. Linux is gaining ground in all markets. But, for the present, Microsoft still has their effective monopoly power. They're strongarming the motherboard OEMs into implementing Palladium. They'll have it in a future version of Windows. And what choice will consumers have? There won't be a choice. And that, my friends, is what monopolies and cartels do.
A plan for consumer friendly computing:
1. Educate. Talk to your friends about DRM and what it means.
2. Agitate. Join the EFF. Write your congressional delegation. Boycott companies (like Intuit) that use DRM.
3. Have integrity. Don't violate copyright. Don't copy software illegally. Don't copy music illegally. Don't copy anything illegally. This is the least popular thing I have to say, but it is IMPORTANT. Every copy is bullet in the other side's arsenal. Evey copy is an argument for them to push legislation that takes away our freedoms. We must not be hypocrites if we want to have the moral ground to expose their hypocrisy.
4. Exercise the rights you have. Rip every single one of your CDs to mp3 or ogg files. Copy them onto every kind of media you have. Make use of your fair use rights. Return hardware that doesn't let you do this. Return (or better, don't buy) copy protected media. Even if that Macrovision protected DVD is your favorite movie (here you are hampered by the fact that products are not labeled adequately -- that's where writing congress comes in -- lobby for consumer protection laws. Our opoonents have lobbyists -- be one yourself for our side. Believe me, letters make a difference).
5. Talk. (Actually a variation on item 1, but it is really important, so I'll repeat it). Spread these ideas. Put up a web site. Join in onine discussions here and elsewhere. Get the "idea" of digital freedom into the popular conciousness at every opportunity. True, this isn't slavery or Jim Crow, but this is a civil liberties issue, and it is time we started drawing people's attention to it.
I'm one of those people who protested to Intuit. I had purchased the software, so I used it, but never again.
While I am very glad they have seen the light, there is still their implicit accusation that every single one of their customers is a thief (which, IMHO, is what DRM implies). I'm glad they're dropping DRM, but they should be groveling to their customers. Until they do, I'll be buying from their competitors (that don't use DRM, of course). Intuit should be made to feel pain, and I mean deep hurting where it counts, their bottom line. While the RIAA and MPAA are out there making examples of people, it is time we made an example of Intuit. Despite this turnaround, they should be made an example to the whole corporate world that technologies of control are unacceptable to consumers. If Intuit's revenue were to drop 50%, believe me, it will chill the market for DRM products.
Here's what I suggest if you, like me, are a user of Intuit software:
1. If you are a TurboTax user, switch to a competitor next year (one that doesn't use DRM either).
2. If you are a Quicken user, either switch to something else, MoneyDance, GNUCash, etc., or at least DO NOT UPGRADE. If you seriously think about it, what could a new version do for you that the current one doesn't?
Hit 'em. Hurt 'em. Teach 'em a lesson.
No more Intuit products for me. And I have NEVER copied a single product of theirs. EVER. In fact, that's why I'm so angry with them.
There is the dictionary, and then there is the law. A company does not have to control 100% of a market to have a monopoly. Microsoft has a legal monopoly on the desktop market. Read the Sherman Act, not the dictionary, if you want a legal definition of a monopoly. Moreover, what the law means is always based on the statute, viewed through the filter of previous litigation. In other words, the legal definition of monopoly is the Sherman Act, the case law, and, ultimately, the opinion of the judge who is looking at all of the above plus the submissions in the case before him or her.
You may disagree with the Findings of Fact in US v. Microsoft, but you weren't wearing the black robe, so your opinion on the subject doesn't mean a thing (and netiher, for that matter, does mine).
That what makes it a "court" and not a "legislature."
This is an aside (and not a criticism of your witticism), but have you noticed how many people who post on slashdot do so in a manner that suggests they are not slashdotters? Have you noticed that sometimes this is done by registered users?
First, let me let you know my prejudices. I am a Linux advocate. I like Linux. I've developed software for Unix systems professionally for 14 years now. I have also become a Free Software advocate. This took a fair amount of time. I thought the right way to make money with software was to keep it closed and secret. I now think this is the right way for a small number of investors to make the largest possible amount of money out of skilled people who are not so well compensated. In a Free Software economy, programmers become like lawyers, doctors, and architects: professionals compensated for the quality of their practice.
So much for background. Even as an advocate, I think we must recognize the validty of the argument quoted above. When you have choices between propretary platforms, you must manage the risk. You must try to choose the winner. And it is difficult to find a market Microsoft has chosen to move into where it has not become the winner (most often by leveraging their OS monopoly, but we've had that fight already).
The only products that have gained ground against Microsoft in a market Microsoft dominates are Free Software products. Why? The corollary to the above argument. Microsoft can't destroy a Free product. Sun should GPL or BSD license their Java VM and SDK as soon as possible (given my view, I'd prefer the GPL, but I would welcome any license that meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines). They should invite public development. I think everyone in the open deveopment community would welcome their sitting as benevolent dictator over the project, a la Thorvalds, and it would guarantee that whatever happened to Sun, Java would go on.
Sure, businesses are careful, and belief in the Free Software model is ony slowly winning acceptance (with Linux, Apache, and Samba leading that), but one of the reasons people accept those products is the confidence in knowing those projects will go on. No risk of vendor disappearence. Sun's best bet to keep Java in front and on top is to open it up. They already give it away, now they need to let go.
As for the general topic of Microsoft vs. Free, obviously I believe Free can do the job and will eventually (I think) completely replace all closed commodity market niches, leaving only specialty vertical markets as potential closed markets. But this will take quite a while. It will take a generation or two, simply because the generation of programmers raised on Free Software has to become the generation of technical people making the decisions. People do not make choices on a rational basis, they rationalize their prejudices. They come up with evidence for what they already believe (me too -- objectivity is extremely difficult to attain) and reject evidence to the contrary.
Money is the thing that drives what little rationality there is in this debate.
One of the reasons I think the Free Software will ultimately win is simply that Free Software is always free, whereas Microsoft gets its developer mindshare on the pusher model (first few hits are free). Universities and Technical Colleges are using and teaching with Free Software more and more. The current high price of Linux people is due to the last decade of Microsoft pushing. The people who know *nix are the older, more experienced folks -- the more expensive folks. But the next generation is going to have broader background and skills. The cheap folks will know *nix AND Windows.
Those who accuse the Free Software camp of
Er, "don't" and "BigDecimal." Sorry for the fat fingers.
Moreover, it was always strongly typed. Generics simply move type enforcement from run-time to compile time. Also, you dont have to use it. You can still rely on descent from Object and run-time type checking if you want to do so.
I think these are great changes. That leaves only my desire for operator overloading (or at least a String-like kludge to give operators to the BogDecimal type) and for GPL'ing the VM and SDK as my remaining "Java fantasies."
You know, I agree with you. The Matrix does have some interesting philisophical ideas in its mix. My problem is that I find one of its themes to be so utterly repugnant: An individual is not capable, and therefore not responsible, for his own survival and the survival of his community. Instead, one should wait for the arrival of a superman/messiah who is the only one capable of saving the community. Not only that, but that superman does not arrive at this capability through a hero's journey where he is challenged and improved, rather this ability is latent, nascent, and all that is required is that he become aware of it.
The Matrix didn't invent this idea either, but it is one of the clearest examples of it.
At best, this idea is lazy storytelling -- a deus ex machina plot resolution. At worst, this is an anti-humanist, elitist, fascist point of view that holds that if all men are created equal, some are more equal than others. (Note that the liberal democratic ideas in the American Declation of Independence isn't so pie-eyed as to say that "all men are equal," but rather that they are all "created equal.")
I would contrast the story of Neo with the fictional story of Arthur, or the real story of Ghandi. Neo is no hero. Ghandi is a hero. Arthur is a hero who falls. He fails. Neo never risks failure. He either is "The One" or the story will simply end. Did you doubt that he was the one at any point? Was there any chance he would not be?
How much more interesting would the story be if it had focused primarily on Morpheus, the character who is actually taking a risk by putting his faith in Neo, and then the sequel could have been about what happens when agent Smith takes Neo apart at the end of the movie because Morpheus made a mistake? What if it then became about Morpheus and company having to save THEMSELVES by their own resources because of their misplaced faith in a mystical savior?
Chosen One plots make good religions, but they make generally poor stories. Even the gospels hold more dramatic interest (and I'm not talking about their truth or revelatory nature here -- just their story) since Jesus is both human and divine and he has doubts and struggles with this dual nature. He must sacrifice his human life to the higher demands of his divine life. Neo doesn't even have to do this. He simply is "The One."
It's weak, I tells ya! Dramatically weak!
I'm not. Glad I could help.
Well, I think this interview shows the man has his head on straight. He understands the real issues that keep "joe six-pack" from buying and using Linux and he understands why there is is little ISV support for Linux. He has a strategy for solving it. I don't know if it will work. I don't know if it is any good.
But $200 PCs from Wal-Mart with Linux pre-installed is a big step on the way to adoption.
I do not know Lindows (yet). I don't know if I think it is evil or not. But I bought one of the cheap PCs to find out. I figure that if I hate it, I can put another distro on the box.
I, frankly, look forward to to seeing Lindows on PCs actually in Wal-Mart stores. You see, I'd rather have a substantial number of the people who don't care what their OS is running Linux (or at least having the choice) than being locked in to a Microsoft-only world. It will lead to better hardware and software support for the OS. Nothing this man does can take away our Free Software or our other distros. If some of the people today locked in to Microsoft become locked in to Lindows, does that really hurt anything or anyone?
I disagree with him about the "running as root" issue. I understand his logic, but a "root only" Linux box is a Linux box that might very well come to need its virus scanner! Non-priv'd users are a big part of why Linux viruses are NOT a big issue.
Anyways, I know I'm rambling. I'm not likely to ever buy a Lindows subscription. I'll end up putting Debian, RedHat, or SuSE on the box first (heck, maybe my first Gentoo box, who knows). But I think there is a supply of users for whom a product like Lindows is theoretically perfect. My mother-in-law, for example.
Those of us who care about Free Software as a freedom issue wont be hurt by Lindows. And we might be at least indirectly helped.
Interesting views. Good interview.