I've been dying to see a good case study about device modding and its correlation with law breaking so please do provide us with data. Myself and the other ~11,800 users of my site ( http://alldroid.org/ ) are on the edge of our seats to see results that differ so much from what we know. The irony of such a statement is that I can only imagine (which leaves room for shortcoming of course) it coming from 3 perspectives: 1) Someone that has or wants to mod a device in order to pirate software in which case they're a hypocrite and have no business speaking on the issue, 2) Someone that doesn't/hasn't modded anything but is likely speaking based on judgments seeded from their own subconscious (thieves expect people to steal, etc), or 3) Someone that has/does/will mod devices without any intention of piracy and is playing devils advocate in which case I respect your intentions but think your post was a waste given the quality of the discussion above. Myself and 10's of thousands of people I know of mod our phones for the joy of it. Some like the challenge, some like the customization ability, some (developers) are actually improving on the platform, etc... I don't doubt that people abuse the system once it's modded (rooted as we call it in the Android community), but you can't penalize everyone for what some MIGHT do.
How about this logic: You're not allowed to drive a vehicle because some people would use it as a weapon thus breaking the law. The fact that you have no malicious intent or other valid purposes is irellivant. Now take that a step further and realize that what's being done hear in the worst cases (playing pirated software as opposed to backups aka FAIR USE) in many cases still isn't theft in the sense that nobody is being stolen from. The fact is that much software is "stolen" by people who could never afford it, or have too little interest to pay for it to begin with and that means that no revenue loss could even occur.
Now we're left with an even smaller group of people who would mod their box, could/would pay for a game, but choose not because they have another option. Let's go ahead and penalize everyone else because of that group.
Great idea. I'd love to live somewhere that operates on that logic!
NOW if you know anything about IP, you understand that companies must appear to try and protect their property or they lose rights to that property. MS MUST do something like this, but the cost and responsibility should be theirs entirely and not on our government, the jurors, etc (yes I realize that's another can of worms entirely, but I think it's relevant).
By the way, I'm a software engineer/developer so don't think I say any of this half-cocked. I don't want anyone cutting into my bottom line either, but I'm also sane. Now I'm off to go try and root the Logitech Revue that just arrived at my door for free courtesy of Google Device Seeding program, so I can develop for/on it as I see fit. Not that they mind as they realize the benefit of letting consumers have a say in the products they use. Android is proof that the idea is not only viable, but a complete success. Right Apple?;)
Proof that accident statistics are meaningless until our governments require better training for drivers on the road as in many other countries. Here in AZ, you can hold a license for something like 40 years without even having to be literate to begin with. Slow speed limits save far fewer lives than proper training, fewer ignorant/lazy drivers on the roads would. My experience is that trained drivers operating at high speeds (like myself and many professionally trained drivers I know), are more focused and aware at high speed and thus less likely to get into a bad situation to begin with than a more typical driver at/below the recommended/posted speed.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been dying to see a good case study about device modding and its correlation with law breaking so please do provide us with data. Myself and the other ~11,800 users of my site ( http://alldroid.org/ ) are on the edge of our seats to see results that differ so much from what we know. The irony of such a statement is that I can only imagine (which leaves room for shortcoming of course) it coming from 3 perspectives: 1) Someone that has or wants to mod a device in order to pirate software in which case they're a hypocrite and have no business speaking on the issue, 2) Someone that doesn't/hasn't modded anything but is likely speaking based on judgments seeded from their own subconscious (thieves expect people to steal, etc), or 3) Someone that has/does/will mod devices without any intention of piracy and is playing devils advocate in which case I respect your intentions but think your post was a waste given the quality of the discussion above. Myself and 10's of thousands of people I know of mod our phones for the joy of it. Some like the challenge, some like the customization ability, some (developers) are actually improving on the platform, etc... I don't doubt that people abuse the system once it's modded (rooted as we call it in the Android community), but you can't penalize everyone for what some MIGHT do.
;)
How about this logic: You're not allowed to drive a vehicle because some people would use it as a weapon thus breaking the law. The fact that you have no malicious intent or other valid purposes is irellivant. Now take that a step further and realize that what's being done hear in the worst cases (playing pirated software as opposed to backups aka FAIR USE) in many cases still isn't theft in the sense that nobody is being stolen from. The fact is that much software is "stolen" by people who could never afford it, or have too little interest to pay for it to begin with and that means that no revenue loss could even occur.
Now we're left with an even smaller group of people who would mod their box, could/would pay for a game, but choose not because they have another option. Let's go ahead and penalize everyone else because of that group.
Great idea. I'd love to live somewhere that operates on that logic!
NOW if you know anything about IP, you understand that companies must appear to try and protect their property or they lose rights to that property. MS MUST do something like this, but the cost and responsibility should be theirs entirely and not on our government, the jurors, etc (yes I realize that's another can of worms entirely, but I think it's relevant).
By the way, I'm a software engineer/developer so don't think I say any of this half-cocked. I don't want anyone cutting into my bottom line either, but I'm also sane. Now I'm off to go try and root the Logitech Revue that just arrived at my door for free courtesy of Google Device Seeding program, so I can develop for/on it as I see fit. Not that they mind as they realize the benefit of letting consumers have a say in the products they use. Android is proof that the idea is not only viable, but a complete success. Right Apple?
Proof that accident statistics are meaningless until our governments require better training for drivers on the road as in many other countries. Here in AZ, you can hold a license for something like 40 years without even having to be literate to begin with. Slow speed limits save far fewer lives than proper training, fewer ignorant/lazy drivers on the roads would. My experience is that trained drivers operating at high speeds (like myself and many professionally trained drivers I know), are more focused and aware at high speed and thus less likely to get into a bad situation to begin with than a more typical driver at/below the recommended/posted speed.