Well, you are right that SCO vs. IBM is a contractual dispute; and there are some pieces of code that SCO is arguing IBM has improperly copied. However, that's not what I was referring to.
SCO is also distributing the rest of Linux kernel and related software (that's not being in dispute) without following and honoring the GPL. Linux is copyrighted software, and SCO has zero rights to distribute it, unless they read and follow the GPL. If they cannot follow the GPL because they believe they have some claim in some parts of the software, then they must not distribute the undisputed copyrighted parts at all (i.e. most of Linux kernel). SCO is not only distributing the copyrighted software without authorization, they are selling it. That would be similar to a Joe Pirate selling bootleg Windows XP ISOs openly in public, issuing press releases every week, and suing MS for some obscure copyright infringement.
Just because Joe Pirate has a civil dispute with MS with regards to some part of his code, that dispute is not a free ride for him to sell his own bootleg Windows XP ISOs. That would amount to a criminal infringement (depending on his actual sales), and he would be prosecuted and sent to jail. Likewise, SCO vs. IBM will be resolved in civil court, that doesn't free SCO from respecting others' copyrighted software - who don't have anything to do either with IBM or SCO (i.e. other organizations and individuals that have contributed to Linux kernel). Their civil case againt IBM is no excuse or a free ride for SCO to infringe on everyone else's copyrights for their financial gain. In fact, SCO claims they have few million (whatever number) OpenServer installations - only few of those sales would amount to a criminal infringement with today's laws and should promptly be investigated and prosecuted by law enforcement like they would do with any other Joe Pirate.
How realistic is that this will happen? How realistic is that laws will be equally applied to every person or legal entity? Not realistic at all, if you ask me. Most of the times, laws are enforced on behalf of "special interests" who paid for them in the first place.
You could argue that people who participate in such P2P networks and share music are mostly the demographic that actually makes CD and related music purchases. Assuming that, you could also argue that alienating that demographic by threats or lawsuits would undermine their core business.
I know he's one of the worst people in high places, but I think this is a good thing. He's not invading peoples privacy or instituting some terrible law, he's actually helping people.
Nonsense. He is selectively enforcing the laws on behalf of the corporations that paid for those laws. I am still waiting for a day when they launch an investigation in SCO's practices and book them for criminal copyright infringement. When do you think that is going to happen?
When regular people violate corporation's copyright they are on it in no time. When corporations violate hundreds, if not thousands, of people's copyrights and sell it for profit, where is the "justice" department?
if the infringer has made, in any 180-day period, ten or more copies of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of $2,500, the crime is a felony entailing up to five years imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for organizations.
I think that's great! SCO has surely generated more than $2500 in Linux sales; so SCO executives should be going to jail anytime now. What a relief! Thank you John Ashcroft!
What happens when Microsoft does its IP address sweep? They will see you are running Win2k, determine who you are, that you don't have a license; then they will have to bring in the BSA with U.S. Marshalls in and force you to pay up and run their spyware on your network at your own cost.
They will even have compelling evidence you have been running Win2k and you won't be able to produce any licenses for that OS. Unless, you would be OK with getting sued and dragged into court for a lengthy and expensive trial, having to prove to a judge how you modified your "IP fingerprint" hoping he will understand and believe.
Microsoft also had several BSD copyright notices in the past during boot-up. Reckon SCO will go after them, too?
You are forgetting that they signed an agreement with MS earlier this year "licensing" their "IP". Nobody is sure what they actually licensed, but SCO got some cash.
Speaking of which, why haven't any Linux copyright holders sued SCO for copyright infringement yet? SCO obviously does not agree with the terms of the GPL and last time I checked they were still distributing the Linux kernel. It'd be great to see several hundred (or thousand) separate lawsuits filed in various states and countries...
Just what I have said few times already - why doesn't law enforcement take notice of this? They seem to be clever in catching "pirates" in hiding with Windows XP ISOs no problem. SCO has widely and openly violated copyright law, is distributing copyrighted software without permission for profit! They say the have 2.5 million (or whatever number) of user base. Doesn't that amount to criminal violation? Surely, if someone was selling bootleg Windows XP ISOs so openly they'd be in jail in virtually no time.
Laws should be checked for constitutiality before they are passed.
If that is not feasible, they should be re-examined as soon as sufficient doubt arises.
The problem in the U.S. gov't system is - by who? Courts are only set up to handle cases that are brought in front of them with specific facts. They can rule to the applicability and constitutionality of a piece of legislation as that relates to that case in question. i.e., they do not have any say (or a formal vote) when laws are being passed.
Executive and legislative branches? Well, that's exactly how it works right now - congress passes bills, president signs them into law. Both parties are elected public servants and are sworn in to uphold the constitution. i.e., if they believe any law they themselves pass or sign is unconstitutional, they must not pass it or sign it; otherwise, they would be violating their oath and that has severe consequences (at the very least, their public service career is over).
So, what kind of authority, that would not be prone to "legal bribery" and would have public interest and constitution as their top priority could examine/check all laws that are being passed? Also, how could you make sure that the said authority will have such powers to challenge laws enacted by elected public servants? I think that would be a pretty drastic change in the gov't structure.
Who was it that said that price of freedom is eternal vigilance?
Taking your question literally, that's a variation of a watered down paraphrase of the original. The paraphrased version is:
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty - power is ever stealing from the many to the few.... The hand entrusted with power becomes... the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continual oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot: only by unintermitted Agitation can a people be kept sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.
It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.
- read that last quote again by Curran; - read the last sentence from Wendell Phillips again and tell me that doesn't apply today.
IOW, please pay us now so we can show some revenue long enough for the remaining shareholders to cash out before this whole thing implodes. Otherwise, the FBI will bust in your door and cart you off to Guantanamo.
This reminds me of something that makes me really mad. Here is a guy that openly claims that SCO completely disregards GPL under which he is allowed to distribute Linux. SCO also openly disregards any and all copyright notices that the Linux software comes with. SCO is in gross, openly admitted copyright violation by being involved in distributing copyrighted material to which they have absolutely no rights to.
FBI and other law encorcement agencies routinely investigate, shut down and prosecute "pirates" who distribute copyrighted software without permission, such as Microsoft and other corporations' software. And I bet none of those "pirates" issue similar press releases every week. Why can't law enforcement investigate and prosecute SCO? I mean, what else does SCO and Darl have to say or do that would amount to criminal activities? They are already, after all, distributing copyrighted software without permission for profit! Put it another way, what would it take for a "pirate" to so openly distribute a Windows XP ISOs for profit?
This one-sided law enforcement is extremely disappointing and maddening to say the least.
Speaking of which, here's the SCO lawsuit scheme: IBM is not a copyright infringment case - it's breach of contract. But if people who use Linux don't buy Unix Licenses, we will sue them for copyright infringement. (Which is basically what they've been saying all along - no surprise there).
I sure as hell don't understand the logic. How can users be sued for copyright infringement? Even assuming that SCO's claims have some merit (which is a big assumption on its own), how can end users of the product be accused of copyright infringement? How did they violate copyright?
Here is a simple example that I gave some time ago in another post:
- author A writes and publishes his book X; - author B writes and publishes book Y, significant parts plagiarized from book X; - author A sues everyone who purchased book Y for copyright infringement; - judge orders all who purchased book Y to pay author A?
Where is the logic here? I would be surprised (to say the least) if this type of logic doesn't get laughed out of court. End user lawsuits for copyright infringement would be frivolous, wouldn't they, no matter how big-shot lawyer is presenting those arguments?
So, what you're saying is that the DMCA is unconstitutional, yet it has been in your law books for five years and is actively applied.
So much for your constitution...
Yes, that's exactly what I am saying - welcome to my opinion! The ultimate decision whether DMCA, or which parts of it, are unconstitutional is up to the courts... and that hasn't fully played out yet. 3 or 5 years is nothing in legal terms; often times it takes much longer for any meaningful case to reach the Supreme Court.
In part, that's what corporations that purchased the DMCA could be wary of also. They wouldn't want to risk to have the whole act or major parts of it ruled as unconstitutional by the SCOTUS; they'd rather keep their controls and use "cease and desist" tactics and other threats, so they should prefer that their cases stay at lower levels with, their hope, much higher levels of success.
Well, I don't know where you got that they have "sinned", or iTunes is "broken". What I meant by "fix" in that context was to fix the issue that the article/thread was about, nothing more. Obviously, Apple made a choice not to include the said feature with their software and that's up to them. So, if you'd like to see it worded another way - maybe if they get a lot of backlash, they will update their software to include the said feature. That's what I was trying to express there.
Well, I guess I don't see the difference between a "hack" (by Apple) and a supported software, without discussing a lot of technical details. If original iPod was called "Mac-only" it was because there was no [supported] software for it for any other OS. Now, if Apple wrote iTunes to support all of the iPods, it wouldn't be called a "hack" but rather it would be a non-issue. We wouldn't be talking about it and everybody would be happy.
Now, I am guessing they had their reasons why they created "Mac-only" and "Windows-only" iPods and that's what I was talking about. My belief is it was simply a marketing strategy to sell more iPods, since I didn't see a technical impediment of why one type should be "Mac only" and the other "Windows only". You may believe otherwise, of course, and that's up to you.
That does not mean 4-year Ford Mustang is not "compatible" with your new house garage anymore, does it? Choose a better analogy.
Seriously, Apple made the most recent iPods cross-platform capable out of the box -- I'd call that an improvement over the earlier models...what do you want them to do, go back in time and implant old iPods with the ASICs that will allow them to accept firmware flashing that will allow them to be cross-platform capable?
Well, I simply pointed out that there is 3rd party software that works with Mac iPods on Windows. If 3rd parties can do it with relative ease, it should be trivial for Apple. But, maybe, Apple feels they will sell more iPods if they brand them differently, which is fine as long as previous iPod customers just suck it up and play along. Again, I think if it results in a lot of backlash, maybe they'll issue a fix.
I hardly think this ranks as a grand conspiritorial strategy on Apple's part.
I don't see it as a conspiracy - just a marketing strategy.
P.S. Getting rid of people who call other people 'zealots' would really save everyone a lot of time in the future...
"Getting rid of people"? Shoot or hang? Hitler saved a lot of time this way too.
As others pointed out, this is likely a strategy by Apple to sell more iPods that are now "compatible".
As others have also pointed out, it seems that the newer iPods all ship with software to format an iPod so that a Windows machine will recognize it (I understand that this software is also downloadable from apple.com?).. So I don't see this as a stunt to sell more units.
Well, I don't own one, but new iPods should work with both Windows and Macs - no extra formatting necessary - at least that is my understanding. If that's not so, and users need to re-format their iPods to switch OS, then I take my original claim back. But if I am right, then such compatibility would be a great selling point to older iPod users.
And yeah, as you stated, there's some software that allows Mac only iPods to run on windows, I can't vouche for how stable that software is compared to iTunes, nor can I vouche for any of the other specifics, so i'll just leave it at the fact that there's a Mac iPod, and a Windows iPod, so pick the one that best suits you.
Well, I can't vouch for anything either since it's not my software or my hardware, but Apple could... if they wanted to that is.
There is a perfectly good excuse. Apple chose not to include this feature. Why? I dunno...
So, what's the "perfectly good reason" if you don't know? Again, some have suggested that they wanted to sell new and more expensive iPods. Is that a good reason? For some, maybe. For previous customers - not really. Maybe Apple is counting, and rightly so, that their existing customers will just suck it up and stay with them anyway even though they got screwed in the marketing process. Or, maybe, if they see a lot of backlash coming on, they'll fix iTunes.
Correction: Everything is supposed to "just work" on a Mac. The problem arised when trying to use a Mac iPod on a Windows machine. First gen. iPods only supported Macs, so no, it's not going to "just work."
This is a bad argument. There are programs that allow Mac-only iPods to work on Windows, and other OSes. There is no excuse for iTunes not being able to do the same. And no, it's not about "just working" on a Mac - it's about "just working" with iTunes, whatever OS Apple decides to port it to.
As others pointed out, this is likely a strategy by Apple to sell more iPods that are now "compatible".
Informing yourself before you post will save everyone a lot of time in the future.
Why Mitsubishi, why? Isn't the industry flooded enough as is? Although Mitsubishi does make enough to offset the losses it will incur with the auto sales, it[']s just another Toyota wannabe.
Seriously, as a consumer of digital music online, why would you be against competition in the industry? It will only bring better service and performance from providers, more options, and let consumers pick the worthy ones from rip-offs. I'll withhold the judgement until I see the finished product.
It is not DMCA's purpose to provide a "software bug-fixing protocol" between researchers and corporations, especially with such ramifications against free speech. DMCA is [or is supposed to be] a copyright law, not an all-encompassing legislation that stands above Constitution and other related laws. DMCA is overreaching and unconstitutional as is (unless you ask those who gain more control and legal power because of its existence), no more draconian additions necessary.
The reason why no prosecutors are actively looking out for corporate copyright violators is because you're blind and are living in a hole. Corporations are fined every day for license violations.
I am not talking about fines and civil lawsuits. Read the post again.
If you think corporations arn't run by people, you're blind as well.
Actually, that's exactly what I am talking about. Read the post again.
The reason why SCO doesn't have the "FBI knocking on their door" is because no one is suing.
You mean like RedHat and IBM? IBM is actually suing them for violating copyright and GPL. So, I guess I should be expecting FBI knocking at SCO's doors any minute now. Besides, nobody has to sue anybody for criminal violations to be enforced - that is what law enforcement is about.
OK, I am suspecting you are trolling now.
The government doesn't just go around to people's doors and check to make sure everything is ok, someone has to bring it to their attention in the form of a lawsuit.
They don't go knocking on everybody's door, but they do have their own investigations separate from any civil lawsuit; and no civil lawsuit is a requirement for government to prosecute criminals.
So as much as you GPL toating socialists like the idea of free software, you're contributing to your own licensing demise. You guys don't make a profit on your software therefore you're unable to sue.
And why should you be able to sue? You shouldn't be able to. If your business model is so poor that you can't make any money, why should you waste the time and money of the public in order to enforce your license? Either learn how to make money to enforce your license or learn to take it in the rear.
So, it's confirmed now - you are a troll. As much as you - stealing corporatists - think it's OK for corporations to steal from people but wrong for people to steal from corporations, it really amounts to the same act and should be enforced the same. Taking someone's profitability as the sole factor for the availability for laws to be enforced on their behalf was especially hillarious. I'll have no further comment on such trolling.
Yeah... and I am still waiting for SCO executives to go to jail for illegally distributing, i.e. stealing, Linux kernel in complete ignorance of copyright law and software license it comes with. Why don't prosecutors investigate and arrest these guys? I'm sure if I was distributing or selling Windows 2003 ISOs on my FTP site (without MS' consent), FBI would be knocking on my door in no time.
I'll tell you why - because most of the copyright law, as it exists today in many countries, has been bought by corporations and, thereby, is only actionable in their interests. When was the last time prosecution in any country was actively looking out for corporate copyright violators against individuals (which are countless) and jailing them? No wonder such concept doesn't exist anywhere. It's entirely one-sided.
If the standards were enforced, there'd be a severe shortage of ad revenue for television programs.
Or, maybe, people would trust the messages delivered through advertisements more knowing advertizers cannot get away with flat out lies and half-truths. In effect, such increased trust would bring a greater value to an advertizing dollar, and, hence, increased use of the medium.
The current ownership of Symbian breaks down as follows: Nokia 32.2, Psion 31.1, Ericsson 17.5, Samsung 5.0, Siemens 4.8, and Sony Ericsson 1.5
In a follow-up story Nokia detailed that in case their Psion acquisition plans failed, they would try to acquire Ericsson next. This would give them a 49.7% share of Symbian, which would prompt them to take over either of: Sony, Siemens, or Samsung. Nokia representative concluded that they would do whatever it takes to acquire control of Symbian.
Seriously, I hope they have considered purchasing the Symbian shares from few of those investors.
I don't know what software you are using, but in my experience:
- The user can add a new PCI card and install a driver for it
You got the first part right - add a new PCI card, but I haven't had to install anything after that - it's automatically recognized and available. And, yes, before I buy hardware, I make sure it is supported in Linux.
- The user can insert a hotplug device (USB or Firewire or even Bluetooh) and get a fixed, known location in the file system for it, the same one every time
Been doing that all the time - I have bluetooth, USB camera, portable USB storage, and a USB camera. They all work as I expect them, supported by vareity of apps, and no, I don't have to edit/etc/fstab, create/dev/* nodes, or anything like that.
- The user can click on any audio file and it will "just play"
As opposed to - click - oops,.mov files are not playing - go download xine or mplayer - click on rpm - install - click on the original.mov file - there you go! Heh, Windows doesn't come with QuickTime player either, you have to go through similar steps.
- The user can drop a CD into the CDROM drive and play it or rip it
As opposed to what? I insert a CD, start a CD player program of my choice and hit play. OR, start a ripper of my choice and click rip.
- The user can drop a DVD into the DVD drive and it plays, including the horrible and ungodly menu
Yes, download and install Ogle if it doesn't come with your distro. Windows doesn't come with a DVD player (that decrypts) either - you have to shell out money to get WinDVD, or some other software unless such software came with your video card or drive.
- The user can drop a CDR into the CDROM drive and burn a random selection of files to it, with long file names on by default
I'm sure I don't understand but this happens to me all the time - I drop in a CD-R into my CD-RW drive, start Konqueror, select directories/files I want to burn - right-click - create CD with K3b. And no, I didn't have to recompile the kernel, mess with boot options, install scsi driver, or anything else. That's how it worked out of the box. I'm sure I am missing something from what you are saying.
- The user can hook up a TV Tuner card and be able to play video from a cable box / antenna or a VCR.
I have to admit - I was thinking about getting a TV tuner card, but I haven't purchased one yet. So I cannot give you specifics on how this works.
Some of those are already available with the right distributions, and nearly all are possible in some way or another, but they require violating the two cardinal rules of the Home User: "I can't type" and "compiling is something only developers do". Fixing some of the above issues requires alterations to the kernel itself. Others just require improvements in user-side software, others are an issue of driver distribution and open vs. closed source driver availability.
As I already said, I haven't had to compile, recompile or type in anything in the console to do any of the above tasks.
Whatever, the origin of the problem doesn't matter. The why is not at question. But all of the above MUST be taken care of before GNU/Linux can be considered "ready" for Joe Home Desktop User. Until then, we're just spinning our wheels.
Well, I guess, it is ready then. It surely has been ready for me - I've been using Linux on my desktop exclusively.
All those are good points, and I don't disagree with you - I trust your numbers. Obviously, what you said goes into consideration when you decide to purchase either product, among rest of the differences.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you are right that SCO vs. IBM is a contractual dispute; and there are some pieces of code that SCO is arguing IBM has improperly copied. However, that's not what I was referring to.
SCO is also distributing the rest of Linux kernel and related software (that's not being in dispute) without following and honoring the GPL. Linux is copyrighted software, and SCO has zero rights to distribute it, unless they read and follow the GPL. If they cannot follow the GPL because they believe they have some claim in some parts of the software, then they must not distribute the undisputed copyrighted parts at all (i.e. most of Linux kernel). SCO is not only distributing the copyrighted software without authorization, they are selling it. That would be similar to a Joe Pirate selling bootleg Windows XP ISOs openly in public, issuing press releases every week, and suing MS for some obscure copyright infringement.
Just because Joe Pirate has a civil dispute with MS with regards to some part of his code, that dispute is not a free ride for him to sell his own bootleg Windows XP ISOs. That would amount to a criminal infringement (depending on his actual sales), and he would be prosecuted and sent to jail. Likewise, SCO vs. IBM will be resolved in civil court, that doesn't free SCO from respecting others' copyrighted software - who don't have anything to do either with IBM or SCO (i.e. other organizations and individuals that have contributed to Linux kernel). Their civil case againt IBM is no excuse or a free ride for SCO to infringe on everyone else's copyrights for their financial gain. In fact, SCO claims they have few million (whatever number) OpenServer installations - only few of those sales would amount to a criminal infringement with today's laws and should promptly be investigated and prosecuted by law enforcement like they would do with any other Joe Pirate.
How realistic is that this will happen? How realistic is that laws will be equally applied to every person or legal entity? Not realistic at all, if you ask me. Most of the times, laws are enforced on behalf of "special interests" who paid for them in the first place.
You could argue that people who participate in such P2P networks and share music are mostly the demographic that actually makes CD and related music purchases. Assuming that, you could also argue that alienating that demographic by threats or lawsuits would undermine their core business.
Nonsense. He is selectively enforcing the laws on behalf of the corporations that paid for those laws. I am still waiting for a day when they launch an investigation in SCO's practices and book them for criminal copyright infringement. When do you think that is going to happen?
When regular people violate corporation's copyright they are on it in no time. When corporations violate hundreds, if not thousands, of people's copyrights and sell it for profit, where is the "justice" department?
I think that's great! SCO has surely generated more than $2500 in Linux sales; so SCO executives should be going to jail anytime now. What a relief! Thank you John Ashcroft!
Yeah, that's a good idea ... until ...
What happens when Microsoft does its IP address sweep? They will see you are running Win2k, determine who you are, that you don't have a license; then they will have to bring in the BSA with U.S. Marshalls in and force you to pay up and run their spyware on your network at your own cost.
They will even have compelling evidence you have been running Win2k and you won't be able to produce any licenses for that OS. Unless, you would be OK with getting sued and dragged into court for a lengthy and expensive trial, having to prove to a judge how you modified your "IP fingerprint" hoping he will understand and believe.
You are forgetting that they signed an agreement with MS earlier this year "licensing" their "IP". Nobody is sure what they actually licensed, but SCO got some cash.
Just what I have said few times already - why doesn't law enforcement take notice of this? They seem to be clever in catching "pirates" in hiding with Windows XP ISOs no problem. SCO has widely and openly violated copyright law, is distributing copyrighted software without permission for profit! They say the have 2.5 million (or whatever number) of user base. Doesn't that amount to criminal violation? Surely, if someone was selling bootleg Windows XP ISOs so openly they'd be in jail in virtually no time.
The problem in the U.S. gov't system is - by who? Courts are only set up to handle cases that are brought in front of them with specific facts. They can rule to the applicability and constitutionality of a piece of legislation as that relates to that case in question. i.e., they do not have any say (or a formal vote) when laws are being passed.
Executive and legislative branches? Well, that's exactly how it works right now - congress passes bills, president signs them into law. Both parties are elected public servants and are sworn in to uphold the constitution. i.e., if they believe any law they themselves pass or sign is unconstitutional, they must not pass it or sign it; otherwise, they would be violating their oath and that has severe consequences (at the very least, their public service career is over).
So, what kind of authority, that would not be prone to "legal bribery" and would have public interest and constitution as their top priority could examine/check all laws that are being passed? Also, how could you make sure that the said authority will have such powers to challenge laws enacted by elected public servants? I think that would be a pretty drastic change in the gov't structure.
Taking your question literally, that's a variation of a watered down paraphrase of the original. The paraphrased version is:
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty - power is ever stealing from the many to the few.... The hand entrusted with power becomes
by Wendell Phillips in 1852.
The original (arguably) was by John Philpot Curran in 1790:
It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.
- read that last quote again by Curran;
- read the last sentence from Wendell Phillips again and tell me that doesn't apply today.
This reminds me of something that makes me really mad. Here is a guy that openly claims that SCO completely disregards GPL under which he is allowed to distribute Linux. SCO also openly disregards any and all copyright notices that the Linux software comes with. SCO is in gross, openly admitted copyright violation by being involved in distributing copyrighted material to which they have absolutely no rights to.
FBI and other law encorcement agencies routinely investigate, shut down and prosecute "pirates" who distribute copyrighted software without permission, such as Microsoft and other corporations' software. And I bet none of those "pirates" issue similar press releases every week. Why can't law enforcement investigate and prosecute SCO? I mean, what else does SCO and Darl have to say or do that would amount to criminal activities? They are already, after all, distributing copyrighted software without permission for profit! Put it another way, what would it take for a "pirate" to so openly distribute a Windows XP ISOs for profit?
This one-sided law enforcement is extremely disappointing and maddening to say the least.
I sure as hell don't understand the logic. How can users be sued for copyright infringement? Even assuming that SCO's claims have some merit (which is a big assumption on its own), how can end users of the product be accused of copyright infringement? How did they violate copyright?
Here is a simple example that I gave some time ago in another post:
- author A writes and publishes his book X;
- author B writes and publishes book Y, significant parts plagiarized from book X;
- author A sues everyone who purchased book Y for copyright infringement;
- judge orders all who purchased book Y to pay author A?
Where is the logic here? I would be surprised (to say the least) if this type of logic doesn't get laughed out of court. End user lawsuits for copyright infringement would be frivolous, wouldn't they, no matter how big-shot lawyer is presenting those arguments?
Yes, that's exactly what I am saying - welcome to my opinion! The ultimate decision whether DMCA, or which parts of it, are unconstitutional is up to the courts... and that hasn't fully played out yet. 3 or 5 years is nothing in legal terms; often times it takes much longer for any meaningful case to reach the Supreme Court.
In part, that's what corporations that purchased the DMCA could be wary of also. They wouldn't want to risk to have the whole act or major parts of it ruled as unconstitutional by the SCOTUS; they'd rather keep their controls and use "cease and desist" tactics and other threats, so they should prefer that their cases stay at lower levels with, their hope, much higher levels of success.
All this, again, is my opinion.
Well, I don't know where you got that they have "sinned", or iTunes is "broken". What I meant by "fix" in that context was to fix the issue that the article/thread was about, nothing more. Obviously, Apple made a choice not to include the said feature with their software and that's up to them. So, if you'd like to see it worded another way - maybe if they get a lot of backlash, they will update their software to include the said feature. That's what I was trying to express there.
Well, I guess I don't see the difference between a "hack" (by Apple) and a supported software, without discussing a lot of technical details. If original iPod was called "Mac-only" it was because there was no [supported] software for it for any other OS. Now, if Apple wrote iTunes to support all of the iPods, it wouldn't be called a "hack" but rather it would be a non-issue. We wouldn't be talking about it and everybody would be happy.
Now, I am guessing they had their reasons why they created "Mac-only" and "Windows-only" iPods and that's what I was talking about. My belief is it was simply a marketing strategy to sell more iPods, since I didn't see a technical impediment of why one type should be "Mac only" and the other "Windows only". You may believe otherwise, of course, and that's up to you.
That does not mean 4-year Ford Mustang is not "compatible" with your new house garage anymore, does it? Choose a better analogy.
Well, I simply pointed out that there is 3rd party software that works with Mac iPods on Windows. If 3rd parties can do it with relative ease, it should be trivial for Apple. But, maybe, Apple feels they will sell more iPods if they brand them differently, which is fine as long as previous iPod customers just suck it up and play along. Again, I think if it results in a lot of backlash, maybe they'll issue a fix.
I don't see it as a conspiracy - just a marketing strategy.
"Getting rid of people"? Shoot or hang? Hitler saved a lot of time this way too.
Well, I don't own one, but new iPods should work with both Windows and Macs - no extra formatting necessary - at least that is my understanding. If that's not so, and users need to re-format their iPods to switch OS, then I take my original claim back. But if I am right, then such compatibility would be a great selling point to older iPod users.
Well, I can't vouch for anything either since it's not my software or my hardware, but Apple could... if they wanted to that is.
So, what's the "perfectly good reason" if you don't know? Again, some have suggested that they wanted to sell new and more expensive iPods. Is that a good reason? For some, maybe. For previous customers - not really. Maybe Apple is counting, and rightly so, that their existing customers will just suck it up and stay with them anyway even though they got screwed in the marketing process. Or, maybe, if they see a lot of backlash coming on, they'll fix iTunes.
This is a bad argument. There are programs that allow Mac-only iPods to work on Windows, and other OSes. There is no excuse for iTunes not being able to do the same. And no, it's not about "just working" on a Mac - it's about "just working" with iTunes, whatever OS Apple decides to port it to.
As others pointed out, this is likely a strategy by Apple to sell more iPods that are now "compatible".
Getting rid of Apple zealotry will do the same.
Why Mitsubishi, why? Isn't the industry flooded enough as is? Although Mitsubishi does make enough to offset the losses it will incur with the auto sales, it[']s just another Toyota wannabe.
Seriously, as a consumer of digital music online, why would you be against competition in the industry? It will only bring better service and performance from providers, more options, and let consumers pick the worthy ones from rip-offs. I'll withhold the judgement until I see the finished product.
It is not DMCA's purpose to provide a "software bug-fixing protocol" between researchers and corporations, especially with such ramifications against free speech. DMCA is [or is supposed to be] a copyright law, not an all-encompassing legislation that stands above Constitution and other related laws. DMCA is overreaching and unconstitutional as is (unless you ask those who gain more control and legal power because of its existence), no more draconian additions necessary.
Have you been to a circus lately?
I am not talking about fines and civil lawsuits. Read the post again.
Actually, that's exactly what I am talking about. Read the post again.
You mean like RedHat and IBM? IBM is actually suing them for violating copyright and GPL. So, I guess I should be expecting FBI knocking at SCO's doors any minute now. Besides, nobody has to sue anybody for criminal violations to be enforced - that is what law enforcement is about.
OK, I am suspecting you are trolling now.
They don't go knocking on everybody's door, but they do have their own investigations separate from any civil lawsuit; and no civil lawsuit is a requirement for government to prosecute criminals.
So, it's confirmed now - you are a troll. As much as you - stealing corporatists - think it's OK for corporations to steal from people but wrong for people to steal from corporations, it really amounts to the same act and should be enforced the same. Taking someone's profitability as the sole factor for the availability for laws to be enforced on their behalf was especially hillarious. I'll have no further comment on such trolling.
Yeah... and I am still waiting for SCO executives to go to jail for illegally distributing, i.e. stealing, Linux kernel in complete ignorance of copyright law and software license it comes with. Why don't prosecutors investigate and arrest these guys? I'm sure if I was distributing or selling Windows 2003 ISOs on my FTP site (without MS' consent), FBI would be knocking on my door in no time.
I'll tell you why - because most of the copyright law, as it exists today in many countries, has been bought by corporations and, thereby, is only actionable in their interests. When was the last time prosecution in any country was actively looking out for corporate copyright violators against individuals (which are countless) and jailing them? No wonder such concept doesn't exist anywhere. It's entirely one-sided.
Or, maybe, people would trust the messages delivered through advertisements more knowing advertizers cannot get away with flat out lies and half-truths. In effect, such increased trust would bring a greater value to an advertizing dollar, and, hence, increased use of the medium.
You can argue either way.
In a follow-up story Nokia detailed that in case their Psion acquisition plans failed, they would try to acquire Ericsson next. This would give them a 49.7% share of Symbian, which would prompt them to take over either of: Sony, Siemens, or Samsung. Nokia representative concluded that they would do whatever it takes to acquire control of Symbian.
Seriously, I hope they have considered purchasing the Symbian shares from few of those investors.
You got the first part right - add a new PCI card, but I haven't had to install anything after that - it's automatically recognized and available. And, yes, before I buy hardware, I make sure it is supported in Linux.
Been doing that all the time - I have bluetooth, USB camera, portable USB storage, and a USB camera. They all work as I expect them, supported by vareity of apps, and no, I don't have to edit
As opposed to - click - oops,
As opposed to what? I insert a CD, start a CD player program of my choice and hit play. OR, start a ripper of my choice and click rip.
Yes, download and install Ogle if it doesn't come with your distro. Windows doesn't come with a DVD player (that decrypts) either - you have to shell out money to get WinDVD, or some other software unless such software came with your video card or drive.
I'm sure I don't understand but this happens to me all the time - I drop in a CD-R into my CD-RW drive, start Konqueror, select directories/files I want to burn - right-click - create CD with K3b. And no, I didn't have to recompile the kernel, mess with boot options, install scsi driver, or anything else. That's how it worked out of the box. I'm sure I am missing something from what you are saying.
I have to admit - I was thinking about getting a TV tuner card, but I haven't purchased one yet. So I cannot give you specifics on how this works.
As I already said, I haven't had to compile, recompile or type in anything in the console to do any of the above tasks.
Well, I guess, it is ready then. It surely has been ready for me - I've been using Linux on my desktop exclusively.
All those are good points, and I don't disagree with you - I trust your numbers. Obviously, what you said goes into consideration when you decide to purchase either product, among rest of the differences.