This press release may give you a starting point and possible contact information:
About Chilliware, Inc.
Chilliware, Inc. is dedicated to making Linux the desktop choice by developing quality Linux software products and providing premier technical support for all Linux solutions. Chilliware has also established a network of Linux community oriented web sites offering the latest content on systems, applications and Linux news available at www.chilliware.net. Privately held Chilliware was incorporated in January 2000 and is based in Los Angeles, California.
CONTACT:
Dittoe Public Relations
Liza Dittoe
317/202-2280, ext. 11
liza@dittoepr.com
Perpaps Ms. Dittoe or somebody else at Dittoe Public Relations can point you in the right direction.
From the question: "It's a great deal of well commented and well written code, performed by over 100 developers in a former Soviet Republic"
From your response: "go to the web site of the Secretary of State for your state"
Somebody didn't read the question very carefully...
While Chilliware may have employed developers in the former Soviet Union, this press release states that it was a privately held corporation located in Los Angeles, California:
About Chilliware, Inc.
Chilliware, Inc. is dedicated to making Linux the desktop choice by developing quality Linux software products and providing premier technical support for all Linux solutions. Founded in February 2000, Chilliware offers products and services to Consumer, B2B, Enterprise and OEMs, and offers Linux users online solutions for their desktop needs. Chilliware has also established a network of Linux community-oriented web sites offering the latest content on systems, applications and Linux news. Privately held, Chilliware is based in Los Angeles, California.
I doubt it was incorporated in the former Soviet Union. Probably Delaware or California.
More likely that marginal bands (those that sell 3000 CD's, the figure mentioned in the article) Are finding alternative ways to sell CD's. I doubt that sales through CDbaby or sales of CD's at concerts, or sales through smaller indy labels make it into the RIAA's figures. Most likely that sales are being lost from RIAA members to smaller labels and alternative forms of CD distribution.
That may be true, but are they selling as many CDs? Assume a band would sell 3000 CDs (the figure mentioned in the article) when it is backed by an RIAA member record company that pays for promotion, "radio station relations," etc. Is that band still going to sell 3000 CDs throught CDbaby, at concerts, or through an indy label?
They've also announced the creation of a legal fund, to which they've pledged $1M US dollars to fight complaints such as these, called the 'Open Source Now' fund."
If wonder whether the OSNF (Open Source Now Fund) is a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation? Should it be? If so, should Red Hat's contributions to it be tax deductible? While others will benefit from the fund, so of course will Red Hat.
Also, who will be administering the OSNF? Will they work for or be connected to Red Hat? Who will make the decisions regarding the disbursement of funds, etc.?
The MP3's are only traded after the band gets popular. In the majority of cases, the effect would range from minimal to non-existant.
In fact, I'd argue that because people are exposed to the music for free, there's a great chance someone will like it and buy it.
You can argue that, but the record companies aren't under any obligation to take your advice. (They might also suspect that you have a conflict of interest.:) It is their investment. They're the ones who risk their money to record, produce, and promote the music. Perhaps they can be forgiven for thinking that the best way to market their wares is not to give them away. (Who knows, they may have reviewed the history of various open-source and free-software companies.)
Imagine the effect if the RIAA put low quality (128kb) MP3's of new bands on the P2P network with a brief commercial at the end that says "Buy the new album from the band today at a record store near you".
If they did it today, it would be so novel, that the band would skyrocket to #1 and they'd make their money back times 100.
You might be right, but I don't think so. I suspect many, if not most, of the current self-justifying downloaders would bitch about the fact that the record company had the unmitigated gall to post a low quality (128kb) MP3 (it would probably be derided as "commercial spam"), wait until somebody else purchased the CD and ripped the high quality version, and then downloaded the latter.
And/or, they would bitch that they wanted only that one song, and that it was completely unfair that they were being forced to purchase a complete CD, and therefore they were justified in downloading the high quality version... for free, of course.
But I guess the corporate culture at these record companies doesn't reward risk taking.
It is always easy to be bold with other people's money.
Heck, every time you download something, consider it civil disobedience.
This is too perfect. Everytime you download music for free while making sure the artist receives no compensation, you are engaging is civil disobedience! You are doing it only in order to stand up for your principles! Yeah, that's right. Its not like you actually enjoy the music... and whatever else you buy with the money you otherwise would have spent on the music. No! You are sticking it to the Man! How noble of you!
Martin Luther King would be so proud.
And when you are served with the subpoena, and the lawsuit, and your computer is seized, we'll see your Gandhi-like willingness to pay the price.
But in all seriousness this quote is the most telling of all:
According to the RIAA's own figures, over the last two years the US music industry has produced 25% fewer CDs.
The peak of production was in 1999 when 38,900 individual titles were released. But by 2001 this was down to 27,000. Releases grew again in 2002 but were still below the previous high.
Musician George Ziemann says if only 3,000 copies of each of the "missing" CDs were sold, the fall in sales would be wiped out.
The fact that fewer commercial CDs were produced and marketed is not necessarily inconsistent with the idea that piracy was the cause, or at least one of the causes, of decreased CD sales. It may be the case that for a marginal band the record company projection that "X" number of CD sales will be lost to piracy is enough to tip the decision from "Yes, we'll produce and promote the CD" to "No, we won't produce and promote the CD because we don't think we'll recoup our money." But for the projected amount of piracy and lost sales, the CD would have been produced and marketed.
... settle and release all claims, demands, actions, suits, and causes of action against Microsoft [that they] ever had, could have had, now has or hereafter can, shall or may have.
So everyone who's involved can *never* sue Microsoft again for anything related to Anti-Trust?
No, it simply settles all claims there were, or could have been alleged. As stated in the article, the settlement provides that it bars any claim:
relating in any way to... any conduct, act or omission that was or could have been alleged in this case as the basis for any antitrust or unfair competition claims."
A person who accepts the class action settlement can still sue for claims that could not have been alleged in this suit -- e.g., claims that arose after the suit because of Microsoft's alleged subsequent wrongful conduct.
The settlement agreement is standard. It is the way such claims are always settled.
You can't expect Microsoft, or any defendant, to give something of value to somebody in a settlement, and then allow that person to turn around and sue them for more.
He agreed to the settlement - the cost of the software - in good faith. The cost of the software as quoted by the company was $10.
No, I am not misrepresenting the oral contract. The plaintiff clearly agreed to accept the sum of $10. Again, from the article:
Excuse: The software is only worth $10.
Answer: Okay. Send me the check.
Contracts are interpreted according to the objective, reasonable person test. That is, how would an objective, reasonable person interpret the language used? In the above situation, a reasonable person would conclude that the plaintiff agreed to accept $10 to settle his claim. An objective, reasonable person certainly would not expect the plaintiff to accept receipt of the $10 check, and then turn around and sue for $199.
Or consider this. You hit somebody's lawn ornament with your car. They claim it is worth $200. You say you are confident that it is worth only $50. They respond, "Okay. Send me the check." You send them a check for $50. They then turn around and sue you for $200. Do you think that would be right?
They didn't mention race as one of the features in the equation, even though there is (unfortunately) by no means an equal drop-out rate among the various races represented in US schools. Is this to sanitize the article, or is race really ignored in the database (surely making its predictions less accurate than what would be possible)?
While I doubt it, perhaps Texas has already enacted some form of California's proposed Racial Privacy Initiative? Or they see it on the horizon? Or the policy represented in the RPI is already school district policy?
In all of these cases, follow up the phone conversation with a written letter describing what was said and why you're unhappy with it. Remember you are creating a record for the judge.
[snip]
If you've received a $10 check, you can say something like, "They would only give me a $10 refund for $199 of software."
It looks to me that the plaintiff agreed to settle his claim for $10. I suspect that if the judge knew the pertinent facts, the plaintiff would get only $10. He entered into an oral contract to accept $10 as his refund, and then (presumably) memorialized that agreement in writing (i.e., by letter). I don't think the judge would be impressed by the plaintiff engaging in the "bait and switch" tactics of agreeing to accept $10.00 to settle his claim in order to establish liability (which it wouldn't), and then renegging on the deal and demanding more.
So why did the plaintiff get a judgment for $100? Because the other side didn't show up:
My case was even simpler. The company did not show up.
As recounted in the story, the Small Claims Court judge properly made the plaintiff "prove up" his case. However, when the plaintiff did so he didn't bother to mention that he agreed to accept $10.00 to settle his claim:
Judge: The defendant didn't show up, but Mr. Oualline you still have to prove your case. You say that they owe you some money. Why?
Me: I bought a computer from them, and when I booted it up it displayed a license agreement with a long list of restrictions that limited what I could do with my computer. It also said that if I didn't agree with the license agreement, I could get a refund.
Judge: I take it you didn't get your refund.
Me: They sent me an e-mail yesterday offering me one, but it was only for the software. I want my court costs too.
The judge then fumbled through my papers looking for the printout of the refund letter. He found it.
It's a little bit like my opposition to mandatory
government health warnings on greasy hamburgers. Of course they're bad for you, but it's your choice to eat them or not. Do you really need a mandatory gov't warning?
I don't think your greasy hamburger example is analogous. If you eat greasy hamburgers and as a result have a poor quality of life, incur horrible medical expenses, and die a miserable death, it is arguably not society's business because all of the costs are internalized. (Unless, of course, you insist on a form of socialized health care where I'm forced to subsidize your health costs and thus your poor nutrition decisions. But that is a debate for another day.)
However, if in this internet connected world somebody writes a piece of software that is vulnerable to buffer overflow exploits, there is a good chance that as a practical matter all of the costs will not be internalized. The person who wrote the buggy software may bear some of the costs, but not all of them. Where externatlities exist, society arguably has an interest in imposing some standards and reducing one's freedom to make mistakes.
Protect it from what? No harm is done to an artist when another samples his song. There is literally no bad that can come of it.
As I said before (and I'm saying it again because it's responsive, in context, and I'm hopeful the author of the parent will see the reply and respond), what if the sample of your work is used without your permission in Nazi, White Supremacy or Anti-Semitic music, and you disaprove? Why should the fruit of your creativity and your labor be used without your permission to promote people, ideas and movements you loath?
(1) Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.
The rights of one do not cancel out the rights of another.
Uh... exactly. Someone sampling your rift (sic) doesn't in any way harm you. If anything it will make the listener curious as to where that killer beat came from and cause him/her to seek out the original.
What if the sample of your work is used without your permission in Nazi, White Supremacy or Anti-Semitic music, and you disaprove? Why should the fruit of your creativity and your labor be used without your permission to promote people, ideas and movements you loath?
(1) Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.
The 5% number is just skewed heavily by the fact that any poorly written app that crashes is counted. Whenever an app crashes the windows error reporting system fires off a log to microsoft regarding the crash. I bet 90%+ of these crashes have nothing to do with windows.
A couple of observations.
First, just because an application crashes under Windows does not necessarily mean that it is the fault of the application, or that there is an error in the application's code. A bug in windows could cause the application to crash. (Does anyone remember the days of "Windows isn't done until [fill in the blank] won't run?") If I fall because the foundation under me crumbles, is it my fault? Does it imply that there is something wrong with my legs, or my sense of balance? Or is it because maybe something was wrong with the foundation?
Secondly, I suspect that the 5% number is low. As I recall, when an application crashes, the windows error reporting system puts up a "Yes / No" dialog box asking permission to fire off an error report to Microsoft. I know many people who routinely click "No" because they don't want to be bothered and/or don't want to send any information to MS about their box. I suspect that many more people see that dialog box than click "Yes." Thus, crashes are under-reported.
Apply the same principle to drug use. Let's say your sister gets busted, are your parents involved? As far as I know, NO...
But, let's say that your sister gets busted buying illegal drugs while driving your parents' car with their permission, and the automobile is seized as a result.
Less realistically, assume your sister gets busted buying illegal drugs while driving our parents' car with their permission, AND it is alleged that your former hippie, baby boomer parents KNEW that she was going to pick up some pot. Then things get exciting.:)
I think the issue will be that you can only visit the site with IE5+, and can only watch the movies with Windows98+.
Isn't it really the same issue? That is, "should Disney be allowed to offer its movies only on terms it deems to be acceptable?" Apparently, those terms will include the requirements that customers use IE5+ and Windows98+. This will presumably be because other browswers and operating systems don't support the DRM necessary to enforce the 30 day use rule.
Now if only the RIAA could follow this lead. I don't seen anyone hating disney - oh wait, they're not suing the youth of America.
I suspect it will not be enough for the majority on Slashdot. Why? Because the movies expire within 30 days, and many may find that to be unacceptable. I mean, why should Disney be allowed to offer its movies only on terms it deems to be acceptable?
Talk about burying the lede. The Boston Globe buried the most important issue in the last paragraph:
Under a provision of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, passed by Congress to combat music piracy, music companies may issue the subpoenas without a judge's approval. Verizon has challenged that aspect of the law, saying it violates users' rights to due process and privacy. A judge ruled in January, however, that subpoenas do not require a judge's signature; Verizon again appealed.
It is this issue that might make a difference. If the provision of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act for issuing subpoenas without judicial action is ruled unconstitutional, and the ruling is upheld, then the efforts of the RIAA will be stopped in their tracks until the law is rewritten.
The rest of the university objections amount to no more than a short-term fight over notice and venue:
''MIT of course has a policy of complying with lawfully issued subpoenas,'' the school's information services director, James Bruce, said in an e-mail statement. But Bruce said that MIT had been advised by counsel that the subpoena was not in compliance with court rules concerning the proper venue for such a filing and ''did not allow MIT time to send any notice as the law requires.''
Even if MIT is right, these are problems the RIAA can easily remedy. If the RIAA has to file the actions locally, instead of filing them all in Washington, D.C., it will. If the RIAA has to provide more time for notice, it will. Neither of these issues will halt the onslaught for long.
The only real way to 'protect' an industry is by tariffs on imported goods.
Not in the long run. While they subsidize programmers in the short run (just like they subsidized textile workers, steel workers, etc.) at a cost to the rest of us, in the long run they just make our entire economy less efficient and less competitive.
Great, so an American (non-software) business gets to pay $150 per license for a program that costs its German or Indian competitor only $100 per license. That only makes another American business less competive in the international marketplace. Eventually, this American company is forced out of business, its employees are laid off, and the American software company has lost the market for its products anyway.
Or the American non-software company is forced to seek protective tariffs for *its* products... pushing the problem down the line.
so its okay to outsource jobs to reduce costs but not okay to lower salaries of the top management to reduce costs?
Why assume the "top management" jobs won't also be outsourced to India to reduce costs? As the article states, IBM sees the need to move "white-collar, often high-paying, jobs overseas." If the job as a programmer can be sent overseas, why not a management job?
My only question is, if you have questions with the code, aren't you going to need a translator for the comments?
Not with India. Being a former British colony, English is an official language and widely spoken. We do some of this at my company and it works fairly well. Hardest thing to deal with is the time zone difference.
I wonder if the time zone difference might be seen as an advantage, i.e., as a way to have skilled, white-collar employees working on a problem 24/7 without having to pay them a premium for working overnight? The second page of the article states:
David Samson, an Oracle spokesman said the expansion of operations in India was "additive" and was not resulting in any jobs losses in the United States.
"Our aim here is not cost-driven," he said. "It's to build a 24/7 follow-the-sun model for development and support. When a software engineer goes to bed at night in the U.S., his or her colleague in India picks up development when they get into work. They're able to continually develop products."
A country or other jurisdiction (e.g., state, province, etc.) may either: (a) not have either statutory or case law that makes reverse engineering illegal, in which case it would be legal (i.e., that which is not legally forbidden is permitted); or (b) have either statutory or case law that affirmatively states reverse engineering is permitted.
You entirely miss the point. Most countries in the world have laws that explicitly make reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability legal
and make any license provisions or contract clauses stating otherwise null and void.
I did not miss the point. The original poster failed to recognize that it *might* be possible for one to both have the right to do reverse engineer software *and* the power and ability to contractually waive or sell that right. I was simply recognizing a distinction he failed to note.
I'm not sure if it is in fact true that, "most countries have laws that explicitly make reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability legal and make any license provisions or contract clauses stating otherwise null and void." You haven't presented any evidence on that point. However, even it that is true for "most" countries, it very well might not be true in the United States. See
As indicated above, in Bowers the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit held that the defendant violated a shrink-wrap license agreement when it reverse-engineered a competitor's piece of software, and that said agreement was enforceable. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
I'm not saying whether this is good or bad. I'm not saying whether this "ought" to be the law. What I am saying is that it would dangerous to assume that the Bitkeeper license agreement provision re: reverse engineering is unenforceable. I'm not saying it *is* enforceable. I'm simply saying it is not safe to assume that it isn't enforceable. The recent decision in Bowers supports being careful.
Unless you live in a country where reverse engineering for interop purposes is allowed, which makes Larrys EULA invalid. Like most countries, in fact.
This is not necessarily true.
A country or other jurisdiction (e.g., state, province, etc.) may either: (a) not have either statutory or case law that makes reverse engineering illegal, in which case it would be legal (i.e., that which is not legally forbidden is permitted); or (b) have either statutory or case law that affirmatively states reverse engineering is permitted.
However, in either case (a) or (b) above, that would not necessarily mean that one could not contractually (e.g., via agreeing to a license agreement) give up one's right to reverse engineer. In other words, in neither case (a) nor (b) above is it necessarly true that a contractual or license clause preventing reverse engineering is against public policy and is therefore void and unenforceable.
The fact that something is permitted does not mean it is required. The fact that you have a right to engage in an activity does not mean that you can't contractually give up your right to do so, or that the contract is unenforceable
My guess is that, as a practical matter, it is probably more likely that a contracual or license provision against reverse engineering will be upheld in case (a), where there is merely an absence of statutory or case law making reverse engineering illegal. The fact that you are permitted to do something (i.e., because there is no statutory or case law making it illegal) is by itself poor evidence that you should not be held to your voluntary, contractual promise not to do it, or that the inforcement of said promise would be against public policy.
In case (b), where there is affirmative statutory or case law recognizing a right to reverse engineer, a court *might* be more likely to find that a contractual agreement not to do so is void and unenforceable because it is against public policy, but I have my doubts even in this situation.
The key questions are as follows. Why should you not be forced to abide by your voluntary, contractual promise? Do we really want the government to say that we don't have the *freedom* to make such binding contracts and promises?
Slashdot Mirror
This press release may give you a starting point and possible contact information:
Perpaps Ms. Dittoe or somebody else at Dittoe Public Relations can point you in the right direction.
While Chilliware may have employed developers in the former Soviet Union, this press release states that it was a privately held corporation located in Los Angeles, California:
I doubt it was incorporated in the former Soviet Union. Probably Delaware or California.
That may be true, but are they selling as many CDs? Assume a band would sell 3000 CDs (the figure mentioned in the article) when it is backed by an RIAA member record company that pays for promotion, "radio station relations," etc. Is that band still going to sell 3000 CDs throught CDbaby, at concerts, or through an indy label?
If wonder whether the OSNF (Open Source Now Fund) is a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation? Should it be? If so, should Red Hat's contributions to it be tax deductible? While others will benefit from the fund, so of course will Red Hat.
Also, who will be administering the OSNF? Will they work for or be connected to Red Hat? Who will make the decisions regarding the disbursement of funds, etc.?
You can argue that, but the record companies aren't under any obligation to take your advice. (They might also suspect that you have a conflict of interest.
You might be right, but I don't think so. I suspect many, if not most, of the current self-justifying downloaders would bitch about the fact that the record company had the unmitigated gall to post a low quality (128kb) MP3 (it would probably be derided as "commercial spam"), wait until somebody else purchased the CD and ripped the high quality version, and then downloaded the latter.
And/or, they would bitch that they wanted only that one song, and that it was completely unfair that they were being forced to purchase a complete CD, and therefore they were justified in downloading the high quality version... for free, of course.
It is always easy to be bold with other people's money.
This is too perfect. Everytime you download music for free while making sure the artist receives no compensation, you are engaging is civil disobedience! You are doing it only in order to stand up for your principles! Yeah, that's right. Its not like you actually enjoy the music... and whatever else you buy with the money you otherwise would have spent on the music. No! You are sticking it to the Man! How noble of you!
Martin Luther King would be so proud.
And when you are served with the subpoena, and the lawsuit, and your computer is seized, we'll see your Gandhi-like willingness to pay the price.
The fact that fewer commercial CDs were produced and marketed is not necessarily inconsistent with the idea that piracy was the cause, or at least one of the causes, of decreased CD sales. It may be the case that for a marginal band the record company projection that "X" number of CD sales will be lost to piracy is enough to tip the decision from "Yes, we'll produce and promote the CD" to "No, we won't produce and promote the CD because we don't think we'll recoup our money." But for the projected amount of piracy and lost sales, the CD would have been produced and marketed.
No, it simply settles all claims there were, or could have been alleged. As stated in the article, the settlement provides that it bars any claim:
A person who accepts the class action settlement can still sue for claims that could not have been alleged in this suit -- e.g., claims that arose after the suit because of Microsoft's alleged subsequent wrongful conduct.
The settlement agreement is standard. It is the way such claims are always settled.
You can't expect Microsoft, or any defendant, to give something of value to somebody in a settlement, and then allow that person to turn around and sue them for more.
No, I am not misrepresenting the oral contract. The plaintiff clearly agreed to accept the sum of $10. Again, from the article:
Contracts are interpreted according to the objective, reasonable person test. That is, how would an objective, reasonable person interpret the language used? In the above situation, a reasonable person would conclude that the plaintiff agreed to accept $10 to settle his claim. An objective, reasonable person certainly would not expect the plaintiff to accept receipt of the $10 check, and then turn around and sue for $199.
Or consider this. You hit somebody's lawn ornament with your car. They claim it is worth $200. You say you are confident that it is worth only $50. They respond, "Okay. Send me the check." You send them a check for $50. They then turn around and sue you for $200. Do you think that would be right?
While I doubt it, perhaps Texas has already enacted some form of California's proposed Racial Privacy Initiative? Or they see it on the horizon? Or the policy represented in the RPI is already school district policy?
From the article:
It looks to me that the plaintiff agreed to settle his claim for $10. I suspect that if the judge knew the pertinent facts, the plaintiff would get only $10. He entered into an oral contract to accept $10 as his refund, and then (presumably) memorialized that agreement in writing (i.e., by letter). I don't think the judge would be impressed by the plaintiff engaging in the "bait and switch" tactics of agreeing to accept $10.00 to settle his claim in order to establish liability (which it wouldn't), and then renegging on the deal and demanding more.
So why did the plaintiff get a judgment for $100? Because the other side didn't show up:
As recounted in the story, the Small Claims Court judge properly made the plaintiff "prove up" his case. However, when the plaintiff did so he didn't bother to mention that he agreed to accept $10.00 to settle his claim:
I don't think your greasy hamburger example is analogous. If you eat greasy hamburgers and as a result have a poor quality of life, incur horrible medical expenses, and die a miserable death, it is arguably not society's business because all of the costs are internalized. (Unless, of course, you insist on a form of socialized health care where I'm forced to subsidize your health costs and thus your poor nutrition decisions. But that is a debate for another day.)
However, if in this internet connected world somebody writes a piece of software that is vulnerable to buffer overflow exploits, there is a good chance that as a practical matter all of the costs will not be internalized. The person who wrote the buggy software may bear some of the costs, but not all of them. Where externatlities exist, society arguably has an interest in imposing some standards and reducing one's freedom to make mistakes.
As I said before (and I'm saying it again because it's responsive, in context, and I'm hopeful the author of the parent will see the reply and respond), what if the sample of your work is used without your permission in Nazi, White Supremacy or Anti-Semitic music, and you disaprove? Why should the fruit of your creativity and your labor be used without your permission to promote people, ideas and movements you loath?
Please consider an author's Moral Rights under the Berne Convention:
Also consider an author's Right of Adaptation under the Berne Convention
Why not zip and then use GPG?
What if the sample of your work is used without your permission in Nazi, White Supremacy or Anti-Semitic music, and you disaprove? Why should the fruit of your creativity and your labor be used without your permission to promote people, ideas and movements you loath?
Please consider an author's Moral Rights under the Berne Convention:
Also consider an author's Right of Adaptation under the Berne Convention:
A couple of observations.
First, just because an application crashes under Windows does not necessarily mean that it is the fault of the application, or that there is an error in the application's code. A bug in windows could cause the application to crash. (Does anyone remember the days of "Windows isn't done until [fill in the blank] won't run?") If I fall because the foundation under me crumbles, is it my fault? Does it imply that there is something wrong with my legs, or my sense of balance? Or is it because maybe something was wrong with the foundation?
Secondly, I suspect that the 5% number is low. As I recall, when an application crashes, the windows error reporting system puts up a "Yes / No" dialog box asking permission to fire off an error report to Microsoft. I know many people who routinely click "No" because they don't want to be bothered and/or don't want to send any information to MS about their box. I suspect that many more people see that dialog box than click "Yes." Thus, crashes are under-reported.
But, let's say that your sister gets busted buying illegal drugs while driving your parents' car with their permission, and the automobile is seized as a result.
Less realistically, assume your sister gets busted buying illegal drugs while driving our parents' car with their permission, AND it is alleged that your former hippie, baby boomer parents KNEW that she was going to pick up some pot. Then things get exciting.
Isn't it really the same issue? That is, "should Disney be allowed to offer its movies only on terms it deems to be acceptable?" Apparently, those terms will include the requirements that customers use IE5+ and Windows98+. This will presumably be because other browswers and operating systems don't support the DRM necessary to enforce the 30 day use rule.
I suspect it will not be enough for the majority on Slashdot. Why? Because the movies expire within 30 days, and many may find that to be unacceptable. I mean, why should Disney be allowed to offer its movies only on terms it deems to be acceptable?
Talk about burying the lede. The Boston Globe buried the most important issue in the last paragraph:
It is this issue that might make a difference. If the provision of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act for issuing subpoenas without judicial action is ruled unconstitutional, and the ruling is upheld, then the efforts of the RIAA will be stopped in their tracks until the law is rewritten.
The rest of the university objections amount to no more than a short-term fight over notice and venue:
Even if MIT is right, these are problems the RIAA can easily remedy. If the RIAA has to file the actions locally, instead of filing them all in Washington, D.C., it will. If the RIAA has to provide more time for notice, it will. Neither of these issues will halt the onslaught for long.
Not in the long run. While they subsidize programmers in the short run (just like they subsidized textile workers, steel workers, etc.) at a cost to the rest of us, in the long run they just make our entire economy less efficient and less competitive.
Great, so an American (non-software) business gets to pay $150 per license for a program that costs its German or Indian competitor only $100 per license. That only makes another American business less competive in the international marketplace. Eventually, this American company is forced out of business, its employees are laid off, and the American software company has lost the market for its products anyway.
Or the American non-software company is forced to seek protective tariffs for *its* products... pushing the problem down the line.
Why assume the "top management" jobs won't also be outsourced to India to reduce costs? As the article states, IBM sees the need to move "white-collar, often high-paying, jobs overseas." If the job as a programmer can be sent overseas, why not a management job?
I wonder if the time zone difference might be seen as an advantage, i.e., as a way to have skilled, white-collar employees working on a problem 24/7 without having to pay them a premium for working overnight? The second page of the article states:
I did not miss the point. The original poster failed to recognize that it *might* be possible for one to both have the right to do reverse engineer software *and* the power and ability to contractually waive or sell that right. I was simply recognizing a distinction he failed to note.
I'm not sure if it is in fact true that, "most countries have laws that explicitly make reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability legal and make any license provisions or contract clauses stating otherwise null and void." You haven't presented any evidence on that point. However, even it that is true for "most" countries, it very well might not be true in the United States. See
BOWERS v. BAYSTATE TECHNOLOGIES
Cyberspaces.org Article re: Bowers
IDG Article re: Bowers
Info World Article re: Bowers
As indicated above, in Bowers the United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit held that the defendant violated a shrink-wrap license agreement when it reverse-engineered a competitor's piece of software, and that said agreement was enforceable. The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
I'm not saying whether this is good or bad. I'm not saying whether this "ought" to be the law. What I am saying is that it would dangerous to assume that the Bitkeeper license agreement provision re: reverse engineering is unenforceable. I'm not saying it *is* enforceable. I'm simply saying it is not safe to assume that it isn't enforceable. The recent decision in Bowers supports being careful.
This is not necessarily true.
A country or other jurisdiction (e.g., state, province, etc.) may either: (a) not have either statutory or case law that makes reverse engineering illegal, in which case it would be legal (i.e., that which is not legally forbidden is permitted); or (b) have either statutory or case law that affirmatively states reverse engineering is permitted.
However, in either case (a) or (b) above, that would not necessarily mean that one could not contractually (e.g., via agreeing to a license agreement) give up one's right to reverse engineer. In other words, in neither case (a) nor (b) above is it necessarly true that a contractual or license clause preventing reverse engineering is against public policy and is therefore void and unenforceable.
The fact that something is permitted does not mean it is required. The fact that you have a right to engage in an activity does not mean that you can't contractually give up your right to do so, or that the contract is unenforceable
My guess is that, as a practical matter, it is probably more likely that a contracual or license provision against reverse engineering will be upheld in case (a), where there is merely an absence of statutory or case law making reverse engineering illegal. The fact that you are permitted to do something (i.e., because there is no statutory or case law making it illegal) is by itself poor evidence that you should not be held to your voluntary, contractual promise not to do it, or that the inforcement of said promise would be against public policy.
In case (b), where there is affirmative statutory or case law recognizing a right to reverse engineer, a court *might* be more likely to find that a contractual agreement not to do so is void and unenforceable because it is against public policy, but I have my doubts even in this situation.
The key questions are as follows. Why should you not be forced to abide by your voluntary, contractual promise? Do we really want the government to say that we don't have the *freedom* to make such binding contracts and promises?