I don't think it's even that. I think it's mainly about opportunity cost. i.e. "I could stop at the store and buy a pen but that's a 10 minute diversion on the way home, and I just want to get home".
There's no real legal backing for sharing as a service though. And the GPL requires legal restrictions on making a copy to have teeth. If you don't accept the licence, that's fine. You don't get to distribute the software because that's a copyright violation
Copyright doesn't really cover running software on someone else's machine. You might consider it "public performance" but I imagine that would be seen as something of a stretch in court. The FSF really needs a better mechanism if it wants to prevent this.
You can still offer freedom of speech. This would be a term to describe that nature of a platform or service that allows people to say what they want without it being deleted or otherwise prevented by the operator of said platform or service.
Freedom of speech is allowing people to speak without restricting them. This is something that the US Government is mandated to do by the first amendment. It is something that a private company can choose to do.
My inbox contains a bunch of chat notifications, some general information from HR, some reports from the automated build system, and absolutely nothing that demands a response.
If people do expect a response, then email is not the best medium any more.
India is not all that wide in terms of time zones. The bulk of the country is in UTC+5, with the eastern side in UTC+6. India time is UTC + 5:30 So the western half of India the time is 30 minutes later than it should be. Given its fairly central latitude, the variation in day length is also less pronounced.
The study raises some interesting points, but a skim-read suggests it's based on sleep models rather than actual human data recorded in the regions. Human behaviour may vary here. The suggestion is that it doesn't. There is certainly something to be said for correct time zones. Portugal tried the same time zone as Spain in the 1990's but it was not a success.
Norway should theoretically have the same problem exacerbated by the eastern regions also being the furthest north with the largest variation in day length (going from 0 hours to 24 hours). Is this the same problem?
If they did offer a service that you - someone who has no interest in music streaming - wanted, how would they actually fund it? You're obviously not willing to pay a subscription, and you're not willing to put up with advertising.
You are not a potential customer. You are a potential freeloader. Why do they want a potential freeloader?
You're not a customer. They make no money from you, and wouldn;t even if you used the service. Why do you think they care? "Oh no! people we're making no money from are no longer costing us money! what will we do!?"
I'm really not seeing a problem here from Spotify's point of view.
Seems they do use dedicated ad servers. To be honest, this surprises me. I'd have thought that would add complexity to the app, and make blocking easier.
I guess that will be caught in the ad block test.
Your options are to stop using the service (a win for Spotify because they no longer need to pay for a user they get no advertising revenue for) or pay for the service (also a win for Spotify).
Given that a market leading commercial service like Netflix wants to show the most popular films of the moment, I don't see why there's a problem here.
I think it's worth looking that the ratings graph. A few controversial movies will have a lot of anomalous 10/10 and 1/10 ratings but the rest of the values show a bell curve. The peak indicates how good on average people felt it was, and you can estimate how likely it is you will agree based on its width.
Black Panther has been nominated for the best Picture Oscar. Citizen Kane is an old film that made several innovations, but it was made in the 1940's and the themes are going to be far less relevant today than they were 78 years ago.
Is there an objective reason you think that Citizen Kane has to be better than Black Panther?
I was being a little snarky, but ultimately a lot of people want to see what the President has to say. This is not just his fans. I want to know what the guy has to say even though I think he's a complete fool.
He's also someone who can be made a special case of. The fact that the US president is on twitter is a selling point for the platform. As such twitter can justify the cost of considering a special case, and consider how seriously he might mean what he says, and how seriously he might be taken.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's even that. I think it's mainly about opportunity cost. i.e. "I could stop at the store and buy a pen but that's a 10 minute diversion on the way home, and I just want to get home".
I don't think anyone wants anyone to be forced to publish.
I think it would be a positive thing for Amazon to remain a neutral provider of information and not make judgements about moral worth.
There's no real legal backing for sharing as a service though. And the GPL requires legal restrictions on making a copy to have teeth. If you don't accept the licence, that's fine. You don't get to distribute the software because that's a copyright violation
Copyright doesn't really cover running software on someone else's machine. You might consider it "public performance" but I imagine that would be seen as something of a stretch in court. The FSF really needs a better mechanism if it wants to prevent this.
It was never "Do no evil". It was the subtly different "Don't be evil".
However "Be thoughtless and callous" seems to always be perfectly acceptable to the company.
You can still offer freedom of speech. This would be a term to describe that nature of a platform or service that allows people to say what they want without it being deleted or otherwise prevented by the operator of said platform or service.
Freedom of speech is allowing people to speak without restricting them. This is something that the US Government is mandated to do by the first amendment. It is something that a private company can choose to do.
My inbox contains a bunch of chat notifications, some general information from HR, some reports from the automated build system, and absolutely nothing that demands a response.
If people do expect a response, then email is not the best medium any more.
India is not all that wide in terms of time zones. The bulk of the country is in UTC+5, with the eastern side in UTC+6. India time is UTC + 5:30 So the western half of India the time is 30 minutes later than it should be. Given its fairly central latitude, the variation in day length is also less pronounced.
The study raises some interesting points, but a skim-read suggests it's based on sleep models rather than actual human data recorded in the regions. Human behaviour may vary here. The suggestion is that it doesn't. There is certainly something to be said for correct time zones. Portugal tried the same time zone as Spain in the 1990's but it was not a success.
Norway should theoretically have the same problem exacerbated by the eastern regions also being the furthest north with the largest variation in day length (going from 0 hours to 24 hours). Is this the same problem?
If they did offer a service that you - someone who has no interest in music streaming - wanted, how would they actually fund it? You're obviously not willing to pay a subscription, and you're not willing to put up with advertising.
You are not a potential customer. You are a potential freeloader. Why do they want a potential freeloader?
Of course you are. You are also allowed to choose which data you do and don't upload. Spotify are taking advantage of this right.
Of course you are. If a company wants to stop doing business with you as a result then they're entitled to do so.
You can choose to do what you want here. I think your argument has sort of gone off the rails a little.
You're not a customer. They make no money from you, and wouldn;t even if you used the service. Why do you think they care? "Oh no! people we're making no money from are no longer costing us money! what will we do!?"
I'm really not seeing a problem here from Spotify's point of view.
Seems they do use dedicated ad servers. To be honest, this surprises me. I'd have thought that would add complexity to the app, and make blocking easier.
I guess that will be caught in the ad block test.
Your options are to stop using the service (a win for Spotify because they no longer need to pay for a user they get no advertising revenue for) or pay for the service (also a win for Spotify).
Will that prevent you from hearing the ads?
Spotify is an audio service.
Why would they care? They are a business. They are in it for the money. You are not providing them money.
Because they need to make the free service less valuable. They want people to pay them to remove ads. Not remove the ads themselves.
The law does not work that way!
If your phone is genuinely faulty, it will be up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the phone is not faulty.
Yes. I think the restriction for airports is 5 miles. But that's only protecting lives, not copyright.
True. Although a lot of people don't have DVD drives any more. And very few people have ever had blu-ray drives.
Also the space taken up by movies, assuming you want no further degradation, is still non-trivial. Especially for blu-rays.
I don't think so. youTube can terminate the agreement for pretty much any reason.
Perhaps it's possible to sue the complainant for losses though.
Given that a market leading commercial service like Netflix wants to show the most popular films of the moment, I don't see why there's a problem here.
I think it's worth looking that the ratings graph. A few controversial movies will have a lot of anomalous 10/10 and 1/10 ratings but the rest of the values show a bell curve. The peak indicates how good on average people felt it was, and you can estimate how likely it is you will agree based on its width.
Black Panther has been nominated for the best Picture Oscar. Citizen Kane is an old film that made several innovations, but it was made in the 1940's and the themes are going to be far less relevant today than they were 78 years ago.
Is there an objective reason you think that Citizen Kane has to be better than Black Panther?
I was being a little snarky, but ultimately a lot of people want to see what the President has to say. This is not just his fans. I want to know what the guy has to say even though I think he's a complete fool.
He's also someone who can be made a special case of. The fact that the US president is on twitter is a selling point for the platform. As such twitter can justify the cost of considering a special case, and consider how seriously he might mean what he says, and how seriously he might be taken.
It is extremely accessible.
It's the closest thing we have to the various flavours of BASIC we had installed in the 8-bit era.
Not sure if that really compensates for its shortcomings. Not sure if learning BASIC was actually that good, to be honest.
That's correct.
Another thing that happens is that television networks and print media report on the things he says.
It's almost as though being President of the United States gives some sort of special privileges.Who'd have thought?
There are indeed. I read this interesting book on crop circles and another on astrology.
They were complete and utter bollocks, of course, but I learned a fair bit about what the authors claimed was the truth.