Perhaps none of them will offer the level of indemnity that you require, but if you ask enough of them, it may convince one of them that this might be a viable business model, and start offering it in the future. Essentially you'll be paying for insurance rather than software, so this would be an interesting new way for making money from open source.
If I sell golden widgets for 40$, and they cost me 2$ to make, and you steal them -- I am losing money.
And if I sell my own golden widgets that are just as good at a lower price to the same customers, by this argument you are still losing money. Is competition therefore stealing?
You're 36$ richer, but you should've been 76$ richer. Notice how there's a 40$ difference -- that's because 40$ was stolen.
Why should I be $76 richer? The thief clearly wasn't willing to pay $40 for the item. He may even not have had $40. The only cost to me therefore was replacing the item in question.
If you want a more realisitic set of prices, then fair enough - A CD. Let's say the retailer gets them for $13, and sells them for $20. A thief has $16 in his pocket, realises he really wants the CD, but can't afford it, so he steals it. If he steals it, then the retailer loses $13, because he has to spend that on replacing the CD.
If I open up a shop next door, and sell the same CD for $15, people will buy it from me instead. Another thief with $16 in his pocket walks past, sees that he can buy it, so gives me the money. He walks away with his remaining $1, and I'm $2 up on the deal. The shop next door has therefore lost the $7 that he would have made on this sale. Is it therefore stealing if I compete? I did cost the shop next door $7.
Go take any basic economics course.
As you increase the price, your margins per item rise, but your total sales decline. Therefore the prices tend to be set at a value that will maximise no. of sales x profit per item.
The amount that you charge is arbitrary. I could put a price tag of $1 000 000 on a CD. this does not mean i have lost $1 000 000 because some guy stole it.
The store and other people who made the item lost the money.
So, hang on...
If I make an item, I have to pay $2 to the people who make the materials, and to my workforce. Someone steals it, then I'm $40 down. I make another one for another $2, sell it at a profit of $38, then by your reckoning, I've lost $2 (-40-2+40). So how is it that I'm $36 richer than I was when I started?
More to the point, if I haggled the price down to $20, does that mean the the seller has made a loss? I mean, he's $18 better off.
Even if you don't notice money out of your pocket (which you wouldn't, Mr. Thief), the company would notice its sales are less, and have to compensate for that somehow.
So you therefore think that competition should also be illegal. If I make the item that you're selling at $38 profit, and sell it at $28 profit, people will buy it from me. Does that mean that I'm stealing from you? Your sales are less, and you have to compensate for that somehow. Should I be taxed, and the money given to you because I'm trying to offer a better deal for the consumer?
This is another part of how economics works. Competition.
When you steal something that cost 2$ to make, even if you think, "I'm only stealing 2$" you're actually stealing the 40$ some guy would've paid to enjoy that game
The representartive of the copyright holder may be mistaken, and not realise that they have given permission. There may be other reasons that you haven't considered, especially in fringe cases, that may or may not involve fair use.
You are not a judge and jury in this matter. If the user believes he has a legitimate right to the information, then it's up to the legal system to deal with this.
I agree. I never have quite seen what the problem is here. Windows also comes with a "word processor", and art package. Okay, wordpad and paint may be a pretty crappy at those jobs, but Corel and Adobe don't seem to get their knickers in a twist about those. They simply release a vastly better product. If a larger company can provide better software for free, then you lose out. This would still apply if MS didn't have a monopoly, but was simply bigger.
MS have done a lot worse than give away a free browser. They should be concentrating on that instead.
The rules are fairly specific about what information is required for a takedown, but also puts some obligation on the ISP to police its own network.
It sounds like they failed to comply sufficiently to obligate you to provide all the information about the subscriber, but does require that you loook into it, and at least clarify that the user has, or thinks he has permission to use the material. IANAL, so this is guessing.
That's something I keep meaning to ask. This seems as good a place as any.
How easy is it to develop for a mobile phone, say for an indie (or even shareware) developer? Do you need an official devkit? Does the fact that it's java based mean that you get the write once, run anywhere advantage? If so, do you actually get write once run anywhere?
Well, the ethics committee could at least have sent a quick reply saying They've looked into this, and feel there are no ethical problems with the status quo.
If someone has qualms about it, the ethics committee should consider it.
Yep. All the good Movie Brits go over to America. It's possible to have an American film made in Britain, with a British star, a British director, and a large chunk of the crew being British.
Okay. For balance, MS has the resources to spend on doing things that aren't much fun, but are essential, like usability focus groups, and documentation.
I keep finding that I write a piece of code, and although it works, it would be so much nicer to have done it differently. Trouble is, it works. Company resources (i.e. me) are so much better spent fixing things that don't work at all.
My own code, I get to redo as many times as I want. This does tend to make it better, but it takes longer to produce. The same no doubt applies to open source. There's no real problem caused if people do reinvent the wheel.
This prbably also explains the quality of MS code.
I dunno. MS stuff may have some seriously bad design flaws dotted around, but can you think of any proprietry commercial software that's any better? Except for safety critical stuff, there's a hell of a lot of bad code out there. MS is only noticed as much because they produce so much of it.
After a while this trick gets a bit more ludicrous though. If there are only a few dozen known specimins of a sample, it's quite feasable that people simply haven't found the inbetween stage.
It's difficult to find a reasonable case that God would have created a species, and then a similar one a few thousand years later. Sure, it's possible to come up with a few ideas, but it's not a well trodden argument, so is easier to argue against.
Observant people will notice an apparent change in my position. The top post was an attempt to apply those seven rules to a subject that's a little harder to prove than most laws of physics.
Darwin proposed his "Theory of evolution" in a book. The equivalent of TV as far as popular media at the time goes. Proponents of this claim that it is always being supressed by religious groups, and local government officials.
Fortunately, they have chosen a theory that can't be proved, and only has anecdotal evidence. Animals 1 000 000 years ago were different, so we must have evolution.
The only way this could possibly be true is for Darwin to propose a new law of nature!
It's nice that you can go after the spammers customers, and this will keep the numbers down. The problem comes when people don't know the law. You can still punish them for it of course, since ignorance is no defence, but you can't prevent them in the first place.
Example - there are any number of "Make Money fast" pyramid schemes floating around. These are certainly illegal, but people still distribute them complete with a set of references "proving" that it's legal. People clearly have no comprehension that there is anything wrong with what they're doing, because they provide their full names, and addresses in the email.
We need a way to prevent people from sending these in the first place. Preventing the spammers may work in a lot of cases, but not stoipping their customers. It is always possible for them to find more customers.
Secondly - resolving the problem. Have you talked to the modem manufacturer? They may send you a fix for free. Sending you a software fix will cost them nothing, and will generate goodwill, so it's in their interests to do this.
Third - The computer misuse act is probably completely inappropriate here. I believe it's a criminal law intended for dealing with malicious damage. Threatening them with it for negligence makes you look like a moron. Breach of contract and negligent damage are more suitable terms.
I'd suggest sending a letter, by recorded delivery, explaining that you owned the modem, that a rental modem will not be adequate, and state precicely what you want them to do. Don't threaten legal action, at least not directly. Everyone does that. It makes people sound like stuck up little twits.
If all else fails, I would suggest that you consider ADSL, and tell the cable company that you are doing so. This will cost at least give you the satisfaction of knowing that you have deprived them od revenue.
Slashdot Mirror
Legally - no.
Practically speaking though, it's impossible to enforce.
Buy it from a vendor.
Perhaps none of them will offer the level of indemnity that you require, but if you ask enough of them, it may convince one of them that this might be a viable business model, and start offering it in the future. Essentially you'll be paying for insurance rather than software, so this would be an interesting new way for making money from open source.
If I sell golden widgets for 40$, and they cost me 2$ to make, and you steal them -- I am losing money.
And if I sell my own golden widgets that are just as good at a lower price to the same customers, by this argument you are still losing money. Is competition therefore stealing?
You're 36$ richer, but you should've been 76$ richer. Notice how there's a 40$ difference -- that's because 40$ was stolen.
Why should I be $76 richer? The thief clearly wasn't willing to pay $40 for the item. He may even not have had $40. The only cost to me therefore was replacing the item in question.
If you want a more realisitic set of prices, then fair enough - A CD. Let's say the retailer gets them for $13, and sells them for $20. A thief has $16 in his pocket, realises he really wants the CD, but can't afford it, so he steals it. If he steals it, then the retailer loses $13, because he has to spend that on replacing the CD.
If I open up a shop next door, and sell the same CD for $15, people will buy it from me instead. Another thief with $16 in his pocket walks past, sees that he can buy it, so gives me the money. He walks away with his remaining $1, and I'm $2 up on the deal. The shop next door has therefore lost the $7 that he would have made on this sale. Is it therefore stealing if I compete? I did cost the shop next door $7.
Go take any basic economics course.
As you increase the price, your margins per item rise, but your total sales decline. Therefore the prices tend to be set at a value that will maximise no. of sales x profit per item.
The amount that you charge is arbitrary. I could put a price tag of $1 000 000 on a CD. this does not mean i have lost $1 000 000 because some guy stole it.
The store and other people who made the item lost the money.
So, hang on...
If I make an item, I have to pay $2 to the people who make the materials, and to my workforce. Someone steals it, then I'm $40 down. I make another one for another $2, sell it at a profit of $38, then by your reckoning, I've lost $2 (-40-2+40). So how is it that I'm $36 richer than I was when I started?
More to the point, if I haggled the price down to $20, does that mean the the seller has made a loss? I mean, he's $18 better off.
Even if you don't notice money out of your pocket (which you wouldn't, Mr. Thief), the company would notice its sales are less, and have to compensate for that somehow.
So you therefore think that competition should also be illegal. If I make the item that you're selling at $38 profit, and sell it at $28 profit, people will buy it from me. Does that mean that I'm stealing from you? Your sales are less, and you have to compensate for that somehow. Should I be taxed, and the money given to you because I'm trying to offer a better deal for the consumer?
This is another part of how economics works. Competition.
I don't get the impression that this guy could actually afford a good lawyer.
Would probably make more sense to jump ship - quickly.
When you steal something that cost 2$ to make, even if you think, "I'm only stealing 2$" you're actually stealing the 40$ some guy would've paid to enjoy that game
Where does this money go then? Who has lost $40?
:)
I guess I was asking for that
The representartive of the copyright holder may be mistaken, and not realise that they have given permission. There may be other reasons that you haven't considered, especially in fringe cases, that may or may not involve fair use.
You are not a judge and jury in this matter. If the user believes he has a legitimate right to the information, then it's up to the legal system to deal with this.
I agree. I never have quite seen what the problem is here. Windows also comes with a "word processor", and art package. Okay, wordpad and paint may be a pretty crappy at those jobs, but Corel and Adobe don't seem to get their knickers in a twist about those. They simply release a vastly better product. If a larger company can provide better software for free, then you lose out. This would still apply if MS didn't have a monopoly, but was simply bigger.
MS have done a lot worse than give away a free browser. They should be concentrating on that instead.
DMCA safe harbor provsion FAQ
The rules are fairly specific about what information is required for a takedown, but also puts some obligation on the ISP to police its own network.
It sounds like they failed to comply sufficiently to obligate you to provide all the information about the subscriber, but does require that you loook into it, and at least clarify that the user has, or thinks he has permission to use the material. IANAL, so this is guessing.
This post is public domain.
Anyone may quote from it, use it as their own, claim authorship of it, or whatever. See if I care. It's not mine. It's public domain.
Okay, I'm just being pedantic. It's a good point.
This man lost his rights as a US citizen when he traveled overseas and conspired with a foreign government to harm the United States
No he didn't. The reason - these rights are not granted by the government. Hence the government can't take them away.
That's something I keep meaning to ask. This seems as good a place as any.
How easy is it to develop for a mobile phone, say for an indie (or even shareware) developer? Do you need an official devkit? Does the fact that it's java based mean that you get the write once, run anywhere advantage? If so, do you actually get write once run anywhere?
Well, the ethics committee could at least have sent a quick reply saying They've looked into this, and feel there are no ethical problems with the status quo.
If someone has qualms about it, the ethics committee should consider it.
Yep. All the good Movie Brits go over to America. It's possible to have an American film made in Britain, with a British star, a British director, and a large chunk of the crew being British.
That's true, but I'm not going to employ Saddam Hussein as PR director either.
Okay. For balance, MS has the resources to spend on doing things that aren't much fun, but are essential, like usability focus groups, and documentation.
I keep finding that I write a piece of code, and although it works, it would be so much nicer to have done it differently. Trouble is, it works. Company resources (i.e. me) are so much better spent fixing things that don't work at all.
My own code, I get to redo as many times as I want. This does tend to make it better, but it takes longer to produce. The same no doubt applies to open source. There's no real problem caused if people do reinvent the wheel.
This prbably also explains the quality of MS code.
I dunno. MS stuff may have some seriously bad design flaws dotted around, but can you think of any proprietry commercial software that's any better? Except for safety critical stuff, there's a hell of a lot of bad code out there. MS is only noticed as much because they produce so much of it.
After a while this trick gets a bit more ludicrous though. If there are only a few dozen known specimins of a sample, it's quite feasable that people simply haven't found the inbetween stage.
It's difficult to find a reasonable case that God would have created a species, and then a similar one a few thousand years later. Sure, it's possible to come up with a few ideas, but it's not a well trodden argument, so is easier to argue against.
Observant people will notice an apparent change in my position. The top post was an attempt to apply those seven rules to a subject that's a little harder to prove than most laws of physics.
There are all sorts of inbetweens. There are skeletons of ape like humans that have all sorts of tool using abilities, fossils of bird like dinosaurs.
Go to a decent natural history museum and you can see some examples.
Darwin proposed his "Theory of evolution" in a book. The equivalent of TV as far as popular media at the time goes. Proponents of this claim that it is always being supressed by religious groups, and local government officials.
Fortunately, they have chosen a theory that can't be proved, and only has anecdotal evidence. Animals 1 000 000 years ago were different, so we must have evolution.
The only way this could possibly be true is for Darwin to propose a new law of nature!
It's nice that you can go after the spammers customers, and this will keep the numbers down. The problem comes when people don't know the law. You can still punish them for it of course, since ignorance is no defence, but you can't prevent them in the first place.
Example - there are any number of "Make Money fast" pyramid schemes floating around. These are certainly illegal, but people still distribute them complete with a set of references "proving" that it's legal. People clearly have no comprehension that there is anything wrong with what they're doing, because they provide their full names, and addresses in the email.
We need a way to prevent people from sending these in the first place. Preventing the spammers may work in a lot of cases, but not stoipping their customers. It is always possible for them to find more customers.
All true, and all reasons why shared libs are a good idea.
Trouble is, having several instances of essentially the same library causes many of the same problems that static linking does.
Firstly, IANAL
Secondly - resolving the problem. Have you talked to the modem manufacturer? They may send you a fix for free. Sending you a software fix will cost them nothing, and will generate goodwill, so it's in their interests to do this.
Third - The computer misuse act is probably completely inappropriate here. I believe it's a criminal law intended for dealing with malicious damage. Threatening them with it for negligence makes you look like a moron. Breach of contract and negligent damage are more suitable terms.
I'd suggest sending a letter, by recorded delivery, explaining that you owned the modem, that a rental modem will not be adequate, and state precicely what you want them to do. Don't threaten legal action, at least not directly. Everyone does that. It makes people sound like stuck up little twits.
If all else fails, I would suggest that you consider ADSL, and tell the cable company that you are doing so. This will cost at least give you the satisfaction of knowing that you have deprived them od revenue.