The problem with Target-exclusive products is there will be no way to read reviews as there will be essentially none online. And I don't buy anything of substance without researching it.
I have used xara for years. I maintain an old windows machine just for xara. It is an outstanding drawing and for me a one page or smaller layout program. Great for print ads and web graphics work.
It does not compete with The Gimp.
The windows version is very easy to use. Hope the linux version uses the same interfaces.
in the early eighties for the mark Gadgette's. The reason given was that it was too similar to the real word gadget. And that if I was given the mark then I could control the use of the word gadget. That was my plan. So I don't see how Wolfe or Google could get a mark on the word frugal/froogal. I do think Wolfe is entitled to keep the domain name froogle because it was a clever multi-pun that he got to first. Why don't the billionaires just buy it from him? Geeez.
I wonder if the banks themselves are leery of liability and use this disclaimor to aid in a potential defense. Banking security is the tipping point. Money talks and ie walks.
What data set are we supposed to use to determine the veracity of the time warner's claim? I am perfectly aware of the imperfection of the census numbers used in my post but we have to start somewhere. TWC does not indicate anywhere on their web site (that I could find) the size of their Memphis market. I did find these numbers. "Time Warner Cable has about 124,000 customers in Memphis, about 10,000 in Germantown, about 8,500 Bartlett, and about 9,000 in the West Memphis system, which includes Sunset and Marion, Williams said." Now that's about 152,000 subscribers. So according to this for every 2.5 subscribers there is a thief. Do you believe that? The point is the Memphis cable company posits the number 60,000 thieves to make their claim of significant loss to influence the generally pro-business attitude of the legislature. They are using this technique to further restrict our rights. [Cable service theft is already illegal.And prosecuters have sufficient tools to enforce existing laws.] I think we should examine their numbers to see if they are valid. We should at least have an open and honest debate.
"At that point, Ann Carr [lobbyist] was wildly mouthing to Senator Person that she wanted another of her speakers (Dean Dale, ex-CEO of Time Warner Cable Memphis) to take the Podium. Dale went to the mic and briefly stated that prosecutions were brisk, involving large piracy rings and investigations lasting as long as 18 months. He also said that in the Memphis area they believed there were around 60,000 people with illegal cable service."
Taking this information: 60,000 illegal cable user is roughly 25% of households and therefor the cable company is claiming that when you drive down the street every 4th house is stealing cable services.
So what happened? I just ran a whois on techcomputerbay.com and got no response. Poof! Now for my rant... How can a domain name have a copyright? It's an open question if it's even property of any kind. And generally speaking, titles are not copyrightable. Ebay is a trademark. So using the DMCA, in this case, is clearly an abuse. The DMCA is for copyrights not trademarks. Bad laws make good people lose respect for the law.
"Be advised that our response will likely include
counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy."
As I have written here before I was told SCO knew and participated in distributing mixed code, in the pursuit of profit. That is why it is so galling to see Darl McBride use the word conspiracy. If anyone is in a conspiracy it is, IMHO, Darl.
This fruit gets more poisonous everyday. For if there is a conspiracy it lies in the current management's effort to take to the business decision of the prior managers and turn it on its head, in a desperate and despicable effort to make money through litigation.
The point is; Cato makes the argument that competition is "unambiguosly" good but that somehow, since there is more "apparent" competition now, less competition is therefor good. Your statement "rules of 1970 don't have ANY effect anymore" is self evidently incoherent. The rules of 1970 have the effect of insuring more competing media ownership, not less, as Powell and you would have it.
"In reality, the media are less concentrated and more competitive today than they were 30 years ago. And consumers are unambiguously better off."
Just take their argument where they state we are "unambiguosly better off" due to "more competitive" and "less concentrated" media and ask, why then does Cato argue for less competition when they just praised the results of more competition?
Mr Daryl McBride, form CEO of defunct SCO, announced today the opening of his wedding shoppe Mac Bride. "You can't miss it on the strip," McBride said, "Look for the two Golden Circles." "I own the IP, you know." McBride wants all his friends, "We'll all easily fit in the chapel, a former MacDonald's location" he said, to come to his grand opening. Daryl indicated an IPO would soon follow and he hoped to reap billions in license fees from those selling golden rings to brides and grooms. "It's my trademark and intellectual property now", he said. McBride thinks his IPO will rocket further in value when investors learn he is threatening MacDonald's over their use of "golden half rings" as their trademark. "It's half mine," he said.
I talked with a former SCO employee (15 years - high rank) He told me they were well aware of the mixing of code. And that they (this is the previous regime) made the business decision to allow this. I assume they saw it as being in their interest at the time. This article indicates they even pushed it. Afterall, they expected to make money with Linux. IANAL but I believe this will be decided as a poison tree - poison fruit case. SCO poisoned itself. And deserves to die a horrible death.
"they'll be able to justify a bigger surcharge on recordings, blank media, or even internet access"
We all know there has been a "surcharge" tax levied by the federal government on blank recording media for years. Never mind that almost all my discs contain data, not music.
My question is: What authority does the federal government have to cause the collection and distribution of money to private business [RIAA] from the sales of product by another? Where is this concept in the constitution?
Do the feds do this, or something like this, for any other industry or special interest? And just how much money are we talking about? And do only RIAA members, not independents, receive this money?
I do not currently pay for any web sites, including slashdot.(sorry, taco) But what will happen in the future if day by day the gate is closed on "official" content. Where, through copyright laws, the big companies in the content/news business do not allow [much] quoting or caching. And where the link requires payment. Will we only read each others comments? Or will we give in and "micro" pay to read the "official" version. Big business is taking the internet away from its free beginnings. Look for an association like the RIAA to form for news/content site to act as the legal executioner of sites posting copyright materials.
Your's is a good analogy. But SCO distributed Linux under the GPL. They knowingly participated in this arrangement for years. The code was open for all to see. Right? Let's say SCO writes a song. I write a new verse and new vamp for the song. It's a hit. We go on tour together. SCO and I perform the song for years on tour. We sell concert cd's of the song with my verse and music included to our adoring fans. We make money. Suddenly (overtaken by an evil spirit) SCO says, "it's all mine now." Pay me! Or don't sing the song. In the end, I think it was SCO's responsibilty to know what they were doing with the GPL.
It has to be said, if we had things your way there could be only one airline, only one freight line, only one sitcom, only one super hero and ultimately only one corporation and of course only one world government.
IIRC Wendy's sued (and won)a burger company called Judy's because Judy's was a very direct copy by former Wendy's execs. But in the past no one would have thought McDonalds could own the idea of what, a food grill. But now here we are and many are convinced, oh yea, you too can own culture.
I know several heavy mac worshippers.They live and breathe the religion. But they don't do a damn thing on their boxes. No coding. No creating. They just like the cool factor. I know this is just a segment of users. But how large a segment is it? And yea, I know the mac is a great system and works extremely well and many artists and creatives use it to their advantage. But still most of the mac people I know are wannabe geeks.
Check out drupal.org. It has the ability, if desired, to have separate blogs for each student. Also a "book" format for collaboration. And even a separate forum. And static pages as well. Very nice. Students can even learn the meaning of taxonomy!;->
Art is lead by technology. In the field of recorded music, the album came to the front when the lp (long playing) format was invented. Eight track, cassette, cd and dvd followed. But prior to the lp we had a golden age of singles. Which fit into the jukebox format, a critical element of the past. And throughout all of this radio played single cuts almost exclusively. Now we are in the download age. Pick a track. Singles by definition. It will no longer make economic sense to commit to the investment it takes to produce a 10 song album. (they used to be twelve) Now the smart money producers will take a project in for two or three cuts based on the one song they think is a hit. Just like in the old days. No need for an album because albums are not what is selling. I think this will produce better stuff to listen to. And more product too. This is good for artists and songwriters. There will be more diversity and opportunity.Because of technology advances recording is itself becoming almost trivial and affordable to the masses. Of course the greedy-scaly hand of the RIAA oligopoly must be released from the throat of our culture for all to truly benefit.
Competition is the reason, as you point out, for declining music sales. Competition for our time, interest and money. The RIAA seems to operate under the premise music sales are a natural right. Wrong. Pop music is just another feature of our ever more diverse cultural and technical landscape. The demographics are vastly different too. And until there is a NEW force of sound/charisma this is just rehash. It's been done. And I've got better things to do than buy more music that sucks.
That said, I feel that even this requirement should stand only for the case of items of public record on computer. That is, you don't need MS Word to be open source/data format, if your only documents of record are on paper.
If public data resides in a digital form "we the people" need access into perpetuity. The only way to assure this is open data formats, including the right to convert our data into formats of our choosing.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with Target-exclusive products is there will be no way to read reviews as there will be essentially none online. And I don't buy anything of substance without researching it.
I have used xara for years. I maintain an old windows machine just for xara. It is an outstanding drawing and for me a one page or smaller layout program. Great for print ads and web graphics work.
It does not compete with The Gimp.
The windows version is very easy to use. Hope the linux version uses the same interfaces.
Woohoo!!! Gets me excited about linux again.
Here I am using Firefox and I have zero problems reading the comments including yours. What os are you on?
in the early eighties for the mark Gadgette's. The reason given was that it was too similar to the real word gadget. And that if I was given the mark then I could control the use of the word gadget. That was my plan.
So I don't see how Wolfe or Google could get a mark on the word frugal/froogal.
I do think Wolfe is entitled to keep the domain name froogle because it was a clever multi-pun that he got to first.
Why don't the billionaires just buy it from him? Geeez.
I wonder if the banks themselves are leery of liability and use this disclaimor to aid in a potential defense.
Banking security is the tipping point. Money talks and ie walks.
I've noticed a significant increase in the inktomi bot search on my sites.
Don't claim to know if that means anything.
What data set are we supposed to use to determine the veracity of the time warner's claim? I am perfectly aware of the imperfection of the census numbers used in my post but we have to start somewhere. TWC does not indicate anywhere on their web site (that I could find) the size of their Memphis market.
I did find these numbers. "Time Warner Cable has about 124,000 customers in Memphis, about 10,000 in Germantown, about 8,500 Bartlett, and about 9,000 in the West Memphis system, which includes Sunset and Marion, Williams said."
Now that's about 152,000 subscribers. So according to this for every 2.5 subscribers there is a thief.
Do you believe that?
The point is the Memphis cable company posits the number 60,000 thieves to make their claim of significant loss to influence the generally pro-business attitude of the legislature. They are using this technique to further restrict our rights. [Cable service theft is already illegal.And prosecuters have sufficient tools to enforce existing laws.] I think we should examine their numbers to see if they are valid. We should at least have an open and honest debate.
"At that point, Ann Carr [lobbyist] was wildly mouthing to Senator Person that she wanted another of her speakers (Dean Dale, ex-CEO of Time Warner Cable Memphis) to take the Podium. Dale went to the mic and briefly stated that prosecutions were brisk, involving large piracy rings and investigations lasting as long as 18 months. He also said that in the Memphis area they believed there were around 60,000 people with illegal cable service."
Here is a population/household stat on Memphis.
Memphis Population: 650100
Male Population: 307643
Female Population: 342457
Households: 250721
Median Age: 32
Average Household Size: 2.52
Taking this information: 60,000 illegal cable user is roughly 25% of households and therefor the cable company is claiming that when you drive down the street every 4th house is stealing cable services.
Do you believe that?
So what happened?
I just ran a whois on techcomputerbay.com and got no response.
Poof!
Now for my rant...
How can a domain name have a copyright? It's an open question if it's even property of any kind. And generally speaking, titles are not copyrightable.
Ebay is a trademark. So using the DMCA, in this case, is clearly an abuse. The DMCA is for copyrights not trademarks.
Bad laws make good people lose respect for the law.
"Be advised that our response will likely include counterclaims for copyright infringement and conspiracy."
As I have written here before I was told SCO knew and participated in distributing mixed code, in the pursuit of profit. That is why it is so galling to see Darl McBride use the word conspiracy. If anyone is in a conspiracy it is, IMHO, Darl.
This fruit gets more poisonous everyday. For if there is a conspiracy it lies in the current management's effort to take to the business decision of the prior managers and turn it on its head, in a desperate and despicable effort to make money through litigation.
"Community.Net Server"
Once again Microsoft takes the most generic word (pun intended) possible as the name of their product,"Community."
I wonder if this will benefit the current owner(s) of community.net? What are the odds Microsoft ends up somehow acquiring the domain?
The point is; Cato makes the argument that competition is "unambiguosly" good but that somehow, since there is more "apparent" competition now, less competition is therefor good.
Your statement "rules of 1970 don't have ANY effect anymore" is self evidently incoherent. The rules of 1970 have the effect of insuring more competing media ownership, not less, as Powell and you would have it.
"In reality, the media are less concentrated and more competitive today than they were 30 years ago. And consumers are unambiguously better off."
Just take their argument where they state we are "unambiguosly better off" due to "more competitive" and "less concentrated" media and ask, why then does Cato argue for less competition when they just praised the results of more competition?
Not a sound argument indeed!
Cato == Corporate Ass & Tongue Oralators
**** For Immediate Release ****
Las Vegas, July 23, 2004
Mr Daryl McBride, form CEO of defunct SCO, announced today the opening of his wedding shoppe Mac Bride. "You can't miss it on the strip," McBride said, "Look for the two Golden Circles." "I own the IP, you know."
McBride wants all his friends, "We'll all easily fit in the chapel, a former MacDonald's location" he said, to come to his grand opening.
Daryl indicated an IPO would soon follow and he hoped to reap billions in license fees from those selling golden rings to brides and grooms. "It's my trademark and intellectual property now", he said.
McBride thinks his IPO will rocket further in value when investors learn he is threatening MacDonald's over their use of "golden half rings" as their trademark. "It's half mine," he said.
I talked with a former SCO employee (15 years - high rank) He told me they were well aware of the mixing of code. And that they (this is the previous regime) made the business decision to allow this. I assume they saw it as being in their interest at the time. This article indicates they even pushed it. Afterall, they expected to make money with Linux.
IANAL but I believe this will be decided as a poison tree - poison fruit case. SCO poisoned itself. And deserves to die a horrible death.
"they'll be able to justify a bigger surcharge on recordings, blank media, or even internet access"
We all know there has been a "surcharge" tax levied by the federal government on blank recording media for years. Never mind that almost all my discs contain data, not music.
My question is: What authority does the federal government have to cause the collection and distribution of money to private business [RIAA] from the sales of product by another? Where is this concept in the constitution?
Do the feds do this, or something like this, for any other industry or special interest?
And just how much money are we talking about? And do only RIAA members, not independents, receive this money?
---
"Trying to sell web pages... it won't work."
I do not currently pay for any web sites, including slashdot.(sorry, taco) But what will happen in the future if day by day the gate is closed on "official" content. Where, through copyright laws, the big companies in the content/news business do not allow [much] quoting or caching. And where the link requires payment. Will we only read each others comments? Or will we give in and "micro" pay to read the "official" version.
Big business is taking the internet away from its free beginnings. Look for an association like the RIAA to form for news/content site to act as the legal executioner of sites posting copyright materials.
Your's is a good analogy. But SCO distributed Linux under the GPL. They knowingly participated in this arrangement for years. The code was open for all to see. Right?
Let's say SCO writes a song. I write a new verse and new vamp for the song. It's a hit. We go on tour together. SCO and I perform the song for years on tour. We sell concert cd's of the song with my verse and music included to our adoring fans. We make money. Suddenly (overtaken by an evil spirit) SCO says, "it's all mine now." Pay me! Or don't sing the song.
In the end, I think it was SCO's responsibilty to know what they were doing with the GPL.
"Throbs in and out."
I'd say you definitely found another way to try debian.
It has to be said, if we had things your way there could be only one airline, only one freight line, only one sitcom, only one super hero and ultimately only one corporation and of course only one world government.
IIRC Wendy's sued (and won)a burger company called Judy's because Judy's was a very direct copy by former Wendy's execs. But in the past no one would have thought McDonalds could own the idea of what, a food grill. But now here we are and many are convinced, oh yea, you too can own culture.
I know several heavy mac worshippers.They live and breathe the religion. But they don't do a damn thing on their boxes. No coding. No creating. They just like the cool factor.
I know this is just a segment of users. But how large a segment is it?
And yea, I know the mac is a great system and works extremely well and many artists and creatives use it to their advantage. But still most of the mac people I know are wannabe geeks.
Check out drupal.org. It has the ability, if desired, to have separate blogs for each student. Also a "book" format for collaboration. And even a separate forum. And static pages as well. Very nice. Students can even learn the meaning of taxonomy! ;->
Art is lead by technology. In the field of recorded music, the album came to the front when the lp (long playing) format was invented. Eight track, cassette, cd and dvd followed. But prior to the lp we had a golden age of singles. Which fit into the jukebox format, a critical element of the past. And throughout all of this radio played single cuts almost exclusively.
Now we are in the download age. Pick a track. Singles by definition.
It will no longer make economic sense to commit to the investment it takes to produce a 10 song album. (they used to be twelve)
Now the smart money producers will take a project in for two or three cuts based on the one song they think is a hit. Just like in the old days. No need for an album because albums are not what is selling.
I think this will produce better stuff to listen to. And more product too. This is good for artists and songwriters. There will be more diversity and opportunity.Because of technology advances recording is itself becoming almost trivial and affordable to the masses. Of course the greedy-scaly hand of the RIAA oligopoly must be released from the throat of our culture for all to truly benefit.
Competition is the reason, as you point out, for declining music sales. Competition for our time, interest and money.
The RIAA seems to operate under the premise music sales are a natural right. Wrong. Pop music is just another feature of our ever more diverse cultural and technical landscape. The demographics are vastly different too.
And until there is a NEW force of sound/charisma this is just rehash. It's been done. And I've got better things to do than buy more music that sucks.
You have it about right but,
That said, I feel that even this requirement should stand only for the case of items of public record on computer. That is, you don't need MS Word to be open source/data format, if your only documents of record are on paper.
If public data resides in a digital form "we the people" need access into perpetuity. The only way to assure this is open data formats, including the right to convert our data into formats of our choosing.