I do agree that the length of time a copyright holder can claim ownership is ridiculous in most cases. However, unilaterally cutting that time down to five years is just as bad as expanding the length of time was. The writer of the article seems to think of this as a punitive maneuver, and therefore neglects to see those who would be harmed besides the RIAA and other "evil" corporate giants.
Why must such a broad brush be used to paint the protection of these creative works? According to the article, Disney is the reason copyright ownership was expanded in the most recent modification to the law, because their ownership of the Mickey Mouse character was about to expire. The unintended consequence is that the copyright holder for a magazine article or crappy song whose value has been expended in less than a few years' time maintains a stranglehold on works that should enter the public domain by that time.
It would seem smarter to create classifications for different works and then treat them differently. I think a character like Mickey Mouse, Spider-man, Sherlock Holmes, et. al., SHOULD be owned by the creator (or his/her assignee) in perpetuity. I think it's good for us as consumers when one organization has stewardship over the mythos it has created. It's how continuity is maintained (except where Star Trek is concerned), which can provide for a richer experience for the consumer of the work.
Music, movies, books, etc., are a different story altogether. A work such as one of these has limited lifespan on the market. It becomes popular, the assignee makes money from it, then it sinks into obscurity for the most part. Some works become timeless classics, but most of them follow a typical marketing cycle. So why not supply these with limited copyright lifespans. Maybe a song is 3-5 years. Give a movie 7-10. Somewhere in between for a book. However, one caveat would be that the copyright holder must make those works available for purchase during the copyright tenure, much like auto manufacturers are required to make parts for their cars for a certain period of time. After the tenure has elapsed, shift the work into the public domain. Most music, movies, and books realize the majority of their revenue within a couple of years, so a limit on copyright term has little impact on the owners while providing great benefit to the consumers.
"One size fits all" just doesn't work where there is so much diversity, so it is long past time to revamp the law to recognize that diversity of works protected.
RIAA can claim to have authority over the consumer's activities with the media he/she licenses, but it's just not so. Without a EULA, there is no agreement to which the consumer is bound, only copyright law. The law has been very friendly to personal copying of other types of creative works. I can back up my software without fear of retaliation, for example, as a license to copyrighted material is for the work and not the media on which it is delivered. I find it hard to believe that with such similarities in the media itself, the law would look differently upon music media.
If the RIAA wants to include a EULA with every CD, then they are free to specify terms of their licensing. At which time I will politely decline, and request a refund for all the CDs I have ever purchased.
Okay-- the linux PC SOLD OUT. How can you argue with a product selling out?
Just because it is popular does not mean it is good. White rice is the most widely eaten food in the world. Doesn't make it the best.
Price is the primary driver of this machine's popularity. I have one myself, because I wanted a cheap Linux box to play around with. Doesn't mean I'm "tired of the Microsoft tax" or any other such nonsense (price is not what drove me away from Windows). It was just an opportunity to pick up a new no-frills PC for a couple hundred bucks. However, make no mistake about it -- the thing is a POS.
Linux is basically Linux, and if hardware doesn't work under KDE it's not going to work under GNOME, or IceWM or anything else. Why do people insist on this sort of thinking?
Because people have been trained to think that the GUI environment is the OS. We have Microsoft and Apple to thank for that.
Typically, I've found that people who default all blame to "the framework" tend to be careless, lazy developers who refuse to admit that the problem resides with their own code.
While it's unfortunate that you're so tightly bound to Windows when selecting.NET as your platform (although once mono adopts 3.0 it will be viable IMO), the.NET framework itself has been pretty solid. I've been part of some pretty sizable development efforts where.NET was the platform of choice -- everything from server applications to windows GUI applications to web applications -- and in all those projects we have found the platform itself to be quite reliable.
What impresses me with.NET is it allows you to write truly orthogonal and very testable code. Your generic rant against the great evil Microsoft suggests you don't have the skillset to properly utilize such tools, and then blame your inadequacies on those tools.
First, for everyone who is screaming about their privacy rights being violated, they're not. You have no right to move and interact in the public with others and remain anonymous. You are not free to travel US airspace in any way you see fit. Never have been. The government controls airspace and air travel, and can do whatever it pleases.
HOWEVER... this is a terrible policy proposal. It seeks to impose very real hardships on air travelers while providing no benefit whatsoever. You can't realistically eliminate emergency air travel, or even last-minute travel for business travelers. What about missed connections? Is it really feasible to make someone wait three days to finish a travel leg because of an airline delay? No, it is not. These cases represent a significant number of passengers. If you make exceptions for them, it casts doubt on the reasoning for the policy. If you don't, you can literally cripple the air travel industry, which in case no one noticed isn't exactly going gangbusters right now.
This was the danger of increasingly federalizing airport security -- now the TSA seeks to promote its own mammoth growth. The only group to benefit from this proposal is the TSA. Imagine the budget they'd have to have in order to implement this program. They've now become a typical government agency.
You do not get "screwed" by fraudulent clicks by any means. The entire premise of pay-per-click, AdWords, and any other performance-based advertising is that you the advertiser have the information available to you to determine what traffic you receive from the ad system is worth. The amount of "fraud" is irrelevant -- you know what you spend, and you know the return you get from that expenditure. If it makes sense based on your ROI to keep spending, you do so. If not, you cease or alter your advertising. If Google screens out more "fraud," the bids will rise, as each individual click becomes more valuable. If it screens less, bids will drop. The end result will be that your total spend remains constant in either scenario.
There doesn't have to be language to specifically permit a certain piece of activity in the terms and conditions. If the term sheet used the words "limited to" your argument might be valid. However, the language of this particular clause pretty much permits YouTube to use your content in any manner they choose if you provide it to them. There are several angles from which YouTube and Viacom are covered:
1. "in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business..." -- if there is an agreement between Viacom and YouTube to run YouTube content on Viacom's "Web Junk" show, the distribution of those works is then in connection with YouTube's business.
2. "including without limitation for promoting... through any media channels" (emphasis added) -- again, this is a valid channel through which the YouTube site can be promoted. Obviously, a show featuring user-generated internet content and giving proper attribution to the content's sources is a promotional arm for those sources.
IANAL, but I have (painstakingly) negotiated the language of several PSAs where ownership and license of the work product were fundamental concepts. Technically, and unfortunately, Viacom's argument is legally quite sound based on the terms of service to which this Knight agreed (although it would seem to me his use of the content from "Web Junk" would qualify as fair use, but I guess that would be for a judge to decide were he to pursue it). Regardless, for Viacom to benefit from something he produced, not provide him any kind of compensation, and then deny him the privilege of sharing his fifteen minutes with his loyal readers just strikes me as being downright non-neighborly.
You make the claim that we all "know" a move from LAMP to.NET would be "counterproductive." Why would we automatically know that? We have no insight into your organization's business needs and technology offerings. Perhaps it's your blind allegiance to platform, and the lack of depth to your argument that makes your business so quickly dismissive of you. If making the move truly is as bad as you say, then you should have justifiable business reasons for it. You should
1. Understand why your management feels the need to move to a.NET platform. The easiest thing in the world to do is pout and blame everything on the PHBs. Are they planning to integrate your home-built software with other third-party packages (such as accounting or CRM software)? Are they looking to expand your technology beyond a web platform? (since we have no insight, I'm throwing some pretty raw speculation out there) If you have an understanding of why the higher-ups feel a platform migration is a worthwhile venture, you can attempt to find areas where your current platform does or can fill those same needs.
2. Understand why you think there is nothing wrong with staying on your current platform. Don't forget, effort is a key piece here. Such a big platform migration will not be done easily or quickly -- I would say that's at LEAST a 1-year project for your team. So that's an entire year where the organization is focused on the basis of its technology and not on moving the business forward. If management thinks the magic wand is a bunch of cheap programmers from India, they're in for a huge disappointment. If you're going to get the most of a.NET migration, it needs to be done by GOOD developers who care about their craft. Outsource a project like this and you end up with poorly-designed, tightly-bound software. It will be.NET applications written as if they were scripting languages.
It's painfully easy to say "we do it better now." It's a little more difficult to explain why. If you feel strongly about the topic, come up with a reasoned argument. If you can't do that, perhaps your position is not so strong after all, and you get what you deserve.
"Commerce Committee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Vice Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) both argued that Internet was a dangerous place where parents alone will not be able to protect their children."
My guess is, whomever has been identified to do this project -- if it passes -- has someone named Inouye or Stevens working there (or maybe both).
You hit it right on the head. As much as I have come to dislike their PC operating systems, I really do like the.NET Framework. My hope with Vista was that they finally "got it," but since they did not I finally migrated to a Mac as my personal laptop. However, like it or not (and no link to some Linux hippie's blog will prove otherwise), Microsoft's overall product offering for the workplace remains peerless. For productivity's sake, I am hoping 7 will make up for the failure of Vista.
You make a very good point. If I wasn't already with AT&T I would not have even considered it. Same goes for its use as a media device -- I'll likely never use it as a music or video player, which is why I purchased the 4GB unit. Really, I was looking for a new phone. I have two important factors in that regard -- sound quality and phone book management. I thought both were exemplary with the iPhone. That's why I bought it. I'm probably in the minority of buyers -- I could give a crap about all the features and am willing to pay good money for a cell phone if it fits my needs.
The author picks a handful of Mac products that support his point and compares each with the most expensive counterpart he could find. Not exactly hard-hitting journalism here.
Apple does have some attractive price points with some of their product lines. Their notebooks are very well-priced, and are of superior construction to most PC notebooks. I find the Mac Mini to be a great bargain as well. However, that's about it. PC desktops by and large are much cheaper. But the add-ons are where Apple really gets you. Compare Cinema displays to the same monitors made by Dell. They're over 30% more. Same with RAM, hard drives, etc.
If I were in the market for a notebook today, I'd go with a Mac. Same goes for a small, cheap computer to use for running presentations, etc. -- I'd go with a Mini. Other than that, you tend to get more for less out of a PC.
It is absolutely pointless to be able to eject a DVD from across the room. You still have to get up and walk over to the device. Unless you are strong with the Force. Then you wouldn't need the remote for anything.
IANAL either (although I have been involved with a patent infringement defense in the realm of software), but I think Apple could successfully defend itself here by citing prior art, and also challenging the novelty of the patent. One strategy of patent defense is to demonstrate how someone skilled in the art would naturally and independently develop a product that is largely like the invention being patented.
That's the funny thing about associations like the UN or WTO. They're largely meaningless, and have no real power. If a law or rule is unenforceable, then does it really have any substance? Antigua has no leverage against the US. Nor does the WTO, really. So it's unlikely this will go anywhere. Nor should it.
Plus you have to look at how you typically use your current music player. For example, I have a Nano that I almost exclusively use in my car. It's always on "shuffle" mode, and always is plugged into my vehicle. When I run through my list of songs, I take the Nano and re-sync it with my iTunes setup on my PC, then set up a new song shuffle. My video iPod is for the times when I want to play entire albums. It has the bulk of my music collection on it.
If I were to buy an iPhone, it would not necessarily supplant either of my music devices. I'd be unlikely to just leave it in my car at all times like I do my Nano (otherwise it's not so useful as a phone, is it), and there's no way it could hold my music collection. That's the nice thing about iTunes. It enables you to maintain multiple iPod models instead of making them competing products.
Unfortunately, if there's no money in music anymore, the effect will trickle down to local and indie artists. With little hope of "striking it big" there becomes less incentive to produce any content.
Slashdot Mirror
I do agree that the length of time a copyright holder can claim ownership is ridiculous in most cases. However, unilaterally cutting that time down to five years is just as bad as expanding the length of time was. The writer of the article seems to think of this as a punitive maneuver, and therefore neglects to see those who would be harmed besides the RIAA and other "evil" corporate giants.
Why must such a broad brush be used to paint the protection of these creative works? According to the article, Disney is the reason copyright ownership was expanded in the most recent modification to the law, because their ownership of the Mickey Mouse character was about to expire. The unintended consequence is that the copyright holder for a magazine article or crappy song whose value has been expended in less than a few years' time maintains a stranglehold on works that should enter the public domain by that time.
It would seem smarter to create classifications for different works and then treat them differently. I think a character like Mickey Mouse, Spider-man, Sherlock Holmes, et. al., SHOULD be owned by the creator (or his/her assignee) in perpetuity. I think it's good for us as consumers when one organization has stewardship over the mythos it has created. It's how continuity is maintained (except where Star Trek is concerned), which can provide for a richer experience for the consumer of the work.
Music, movies, books, etc., are a different story altogether. A work such as one of these has limited lifespan on the market. It becomes popular, the assignee makes money from it, then it sinks into obscurity for the most part. Some works become timeless classics, but most of them follow a typical marketing cycle. So why not supply these with limited copyright lifespans. Maybe a song is 3-5 years. Give a movie 7-10. Somewhere in between for a book. However, one caveat would be that the copyright holder must make those works available for purchase during the copyright tenure, much like auto manufacturers are required to make parts for their cars for a certain period of time. After the tenure has elapsed, shift the work into the public domain. Most music, movies, and books realize the majority of their revenue within a couple of years, so a limit on copyright term has little impact on the owners while providing great benefit to the consumers.
"One size fits all" just doesn't work where there is so much diversity, so it is long past time to revamp the law to recognize that diversity of works protected.
I expected to see more Nigerian scam e-mail jokes in this discussion.
RIAA can claim to have authority over the consumer's activities with the media he/she licenses, but it's just not so. Without a EULA, there is no agreement to which the consumer is bound, only copyright law. The law has been very friendly to personal copying of other types of creative works. I can back up my software without fear of retaliation, for example, as a license to copyrighted material is for the work and not the media on which it is delivered. I find it hard to believe that with such similarities in the media itself, the law would look differently upon music media.
If the RIAA wants to include a EULA with every CD, then they are free to specify terms of their licensing. At which time I will politely decline, and request a refund for all the CDs I have ever purchased.
Okay-- the linux PC SOLD OUT. How can you argue with a product selling out?
Just because it is popular does not mean it is good. White rice is the most widely eaten food in the world. Doesn't make it the best.
Price is the primary driver of this machine's popularity. I have one myself, because I wanted a cheap Linux box to play around with. Doesn't mean I'm "tired of the Microsoft tax" or any other such nonsense (price is not what drove me away from Windows). It was just an opportunity to pick up a new no-frills PC for a couple hundred bucks. However, make no mistake about it -- the thing is a POS.
If this is the same principle used by inertial dampeners on Federation starships.
Linux is basically Linux, and if hardware doesn't work under KDE it's not going to work under GNOME, or IceWM or anything else. Why do people insist on this sort of thinking?
Because people have been trained to think that the GUI environment is the OS. We have Microsoft and Apple to thank for that.
Typically, I've found that people who default all blame to "the framework" tend to be careless, lazy developers who refuse to admit that the problem resides with their own code.
.NET as your platform (although once mono adopts 3.0 it will be viable IMO), the .NET framework itself has been pretty solid. I've been part of some pretty sizable development efforts where .NET was the platform of choice -- everything from server applications to windows GUI applications to web applications -- and in all those projects we have found the platform itself to be quite reliable.
.NET is it allows you to write truly orthogonal and very testable code. Your generic rant against the great evil Microsoft suggests you don't have the skillset to properly utilize such tools, and then blame your inadequacies on those tools.
While it's unfortunate that you're so tightly bound to Windows when selecting
What impresses me with
First, for everyone who is screaming about their privacy rights being violated, they're not. You have no right to move and interact in the public with others and remain anonymous. You are not free to travel US airspace in any way you see fit. Never have been. The government controls airspace and air travel, and can do whatever it pleases.
HOWEVER... this is a terrible policy proposal. It seeks to impose very real hardships on air travelers while providing no benefit whatsoever. You can't realistically eliminate emergency air travel, or even last-minute travel for business travelers. What about missed connections? Is it really feasible to make someone wait three days to finish a travel leg because of an airline delay? No, it is not. These cases represent a significant number of passengers. If you make exceptions for them, it casts doubt on the reasoning for the policy. If you don't, you can literally cripple the air travel industry, which in case no one noticed isn't exactly going gangbusters right now.
This was the danger of increasingly federalizing airport security -- now the TSA seeks to promote its own mammoth growth. The only group to benefit from this proposal is the TSA. Imagine the budget they'd have to have in order to implement this program. They've now become a typical government agency.
You do not get "screwed" by fraudulent clicks by any means. The entire premise of pay-per-click, AdWords, and any other performance-based advertising is that you the advertiser have the information available to you to determine what traffic you receive from the ad system is worth. The amount of "fraud" is irrelevant -- you know what you spend, and you know the return you get from that expenditure. If it makes sense based on your ROI to keep spending, you do so. If not, you cease or alter your advertising. If Google screens out more "fraud," the bids will rise, as each individual click becomes more valuable. If it screens less, bids will drop. The end result will be that your total spend remains constant in either scenario.
I regret to inform you that you were objects of ridicule for long before that.
All I want is sharks with frickin laser beams, and you have to bog me down with all these details.
There doesn't have to be language to specifically permit a certain piece of activity in the terms and conditions. If the term sheet used the words "limited to" your argument might be valid. However, the language of this particular clause pretty much permits YouTube to use your content in any manner they choose if you provide it to them. There are several angles from which YouTube and Viacom are covered:
1. "in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business..." -- if there is an agreement between Viacom and YouTube to run YouTube content on Viacom's "Web Junk" show, the distribution of those works is then in connection with YouTube's business.
2. "including without limitation for promoting... through any media channels" (emphasis added) -- again, this is a valid channel through which the YouTube site can be promoted. Obviously, a show featuring user-generated internet content and giving proper attribution to the content's sources is a promotional arm for those sources.
IANAL, but I have (painstakingly) negotiated the language of several PSAs where ownership and license of the work product were fundamental concepts. Technically, and unfortunately, Viacom's argument is legally quite sound based on the terms of service to which this Knight agreed (although it would seem to me his use of the content from "Web Junk" would qualify as fair use, but I guess that would be for a judge to decide were he to pursue it). Regardless, for Viacom to benefit from something he produced, not provide him any kind of compensation, and then deny him the privilege of sharing his fifteen minutes with his loyal readers just strikes me as being downright non-neighborly.
You make the claim that we all "know" a move from LAMP to .NET would be "counterproductive." Why would we automatically know that? We have no insight into your organization's business needs and technology offerings. Perhaps it's your blind allegiance to platform, and the lack of depth to your argument that makes your business so quickly dismissive of you. If making the move truly is as bad as you say, then you should have justifiable business reasons for it. You should
.NET platform. The easiest thing in the world to do is pout and blame everything on the PHBs. Are they planning to integrate your home-built software with other third-party packages (such as accounting or CRM software)? Are they looking to expand your technology beyond a web platform? (since we have no insight, I'm throwing some pretty raw speculation out there) If you have an understanding of why the higher-ups feel a platform migration is a worthwhile venture, you can attempt to find areas where your current platform does or can fill those same needs.
.NET migration, it needs to be done by GOOD developers who care about their craft. Outsource a project like this and you end up with poorly-designed, tightly-bound software. It will be .NET applications written as if they were scripting languages.
1. Understand why your management feels the need to move to a
2. Understand why you think there is nothing wrong with staying on your current platform. Don't forget, effort is a key piece here. Such a big platform migration will not be done easily or quickly -- I would say that's at LEAST a 1-year project for your team. So that's an entire year where the organization is focused on the basis of its technology and not on moving the business forward. If management thinks the magic wand is a bunch of cheap programmers from India, they're in for a huge disappointment. If you're going to get the most of a
It's painfully easy to say "we do it better now." It's a little more difficult to explain why. If you feel strongly about the topic, come up with a reasoned argument. If you can't do that, perhaps your position is not so strong after all, and you get what you deserve.
"Commerce Committee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Vice Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) both argued that Internet was a dangerous place where parents alone will not be able to protect their children."
My guess is, whomever has been identified to do this project -- if it passes -- has someone named Inouye or Stevens working there (or maybe both).
You hit it right on the head. As much as I have come to dislike their PC operating systems, I really do like the .NET Framework. My hope with Vista was that they finally "got it," but since they did not I finally migrated to a Mac as my personal laptop. However, like it or not (and no link to some Linux hippie's blog will prove otherwise), Microsoft's overall product offering for the workplace remains peerless. For productivity's sake, I am hoping 7 will make up for the failure of Vista.
I have a hackproof system for password management. It's called a "brain." I remember my passwords, then I retrieve them from memory when I need them.
You make a very good point. If I wasn't already with AT&T I would not have even considered it. Same goes for its use as a media device -- I'll likely never use it as a music or video player, which is why I purchased the 4GB unit. Really, I was looking for a new phone. I have two important factors in that regard -- sound quality and phone book management. I thought both were exemplary with the iPhone. That's why I bought it. I'm probably in the minority of buyers -- I could give a crap about all the features and am willing to pay good money for a cell phone if it fits my needs.
Dear Uncle Goombah99,
Thank you for the sloppy seconds on that CD you bought me. I didn't want the experience of owning something new anyway. You are a shitty gift-giver.
The author picks a handful of Mac products that support his point and compares each with the most expensive counterpart he could find. Not exactly hard-hitting journalism here.
Apple does have some attractive price points with some of their product lines. Their notebooks are very well-priced, and are of superior construction to most PC notebooks. I find the Mac Mini to be a great bargain as well. However, that's about it. PC desktops by and large are much cheaper. But the add-ons are where Apple really gets you. Compare Cinema displays to the same monitors made by Dell. They're over 30% more. Same with RAM, hard drives, etc.
If I were in the market for a notebook today, I'd go with a Mac. Same goes for a small, cheap computer to use for running presentations, etc. -- I'd go with a Mini. Other than that, you tend to get more for less out of a PC.
It is absolutely pointless to be able to eject a DVD from across the room. You still have to get up and walk over to the device. Unless you are strong with the Force. Then you wouldn't need the remote for anything.
Pollution in developing countries doesn't harm the environment at all. It says so in the Kyoto Agreement.
IANAL either (although I have been involved with a patent infringement defense in the realm of software), but I think Apple could successfully defend itself here by citing prior art, and also challenging the novelty of the patent. One strategy of patent defense is to demonstrate how someone skilled in the art would naturally and independently develop a product that is largely like the invention being patented.
That's the funny thing about associations like the UN or WTO. They're largely meaningless, and have no real power. If a law or rule is unenforceable, then does it really have any substance? Antigua has no leverage against the US. Nor does the WTO, really. So it's unlikely this will go anywhere. Nor should it.
Plus you have to look at how you typically use your current music player. For example, I have a Nano that I almost exclusively use in my car. It's always on "shuffle" mode, and always is plugged into my vehicle. When I run through my list of songs, I take the Nano and re-sync it with my iTunes setup on my PC, then set up a new song shuffle. My video iPod is for the times when I want to play entire albums. It has the bulk of my music collection on it.
If I were to buy an iPhone, it would not necessarily supplant either of my music devices. I'd be unlikely to just leave it in my car at all times like I do my Nano (otherwise it's not so useful as a phone, is it), and there's no way it could hold my music collection. That's the nice thing about iTunes. It enables you to maintain multiple iPod models instead of making them competing products.
Unfortunately, if there's no money in music anymore, the effect will trickle down to local and indie artists. With little hope of "striking it big" there becomes less incentive to produce any content.