I was being sarcastic:) I know it could be done, but I was simply mocking those that were ungrateful that someone bothered to compile the data in the first place.
Only on slashdot will you see people complaining about *anything*.
Those guys rummaged through the 911 subpoenas to compile a list on a spreadsheet, they let you download it for FREE, and not only did you show a token of appreciation, but you bitched about the formatting?
Would it have been that hard to break out time appearing into another column, so interested people could actually *use* the data for something? No. In fact, it would have been *less* work.
Interested people can compile their own list if they want.
Next thing you know, they'll have a version with actually splits that column into two, and we're gonna see people say stuff like "Why the FUCK would these idiots use a Sans Serif font? Everybody knows that a Serif font looks better on the monitor! Those insensitive CLODS!"
Yes it's mashed in the same column. Yes they used Arial. Yes they used a proprietary format by Big Bad Microsoft. Yes they weren't thoughtful enough to put in plain text so I can run your Perl scripts on it. Yes it's not encoded in ogg vorbis. Yes it won't play on your iPod or microwave. Yes they deserve to burn in hell for not making 2 million different versions catered for each person that downloads it.
No they don't! Thank them for spending the time to sift through all the subpoenas!
Once those songs are less populated, they'll go after other ones.
What would be more interesting is the percentage of subpoenas there are for each ISP. I've heard rumors of how AOL users are more immune, simply because of their Time Warner affiliation.
While I have no sympathy for those that choose to distributed copyrighted works on P2P networks without the copyright owner's permission, I don't understand why customers not using an ISP owned by the same holding company as the record companies should get in trouble first.
On the other hand, maybe AOL can leverage this to attract more subscribers. It's no longer "823451 hours for free", it's "music and movies for free"! Heh.
Of course, if the scare tactic doesn't pan out, eventually AOL users won't be safe either.
It's not about whether or not there's a lock to pick, nor how strong it is; it's about the fact that there's about 30 million locks which have to be picked at any one time. That's why clamping down on P2P is going to be so hard. It's not because of the difficult of catching people - after all, most of the make virtually no effort to cover their tracks even when using centralised services - but the fact that there are simply so many of them. It's like trying to delete every single byte of data on a hard disk - it's not very easy to do at all without completely destroying the disk itself.
Not necessarily hard. It's like a gunman randomly shooting into a large crowd of people. There's a pretty good chance that you won't get shot before he runs out of bullets, but you probably won't hang around to see what happens.
At no point did I say that there weren't books on the P2P networks.
Although you said enough to suggest that books would not be shared on P2P networks. Foolish that anyone would actually OCR it and put that up on share, indeed!
I'm sorry to see you get modded down by someone else as a Troll. It really should've been a Flamebait. I hope they catch that for you in M2.
You didn't listen carefully to your wife, because there's no way a cyber-law class in ANY school would define fair use in the terms you just described.
By your definition of fair use, all those CD bootleggers on the streets in New York City are legitimate, since they are copies of a purchased album. And that is obviously not the case.
The law governing fair use is actually fairly easy to understand: (link)
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
It doesn't take an economist or a lawyer to understand point 4 - sharing copyrighted content that you do not have rights to millions of people would have DEFINITELY have a substantial impact upon the value of the copyrighted work.
Just helping you out in case you spout off that "big media companies" argument in front of a judge.
Nevermind the fact that it would be foolish to either transcribe an entire novel or scan all the pages with a 100% accurate OCR program then slap all the pages together in a PDF.
Foolish? Maybe. But are books available on P2P? I believe so!
Of course, it's the norm to post wrong information on slashdot. You're not the only one.
If the development team is unable to do such a simple task as designing a user-friendly Web site, I'm a little sceptical about the quality of their game.
Yeah.. there's this open-sourced kernel called "Linux", and I heard the developers don't even maintain an official website. I bet the quality is even worse... [/sarcasm]
It's a form of the type of subtle spin and bias that big media conglomeration promises us it won't do.
They promised us they won't do? When, and where? EVERYONE has a spin and bias when they present themselves. You just subtlely implied in your post that OJ Simpson should be convicted, even though you know fully well you were sucked into the spin and hype of everything surrounding it, and you can't look at it with unbiased view.
"Copyright theft" in this context is as much a misnomer as "Consumer Broadband Protection Act."
No it's not the same thing.
See my point? You just dragged something similar yet different, in order to try and make a point. You just tried to skew my viewpoint by associating my bias against the Consumer Broadband Protection Act with filing suits against file-sharers.
What RIAA and you just made are called ANALOGIES - when you try to explain a concept by associating similar concepts in order to speed up the learning curve. That's why they usually say things like "it's like theft" - because the general public should know that while it's not exactly like theft, where tangible objects are being taken away without permission, the copyright holder's right to distribute has been violated.
Besides, it has yet to be proven that trading mp3s is truly copyright infringment, let alone theft.
You just tried to subtlely spin and bias everyone that reads your post. It's not TRADING that happens on Kazaa. Trading happens when there is an exchange of two physical objects. On file-sharing networks, COPIES of the files are being made. (Nit-picking isn't that much fun when it backfires is it?)
It doesn't necessarily give me a right to control home users who are putting my songs on a mix CD.
See, you're spinning things again. These lawsuits have nothing to do with RIAA trying to control what we put on our mix CDs. These lawsuits have to do with the fact that there are people on Kazaa sharing copyrighted works that they do not own.
The main reason the RIAA wants to abolish file trading is that it gives users a medium to learn about new artists that their members (who include the same labels involved in payola scams, price fixing and very few independent labels) can not control.
No, you're wrong. They are targetting file sharers that have explicitly infringed on some record companies' copyright. Your tin-foil hat theory has a leg to stand on only if the file sharers were only sharing works that the RIAA does not own.
There are plenty of problems with copyright - continual extensions of copyright terms. This however, is not a problem.
If a person were to create some form of content, they deserve the right to dictate how the content is being distributed. If they want to charge you for it, they shall. If they want to put it under the GPL, they shall.
By calling it theft, the RIAA is simply shortening it from "this individual is depriving our revenues by distributing our work that we normally charge for."
Yes, it's not the same exact thing. But no, it's not a big deal. Just because distribution rights for intangible materials such as copyright is hard to assess properly doesn't mean the losses didn't happen. And even if the losses DIDN'T happen, so what? The record companies own the copyrights, they therefore can dictate how the medium is distributed. If they chose to distribute it for a price, and someone is distributing their works for free, then they have a reason to sue for potential losses.
And don't give the public that much credit. The people using Kazaa knows very well the stuff they get is supposed to be paid for. The whole "oh i'm so innocent, just because it's digital i didn't know i was supposed to pay for this" argument is not going to sit well in court, or anywhere else. It never was an issue of "what do you mean I can't share this", but it was always an issue of "hey, I can get all this music without paying for it, and I probably won't get caught".
Were the RIAA to put this whole issue in semantically correct terms, they would come across to Joe Public as running a racket, which, really, they are. Joe Public would then, at the next election, likely influence legislation in a direction unfavorable to the RIAA. So they're calling it what it's not, to stack public opinion in their favor.
Running a racket? No, it's respecting copyright. If someone disregards the GPL (and the copyright holders' wishes to put their copyrighted work under GPL) and forks Linux without handing over the source code, I'm sure you'll be one of the first to jump in. Is THAT running a racket?
like I mentioned in another post, it's a feat on its own to try and paint these filesharers in a positive light. they shared stuff that they didn't own copyright for, and as a result they're going to get in trouble for it. if they did commit copyright infringement, then boo fucking-hoo, they did something illegal.
right.. and the copyright infringement happening on Kazaa is supposed to have a positive connotation?
this isn't some project gutenberg issue. This isn't some Sonny Bono issue. This is the RIAA pursuing after people that shared stuff they don't own for free for everyone else to copy. They broke the law, and now they're going to get in trouble for it. Why are they supposed to be the good guys?
Thanks for the clarification. But it still doesn't matter jack squat. When the media talks about "theft" in the context of file-sharing, everyone knows they're talking about the mass copyright-infringement of media that happens on p2p networks.
What you're doing here is nit-picking because of sour grapes. There's no substantial damage being done to society because of these misappropriation of terms, since everyone knows they are talking about copyright infringement. And in court, the file sharers will be SUED under copyright infringement. Not theft, not copyright theft, not grand theft, but copyright infringement.
headline - RIAA sues the Universities slashdot - that's bullshit, they should be suing the file-sharers! why do they keep getting it wrong? assholes!
headline - RIAA sues the P2P software makers slashdot - that's bullshit, they should be suing the file-sharers! why do they keep getting it wrong? assholes!
headline - RIAA sues the ISPs slashdot - that's bullshit, they should be suing the file-sharers! why do they keep getting it wrong? assholes!
headline - RIAA sues the file-sharers slashdot - that's bullshit, they should uh.. uh.. uh.. stop using the term "theft"! why do they keep getting it wrong? assholes!
The point is - it doesn't matter! If you clicked your heels and tomorrow somehow everyone correctly uses the term "copyright infringement", the same file-sharers will be sued!
Sensationalistic media redefinitions mean jack shit, since the court papers will use the proper term.
[sarcasm] and it's cracker, not hacker! jeez! get it right people! [/sarcasm]
seriously, who cares if it's called theft or copyright infringement? everyone knows they're talking about to copyright infringement when theft is mentioned in the context of file-sharing.
now that the RIAA is finally going after the people that actually share the copyrighted files (and not the ISPs), no one has an excuse to bitch anymore, so everyone jumps on this whole "copyright infringement is not theft" nit-picking.
If you're french, I'd bet you'd be one of those whining to make everyone use "courriel" instead of "e-mail". Oui?
No, MPEG-4 is a standard. The specs are open and published - if you conform to that spec, your applications with work with everything else that supports the same standard. If you don't know what the fuck a standard is, you shouldn't go around using that word.
MP3 is the standard for digital audio.
MP3 is a popular format for digital audio, but it doesn't make anything else less of a standard.
Depending on the restrictions in the Buy system, it may allow burning as well.
It may? That's good to know. It may let me burn unlimited number of times, three times, four times, five times, or none at all. I love doing that mental math when I'm trying to burn a new mix for my car.
It's nice to know that iTunes will let me burn any songs an unlimited number of times. None of that "it may now, but not next time" bullshit.
First, Apple has not announced iTunes for Win32.
"PC users will be able to enjoy downloading songs from the iTunes Music Store when it is released for the Windows platform by the end of this year."
Since the press release is from apple.com, while it's not an official announcement, it's definitely a promise. Care to dig up anything similar for WMP on Macs on microsoft.com?
I was actually modded down by Mac zealots who were too blind to see that Apple's store really isn't all that different.
The difference lies in the subtle little details that actually matter the most. The buymusic.com interface is horrid and unfriendly. The song selection is ridden with different prices for songs, different restrictions for songs, etc. Apple's store works with iPod, which commanders 50% of the digital audio player market (admitted by buy.com founder himself), while buymusic.com only caters to a subset of the remaining half that supports WMA+DRM. If music purchasing is like a meat market, then ALL music stores would look like a meat market and not give half a shit about the customer experience.
Of course, why would you notice that? You're too busy posting half lies. MPEG-4 not a standard? hahaha.....
Unfortunately, the anime series has never been picked up for release here- cultural differences?
If "here" is referring to US, and if you've actually read the article on TokyoPop linked at the top, you'll learn that Initial D (the anime) has been licensed for a long time, and the anime series will debut in the US in September.
Somehow I doubt that Munich will be hiring their own development staff to start digging through a kernel to "support" their system after 6 years.
But they *can*. If SuSE decides to charge 2 billion dollars for an upgrade, they can always go to someone else (or hire their own staff) to patch up the systems. If Microsoft decides to charge 2 billion dollars for an upgrade, or stick with the bugs, well.. you're back to square one, trying to find an implementation that costs less than 2 billion dollars, AND have a memo sent to you asking you WHY you didn't choose the linux solution in the first place so your balls wouldn't be tied to the software supplier.
You're quite clueless I must say... it's clear you're a dev and not someone making decisions at the top.
Slashdot Mirror
I was being sarcastic :) I know it could be done, but I was simply mocking those that were ungrateful that someone bothered to compile the data in the first place.
but it's still work they did for everyone else.
Only on slashdot will you see people complaining about *anything*.
Those guys rummaged through the 911 subpoenas to compile a list on a spreadsheet, they let you download it for FREE, and not only did you show a token of appreciation, but you bitched about the formatting?
Would it have been that hard to break out time appearing into another column, so interested people could actually *use* the data for something? No. In fact, it would have been *less* work.
Interested people can compile their own list if they want.
Next thing you know, they'll have a version with actually splits that column into two, and we're gonna see people say stuff like "Why the FUCK would these idiots use a Sans Serif font? Everybody knows that a Serif font looks better on the monitor! Those insensitive CLODS!"
Yes it's mashed in the same column. Yes they used Arial. Yes they used a proprietary format by Big Bad Microsoft. Yes they weren't thoughtful enough to put in plain text so I can run your Perl scripts on it. Yes it's not encoded in ogg vorbis. Yes it won't play on your iPod or microwave. Yes they deserve to burn in hell for not making 2 million different versions catered for each person that downloads it.
No they don't! Thank them for spending the time to sift through all the subpoenas!
Once those songs are less populated, they'll go after other ones.
What would be more interesting is the percentage of subpoenas there are for each ISP. I've heard rumors of how AOL users are more immune, simply because of their Time Warner affiliation.
While I have no sympathy for those that choose to distributed copyrighted works on P2P networks without the copyright owner's permission, I don't understand why customers not using an ISP owned by the same holding company as the record companies should get in trouble first.
On the other hand, maybe AOL can leverage this to attract more subscribers. It's no longer "823451 hours for free", it's "music and movies for free"! Heh.
Of course, if the scare tactic doesn't pan out, eventually AOL users won't be safe either.
"You've got jail!"
If you lose the key, you're pretty much screwed if you don't have the hardware or patience to hack your way back in.
Isn't that a GOOD thing? That's good security right?
I don't want a secure IDE drive that "if you lose the key, you can snap your fingers and get all the unencrypted data back!"
It's not about whether or not there's a lock to pick, nor how strong it is; it's about the fact that there's about 30 million locks which have to be picked at any one time.
That's why clamping down on P2P is going to be so hard. It's not because of the difficult of catching people - after all, most of the make virtually no effort to cover their tracks even when using centralised services - but the fact that there are simply so many of them. It's like trying to delete every single byte of data on a hard disk - it's not very easy to do at all without completely destroying the disk itself.
Not necessarily hard. It's like a gunman randomly shooting into a large crowd of people. There's a pretty good chance that you won't get shot before he runs out of bullets, but you probably won't hang around to see what happens.
At no point did I say that there weren't books on the P2P networks.
Although you said enough to suggest that books would not be shared on P2P networks. Foolish that anyone would actually OCR it and put that up on share, indeed!
I'm sorry to see you get modded down by someone else as a Troll. It really should've been a Flamebait. I hope they catch that for you in M2.
uhhh... Bzzzzztt!! WRONG!
You didn't listen carefully to your wife, because there's no way a cyber-law class in ANY school would define fair use in the terms you just described.
By your definition of fair use, all those CD bootleggers on the streets in New York City are legitimate, since they are copies of a purchased album. And that is obviously not the case.
The law governing fair use is actually fairly easy to understand: (link)
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
It doesn't take an economist or a lawyer to understand point 4 - sharing copyrighted content that you do not have rights to millions of people would have DEFINITELY have a substantial impact upon the value of the copyrighted work.
Just helping you out in case you spout off that "big media companies" argument in front of a judge.
Nevermind the fact that it would be foolish to either transcribe an entire novel or scan all the pages with a 100% accurate OCR program then slap all the pages together in a PDF.
Foolish? Maybe. But are books available on P2P? I believe so!
Of course, it's the norm to post wrong information on slashdot. You're not the only one.
If the development team is unable to do such a simple task as designing a user-friendly Web site, I'm a little sceptical about the quality of their game.
Yeah.. there's this open-sourced kernel called "Linux", and I heard the developers don't even maintain an official website. I bet the quality is even worse... [/sarcasm]
Mr. Gates stressed that the company's biggest bet is on the next version of Windows.
;-P
Well duh. The company's biggest bet is always on the next version of Windows!
If they said "Well, we're betting the entire company's future on the next version of Microsoft Bob", they're screwed.
If all Slashdot nerds are like that, how come your post is modded up in such short time, yet none of the insightful comments on it have been?
;)
It's because I hacked into slashdot and removed all mods to every reply to my post. Duh.
It's time to take your pills again, buddy
thanks for proving my point :) you're right, it really doesn't bother me when ACs call me an idiot.
It's a form of the type of subtle spin and bias that big media conglomeration promises us it won't do.
They promised us they won't do? When, and where? EVERYONE has a spin and bias when they present themselves. You just subtlely implied in your post that OJ Simpson should be convicted, even though you know fully well you were sucked into the spin and hype of everything surrounding it, and you can't look at it with unbiased view.
"Copyright theft" in this context is as much a misnomer as "Consumer Broadband Protection Act."
No it's not the same thing.
See my point? You just dragged something similar yet different, in order to try and make a point. You just tried to skew my viewpoint by associating my bias against the Consumer Broadband Protection Act with filing suits against file-sharers.
What RIAA and you just made are called ANALOGIES - when you try to explain a concept by associating similar concepts in order to speed up the learning curve. That's why they usually say things like "it's like theft" - because the general public should know that while it's not exactly like theft, where tangible objects are being taken away without permission, the copyright holder's right to distribute has been violated.
Besides, it has yet to be proven that trading mp3s is truly copyright infringment, let alone theft.
You just tried to subtlely spin and bias everyone that reads your post. It's not TRADING that happens on Kazaa. Trading happens when there is an exchange of two physical objects. On file-sharing networks, COPIES of the files are being made. (Nit-picking isn't that much fun when it backfires is it?)
It doesn't necessarily give me a right to control home users who are putting my songs on a mix CD.
See, you're spinning things again. These lawsuits have nothing to do with RIAA trying to control what we put on our mix CDs. These lawsuits have to do with the fact that there are people on Kazaa sharing copyrighted works that they do not own.
The main reason the RIAA wants to abolish file trading is that it gives users a medium to learn about new artists that their members (who include the same labels involved in payola scams, price fixing and very few independent labels) can not control.
No, you're wrong. They are targetting file sharers that have explicitly infringed on some record companies' copyright. Your tin-foil hat theory has a leg to stand on only if the file sharers were only sharing works that the RIAA does not own.
There are plenty of problems with copyright - continual extensions of copyright terms. This however, is not a problem.
If a person were to create some form of content, they deserve the right to dictate how the content is being distributed. If they want to charge you for it, they shall. If they want to put it under the GPL, they shall.
By calling it theft, the RIAA is simply shortening it from "this individual is depriving our revenues by distributing our work that we normally charge for."
Yes, it's not the same exact thing. But no, it's not a big deal. Just because distribution rights for intangible materials such as copyright is hard to assess properly doesn't mean the losses didn't happen. And even if the losses DIDN'T happen, so what? The record companies own the copyrights, they therefore can dictate how the medium is distributed. If they chose to distribute it for a price, and someone is distributing their works for free, then they have a reason to sue for potential losses.
And don't give the public that much credit. The people using Kazaa knows very well the stuff they get is supposed to be paid for. The whole "oh i'm so innocent, just because it's digital i didn't know i was supposed to pay for this" argument is not going to sit well in court, or anywhere else. It never was an issue of "what do you mean I can't share this", but it was always an issue of "hey, I can get all this music without paying for it, and I probably won't get caught".
Were the RIAA to put this whole issue in semantically correct terms, they would come across to Joe Public as running a racket, which, really, they are. Joe Public would then, at the next election, likely influence legislation in a direction unfavorable to the RIAA. So they're calling it what it's not, to stack public opinion in their favor.
Running a racket? No, it's respecting copyright. If someone disregards the GPL (and the copyright holders' wishes to put their copyrighted work under GPL) and forks Linux without handing over the source code, I'm sure you'll be one of the first to jump in. Is THAT running a racket?
duh.
like I mentioned in another post, it's a feat on its own to try and paint these filesharers in a positive light. they shared stuff that they didn't own copyright for, and as a result they're going to get in trouble for it. if they did commit copyright infringement, then boo fucking-hoo, they did something illegal.
right.. and the copyright infringement happening on Kazaa is supposed to have a positive connotation?
this isn't some project gutenberg issue. This isn't some Sonny Bono issue. This is the RIAA pursuing after people that shared stuff they don't own for free for everyone else to copy. They broke the law, and now they're going to get in trouble for it. Why are they supposed to be the good guys?
That is copyright theft.
Thanks for the clarification. But it still doesn't matter jack squat. When the media talks about "theft" in the context of file-sharing, everyone knows they're talking about the mass copyright-infringement of media that happens on p2p networks.
What you're doing here is nit-picking because of sour grapes. There's no substantial damage being done to society because of these misappropriation of terms, since everyone knows they are talking about copyright infringement. And in court, the file sharers will be SUED under copyright infringement. Not theft, not copyright theft, not grand theft, but copyright infringement.
headline - RIAA sues the Universities
slashdot - that's bullshit, they should be suing the file-sharers! why do they keep getting it wrong? assholes!
headline - RIAA sues the P2P software makers
slashdot - that's bullshit, they should be suing the file-sharers! why do they keep getting it wrong? assholes!
headline - RIAA sues the ISPs
slashdot - that's bullshit, they should be suing the file-sharers! why do they keep getting it wrong? assholes!
headline - RIAA sues the file-sharers
slashdot - that's bullshit, they should uh.. uh.. uh.. stop using the term "theft"! why do they keep getting it wrong? assholes!
The point is - it doesn't matter! If you clicked your heels and tomorrow somehow everyone correctly uses the term "copyright infringement", the same file-sharers will be sued!
Sensationalistic media redefinitions mean jack shit, since the court papers will use the proper term.
and are these court documents that use the term "theft" as a substitute for "copyright infringement"?
No. Sorry, next!
[sarcasm] and it's cracker, not hacker! jeez! get it right people! [/sarcasm]
seriously, who cares if it's called theft or copyright infringement? everyone knows they're talking about to copyright infringement when theft is mentioned in the context of file-sharing.
now that the RIAA is finally going after the people that actually share the copyrighted files (and not the ISPs), no one has an excuse to bitch anymore, so everyone jumps on this whole "copyright infringement is not theft" nit-picking.
If you're french, I'd bet you'd be one of those whining to make everyone use "courriel" instead of "e-mail". Oui?
No, MPEG-4 is a standard. The specs are open and published - if you conform to that spec, your applications with work with everything else that supports the same standard. If you don't know what the fuck a standard is, you shouldn't go around using that word.
MP3 is the standard for digital audio.
MP3 is a popular format for digital audio, but it doesn't make anything else less of a standard.
Depending on the restrictions in the Buy system, it may allow burning as well.
It may? That's good to know. It may let me burn unlimited number of times, three times, four times, five times, or none at all. I love doing that mental math when I'm trying to burn a new mix for my car.
It's nice to know that iTunes will let me burn any songs an unlimited number of times. None of that "it may now, but not next time" bullshit.
First, Apple has not announced iTunes for Win32. http://www.apple.com/ca/press/2003_06/itunes_5mil
Since the press release is from apple.com, while it's not an official announcement, it's definitely a promise. Care to dig up anything similar for WMP on Macs on microsoft.com?
I was actually modded down by Mac zealots who were too blind to see that Apple's store really isn't all that different.
The difference lies in the subtle little details that actually matter the most. The buymusic.com interface is horrid and unfriendly. The song selection is ridden with different prices for songs, different restrictions for songs, etc. Apple's store works with iPod, which commanders 50% of the digital audio player market (admitted by buy.com founder himself), while buymusic.com only caters to a subset of the remaining half that supports WMA+DRM. If music purchasing is like a meat market, then ALL music stores would look like a meat market and not give half a shit about the customer experience.
Of course, why would you notice that? You're too busy posting half lies. MPEG-4 not a standard? hahaha.....
Unfortunately, the anime series has never been picked up for release here- cultural differences?
If "here" is referring to US, and if you've actually read the article on TokyoPop linked at the top, you'll learn that Initial D (the anime) has been licensed for a long time, and the anime series will debut in the US in September.
Somehow I doubt that Munich will be hiring their own development staff to start digging through a kernel to "support" their system after 6 years.
But they *can*. If SuSE decides to charge 2 billion dollars for an upgrade, they can always go to someone else (or hire their own staff) to patch up the systems. If Microsoft decides to charge 2 billion dollars for an upgrade, or stick with the bugs, well.. you're back to square one, trying to find an implementation that costs less than 2 billion dollars, AND have a memo sent to you asking you WHY you didn't choose the linux solution in the first place so your balls wouldn't be tied to the software supplier.
You're quite clueless I must say... it's clear you're a dev and not someone making decisions at the top.
What the hell is this myth that some magic switch gets thrown that makes all of your computers stop working, forcing you to put a new version on?
the magic switch goes off when microsoft decides to end all support for that particular version.
Don't want the new version? Keep using the old one!
sure, if you want to continue to use a system that is no longer supported, meaning that new vulnerabilities will be not be patched anymore.
all you need is one new e-mail worm that takes advantage of an unpatched outlook vulnerability to bring your internal network to its knees.
I hope your spiel about OLE/COM/DCOM/.NET would come in handy though when heads are rolling the moment the servers start crashing.