I did some web searching myself and came up pretty empty handed with info about the current status of this. Many references to the old suit (like the reply you pointed to), but no one claiming to know why Apple Computer thinks they can get away with going into the music business now when they were legally barred from it previously.
I suppose if this deal starts to look more likely, we'll be hearing the opinions of many armchair lawyers on this.
I know I missed this post last Friday, so now probably no one will read my question here, but....
Apple Computer was sued by Apple Records many years ago. I thought the result of that was that Apple Computer could continue to use the name Apple so long as they didn't do anything related to music.
Doesn't this mean Apple Computer faces a significant legal hurdle in considering this Universal deal?
I am sick of people who latch onto MP3s as the "wave of the future" and conveniently forget that it is a lossy, compressed distribution format where parts of the audio signal are purposely removed to reduce file size.
There are some mighty talented professionals (i.e. engineers, music industry technicians) out there slaving away to get their sounds just right, cleaner and better than ever. Even CD-standard 44.1Khz/16-bit is far from state of the art.
MP3s (or pick your compressed format of choice) are good for what they are, but it really pisses me off when people start going on about how this is the "future" of music.
Should be good - check out Jacek's writing...
on
OpenBSD Books On The Way
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I can't wait! I've been following a series of articles that he wrote for O'Reilly OnLamp.com. (Like this one)
Very well written, and they address practical stuff.
A few years ago, I was discussing Microsoft's greedy and (anti-)competitive practices with a co-worker. After pointing out how bad some of MS's practices were for the software industry as a whole, it occurred to me that there are little old ladies who rely on their investments in MS to get them through their golden years.
If you can imagine Bill Gates acting on behalf of all the little old ladies who have stock in the company, sometimes Microsoft's strategies don't seem so bad.
(I drink sugar free Kool-Aid, and dilute it to 1/2 strength.)
I'll never be able to run a decent pr0n site out of my toaster with that!
Re:At some point..... (perception matters)
on
Office 2003 and XML
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately, particularly in the MS-dominated part of the consultancy marketplace, there is a premium placed on having, using, and understanding the latest, greatest stuff.
IOW - by not jumping on the MS upgrade bandwagon, you automatically undermine your credibility with a large number of (potential) clients. MS has worked the marketplace so this is true. (e.g., certification upgrades, software licensing policies.)
Of course, there are plenty of clients who don't buy into the MS treadmill approach to business computing. It's just that if you dig in your heels too much against the upgrade brigade, you've limited yourself. Great for growing spine, but not necessarily the best strategy for growing a paycheck.
By 'flip' an egg I mean using only your wrist, no sissy spatulas involved.
Well, call me a sissy, but if there's an egg frying on a hot griddle, I'm gonna use a spatula, not try to stick my wrist under the egg to flip it.
(rimshot)
I agree completely. I was amused by this thread until I actually read the notice the BSA sent.
It is falsely accusatory, and, as others have pointed out, makes the patently false claim that they represent the copyright holders (for GPL software).
IANAL, but - I would think that a (false) accusation of piracy like this could have demonstrably negative effects on a business (particularly on a University, or a software distribution site). Maybe they can get off with that "we have a good faith belief" clause. But there's also that "under penalty of perjury" clause.
Yeah - sue 'em. Get help and sue 'em.
Between this and the RIAA cutting off Internet service to someone with a "Photo of Mrs. Harrison" this stuff just has to be stopped.
"Windows was meant to be more of a "user-friendly consumer OS"."
that is no reason for it, that is just an excuse.
Sorry, but I really think that's a knee-jerk reaction to the issue. I don't want to get on a soapbox to defend Microsoft, but part of MS's goal is, in fact, to meet market demand.
Chevys and Rolls Royces are aimed at different markets; that doesn't make Chevy's relative lack of reliability an "excuse." It's a trade-off, and the market chooses what to pay for and what not to.
Yeah, MS is in a bad technical corner because in order to meet market demand they've had to maintain compatability with older software components that were never, ever intended to be put on a public network. I certainly wouldn't call that merely an "excuse." If they pulled all that compatability stuff out, who would buy it? How many people here can name GREAT products that failed - and now don't exist at all - because of the market?
Sidenote: I think often about how when Jimmy Carter was President, he wanted to invest significant money in researching alternate forms of energy: solar, wind, etc. He was criticized and ridiculed. Decades later, Americans still drive gas guzzlers. Our petroleum-based lifestyle (read: desire for ease of use) has helped create a political situation (and a security situation) that makes us resent and fear some of the very people we are now highly dependent upon. And we may go to war because of it.
Seems to me the root of the problem is way too big for even Microsoft to be able to take all the blame.
It's a damn shame BeOS died. I played with BeOS 4.x (4.5?) a few years back. I had BeOS installed and displaying 5 full-motion video windows simultaneously on my PII 450... and it took about an hour, including installing the OS and browsing around a bit. It was effortless. It was cool.
That's the functional model Linux should be trying to imitate if it's going to imitate anything.
His dream is that we will eventually be able to grow and cook fresh sausage overnight at home in special machine, just like a home bread maker.
Well - we all have to have dreams.....
We must decide if we mean gag as in funny, or gag as in retch.
While respecting the scientific and economic value of the subject of the article - it's also a riot! I mean, they quote PhD's who are trying to figure out ways of getting steak to exercise! This is great! If you are what you eat, then serve me up one of them Super-Buff Prime Ribs a la Petrie and don't spare the a jus...
Add it all up and what you have is a company (country) that, at the least, displays a profound level of arrogance coupled with the unshakable belief that they have not only the ability, but the right to dictate to the rest of the world, from charities to corporations, (to governments) how the world should look....
Guess Microsoft is succeeding in the American Way. (sigh)
There are thousands of books and hundreds of movies that were written in the early 1900s that are being lost because they're under copyright but are literally disintegrating. If they were in the public domain then groups like the Guttenburg Project could save them.
Excellent, excellent point. So long as corporations control large bodies of works, then those corporations will decide which ones "deserve" to live (i.e., get funding for their preservation, be re-released in new media formats, etc.) and the others will be left to rot. Maybe not even because corporations are Big Evil Things, but because corporations have a duty to shareholders to manage costs and earn profit. It would actually be irresponsible - from a corporate standpoint - for most movie studios to invest money to preserve every film in their libraries.
This also means that corporations will likely be inclined to preserve the stuff that's already made money, and let the fringe stuff deteriorate. So in the same way we experience homogenized pop-culture pap on the radio today, future generations will actually receive only a homogenized pop-culture version of the past as well.
This, I think, is truly frightening.
And that's why copyright expiration is a good thing. Cut the old stuff loose and let the public decide what's valuable and what's not.
Another interesting thought in all this: If a whole lot of music/film were to suddenly be released into the public domain - what would that mean for the Internet as a distribution channel? Would.com (".film"?) web sites pop up offering free copies of old classics for download? Could be. Might that be a good thing for online commerce and the development of new forms of media distribution? (Think "cheap way to develop distribution models that the RIAA and MPAA themselves might adopt and profit from.") Could be.
Why should the studios resist, then?
Do they fear competition from public domain works in a world where the old barriers to distribution don't exist anymore? Could be.
And what kind of problems would the RIAA and MPAA have lobbying for copy proctection schemes that are currently under debate... if there were valid and perfectly legal uses for downloading feature-length (public domain) films and classic LPs from the Internet and burning them to DVD and CD as many times as you wanted?
Makes me wonder if the RIAA/MPAA actually had someone clever enough to have foreseen this back in 1998 when the Bono bill was passed, or if they just lucked into it.
Lousy marketing, indeed. I bought Peter Gabriel's UP the day it was released - because I happened to be watching for the release date on the web.
That was, I think, Sept 24. Before then I saw two TV commericals. Since then, I've seen absolutely NOTHING in the way of promotional material anyplace I've been. Not even on the release date - it was buried in the bins at Rock Records. I also haven't seen any more TV commericals since the album was released. And such a shame, because it's a really good (at places great) album.
And how many people ever saw ANY promotional material at all for Roger Water's "Amused to Death" when it was released... about 8 years ago. OK. I'm ranting. I'll give it up. Consider yourselves proselytized and agreed with....
> Am I forbidden to dial a phone number that I didn't find in the phone book?
An excellent analogy.
As someone pointed out earlier, though, where Reuters might find they've stepped in it is that they published the information they found. IMO, that was dumb, and that's where they overstepped their bounds.
And, hopefully, a clueful judge will be able to differentiate between the two events.
Here's some related questions:
* Is it illegal to call someone whose number you dial at random and then publish the content of the conversation that ensues? (I assume the Jerky Boys - or whoever those phone goofs from a few years ago were - had to get some sort of clearance from their victims before they could release their things on CD.)
* If I know someone's "unpublished" phone number, is it illegal for me to publish it - say on my web site, or in my car window? (IANAL - I'm guessing "yes" it's illegal.)
Good arguments, all. I don't condone theft or copyright infringment. That said: Are there any REAL figures on how many of the downloaded films are actually reducing box office (or video/DVD) sales?
I have trouble imagining that too many people who own a computer and spend hours DL-ing a copy of Star Wars (or whatever) would be content just to watch the crappy DL'd version on his/her SVGA screen. How many of these pirated copies are acting as "previews" for folks who can't wait for the film to play near them? Or as "souvenirs" for people who already saw it once or twice? (Granted - they should go out and buy the DVD/VHS.)
Now if it's a truly crappy movie, then, yeah - the DL'd version is going to be enough to make people keep their money in their pockets.
Dunno. I can see both sides of the argument. The one thing I HAVEN'T seen is anything like hard numbers (or even substatiated estimates) that say "This is why we think we're losing $3 billion because people are downloading movies." So the argument is based on.... FUD?
Any argument that's based on FUD gets demoted in my book.
Of course there are barely any OSes with "security" as "core functionality." It's been less than ten years since the Internet became a "dangerous place." Arguably, less than five years. Why brace against a (virtually) non-existant threat?
The first cars didn't have seatbelts, either.
We're in a whole new world. It took a certain amount of technological advance for computers to be easy enough for Grandma to use, and just a little more (de)-evolution of Internet culture to make her a target zombie of a DDoS attacker.
I don't blame MS for floating the idea of charging for "high security." (I don't *like* it, but I don't blame them.) IMHO, this is just another one of the hundreds of thought balloons they burp up to see what the world says.
Re:The best printer on Earth (that we can afford)
on
Printer Makers' Ploys
·
· Score: 1
Thanks. I really appreciate this feedback on the Brother printers.
I've been flirting with the idea of buying a Brother laser printer for several months. I really want a duplexing laser, but it's for home use, so I can't justify too much $$$.
I looked at the Brother 1450 (I think) months ago when it cost $599 and I was blown away by the print quality. Duplexing and the print quality at the price was amazing. I think the 1450 is dicontinued now, but I'm seeing faster Brother models (like the 1650) for under $500 now. And they'll take up to like 136MB of RAM? OK!
-jmk Who's still waiting for his 7+ year old Okidata OL/4e to die. It still runs, but it jams more than it used to and never had enough RAM to handle graphics. I've really liked it, though. Because toner is separate from the drum, the toner costs have been negligible, IMO. I've replaced the drum once. Had one repair (due to my carelessness fixing a jam). If Okidata had an economical duplex laser, I'd pop for it. Yesterday. Hear me, Okidata???
Hmmm... Back in the old days, didn't they used to have the stars of live TV shows do the commercial breaks, live, in the studio? I wouldn't fast-forward past a commercial if it involved watching Jennifer Aniston washing her hair on live TV. Heck, I'd tape it for posterity!
I want to see someone get up at one of Bill Gate's pep talks and ask Gates point-blank if he has entrusted all of HIS credit card info and bank account statements to Passport.
That's what I want: The richest man in the world saying, "Yes, we have built a system so secure that I have entrusted even my own great wealth to it." Then I want to see the crackers go wild!
Or, I suppose it would be enough just to have Gates answer something like: "Me? Uh, Hell no! My assets are far to great to entrust to this piece of s**t! Passport is for folks like you. And it's a bargain, believe me!" That would be effective, too.
P.S. Can I post this same comment in a year substituting "Palladium" for "Passport?"
Slashdot Mirror
64 characters ought to be enough for anybody.
Thanks, Mr./Ms. B_O. -
I did some web searching myself and came up pretty empty handed with info about the current status of this. Many references to the old suit (like the reply you pointed to), but no one claiming to know why Apple Computer thinks they can get away with going into the music business now when they were legally barred from it previously.
I suppose if this deal starts to look more likely, we'll be hearing the opinions of many armchair lawyers on this.
Thanks again.
I know I missed this post last Friday, so now probably no one will read my question here, but....
Apple Computer was sued by Apple Records many years ago. I thought the result of that was that Apple Computer could continue to use the name Apple so long as they didn't do anything related to music.
Doesn't this mean Apple Computer faces a significant legal hurdle in considering this Universal deal?
I am sick of people who latch onto MP3s as the "wave of the future" and conveniently forget that it is a lossy, compressed distribution format where parts of the audio signal are purposely removed to reduce file size.
There are some mighty talented professionals (i.e. engineers, music industry technicians) out there slaving away to get their sounds just right, cleaner and better than ever. Even CD-standard 44.1Khz/16-bit is far from state of the art.
MP3s (or pick your compressed format of choice) are good for what they are, but it really pisses me off when people start going on about how this is the "future" of music.
I can't wait! I've been following a series of articles that he wrote for O'Reilly OnLamp.com. (Like this one) Very well written, and they address practical stuff.
A few years ago, I was discussing Microsoft's greedy and (anti-)competitive practices with a co-worker. After pointing out how bad some of MS's practices were for the software industry as a whole, it occurred to me that there are little old ladies who rely on their investments in MS to get them through their golden years.
If you can imagine Bill Gates acting on behalf of all the little old ladies who have stock in the company, sometimes Microsoft's strategies don't seem so bad.
(I drink sugar free Kool-Aid, and dilute it to 1/2 strength.)
I'll never be able to run a decent pr0n site out of my toaster with that!
Unfortunately, particularly in the MS-dominated part of the consultancy marketplace, there is a premium placed on having, using, and understanding the latest, greatest stuff.
IOW - by not jumping on the MS upgrade bandwagon, you automatically undermine your credibility with a large number of (potential) clients. MS has worked the marketplace so this is true. (e.g., certification upgrades, software licensing policies.)
Of course, there are plenty of clients who don't buy into the MS treadmill approach to business computing. It's just that if you dig in your heels too much against the upgrade brigade, you've limited yourself. Great for growing spine, but not necessarily the best strategy for growing a paycheck.
(Yes, I will have more Kool-Aid, please!)
By 'flip' an egg I mean using only your wrist, no sissy spatulas involved.
Well, call me a sissy, but if there's an egg frying on a hot griddle, I'm gonna use a spatula, not try to stick my wrist under the egg to flip it. (rimshot)
I agree completely. I was amused by this thread until I actually read the notice the BSA sent.
It is falsely accusatory, and, as others have pointed out, makes the patently false claim that they represent the copyright holders (for GPL software).
IANAL, but - I would think that a (false) accusation of piracy like this could have demonstrably negative effects on a business (particularly on a University, or a software distribution site). Maybe they can get off with that "we have a good faith belief" clause. But there's also that "under penalty of perjury" clause.
Yeah - sue 'em. Get help and sue 'em.
Between this and the RIAA cutting off Internet service to someone with a "Photo of Mrs. Harrison" this stuff just has to be stopped.
It will improve your Outlook on life.
"Windows was meant to be more of a "user-friendly consumer OS"."
that is no reason for it, that is just an excuse.
Sorry, but I really think that's a knee-jerk reaction to the issue. I don't want to get on a soapbox to defend Microsoft, but part of MS's goal is, in fact, to meet market demand.
Chevys and Rolls Royces are aimed at different markets; that doesn't make Chevy's relative lack of reliability an "excuse." It's a trade-off, and the market chooses what to pay for and what not to.
Yeah, MS is in a bad technical corner because in order to meet market demand they've had to maintain compatability with older software components that were never, ever intended to be put on a public network. I certainly wouldn't call that merely an "excuse." If they pulled all that compatability stuff out, who would buy it? How many people here can name GREAT products that failed - and now don't exist at all - because of the market?
Sidenote: I think often about how when Jimmy Carter was President, he wanted to invest significant money in researching alternate forms of energy: solar, wind, etc. He was criticized and ridiculed. Decades later, Americans still drive gas guzzlers. Our petroleum-based lifestyle (read: desire for ease of use) has helped create a political situation (and a security situation) that makes us resent and fear some of the very people we are now highly dependent upon. And we may go to war because of it.
Seems to me the root of the problem is way too big for even Microsoft to be able to take all the blame.
It's a damn shame BeOS died. I played with BeOS 4.x (4.5?) a few years back. I had BeOS installed and displaying 5 full-motion video windows simultaneously on my PII 450... and it took about an hour, including installing the OS and browsing around a bit. It was effortless. It was cool.
That's the functional model Linux should be trying to imitate if it's going to imitate anything.
"This is shit and too big of a pain in the ass to screw with" isn't a particularly exacting or insightful analysis.
True. But it's exactly the same analysis that every "normal" (non-techno geek) user will give. And that makes it extremely valuable.
LOL! Shame we can't mod this one up another 5 points!
His dream is that we will eventually be able to grow and cook fresh sausage overnight at home in special machine, just like a home bread maker.
Well - we all have to have dreams.....
We must decide if we mean gag as in funny, or gag as in retch.
While respecting the scientific and economic value of the subject of the article - it's also a riot! I mean, they quote PhD's who are trying to figure out ways of getting steak to exercise! This is great! If you are what you eat, then serve me up one of them Super-Buff Prime Ribs a la Petrie and don't spare the a jus...
Oh, no! What do we do for the au jus???
Indeed, switch a few words around on page 2:
Add it all up and what you have is a company (country) that, at the least, displays a profound level of arrogance coupled with the unshakable belief that they have not only the ability, but the right to dictate to the rest of the world, from charities to corporations, (to governments) how the world should look....
Guess Microsoft is succeeding in the American Way. (sigh)
There are thousands of books and hundreds of movies that were written in the early 1900s that are being lost because they're under copyright but are literally disintegrating. If they were in the public domain then groups like the Guttenburg Project could save them.
.com (".film"?) web sites pop up offering free copies of old classics for download? Could be. Might that be a good thing for online commerce and the development of new forms of media distribution? (Think "cheap way to develop distribution models that the RIAA and MPAA themselves might adopt and profit from.") Could be.
Excellent, excellent point. So long as corporations control large bodies of works, then those corporations will decide which ones "deserve" to live (i.e., get funding for their preservation, be re-released in new media formats, etc.) and the others will be left to rot. Maybe not even because corporations are Big Evil Things, but because corporations have a duty to shareholders to manage costs and earn profit. It would actually be irresponsible - from a corporate standpoint - for most movie studios to invest money to preserve every film in their libraries.
This also means that corporations will likely be inclined to preserve the stuff that's already made money, and let the fringe stuff deteriorate. So in the same way we experience homogenized pop-culture pap on the radio today, future generations will actually receive only a homogenized pop-culture version of the past as well.
This, I think, is truly frightening.
And that's why copyright expiration is a good thing. Cut the old stuff loose and let the public decide what's valuable and what's not.
Another interesting thought in all this: If a whole lot of music/film were to suddenly be released into the public domain - what would that mean for the Internet as a distribution channel? Would
Why should the studios resist, then?
Do they fear competition from public domain works in a world where the old barriers to distribution don't exist anymore? Could be.
And what kind of problems would the RIAA and MPAA have lobbying for copy proctection schemes that are currently under debate... if there were valid and perfectly legal uses for downloading feature-length (public domain) films and classic LPs from the Internet and burning them to DVD and CD as many times as you wanted?
Makes me wonder if the RIAA/MPAA actually had someone clever enough to have foreseen this back in 1998 when the Bono bill was passed, or if they just lucked into it.
Lousy marketing, indeed. I bought Peter Gabriel's UP the day it was released - because I happened to be watching for the release date on the web.
... about 8 years ago. OK. I'm ranting. I'll give it up. Consider yourselves proselytized and agreed with....
That was, I think, Sept 24. Before then I saw two TV commericals. Since then, I've seen absolutely NOTHING in the way of promotional material anyplace I've been. Not even on the release date - it was buried in the bins at Rock Records. I also haven't seen any more TV commericals since the album was released. And such a shame, because it's a really good (at places great) album.
And how many people ever saw ANY promotional material at all for Roger Water's "Amused to Death" when it was released
-My other sig is in Latin
> Am I forbidden to dial a phone number that I didn't find in the phone book?
An excellent analogy.
As someone pointed out earlier, though, where Reuters might find they've stepped in it is that they published the information they found. IMO, that was dumb, and that's where they overstepped their bounds.
And, hopefully, a clueful judge will be able to differentiate between the two events.
Here's some related questions:
* Is it illegal to call someone whose number you dial at random and then publish the content of the conversation that ensues? (I assume the Jerky Boys - or whoever those phone goofs from a few years ago were - had to get some sort of clearance from their victims before they could release their things on CD.)
* If I know someone's "unpublished" phone number, is it illegal for me to publish it - say on my web site, or in my car window? (IANAL - I'm guessing "yes" it's illegal.)
Guess I don't know my own sig.
Good arguments, all. I don't condone theft or copyright infringment. That said: Are there any REAL figures on how many of the downloaded films are actually reducing box office (or video/DVD) sales?
.... FUD?
I have trouble imagining that too many people who own a computer and spend hours DL-ing a copy of Star Wars (or whatever) would be content just to watch the crappy DL'd version on his/her SVGA screen. How many of these pirated copies are acting as "previews" for folks who can't wait for the film to play near them? Or as "souvenirs" for people who already saw it once or twice? (Granted - they should go out and buy the DVD/VHS.)
Now if it's a truly crappy movie, then, yeah - the DL'd version is going to be enough to make people keep their money in their pockets.
Dunno. I can see both sides of the argument. The one thing I HAVEN'T seen is anything like hard numbers (or even substatiated estimates) that say "This is why we think we're losing $3 billion because people are downloading movies." So the argument is based on
Any argument that's based on FUD gets demoted in my book.
-jmk
Of course there are barely any OSes with "security" as "core functionality." It's been less than ten years since the Internet became a "dangerous place." Arguably, less than five years. Why brace against a (virtually) non-existant threat?
The first cars didn't have seatbelts, either.
We're in a whole new world. It took a certain amount of technological advance for computers to be easy enough for Grandma to use, and just a little more (de)-evolution of Internet culture to make her a target zombie of a DDoS attacker.
I don't blame MS for floating the idea of charging for "high security." (I don't *like* it, but I don't blame them.) IMHO, this is just another one of the hundreds of thought balloons they burp up to see what the world says.
Thanks. I really appreciate this feedback on the Brother printers.
I've been flirting with the idea of buying a Brother laser printer for several months. I really want a duplexing laser, but it's for home use, so I can't justify too much $$$.
I looked at the Brother 1450 (I think) months ago when it cost $599 and I was blown away by the print quality. Duplexing and the print quality at the price was amazing. I think the 1450 is dicontinued now, but I'm seeing faster Brother models (like the 1650) for under $500 now. And they'll take up to like 136MB of RAM? OK!
-jmk
Who's still waiting for his 7+ year old Okidata OL/4e to die. It still runs, but it jams more than it used to and never had enough RAM to handle graphics. I've really liked it, though. Because toner is separate from the drum, the toner costs have been negligible, IMO. I've replaced the drum once. Had one repair (due to my carelessness fixing a jam). If Okidata had an economical duplex laser, I'd pop for it. Yesterday. Hear me, Okidata???
Hmmm... Back in the old days, didn't they used to have the stars of live TV shows do the commercial breaks, live, in the studio? I wouldn't fast-forward past a commercial if it involved watching Jennifer Aniston washing her hair on live TV. Heck, I'd tape it for posterity!
Bring on the product placements! Woo hoo!!!
I want to see someone get up at one of Bill Gate's pep talks and ask Gates point-blank if he has entrusted all of HIS credit card info and bank account statements to Passport.
That's what I want: The richest man in the world saying, "Yes, we have built a system so secure that I have entrusted even my own great wealth to it." Then I want to see the crackers go wild!
Or, I suppose it would be enough just to have Gates answer something like: "Me? Uh, Hell no! My assets are far to great to entrust to this piece of s**t! Passport is for folks like you. And it's a bargain, believe me!" That would be effective, too.
P.S. Can I post this same comment in a year substituting "Palladium" for "Passport?"