A survey indicates that iPod owners may not be as loyal to their devices as Mac owners are to their computers, thus opening the possibility for Microsoft's Zune to enter the market. Surveyed people also indicated a high likeliness of buying the much maligned brown device. But that doesn't mean that the market is now at Microsoft's mercy."
It might be because the computer and mp3 player market dynamics are different:
Computer - significant investment in learning a user interface and the software you use. If you switch you must relearn what you can already do, plus the user experience is different.
mp3 player - significant investment in music that can be moved to another device, very little investment in the actual interface
Why do you think Apple wants to make it hard to move music from iTunes to any non-iPod device - because that locks you into an iPod just as Microsoft does with Windows. Who wants to spend the time to burn CD's (which I have found to be problematic - I get lots of hiss on them) just to swap players? OTOH, if all it takes is a drag and drop you don't lose the biggest part of your investment - the time and money it takes to develop a collection - so switching players isn't that hard; especially since you can quickly relearn the interface and controls for a new player.
I agree Apple needs to come up with the next great iPod to keep its position - give people a compelling reason to buy the device and hope you lock them in via iTunes.
I also agree MS will not be able to do with the Zune what they did with Windows - its about content - which they don't control; and mobility of that content - which they can try to control. The problem for hardware manufacturers is the content owners know that they are the real value in the equation - and will work to extract as much of that value as possible without caring what it does to the hardware manufacturers profitability - after all if the Zune fails there are plenty of companies that can build a no-frills 4100 20meg player and sell it as a commodity. In fact, it's to the content owners advantage to commoditize the market so as to drive down prices and increase the % of mp3 players in use - so they can sell more content.
Re:There is no such thing as bad publicity
on
Utube Sues YouTube
·
· Score: 1
They don't sell pipe. They purchase, refurbish, and sell the machines that make pipes and tubing.
My mistake. Maybe I should have checked out utube.com (or is it youtube?)
I can see why they are upset - I worked with a company developing an online market for a small niche market; where buyers and suppliers could post catalogues / spec sheets / bid requirements; if they had to handle a sudden increase in traffic it would shutdown their business.
Re:There is no such thing as bad publicity
on
Utube Sues YouTube
·
· Score: 1
How many of those hits were proper customers? Can we have figures from before youtube arrived? how many turned into customers after they hit the wrong domain?
How can a company with such massive hit numbers draw so little in sales (especially since they are a real company):
Universal Tube, based in suburban Perrysburg and founded in 1985, has about $US12 million ($A15.5 million) in annual sales.
I have never heard of them before all this, and I can only think they are secretly loving it.
Why would they be glad to get so much traffic that their sales staff and customers find it hard to use the site? their site is designed to let people who want to buy pipe buy it; more hits from disinterested surfers is not going to result in more sales.
I think you missed his point - it wasn't to rag on Krita but to explain the challenges any new software program faces against an entrenched standard, namely:
1. People know the current one, how it works and its limitations
2. They are familiar with its tools, interface, and how to use it
3. They don't have the time nor want the risk and expense of solving problems switching brings when they can avoid that with their current tools
For most companies the software cost is a small investment relative to the ongoing production costs so being free is generally not enough; you need a compelling productivity gain or cost advantage to make it worthwhile. In addition, my experience with OOS software is that its design often does not take into account real world user needs - in terms of ease of use, features, etc. Companies can't or won't wait for something to be implemented in the future when their is something that has it now. There is a significant infrastructure built around the tools used in publishing that represent a significant barrier to entry. While abrubt shifts do happen they are much less likely to occur than a gradual evolution of the existing tools. In Quarks case I wonder what they broke in new additions that drove the shift.
Does that make Krita a bad program - no; but it does mean it faces some significant hurdles to becoming a standard.
Read the essay again, you only get to sue non-profits if they don't
1. Identify who they are at the beginning of the call
2. give a return phone number
That's not a real high hurdle to avoid being sued. "Hello, this is Non-Profit-From-Hell. We would just like a moment of your time... Thank you, for further information, please call 1-888-3825-033." That's it. Insert whatever else you want for '...' and you can't be sued.
While I agree that is not much of a hurdle I doubt most non-profits want to called about their telemarketing - I doubt their staff could handle any serious influx of calls. Of ocurse, they could just direct you to a full voice mail in-box.
This seems like they're skipping steps 2 and 3 all together. Now anyone with clearance can find out anything they want? Seems fishy to me...
Except that every hit will be logged - providing a trail as well as data that could be mined to see who is looking at what and flag suspicious use. hell, that's better than a paper system where you really don't know who looks at what and where it's hard to connect the dots that someone is looking in multiple areas for information.
Hmm, Analyst xx looked at 10 articles on Y which is way out of his area - I wonder why? I would think anyone that is doing bad will avoid leaving that sort of trail.
Plus, making info more readily available is critical to doing good work - especially if you can use people with different POV to comment and update articles; as well as tap into expertise you might not have in house.
Wow, this guy has far too much time on his hands. I can understand the desire to sue annoying telemarketers and politicians of an opposing part, but your own candidate or... nonprofit organizations? "Sorry Mr. Smith, we can't provide your insulin shots this month because we've been sued while looking for contributions." This seems a little sick.
Independent of whether more suits are a good thing, it's more like:
"we'll have to spend some of the 10 cents on the dollar we get from telemarketing companies if we get sued; let's follow (or change) the law so we are covered."
My guess is once a big non-profit gets hit a few times they'll go the "pay our lobbyists with the money we could spend on insulin shots to change a law we don't like since we are doing good and the evil citizens are attacking us - the good guys - you are in favor of sus spending money on helping the children instead of fighting lawsuits, aren't you Mr or Ms Congressperson?"
It took a PhD to figure out they practice of printing boarding passes on a computer at home or work is not secure? When people are creating fake ID's, checks, etc using photo editing tools? Any regular flier with half a brain has figured this out. What's next for Congress - declaring Photoshop a controlled tool and requiring registration?
As the TSA pointed out, the boarding pass is not a security tool - all it does is lower the amount of people that must be screened.
If I were EMI I'd want the CD to die and be replaced with downloaded music? Why, well I can think of a couple of reasons they would like that:
1. It ends the secondary market - with no tangible medium to sell the used CD shops will go out of business. That gets rid of a whole revenue stream that they don't get their "fair share" cut.
2. They can develop a watermark for downloads to make them traceable to the original buyer. Makes it a lot easier to go after people who trade music.
3. They cut out a huge piece of the distribution costs - no CD's to master, cover art to create; no shipping and no returns to sell as cut outs (remember them?) Of course, that means more profit rather than lowering the cost of music.
4. You can keep a back catalog forever - once it's in electronic form for download there is virtually no marginal cost to keep it available, unlike Cds or LPs.
5. It lets them move into other business models more easily - such as streaming audio for business or individuals. I really think a rental model may be more prevalent in 5 years than most people think. Why not have a virtually unlimited CD collection for say $20 a month than one you have to rip and store? The movie industry is moving that way with Netflix and Blockbuster Online; and some streaming music sites already exist.
The downsides:
1. Many CD's are impulse buys - you see it in the store and buy it; people are much less likely to do that online.
2. CD's are a large revenue and profit machine for many stores - they're not going to be happy about losing that and may just say FU to the idea of carrying low margin players so the record companies can reel in the dough from their online catalogs. Some may argue Apple already does this but I'd bet their are enough CD sales for ripping to iPods that make it worthwhile to sell them.
For me to keep buying CDs (other than I like the tangible medium) I'd like to see pre-ripped mp3's and the ability to roll my own CD in store for less than I can do it from iTunes.
It sounds similar to the German frau. Dutch, as a german speaker, is a language that seems similar but not enough to be readly understandable; it is much more readable.
Of course, the editorial pulls quotes out of context and fails to address the arguments in article. Instead it rambles on with it's own odd statements and arguments and then concludes the original is bullshit. Maybe the writer is correct - he's created so much bull he mus be an expert on BS.
Is rms' behaviour odd? certainly, and no doubt turns off people.
Is the GPLv3 a threat to free software? Maybe, maybe not.
Why is it Googles job to decide what is acceptable and what isn't? If I have a sex-related blog on Google and someone complains, would it be acceptable for Google to remove it? What if I had a blog that was critical of a Government, and a that Government asked Google to remove it?
Google arn't responsible for policing the Internet. If you don't like the idea that there are racists on the Internet, don't read their stuff, or just don't use it.
Google owns the servers; they decide the rules. No one has a right to use someone else's private property to speak; "freedom of speech" means the right to not speak or be compelled to speak as well. So yes, Google it would be perfectly acceptable pull a sex (or any other, for that matter) related site.
As for your government example, Google has the right (I mean that in a broad term, not specific to any one country) to decide whether or not to comply; and then face the consequences of that act. While I believe they have a right to allow their server to be used to criticize governments not all governments will agree.
It's not about the message; rather it's about the right for a private entity to determine how their property is used.
If you have not read Nate Hentoff's "Free Speech for Me but not Thee" I suggest it - it's a very interesting and thought provoking book.
When push comes to shove, the US law is effective only against grey marketeers who resell counterfeit goods. It is effectively impossible to pursue a case against grey marketeers who import and resell authentic goods, legitimately purchased overseas. They tried (it was a big foofaraw about 20 years ago) and they lost.
I believe what you are referring to is when there is common ownership between the US company and the foreign one - in that case grey market importation is OK because to prohibit would allow the manufacturer to maintain price differentials and give them too much market power. US law also allows companies to prevent the import of products with material differences - which is why foreign Cabbage Patch Dolls were not allowed to be imported. Original Appalachian Artworks won that case; as did Dial Corp against a reimporter of their soap.
As with most laws regarding commercial activities there is no clear cut answer.
What did they do anyway that was so illegal or wrong?
I don't know about EU law, but US law makes it illegal to import trademarked items (even if they are real) for resale without the trademark owner's (written) permission 0 if the owner is a US citizen or corporation. In effect, corporations with US operations can limit the gray market importation of their products if they have a US subsidiary. There are personal use exemptions - i.e. I can buy a Rolex in Switzerland and bring it to the US; since Congress amended the law to allow for personal use exemptions after they discovered that people were buying things overseas for their own us only to be faced with customs seizure when they got back.
In effect, it protects the US company's ability to exclusively market their goods - whether or not that is a good thing is a different story. Of course, the US sub is glad to sell as much of its product to tourists or whomever and let the other region's distributes worry about their lost sales.
Of course, companies can limit the profitability of the gray market by minimizing price differences around the world, although currency fluctuations will always open up arbitrage opportunities; and selling products widely instead of limiting some to specific regions. They also try to limit it by not offering world wide warranties; or, in the case of some car manufacturers, requiring you to agree to not export the vehicle within a certain amount of time after purchase.
Likewise, if manufacturers want to make hardware that can only run "blessed" software packages, then it's up to them to write that software; not free-software programmers' responsibility to license it to them.
If they use the GPL then they have no choice - freedom for one is freedom for all.
Nor does the GPLv3, and no one expects it to. It doesn't say you can't sell crippled hardware--only that you can't distribute GPL software with it.
Which adds a new restriction to the previous license, which is why I think it violates the spirit of the GPL - by allowing someone to add restrictions not foreseen by the original programmer. Of course, that is somewhat moot since any GPL code existent can be still used on crippled hardware since the current GPL allows that - if and when V3 is used it would only apply to the modifications and not the whole work.
TIVO can continue to do exactly what it does today as long as they don't use any code that incorporates GPL V3. Which is one of the beauties of the GPL - it avoids attempts to take away freedoms while allowing new versions to evolve; programmers can control limits on their code by choosing to allow or limit the use of subsequent versions.
Modifying hardware is far more difficult than modifying software, especially when we're talking about mass produced devices like the TiVo. Not everyone can desolder a surface mount ROM chip, install a socket, read out the old ROM data, burn a new chip, etc., all without destroying their hardware. It's unreasonable to expect programmers to do all that just to be able to run their changed software.
it's no more unreasonable than expecting someone to have to write drivers to use a new piece of hardware with existing OSS - either you can do it, learn to do it, or live with what you have. If programmers want to run changed software on hardware that isn't able to without modifications then it it's up to them to do the mods; not the manufacturers responsibility to make the hardware in a way that will run moded software.
And it may not be a condition for OSS, but it is a condition for the "free software" RMS is always talking about. These changes in the GPLv3 shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who knows a thing about his philosophy or the FSF.
In this case, I think RMS is out to lunch. He may not like it; but the GPL as written has no bearing on hardware.
Re:There is no lack of material
on
An Ode To Al
·
· Score: 1
One of Weird Al's strengths is the fact that he keeps his humor clean, and the Simpsons has remained relatively clean compared to its competitors. There are many other comedians and parody artists who allow vulgarity and low-brow humor to slip into their work which undermines it. No one has a guilty conscience for listening to Weird Al's songs, so his humor is able to reach a larger audience. It also often takes more talent to be funny and clean as you are not relying on the "shock" factor as many "colorful" comedians do. There is something magical about a comedic routine that people of all ages and walks of life can enjoy.
He also is very talented - it's a real art to be able to take a song and compose new lyrics that not only match the rhythm of the original but tells a story that is also funny. Most people can probably do one somewhat poorly; he does both well like any really good lyricist. His "cover" of American Pie is a great example - everything fits, including the story line.
Well, if by "freedom to use" you just mean the ability to execute it on some platform, then you're right. But free software is about more than that. If you find that Linux doesn't support your new printer, you can write a driver for it and add it to your existing system. If you don't like the behavior of your window manager, you can change it without having to start over from scratch. That's a benefit of free software: you can modify your stuff, in place, to suit your needs.
You don't get those benefits if you have to build a whole new computer to use the mods because the computer you bought off the shelf only boots signed kernels, which in turn only run signed applications, etc.
While I agree with your sentiment; that's not required by the GPL. You could conceivably reverse engineer around the signing issue with hardware just as you could write a printer driver - it may not be easy but that is not a condition for OSS.
They could have simply made the system non-upgradable as well and still used GPL code. Or, to use your hardware example, what if your revised code is to large to fit into memory and the hardware you have can't be upgraded?
By the way, it isn't their hardware after they've sold it to me. It's mine.
True - and you are free to use it in anyway you chose; they just don't make it easy.
To expect manufacturers to allow you to run modified software on their hardware is ridiculous - they have every right to limit their hardware to working only with their software configurations.
Fair enough... but they don't have the right to use whatever software they want in such a configuration. If I, as a free software programmer, decide I don't want my work to be distributed in such a way that the people who end up using it aren't allowed to change it, then I need to use a license like GPLv3.
Exactly - use a different license.
One of the problems I see with the new license is that a significant part of the codebase will have to stay licensable under GPLv2 or earlier since it restricts you from placing restrictions on modified code that go beyond those in the original license; essentially that means what is currently GPLv2 code will have to stay that way and only new modifications could be covered under v3; although that brings in the question does a hybrid v2 / v3 codebase violate the v2 license?
Maybe you don't mind if people use your work that way; fine, keep using GPLv2 or BSD or some other license that allows it. GPLv3 is there for the people who want to be sure the freedom to tinker is passed on everyone who uses their work.
If I don't like it and I don't buy their hardware, can I somehow prevent them from using code I've written in a way that prevents modification by people who do buy their hardware?
not if you release it under the GPL - that's the whole point of OSS. You might not like their business model but once you GPL'd the code you have given them the right to modify it and use it as they see fit; provided they abide by the GPL as well.
The scenario you propose is to keep your code proprietary; if you want to retain control use a license other than the GPL.
I mean, that's the philosophy behind OSS - it's free to you to use and modify as long as you share your modifications (if you distribute the code - I can modify to my hearts content for my own use without having to share any mods); without any judgements on the morality or reasonableness of the subsequent use.
Wait. Their hardware? No. It's my hardware. I bought it, so I own it. Not them.
Their implementation of the hardware that requires that the binaries be signed by them violates my rights as the owner of the property, because it usurps the control that I as the owner have the right to and gives it to them. I own the hardware. It is my right to say what software the hardware can and cannot run, not theirs.
they haven't stopped you from doing that either - you can modify the hardware to your hearts content. They don't have to make that easy; nor do they have to allow access to their network with modified hardware. Ownership of property does not mean the seller has any obligations to help you modify it to your liking.
As I said before, if you don't like their rules don't buy the product. They have meet their obligations under the GPL; that's all the license requires.
I can't believe you idiot "capitalists" can't see the obvious right in front of your face: the mechanisms that Tivo, Microsoft, and others have put into place have gutted and made a complete mockery of the property rights you claim to so dearly cherish. They have managed to turn your property into their property, and to therefore relegate you to the status of a second-class citizen, one who is not allowed to control his own "property".
Either wise up and start demanding your rights as property owners, or admit that your feigned belief in property rights is nothing more than a sham.
You have a rather odd view of property rights - that somehow buying something means it has to be modifiable by you and that the seller must ensure that is the case. I suppose you expect someone who sells you land to make sure it can be zoned to whatever purpose you decide as well.
No, but the fact that they were published with no copyright notice back when that was a legal requirement in the US does mean that they are now in the public domain.
Not necessarily if HP took steps to correct the omission. If they didn't then it becomes public domain 5 years after publication, at least in the US. Not sure what happens elsewhere.
I don't want to live in a world where companies like TiVo (although I love their DVRs) can use technological loopholes to build on the community's work while denying their end-users the ability to build on and tinker with the products they paid for. The open-source nature of Linux doesn't count for jack if your computer will only allow you to boot the signed copy of Linux that came preinstalled, and/or signed Linux upgrade CDs that you buy in a box at the store, does it?
Sure it does - you can get the source and modify any way you want. You can build your own TiVO like box if you want - no one is stopping you. Just because you can't use any of your mods on their hardware no way limits your freedom to use the GPL'd software. To quote a common response to complaints about OSS - "if you don't like the way it works, modify yourself. Don't expect anyone else to do it for you."
To expect manufacturers to allow you to run modified software on their hardware is ridiculous - they have every right to limit their hardware to working only with their software configurations. If you don't like that, don't buy their hardware.
Actually, they are religion centric - i.e. they require a belief in a supreme being but not any particular one. Interestingly enough, that caused problems for one scout and his parents who felt that discussions of " supreme being who gave us the earth" and certain Native American beliefs were not only wrong but dooming us all to hell. Fortunately, the troop did not cave to his desire to eliminate all references to anything except that which would be considered correct by fundamentalist Christians; he wound up leaving for another troop.
Slashdot Mirror
A survey indicates that iPod owners may not be as loyal to their devices as Mac owners are to their computers, thus opening the possibility for Microsoft's Zune to enter the market. Surveyed people also indicated a high likeliness of buying the much maligned brown device. But that doesn't mean that the market is now at Microsoft's mercy."
It might be because the computer and mp3 player market dynamics are different:
Computer - significant investment in learning a user interface and the software you use. If you switch you must relearn what you can already do, plus the user experience is different.
mp3 player - significant investment in music that can be moved to another device, very little investment in the actual interface
Why do you think Apple wants to make it hard to move music from iTunes to any non-iPod device - because that locks you into an iPod just as Microsoft does with Windows. Who wants to spend the time to burn CD's (which I have found to be problematic - I get lots of hiss on them) just to swap players? OTOH, if all it takes is a drag and drop you don't lose the biggest part of your investment - the time and money it takes to develop a collection - so switching players isn't that hard; especially since you can quickly relearn the interface and controls for a new player.
I agree Apple needs to come up with the next great iPod to keep its position - give people a compelling reason to buy the device and hope you lock them in via iTunes.
I also agree MS will not be able to do with the Zune what they did with Windows - its about content - which they don't control; and mobility of that content - which they can try to control. The problem for hardware manufacturers is the content owners know that they are the real value in the equation - and will work to extract as much of that value as possible without caring what it does to the hardware manufacturers profitability - after all if the Zune fails there are plenty of companies that can build a no-frills 4100 20meg player and sell it as a commodity. In fact, it's to the content owners advantage to commoditize the market so as to drive down prices and increase the % of mp3 players in use - so they can sell more content.
They don't sell pipe. They purchase, refurbish, and sell the machines that make pipes and tubing.
My mistake. Maybe I should have checked out utube.com (or is it youtube?)
I can see why they are upset - I worked with a company developing an online market for a small niche market; where buyers and suppliers could post catalogues / spec sheets / bid requirements; if they had to handle a sudden increase in traffic it would shutdown their business.
How many of those hits were proper customers? Can we have figures from before youtube arrived? how many turned into customers after they hit the wrong domain?
How can a company with such massive hit numbers draw so little in sales (especially since they are a real company):
Universal Tube, based in suburban Perrysburg and founded in 1985, has about $US12 million ($A15.5 million) in annual sales.
I have never heard of them before all this, and I can only think they are secretly loving it.
Why would they be glad to get so much traffic that their sales staff and customers find it hard to use the site? their site is designed to let people who want to buy pipe buy it; more hits from disinterested surfers is not going to result in more sales.
I think you missed his point - it wasn't to rag on Krita but to explain the challenges any new software program faces against an entrenched standard, namely:
1. People know the current one, how it works and its limitations
2. They are familiar with its tools, interface, and how to use it
3. They don't have the time nor want the risk and expense of solving problems switching brings when they can avoid that with their current tools
For most companies the software cost is a small investment relative to the ongoing production costs so being free is generally not enough; you need a compelling productivity gain or cost advantage to make it worthwhile. In addition, my experience with OOS software is that its design often does not take into account real world user needs - in terms of ease of use, features, etc. Companies can't or won't wait for something to be implemented in the future when their is something that has it now. There is a significant infrastructure built around the tools used in publishing that represent a significant barrier to entry. While abrubt shifts do happen they are much less likely to occur than a gradual evolution of the existing tools. In Quarks case I wonder what they broke in new additions that drove the shift.
Does that make Krita a bad program - no; but it does mean it faces some significant hurdles to becoming a standard.
Read the essay again, you only get to sue non-profits if they don't
... Thank you, for further information, please call 1-888-3825-033." That's it. Insert whatever else you want for '...' and you can't be sued.
1. Identify who they are at the beginning of the call
2. give a return phone number
That's not a real high hurdle to avoid being sued. "Hello, this is Non-Profit-From-Hell. We would just like a moment of your time
While I agree that is not much of a hurdle I doubt most non-profits want to called about their telemarketing - I doubt their staff could handle any serious influx of calls. Of ocurse, they could just direct you to a full voice mail in-box.
This seems like they're skipping steps 2 and 3 all together. Now anyone with clearance can find out anything they want? Seems fishy to me...
Except that every hit will be logged - providing a trail as well as data that could be mined to see who is looking at what and flag suspicious use. hell, that's better than a paper system where you really don't know who looks at what and where it's hard to connect the dots that someone is looking in multiple areas for information.
Hmm, Analyst xx looked at 10 articles on Y which is way out of his area - I wonder why? I would think anyone that is doing bad will avoid leaving that sort of trail.
Plus, making info more readily available is critical to doing good work - especially if you can use people with different POV to comment and update articles; as well as tap into expertise you might not have in house.
Wow, this guy has far too much time on his hands. I can understand the desire to sue annoying telemarketers and politicians of an opposing part, but your own candidate or ... nonprofit organizations? "Sorry Mr. Smith, we can't provide your insulin shots this month because we've been sued while looking for contributions." This seems a little sick.
Independent of whether more suits are a good thing, it's more like:
"we'll have to spend some of the 10 cents on the dollar we get from telemarketing companies if we get sued; let's follow (or change) the law so we are covered."
My guess is once a big non-profit gets hit a few times they'll go the "pay our lobbyists with the money we could spend on insulin shots to change a law we don't like since we are doing good and the evil citizens are attacking us - the good guys - you are in favor of sus spending money on helping the children instead of fighting lawsuits, aren't you Mr or Ms Congressperson?"
Didn't we just have the story about the moron who wipped and defragged his drive after it was requested for examination? And judged guilty?
That little thing about destroying evidence and "preponderance of evidence" in civil cases no doubt came into play.
It took a PhD to figure out they practice of printing boarding passes on a computer at home or work is not secure? When people are creating fake ID's, checks, etc using photo editing tools? Any regular flier with half a brain has figured this out. What's next for Congress - declaring Photoshop a controlled tool and requiring registration?
As the TSA pointed out, the boarding pass is not a security tool - all it does is lower the amount of people that must be screened.
If I were EMI I'd want the CD to die and be replaced with downloaded music? Why, well I can think of a couple of reasons they would like that:
1. It ends the secondary market - with no tangible medium to sell the used CD shops will go out of business. That gets rid of a whole revenue stream that they don't get their "fair share" cut.
2. They can develop a watermark for downloads to make them traceable to the original buyer. Makes it a lot easier to go after people who trade music.
3. They cut out a huge piece of the distribution costs - no CD's to master, cover art to create; no shipping and no returns to sell as cut outs (remember them?) Of course, that means more profit rather than lowering the cost of music.
4. You can keep a back catalog forever - once it's in electronic form for download there is virtually no marginal cost to keep it available, unlike Cds or LPs.
5. It lets them move into other business models more easily - such as streaming audio for business or individuals. I really think a rental model may be more prevalent in 5 years than most people think. Why not have a virtually unlimited CD collection for say $20 a month than one you have to rip and store? The movie industry is moving that way with Netflix and Blockbuster Online; and some streaming music sites already exist.
The downsides:
1. Many CD's are impulse buys - you see it in the store and buy it; people are much less likely to do that online.
2. CD's are a large revenue and profit machine for many stores - they're not going to be happy about losing that and may just say FU to the idea of carrying low margin players so the record companies can reel in the dough from their online catalogs. Some may argue Apple already does this but I'd bet their are enough CD sales for ripping to iPods that make it worthwhile to sell them.
For me to keep buying CDs (other than I like the tangible medium) I'd like to see pre-ripped mp3's and the ability to roll my own CD in store for less than I can do it from iTunes.
It sounds similar to the German frau. Dutch, as a german speaker, is a language that seems similar but not enough to be readly understandable; it is much more readable.
Of course, the editorial pulls quotes out of context and fails to address the arguments in article. Instead it rambles on with it's own odd statements and arguments and then concludes the original is bullshit. Maybe the writer is correct - he's created so much bull he mus be an expert on BS.
Is rms' behaviour odd? certainly, and no doubt turns off people.
Is the GPLv3 a threat to free software? Maybe, maybe not.
Why is it Googles job to decide what is acceptable and what isn't? If I have a sex-related blog on Google and someone complains, would it be acceptable for Google to remove it? What if I had a blog that was critical of a Government, and a that Government asked Google to remove it?
Google arn't responsible for policing the Internet. If you don't like the idea that there are racists on the Internet, don't read their stuff, or just don't use it.
Google owns the servers; they decide the rules. No one has a right to use someone else's private property to speak; "freedom of speech" means the right to not speak or be compelled to speak as well. So yes, Google it would be perfectly acceptable pull a sex (or any other, for that matter) related site.
As for your government example, Google has the right (I mean that in a broad term, not specific to any one country) to decide whether or not to comply; and then face the consequences of that act. While I believe they have a right to allow their server to be used to criticize governments not all governments will agree.
It's not about the message; rather it's about the right for a private entity to determine how their property is used.
If you have not read Nate Hentoff's "Free Speech for Me but not Thee" I suggest it - it's a very interesting and thought provoking book.
When push comes to shove, the US law is effective only against grey marketeers who resell counterfeit goods. It is effectively impossible to pursue a case against grey marketeers who import and resell authentic goods, legitimately purchased overseas. They tried (it was a big foofaraw about 20 years ago) and they lost.
I believe what you are referring to is when there is common ownership between the US company and the foreign one - in that case grey market importation is OK because to prohibit would allow the manufacturer to maintain price differentials and give them too much market power. US law also allows companies to prevent the import of products with material differences - which is why foreign Cabbage Patch Dolls were not allowed to be imported. Original Appalachian Artworks won that case; as did Dial Corp against a reimporter of their soap.
As with most laws regarding commercial activities there is no clear cut answer.
although currency fluctuations will always open up arbitrage opportunities
And that only shows how fucked up our money system is. That besides Sony.
Not really - prices can't adjust as fast as currency value swings, nor is it really necessary they do - especially for domestic goods.
What did they do anyway that was so illegal or wrong?
I don't know about EU law, but US law makes it illegal to import trademarked items (even if they are real) for resale without the trademark owner's (written) permission 0 if the owner is a US citizen or corporation. In effect, corporations with US operations can limit the gray market importation of their products if they have a US subsidiary. There are personal use exemptions - i.e. I can buy a Rolex in Switzerland and bring it to the US; since Congress amended the law to allow for personal use exemptions after they discovered that people were buying things overseas for their own us only to be faced with customs seizure when they got back.
In effect, it protects the US company's ability to exclusively market their goods - whether or not that is a good thing is a different story. Of course, the US sub is glad to sell as much of its product to tourists or whomever and let the other region's distributes worry about their lost sales.
Of course, companies can limit the profitability of the gray market by minimizing price differences around the world, although currency fluctuations will always open up arbitrage opportunities; and selling products widely instead of limiting some to specific regions. They also try to limit it by not offering world wide warranties; or, in the case of some car manufacturers, requiring you to agree to not export the vehicle within a certain amount of time after purchase.
Likewise, if manufacturers want to make hardware that can only run "blessed" software packages, then it's up to them to write that software; not free-software programmers' responsibility to license it to them.
If they use the GPL then they have no choice - freedom for one is freedom for all.
Nor does the GPLv3, and no one expects it to. It doesn't say you can't sell crippled hardware--only that you can't distribute GPL software with it.
Which adds a new restriction to the previous license, which is why I think it violates the spirit of the GPL - by allowing someone to add restrictions not foreseen by the original programmer. Of course, that is somewhat moot since any GPL code existent can be still used on crippled hardware since the current GPL allows that - if and when V3 is used it would only apply to the modifications and not the whole work.
TIVO can continue to do exactly what it does today as long as they don't use any code that incorporates GPL V3. Which is one of the beauties of the GPL - it avoids attempts to take away freedoms while allowing new versions to evolve; programmers can control limits on their code by choosing to allow or limit the use of subsequent versions.
Modifying hardware is far more difficult than modifying software, especially when we're talking about mass produced devices like the TiVo. Not everyone can desolder a surface mount ROM chip, install a socket, read out the old ROM data, burn a new chip, etc., all without destroying their hardware. It's unreasonable to expect programmers to do all that just to be able to run their changed software.
it's no more unreasonable than expecting someone to have to write drivers to use a new piece of hardware with existing OSS - either you can do it, learn to do it, or live with what you have. If programmers want to run changed software on hardware that isn't able to without modifications then it it's up to them to do the mods; not
the manufacturers responsibility to make the hardware in a way that will run moded software.
And it may not be a condition for OSS, but it is a condition for the "free software" RMS is always talking about. These changes in the GPLv3 shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who knows a thing about his philosophy or the FSF.
In this case, I think RMS is out to lunch. He may not like it; but the GPL as written has no bearing on hardware.
One of Weird Al's strengths is the fact that he keeps his humor clean, and the Simpsons has remained relatively clean compared to its competitors. There are many other comedians and parody artists who allow vulgarity and low-brow humor to slip into their work which undermines it. No one has a guilty conscience for listening to Weird Al's songs, so his humor is able to reach a larger audience. It also often takes more talent to be funny and clean as you are not relying on the "shock" factor as many "colorful" comedians do. There is something magical about a comedic routine that people of all ages and walks of life can enjoy.
He also is very talented - it's a real art to be able to take a song and compose new lyrics that not only match the rhythm of the original but tells a story that is also funny. Most people can probably do one somewhat poorly; he does both well like any really good lyricist. His "cover" of American Pie is a great example - everything fits, including the story line.
Well, if by "freedom to use" you just mean the ability to execute it on some platform, then you're right. But free software is about more than that. If you find that Linux doesn't support your new printer, you can write a driver for it and add it to your existing system. If you don't like the behavior of your window manager, you can change it without having to start over from scratch. That's a benefit of free software: you can modify your stuff, in place, to suit your needs.
You don't get those benefits if you have to build a whole new computer to use the mods because the computer you bought off the shelf only boots signed kernels, which in turn only run signed applications, etc.
While I agree with your sentiment; that's not required by the GPL. You could conceivably reverse engineer around the signing issue with hardware just as you could write a printer driver - it may not be easy but that is not a condition for OSS.
They could have simply made the system non-upgradable as well and still used GPL code. Or, to use your hardware example, what if your revised code is to large to fit into memory and the hardware you have can't be upgraded?
By the way, it isn't their hardware after they've sold it to me. It's mine.
True - and you are free to use it in anyway you chose; they just don't make it easy.
To expect manufacturers to allow you to run modified software on their hardware is ridiculous - they have every right to limit their hardware to working only with their software configurations.
Fair enough... but they don't have the right to use whatever software they want in such a configuration. If I, as a free software programmer, decide I don't want my work to be distributed in such a way that the people who end up using it aren't allowed to change it, then I need to use a license like GPLv3.
Exactly - use a different license.
One of the problems I see with the new license is that a significant part of the codebase will have to stay licensable under GPLv2 or earlier since it restricts you from placing restrictions on modified code that go beyond those in the original license; essentially that means what is currently GPLv2 code will have to stay that way and only new modifications could be covered under v3; although that brings in the question does a hybrid v2 / v3 codebase violate the v2 license?
Maybe you don't mind if people use your work that way; fine, keep using GPLv2 or BSD or some other license that allows it. GPLv3 is there for the people who want to be sure the freedom to tinker is passed on everyone who uses their work.
If I don't like it and I don't buy their hardware, can I somehow prevent them from using code I've written in a way that prevents modification by people who do buy their hardware?
not if you release it under the GPL - that's the whole point of OSS. You might not like their business model but once you GPL'd the code you have given them the right to modify it and use it as they see fit; provided they abide by the GPL as well.
The scenario you propose is to keep your code proprietary; if you want to retain control use a license other than the GPL.
I mean, that's the philosophy behind OSS - it's free to you to use and modify as long as you share your modifications (if you distribute the code - I can modify to my hearts content for my own use without having to share any mods); without any judgements on the morality or reasonableness of the subsequent use.
Wait. Their hardware? No. It's my hardware. I bought it, so I own it. Not them.
Their implementation of the hardware that requires that the binaries be signed by them violates my rights as the owner of the property, because it usurps the control that I as the owner have the right to and gives it to them. I own the hardware. It is my right to say what software the hardware can and cannot run, not theirs.
they haven't stopped you from doing that either - you can modify the hardware to your hearts content. They don't have to make that easy; nor do they have to allow access to their network with modified hardware. Ownership of property does not mean the seller has any obligations to help you modify it to your liking.
As I said before, if you don't like their rules don't buy the product. They have meet their obligations under the GPL; that's all the license requires.
I can't believe you idiot "capitalists" can't see the obvious right in front of your face: the mechanisms that Tivo, Microsoft, and others have put into place have gutted and made a complete mockery of the property rights you claim to so dearly cherish. They have managed to turn your property into their property, and to therefore relegate you to the status of a second-class citizen, one who is not allowed to control his own "property".
Either wise up and start demanding your rights as property owners, or admit that your feigned belief in property rights is nothing more than a sham.
You have a rather odd view of property rights - that somehow buying something means it has to be modifiable by you and that the seller must ensure that is the case. I suppose you expect someone who sells you land to make sure it can be zoned to whatever purpose you decide as well.
No, but the fact that they were published with no copyright notice back when that was a legal requirement in the US does mean that they are now in the public domain.
Not necessarily if HP took steps to correct the omission. If they didn't then it becomes public domain 5 years after publication, at least in the US. Not sure what happens elsewhere.
I don't want to live in a world where companies like TiVo (although I love their DVRs) can use technological loopholes to build on the community's work while denying their end-users the ability to build on and tinker with the products they paid for. The open-source nature of Linux doesn't count for jack if your computer will only allow you to boot the signed copy of Linux that came preinstalled, and/or signed Linux upgrade CDs that you buy in a box at the store, does it?
Sure it does - you can get the source and modify any way you want. You can build your own TiVO like box if you want - no one is stopping you. Just because you can't use any of your mods on their hardware no way limits your freedom to use the GPL'd software. To quote a common response to complaints about OSS - "if you don't like the way it works, modify yourself. Don't expect anyone else to do it for you."
To expect manufacturers to allow you to run modified software on their hardware is ridiculous - they have every right to limit their hardware to working only with their software configurations. If you don't like that, don't buy their hardware.
...christian centric...
Actually, they are religion centric - i.e. they require a belief in a supreme being but not any particular one. Interestingly enough, that caused problems for one scout and his parents who felt that discussions of " supreme being who gave us the earth" and certain Native American beliefs were not only wrong but dooming us all to hell. Fortunately, the troop did not cave to his desire to eliminate all references to anything except that which would be considered correct by fundamentalist Christians; he wound up leaving for another troop.