(background: I've been freelancing for about twelve years, with several engagements that have resulted in open source contributions)
If you're freelancing, the general rule is that the customer owns everything you produce within the scope of the contract. This means you do not own the copyright, and therefore you can't open source the code. The specific phrase you look for in your contracts is "work for hire"... and although IANAL, I believe this is the implicit legal relationship when someone pays you to produce something.
It's very difficult to get around that rule, or to outline specific exceptions ahead of time -- but you can change the incentives to encourage your client to contribute code to the open source community.
I offer to reduce my rates for any work we mutually agree to release as open source. I benefit by getting my name and work in broader distribution, my clients benefit by paying less for the work, and the open source world grows a little bit. It's a reasonable trade off for all parties, and even if most clients don't exercise that option, they appreciate the spirit of such an offer.
Where it gets hairy is when you're making changes to code that has been open sourced under a "viral" license, like the GPL. If that is the case, then you should inform your client that they are bound by the terms of that license -- that those changes *necessarily* become open source. Keep a copy of those emails. If your client decides that they're going to skip out on that obligation, you'll want to make sure your ass is covered if/when your client gets in trouble...
By "release" I mean "to drop the claim against the video in question via the YouTube Content Management System." It's a specific action that needed to be taken with the claim tool, not a statement about releasing in the sense you're talking about. Forgive the colloquialism?
Heya -- sorry I missed your comment earlier. We released the video before we engaged here, and this morning we figured out what happened.
Plainly stated, one of our reviewers incorrectly reasserted the claim during a manual review. We're changing how we review things to address the issue in the long term. You're welcome to search this discussion for my other posts, where I provide more detail about how it happened.
I appreciate the measured response, and the thoughtful questions. Thank you.:)
1) The automated system isn't ours -- it's YouTube's. We don't see any of the disputes until the video creator responds to YouTube's canned responses about copyright infringement, by which time they're usually pretty pissed. The vast majority of disputes that reach us are legitimate, and released quickly. To be clear: we have no control over the initial copyright notices, we can only respond to the escalated disputes. That said, the basic concept you bring up is correct: most people don't fight the takedowns.
2) We don't automate our responses to the disputes we receive. Every single one of them is reviewed by a human, and in this case, our manual review process failed. Regarding your point about communication, it's also very difficult for us to contact the video creator; we don't get access to their personal contact information, so we either have to receive a separate email from them, or we're stuck using the canned responses from YouTube. It's a significant hurdle. I believe resolving the communication issues would fix a huge number of these escalations.
3) I can't comment on the business model, but we do believe that there is a sustainable path that doesn't screw video creators or musicians for their ability to make a living on what they create.
I'll be happy to follow up on any more questions you have.
There's a lot of threads here and on other places, hopefully this sheds some light on the claim process, and what happened with eeplox's video.
Here's the sequence, as best as I understand it:
- eeplox posted a video to YouTube that contained bird sounds. - The automated YouTube content identification system mistakenly assigned it to one of the tracks in our catalog. - eeplox contested the automated claim, which sent it into the manual review queue. - One of our reviewers reinstated the claim, which triggered the response eeplox received and posted above.
When we heard about the story on Slashdot, we reviewed the video and released it.
TL;DR: We messed up during the manual review process. We've cleared eeplox's video. We're working on fixing the manual review process.
I'm here in the discussion to answer what questions we can. We're not interested in screwing over independent musicians and video creators, and we want to be as open as possible about what's going on.
If you run into content claim issues with our catalog on YouTube, you're welcome to contact us directly at YouTubeContentID@rumblefish.com. We have a FAQ about the process here: http://rumblefish.com/id/youtube-content-id.php
The simple and necessary action (reviewing, confirming, and releasing the video) was done very shortly after we became aware of the issue -- several hours ago.
Right now, I'm interested in responding to reasonable questions as best I can; next, we will be reviewing what happened, and following up appropriately.
It's not a wasted evening. People are pissed, and although I can't provide the ultimate answers right now, I don't think it's appropriate to simply disappear.
We'll sort out exactly what happened in the next couple of days -- I really wish I could have a clear cut answer for you right now.
I completely agree on your point that it's a serious problem. I joined the company last year because they're out to fix an industry that's fundamentally broken and frequently abusive; that's why I'm spending my Sunday night trying to sort this out.
Anyhow -- I know this doesn't directly address your concerns. Sorry about that. When there's more to share, we'll figure out the right place to put it.
Forgive us for being a little short in our responses -- it is a complex issue, and we're working through it on a Sunday evening.:)
The YouTube content identification and dispute resolution system is not a simple one; right now we're focused on resolving the critical issue with eeplox. This is something that will unfold over the next couple of days, and we'll be doing what we should -- make sure we figure out exactly what happened, and put guards in place to prevent it in the future.
Hey Bruce -- we've met a few times at open source / security related conferences in the early 2000s, although I'm not sure you would remember me. My work was with the Immunix Linux distribution, and some other Linux-related startups.
I can vouch for the parent (#39168105) being Paul Anthony, CEO of Rumblefish. I'm the Lead Architect at Rumblefish, and we've been working on this issue this evening. Forgive him; he's a musician, not a geek.:-)
I agree -- it's hard to get ahold of copyright holders and sort out these sorts of disputes when they come up. It sucks that I learned about this case on Slashdot; there's clearly something missing between YouTube video creators and independent music copyright holders when the issue ends up... here! This is something we're working on with our partners: figuring out how to clearly (and humanly) communicate what, how, and why.
One of the genuine pleasures of working for Rumblefish is seeing some of the awesome ways the music gets used. It's equally frustrating and disappointing when something like this comes up. We'll figure out what's up, and work to get it fixed quickly.
Many of those responses are pre-canned in the YouTube system, so unfortunately we get stuck when it comes to the responses. Even in clear cases of infringement (which this is not), terse and threatening legalese doesn't help anyone -- not us, the musicians, or the video creators.
We're looking forward to having a direct relationship with the people who use music from our catalog. Music copyright, particularly synchronization rights, are a highly charged topic -- legally and politically. If we can make it easier and safer for people to find and use the music, everyone wins.
We'll sort out exactly what happened, and set it right with eeplox directly.
Ack! I wish this hadn't been marked as "Insightful," although I understand why... there have been a lot of shitty plays in the copyright world, and there are some big organizations that are clearly threatened by the Internet and Internet culture. Righthaven and others have (rightfully) made a lot of people very skeptical.
But... that's not what we do.:) Rumblefish works specifically for independent artists, not labels or rights organizations. The company has been around for over a decade, helping get independent music placed in films, advertisements, etc. It's still a very small company -- the founder and owner (also a musician) has posted here on the thread, and I'm around to answer technical questions about how the pieces fit together (IANAL, but I am the Lead Architect -- look me up on the Rumblefish website).
It sucks when things don't go right, especially when it's such a hot button issue, and we're really interested in doing the right thing -- both for independent musicians and video creators. We're working on resolving the issue with eeplox's video. We're here in the thread to answer questions.
Believe me... everyone wins when good music is inexpensive and readily available on YouTube.
I'm Peat Bakke, the Lead Architect at Rumblefish. I write a lot of the code that manages our music catalog, as well as interfaces with our partners (like YouTube), so I'm intimately (painfully) familiar with how all of these pieces fit together, and who's responsible for what.
First things first -- eeplox, I'm sorry this has been a shitty experience. Clearly something has been missed, and I want to make things right. Please contact me directly at peat@rumblefish.com, so we can sort out exactly what's happening with your video.
Automated content identification is a hairy problem, doubly so when mixed with synchronization (soundtrack) licensing. YouTube's system is one of the better ones out there, and even so, we get a ton of false positives coming out of it every day. The biggest source of false claims come from covers and samples, where it's particularly difficult to determine if the soundtrack for a video is or isn't in our catalog.
That said, we do listen to each disputed claim that reaches us, after YouTube has gone through their (rather terse) automated resolution system. We're working with YouTube and our other partners to make the process simpler and less legally threatening... but we're the small fish at the table.
It's worth mentioning that Rumblefish isn't a subsidiary of a major label, media conglomerate, or rights organization. This is a very small company, founded and owned by an independent musician, and half our staff play in bands or work in independent film. We've focused specifically on independent artists who want their music to be used in soundtracks... and for what it's worth, yes, there are several tracks that sound like birds chirping.:)
Regardless -- the media licensing industry is a horrible, horrible mess. No question about it. Our mission is to make it easier for independent artists (music and video alike) to make a living doing what they love, and it genuinely sucks to hear when people are let down.
I'm happy to answer questions about how we do what we do. IANAL, of course... but I am a geek.:)
From scratch, it's only taken me a few afternoons of hacking to produce this:
http://www.peatsbooks.com/... it's a used computer book search tool that interfaces with Amazon's Web Services. Pretty straight forward stuff, but handy in it's own way.
What do I like about Rails? It's hard to put a finger on, but it just *feels* good. I'm coming from about ten years of web dev with Perl, Java, and PHP. Rails seems unencumbered by a lot of stodgy crap (both code and culture)... of course, that will change as it matures... but right now it's just marvelous.
Hmm. I suspect he went to the wrong school. Every engineering program I've seen knows how to throw down and party... although none can quite match the engineering society at the University of Canterbury. Ever seen a few hundred folks drain a 2000 liter tanker truck full of beer in a couple of hours? It's amazing... and sanctioned by the school.
I miss New Zealand.
Skeptics Abound
on
Podcasting
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Admitedly, "podcasting" is a buzzword for a technology that's been around for over a decade. And yes, most podcasts will be lame and irritating Live Journal analogs.
Despite all this, I think it's an important phenomenon. Sometimes all it takes is a buzzword to create an industry out of an interesting but previously unsexy technology (hey, that's what happened to the Internet). It will take a while to mature, and there are some hurdles that need to be addressed (copyright issues and what-not), but in the end it's a disruptive technology and an opportunity to challenge radio's dominant share of the audio broadcast market.
Yeah, I know -- we've all been streaming music and radio shows for years, and sometimes ripping and burning 'em for later enjoyment... but we're early technology adopters and geeks.
The fact of the matter is that everyone I've explained podcasting to is excited about it. Not just my geek friends, but my parents and their friends. Time shifting is a *big* deal in broadcast media. Once people get it, they say "why didn't they do that before?"
So, that's why podcasting is important. It's not important because of some revolutionary technology -- it's important because it's the fruit of revolutionary and evolutionary technologies: the Internet, broadband, home recording, portable digital players.
Frankly, I'm surprised by the nay sayers here. This is the sort of stuff we've been having wet dreams about since the late ninties. The rest of the world finally figured it out, and now they're interested in throwing heaps of money at *us* to make it happen.... and the brilliant part about the whole scheme of things is that you *don't* have to listen to the crap. Isn't that why we invented this stuff in the first place? Because radio sucked?
So stop whining, jump on the bandwagon, and make it something worth while. You might even make a pile of cash doing it.
I've seen *nix everywhere darned near everywhere there are computers: running appliances, super computers, robots, desktops, servers, routers, hospitals, restaurants, homes, utilities, etc. etc. etc.
Perhaps what makes the *nix way so flexible is that it leaves the user interface up to the user -- it provides a user agnostic interface to diverse hardware platforms, that's about it. While *nix is more or less defined by various standards like POSIX, I don't think any of the standards are exclusive. If I want to write any sort of UI system from scratch, *nix doesn't get in the way. If I want to build a magnificent hardware widget... well... the open source *nixes let me integrate it without reinventing the wheel.
So, it seems his critique should really be directed at user interfaces and hardware platforms, not the operating system in between.
Then again, there is something to be said for the revolutionary culture found in some "from scratch" projects, even if they're simply replicating the functionality of existing systems. It's a lot easier to challenge fundamental assumptions when you don't a lot of baggage.
Strangely enough, Visa and Mastercard don't actually issue the cards -- banks do. Visa and MC are actually middlemen in the grand scheme of things... they just pass messages between between banks and stores.
They have a heck of a deal going. All they ask is a tiny amount of each transaction processed (I can't remember the number off the top of my head... but it's a fraction of a percent). Of course, the companies that provide merchant services (bank accounts, point of sale hardware, etc.) tack on their own fees.
When it comes down to it, "Visa" is just a collection of huge datacenters relaying billions of messages between banks and stores every day...
Slashdot Mirror
http://i.imgur.com/TNz9k9G.jpg
Thanks for the breakdown on work for hire -- and I 100% agree, regarding hiring a lawyer to look at contracts. :)
(background: I've been freelancing for about twelve years, with several engagements that have resulted in open source contributions)
If you're freelancing, the general rule is that the customer owns everything you produce within the scope of the contract. This means you do not own the copyright, and therefore you can't open source the code. The specific phrase you look for in your contracts is "work for hire" ... and although IANAL, I believe this is the implicit legal relationship when someone pays you to produce something.
It's very difficult to get around that rule, or to outline specific exceptions ahead of time -- but you can change the incentives to encourage your client to contribute code to the open source community.
I offer to reduce my rates for any work we mutually agree to release as open source. I benefit by getting my name and work in broader distribution, my clients benefit by paying less for the work, and the open source world grows a little bit. It's a reasonable trade off for all parties, and even if most clients don't exercise that option, they appreciate the spirit of such an offer.
Where it gets hairy is when you're making changes to code that has been open sourced under a "viral" license, like the GPL. If that is the case, then you should inform your client that they are bound by the terms of that license -- that those changes *necessarily* become open source. Keep a copy of those emails. If your client decides that they're going to skip out on that obligation, you'll want to make sure your ass is covered if/when your client gets in trouble ...
By "release" I mean "to drop the claim against the video in question via the YouTube Content Management System." It's a specific action that needed to be taken with the claim tool, not a statement about releasing in the sense you're talking about. Forgive the colloquialism?
Heya -- sorry I missed your comment earlier. We released the video before we engaged here, and this morning we figured out what happened.
Plainly stated, one of our reviewers incorrectly reasserted the claim during a manual review. We're changing how we review things to address the issue in the long term. You're welcome to search this discussion for my other posts, where I provide more detail about how it happened.
Best,
-Peat
Heya,
I appreciate the measured response, and the thoughtful questions. Thank you. :)
1) The automated system isn't ours -- it's YouTube's. We don't see any of the disputes until the video creator responds to YouTube's canned responses about copyright infringement, by which time they're usually pretty pissed. The vast majority of disputes that reach us are legitimate, and released quickly. To be clear: we have no control over the initial copyright notices, we can only respond to the escalated disputes. That said, the basic concept you bring up is correct: most people don't fight the takedowns.
2) We don't automate our responses to the disputes we receive. Every single one of them is reviewed by a human, and in this case, our manual review process failed. Regarding your point about communication, it's also very difficult for us to contact the video creator; we don't get access to their personal contact information, so we either have to receive a separate email from them, or we're stuck using the canned responses from YouTube. It's a significant hurdle. I believe resolving the communication issues would fix a huge number of these escalations.
3) I can't comment on the business model, but we do believe that there is a sustainable path that doesn't screw video creators or musicians for their ability to make a living on what they create.
I'll be happy to follow up on any more questions you have.
Thanks,
-Peat
Heya -- we do review the videos in person, and we made a mistake that we're working to fix.
Update from the OP: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2693545&cid=39170585
Update from Rumblefish: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2693545&cid=39174761
AMA on Reddit with the Rumblefish CEO: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/q7via/im_the_ceo_of_rumblefish_i_guess_were_the_newest/
I'm responding here because a lot of the discussions and updates are getting buried below. We're paying attention.
Thanks,
-Peat Bakke, Lead Architect @ Rumblefish
Heya,
It looks like one of our manual reviewers did reassert the claim, and we're working out how to fix that process on our end.
There's more info here: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2693545&cid=39174761
Thanks,
-Peat
Hey all,
There's a lot of threads here and on other places, hopefully this sheds some light on the claim process, and what happened with eeplox's video.
Here's the sequence, as best as I understand it:
- eeplox posted a video to YouTube that contained bird sounds.
- The automated YouTube content identification system mistakenly assigned it to one of the tracks in our catalog.
- eeplox contested the automated claim, which sent it into the manual review queue.
- One of our reviewers reinstated the claim, which triggered the response eeplox received and posted above.
When we heard about the story on Slashdot, we reviewed the video and released it.
TL;DR: We messed up during the manual review process. We've cleared eeplox's video. We're working on fixing the manual review process.
I'm here in the discussion to answer what questions we can. We're not interested in screwing over independent musicians and video creators, and we want to be as open as possible about what's going on.
If you run into content claim issues with our catalog on YouTube, you're welcome to contact us directly at YouTubeContentID@rumblefish.com. We have a FAQ about the process here: http://rumblefish.com/id/youtube-content-id.php
Paul Anthony (the CEO) has an AMA thread over at Reddit where he's answering questions. http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/q7via/im_the_ceo_of_rumblefish_i_guess_were_the_newest/
Thanks,
-Peat
The simple and necessary action (reviewing, confirming, and releasing the video) was done very shortly after we became aware of the issue -- several hours ago.
Right now, I'm interested in responding to reasonable questions as best I can; next, we will be reviewing what happened, and following up appropriately.
It's not a wasted evening. People are pissed, and although I can't provide the ultimate answers right now, I don't think it's appropriate to simply disappear.
Thanks,
-Peat
I have my suspicions, but I'm going to hold off on public speculation.
Things will be much more clear tomorrow, when we can actually review the complete process.
Send me an email at peat@rumblefish.com, and I'll be in touch.
Thanks,
-Peat
Heya,
We'll sort out exactly what happened in the next couple of days -- I really wish I could have a clear cut answer for you right now.
I completely agree on your point that it's a serious problem. I joined the company last year because they're out to fix an industry that's fundamentally broken and frequently abusive; that's why I'm spending my Sunday night trying to sort this out.
Anyhow -- I know this doesn't directly address your concerns. Sorry about that. When there's more to share, we'll figure out the right place to put it.
Thanks,
-Peat
Heya,
Forgive us for being a little short in our responses -- it is a complex issue, and we're working through it on a Sunday evening. :)
The YouTube content identification and dispute resolution system is not a simple one; right now we're focused on resolving the critical issue with eeplox. This is something that will unfold over the next couple of days, and we'll be doing what we should -- make sure we figure out exactly what happened, and put guards in place to prevent it in the future.
Thanks,
-Peat
Hey Bruce -- we've met a few times at open source / security related conferences in the early 2000s, although I'm not sure you would remember me. My work was with the Immunix Linux distribution, and some other Linux-related startups.
I can vouch for the parent (#39168105) being Paul Anthony, CEO of Rumblefish. I'm the Lead Architect at Rumblefish, and we've been working on this issue this evening. Forgive him; he's a musician, not a geek. :-)
Heya,
I agree -- it's hard to get ahold of copyright holders and sort out these sorts of disputes when they come up. It sucks that I learned about this case on Slashdot; there's clearly something missing between YouTube video creators and independent music copyright holders when the issue ends up ... here! This is something we're working on with our partners: figuring out how to clearly (and humanly) communicate what, how, and why.
One of the genuine pleasures of working for Rumblefish is seeing some of the awesome ways the music gets used. It's equally frustrating and disappointing when something like this comes up. We'll figure out what's up, and work to get it fixed quickly.
Thanks,
-Peat
Heya,
Many of those responses are pre-canned in the YouTube system, so unfortunately we get stuck when it comes to the responses. Even in clear cases of infringement (which this is not), terse and threatening legalese doesn't help anyone -- not us, the musicians, or the video creators.
We're looking forward to having a direct relationship with the people who use music from our catalog. Music copyright, particularly synchronization rights, are a highly charged topic -- legally and politically. If we can make it easier and safer for people to find and use the music, everyone wins.
We'll sort out exactly what happened, and set it right with eeplox directly.
Thanks,
-Peat
Ack! I wish this hadn't been marked as "Insightful," although I understand why ... there have been a lot of shitty plays in the copyright world, and there are some big organizations that are clearly threatened by the Internet and Internet culture. Righthaven and others have (rightfully) made a lot of people very skeptical.
But ... that's not what we do. :) Rumblefish works specifically for independent artists, not labels or rights organizations. The company has been around for over a decade, helping get independent music placed in films, advertisements, etc. It's still a very small company -- the founder and owner (also a musician) has posted here on the thread, and I'm around to answer technical questions about how the pieces fit together (IANAL, but I am the Lead Architect -- look me up on the Rumblefish website).
It sucks when things don't go right, especially when it's such a hot button issue, and we're really interested in doing the right thing -- both for independent musicians and video creators. We're working on resolving the issue with eeplox's video. We're here in the thread to answer questions.
Believe me ... everyone wins when good music is inexpensive and readily available on YouTube.
Hey all,
I'm Peat Bakke, the Lead Architect at Rumblefish. I write a lot of the code that manages our music catalog, as well as interfaces with our partners (like YouTube), so I'm intimately (painfully) familiar with how all of these pieces fit together, and who's responsible for what.
First things first -- eeplox, I'm sorry this has been a shitty experience. Clearly something has been missed, and I want to make things right. Please contact me directly at peat@rumblefish.com, so we can sort out exactly what's happening with your video.
Automated content identification is a hairy problem, doubly so when mixed with synchronization (soundtrack) licensing. YouTube's system is one of the better ones out there, and even so, we get a ton of false positives coming out of it every day. The biggest source of false claims come from covers and samples, where it's particularly difficult to determine if the soundtrack for a video is or isn't in our catalog.
That said, we do listen to each disputed claim that reaches us, after YouTube has gone through their (rather terse) automated resolution system. We're working with YouTube and our other partners to make the process simpler and less legally threatening ... but we're the small fish at the table.
It's worth mentioning that Rumblefish isn't a subsidiary of a major label, media conglomerate, or rights organization. This is a very small company, founded and owned by an independent musician, and half our staff play in bands or work in independent film. We've focused specifically on independent artists who want their music to be used in soundtracks ... and for what it's worth, yes, there are several tracks that sound like birds chirping. :)
Regardless -- the media licensing industry is a horrible, horrible mess. No question about it. Our mission is to make it easier for independent artists (music and video alike) to make a living doing what they love, and it genuinely sucks to hear when people are let down.
I'm happy to answer questions about how we do what we do. IANAL, of course ... but I am a geek. :)
Thanks,
-Peat
From scratch, it's only taken me a few afternoons of hacking to produce this:
... it's a used computer book search tool that interfaces with Amazon's Web Services. Pretty straight forward stuff, but handy in it's own way.
... of course, that will change as it matures ... but right now it's just marvelous.
http://www.peatsbooks.com/
What do I like about Rails? It's hard to put a finger on, but it just *feels* good. I'm coming from about ten years of web dev with Perl, Java, and PHP. Rails seems unencumbered by a lot of stodgy crap (both code and culture)
he complains that the parties were dull.
... although none can quite match the engineering society at the University of Canterbury. Ever seen a few hundred folks drain a 2000 liter tanker truck full of beer in a couple of hours? It's amazing ... and sanctioned by the school.
Hmm. I suspect he went to the wrong school. Every engineering program I've seen knows how to throw down and party
I miss New Zealand.
Admitedly, "podcasting" is a buzzword for a technology that's been around for over a decade. And yes, most podcasts will be lame and irritating Live Journal analogs.
... but we're early technology adopters and geeks.
... and the brilliant part about the whole scheme of things is that you *don't* have to listen to the crap. Isn't that why we invented this stuff in the first place? Because radio sucked?
Despite all this, I think it's an important phenomenon. Sometimes all it takes is a buzzword to create an industry out of an interesting but previously unsexy technology (hey, that's what happened to the Internet). It will take a while to mature, and there are some hurdles that need to be addressed (copyright issues and what-not), but in the end it's a disruptive technology and an opportunity to challenge radio's dominant share of the audio broadcast market.
Yeah, I know -- we've all been streaming music and radio shows for years, and sometimes ripping and burning 'em for later enjoyment
The fact of the matter is that everyone I've explained podcasting to is excited about it. Not just my geek friends, but my parents and their friends. Time shifting is a *big* deal in broadcast media. Once people get it, they say "why didn't they do that before?"
So, that's why podcasting is important. It's not important because of some revolutionary technology -- it's important because it's the fruit of revolutionary and evolutionary technologies: the Internet, broadband, home recording, portable digital players.
Frankly, I'm surprised by the nay sayers here. This is the sort of stuff we've been having wet dreams about since the late ninties. The rest of the world finally figured it out, and now they're interested in throwing heaps of money at *us* to make it happen.
So stop whining, jump on the bandwagon, and make it something worth while. You might even make a pile of cash doing it.
I've seen *nix everywhere darned near everywhere there are computers: running appliances, super computers, robots, desktops, servers, routers, hospitals, restaurants, homes, utilities, etc. etc. etc.
... well ... the open source *nixes let me integrate it without reinventing the wheel.
Perhaps what makes the *nix way so flexible is that it leaves the user interface up to the user -- it provides a user agnostic interface to diverse hardware platforms, that's about it. While *nix is more or less defined by various standards like POSIX, I don't think any of the standards are exclusive. If I want to write any sort of UI system from scratch, *nix doesn't get in the way. If I want to build a magnificent hardware widget
So, it seems his critique should really be directed at user interfaces and hardware platforms, not the operating system in between.
Then again, there is something to be said for the revolutionary culture found in some "from scratch" projects, even if they're simply replicating the functionality of existing systems. It's a lot easier to challenge fundamental assumptions when you don't a lot of baggage.
Ohh, they fixed it quick. That version lasted a whole 3 minutes.
...
At least someone's paying attention
This anus allows L.A. Times readers to extend or argue cocks with editorial positions taken by the newsboner. It uses wikipedia syntax for erecting penises. -- http://www2.latimesinteractive.com/wiki/index.php/ Wikitorial
Strangely enough, Visa and Mastercard don't actually issue the cards -- banks do. Visa and MC are actually middlemen in the grand scheme of things ... they just pass messages between between banks and stores.
... but it's a fraction of a percent). Of course, the companies that provide merchant services (bank accounts, point of sale hardware, etc.) tack on their own fees.
...
They have a heck of a deal going. All they ask is a tiny amount of each transaction processed (I can't remember the number off the top of my head
When it comes down to it, "Visa" is just a collection of huge datacenters relaying billions of messages between banks and stores every day