Thanks for reading TFA thoroughly. I'd mod you Informative if I hadn't already commented in this thread.
I think this law is more about the power it gives large software companies than about direct increases in revenue. Even if Microsoft doesn't sue directly, they can keep tabs on which foreign companies use unlicensed software, and drop a hint to companies which are suffering from "unfair competition". Conversely, a company which wants to get rid of a competitor who uses unlicensed Microsoft software, will need to go to Microsoft for proof.
Since companies are required to prove that they themselves are not using unlicensed software per point 2 above, they'll depend on Microsoft's approval every time they want to sue someone under this law. If they're friends with Microsoft, Microsoft can just decide to give them amnesty, and any unlicensed software they have in their organisation will automatically become licensed, allowing them to sue. If they're not friends with Microsoft, chances are there is some irregularity in license compliance somewhere in their organisation, or at least enough to cast reasonable doubt, and Microsoft can block their attempt to sue. Microsoft will effectively become a gatekeeper arbitrarily deciding who can or can't sue under this law. A company can, of course, decide to switch to free software, but then Microsoft is fully within their rights to keep the evidence to themselves when one of the competitor's contractors is using unlicensed software.
If a country starts offering cheaper products by ignoring human rights, the best way to deal with it is probably through import restrictions. It gives clear rules for business to follow. Letting the courts decide on a case-by-case basis will create an enormous amount of uncertainty. Or as they say in the software business, "fear, uncertainty, and doubt".
Rampant piracy doesn't necessarily mean the problem is big - there's no reason to believe all those Chinese companies would have purchased expensive software licenses if piracy was out of the question. More likely, they would have used a free alternative instead.
Data formats are not copyrightable. The.xlsx format is based on patents, so it's rather risky to use it, even if Microsoft has made a "covenant not to sue".
Then why not pass a law which makes an American company liable when they buy from a foreign company which pays less than American minimum wage, ruin the environment or bribes officials?
Instead they pass a law which protects some American companies at the expense of other American companies, and gives large software companies the power to sue practically anyone they want (since it's practically impossible to be sure none of your contractors is breaking a software license agreement in some way somewhere in their organisation).
This is making the bad assumption that the US company having to pay had no control and no knowledge. Companies get work done for them overseas because it is cheaper, knowing that the foreign company is breaking(or the country doesn't have) reasonable IP laws. One reason it is cheaper is because of practices such as using pirated software to keep the costs down.
The huge flaw in that argument is that software costs are only a small part of a company's costs. Chinese companies make products cheaper because they have access to lots of cheap labour, not because they use a few pirated copies of Excel or Word. Even if the law managed to eradicate software piracy, it would hardly make any difference to the competitiveness of Chinese companies. If software costs became too high, they could just switch to free software like OpenOffice.
If the legislators were serious about "fair competition", they would insist on foreign companies paying American minimum wages - that's the only thing that would actually make a difference. Instead they single out one of the small costs - software costs. Why? Because the law is lobbied for by a software company, who's only interest is their own profits.
Even if an American company is perfectly law-abiding and only wishes to use non-pirating contractors, they're punished by the new law, since they have to bear the cost of *checking* the compliance of all their foreign contractors, which could effectively kill a small company. And even then, they can't be sure one of their sub-contractors isn't breaking a license agreement in some way. The cost placed on all law-abiding American companies is completely out of proportion to the benefit of the law.
Add to that the two exemptions, which make it impossible for Microsoft to be sued under the law, and for their biggest competitor, Red Hat, to sue someone under the law, and it becomes the most blatantly one-sided bought-and-paid-for piece of legislation in recent memory.
No, you're responsible for the benefit you voluntarily and actively obtain from what Kevin Bacon does.
Not according to the law that was just passed. It clearly says you're liable even if you were unaware the company you bought from was using pirated software.
It effectively places the burden on all American companies to do software audits on all their foreign subcontractors. The cost for that is huge, and in practice, it could halt the import of foreign goods and services and severely hamper the economy in the states where the law has passed.
You know what happens if you pay a contract killer? Same principle.
Comparing the hiring of a contract killer, to buying something from a company which might have done something illegal, somewhere, without your knowledge, is so insane there's no point in going into it.
Not quite. "Rule of law" means that the justice system is governed by written instructions (laws), instead of people making judgment calls in each individual case. This prevents corruption, since it makes it harder for politicians and others in power to pressure the courts into ruling their way.
The laws can be unjust and discriminatory in themselves, but as long as they're clear and the courts follow them, it's still rule of law.
Anyway, your argument doesn't make much sense. What "engineering of the legal system" has caused unfair competition? I thought the new law was supposed to combat "unfair competition" allegedly caused by piracy. And how exactly does the new law make competition more fair, when it 1) explicitly exempts software companies (like Microsoft) from being sued under it, and 2) explicitly exempts open source companies (like Microsoft's biggest competitor on the server side, Red Hat) from suing anyone under it?
I believe I've caught myself a genuine paid shill...
IANAL, but I've RTFA, and it's clear that the new law only applies to copyright infringement, not trademark or patent infringement, so I doubt the T-shirts would be covered under the new law, unless they successfully argue that the Nike logotype is protected by copyright, not just trademark right.
You don't even need to fabricate evidence - chances are that someone, somewhere in the company uses one small piece of unlicensed software, or that two employees share the software when it is licensed per user, or that a user has it installed on both his new and old computer when it is licensed per computer, or are breaking the license agreement in some other way - or that there is suspicion of it. That is enough to sue and cause the target company to incur huge legal costs.
And with this new law, you can sue all of a company's American customers instead, incurring that cost to each one of them. It has the potential to give a software company far more legal threat power than suing directly.
I suspect the grandparent was merely being sarcastic... it's not like the open source industry has the lobbying power to push through insane laws like the one Microsoft did.
Here in Sweden, unlimited, unthrottled Internet is the norm. I pay less than 400 Swedish crowns (about US$60) per month for 100 Mbit/s up/down. And that's including the 25% sales tax.
Our telecom market is very unregulated ever since the government abolished the monopoly.
I think most Europeans (and most Americans) are capable of changing the channel themselves, but it's safer for the networks to accomodate the small number of people who are offended, than the larger number of people who don't care much either way.
And lest I forget: even if the law wasn't economical madness, it's still ludicrous to place the responsibility on checking software license compliance on a company's customers. What's they got to do with it?
Chinese products are not cheaper than US ones because the Chinese skimp on software licenses, but because the Chinese have much lower wages. If software licenses were really that big a part of Chinese companies' costs, they could just switch to free software.
Economics shows that protectionism can be good in certain cases and is not very controversial.
Can you give an example? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I suspect the cases where protectionism is beneficial are very limited.
In an ideal open market, American companies would be earning money shipping software overseas while buying manufacturing goods from China. Instead, we have China getting American software for free while it makes money off selling us goods, putting the US at a greater disadvantage.
Yes, but I very, very strongly doubt that the increased revenues this could bring for US software companies would be worth the costs. Think about it. ANY company which imported ANY foreign goods or service would be put in a very insecure situation, where they could be held liable for another company's infringement. To insure themselves against the risk of being sued, US companies would be forced to check all their foreign suppliers by doing software audits, directly or indirectly - assuming the supplier was willing to submit to a software audit. Multiply the cost for all those checks by the number of US companies which import foreign goods or services, and it would be astronomical.
Companies could also try to avoid the risk by switching to domestic suppliers, which would also lead to increased costs, and the risk that foreign nations retaliate with their own import restrictions on US goods.
For a small business with many foreign suppliers it wouldn't be viable. They'd go out of business, and add to the unemployment lines.
If Chinese companies do have real comparative advantage, they should be able to compete with the US while playing by the same rules.
The problem with that argument is that it's equally valid in reverse - if US companies really had a competitive advantage, they should be able to play by China's rules.
The sad truth is that each country (and each industry) tries to play by the rules which are most beneficial to themselves.
For example, here in Sweden, the unions insist that it's "unfair competition" when Swedish companies (especially building firms) hire cheap Polish subcontractors, since Poland is a relatively poor country with low costs of living, and the Poles are willing to work for a lot less. So the unions want to force Poland to play by Sweden's rules.
Seriously? You seriously think EVERY COMPANY which imports foreign goods or services, no matter how small, should be required to do a software audit with ALL of their suppliers? The cost would be staggering, and would effectively kill smaller US companies.
Shutting out foreign companies from the domestic market is effectively a form of protectionism, and historically, protectionism has always failed. It protects domestic industries in the short term, but it makes their products more expensive for everyone, and may lead to countermeasures from other countries.
For example, let's say a number of Chinese companies are shut out from the US market because they use unauthorised US software. This will force people to buy from (more expensive) US competitors instead, and the US competitors will survive a little longer. However, since other US companies are forced to buy more expensive domestic products, it will be harder for them to survive.
Protectionism doesn't add any wealth to a country; it merely shuffles it around from everyone else to the companies being protected, losing some in the process.
Moreover, China may respond by issuing a corresponding trade embargo on US products sold to the Chinese market, causing the USA to lose even more.
This is basic economics, and not very controversial. Politicians who propose protectionistic measures are either ignorant, or trying to benefit some special interest group at the expense of everyone else.
Actually, there are many end-user apps available for the iPhone which provide SMB functionality, like File Sharing or ezShare. And that's as an SMB server, not just a client. This is so you can use your iPhone as a wireless substitute for a USB drive - just connect it to the WiFi and it will appear as a network share.
Publishing your own works is made possible by people working for profit.
Yes, I offer my work for free to a website, and the people who run it profit from the advertisments on the site. I win, they win, the readers win.
Given that home entertainment systems have extremely high quality these days, if there was no copyright, no one would go to the cinemas. Instead, they would view the movie at home, in 60" hires TVs, with dolby surround sound, and even with 3d glasses.
Then how do you explain that the film industry's revenues have continued to increase during the 2000's, despite rampant piracy?
Cinemas have always have an edge over home entertainment systems. When TV came, cinemas had colour. When TV got colour, cinemas had stereo sound. When TVs got stereo sound, cinemas got surround sound. When people got home entertainment systems with large, flat screens and surround sound, cinemas got colour 3D. When Joe Average has a 60" hires 3D TV with surround sound in his home, I'm willing to bet the cinemas will come up with something new to compete.
Cinemas also have a social function; they provide a place to meet your friends or your date outside either person's home.
But for the sake of argument, let's say they fail, everyone watches TV instead, and every last movie theatre has to close. What's the worst that could happen? That the film companies would have to produce directly for TV instead? That they would have to insert unobtrusive advertising and put their productions up on BitTorrent themselves?
TV productions are almost entirely financed by advertisements, not future DVD sales.
Not on cable or satellite systems.
It's the same type of films and TV productions on satellite/cable systems as on ad-financed TV. They're just two different ways of getting revenue from them.
Most artists already earn most of their income from concerts, not from CD/downloadable music sales
They would have earned their income from sales if it wasn't for piracy.
Not true. This Norwegian Master's thesis demonstrates that music artists never got more than 20% of their income from CD sales. The rest has always come from other sources, like concerts and merchandise. The figures are based on the Norwegian music market, but they shouldn't be dramatically different in other Western countries.
The same study also shows that during the last decade, the average income of Norwegian music artists has increased by 66%, even though the number of artists has also increased. It's the same period during which music filesharing took off and exploded.
There are many other studies from different countries showing that piracy has a net effect on sales that is roughly zero - sometimes the effect is even positive, since piracy works as free advertising. This is often the case for japanese animation, according to a Japanese government study.
You're missing the *point*! The authors of those stories would never have been motivated to write them, if not for the hope that the shareholders of multinational companies would have been able to earn millions on them decades after the authors' deaths.
Can someone who's better at video editing than me please make a clip with Dr. Evil demanding a ransom for $75 trillion for returning the world's music?:)
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for reading TFA thoroughly. I'd mod you Informative if I hadn't already commented in this thread.
I think this law is more about the power it gives large software companies than about direct increases in revenue. Even if Microsoft doesn't sue directly, they can keep tabs on which foreign companies use unlicensed software, and drop a hint to companies which are suffering from "unfair competition". Conversely, a company which wants to get rid of a competitor who uses unlicensed Microsoft software, will need to go to Microsoft for proof.
Since companies are required to prove that they themselves are not using unlicensed software per point 2 above, they'll depend on Microsoft's approval every time they want to sue someone under this law. If they're friends with Microsoft, Microsoft can just decide to give them amnesty, and any unlicensed software they have in their organisation will automatically become licensed, allowing them to sue. If they're not friends with Microsoft, chances are there is some irregularity in license compliance somewhere in their organisation, or at least enough to cast reasonable doubt, and Microsoft can block their attempt to sue. Microsoft will effectively become a gatekeeper arbitrarily deciding who can or can't sue under this law.
A company can, of course, decide to switch to free software, but then Microsoft is fully within their rights to keep the evidence to themselves when one of the competitor's contractors is using unlicensed software.
If a country starts offering cheaper products by ignoring human rights, the best way to deal with it is probably through import restrictions. It gives clear rules for business to follow. Letting the courts decide on a case-by-case basis will create an enormous amount of uncertainty. Or as they say in the software business, "fear, uncertainty, and doubt".
Rampant piracy doesn't necessarily mean the problem is big - there's no reason to believe all those Chinese companies would have purchased expensive software licenses if piracy was out of the question. More likely, they would have used a free alternative instead.
But how did you spell what you just wrote? ;-)
Data formats are not copyrightable. The .xlsx format is based on patents, so it's rather risky to use it, even if Microsoft has made a "covenant not to sue".
Then why not pass a law which makes an American company liable when they buy from a foreign company which pays less than American minimum wage, ruin the environment or bribes officials?
Instead they pass a law which protects some American companies at the expense of other American companies, and gives large software companies the power to sue practically anyone they want (since it's practically impossible to be sure none of your contractors is breaking a software license agreement in some way somewhere in their organisation).
This is making the bad assumption that the US company having to pay had no control and no knowledge. Companies get work done for them overseas because it is cheaper, knowing that the foreign company is breaking(or the country doesn't have) reasonable IP laws. One reason it is cheaper is because of practices such as using pirated software to keep the costs down.
The huge flaw in that argument is that software costs are only a small part of a company's costs. Chinese companies make products cheaper because they have access to lots of cheap labour, not because they use a few pirated copies of Excel or Word. Even if the law managed to eradicate software piracy, it would hardly make any difference to the competitiveness of Chinese companies. If software costs became too high, they could just switch to free software like OpenOffice.
If the legislators were serious about "fair competition", they would insist on foreign companies paying American minimum wages - that's the only thing that would actually make a difference. Instead they single out one of the small costs - software costs. Why? Because the law is lobbied for by a software company, who's only interest is their own profits.
Even if an American company is perfectly law-abiding and only wishes to use non-pirating contractors, they're punished by the new law, since they have to bear the cost of *checking* the compliance of all their foreign contractors, which could effectively kill a small company. And even then, they can't be sure one of their sub-contractors isn't breaking a license agreement in some way. The cost placed on all law-abiding American companies is completely out of proportion to the benefit of the law.
Add to that the two exemptions, which make it impossible for Microsoft to be sued under the law, and for their biggest competitor, Red Hat, to sue someone under the law, and it becomes the most blatantly one-sided bought-and-paid-for piece of legislation in recent memory.
No, you're responsible for the benefit you voluntarily and actively obtain from what Kevin Bacon does.
Not according to the law that was just passed. It clearly says you're liable even if you were unaware the company you bought from was using pirated software.
It effectively places the burden on all American companies to do software audits on all their foreign subcontractors. The cost for that is huge, and in practice, it could halt the import of foreign goods and services and severely hamper the economy in the states where the law has passed.
You know what happens if you pay a contract killer? Same principle.
Comparing the hiring of a contract killer, to buying something from a company which might have done something illegal, somewhere, without your knowledge, is so insane there's no point in going into it.
Not quite. "Rule of law" means that the justice system is governed by written instructions (laws), instead of people making judgment calls in each individual case. This prevents corruption, since it makes it harder for politicians and others in power to pressure the courts into ruling their way.
The laws can be unjust and discriminatory in themselves, but as long as they're clear and the courts follow them, it's still rule of law.
Anyway, your argument doesn't make much sense. What "engineering of the legal system" has caused unfair competition? I thought the new law was supposed to combat "unfair competition" allegedly caused by piracy. And how exactly does the new law make competition more fair, when it 1) explicitly exempts software companies (like Microsoft) from being sued under it, and 2) explicitly exempts open source companies (like Microsoft's biggest competitor on the server side, Red Hat) from suing anyone under it?
I believe I've caught myself a genuine paid shill...
No, the new law specifically exempts software companies from being sued under it.
IANAL, but I've RTFA, and it's clear that the new law only applies to copyright infringement, not trademark or patent infringement, so I doubt the T-shirts would be covered under the new law, unless they successfully argue that the Nike logotype is protected by copyright, not just trademark right.
You don't even need to fabricate evidence - chances are that someone, somewhere in the company uses one small piece of unlicensed software, or that two employees share the software when it is licensed per user, or that a user has it installed on both his new and old computer when it is licensed per computer, or are breaking the license agreement in some other way - or that there is suspicion of it. That is enough to sue and cause the target company to incur huge legal costs.
And with this new law, you can sue all of a company's American customers instead, incurring that cost to each one of them. It has the potential to give a software company far more legal threat power than suing directly.
I suspect the grandparent was merely being sarcastic... it's not like the open source industry has the lobbying power to push through insane laws like the one Microsoft did.
"Has EA lost an eighth, or are they well within their rights by going DMCA on a 26-year-old game they had no hand in developing?"
Asking this on Slashdot... I wonder what the answer's going to be? ;-)
Here in Sweden, unlimited, unthrottled Internet is the norm. I pay less than 400 Swedish crowns (about US$60) per month for 100 Mbit/s up/down. And that's including the 25% sales tax.
Our telecom market is very unregulated ever since the government abolished the monopoly.
I think most Europeans (and most Americans) are capable of changing the channel themselves, but it's safer for the networks to accomodate the small number of people who are offended, than the larger number of people who don't care much either way.
If you have mod points, pls mod parent "informative".
The more you know...
And lest I forget: even if the law wasn't economical madness, it's still ludicrous to place the responsibility on checking software license compliance on a company's customers. What's they got to do with it?
Chinese products are not cheaper than US ones because the Chinese skimp on software licenses, but because the Chinese have much lower wages. If software licenses were really that big a part of Chinese companies' costs, they could just switch to free software.
Economics shows that protectionism can be good in certain cases and is not very controversial.
Can you give an example? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I suspect the cases where protectionism is beneficial are very limited.
In an ideal open market, American companies would be earning money shipping software overseas while buying manufacturing goods from China. Instead, we have China getting American software for free while it makes money off selling us goods, putting the US at a greater disadvantage.
Yes, but I very, very strongly doubt that the increased revenues this could bring for US software companies would be worth the costs. Think about it. ANY company which imported ANY foreign goods or service would be put in a very insecure situation, where they could be held liable for another company's infringement. To insure themselves against the risk of being sued, US companies would be forced to check all their foreign suppliers by doing software audits, directly or indirectly - assuming the supplier was willing to submit to a software audit. Multiply the cost for all those checks by the number of US companies which import foreign goods or services, and it would be astronomical.
Companies could also try to avoid the risk by switching to domestic suppliers, which would also lead to increased costs, and the risk that foreign nations retaliate with their own import restrictions on US goods.
For a small business with many foreign suppliers it wouldn't be viable. They'd go out of business, and add to the unemployment lines.
If Chinese companies do have real comparative advantage, they should be able to compete with the US while playing by the same rules.
The problem with that argument is that it's equally valid in reverse - if US companies really had a competitive advantage, they should be able to play by China's rules.
The sad truth is that each country (and each industry) tries to play by the rules which are most beneficial to themselves.
For example, here in Sweden, the unions insist that it's "unfair competition" when Swedish companies (especially building firms) hire cheap Polish subcontractors, since Poland is a relatively poor country with low costs of living, and the Poles are willing to work for a lot less. So the unions want to force Poland to play by Sweden's rules.
Seriously? You seriously think EVERY COMPANY which imports foreign goods or services, no matter how small, should be required to do a software audit with ALL of their suppliers? The cost would be staggering, and would effectively kill smaller US companies.
Shutting out foreign companies from the domestic market is effectively a form of protectionism, and historically, protectionism has always failed. It protects domestic industries in the short term, but it makes their products more expensive for everyone, and may lead to countermeasures from other countries.
For example, let's say a number of Chinese companies are shut out from the US market because they use unauthorised US software. This will force people to buy from (more expensive) US competitors instead, and the US competitors will survive a little longer. However, since other US companies are forced to buy more expensive domestic products, it will be harder for them to survive.
Protectionism doesn't add any wealth to a country; it merely shuffles it around from everyone else to the companies being protected, losing some in the process.
Moreover, China may respond by issuing a corresponding trade embargo on US products sold to the Chinese market, causing the USA to lose even more.
This is basic economics, and not very controversial. Politicians who propose protectionistic measures are either ignorant, or trying to benefit some special interest group at the expense of everyone else.
Actually, there are many end-user apps available for the iPhone which provide SMB functionality, like File Sharing or ezShare. And that's as an SMB server, not just a client. This is so you can use your iPhone as a wireless substitute for a USB drive - just connect it to the WiFi and it will appear as a network share.
Publishing your own works is made possible by people working for profit.
Yes, I offer my work for free to a website, and the people who run it profit from the advertisments on the site. I win, they win, the readers win.
Given that home entertainment systems have extremely high quality these days, if there was no copyright, no one would go to the cinemas. Instead, they would view the movie at home, in 60" hires TVs, with dolby surround sound, and even with 3d glasses.
Then how do you explain that the film industry's revenues have continued to increase during the 2000's, despite rampant piracy?
Cinemas have always have an edge over home entertainment systems. When TV came, cinemas had colour. When TV got colour, cinemas had stereo sound. When TVs got stereo sound, cinemas got surround sound. When people got home entertainment systems with large, flat screens and surround sound, cinemas got colour 3D. When Joe Average has a 60" hires 3D TV with surround sound in his home, I'm willing to bet the cinemas will come up with something new to compete.
Cinemas also have a social function; they provide a place to meet your friends or your date outside either person's home.
But for the sake of argument, let's say they fail, everyone watches TV instead, and every last movie theatre has to close. What's the worst that could happen? That the film companies would have to produce directly for TV instead? That they would have to insert unobtrusive advertising and put their productions up on BitTorrent themselves?
TV productions are almost entirely financed by advertisements, not future DVD sales.
Not on cable or satellite systems.
It's the same type of films and TV productions on satellite/cable systems as on ad-financed TV. They're just two different ways of getting revenue from them.
Most artists already earn most of their income from concerts, not from CD/downloadable music sales
They would have earned their income from sales if it wasn't for piracy.
Not true. This Norwegian Master's thesis demonstrates that music artists never got more than 20% of their income from CD sales. The rest has always come from other sources, like concerts and merchandise. The figures are based on the Norwegian music market, but they shouldn't be dramatically different in other Western countries.
The same study also shows that during the last decade, the average income of Norwegian music artists has increased by 66%, even though the number of artists has also increased. It's the same period during which music filesharing took off and exploded.
There are many other studies from different countries showing that piracy has a net effect on sales that is roughly zero - sometimes the effect is even positive, since piracy works as free advertising. This is often the case for japanese animation, according to a Japanese government study.
You're missing the *point*! The authors of those stories would never have been motivated to write them, if not for the hope that the shareholders of multinational companies would have been able to earn millions on them decades after the authors' deaths.
Yes, it's the judge's job to throw out frivolous suits, and the politicians' jobs to make sane laws in the first place.
Can someone who's better at video editing than me please make a clip with Dr. Evil demanding a ransom for $75 trillion for returning the world's music? :)