Having the nerve to put yourself in front a crowd has a lot of value.
For which they can charge the ticket price, and have no need for copyrights. Don't get me wrong, I still think copyrights should be exist. But the nerve needed to be on stage has nothing to do with it.
All of these bands that play these "pay to play" venues are absolute suckers. They are actually paying for the club owners advertising costs.
Well presumably that's the point? I mean yes, it's sad that people have to pay to work rather than the other way round, but I don't see how they're being stupid or misled.
And given that people are willing to pay to play, you're not making a very convincing argument in favour of copyright.
On the flip side, all of the artists that are multi-millionaires deserve every penny. Think about how many lives they've had a positive impact on.
And now you try to support copyright by thinking of those poor multi-millionaires! If we're judging payment in terms of how much we think they should be worth, then think how many lives your example doctor has affected, and indeed saved? Shouldn't he deserve to be a multi-millionaire too?
So perhaps there's a better argument to simply make it a fixed term. But either way, the current term is way too long.
(What if someone buys a copyrighted work 69 years after the original author died, or whatever it is, so that there's only 1 year left to go? Is that unfair too because they should deserve it in turn for the rest of their life? Of course not. So the fact that copyrights can be sold is a red herring here, unless you're arguing for infinite terms.)
Ah yes, I wondered how long it would be before someone brings up the Ipad. Let's see - it's an article about getting an e-reader for under $99. What boxes does the Ipad tick for us?
* Will be cheaper than existing e-readers? [n] * Will be an e-reader? [n]
Hmm, not doing too well there are we.
Just like every digital music player is referred to as an "iPod" because Apple has 80%-90% of the market.
That's the only market they lead. Will the Ipad be another Ipod? Or will it be another Apple TV/Air/Mac/Iphone?
I'm not saying it's perfect. But it's still there as a bonus - and it's allowed useful applications such as Google Maps and Opera Mini on every bog standard phones.
Netflix's Iphone app won't run on the overwhelming vast majority of phones.
Er, planet Earth? They have about 40% market share, both overall, and even in the high end markets (so this isn't simply a case of only being popular in 3rd world countries with their cheap phones - they're number one at all levels of the market).
I don't have the data for each country, but if they're not doing so well in one country, that's going to be offset by other countries. Let me ask you - in which countries is Apple number one?
There are over seventy five million Apple Touch OS devices already out there to slip a NetFlix app on.
Wake me up when you reach Symbian's 250 million. (I don't know how many are "touch", but that's artificially restricting it to bias it towards Apple - how about we compare how many multitasking devices each has?)
Er, where does it say left wing in that article? Mods, please read the links before modding.
The report says it's biased towards "politically motivated celebrities and trendy causes". I don't see anything about left wing issues.
And yes, the BBC investigate on themselves, and admit to bias they find, and attempt to fix it. This is a good thing. How many other news sources do this?
If they're going to cut, I wish they'd cut the money spent on DRM material for other private companies, rather than the freely available non-DRM material. (And before anyone asks, I am a licence payer.)
Oh there is - Java runs on just about all phones. The Iphones can't support it though, which is why custom apps have to be especially written for them instead.
And the iPhone has the biggest marketshare in 1. "smartphones that you can develop for without corporate support ($$$)" or 2. "smartphones with a viable marketplace" (of course success of 2 is because of 1).
Your source? Nokia beat them hands down in the mobile market - as do many other companies. Even adding the Ipod Touch doesn't change things significantly here.
As for cross-platform - well everyone else supports this technology for cross-platform apps that's been around for 15 years. It's not perfect, but it works for many things, and it means that things for phones aren't like the bad old days of the 80s where every platform was incompatible.
None of the other devices (WinMo, Symbian,...) even have standard browsers with support for Flash
Eh what? My 5800 running Symbian runs a standard browser, and supports Flash just fine. It's Apple you're thinking of, that doesn't even support Flash yet.
Also the Maemo, Android and iPhone's are the only phones where the device is not locked down by default by the provider.
In what way? The Iphones are locked down more than most phones. How is my 5800 locked down? (Or indeed, my old Motorola V980, come to that?) I can run whatever I like, do what I like unlike a certain device that needs to be jailbroken all the time.
But you can already get a similar sized device, for much cheaper, that already support Netflix. Just not from Apple (i.e., netbooks). Hardly "killer app", by definition.
Personally for phones, I'd me more interested on them first supporting the major platforms such as Nokia, rather than starting with less than 5% of the market.
So you fully agree that the Iphones should be scrapped, and Apple fined billions, because of all those other things that were in their phones that were done by another company first.
PS - you weren't the first person to write on Slashdot without an account. So it's clearly must be something non-obvious, and patentable (otherwise, why didn't you do it first?) So you're no longer allowed to post without an account.
For every feature X, obviously there will be one phone company that does it best. Apple have only managed this with one feature. Most phone companies have managed this with large numbers of features. What's special about Apple here? Does every feature deserve a patent, because someone does it first?
Are you seriously arguing that because a company did it first, it must be non-obvious and hence patentable? (Hint, there will always be a first device to have any feature.)
I just love the way that Apple fans grasp at multitouch, just because it's the sole thing it did first. Even though that's old news now (what did the later Iphone models do first?) It would be like trying to argue the benefits of the N97, based on what Nokia did first 5 years ago.
Yet meanwhile, all the basic features that the original Iphone lacked were handwaved away as unnecessary. The fact of the matter is that if Apple released the first say, 3G phone, but then were years later with everyone else with multitouch, we'd be hearing no end of how 3G was such an amazing invention by Apple, but multitouch would be "Why would I want that?"
That tells you something about the patentability of multi-touch. Apple released it and suddenly everyone was wanting to duplicate it on phones, touchpads and touchscreen computers.
Complete and utter nonsense. Apple didn't invent it, as has been pointed out. The reason you see these devices now, and not years ago, is because the technology wasn't as cheap back then.
All phones improve with time - it's called progress. It's no different to saying "Intel made their CPU faster, and oh look, AMD copied them because now they're faster!" Rubbish. All companies are striving to improve their products - Apple aren't special here.
There are vast numbers of things that Apple have put in the Iphone, that appeared in other phones first. Does this mean all of these things should have been patented, even if they were trivial? Does this mean Apple only thought to do it, because they copied someone else?
(It's also not true that everyone is striving to add it - Nokia is preferring to use resistive touch screens, for example, that don't allow multitouch, but allow better accuracy and use with gloves, styluses etc.)
So in other words, you want a world where the answer is "Android did do pinch to zoom, but then a judge banned it because of Apple, so now it's disabled"?
You'd like a world where there's no phone that has all you want, because every patented feature only exists on the phones of one market?
Oh, and this would also be a world where the Iphone doesn't exist in the first place, because it wouldn't be possible without infringing on Nokia's phone patents.
It's only hyperbole to accuse him of hyperbole, for making a perfectly reasonable comparison. You may disagree, but argue your point, rather than making a jokey name calling.
And how is being a touchscreen relevant, to a auto-rotating screen?
This is just the old "take existing feature, add an irrelevant difference, and get a patent" trolling.
What next? Can I get a patent if I make the first auto-rotating touchscreen that plays a sound file saying "Apple are stupid idiots" as it turns? No one's done that before, therefore it must be a new invention (or "reinvention", to use Apple's marketing spin), right?
So wait - it's wrong that Nokia don't allow Apple to use Nokia's patents, but Nokia are "blackmailing" for wanting Apple's patents? If you say so.
How about this: Apple pay Nokia X money to use their patents. Then Nokia pay Apple X money to use their patents... so either what you propose works out the same as what Nokia want, or you're endorsing a situation where Apple should be allowed to use Nokia's patents for money, but not the other way round!
Who wants to pay out hundreds of dollars for a phone that only just works? For that, you can pick up a perfectly decent phone at a fraction of the price. In the high end, I expect a phone that has numerous features. I agree though, they're unlikely to ever go past 10%.
But that's half the problem right now, people don't know any better so they buy "an iphone that will just work."
Let's look at the actual market figures... yes that's right, over 95% of people don't do what you claim. (And sure, they don't buy Android either - both Apple and Google are niche players.)
The original quote is real though, and saying that they invented (or re-"reinvented", whatever that is) anything with their app store is absurd, as the poster pointed out. The only new "innovation" was making it so that you can only use Apple's app store, and hence are restricted to what Apple allow you to run on your machine.
Same with the idea of reinventing the smartphone - what did the original Iphone "reinvent"? In fact, I'd argue the original Iphone doesn't even qualify as a smartphone, unless we define it broadly enough to include all feature phones too. These have been commonplace years before the Iphone was "reinvented".
Slashdot Mirror
Having the nerve to put yourself in front a crowd has a lot of value.
For which they can charge the ticket price, and have no need for copyrights. Don't get me wrong, I still think copyrights should be exist. But the nerve needed to be on stage has nothing to do with it.
All of these bands that play these "pay to play" venues are absolute suckers. They are actually paying for the club owners advertising costs.
Well presumably that's the point? I mean yes, it's sad that people have to pay to work rather than the other way round, but I don't see how they're being stupid or misled.
And given that people are willing to pay to play, you're not making a very convincing argument in favour of copyright.
On the flip side, all of the artists that are multi-millionaires deserve every penny. Think about how many lives they've had a positive impact on.
And now you try to support copyright by thinking of those poor multi-millionaires! If we're judging payment in terms of how much we think they should be worth, then think how many lives your example doctor has affected, and indeed saved? Shouldn't he deserve to be a multi-millionaire too?
So perhaps there's a better argument to simply make it a fixed term. But either way, the current term is way too long.
(What if someone buys a copyrighted work 69 years after the original author died, or whatever it is, so that there's only 1 year left to go? Is that unfair too because they should deserve it in turn for the rest of their life? Of course not. So the fact that copyrights can be sold is a red herring here, unless you're arguing for infinite terms.)
The only real justification for a dedicated e-reader device is that it can be locked to a company's book service.
That, and the much better display, and the much longer battery life, yes.
Ah yes, I wondered how long it would be before someone brings up the Ipad. Let's see - it's an article about getting an e-reader for under $99. What boxes does the Ipad tick for us?
* Will be cheaper than existing e-readers? [n]
* Will be an e-reader? [n]
Hmm, not doing too well there are we.
Just like every digital music player is referred to as an "iPod" because Apple has 80%-90% of the market.
That's the only market they lead. Will the Ipad be another Ipod? Or will it be another Apple TV/Air/Mac/Iphone?
You can get another hint by looking at the revenue earned in the J2ME-app market compared to the iPhone and Android app markets.
There are more games because the revenue is higher? No that's backwards. The revenue is going to be higher if there are more games for it.
If we're looking at mobile gaming, surely the biggest platform by far is the DS...
Indeed, and I was wondering the same for Symbian, you know, that platform Slashdot hardly covers, that only has ooh, 40% of the market.
I'm not saying it's perfect. But it's still there as a bonus - and it's allowed useful applications such as Google Maps and Opera Mini on every bog standard phones.
Netflix's Iphone app won't run on the overwhelming vast majority of phones.
But if people are willing to carry an ipad-sized device, they can already buy a much cheaper netbook to run it on.
Er, planet Earth? They have about 40% market share, both overall, and even in the high end markets (so this isn't simply a case of only being popular in 3rd world countries with their cheap phones - they're number one at all levels of the market).
I don't have the data for each country, but if they're not doing so well in one country, that's going to be offset by other countries. Let me ask you - in which countries is Apple number one?
Get real. There is no RIM tablet.
There's no Apple tablet either, yet.
There are over seventy five million Apple Touch OS devices already out there to slip a NetFlix app on.
Wake me up when you reach Symbian's 250 million. (I don't know how many are "touch", but that's artificially restricting it to bias it towards Apple - how about we compare how many multitasking devices each has?)
Er, where does it say left wing in that article? Mods, please read the links before modding.
The report says it's biased towards "politically motivated celebrities and trendy causes". I don't see anything about left wing issues.
And yes, the BBC investigate on themselves, and admit to bias they find, and attempt to fix it. This is a good thing. How many other news sources do this?
If they're going to cut, I wish they'd cut the money spent on DRM material for other private companies, rather than the freely available non-DRM material. (And before anyone asks, I am a licence payer.)
Oh there is - Java runs on just about all phones. The Iphones can't support it though, which is why custom apps have to be especially written for them instead.
And the iPhone has the biggest marketshare in 1. "smartphones that you can develop for without corporate support ($$$)" or 2. "smartphones with a viable marketplace" (of course success of 2 is because of 1).
Your source? Nokia beat them hands down in the mobile market - as do many other companies. Even adding the Ipod Touch doesn't change things significantly here.
As for cross-platform - well everyone else supports this technology for cross-platform apps that's been around for 15 years. It's not perfect, but it works for many things, and it means that things for phones aren't like the bad old days of the 80s where every platform was incompatible.
None of the other devices (WinMo, Symbian, ...) even have standard browsers with support for Flash
Eh what? My 5800 running Symbian runs a standard browser, and supports Flash just fine. It's Apple you're thinking of, that doesn't even support Flash yet.
Also the Maemo, Android and iPhone's are the only phones where the device is not locked down by default by the provider.
In what way? The Iphones are locked down more than most phones. How is my 5800 locked down? (Or indeed, my old Motorola V980, come to that?) I can run whatever I like, do what I like unlike a certain device that needs to be jailbroken all the time.
But you can already get a similar sized device, for much cheaper, that already support Netflix. Just not from Apple (i.e., netbooks). Hardly "killer app", by definition.
Personally for phones, I'd me more interested on them first supporting the major platforms such as Nokia, rather than starting with less than 5% of the market.
So you fully agree that the Iphones should be scrapped, and Apple fined billions, because of all those other things that were in their phones that were done by another company first.
PS - you weren't the first person to write on Slashdot without an account. So it's clearly must be something non-obvious, and patentable (otherwise, why didn't you do it first?) So you're no longer allowed to post without an account.
What has that got to do with anything?
For every feature X, obviously there will be one phone company that does it best. Apple have only managed this with one feature. Most phone companies have managed this with large numbers of features. What's special about Apple here? Does every feature deserve a patent, because someone does it first?
Are you seriously arguing that because a company did it first, it must be non-obvious and hence patentable? (Hint, there will always be a first device to have any feature.)
I just love the way that Apple fans grasp at multitouch, just because it's the sole thing it did first. Even though that's old news now (what did the later Iphone models do first?) It would be like trying to argue the benefits of the N97, based on what Nokia did first 5 years ago.
Yet meanwhile, all the basic features that the original Iphone lacked were handwaved away as unnecessary. The fact of the matter is that if Apple released the first say, 3G phone, but then were years later with everyone else with multitouch, we'd be hearing no end of how 3G was such an amazing invention by Apple, but multitouch would be "Why would I want that?"
That tells you something about the patentability of multi-touch. Apple released it and suddenly everyone was wanting to duplicate it on phones, touchpads and touchscreen computers.
Complete and utter nonsense. Apple didn't invent it, as has been pointed out. The reason you see these devices now, and not years ago, is because the technology wasn't as cheap back then.
All phones improve with time - it's called progress. It's no different to saying "Intel made their CPU faster, and oh look, AMD copied them because now they're faster!" Rubbish. All companies are striving to improve their products - Apple aren't special here.
There are vast numbers of things that Apple have put in the Iphone, that appeared in other phones first. Does this mean all of these things should have been patented, even if they were trivial? Does this mean Apple only thought to do it, because they copied someone else?
(It's also not true that everyone is striving to add it - Nokia is preferring to use resistive touch screens, for example, that don't allow multitouch, but allow better accuracy and use with gloves, styluses etc.)
So in other words, you want a world where the answer is "Android did do pinch to zoom, but then a judge banned it because of Apple, so now it's disabled"?
You'd like a world where there's no phone that has all you want, because every patented feature only exists on the phones of one market?
Oh, and this would also be a world where the Iphone doesn't exist in the first place, because it wouldn't be possible without infringing on Nokia's phone patents.
(Apple didn't invent multitouch, anyway, btw.)
It's only hyperbole to accuse him of hyperbole, for making a perfectly reasonable comparison. You may disagree, but argue your point, rather than making a jokey name calling.
And how is being a touchscreen relevant, to a auto-rotating screen?
This is just the old "take existing feature, add an irrelevant difference, and get a patent" trolling.
What next? Can I get a patent if I make the first auto-rotating touchscreen that plays a sound file saying "Apple are stupid idiots" as it turns? No one's done that before, therefore it must be a new invention (or "reinvention", to use Apple's marketing spin), right?
So wait - it's wrong that Nokia don't allow Apple to use Nokia's patents, but Nokia are "blackmailing" for wanting Apple's patents? If you say so.
How about this: Apple pay Nokia X money to use their patents. Then Nokia pay Apple X money to use their patents ... so either what you propose works out the same as what Nokia want, or you're endorsing a situation where Apple should be allowed to use Nokia's patents for money, but not the other way round!
Who wants to pay out hundreds of dollars for a phone that only just works? For that, you can pick up a perfectly decent phone at a fraction of the price. In the high end, I expect a phone that has numerous features. I agree though, they're unlikely to ever go past 10%.
But that's half the problem right now, people don't know any better so they buy "an iphone that will just work."
Let's look at the actual market figures ... yes that's right, over 95% of people don't do what you claim. (And sure, they don't buy Android either - both Apple and Google are niche players.)
The original quote is real though, and saying that they invented (or re-"reinvented", whatever that is) anything with their app store is absurd, as the poster pointed out. The only new "innovation" was making it so that you can only use Apple's app store, and hence are restricted to what Apple allow you to run on your machine.
Same with the idea of reinventing the smartphone - what did the original Iphone "reinvent"? In fact, I'd argue the original Iphone doesn't even qualify as a smartphone, unless we define it broadly enough to include all feature phones too. These have been commonplace years before the Iphone was "reinvented".