I think by middle man they may mean the record stores who barely make anything anyway. You are correct. The label companies will still get their cut.
The day we can cut out the RIAA will be the day the consumer will win a BIG victory. The RIAA is a group of greedy bastards who don't care about either the consumer or the artists that they exploit.
"The main problem with all these services is they FAIL to meet the needs of the customer."
No, they will fail to meet your unreasonable demands. Every song in every format at virtually no cost to you. What you would offer them wouldn't even cover the cost of their bandwidth let alone compensate the artists.
Keep buying off the rack because no one is going to sacrifice themselves so that you can download every piece of music created for next to nothing.
A subscription business model allows a company to smooth out it's earning cycles. Rather than having big spikes when they release a product they have income trickling in all of the time. (Or pouring in if they price gouge like a certain software company that we all know and love.)
So if they let people pop in buy two songs and then disapear for two or three months they would have to charge more per song up front.
On a subscription business model if you are one of those who only download a few songs every month, you could end up bearing part of the cost of other people who download lots of songs every month. If everyone downloads lots of songs every month subscription prices may rise.
Maybe they could give a choice. Ten bucks a month for up to 50 songs or non-subscribers could download songs at two bucks a pop.
"Linux needs ONE stable, flexible, powerful and good looking GUI."
True, we only need one but having a choice isn't a bad thing.
"It would make life so much easier for both developers and end users."
The users can load which ever desktop they like and the hardest thing about different desktops is that some of them have trays and other's do not. Not really a big deal.
All in all choice is good and I wouldn't suggest that we drop Gnome or KDE. I would suggest that we have a minimum standard set of libraries. That's what developers really need.
"And to make sinister allustions like 'Be sure to read the EULA first' as if the EULA on this patch is somehow different than the EULA on the original Windows or any other patch that has come out for it (and thus to hint that persons should not apply MS security patches) is irresponsible."
Oh, you believe that suggesting that Microsoft may try to sneak in a modified EULA is irresponsible? The have already done this in their service packs.
I don't think it's a bad idea to double and triple check any agreement with this monopolistic, anti-competitive, power mongering group of corporate thugs. After all, they have repeatedly proven that they cannot be trusted.
Not to follow the law, not to deal fairly with their competitors or the consumer in general.
I wonder if Microsoft's EULA could be considered a form of coercion? Look at it this way: Microsoft creates a flawed piece of software. They sell it to millions of unsuspecting victims under one EULA.
Then, they release patches for flaws that are serious enough to destroy a business if left uncorrected. They tell the victims: ?Agree to this new EULA that takes away many of your rights or we won't fix our software!?
Well this is not the first or the last time a company seeking a quick buck through the theft of IP will occur.
The XVID people suggested that we email Sigma Designs requesting the source code. This is a good idea as it will hammer down the point that they are in violation of the GNU license agreement. It doesn't take long. I drafted the email below in under ten minutes:
To whom it may concern.
After comparing the disassembled code of Sigma Designs REALmagic MPEG-4 Video Codec V1.0:rmp4.dll and XVID MPEG-4 Video Codec 01-May-2002:xvid.dll, there can be no doubt that the two libraries came from the same code base.
As you know, XVID was released under the GNU license and such being the case, your software developed, released and based on intellectual property covered by the GNU license must also be released under the same license.
The license under which XVID was released expressly requires that the source code based on XVID which is developed and released in binary form by any party other than the original copyright holder be made available.
Whereas you are selling a product which is indisputably derived from the XVID code base, I hereby request that you provide a means whereby I may obtain the modified source code.
Ignoring this email or refusing to comply will constitute a violation of the GNU licensing agreement that you willingly entered into when you modified the XVID code.
Please be advised that violating this licensing agreement will almost assuredly result in costly litigation and judgment against you.
All the embedded chip will provide is an encryption key for CDs containing software. If you were a software provider which would you prefer:
1. A CD with an embedded "smart card" that would raise the cost of the product significantly. 2. A secure web site that provides an encrypted activation key to registered owners without significantly raising costs?
I don't see this product as having much of a future.
I've used Linux on my desktop for several years now. And much of what you say is true. I don't like the way the clipboard works in Linux. However, part of your problem is that, like you say, you haven't used Linux on the desktop very long. When I first started using Windows I was totally lost and confused also.
By the way, If you have a three button mouse, try pasting into app by pressing the middle button.
My point is, yes, Linux can be improved but don't complain too loudly until you have gone through the learning curve and don't forget that there was a learning curve with Windows as well.
"It's sad how all criticisms of MySQL on slashdot are consistently modded down."
Some moron modded my post down (and I posted without my extra +1) as "overrated." I'm not sure why. Could have been the fact that I mentioned that although MySQL is a very good choice as long as you don't need advanced abilities and Postgres is a good choice if you do.
Or maybe he/she didn't like the fact that I mentioned that MySQL has a Windows version which would allow a person to program using a RAD tool like Borland's Kylix and port to Windows using Delphi.
There was nothing bad about MySQL in my post, just the facts.
As long as you don't need some of the more advanced features, MySQL is a very good choice. It is fast and there are both Linux and Windows versions.
This means that you can write applications in a RAD language like Borland's Kylix and easily port it to Windows using Delphi.
If you need more advanced features then use Postgres. But as far as I know there is no Windows version so your market is smaller.
I think these companies are in denial when they say that they're not even a little worried that an Open Source product can cut deeply into their market share.
"I believe that the user's free choice is the best standard-making-body it does not matter if you got a certificate or not if your distribution is crap."
Well, as a programmer, I would prefer to write code for a distribution that contains standard lib versions etc. I don't see 42 main classes of standards with 42 subclasses of each coming down the pike.
I can see products coming out for Linux that have "This software runs on LSB Compliant platforms" labels on the packaging.
"A security team is not going to sweep through every neighborhood in the world collecting up all the 'illegal' equipment. Simply put, the older machines will still be around, they just won't be able to connect to certain services or play commercial recorded media."
You're probably right that existing equipment may be grandfathered in but the sale of non DRM hardware could become illegal. So, you could own and use your existing system until it dies but you couldn't sell it or buy new non-DRM enabled equipment.
Within 10 years 99% of equipment will be DRM enabled. No large pool of cheap equipment. Senator Hollings from SC has already drafted the bill.
"And yet, I own several CDs of artists I discovered, and purchased, through mp3.com."
And you are the exception. I and all of my friends own none.
"Even more interesting, the Free Blender Campaign just passed the 80,000 mark, or 80% of the amount needed to purchase and GPL the source code from the Blender holding company."
Interesting that you mention Free Blender. Free Blender is the 3D rendering program that was owned by a company that went bankrupt due to the very attitudes that I talked about. I hope that Free Blender does go GPL so that we don't loose this fine product but it's not been a great success proving that voluntary contributions work. Conversely, it is a good example showing that what I have said is true.
"Clearly people are willing to pay, when they see a benefit, indeed, even when they can get things for free. With Mandrake, many didn't see a benefit (though even there, many others did)."
No, its not "clear" at all. What is clear is that most are unwilling to pay. If you read the posts that I was talking about you'll see that "seeing the benefit" had nothing to do with not paying. People just didn't care to pay. More than one poster said something to the effect of "I use Mandrake but I won't pay for it as long as I can get it for free."
Obviously they found Mandrake useful, the fact that they use it proves that but they had the mentality of a blood sucking leaches.
"There are other solutions. The fundamental design of the internet, for example, shares the cost of propogating information between the sender and the receiver. In other words, the basic design of TCP/IP is P2P in nature. Unfortunately, the HTTP protocol was designed in a client-server manner, placing the bulk of the cost on the providor and making the cost not scale gracefully as demand rises."
I work in a small shop where I am a programming/network specialist so I understand all about TCP/IP, P2P and HTTP. When I was in college they told us that there were two ways to get through school. 1. Dazzle them with data or 2. Buffalo them with bullshit.
No offense but your statement didn't dazzle me. It's rather a non-statement. Yes, HTTP is used by web servers (Apache, IIS, etc) to communicate with web clients (Modzilla, Netscape, etc) but it is the program itself that determines if it is a P2P application, not the protocol that it uses. You could for example create a P2P program that used HTTP to communicate. Not very efficient but it would still be P2P.
As far as cost sharing goes, I don't think that your statement makes any sense. Sure, it costs companies money to do business on the internet. The cost of the physical servers, the software (If they are using Microsoft anyway.) and the cost of system administrators, and employees to provide content. But what is the alternative and why would it be better? The fact that companies spend a significant about of money to do business on the internet does not effect me unless they pass the expense onto me. However, I have found that the internet makes shopping around for the best buy very easy thus driving down the prices. Would you suggest that we go exclusively P2P? That may be fine for MP3's (If you ignore the obvious problems of having the artists paid for their efforts.) but what about products that simply cannot be transmitted over the internet. Amazon.com for example sells books etc. Web servers/clients meet my needs quite nicely in these cases, thank you very much.
What do you mean by your statement that costs don't "scale gracefully as demand rises?" The statement does not make sense. Yes, if a company needs greater bandwidth it will cost them more. So what? Again, P2P is not going to get me a new VCR from the electronics store of my choice. Web server/client technology is well suited for the task.
"Contrast that with SMTP and even NNTP, as well as FreeNet. The "Free Speech" aspect of the internet depends in no small part on the "Free Beer" aspect of the internet, or, more correctly, on the balance of cost shared between sender and receiver (i.e. if "free speech" is expensive, only the wealthy will have freedom of speech, and the value of that freedom will become negligable to the common person)."
You're going way off base with these statements. What does a mail protocol have to do with P2P? It is squarely in the realm of client server technology as are news servers. Free speech is not expensive and I don't think it wouldn't be any cheaper if we adopted your suggestions. Although I'm unclear on exactly what it is you are suggesting.
"Once FreeNet, or another P2P application level infrastructure is in place, with solid search capabilities and HTML-like facilities, we may be able to return to a state of affairs where costs are shared naturally, and popular sites like slashdot are no longer incredibly expensive to run because bandwidth costs are shared and distributed across the entire network, among all those who read the content equally."
Popular sites like slashdot wouldn't exist in a totally P2P world and the cost to the individual would rise.
Remember, the costs don't disappear, they get redistributed. If companies like slash.dot and Amazon.com aren't paying the share that they now pay the lost revenues would have to be made up by you and me.
"This is why P2P is so important, and must be preserved from the depradations of the Copyright Cartels. Not for inane, juvinile file trading, but to fix the bottlenecks of the internet and to keep the medium free and accessible for all to use, regardless of wealth."
P2P has it's place as do the client/server technologies and no doubt the copyright holder's don't like having their IP stolen. But you haven't convinced me or even communicated to me a better system than we have now.
"Musicians really don't need million dollar studios anymore to produce an album, and while this means a lot of junk is pressed onto CD, it also means a lot of musicians are able to produce and market their music outside of the RIAA's cartel, through mp3.com and elsewhere."
Unfortunately, MP3.com hasn't produced any great victories over the RIAA. Like it or not people are generaly too cheap to pay for anything that they can get for free. If you don't believe me look back on all of the "hell no I won't pay..." posts that were posted right here on/. when Mandrake requested help.
The sad fact is that most people are too self centered and short sited to pay money unless forced to do so.
I understand the frustration at the greed of the RIAA but this is a bad idea. The RIAA will seek out and sue people streaming music. Don't underestimate the depth of their greed!
I remember a time when I could beat the strongest computer chess program and it was argued that a computer would never be able to beat a master chess player.
It now takes a tremendous effort and a good deal of luck for me to beat my computer at chess.
I think that it is only a matter of time and attention before go programs become very strong. Chess programs have recieved far more programming effort than go programs. Give it time and I believe that you WILL be impressed.
I'm not of the opinion that every open source product will require a click though license but for those that do, a tarball may not be the way to package them.
Also can you imaging if every single rpm in a distro had a pop-up license agreement! Installing Mandrake might take days!
One caveat to my previous post. Having every single RPM in a distro use click-though licensing would make installing that distro a horrible experience.
Slashdot Mirror
I think by middle man they may mean the record stores who barely make anything anyway. You are correct. The label companies will still get their cut.
The day we can cut out the RIAA will be the day the consumer will win a BIG victory. The RIAA is a group of greedy bastards who don't care about either the consumer or the artists that they exploit.
"The main problem with all these services is they FAIL to meet the needs of the customer."
No, they will fail to meet your unreasonable demands. Every song in every format at virtually no cost to you. What you would offer them wouldn't even cover the cost of their bandwidth let alone compensate the artists.
Keep buying off the rack because no one is going to sacrifice themselves so that you can download every piece of music created for next to nothing.
A subscription business model allows a company to smooth out it's earning cycles. Rather than having big spikes when they release a product they have income trickling in all of the time. (Or pouring in if they price gouge like a certain software company that we all know and love.)
So if they let people pop in buy two songs and then disapear for two or three months they would have to charge more per song up front.
On a subscription business model if you are one of those who only download a few songs every month, you could end up bearing part of the cost of other people who download lots of songs every month. If everyone downloads lots of songs every month subscription prices may rise.
Maybe they could give a choice. Ten bucks a month for up to 50 songs or non-subscribers could download songs at two bucks a pop.
"Linux needs ONE stable, flexible, powerful and good looking GUI."
True, we only need one but having a choice isn't a bad thing.
"It would make life so much easier for both developers and end users."
The users can load which ever desktop they like and the hardest thing about different desktops is that some of them have trays and other's do not. Not really a big deal.
All in all choice is good and I wouldn't suggest that we drop Gnome or KDE. I would suggest that we have a minimum standard set of libraries. That's what developers really need.
"And to make sinister allustions like 'Be sure to read the EULA first' as if the EULA on this patch is somehow different than the EULA on the original Windows or any other patch that has come out for it (and thus to hint that persons should not apply MS security patches) is irresponsible."
Oh, you believe that suggesting that Microsoft may try to sneak in a modified EULA is irresponsible? The have already done this in their service packs.
I don't think it's a bad idea to double and triple check any agreement with this monopolistic, anti-competitive, power mongering group of corporate thugs. After all, they have repeatedly proven that they cannot be trusted.
Not to follow the law, not to deal fairly with their competitors or the consumer in general.
I wonder if Microsoft's EULA could be considered a form of coercion? Look at it this way:
Microsoft creates a flawed piece of software. They sell it to millions of unsuspecting victims under one EULA.
Then, they release patches for flaws that are serious enough to destroy a business if left uncorrected. They tell the victims: ?Agree to this new EULA that takes away many of your rights or we won't fix our software!?
I made no legal threats. Just stated the facts.
.
I cc'd the XviD people are got a reply:
Hi Eric,
It appears that the publicity has provoked a response from the chaps at Sigma - http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/020822/220286_1.html
Of course, who knows whether the source they release will retain the GPL and original copyright holder list.
Thanks for your support - this has been a very interesting few days.
Daniel
Well this is not the first or the last time a company seeking a quick buck through the theft of IP will occur.
The XVID people suggested that we email Sigma Designs requesting the source code. This is a good idea as it will hammer down the point that they are in violation of the GNU license agreement. It doesn't take long. I drafted the email below in under ten minutes:
To whom it may concern.
After comparing the disassembled code of Sigma Designs REALmagic MPEG-4 Video Codec V1.0:rmp4.dll and XVID MPEG-4 Video Codec 01-May-2002:xvid.dll, there can be no doubt that the two libraries came from the same code base.
As you know, XVID was released under the GNU license and such being the case, your software developed, released and based on intellectual property covered by the GNU license must also be released under the same license.
The license under which XVID was released expressly requires that the source code based on XVID which is developed and released in binary form by any party other than the original copyright holder be made available.
Whereas you are selling a product which is indisputably derived from the XVID code base, I hereby request that you provide a means whereby I may obtain the modified source code.
Ignoring this email or refusing to comply will constitute a violation of the GNU licensing agreement that you willingly entered into when you modified the XVID code.
Please be advised that violating this licensing agreement will almost assuredly result in costly litigation and judgment against you.
Thank you.
Eric L. Damron
All the embedded chip will provide is an encryption key for CDs containing software. If you were a software provider which would you prefer:
1. A CD with an embedded "smart card" that would raise the cost of the product significantly.
2. A secure web site that provides an encrypted activation key to registered owners without significantly raising costs?
I don't see this product as having much of a future.
I've used Linux on my desktop for several years now. And much of what you say is true. I don't like the way the clipboard works in Linux. However, part of your problem is that, like you say, you haven't used Linux on the desktop very long. When I first started using Windows I was totally lost and confused also.
By the way, If you have a three button mouse, try pasting into app by pressing the middle button.
My point is, yes, Linux can be improved but don't complain too loudly until you have gone through the learning curve and don't forget that there was a learning curve with Windows as well.
...will quantum-computer only have a virus if anti-virus programs look?
"It's sad how all criticisms of MySQL on slashdot are consistently modded down."
Some moron modded my post down (and I posted without my extra +1) as "overrated." I'm not sure why. Could have been the fact that I mentioned that although MySQL is a very good choice as long as you don't need advanced abilities and Postgres is a good choice if you do.
Or maybe he/she didn't like the fact that I mentioned that MySQL has a Windows version which would allow a person to program using a RAD tool like Borland's Kylix and port to Windows using Delphi.
There was nothing bad about MySQL in my post, just the facts.
Maybe he/she is just a jerk.
So there is a windows version of Postgres?
Kewl!
As long as you don't need some of the more advanced features, MySQL is a very good choice. It is fast and there are both Linux and Windows versions.
This means that you can write applications in a RAD language like Borland's Kylix and easily port it to Windows using Delphi.
If you need more advanced features then use Postgres. But as far as I know there is no Windows version so your market is smaller.
I think these companies are in denial when they say that they're not even a little worried that an Open Source product can cut deeply into their market share.
"I believe that the user's free choice is the best standard-making-body it does not matter if you got a certificate or not if your distribution is crap."
Well, as a programmer, I would prefer to write code for a distribution that contains standard lib versions etc. I don't see 42 main classes of standards with 42 subclasses of each coming down the pike.
I can see products coming out for Linux that have "This software runs on LSB Compliant platforms" labels on the packaging.
"A security team is not going to sweep through every neighborhood in the world collecting up all the 'illegal' equipment. Simply put, the older machines will still be around, they just won't be able to connect to certain services or play commercial recorded media."
You're probably right that existing equipment may be grandfathered in but the sale of non DRM hardware could become illegal. So, you could own and use your existing system until it dies but you couldn't sell it or buy new non-DRM enabled equipment.
Within 10 years 99% of equipment will be DRM enabled. No large pool of cheap equipment. Senator Hollings from SC has already drafted the bill.
"And yet, I own several CDs of artists I discovered, and purchased, through mp3.com."
And you are the exception. I and all of my friends own none.
"Even more interesting, the Free Blender Campaign just passed the 80,000 mark, or 80% of the amount needed to purchase and GPL the source code from the Blender holding company."
Interesting that you mention Free Blender. Free Blender is the 3D rendering program that was owned by a company that went bankrupt due to the very attitudes that I talked about. I hope that Free Blender does go GPL so that we don't loose this fine product but it's not been a great success proving that voluntary contributions work. Conversely, it is a good example showing that what I have said is true.
"Clearly people are willing to pay, when they see a benefit, indeed, even when they can get things for free. With Mandrake, many didn't see a benefit (though even there, many others did)."
No, its not "clear" at all. What is clear is that most are unwilling to pay. If you read the posts that I was talking about you'll see that "seeing the benefit" had nothing to do with not paying. People just didn't care to pay. More than one poster said something to the effect of "I use Mandrake but I won't pay for it as long as I can get it for free."
Obviously they found Mandrake useful, the fact that they use it proves that but they had the mentality of a blood sucking leaches.
"There are other solutions. The fundamental design of the internet, for example, shares the cost of propogating information between the sender and the receiver. In other words, the basic design of TCP/IP is P2P in nature. Unfortunately, the HTTP protocol was designed in a client-server manner, placing the bulk of the cost on the providor and making the cost not scale gracefully as demand rises."
I work in a small shop where I am a programming/network specialist so I understand all about TCP/IP, P2P and HTTP. When I was in college they told us that there were two ways to get through school. 1. Dazzle them with data or 2. Buffalo them with bullshit.
No offense but your statement didn't dazzle me. It's rather a non-statement. Yes, HTTP is used by web servers (Apache, IIS, etc) to communicate with web clients (Modzilla, Netscape, etc) but it is the program itself that determines if it is a P2P application, not the protocol that it uses. You could for example create a P2P program that used HTTP to communicate. Not very efficient but it would still be P2P.
As far as cost sharing goes, I don't think that your statement makes any sense. Sure, it costs companies money to do business on the internet. The cost of the physical servers, the software (If they are using Microsoft anyway.) and the cost of system administrators, and employees to provide content. But what is the alternative and why would it be better? The fact that companies spend a significant about of money to do business on the internet does not effect me unless they pass the expense onto me. However, I have found that the internet makes shopping around for the best buy very easy thus driving down the prices. Would you suggest that we go exclusively P2P? That may be fine for MP3's (If you ignore the obvious problems of having the artists paid for their efforts.) but what about products that simply cannot be transmitted over the internet. Amazon.com for example sells books etc. Web servers/clients meet my needs quite nicely in these cases, thank you very much.
What do you mean by your statement that costs don't "scale gracefully as demand rises?" The statement does not make sense. Yes, if a company needs greater bandwidth it will cost them more. So what? Again, P2P is not going to get me a new VCR from the electronics store of my choice. Web server/client technology is well suited for the task.
"Contrast that with SMTP and even NNTP, as well as FreeNet. The "Free Speech" aspect of the internet depends in no small part on the "Free Beer" aspect of the internet, or, more correctly, on the balance of cost shared between sender and receiver (i.e. if "free speech" is expensive, only the wealthy will have freedom of speech, and the value of that freedom will become negligable to the common person)."
You're going way off base with these statements. What does a mail protocol have to do with P2P? It is squarely in the realm of client server technology as are news servers. Free speech is not expensive and I don't think it wouldn't be any cheaper if we adopted your suggestions. Although I'm unclear on exactly what it is you are suggesting.
"Once FreeNet, or another P2P application level infrastructure is in place, with solid search capabilities and HTML-like facilities, we may be able to return to a state of affairs where costs are shared naturally, and popular sites like slashdot are no longer incredibly expensive to run because bandwidth costs are shared and distributed across the entire network, among all those who read the content equally."
Popular sites like slashdot wouldn't exist in a totally P2P world and the cost to the individual would rise.
Remember, the costs don't disappear, they get redistributed. If companies like slash.dot and Amazon.com aren't paying the share that they now pay the lost revenues would have to be made up by you and me.
"This is why P2P is so important, and must be preserved from the depradations of the Copyright Cartels. Not for inane, juvinile file trading, but to fix the bottlenecks of the internet and to keep the medium free and accessible for all to use, regardless of wealth."
P2P has it's place as do the client/server technologies and no doubt the copyright holder's don't like having their IP stolen. But you haven't convinced me or even communicated to me a better system than we have now.
"Musicians really don't need million dollar studios anymore to produce an album, and while this means a lot of junk is pressed onto CD, it also means a lot of musicians are able to produce and market their music outside of the RIAA's cartel, through mp3.com and elsewhere."
/. when Mandrake requested help.
Unfortunately, MP3.com hasn't produced any great victories over the RIAA. Like it or not people are generaly too cheap to pay for anything that they can get for free. If you don't believe me look back on all of the "hell no I won't pay..." posts that were posted right here on
The sad fact is that most people are too self centered and short sited to pay money unless forced to do so.
... to see that Microsoft has seen the error of its ways and is working to correct the unacceptable behaviour of the past.
sniff, sniff... Something smells bad in here...
I understand the frustration at the greed of the RIAA but this is a bad idea. The RIAA will seek out and sue people streaming music. Don't underestimate the depth of their greed!
I remember a time when I could beat the strongest computer chess program and it was argued that a computer would never be able to beat a master chess player.
It now takes a tremendous effort and a good deal of luck for me to beat my computer at chess.
I think that it is only a matter of time and attention before go programs become very strong. Chess programs have recieved far more programming effort than go programs. Give it time and I believe that you WILL be impressed.
Especially when one considers the fact that a large percentage of network attacks come from disgruntled employees.
So keep your employees happy or don't run Windows!
Those are good points. I just can't think of what the hidden agenda might be.
I'm not of the opinion that every open source product will require a click though license but for those that do, a tarball may not be the way to package them.
Also can you imaging if every single rpm in a distro had a pop-up license agreement! Installing Mandrake might take days!
One caveat to my previous post. Having every single RPM in a distro use click-though licensing would make installing that distro a horrible experience.