This is exactly what the real problem is. The MPAA wants it both ways: it wants to shove anyone who isn't big and bad enough to pay for their Jaguars out of the way, yet it wants everyone to love them and play exactly by their rules.
And like the author said: if Spider-Man is losing lots of money to piracy, the box office numbers sure aren't showing it.
How much longer will we have duped (or more to the point, paid off) Congressmen who let these big IP holders walk all over the rights of the American people to own recording hardware?
My God, if these people had been around 100 years ago, they would have made the ball point pen illegal since it can be used to copy books.
I seriously think that this issue will not be solved until there is a Constitutional Amendment that guarantees fair use rights for all media.
The Gates Who Stole the Desktop by NetRanger (Imagine Boris Karloff reading this)
The Gates was quite in a fix now, you see, With the Senators ready to charge perjury. Everyone around had deserted his side, And it was quite obvious that The Gates had lied. But suddenly the Gates had an awful idea. The Gates had a wonderful, awful idea! "I can sell a version of Windows," the old Gatesy Gates hissed, "With stripped down features. Won't the industry be pissed!" So The Gates took his Windows, and stripped down the features. He took out the Internet! He took out search creatures! He took everything, everything but the price. Then he wrapped it in packaging that looked quite nice. When The Gates was done, he looked quite spent, So shrink wrapped the box, and on the shelves it went. "This will teach those fools," The Gates sneered and spote, "When their voters get wind of this, it won't be for them they vote!" But suddenly there was a cry of joy, And everyone loved The Gates' new toy! "My computer doesn't crash!" said one little Who, "It doesn't slow down like it got the flu!" And The Gates puzzled and puzzed until his puzzle was solved. "Maybe Windows," he thought, "has after all been resolved!" And his answer came with a cash register ring. "I never had to add features. Not a ^&$@ thing!" For years afterwards, The Gates played nice. And he kept everything off, except for the price. The Windows users continued to shout and sing, But what really changed? Nada. Not a thing.
...Microsoft, sensing that they can copy another great idea, changed its EULA today to uninstall Linux when any of its software is run on a machine in the same building.
I think the debate really comes down to the simple question -- will computers be integrated into existing appliances, or are they really considered as their own class of appliance?
The answer to the above question will mold the ideas of how computers are made. To some degree you can see this train of thought happening on both sides already. IE, Apple's styling suggests the computer as its own appliance. It's friendly, but obviously its own class of household machine. But it's made to integrate into the household environment (in other words, their computers don't look ugly).
On the other hand, you have the ideas of appliances like the Maytag Neptune, for instance. The on-board computer can solve any of your stain dilemmas, but lacks the capabilities of a full-blown desktop computer.
In the end I think the school of thought which advocates molding the computer to more traditional appliances will ultimately become a niche market, and the computer will remain as its own appliance, with the learning curve becoming less sharp as interface design is advanced.
Your ranting aside, Microsoft would not have the monopoly it does with the PC market except for large corporations that buy volume licenses (not to mention support). Plus the major money from licenses are to be found in "Professional" and "Enterprise" versions of software.
And this isn't even taking into account the government -- huge numbers of users that are absolutely forbidden to use anything everyone else doesn't use.
The consumer market is just gravy on the meat. The big businesses and government contracts are the meat & potatoes of the MS lunch.
The reason Microsoft will not be disentrenched from the mainstream computer is precisely because that is exactly what most corporations fear the most. In their eyes, MS software has solved even basic corporate organizational problems (think Exchange). The fear of Microsoft picking up its toys and going home is exactly why you are seeing so much appeasement from their end.
At this point, everything has been standardized, IT execs only know MS products, MS services, and IBM compatible computers. They've never known a world where you chose what computer systems had a available version of the software your company needed -- there is no longer such an issue. And they love Bill for that.
Microsoft has developed a monopoly of the market precisely because it saw the needs of the big businesses and filled them as quickly as possible, and worried about quality later. It's unfortunate, but that's how the cookie crumbles.
Has Microsoft really innovated? Of course not -- but that's beside point. The point is they took lots of great ideas, appropriated them, made it illegal for anyone else to appropriate them, and then packed all the most useful stuff into five or six packages which can all be ordered from one place. Game over.
Unfortunately even the U.S. Government is seeing the failure of easy controls on the software market. By the time you put one control in place, the market has already changed. Frankly, if the breakup option is gone, then there is no remedy that will stop Microsoft from continuing to terrorize the software industry.
Sheesh, what really needs to be said here? Internet Explorer is full of more bugs than a $19.95 roadside motel. I can't wait for the explaination for this one out of Monopolis (AKA Redmond, WA).
You know, it's hard to have sympathy for an industry which has killed most of the real talent from getting into the popular market (with a few exceptions)... and then it gouges the consumer with strong-arm tactics at the record stores in order to keep prices up.
For Pete's sake, CD's are still more expensive than tape cassettes. It's not about cost of manufacturing -- it's about gouging the consumer.
...think of the possibilities here. I bet you're always wondered what those people sitting around on corners and talking to themselves are saying. Now we have the technology to find out.
Admit it -- you like the music. The soundtrack is now on CD for the first time too, to coincide with the 20th Anniversary release. The composer has some really interesting notes on how it was nearly lost forever until it was baked. Yes, baked, as in an oven.
It makes for a fascinating story, especially considering the future of classic works -- will they be lost forever when the media disintegrates?
"... but now there's the new Case Antenna! It's like adding a five-mile long antenna to your phone!
Look! We put these two cell phones next to each other on the surface of Mars. The regular phone gets no reception. But the Case Antenna gets reception which violates the laws of physics!
Amazing!
The Case Antenna is regularly sold for five million dollars. But with our exclusive TV offer, you can get it for nineteen easy payments of $19.95! (plus what the Antenna actually cost us, disguised as a shipping & handling charge)"
After reading some of the comments here it startles me that people do not seem to realize what everything is headed to. We need more people in Congress who will stand up for the rights of fair use, otherwise, you the consumer will be paying every time you want to view a copyrighted work.
Remember DIVX (the DVD bastardization), folks? You had to pay $3 every time you watched a DIVX movie. That's what the RIAA and the MPAA want: Pay-per-use, to be able to squeeze more money out of your pocket every time you want to watch a movie or just listen to a CD. Keeping music and films from being distributable is the first step towards that goal. The next step is introducing new technology which incorporates those features. (Think XM Satellite Radio -- AM and FM are free... but how will local stations compete with nationwide coverage with fewer/no commericals?)
That's where it's all headed, but first the consumer has to be conditioned to the idea that it's just fine and dandy to pay every time you use something.
Imagine the Internet as a big series of clear plastic pipes that carry water all around the world. The water represents the flow of ideas and information.
Country "A" decides that all its citizens should have brown water, so they put brown food coloring in the pipes that come into the country.
Because there are so many pipes going in and out of Country "A", there's no way to keep just that area's water brown. Eventually all the water in the global system will become brown because of Country "A".
Country "B" has residents who hate the brown water. Now, either Country "B" has to pony up the money to install filters at all its incoming pipes, or the citizens have to get used to the water. Either way, Country "B" has had its rights trampled on.
The same effect will happen if a individual countries' laws are allowed to affect the entire Internet; those who have no residence in a country will suffer from someone's self-centeredness. Either there needs to be:
(A) A central Internet authority approved by all nations, or (B) People need to leave the Internet alone before all the water turns brown.
Slashdot Mirror
And like the author said: if Spider-Man is losing lots of money to piracy, the box office numbers sure aren't showing it.
How much longer will we have duped (or more to the point, paid off) Congressmen who let these big IP holders walk all over the rights of the American people to own recording hardware?
My God, if these people had been around 100 years ago, they would have made the ball point pen illegal since it can be used to copy books.
I seriously think that this issue will not be solved until there is a Constitutional Amendment that guarantees fair use rights for all media.
"Deja Vu -- that sense that you've seen the same thing before."
:-) :-) :-)
:-)
"Deja Vu -- that sense that you've seen the same thing before."
Meow.
Until Blizzard drops the BNETD action I am not going to even look at their products again. Their blatant abuse of copyrights is sickening.
I really wish Slashdot would grow a backbone about this as well, and stop posting these stories.
"DOH!"
...given the image of the company, is it all going to be pirated barnyard music?
After you pay for the watch you can't afford clothes, it seems :-)
Now all we need is for it to have a voice chip that will say, "He's dead, Jim!" -- and I'll buy it tomorrow.
The Gates Who Stole the Desktop
by NetRanger
(Imagine Boris Karloff reading this)
The Gates was quite in a fix now, you see,
With the Senators ready to charge perjury.
Everyone around had deserted his side,
And it was quite obvious that The Gates had lied.
But suddenly the Gates had an awful idea.
The Gates had a wonderful, awful idea!
"I can sell a version of Windows," the old Gatesy Gates hissed,
"With stripped down features. Won't the industry be pissed!"
So The Gates took his Windows, and stripped down the features.
He took out the Internet! He took out search creatures!
He took everything, everything but the price.
Then he wrapped it in packaging that looked quite nice.
When The Gates was done, he looked quite spent,
So shrink wrapped the box, and on the shelves it went.
"This will teach those fools," The Gates sneered and spote,
"When their voters get wind of this, it won't be for them they vote!"
But suddenly there was a cry of joy,
And everyone loved The Gates' new toy!
"My computer doesn't crash!" said one little Who,
"It doesn't slow down like it got the flu!"
And The Gates puzzled and puzzed until his puzzle was solved.
"Maybe Windows," he thought, "has after all been resolved!"
And his answer came with a cash register ring.
"I never had to add features. Not a ^&$@ thing!"
For years afterwards, The Gates played nice.
And he kept everything off, except for the price.
The Windows users continued to shout and sing,
But what really changed? Nada. Not a thing.
THE END
...Microsoft, sensing that they can copy another great idea, changed its EULA today to uninstall Linux when any of its software is run on a machine in the same building.
I think the debate really comes down to the simple question -- will computers be integrated into existing appliances, or are they really considered as their own class of appliance?
The answer to the above question will mold the ideas of how computers are made. To some degree you can see this train of thought happening on both sides already. IE, Apple's styling suggests the computer as its own appliance. It's friendly, but obviously its own class of household machine. But it's made to integrate into the household environment (in other words, their computers don't look ugly).
On the other hand, you have the ideas of appliances like the Maytag Neptune, for instance. The on-board computer can solve any of your stain dilemmas, but lacks the capabilities of a full-blown desktop computer.
In the end I think the school of thought which advocates molding the computer to more traditional appliances will ultimately become a niche market, and the computer will remain as its own appliance, with the learning curve becoming less sharp as interface design is advanced.
...it still doesn't have Albert Einstein helping you search for files on your computer. You call this advancement!?!
Your ranting aside, Microsoft would not have the monopoly it does with the PC market except for large corporations that buy volume licenses (not to mention support). Plus the major money from licenses are to be found in "Professional" and "Enterprise" versions of software.
And this isn't even taking into account the government -- huge numbers of users that are absolutely forbidden to use anything everyone else doesn't use.
The consumer market is just gravy on the meat. The big businesses and government contracts are the meat & potatoes of the MS lunch.
The reason Microsoft will not be disentrenched from the mainstream computer is precisely because that is exactly what most corporations fear the most. In their eyes, MS software has solved even basic corporate organizational problems (think Exchange). The fear of Microsoft picking up its toys and going home is exactly why you are seeing so much appeasement from their end.
At this point, everything has been standardized, IT execs only know MS products, MS services, and IBM compatible computers. They've never known a world where you chose what computer systems had a available version of the software your company needed -- there is no longer such an issue. And they love Bill for that.
Microsoft has developed a monopoly of the market precisely because it saw the needs of the big businesses and filled them as quickly as possible, and worried about quality later. It's unfortunate, but that's how the cookie crumbles.
Has Microsoft really innovated? Of course not -- but that's beside point. The point is they took lots of great ideas, appropriated them, made it illegal for anyone else to appropriate them, and then packed all the most useful stuff into five or six packages which can all be ordered from one place. Game over.
Unfortunately even the U.S. Government is seeing the failure of easy controls on the software market. By the time you put one control in place, the market has already changed. Frankly, if the breakup option is gone, then there is no remedy that will stop Microsoft from continuing to terrorize the software industry.
...
Sheesh, what really needs to be said here? Internet Explorer is full of more bugs than a $19.95 roadside motel. I can't wait for the explaination for this one out of Monopolis (AKA Redmond, WA).
You know, it's hard to have sympathy for an industry which has killed most of the real talent from getting into the popular market (with a few exceptions) ... and then it gouges the consumer with strong-arm tactics at the record stores in order to keep prices up.
For Pete's sake, CD's are still more expensive than tape cassettes. It's not about cost of manufacturing -- it's about gouging the consumer.
...think of the possibilities here. I bet you're always wondered what those people sitting around on corners and talking to themselves are saying. Now we have the technology to find out.
...
...
... and this is A GOOD THING (tm) ?
Parent: "If you don't behave, we're going to turn off your GPS locator, and then someone bad will kidnap you...!"
Nothing like new technology to bring a whole new angle to the "we're gonna leave you at the mall" routine.
Wow -- you're right on the money.
I was shocked to see how Morpheus is a VERY bad clone of Gnucleus. Well, Morpheus is off my system for good. No more damn pop-up ads either.
Good riddance.
...before you start bitching and moaning about the cable companies not having to open up their lines to competition, remember that:
(A) The Telco's use government subsidies to build their monopolies. That's why they now have to pay the piper.
(B) Cable companies did it with all their own pennies. They get jack from the government; it's all from subscriber fees.
So frankly I think this ruling is damn fair. Just because you build a successful business doesn't mean you owe the world a piece of your action.
It makes for a fascinating story, especially considering the future of classic works -- will they be lost forever when the media disintegrates?
I can see it now:
"... but now there's the new Case Antenna! It's like adding a five-mile long antenna to your phone!
Look! We put these two cell phones next to each other on the surface of Mars. The regular phone gets no reception. But the Case Antenna gets reception which violates the laws of physics!
Amazing!
The Case Antenna is regularly sold for five million dollars. But with our exclusive TV offer, you can get it for nineteen easy payments of $19.95! (plus what the Antenna actually cost us, disguised as a shipping & handling charge)"
I'm turning off the TV now...
After reading some of the comments here it startles me that people do not seem to realize what everything is headed to. We need more people in Congress who will stand up for the rights of fair use, otherwise, you the consumer will be paying every time you want to view a copyrighted work.
Remember DIVX (the DVD bastardization), folks? You had to pay $3 every time you watched a DIVX movie. That's what the RIAA and the MPAA want: Pay-per-use, to be able to squeeze more money out of your pocket every time you want to watch a movie or just listen to a CD. Keeping music and films from being distributable is the first step towards that goal. The next step is introducing new technology which incorporates those features. (Think XM Satellite Radio -- AM and FM are free... but how will local stations compete with nationwide coverage with fewer/no commericals?)
That's where it's all headed, but first the consumer has to be conditioned to the idea that it's just fine and dandy to pay every time you use something.
Imagine the Internet as a big series of clear plastic pipes that carry water all around the world. The water represents the flow of ideas and information.
Country "A" decides that all its citizens should have brown water, so they put brown food coloring in the pipes that come into the country.
Because there are so many pipes going in and out of Country "A", there's no way to keep just that area's water brown. Eventually all the water in the global system will become brown because of Country "A".
Country "B" has residents who hate the brown water. Now, either Country "B" has to pony up the money to install filters at all its incoming pipes, or the citizens have to get used to the water. Either way, Country "B" has had its rights trampled on.
The same effect will happen if a individual countries' laws are allowed to affect the entire Internet; those who have no residence in a country will suffer from someone's self-centeredness. Either there needs to be:
(A) A central Internet authority approved by all nations, or
(B) People need to leave the Internet alone before all the water turns brown.