I must say, though, the more stupid copyright issues I read about, and the more I think about it, the more I think the very idea that anyone should be able to own a collection of letters and words borders on absurdity. Every single creative work there is has borrowed from thousands of years of history, language, folklore, legend, myth, collective cultural consciousnesses, etc. Originality is a myth--only God was truly original. And so, since we all owe something to those who have come before us, without which we couldn't have created what we've created, I think it's bordering on morally wrong to try to take exclusive ownership of an idea or collection of ideas, because in the end it's hypocritical.
"No, the Roku uses a WM-DRM implementation based on the Philips NXP chip. It's not something that can be ported to desktop Linux."
I did a bit of Googling about that and didn't find anything definitive either way, only skepticism by others who also couldn't find anything definitive. Do you have a source for that information?
"In fact, they have a moral obligation to their stock holders to pursue the course that appears to have the greatest ROI."
I'm so tired of hearing this. People say it all over the place.
Who says what has the "greatest ROI"? Maybe if they supported Linux, they'd get many more new subscribers than they expected. Maybe in the future more people will shift to Linux, increasing ROI even more.
What if, by refusing to support Linux users, they anger them to the point that they drop or never subscribe to Netflix, having a negative effect on ROI?
It's all speculation until it's tried. Basically, doing what's good for their customers is in their shareholders' best interest, because that's what makes the company grow and stabilize. And thumbing their nose (even politely) at customers is not in their shareholders' best interest.
Thank you for pointing that out. Someone mod this up.
It's interesting, though, that these content licencors don't object to Hulu working on Linux, assuming there's some overlap between those that license content to Hulu and those that license to Netflix.
"The artist should not be out of pocket and nor should the investor."
What do you mean by "should"?
If you mean that they're entitled to compensation just because they made something, or that they're entitled to recoup all their costs just because they decided to risk an investment, you're totally wrong. (I take "entitled" to mean that others are obligated to provide something to them.)
If you mean that, if they make a wise investment and manage it well, it ought to succeed to the point where they can recoup their costs, ok, but that depends on how well they manage it, how well they research the market ahead of time, and whether people decide to buy their product--which can be affected by external events and is never guaranteed.
I think you need to communicate more clearly what you really mean.
You do not know that the conversion to PA support would never have happened without PA being pushed out as the default by Ubuntu--that is your speculation, and I completely disagree with it. Have you never heard of deprecation? It's used all the time to transition to new things while providing legacy support for a time.
These are all open-source apps we're talking about. Why do you think none of them would have been updated to support PA without it being forced upon them? That's ludicrous.
Ubuntu is responsible for pushing out broken defaults, whether PA itself was broken or not. It was the wrong thing to do.
I think you're using the wrong terminology. "Out of pocket" refers to the spending of one's own money. The party that is "out of pocket" for production, recording, promotion, etc. is not the consumer. The consumer is paying for the end result, the final product. The consumer is "out of pocket" for the CD, the MP3 download, etc, not the production costs.
By saying that the consumers are "out of pocket" for production, you're saying that the consumers paid directly for the production costs, which would be like patronage (which would cut out the middleman--not a bad idea, but not common).
And, no, I didn't ask that question you quoted--that was someone else. I don't even understand your follow-up question, because it's so vague. But as far as I'm concerned, the people who "would pay" for production would be those who want to produce it. It's called raising capital, and it's the same as raising funds to start a business, expand into a new market, etc. If one wants to take such a risk, they are free to do so, but they are not guaranteed nor entitled to compensation--that's why it's called a risk.
There are plenty of examples to refute your theory that it's not worth a developer's time to support the Linux user base.
You're right in that Netflix is claiming that it's not worth their time to support Linux users. That is, they care more about maximizing their profits than about supporting existing and potential customers. That is exactly the problem.
Maybe it would only return a small amount on the development costs as opposed to supporting Windows users. So what? They could still do The Right Thing and support their customers. The desire to squeeze out every last cent and only invest in the most profitable customers is Evil and greedy.
You call me a Linux lemming. I call myself a Linux leader, who cares about morals and ethics and people more than about money, and who believes that other people and other corporations should too.
"So ultimately, the cost of the item is paid for by the end consumer, the people who produce them aren't out of pocket."
Huh? That's completely the opposite of reality. The people who produce them spend their own money in advance, hoping to recoup the costs. They are EXACTLY out-of-pocket. Whether they are ultimately reimbursed by sales and to what extent is not guaranteed.
Either way, the production of the recording, the master, and its associated costs are one-time expenses.
And that's my question, who would pay for that? At the moment those costs are paid for by the people who want the product (the ones who buy it).
What planet are you living on? The only way those costs would be paid for by the people who want the product would be through a system of patronage, paying the artist to produce a particular work. The production costs are actually paid for by the people who pay to produce the work, which is an investment, one which carries the risk of making or losing money.
I wonder if you think that artists are entitled to compensation just because they recorded a song. No one is really entitled to anything except the property which he already owns (i.e. he has the title).
Your reading comprehension is lacking. What I said that maybe should be illegal is executives of one company also being on the boards of other companies, which could be a conflict of interest or contribute to a monopoly--e.g. Netflix choosing Silverlight over other, existing solutions, cutting off consumers in the process.
I never said anything about jailing anyone. Nor did I mention copying and sharing media.
People like you are "what is wrong" with Slashdot.
Does that mean that if I buy a book or a DVD or a magazine or a CD or ANYTHING overseas and bring it home with me that I'm technically in violation of this law?
The music in it is something completely separate and it is interesting to ask why it is that the composer doesn't get paid once on delivery of the new song, the artists once for the recording session, and so on.
The real question is who would pay for that? I mean goods (and their development costs) are paid for by people who want them and thus purchase them.
Huh?
Goods (like physical media) are paid for by whoever produces them, hoping to recoup their costs and make a profit by selling them later. Just like any other good. (Or some can be produced on-demand.)
Imaginary "goods," like digital copies of media, can be reproduced at the expense of the person receiving the copy, without advance production or the associated costs.
Either way, the production of the recording, the master, and its associated costs are one-time expenses.
Please, don't add to the disgusting, overused mess that is contemporary copyright doctrine by misapplying it to private correspondence! It's arguments like yours that make me wonder if we really would be better off overall with no copyright whatsoever.
No one should be able to own an idea. It's that simple. The only reason we have the concept of owning ideas is because of technology that allows mass reproduction and the greedy desires to squeeze every last cent out of something, and to prevent others from deriving any benefit from anything you do without paying you for it.
I also think it's dangerous and foolish to start tossing around the word "rights." The only rights anyone really has in this country are spelled out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I may not have a "right" to copy and forward and publish the email you send me, but you don't have a "right" to stop me from doing so, either. If you don't trust me to abide by your wishes, don't send me the email. You have the "right" to not email me.
They should have been doing this every year since a long time ago! Just imagine, funding research that might actually lead to something useful and solve a real problem!
Face it: they used to support Linux, then they chose to switch to Silverlight at Linux users' expense. Roku runs Linux and supports Netflix.
Netflix could support Linux users if they wanted to, but they choose not to. They just don't care. They care more about the bottom line than their customers. If they can increase their profits by dumping some customers at the mailbox, they will.
Don't forget that Netflix used to work in Linux, but then they switched to Silverlight and dumped Linux users...at the mailbox? They just drank the Microsoft juice (and since the co-founder is on Microsoft's board, no surprise there. Conflict-of-interest, anyone? I think that needs to be illegal).
Besides, the fact that it works on Roku proves that it is possible but they are choosing to not support Linux users.
The only plausible excuse would be that the content owners from which they license content wouldn't license their content to Netflix if Netflix had a desktop Linux player. But I think that's a flimsy excuse, perhaps completely invalid. Netflix chose to stop using Flash, and I doubt it had anything to do with that. After all, Hulu uses it, and Hulu's a joint effort from the studios.
They need not say "under no circumstances will we ever release a general Linux client." They've done worse than that: they used to support Linux, then they dropped it, leaving users with no alternative except dual-booting Windows, and now they have said that they have no plans to support Linux.
You know what it boils down to? Corporate greed. The drive for ever-increasing profits. The focus on ROI over all other considerations. Because if Netflix wanted to support desktop Linux, they could. They just choose not to.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm...I suppose they might have made more money had they gone with a non-Microsoft solution... :)
I suppose we'll just have to disagree, then.
I must say, though, the more stupid copyright issues I read about, and the more I think about it, the more I think the very idea that anyone should be able to own a collection of letters and words borders on absurdity. Every single creative work there is has borrowed from thousands of years of history, language, folklore, legend, myth, collective cultural consciousnesses, etc. Originality is a myth--only God was truly original. And so, since we all owe something to those who have come before us, without which we couldn't have created what we've created, I think it's bordering on morally wrong to try to take exclusive ownership of an idea or collection of ideas, because in the end it's hypocritical.
"No, the Roku uses a WM-DRM implementation based on the Philips NXP chip. It's not something that can be ported to desktop Linux."
I did a bit of Googling about that and didn't find anything definitive either way, only skepticism by others who also couldn't find anything definitive. Do you have a source for that information?
"In fact, they have a moral obligation to their stock holders to pursue the course that appears to have the greatest ROI."
I'm so tired of hearing this. People say it all over the place.
Who says what has the "greatest ROI"? Maybe if they supported Linux, they'd get many more new subscribers than they expected. Maybe in the future more people will shift to Linux, increasing ROI even more.
What if, by refusing to support Linux users, they anger them to the point that they drop or never subscribe to Netflix, having a negative effect on ROI?
It's all speculation until it's tried. Basically, doing what's good for their customers is in their shareholders' best interest, because that's what makes the company grow and stabilize. And thumbing their nose (even politely) at customers is not in their shareholders' best interest.
Thank you for pointing that out. Someone mod this up.
It's interesting, though, that these content licencors don't object to Hulu working on Linux, assuming there's some overlap between those that license content to Hulu and those that license to Netflix.
"The artist should not be out of pocket and nor should the investor."
What do you mean by "should"?
If you mean that they're entitled to compensation just because they made something, or that they're entitled to recoup all their costs just because they decided to risk an investment, you're totally wrong. (I take "entitled" to mean that others are obligated to provide something to them.)
If you mean that, if they make a wise investment and manage it well, it ought to succeed to the point where they can recoup their costs, ok, but that depends on how well they manage it, how well they research the market ahead of time, and whether people decide to buy their product--which can be affected by external events and is never guaranteed.
I think you need to communicate more clearly what you really mean.
You do not know that the conversion to PA support would never have happened without PA being pushed out as the default by Ubuntu--that is your speculation, and I completely disagree with it. Have you never heard of deprecation? It's used all the time to transition to new things while providing legacy support for a time.
These are all open-source apps we're talking about. Why do you think none of them would have been updated to support PA without it being forced upon them? That's ludicrous.
Ubuntu is responsible for pushing out broken defaults, whether PA itself was broken or not. It was the wrong thing to do.
I think you're using the wrong terminology. "Out of pocket" refers to the spending of one's own money. The party that is "out of pocket" for production, recording, promotion, etc. is not the consumer. The consumer is paying for the end result, the final product. The consumer is "out of pocket" for the CD, the MP3 download, etc, not the production costs.
By saying that the consumers are "out of pocket" for production, you're saying that the consumers paid directly for the production costs, which would be like patronage (which would cut out the middleman--not a bad idea, but not common).
And, no, I didn't ask that question you quoted--that was someone else. I don't even understand your follow-up question, because it's so vague. But as far as I'm concerned, the people who "would pay" for production would be those who want to produce it. It's called raising capital, and it's the same as raising funds to start a business, expand into a new market, etc. If one wants to take such a risk, they are free to do so, but they are not guaranteed nor entitled to compensation--that's why it's called a risk.
You're not. You're enlightened. :) The mystery is why anyone does choose to submit to them. I never said anyone is forced to.
And so I'd rather Netflix use Flash, because as bad as it is, at least it's cross-platform.
There are plenty of examples to refute your theory that it's not worth a developer's time to support the Linux user base.
You're right in that Netflix is claiming that it's not worth their time to support Linux users. That is, they care more about maximizing their profits than about supporting existing and potential customers. That is exactly the problem.
Maybe it would only return a small amount on the development costs as opposed to supporting Windows users. So what? They could still do The Right Thing and support their customers. The desire to squeeze out every last cent and only invest in the most profitable customers is Evil and greedy.
You call me a Linux lemming. I call myself a Linux leader, who cares about morals and ethics and people more than about money, and who believes that other people and other corporations should too.
No choice? There's an entire Internet of choice. There were alternatives to Twitter before Twitter was thought of. What are you talking about?
"So ultimately, the cost of the item is paid for by the end consumer, the people who produce them aren't out of pocket."
Huh? That's completely the opposite of reality. The people who produce them spend their own money in advance, hoping to recoup the costs. They are EXACTLY out-of-pocket. Whether they are ultimately reimbursed by sales and to what extent is not guaranteed.
Either way, the production of the recording, the master, and its associated costs are one-time expenses.
And that's my question, who would pay for that? At the moment those costs are paid for by the people who want the product (the ones who buy it).
What planet are you living on? The only way those costs would be paid for by the people who want the product would be through a system of patronage, paying the artist to produce a particular work. The production costs are actually paid for by the people who pay to produce the work, which is an investment, one which carries the risk of making or losing money.
I wonder if you think that artists are entitled to compensation just because they recorded a song. No one is really entitled to anything except the property which he already owns (i.e. he has the title).
Your reading comprehension is lacking. What I said that maybe should be illegal is executives of one company also being on the boards of other companies, which could be a conflict of interest or contribute to a monopoly--e.g. Netflix choosing Silverlight over other, existing solutions, cutting off consumers in the process.
I never said anything about jailing anyone. Nor did I mention copying and sharing media.
People like you are "what is wrong" with Slashdot.
Does that mean that if I buy a book or a DVD or a magazine or a CD or ANYTHING overseas and bring it home with me that I'm technically in violation of this law?
The music in it is something completely separate and it is interesting to ask why it is that the composer doesn't get paid once on delivery of the new song, the artists once for the recording session, and so on.
The real question is who would pay for that? I mean goods (and their development costs) are paid for by people who want them and thus purchase them.
Huh?
Goods (like physical media) are paid for by whoever produces them, hoping to recoup their costs and make a profit by selling them later. Just like any other good. (Or some can be produced on-demand.)
Imaginary "goods," like digital copies of media, can be reproduced at the expense of the person receiving the copy, without advance production or the associated costs.
Either way, the production of the recording, the master, and its associated costs are one-time expenses.
No, that's useful, limited, tangible, inhabitable property.
Don't compare it to intellectual "property." You're doing us all a disservice by doing so.
Not to mention the idea of adding some kind of federal IP/copyright tax. And you thought the IRS was a big mess?
Please don't ever run for office. :/
Refuting the claims by auditing the code might not be so simple. Read the thread started by de Raadt's email for details.
Please, don't add to the disgusting, overused mess that is contemporary copyright doctrine by misapplying it to private correspondence! It's arguments like yours that make me wonder if we really would be better off overall with no copyright whatsoever.
No one should be able to own an idea. It's that simple. The only reason we have the concept of owning ideas is because of technology that allows mass reproduction and the greedy desires to squeeze every last cent out of something, and to prevent others from deriving any benefit from anything you do without paying you for it.
I also think it's dangerous and foolish to start tossing around the word "rights." The only rights anyone really has in this country are spelled out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I may not have a "right" to copy and forward and publish the email you send me, but you don't have a "right" to stop me from doing so, either. If you don't trust me to abide by your wishes, don't send me the email. You have the "right" to not email me.
They should have been doing this every year since a long time ago! Just imagine, funding research that might actually lead to something useful and solve a real problem!
Sure, you can use any communications medium to coordinate anything. That's not the point.
The point is that artificial, technological restrictions are stupid, and it's a mystery as to why people choose to submit to them.
Face it: they used to support Linux, then they chose to switch to Silverlight at Linux users' expense. Roku runs Linux and supports Netflix.
Netflix could support Linux users if they wanted to, but they choose not to. They just don't care. They care more about the bottom line than their customers. If they can increase their profits by dumping some customers at the mailbox, they will.
I don't buy that. They had Linux support in Flash, until they switched to Silverlight. Roku runs Linux already. They simply chose to dump Linux users.
You're grossly exaggerating.
Don't forget that Netflix used to work in Linux, but then they switched to Silverlight and dumped Linux users...at the mailbox? They just drank the Microsoft juice (and since the co-founder is on Microsoft's board, no surprise there. Conflict-of-interest, anyone? I think that needs to be illegal).
Besides, the fact that it works on Roku proves that it is possible but they are choosing to not support Linux users.
The only plausible excuse would be that the content owners from which they license content wouldn't license their content to Netflix if Netflix had a desktop Linux player. But I think that's a flimsy excuse, perhaps completely invalid. Netflix chose to stop using Flash, and I doubt it had anything to do with that. After all, Hulu uses it, and Hulu's a joint effort from the studios.
They need not say "under no circumstances will we ever release a general Linux client." They've done worse than that: they used to support Linux, then they dropped it, leaving users with no alternative except dual-booting Windows, and now they have said that they have no plans to support Linux.
You know what it boils down to? Corporate greed. The drive for ever-increasing profits. The focus on ROI over all other considerations. Because if Netflix wanted to support desktop Linux, they could. They just choose not to.
I don't think that's the kind of "progress" we want in our PC technology.
Remember, DRM is evil.