How does Apple's DRM violate fair use? It sounds like they pushed the DRM out of your way as much as possible for legitimate uses of the music, i.e. some sharing allowed between computers, works with iPod, burn to cd. Why would a normal person complain. My only complaint is that it currently forces you to use Apple hardware.
Proprietary software has been compared to a cathedral, but in some sense, OSS has become the new cathedral, while proprietary software is the new bazaar. Look at this case. A researcher is wasting time trying to reinvent the wheel using open source to solve a problem that has been solved with proprietary software. I understand the advantages of OSS, but I'd like to point out that he seems not to beinterested in modifying soure code, as was Stallman's motive, but instead wants to use OSS for it's own sake. This is like a cathedral in his "worship" of OSS that leads him to want to use it despite the fact that it's more diffiult. On the other hand, proprietary sw vendors want to write and sell software that works "good enough", a bazaar (free market) style approach, and makes them some money in the process.
"Do you realize how much money that is? So how did this work? Microsoft use's its monopoly to establish another one in web browsers through unfair business practices (which they were because Microsoft is a monopoly) and years later just pays $750 million to make it go away."
Antitrust laws are bull shit. There isn't even a definition in the law that a business can actually look at and decide whether or not they are considered a monopoly based on the law. So susddenly the govt. decides MS is a monopoly and then prosecutes then, without even giving them the courtesy of informing them of their new status and giving them a chance to change their practices based on their new status. So I thought the govt ruling was fair. It set boundaries that MS had to adhere to in future dealings. All this money they have to pay now crosses the line, given the ambiguous nature of the legislation.
Although Novell claims they still own the copyright to Unix, this is not relevant to the IBM case. SCO claims IBM took AIX code codeveloped with SCO, and released it to Linux. Under their contract with SCO, IBM did not have the right to do this. An IBM exec saying they were going to dump AIX into Linux to destroy Unix at LinuxWorld didn't help IBM's case. If these assertions are true, SCO will still win in court over IBM, and also sue anyone using Linux versions containing the code in question.
Let me get this straight. You prefer Apple to have a monopoly on selling you music? Do you understand this mean they will be able to charge you more for music, the same way they charge you more for hardware? Also, Apple falls into your "DRM driven competitors" catagory, so I don't see how you think they're the good guys there.
If you don't want to burn to cd, the real version is cheaper. It's simply the monthly fee, and you get 300,000 songs to listen to. The Real and Apple services are targeting different markets. Pick whichever suits your tastes.
It's amazing how trolling gets modded up if it's ms bashing. If you RTFA, you'll find that people affected used third party sw that didn't comply to industry standards, which caused the sw to fail when the patch was applied, so it isn't even MS's bug
From the aricle: "Microsoft said the changes it made complied with the latest industry standards, and said early indications linked the problems to some popular third-party products, such as protective firewall software sold by other companies."
Apparently, MS pulled the patch because third party sw wasn't following the standard, so 3rd party sw caused the problem.
Sun makes all their money selling over priced hardware. They are now realizing that it is their fate to become just one more pc manufacturer selling machines running Linux/Solaris/Windows. Eventually SPARC machines will be a thing of the past.
If it is true that Unix code is in Linux, why are you trying to find legal loopholes to skirt justice? Linux is not going to die over this. You might instead use your efforts to track down people who have contributed Unix cod eto Linux so that the offending code, if it exists, can be rewritten, and we all can move on.
Who's going to pay for it. People shouldn't be forced to pay for something they don't necessarily want just because the govt thinks it's good for you. That was business is for, to gauge demand and act accordingly.
As the article points out, FTTH isn't free, which is why companies are going bankrupt laying fiber or avoiding it altogether. So how are municipalities going to pay for it? Raise prices for power and increase local taxes. YOU will pay for it ultimately, whether you want it or not. In America, one should have the choice, not be forced by a community or govt. to pay for something one may not want.
The florida court didn't interpret the law. If they did, Bush would have won long before the hand recount fiasco. Instead the florida court started making up new law on the fly. They completely ignored the rules on the books.
According to Texas law, walking out on a vote to avoid having a quorum is illegal. The democrats broke the law, and law enforcement was used to find them. God forbid that we allow law enforcement agencies to cooperate. Of course, this is off-topic, so how it got modded up...
Where in the constitution does it say a person has a right to be anaonymous in public or that a govt agency has no right to observe and record data about a what a person is doing in public. Seriously, I'd really like to know.
"If you're gonna criticize the US, criticize foreign policy specifically, because it's at the root of all this terrorism nonsense."
Great, blame the US because a bunch of irrational bigots blame the US along with all other non-muslims for their problems. You might as well blame Jews for the holocaust while your at it. Hell, the US even helped bin Laden liberate Afghanistan from the USSR, and look how he repays the US.
By not allowing royalties on licensing a patent, you might as well be saying don't even bother patenting it. It stifles innovation for profit since there is no way to make money through licensing technology.
Here's some data. The total cd + cassette sales actually appears almost flat throughout the 90s. However, it drops significantly in 2002 and 2003. Now, the economy was pretty bad in the early nineties, but that seems to have had no effect on music sales overall. So I don't buy the arguement that music sales are down now because of the economy.
I hate when people talk about wanting to reward an artist but not the person who took the real risks. You would not have heard of the artist in the 1st place if it wasn't for the record label. They gambled that the artist would be successful. In business, the person who risks the capital gets the lion's share of the profit. If an artists wants to mortgage his house to start his own label to promote his music, then fine, he deserves the money. Otherwise he's no different than a programmer getting a weekly paycheck for his work, while Gates, Jobs, etc. rake in all the money. They took the risks. Not the programmer.
Also, since Kazaa etc has more traffic then Napster ever had, shouldn't sales be increasing even more now by your theory? They're not. Here's an interesting article
Yes. This is why this opinion paper is irrelevant. It claims Linux is independent of all other flavors of Unix without providing any evidence. SCO claims something different. We just have to wait for SCO's day in court.
Slashdot Mirror
How does Apple's DRM violate fair use? It sounds like they pushed the DRM out of your way as much as possible for legitimate uses of the music, i.e. some sharing allowed between computers, works with iPod, burn to cd. Why would a normal person complain. My only complaint is that it currently forces you to use Apple hardware.
Proprietary software has been compared to a cathedral, but in some sense, OSS has become the new cathedral, while proprietary software is the new bazaar. Look at this case. A researcher is wasting time trying to reinvent the wheel using open source to solve a problem that has been solved with proprietary software. I understand the advantages of OSS, but I'd like to point out that he seems not to beinterested in modifying soure code, as was Stallman's motive, but instead wants to use OSS for it's own sake. This is like a cathedral in his "worship" of OSS that leads him to want to use it despite the fact that it's more diffiult. On the other hand, proprietary sw vendors want to write and sell software that works "good enough", a bazaar (free market) style approach, and makes them some money in the process.
"Do you realize how much money that is? So how did this work? Microsoft use's its monopoly to establish another one in web browsers through unfair business practices (which they were because Microsoft is a monopoly) and years later just pays $750 million to make it go away."
Antitrust laws are bull shit. There isn't even a definition in the law that a business can actually look at and decide whether or not they are considered a monopoly based on the law. So susddenly the govt. decides MS is a monopoly and then prosecutes then, without even giving them the courtesy of informing them of their new status and giving them a chance to change their practices based on their new status. So I thought the govt ruling was fair. It set boundaries that MS had to adhere to in future dealings. All this money they have to pay now crosses the line, given the ambiguous nature of the legislation.
Although Novell claims they still own the copyright to Unix, this is not relevant to the IBM case. SCO claims IBM took AIX code codeveloped with SCO, and released it to Linux. Under their contract with SCO, IBM did not have the right to do this. An IBM exec saying they were going to dump AIX into Linux to destroy Unix at LinuxWorld didn't help IBM's case. If these assertions are true, SCO will still win in court over IBM, and also sue anyone using Linux versions containing the code in question.
Let me get this straight. You prefer Apple to have a monopoly on selling you music? Do you understand this mean they will be able to charge you more for music, the same way they charge you more for hardware? Also, Apple falls into your "DRM driven competitors" catagory, so I don't see how you think they're the good guys there.
If you don't want to burn to cd, it $10 a month for 300,000 songs. Some people may prefer that model.
If you don't want to burn to cd, the real version is cheaper. It's simply the monthly fee, and you get 300,000 songs to listen to. The Real and Apple services are targeting different markets. Pick whichever suits your tastes.
It's amazing how trolling gets modded up if it's ms bashing. If you RTFA, you'll find that people affected used third party sw that didn't comply to industry standards, which caused the sw to fail when the patch was applied, so it isn't even MS's bug
From the aricle: "Microsoft said the changes it made complied with the latest industry standards, and said early indications linked the problems to some popular third-party products, such as protective firewall software sold by other companies."
Apparently, MS pulled the patch because third party sw wasn't following the standard, so 3rd party sw caused the problem.
Sun makes all their money selling over priced hardware. They are now realizing that it is their fate to become just one more pc manufacturer selling machines running Linux/Solaris/Windows. Eventually SPARC machines will be a thing of the past.
If it is true that Unix code is in Linux, why are you trying to find legal loopholes to skirt justice? Linux is not going to die over this. You might instead use your efforts to track down people who have contributed Unix cod eto Linux so that the offending code, if it exists, can be rewritten, and we all can move on.
Who's going to pay for it. People shouldn't be forced to pay for something they don't necessarily want just because the govt thinks it's good for you. That was business is for, to gauge demand and act accordingly.
As the article points out, FTTH isn't free, which is why companies are going bankrupt laying fiber or avoiding it altogether. So how are municipalities going to pay for it? Raise prices for power and increase local taxes. YOU will pay for it ultimately, whether you want it or not. In America, one should have the choice, not be forced by a community or govt. to pay for something one may not want.
The florida court didn't interpret the law. If they did, Bush would have won long before the hand recount fiasco. Instead the florida court started making up new law on the fly. They completely ignored the rules on the books.
According to Texas law, walking out on a vote to avoid having a quorum is illegal. The democrats broke the law, and law enforcement was used to find them. God forbid that we allow law enforcement agencies to cooperate. Of course, this is off-topic, so how it got modded up...
Where in the constitution does it say a person has a right to be anaonymous in public or that a govt agency has no right to observe and record data about a what a person is doing in public. Seriously, I'd really like to know.
"If you're gonna criticize the US, criticize foreign policy specifically, because it's at the root of all this terrorism nonsense."
Great, blame the US because a bunch of irrational bigots blame the US along with all other non-muslims for their problems. You might as well blame Jews for the holocaust while your at it. Hell, the US even helped bin Laden liberate Afghanistan from the USSR, and look how he repays the US.
I think user error refers to superuser error. That is, the person with root access deleting critical files, etc.
It could also be a lame driver.
By not allowing royalties on licensing a patent, you might as well be saying don't even bother patenting it. It stifles innovation for profit since there is no way to make money through licensing technology.
Here's some data. The total cd + cassette sales actually appears almost flat throughout the 90s. However, it drops significantly in 2002 and 2003. Now, the economy was pretty bad in the early nineties, but that seems to have had no effect on music sales overall. So I don't buy the arguement that music sales are down now because of the economy.
I hate when people talk about wanting to reward an artist but not the person who took the real risks. You would not have heard of the artist in the 1st place if it wasn't for the record label. They gambled that the artist would be successful. In business, the person who risks the capital gets the lion's share of the profit. If an artists wants to mortgage his house to start his own label to promote his music, then fine, he deserves the money. Otherwise he's no different than a programmer getting a weekly paycheck for his work, while Gates, Jobs, etc. rake in all the money. They took the risks. Not the programmer.
Also, since Kazaa etc has more traffic then Napster ever had, shouldn't sales be increasing even more now by your theory? They're not. Here's an interesting article
CD sales increased in the early nineties during that recession. How does your theory explain that?
Yes. This is why this opinion paper is irrelevant. It claims Linux is independent of all other flavors of Unix without providing any evidence. SCO claims something different. We just have to wait for SCO's day in court.