The vouchers are good for software or hardware from ANY manufacturer. MS then pays that manufacturer. Basically, CA is screwing MS out of a billion dollars even though MS products are priced similarly to products offered by Adobe, Apple, IBM, etc. Shows how screwed up antitrust legislation is.
So then MS isn't subject to European anti-trust laws, by your reasoning, since they are a US company. Not true. If you do business in a country, you're subject to their laws.
It's pretty easy to throw a brick through someone's window and steal their stuff as well. Especially now since technology has made bricks pretty cheap. Should we allow this also?
To defend my Weird Al example, parody may not fall under fair use if the parody is for commerical purposes. In the end, it's up to the judge to decide, however. Since Weird Al sells albums, this is commercial parody. It makes sense that if you're making money off of a parody of someone elses work, they're entitled to a cut of the action. Not sure what goes on in the Weird Al example. Also, the fact that Weird Al does gets permission to do his parodies means the RIAA members may not be as evil as we assume.
Fine. Here's another example. There's a lot of Star Wars derivative fan films. Instead of cracking down on it, they let it thrive, and even allowed an awards show. My point is still valid.
I doubt the RIAA or MPAA really cares that much about derivative works. You don't hear Weird Al getting sued for doing parodies of popular songs, for instance. The RIAA and MPAA are concerned about bootleg copies of their work. Examples like this are not going to convince them that p2p sharing of their material and burning copies of cds is not costing them business.
By your reasoning, you should have abandoned MacOS years ago. The worst OS on the planet by any standard until X came out. Pull the log out of your own eye before you point out twig in someone elses.
If people would take some personal responsibility for their actions and stop blaming everyone else for their problems, this settlement wouldn't exist. If you don't think a price is fair, you do have the option to not buy the product. That's how free market economies work. This case ranks up there with suing McDonalds because they didn't tell you the coffee was hot or because you got fat eating their food.
"Record companies were found to be overcharging customers and the courts took action to give it back to consumers."
This is what's wrong with the US. A court system is deciding that consumers were overcharged in what is supposed to be a free market system. No one put a gun to your head and made you buy a cd. This is just stupid. The settlement is just a way for lawyers to make money. They don't even make you prove you pruchased a cd, much less try to distribute the settlement money based on the amount you were supposedly overcharged. The American legal system is a joke.
I find it interesting that slashdotters complain that the RIAA is trying to hang on to an old business model, and then in the next breath complain that DRM limits their freedom. Make up your minds, either accept no legal online music from the RIAA or accept DRM, because you can't have both. People have shown they aren't trustworthy with unprotected digital media.
And their was much rejoicing at Apple until they found out they couldn't get any online media, This was particularly problematic after dvd rentals were replaced by online rentals. Apple lost even more market share and went out of business. Open source palladium was written for linux, which promptly took pver the number 2 spot.
How is Palladium a problem for you, unless you want to pirate copyrighted media? You won't get the media online without Palladium, so your options are Palladium based media, or no media. Palladium doesn't affect any media currently available, such as cds or mp3s.
Ahh, if you don't want DRM, don't run DRM based software. The hardware only does what the software tells it too do. There is nothing in the atricle claiming the BIOS will refuse to boot non trusted OS software.
Slashdot Mirror
Most people on slashdot won't be satisfied with anything short of the govt. forcing MS to release their source code under GPL.
I think the idea is that you can use the money tha MS supposedly overcharged you to replace MS with competing products or upgrades to their products.
"Even $1.1 billion in cash would be a slap on the wrist."
If you don't think this has a significant impact on MS's bottom line, you're delusional. Just watch their stock price, if you don't believe me.
A billion dollars is hardly a slap on the wrist, and that just the CA settlement. The vouchers are good for sw or hw products from ANY manufacturer.
The vouchers can be used for sw or hw products from ANY manufacturer, not just MS.
The vouchers are good for software or hardware from ANY manufacturer. MS then pays that manufacturer. Basically, CA is screwing MS out of a billion dollars even though MS products are priced similarly to products offered by Adobe, Apple, IBM, etc. Shows how screwed up antitrust legislation is.
If you use a voucher for software you were going to buy anyway, MS loses money. Manufacturing costs are irrelevant.
So then MS isn't subject to European anti-trust laws, by your reasoning, since they are a US company. Not true. If you do business in a country, you're subject to their laws.
the decline in cd sales for the 1st time ever doesn't support p2p as enhancing cd sales, however.
It's pretty easy to throw a brick through someone's window and steal their stuff as well. Especially now since technology has made bricks pretty cheap. Should we allow this also?
To defend my Weird Al example, parody may not fall under fair use if the parody is for commerical purposes. In the end, it's up to the judge to decide, however. Since Weird Al sells albums, this is commercial parody. It makes sense that if you're making money off of a parody of someone elses work, they're entitled to a cut of the action. Not sure what goes on in the Weird Al example. Also, the fact that Weird Al does gets permission to do his parodies means the RIAA members may not be as evil as we assume.
Fine. Here's another example. There's a lot of Star Wars derivative fan films. Instead of cracking down on it, they let it thrive, and even allowed an awards show. My point is still valid.
I doubt the RIAA or MPAA really cares that much about derivative works. You don't hear Weird Al getting sued for doing parodies of popular songs, for instance. The RIAA and MPAA are concerned about bootleg copies of their work. Examples like this are not going to convince them that p2p sharing of their material and burning copies of cds is not costing them business.
By your reasoning, you should have abandoned MacOS years ago. The worst OS on the planet by any standard until X came out. Pull the log out of your own eye before you point out twig in someone elses.
"The video player sounds good, but I heard mac was making an ipod with video, so the video ipod kind of wins by default."
Why? IPod's are over-priced now. Plus only works with 5% of PC.
Yeah, at Apple they innovate by throwing out their old completely ass-backwards OS and use someone elses who gave it to them for free.
If people would take some personal responsibility for their actions and stop blaming everyone else for their problems, this settlement wouldn't exist. If you don't think a price is fair, you do have the option to not buy the product. That's how free market economies work. This case ranks up there with suing McDonalds because they didn't tell you the coffee was hot or because you got fat eating their food.
"Record companies were found to be overcharging customers and the courts took action to give it back to consumers."
This is what's wrong with the US. A court system is deciding that consumers were overcharged in what is supposed to be a free market system. No one put a gun to your head and made you buy a cd. This is just stupid. The settlement is just a way for lawyers to make money. They don't even make you prove you pruchased a cd, much less try to distribute the settlement money based on the amount you were supposedly overcharged. The American legal system is a joke.
"Theft is when you sell a consumer something they can't preview or return. "Open your mouth and close your eyes!"
In slashdot-speak, that is.
Wrong. This article deals with selling codecs for non-windows systems. There is no bundling involved.
I find it interesting that slashdotters complain that the RIAA is trying to hang on to an old business model, and then in the next breath complain that DRM limits their freedom. Make up your minds, either accept no legal online music from the RIAA or accept DRM, because you can't have both. People have shown they aren't trustworthy with unprotected digital media.
And their was much rejoicing at Apple until they found out they couldn't get any online media, This was particularly problematic after dvd rentals were replaced by online rentals. Apple lost even more market share and went out of business. Open source palladium was written for linux, which promptly took pver the number 2 spot.
How is Palladium a problem for you, unless you want to pirate copyrighted media? You won't get the media online without Palladium, so your options are Palladium based media, or no media. Palladium doesn't affect any media currently available, such as cds or mp3s.
Which is exactly why the RIAA refuses to sell digital content without DRM. They made that mistake once with CDs.
Ahh, if you don't want DRM, don't run DRM based software. The hardware only does what the software tells it too do. There is nothing in the atricle claiming the BIOS will refuse to boot non trusted OS software.