I have an even better idea for how the record labels can make money... They can charge 1 time royalty fees to companies who make portable Mp3 players.
Example:
Sony makes an Mp3 player that can hold 100 songs...charge Sony royalties for 100 songs...for every product sold... They would make a fortune.
Then again...wait a second... Isn't sony also a record label? So technically they would be charging themselves for distributing songs? That can't be right.... So if Sony the label wants people to stop pirating songs... Why do they make MP3 players to play those illegal songs?
Now why can't the american labels be that smart? If it works over there...It could work over here...
(yes yes I know... possibly flamebait or troll...It just annoys me to see companies spending all there effort and creativity in the legal system rather then putting it to good use).
I understand that artists need to be paid for what they do just like everyone else... and I don't have a problem with artists being paid MORE then everyone else... What I do have a problem with is there royalty system. The music labels need to come up with a way of making money for themselves... Endorse the label and not the song. Create a way for us internet people to get a hold of the newest and latest music online and not charge download fees...
I guess my point is...Libraries, slashdot, open source software...etc etc... all seem to remain alive without making people pay big bucks for what they offer.
BMG or SONY could come out with a really awsome way to organize our songs... or help us out with the quality of what we get... but they don't... they just complain.
Bottom line: This is 2002... Kazaa(which I hate), and GNUtella(which I love) is not going away...neither is the mp3 format... deal with it.
I can see two reasons why a company would have a problem with there tech's freely giving away technical advise...
The first reason... The most obvious (well to me anyway)... The less people who get there problems answered freely over the internet the more money the corporations will make if they charge for tech support. In my eyes... this is pulling at hairs. I can't see any reason why a product cannot get free technical support. You did buy the product didn't you? Now I only briefly read the article but I caught the gist of it right away. If companies are legally allowed to fire people for providing free tech support maybe the consumers (us) should take a second look at what were buying. If a product is not designed to break...why should they care?
Here is the other view... Every time someone helps out an end user and says that they are from "xyz" company...they then represent that company... If a tech gives bad advise the company could be liable for what the tech said... Although this is a valid view...I have a feeling this would be used more as a scapegoat then anything else.
Bottom line:
No product is perfect...BUT if the company that makes the product starts to limit the amount of free help there customers are able to get...and they start charging high prices for tech support...take a second look at the companies reputation and the product you are buying...
How many times have you Windows users had to download a shareware program that expires after 30 days? or have the program throw annoying popup windows after using it?
This is awsome for the Windows community. It brings a little bit of open source to a closed sourced world. Maybe we can convert a few?
Recently I sold someone a system that came with Windows XP. After debating if I should throw Linux on I decided that since the owner already paid for XP, they might as well use it... The problem was that they didn't have a word processor, they couldn't do graphics editing...they couldn't do anything... Whats the point of Windows without something to run on it?
I ended up downloading Mozilla (because as we know... we can't trust Microsoft), Gimp, and Open Office... Wouldn't it be great if someone kept things organized and put out one handy dandy ISO for it all?
If anything... This shows that the open source world is not selfish... We are bringing our software to a system that wants nothing to do with open source.
You are correct in saying that Microsoft should never have bundled Internet Explorer into Windows in the first place...
It does not belong there... I can see them INSTALLING IE if it wasn't required...but them making it so called impossible to remove was a big mistake...
If we can't trust the browser...and its automatically part of the system...It doesn't say much for the system.
Yes but a fight is still a fight no matter the size. Remember what they say about business... 1 good thing may result in a couple people knowing... but 1 bad thing could result in 12 people knowing...Any kind of information about anti-trust that is brought to the press is a step in the right direction. We don't have to "win"... All we have to do is use the media to let the end users out there know what is going on...
People (over all) are not stupid...They know when they are being scammed or not... If uncle Jim down the street keeps seeing news about Microsoft and security issues...or learns that Microsoft just changed some licence agreements around and he may have to pay an extra $100.00 (an example only) for his next upgrade...He will think twice...
It all works in our (open source community) favor one way or another... I guess its just a matter of how you look at it...
I can understand Microsoft point of view. The browser is part of the operating system... but with all the talk of Internet security...and crackers primarily targeting Windows systems...Why would they want to keep the browser embedded in Windows? Don't you think that they are loosing a major marketing tactic if they keep stubbornly saying "The browser cannot be unattached"....
Of course the browser can be removed...Anyone involved in developing KNOWS that the browser can be removed.... So is Microsoft just stubborn? Or can't they see the bigger picture?
Tell me what you would rather have... A company that hired its own Quality Assurance team and kept all bugs they found quiet...Or a mass audience from all over the world testing the software and reporting what they find?
With that being said... There really isn't any other way for the Mozilla team to let there mass audience "or shall we say...testers" know that they found a bug and that it will be patched soon?
And would you people stop comparing Mozilla to IE... IE has its own set of troubles... Let it fail on its own...
We've discovered a bug in Mozilla 1.2 that can cause DHTML on some sites to fail. We plan to release Mozilla 1.2.1 with a fix shortly
This is what I like to see! This is why Open Source is a very good thing... They discovered there was a bug.... They officially announced that they will be releasing a patch soon... If I can make an educated guess I probably would say a patch would be out by Monday or Tuesday...
The point I am trying to make...Companies or groups of developers that are not obsessed on how much money they make with there code are more likely to take pride in what they do and patch exploits or bugs really quickly...
It has been proven hasn't it?
Don't get yourself too worked up...
on
More on Longhorn
·
· Score: 1
Its marketing guys... Like some of the other posts said... They are "testing the waters"...They want to see posts on slashdot saying why this is a bad thing for open source... They want to know why the end user really likes the idea (if there are any out there that do)...
The bottom line for us is that Microsoft can do whatever they want...If they want to make computer users buy a special piece of hardware just so there system can run...Good luck for them!
Open source systems will not be affected...Any corporations that are looking at Linux for a server OS can see past all the MS propeganda...
As long as we just keep developing our own apps, making Linux (or any other form of BSD) current and cutting edge everything will be okay...
That is a huge risk Microsoft is taking... What makes them think that the average joe schmoe wants to spend $300.00 or more on a new system when there Windows 2000 or Win 98 system works great with MS Office?
I don't have a money tree in my backyard... No money for you!
You would think a huge corporation like that could think of some better names for Software... If they have a problem with other companies using the word "Windows"... why don't they pick something that isn't a word and trademark it.
MS News Flash...
Windows is no longer called Windows... Its now called DOUH (Denial of useful Hardware). Any company who uses this trademark in there name will be sued... Oh yeah and by the way. DON'T TRUST US!
A door is a door... Plural its "Doors"...
A window is a window... Plural its....Guess we have to rename that one don't we...
Hey buddy... Go over there and open those windowetts.
Why can't Microsoft see how much of a fool they are making out of themselves? Do they honestly think that they can compete with something that a) is free. b) has excellent security c) that has such a great support system. Open source systems and Windows are on a totally different level...
Think of it this way... If you have even 200 users... Software that is frequently exploitable is still exploitable even if the price tag is at $100 or $50.00.
If a company was already thinking of switching some one there machines over to Linux, I would hope that they 50% off would have no affect on them...
Microsoft doesn't understand that the market is switching... Were interested in Quality now....not quantity.
I think they need to hire some new graphic design people... I have yet to see a totally unique and creative design from this company... Don't get me wrong... the GUI does look good....
I guess some of you out there don't realize that Microsoft is on a totally different playing field out there. Security issues on Microsoft products are a big deal because those products are suppose to be trusted. Although Microsoft may not go out of there way to deserve this trust it is still assumed.
The difference between a Microsoft Exploit and a Linux exploit is huge. Linux was founded in very unique way. The internet is its home...It is still a system under development. You have tons of distro's out there...did anyone ever notice that with most applications in those distro's the software is either considered "stable" or "development". I have been using Linux for over 12 years, and personally I am okay with using applications that are considered just "stable"...
Microsoft Windows was not founded on the net... It is almost completly closed source. Microsoft tells us that we don't need there source code because there system is there problem... Im not a CEO of any company, not even management...but if I was, in order for my entire company to be using Windows I would want complete trust from the company that makes it.
This post may not even be seen by the slashdot people. I just wanted to add my 2 cents.
Slashdot Mirror
I have an even better idea for how the record labels can make money... They can charge 1 time royalty fees to companies who make portable Mp3 players.
Example:
Sony makes an Mp3 player that can hold 100 songs...charge Sony royalties for 100 songs...for every product sold... They would make a fortune.
Then again...wait a second... Isn't sony also a record label? So technically they would be charging themselves for distributing songs? That can't be right.... So if Sony the label wants people to stop pirating songs... Why do they make MP3 players to play those illegal songs?
Things that make ya go hmmmmmm....
--
An active Open Source advocate.
Now why can't the american labels be that smart? If it works over there...It could work over here...
(yes yes I know... possibly flamebait or troll...It just annoys me to see companies spending all there effort and creativity in the legal system rather then putting it to good use).
I understand that artists need to be paid for what they do just like everyone else... and I don't have a problem with artists being paid MORE then everyone else... What I do have a problem with is there royalty system. The music labels need to come up with a way of making money for themselves... Endorse the label and not the song. Create a way for us internet people to get a hold of the newest and latest music online and not charge download fees...
I guess my point is...Libraries, slashdot, open source software...etc etc... all seem to remain alive without making people pay big bucks for what they offer.
BMG or SONY could come out with a really awsome way to organize our songs... or help us out with the quality of what we get... but they don't... they just complain.
Bottom line: This is 2002... Kazaa(which I hate), and GNUtella(which I love) is not going away...neither is the mp3 format... deal with it.
I can see two reasons why a company would have a problem with there tech's freely giving away technical advise...
The first reason... The most obvious (well to me anyway)... The less people who get there problems answered freely over the internet the more money the corporations will make if they charge for tech support. In my eyes... this is pulling at hairs. I can't see any reason why a product cannot get free technical support. You did buy the product didn't you? Now I only briefly read the article but I caught the gist of it right away. If companies are legally allowed to fire people for providing free tech support maybe the consumers (us) should take a second look at what were buying. If a product is not designed to break...why should they care?
Here is the other view... Every time someone helps out an end user and says that they are from "xyz" company...they then represent that company... If a tech gives bad advise the company could be liable for what the tech said... Although this is a valid view...I have a feeling this would be used more as a scapegoat then anything else.
Bottom line:
No product is perfect...BUT if the company that makes the product starts to limit the amount of free help there customers are able to get...and they start charging high prices for tech support...take a second look at the companies reputation and the product you are buying...
You know the saying...
I think the point here is to do things legally... Downloading warez is just as easy as downloading a shareware program sometimes...
See your point though.
How many times have you Windows users had to download a shareware program that expires after 30 days? or have the program throw annoying popup windows after using it?
This is awsome for the Windows community. It brings a little bit of open source to a closed sourced world. Maybe we can convert a few?
Recently I sold someone a system that came with Windows XP. After debating if I should throw Linux on I decided that since the owner already paid for XP, they might as well use it... The problem was that they didn't have a word processor, they couldn't do graphics editing...they couldn't do anything... Whats the point of Windows without something to run on it?
I ended up downloading Mozilla (because as we know... we can't trust Microsoft), Gimp, and Open Office... Wouldn't it be great if someone kept things organized and put out one handy dandy ISO for it all?
If anything... This shows that the open source
world is not selfish... We are bringing our software to a system that wants nothing to do with open source.
See ya Bill Gates...
--
An active Open Source Advocate.
Okay this is just stupid... Radio Stations pay royalties for the music they play... They must be getting pretty desperate over there.
You are correct in saying that Microsoft should never have bundled Internet Explorer into Windows in the first place...
It does not belong there... I can see them INSTALLING IE if it wasn't required...but them making it so called impossible to remove was a big mistake...
If we can't trust the browser...and its automatically part of the system...It doesn't say much for the system.
Yes but a fight is still a fight no matter the size. Remember what they say about business... 1 good thing may result in a couple people knowing... but 1 bad thing could result in 12 people knowing...Any kind of information about anti-trust that is brought to the press is a step in the right direction. We don't have to "win"... All we have to do is use the media to let the end users out there know what is going on... People (over all) are not stupid...They know when they are being scammed or not... If uncle Jim down the street keeps seeing news about Microsoft and security issues...or learns that Microsoft just changed some licence agreements around and he may have to pay an extra $100.00 (an example only) for his next upgrade...He will think twice... It all works in our (open source community) favor one way or another... I guess its just a matter of how you look at it...
They may and just not have identified themselves as wanting an appeal...
I can understand Microsoft point of view. The browser is part of the operating system... but with all the talk of Internet security...and crackers primarily targeting Windows systems...Why would they want to keep the browser embedded in Windows? Don't you think that they are loosing a major marketing tactic if they keep stubbornly saying "The browser cannot be unattached"....
Of course the browser can be removed...Anyone involved in developing KNOWS that the browser can be removed.... So is Microsoft just stubborn? Or can't they see the bigger picture?
Just another quick comment...
Tell me what you would rather have... A company that hired its own Quality Assurance team and kept all bugs they found quiet...Or a mass audience from all over the world testing the software and reporting what they find?
With that being said... There really isn't any other way for the Mozilla team to let there mass audience "or shall we say...testers" know that they found a bug and that it will be patched soon?
And would you people stop comparing Mozilla to IE... IE has its own set of troubles... Let it fail on its own...
Good point man...
The worst bugs and exploits are the ones never found... Or admitted that they exist.
The danger is in whats not found...
We've discovered a bug in Mozilla 1.2 that can cause DHTML on some sites to fail. We plan to release Mozilla 1.2.1 with a fix shortly
This is what I like to see! This is why Open Source is a very good thing... They discovered there was a bug.... They officially announced that they will be releasing a patch soon... If I can make an educated guess I probably would say a patch would be out by Monday or Tuesday...
The point I am trying to make...Companies or groups of developers that are not obsessed on how much money they make with there code are more likely to take pride in what they do and patch exploits or bugs really quickly...
It has been proven hasn't it?
Its marketing guys... Like some of the other posts said... They are "testing the waters"...They want to see posts on slashdot saying why this is a bad thing for open source... They want to know why the end user really likes the idea (if there are any out there that do)...
The bottom line for us is that Microsoft can do whatever they want...If they want to make computer users buy a special piece of hardware just so there system can run...Good luck for them!
Open source systems will not be affected...Any corporations that are looking at Linux for a server OS can see past all the MS propeganda...
As long as we just keep developing our own apps, making Linux (or any other form of BSD) current and cutting edge everything will be okay...
That is a huge risk Microsoft is taking... What makes them think that the average joe schmoe wants to spend $300.00 or more on a new system when there Windows 2000 or Win 98 system works great with MS Office?
I don't have a money tree in my backyard... No money for you!
yessss... thats exactly how you pronounce it...
*Slap yourself up side the head now*
You would think a huge corporation like that could think of some better names for Software... If they have a problem with other companies using the word "Windows"... why don't they pick something that isn't a word and trademark it.
MS News Flash...
Windows is no longer called Windows... Its now called DOUH (Denial of useful Hardware). Any company who uses this trademark in there name will be sued... Oh yeah and by the way. DON'T TRUST US!
A door is a door... Plural its "Doors"... A window is a window... Plural its ....Guess we have to rename that one don't we...
Hey buddy... Go over there and open those windowetts.
There is no such thing as X Windows. Its just "X"
Why can't Microsoft see how much of a fool they are making out of themselves? Do they honestly think that they can compete with something that a) is free. b) has excellent security c) that has such a great support system. Open source systems and Windows are on a totally different level...
Think of it this way... If you have even 200 users... Software that is frequently exploitable is still exploitable even if the price tag is at $100 or $50.00.
If a company was already thinking of switching some one there machines over to Linux, I would hope that they 50% off would have no affect on them...
Microsoft doesn't understand that the market is switching... Were interested in Quality now....not quantity.
I think they need to hire some new graphic design people... I have yet to see a totally unique and creative design from this company... Don't get me wrong... the GUI does look good....
I wouldn't sweat too much over this. If it annoys the right people a way around the protection will be soon to follow.
If it was made by man... It can be cracked by man.
I guess some of you out there don't realize that Microsoft is on a totally different playing field out there. Security issues on Microsoft products are a big deal because those products are suppose to be trusted. Although Microsoft may not go out of there way to deserve this trust it is still assumed. The difference between a Microsoft Exploit and a Linux exploit is huge. Linux was founded in very unique way. The internet is its home...It is still a system under development. You have tons of distro's out there...did anyone ever notice that with most applications in those distro's the software is either considered "stable" or "development". I have been using Linux for over 12 years, and personally I am okay with using applications that are considered just "stable"... Microsoft Windows was not founded on the net... It is almost completly closed source. Microsoft tells us that we don't need there source code because there system is there problem... Im not a CEO of any company, not even management...but if I was, in order for my entire company to be using Windows I would want complete trust from the company that makes it. This post may not even be seen by the slashdot people. I just wanted to add my 2 cents.