I've only had one kernel panic since I started using the original OS X release. I also support five other Macs, none of which has experienced one yet. I finally saw one in CompUSA recently, so I know that the kernel panics now are a lot prettier than they were on 10.0.:-)
Why would a university spend money to start a service for its students when similar services are already easily available to them? It seems as though they're saying, "Our students are stealing music, so we're going to start a service to make everyone pay for music this way, whether they want it or not."
It would be like a university president reacting to incidents of grocery store shoplifting by mandating that every student buy his groceries through the university. It's not reasonable, and it's yet another business that a university has no business being engaged in.
From a legal standpoint, universities might have the responsibility to make a reasonable effort to make sure that their networks aren't being used illegally, but turning to this solution appears to be a step in the wrong direction -- and it adds yet another cost to those who want to attend college. Of course, I feel the same way about athletic fees and activity fees that college students are forced to pay without wanting to.
I'm confused by something you're saying here, so maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean.
In your first paragraph, you seem to be talking about people downloading a bunch of music because it's free, but you also refer to them having "already paid their 10 dollars." So are you talking about people using illegal P2P services? Or are you talking about people using subscription services?
If you're talking about the illegal P2P services, I'm not sure that's within the scope of whether purchase vs. subscription is a better model. If you're talking about the subscription services, though, the point is that the music they downloaded is no longer there for them to listen to if they quit paying a subscription or if the company goes out of business.
Regarding your points, in the same order you listed them:
1) The question was framed as a choice between a subscription model and a purchase model. If you'd like to advocate a hybrid, that might be a reasonable argument, but it wasn't the issue I was responding to.
2) If you don't know what a simple phrase like that means, I'm not sure how to make it more clear. If I want to buy a song (or an album or multiple albums), I can make the purchase when I happen to have the money and the desire to fork it out. If you're using a subscription model, you pay something out every month whether you use the service or not. There's no ongoing commitment with buying as you go; even if you can theoretically drop a subscription any time, there's is still an element of being committed because of the hassle of canceling and later restarting the service.
3) Measuring how often something which is essentially free is downloaded doesn't provide the same information as knowing what people are specifically willing to pay for. There are a lot of things that I might download if they're free -- just as a novelty, for instance -- which I wouldn't pay a dime for. If someone has to pay for something (even if it's just 99 cents), it says that someone places real value on the item. (It's for this same reason that advertisers are willing to pay substantially more to place ads in paid circulation publications than in free publications, even if the readership is the same.)
That's like saying that it's not fair today that you might break or otherwise harm a CD or DVD that you own. At least with music that's on your hard drive, making an identical backup of all of the music is trivial.
Renting music is sort of like having cable TV. You can enjoy whatever the operator happens to make available at that time. But when you own the music (or DVD or book or whatever), you don't have to be concerned about whether the things you want to hear will one day be unavailable because of lack of demand or other reasons.
How much music does a normal person acquire in a year (legally or otherwise)? I have every CD that I own on my 10GB iPod -- plus various MP3s from other sources -- and it's still only half full. The issue as it was framed in this question ($7,500 for ownership vs. $120 a year for rental) is absurb, because people don't buy thousands of dollars of music at once. The real question is whether you want to be committed to listening to whatever a subscription service wants you to listen to OR be able to spend a tiny amount of money on a song or album when you happen to feel like it. The subscription model does at least three bad things: 1) It takes away your ability to legally own music for as long as you want it, 2) It takes away your freedom to time your purchases to your own whims or budget, and 3) It takes away your ability to "vote with your money" to give the market feedback about what you want to buy.
I understand the theoretical allure of a subscription model, but I believe it's one of those things that looks best when it's in theory. In practice, people want to buy what they want when they want AND they want to be able to own it. (You can argue about whether Apple's mild restrictions are too strict concerning what you can do with the file, but that's another argument. For me, Apple's approach basically means that I can do virtually anything that a normal music consumer wants to do with his music.)
You're having an argument with yourself. You're addressing a point that I don't have an opinion about and have not said anything about. Since you replied to something I wrote concerning legal procedure (NOT ethics or legal philosophy), I would assume you know that. But your notion that a lawsuit should be thrown out because you don't think it should have been filed is rather novel -- legally groundless, but still novel.
Your opinion -- humble or otherwise -- has very little to do with legal procedure. If you'd like to argue that SCO had an ethical obligation to do something different from what it has, that's fine. I don't have any opinion about that, because I don't have enough FACTS to draw a reasoned conclusion. But when it comes to what the company is doing (and why) from the viewpoint of LEGAL procedure (concerning disclosure of evidence, which is all I've addressed), your opinion about whether the company SHOULD sue isn't even vaguely relevant.
You're arguing about whether SCO is right or not, and I have NO position on that -- because I don't know the relevant facts and lack the ability to read minds that so many on here seem to have. I have only discussed the company's LEGAL position, NOT the company's true intent or any of those related issues.
No, the things I was addressing were crazy ideas that people on here seem to have about legal issues. YOU might be talking about "the good will of the Linux community" and other things, but a lawsuit isn't about those things, nor is a cease and desist letter -- which was the issue you addressed to one of my replies. If you want to talk about whether SCO is doing the right thing, that's an entirely different issue. I'm just addressing the issues where some people on here seem to be letting their emotions get in the way of a simple analysis of a legal question.
Although I haven't seen the letters that SCO attorneys have sent to alleged offenders, I would presume that they tell people that their use of Linux is a violation of SCO intellectual property. While it would be up to a judge to say whether that is specific enough -- instead of outlining specific sections of code -- I believe that a reasonable non-programmer would find that acceptably specific at this stage of the case. If anyone has seen one of the letters, I would be happy to read it before being more certain. However, without having seen the letters, I think we're pretty safe in assuming that the lawyers were competent enough LEGALLY to say what needed to be said.
The fact that you assume that the SCO attorneys would not have followed proper legal procedure is puzzling. It amazes me how the political or religious devotion that people on here have for Linux is keeping them from discussing the merits of a legal case without obvious bias.
Actually, a statement like that DOES have some legal value, but it's only the first step in a long legal process. They FIRST have to notify alleged offenders that they are using something that the company claims that it owns. A typical cease and desist letter does not try to litigate the case. That's just not the way the process actually works. I don't take any position on the issue of whether SCO is right or not -- because I don't know the facts that both sides will later present. All I'm saying is that what SCO has done so far is reasonable within the context of what it is alleging to be true.
If you will re-read what I've written, I haven't addressed the erroneous notion that evidence only comes out at trial. I've only addressed the opposite erroneous notion -- which seems to be running wild here on Slashdot -- that SCO has to present evidence whenever the people here want it presented. The evidence -- whatever it is, right or wrong -- will come out when it's legally required to come out.
Yes, you have to disclose evidence to the other side, but, no, you don't have to disclose it on a timetable that suits people on Slashdot. As for mitigating damages, they are fulfilling that requirement by sending notices to people telling them that some of the code in Linux is their property and that they don't have a license to use it. A plaintiff is NOT required to litigate a case in public from the moment he files it.
No, you don't surprise the other side in a Perry Mason-like way in open court, but you also don't present your evidence until you are legally required to. You speak of discovery in this case as though it's already happened or is happening now. Do you actually KNOW where the case stands legally? Do you have a clue what depositions might have been taken or what evidence has been exchanged? Just because a case has been filed, that doesn't mean that all information is automatically given to the other side right then. Whether they end up being right or not, the SCO lawyers would be idiots to let their clients give their evidence right now (unless it was already given to the other side because of some legally required disclosure).
It is NOT the purpose of a trial to "discover the truth and deal with it." It is the purpose of a trial to determine whether a specific set of charges brought by the plaintiff against the defendent are true (and, if they're true, what relief the plaintiff should get for the damage he has suffered). A civil trial is not a "truth commission." It only deals with a fairly narrow set of facts. When one party to the suit knows that it has the facts on its side, it KNOWS that the other side is going to try to present those facts in a totally different light or lie in order to interpret the facts in a different way. That means that neither party wants to give away its strategy or interpretation of the facts until legally required. It would be like the general of an invading army faxing his battle plan to the army he was attacking. It would be stupid.
Even though I agree with the contention that it might not be the best use of educational dollars (to use iPods in college classes), your answer makes me suspect you didn't spend too much time in liberal arts classes.:-)
There are plenty of creative uses that can be made of almost any device -- besides writing software. Whether the benefits outweigh the disadvantages is a different issue, and we might be in agreement on that point, but for differing reasons.
That's like saying that you don't see the use of someone getting a Honda unless you can change the software that controls the car's computer.
If you want to market an MP3 player that uses Linux or some other free OS, more power to you. But to say what you're saying is just blind zealotry. Personally, I don't see a lot of use for an iPod in education (and I say that as a happy iPod owner), but it has nothing to do with religious reasons such as whether it's running an open source OS.
The price of something isn't determined by what it costs to produce it, but by what a willing buyer is willing to pay to get it. That's why profit margins vary so much from industry to industry. (Profit margins and prices also shrink when there's more competition, but that's another discussion.)
If it costs me $100 to produce an item, but a willing buyer is only willing to fork out $80 for it, it won't reach the market until I add enough value to increase what the customer will pay OR I figure out how to get my costs below $80. On the other hand, if I produce something for $1 that happens to be worth $100 to a customer, I'll make a huge profit and the customer is happy, too. (Of course, under most circumstances, other producers will figure out how to make the same product and begin competition, reducing prices for everyone. That's part of what happens with electronic devices, although increasing volumes also play a role.)
Looking at cost really should only matter to the producer of an item. The consumer should look at value, not price or cost. If an item has enough value to pay what the producer asks, both parties can be happy. If there's NOT enough value, the producer is driven from business or he has to reduce costs (possibly by changing his business model or production processes, etc.).
The record companies are in trouble partly because of free music downloads. They're right about that. That's because many consumers have decided they'd rather steal (which they euphemistically call "share") rather than pay money for music that they can then keep. That makes the price charged for CDs less attractive, of course, because it lowers the perceived value to the customer. But the difference in how customers view CD prices now has NOTHING to do with what it costs to produce an album.
I agree that it's MUCH easier to use Project Builder (and IB) than the tools to build Windows apps. I concede that some small shops and solo developers would still use it for that reason, but the ones who are in business to make a company really profitable would go the other route.
David
If Macs could suddenly run Windows applications (without something like VPC), why would anyone write anything except Windows apps? The big companies that now target both platforms could just drop their Mac software and tell Mac users to buy the Windows version. Companies that now specialize in the Mac market could start making Windows apps and sell to both platforms. Apple would totally lose control of the integration that has made the Mac experience what it is today. I just can't see any other reasonable result of what the poster suggests.
You're not guaranteed a job or a living just because you get a degree. If you're not happy with the pay in the field that you're entering, you have no one but yourself to blame for that. Change fields or do something to make yourself more valuable in your field. It's not up to an employer to find a way to pay you what you want. It's up to you to be valuable enough that someone will want to pay what you want to make.
David
First, why should consumers in the United States pay more to "protect" the job of someone in this country who charges more for his work than someone is willing to do it for overseas? Why should the vast majority pay more to put extra money into your pocket?
Second, following this logic to its natural conclusion, this will end up destroying almost ALL international trade. The Europeans already pay too much for food simply because many of the countries have systems that "protect" farmers in those countries. Using your logic, consumers of all products should subsidize less efficient (or more expensive) producers of ANY product. (U.S. consumers also pay too much for many products, both because of production limits and tax subsidies.)
Third, this logic will lead to reduced incentives to innovate and cut costs, which LOWERS standards of living everywhere -- as consumers pay more and get less.
Fourth, on a pragmatic level, have you even considered that there are plenty of products where the U.S. company is the low-cost producer who would be hurt by this system being enacted in other industries by OTHER countries?
Fifth, what moral right do you have -- or does anyone have -- to tell two individuals (or companies) that they can't enter into consensual trade that is to the benefit of both parties?
What you propose is wrong from the standpoint of individual rights AND pragmatic economics. There is NO reasonable argument in favor of it unless you're an inefficient producer who is demanding that he be subsidized by his neighbors.
By this logic, you should have access to every developer's code from the moment he or she writes it. Heaven forbid that the people writing the code decide for themselves when it's good enough to be released. You'd better quit using Linux, too, because you don't have access to the code the moment it's written, either.:-)
The old G3 iMac (in the original form factor) was still available at the Apple store online as of this past weekend. I was helping a friend shop for his first Mac, and we specifically discussed that model as we considered options for him. I can't say whether people were still buying them, but they were shown as available.
Slashdot Mirror
I've only had one kernel panic since I started using the original OS X release. I also support five other Macs, none of which has experienced one yet. I finally saw one in CompUSA recently, so I know that the kernel panics now are a lot prettier than they were on 10.0. :-)
Why would a university spend money to start a service for its students when similar services are already easily available to them? It seems as though they're saying, "Our students are stealing music, so we're going to start a service to make everyone pay for music this way, whether they want it or not."
It would be like a university president reacting to incidents of grocery store shoplifting by mandating that every student buy his groceries through the university. It's not reasonable, and it's yet another business that a university has no business being engaged in.
From a legal standpoint, universities might have the responsibility to make a reasonable effort to make sure that their networks aren't being used illegally, but turning to this solution appears to be a step in the wrong direction -- and it adds yet another cost to those who want to attend college. Of course, I feel the same way about athletic fees and activity fees that college students are forced to pay without wanting to.
I'm confused by something you're saying here, so maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean.
In your first paragraph, you seem to be talking about people downloading a bunch of music because it's free, but you also refer to them having "already paid their 10 dollars." So are you talking about people using illegal P2P services? Or are you talking about people using subscription services?
If you're talking about the illegal P2P services, I'm not sure that's within the scope of whether purchase vs. subscription is a better model. If you're talking about the subscription services, though, the point is that the music they downloaded is no longer there for them to listen to if they quit paying a subscription or if the company goes out of business.
Regarding your points, in the same order you listed them:
1) The question was framed as a choice between a subscription model and a purchase model. If you'd like to advocate a hybrid, that might be a reasonable argument, but it wasn't the issue I was responding to.
2) If you don't know what a simple phrase like that means, I'm not sure how to make it more clear. If I want to buy a song (or an album or multiple albums), I can make the purchase when I happen to have the money and the desire to fork it out. If you're using a subscription model, you pay something out every month whether you use the service or not. There's no ongoing commitment with buying as you go; even if you can theoretically drop a subscription any time, there's is still an element of being committed because of the hassle of canceling and later restarting the service.
3) Measuring how often something which is essentially free is downloaded doesn't provide the same information as knowing what people are specifically willing to pay for. There are a lot of things that I might download if they're free -- just as a novelty, for instance -- which I wouldn't pay a dime for. If someone has to pay for something (even if it's just 99 cents), it says that someone places real value on the item. (It's for this same reason that advertisers are willing to pay substantially more to place ads in paid circulation publications than in free publications, even if the readership is the same.)
That's like saying that it's not fair today that you might break or otherwise harm a CD or DVD that you own. At least with music that's on your hard drive, making an identical backup of all of the music is trivial.
Renting music is sort of like having cable TV. You can enjoy whatever the operator happens to make available at that time. But when you own the music (or DVD or book or whatever), you don't have to be concerned about whether the things you want to hear will one day be unavailable because of lack of demand or other reasons.
How much music does a normal person acquire in a year (legally or otherwise)? I have every CD that I own on my 10GB iPod -- plus various MP3s from other sources -- and it's still only half full. The issue as it was framed in this question ($7,500 for ownership vs. $120 a year for rental) is absurb, because people don't buy thousands of dollars of music at once. The real question is whether you want to be committed to listening to whatever a subscription service wants you to listen to OR be able to spend a tiny amount of money on a song or album when you happen to feel like it. The subscription model does at least three bad things: 1) It takes away your ability to legally own music for as long as you want it, 2) It takes away your freedom to time your purchases to your own whims or budget, and 3) It takes away your ability to "vote with your money" to give the market feedback about what you want to buy.
I understand the theoretical allure of a subscription model, but I believe it's one of those things that looks best when it's in theory. In practice, people want to buy what they want when they want AND they want to be able to own it. (You can argue about whether Apple's mild restrictions are too strict concerning what you can do with the file, but that's another argument. For me, Apple's approach basically means that I can do virtually anything that a normal music consumer wants to do with his music.)
You're having an argument with yourself. You're addressing a point that I don't have an opinion about and have not said anything about. Since you replied to something I wrote concerning legal procedure (NOT ethics or legal philosophy), I would assume you know that. But your notion that a lawsuit should be thrown out because you don't think it should have been filed is rather novel -- legally groundless, but still novel.
Your opinion -- humble or otherwise -- has very little to do with legal procedure. If you'd like to argue that SCO had an ethical obligation to do something different from what it has, that's fine. I don't have any opinion about that, because I don't have enough FACTS to draw a reasoned conclusion. But when it comes to what the company is doing (and why) from the viewpoint of LEGAL procedure (concerning disclosure of evidence, which is all I've addressed), your opinion about whether the company SHOULD sue isn't even vaguely relevant.
You're arguing about whether SCO is right or not, and I have NO position on that -- because I don't know the relevant facts and lack the ability to read minds that so many on here seem to have. I have only discussed the company's LEGAL position, NOT the company's true intent or any of those related issues.
No, the things I was addressing were crazy ideas that people on here seem to have about legal issues. YOU might be talking about "the good will of the Linux community" and other things, but a lawsuit isn't about those things, nor is a cease and desist letter -- which was the issue you addressed to one of my replies. If you want to talk about whether SCO is doing the right thing, that's an entirely different issue. I'm just addressing the issues where some people on here seem to be letting their emotions get in the way of a simple analysis of a legal question.
Although I haven't seen the letters that SCO attorneys have sent to alleged offenders, I would presume that they tell people that their use of Linux is a violation of SCO intellectual property. While it would be up to a judge to say whether that is specific enough -- instead of outlining specific sections of code -- I believe that a reasonable non-programmer would find that acceptably specific at this stage of the case. If anyone has seen one of the letters, I would be happy to read it before being more certain. However, without having seen the letters, I think we're pretty safe in assuming that the lawyers were competent enough LEGALLY to say what needed to be said.
The fact that you assume that the SCO attorneys would not have followed proper legal procedure is puzzling. It amazes me how the political or religious devotion that people on here have for Linux is keeping them from discussing the merits of a legal case without obvious bias.
Actually, a statement like that DOES have some legal value, but it's only the first step in a long legal process. They FIRST have to notify alleged offenders that they are using something that the company claims that it owns. A typical cease and desist letter does not try to litigate the case. That's just not the way the process actually works. I don't take any position on the issue of whether SCO is right or not -- because I don't know the facts that both sides will later present. All I'm saying is that what SCO has done so far is reasonable within the context of what it is alleging to be true.
If you will re-read what I've written, I haven't addressed the erroneous notion that evidence only comes out at trial. I've only addressed the opposite erroneous notion -- which seems to be running wild here on Slashdot -- that SCO has to present evidence whenever the people here want it presented. The evidence -- whatever it is, right or wrong -- will come out when it's legally required to come out.
Yes, you have to disclose evidence to the other side, but, no, you don't have to disclose it on a timetable that suits people on Slashdot. As for mitigating damages, they are fulfilling that requirement by sending notices to people telling them that some of the code in Linux is their property and that they don't have a license to use it. A plaintiff is NOT required to litigate a case in public from the moment he files it.
No, you don't surprise the other side in a Perry Mason-like way in open court, but you also don't present your evidence until you are legally required to. You speak of discovery in this case as though it's already happened or is happening now. Do you actually KNOW where the case stands legally? Do you have a clue what depositions might have been taken or what evidence has been exchanged? Just because a case has been filed, that doesn't mean that all information is automatically given to the other side right then. Whether they end up being right or not, the SCO lawyers would be idiots to let their clients give their evidence right now (unless it was already given to the other side because of some legally required disclosure).
It is NOT the purpose of a trial to "discover the truth and deal with it." It is the purpose of a trial to determine whether a specific set of charges brought by the plaintiff against the defendent are true (and, if they're true, what relief the plaintiff should get for the damage he has suffered). A civil trial is not a "truth commission." It only deals with a fairly narrow set of facts. When one party to the suit knows that it has the facts on its side, it KNOWS that the other side is going to try to present those facts in a totally different light or lie in order to interpret the facts in a different way. That means that neither party wants to give away its strategy or interpretation of the facts until legally required. It would be like the general of an invading army faxing his battle plan to the army he was attacking. It would be stupid.
Even though I agree with the contention that it might not be the best use of educational dollars (to use iPods in college classes), your answer makes me suspect you didn't spend too much time in liberal arts classes. :-)
There are plenty of creative uses that can be made of almost any device -- besides writing software. Whether the benefits outweigh the disadvantages is a different issue, and we might be in agreement on that point, but for differing reasons.
David
That's like saying that you don't see the use of someone getting a Honda unless you can change the software that controls the car's computer.
If you want to market an MP3 player that uses Linux or some other free OS, more power to you. But to say what you're saying is just blind zealotry. Personally, I don't see a lot of use for an iPod in education (and I say that as a happy iPod owner), but it has nothing to do with religious reasons such as whether it's running an open source OS.
David
The price of something isn't determined by what it costs to produce it, but by what a willing buyer is willing to pay to get it. That's why profit margins vary so much from industry to industry. (Profit margins and prices also shrink when there's more competition, but that's another discussion.)
If it costs me $100 to produce an item, but a willing buyer is only willing to fork out $80 for it, it won't reach the market until I add enough value to increase what the customer will pay OR I figure out how to get my costs below $80. On the other hand, if I produce something for $1 that happens to be worth $100 to a customer, I'll make a huge profit and the customer is happy, too. (Of course, under most circumstances, other producers will figure out how to make the same product and begin competition, reducing prices for everyone. That's part of what happens with electronic devices, although increasing volumes also play a role.)
Looking at cost really should only matter to the producer of an item. The consumer should look at value, not price or cost. If an item has enough value to pay what the producer asks, both parties can be happy. If there's NOT enough value, the producer is driven from business or he has to reduce costs (possibly by changing his business model or production processes, etc.).
The record companies are in trouble partly because of free music downloads. They're right about that. That's because many consumers have decided they'd rather steal (which they euphemistically call "share") rather than pay money for music that they can then keep. That makes the price charged for CDs less attractive, of course, because it lowers the perceived value to the customer. But the difference in how customers view CD prices now has NOTHING to do with what it costs to produce an album.
David
I agree that it's MUCH easier to use Project Builder (and IB) than the tools to build Windows apps. I concede that some small shops and solo developers would still use it for that reason, but the ones who are in business to make a company really profitable would go the other route. David
If Macs could suddenly run Windows applications (without something like VPC), why would anyone write anything except Windows apps? The big companies that now target both platforms could just drop their Mac software and tell Mac users to buy the Windows version. Companies that now specialize in the Mac market could start making Windows apps and sell to both platforms. Apple would totally lose control of the integration that has made the Mac experience what it is today. I just can't see any other reasonable result of what the poster suggests.
You're not guaranteed a job or a living just because you get a degree. If you're not happy with the pay in the field that you're entering, you have no one but yourself to blame for that. Change fields or do something to make yourself more valuable in your field. It's not up to an employer to find a way to pay you what you want. It's up to you to be valuable enough that someone will want to pay what you want to make. David
First, why should consumers in the United States pay more to "protect" the job of someone in this country who charges more for his work than someone is willing to do it for overseas? Why should the vast majority pay more to put extra money into your pocket?
Second, following this logic to its natural conclusion, this will end up destroying almost ALL international trade. The Europeans already pay too much for food simply because many of the countries have systems that "protect" farmers in those countries. Using your logic, consumers of all products should subsidize less efficient (or more expensive) producers of ANY product. (U.S. consumers also pay too much for many products, both because of production limits and tax subsidies.)
Third, this logic will lead to reduced incentives to innovate and cut costs, which LOWERS standards of living everywhere -- as consumers pay more and get less.
Fourth, on a pragmatic level, have you even considered that there are plenty of products where the U.S. company is the low-cost producer who would be hurt by this system being enacted in other industries by OTHER countries?
Fifth, what moral right do you have -- or does anyone have -- to tell two individuals (or companies) that they can't enter into consensual trade that is to the benefit of both parties?
What you propose is wrong from the standpoint of individual rights AND pragmatic economics. There is NO reasonable argument in favor of it unless you're an inefficient producer who is demanding that he be subsidized by his neighbors.
David
By this logic, you should have access to every developer's code from the moment he or she writes it. Heaven forbid that the people writing the code decide for themselves when it's good enough to be released. You'd better quit using Linux, too, because you don't have access to the code the moment it's written, either. :-)
The old G3 iMac (in the original form factor) was still available at the Apple store online as of this past weekend. I was helping a friend shop for his first Mac, and we specifically discussed that model as we considered options for him. I can't say whether people were still buying them, but they were shown as available.
David