Meyer's a member of the Ohio Bar, which does not yet require signed agreements in every case. (BTW, IAAL too, and actually in Ohio. I'm not sure why you think the California bar gets to regulate his ethics; at worst, they disallow him from practicing pro hac vice and report him to the Ohio Bar).
I will leave it to you to reread the article and figure out for yourself why California law applies here. As you are an attorney, I am confident you will figure it out.
A firm does not need a written agreement to use a person as a lead plaintiff
You will have to enlighten us where this is actually true, because in California it is absolutely not true. You can be, at a minimum, disciplined and, at a maximum, disbarred, for not having a client agreement in writing. Exactly how do you think the law firm got its authority to file the lawsuit in the plaintiff's name? Firms cannot go around and just file lawsuits in people's names without an agreement... in writing.
There is actually no such thing as a lawsuit that is filed as a class action. A lawsuit is filed on behalf of individuals. The attorneys can then petition the court to certify the petitioners as a class. This makes the lawsuit into a class action. So I am a bit at a loss to understand how that gets done without any written authority from the actual individual.
Well, fortunately for everyone whether you believe him or not is irrelevant. I am pretty sure that every state requires that attorneys obtain an agreement in writing with a client. I know for a fact that California requires it. Either they have a written agreement or not. There is no middle ground. His intentions are completely irrelevant. The signed agreement is the only relevant issue of fact. If they cannot provide proof of one, then there is no dispute of fact.
The sad point here is that they are just trying to bleed him of financial resources using legal tactics. I think they are playing a dangerous game here for two reasons. First, a judge is very likely to sanction them really heavily and make them pay all costs if he can get it that far. Second, the California Bar will very likely discipline some of these attorneys if he files a complaint.
I expec that both the wireless WAN and modem functionality are covered just fine with a Bluetooth enabled cell phone. Your wireless WAN connection will be whatever underlying functionality the cell phone supports.
While your points are valid for you and obviously others who have similar requirements, it seems a bit strange to throw out the baby with the bath water. Your argument seems to be "It doesn't have the functionality that I need and therefore it is not a great laptop." Using that criteria, only you can judge the quality of the feature set.
However, in general it has some nice features that set it apart from your PowerBook G3 like integrated wireless, Bluetooth, USB 2, higher screen resolution, faster graphics chipset, and the obviously faster CPU. Plus, it is built on the CPU platform that will still be viable for the latest software in another 6 years. As for the comparison against PC laptops, that creates a whole different set of criteria for judging.
I'm not critizing your comments, just your inference that the MacBook is somehow a bad design because it discards old technologies or fails to implement the newest ones. The vast majority of people who currently want to purchase a laptop for OS X will get a very good laptop.
Too many people are caught up in the non-issue of whether the quality of available games creates a second-hand market or not. That argument is about as relevant as the game publisher's arguing that they are being starved of revenue by the second-hand market.
But if you combine both arguments, you get a more accurate prediction of the future. If you just play out the game publisher's argument, you will see that they may be right. It does starve them of revenue. And that may, in turn, make them reluctant to spend money on risky titles or innovate. Now add in the "bad games" affect that this could create in the marketplace. What happens? Existing publishers lose money and, if they continue their approach, eventually either stagnate and get by with low growth or even go out of business.
But if you focus on the marketplace instead of on the existing stakeholders, you see that the situation will address itself somehow. Obviously even the "bad" games have some market value if people are willing to buy them at a lower price point. So existing publishers could simply adjust their prices to compete with the second-hand market. Just because they made the same title that is being sold used doesn't mean they have a right to continued revenue on it. They made their revenue when they sold it the first time. However, if they lower their price after a time on a new box of the game then they can also share in the long term market for certain titles. They often do this by repacking titles with extra stuff like levels etc.
What happens to those publishers who don't adapt to the market (as opposed to their current desire to adapt the market to them)? There is some radical that happens! New publishers start up and actually develop business models to exist in the market. They do things like publish titles with higher demand and/or they develop business models to survive the peaks and troughs of publishing high visibility titles. Valve is a classic example of this kind of competing company. You can hate many of their practices, but you at least have to acknowledge that they have found a different way to profit in the market. They focus on revenue from add-ons, they "took back" the margins that the publisher was previously taking, and they developed different licenses for game cafes.
I think it is ridiculous the number of people, including executives at large game publishing companies, that claim they are so pro free market, but they constantly want to adapt the market to what they want instead of vice versa.
So I bought a DVD the other day, popped it in my DVD player, and sat down with my wife to watch it. However, I was first subjected to a 3 minute commercial telling me that I should not pirate movies. And to add a layer of frustration to the silliness, the "commercial" was operation restricted so that I could not skip it and must watch it every time.
Now, where was the common sense of someone during the production process saying that it makes no sense to make an actual paying customer suffer through this insanity? I mean, if the copy actually was pirated then it would no longer have any restricted operations and the whole damn portion about piracy would have been removed. So the only people that are forced to endure such garbage are the very people who the commercial is not intended to address.
And that is why media companies are losing it. Copy protection and usage restrictions are nothing more than hassles for actual paying customers. And every time the content providers, whether it is music, movies, or videogames try to introduce another technological solution to their market problem, they only alienate paying customers. The actual people who are unwilling, uninterested, or unable to pay for the content just go out and get versions without the protection.
That she's a mother of five is inadmissible as evidence and will never be heard by the jury.
The first 4 questions she is asked by her lawyer will be: 1) What is your name? 2) Where do you live? 3) Are you married? 4) Do you have any children?
No idiot plaintiff's attorney would object to such seemingly innocuous questions because they would look stupid. A judge would just glance at them in bewilderment. The jury will be instructed, of course, on which facts to focus in the instructions they are provided.
Yeah, completely non-upgradable. Like how I just upgraded the RAM on my PC 2 weeks ago. I took the "old" memory modules and stuck them in my iMac G5. Hey! Maybe Apple uses standard DIMMs!
Or the standard SATA hard drive in it or standard DVD drive (which is a laptop form-factor drive). If I had a tower, I could easily upgrade things like the video card or monitor, which is again - surprise - using a DVI connector! Don't forget those strange USB keyboards and mice. Apple has a variety of models and each varies on the upgradability path.
If you cannot find valid reasons to criticize Apple then you aren't trying very hard, but price or upgradeability ain't one of them.
If you want to forgoe something, try your ego. Apple isn't trying to sell their experience to you - a computer tinkerer. Their market is someone who looks at an iMac G5 and sees that it is a beautiful looking machine. Their market is someone who works with OSX and feels what a great user experience it is. Is that everyone who buys a computer? No. Is it most people? Not so far. But if you keep thinking Apple is trying to sell boxes, then you don't get their business strategy.
I have Windows machines, Linux machines, and an iMac G5. For me personally, I like all of them for very different reasons. But when I bought my parents new computers, I got them Macs. They love them. To each his or her own.
Did you go to the Law School of Daytona? Get your money back, because you don't know anything as it relates to the legal principle of antitrust. There is no such ruling anywhere about tying software to hardware. If you want to suggest otherwise, please provide a citation.
Perhaps you are alluding to the DOJ case against IBM or MS. MS is applicable to bundling or tying because there was a legal judgment that MS has a monopoly in the operating system market - therefore antitrust restrictions could have been applied. MS chose to settle instead, but only after being declared a monopoly then having this judgment upheld on appeal, giving it legal precedence.
The DOJ case(s) against IBM could never be cited as a legal authority because there was no judgment. The DOJ sued IBM and IBM settled before any judgment. In fact, IBM has only been explicitly judged (in a legal sense) as NOT having a monopoly in any market.
Perhaps now is the time to mention that it is perfectly fine to not have knowledge about something - so long as you don't pretend otherwise.
Have you not looked at Mac prices in a while? Current Macs run 2-10X more expensive than comparable PCs.
I just have to call bullshit on this one. It is such a myth that Mac prices are completely outrageous compared to generic x86 PCs. You should compare apples to apples - not that I invented that pun in this situation. Find me a comparably designed PC to a iMac G5 and you will come nowhere near 2x let alone 10x the price. You can get a 17 inch iMac G5 with built in WiFi, Bluetooth, and iSight camera. Please point me to a vendor that has these features for half the $1299 price of the iMac G5.
Do you pay a price premium for most Macs? Yep. Is it anywhere 2x the price of a "comparable" PC. Nope.
You cannot buy a Yugo with leather interior. There is no such thing as a McDonald's meal that is rated at 5 stars. Motel 66 is not a luxury hotel. And you should not perpetuate the myth that Mac prices are some super premium compared to equivalent x86 PCs. There are plenty of valid reasons to critize Apple, but you stretch yourself quite a bit when you rehash old bullshit that their prices are so outrageous.
And you can save yourself the typing if your reply is only that Macs are more expensive than even a comparable PC. You are right, but it isn't anywhere near 2x.
Anyone who went to "Blizzcon" is an asshole
on
Blizzcon Writeup
·
· Score: 2
This is a company that sues their customers for "violating the DMCA". What the fuck happened to slashdot to post such a butt-licking story? Pathetic.
There are plenty of companies with cutting edge technology and the ethics that match up with what people want. If you went to Blizzcon or pay them a single cent for their games then you are just a whore for their crap. You pay for the lawyers that represent them in court, suing people who make a non-commercial alternative to their control of your life. Be ashamed. Be very ashamed.
The summary describes this as a review of the anti-circumvention clause. That is an overly broad statement about what the USCO is doing here. The USCO has absolutely no authority to discard the anti-circumvention clause, and they say as much in their summary. What they do have the authority to do is to periodically review whether certain "classes of works" should be exempted from the anti-circumvention restriction.
"The purpose of this rulemaking proceeding is to determine whether there are particular classes of works as to which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make noninfringing uses due to the prohibition on circumvention."
Don't get your hopes up that commercial DVDs or FairPlay / WMA protected files will be considered in those classes of works.
You can completely run eDirectory with Zenworks (to manage group policies) on a Windows server. You can also use Windows clients without any Novell client software if you activate CIFS on the server (Netware or Open Enterprise Server with the Linux kernel).
There is no need to run the Novell client anymore. We run Netware servers all over the world and no one uses the Novell client to connect to the services on them. They have iPrint, iFolder, and the Zen gina for connecting to a middletier server that is used to push applications and manage workstations. None of that is needed, but it makes the client management relatively painless.
It seems that, with the miniscule pricing of eDirectory, there is not much incentive to develop and manage a separate bundle of LDAP services and tools. The problem often comes back to ignorance from the market, who do not realize the current offerings from Novell. Instead, the discussions is always about Novell products circa 1995, about the same year that Apple was going out of business.
Please note the assumption of 100 episodes of Dr. Who. While there may be numerous people on Slashdot who know the precise number, based on average human knowledge of actually relevant information, the number of 100 will be used to keep the math simple.
(4.99 x 100 x 1) - (cost of production)= sum much less than 0
You can absolutely apply group policies using Zenworks, which is the absolute best Windows application distribution and management solution on the market. Fully integrated with eDirectory.
Wow. MMR sounds great. But it isn't. It's nothing more than a half-baked feature set compared to Novell's eDirectory. Since its release in 1993, eDirectory has supported partitions and replicas of the directory with full backlink support for all resources.
What that means is that you don't tie up your WAN link with unnecessary directory traffic sending sync messages when they aren't necessary.
What I find amazing is that people just reject eDirectory too often because it is from Novell. It is fully LDAP v2 and v3 compliance, so even if you don't use applications that support eDirectory natively, you can still get all the benefits with no downside. Active Directory, by the way, is not fully RFC compliance for LDAP v3. If you think it is, you haven't bothered to actually try using it in a scenario where v3 functionality is required.
In addition, if you really need a serious directory solution then Novell's Identity Manager really shows the strengths of their directory offerings. There is absolutely no such thing as an enterprise environment with a homogenous directory. With IDM, you can publish and subscribe between just about any "directory" available. Active Directory, LDAP, Notes, Exchange, other eDirectory trees, SQL databases, and just about any JDBC-compliant database.
eDirectory is actually available on about 9 different platforms, including Windows. You absolutely do not need Netware.
Also, eDirectory is the only platform that truly provides a mechanism, using the Identity Manager solution, to synchronize across multiple directories. Dream on if you want, but there is no single directory solution. Even if you go with a 100% Microsoft set of solutions, you will inevitably get data that is stored outside of Active Directory and you will find some application that needs this data.
The author already rejected (or never even considered) eDirectory despite the fact that it is the only directory services solution that works well in a multi-site environment. You can partition the directory and set up replicas to contain only the relevant parts of the directory for different sites.
Ok. Your are absolutely right that the THEORY of companies who can continue to build unrestricted hardware and resist by going to court and winning...Wait!
Who were the parties in the Betamax case? Ah, yes. I remember now. It was all of those big, bad media companies versus that small little upstart called Sony.
I just suggest that you not get too wrapped up in the market battle that has been going on for the last 5-10 years. Media companies are big and want to protect their market, especially where they have virtual monopolies (but maybe not legal ones). I recommend you not discount that there are other companies who also have the resources to fight and protect their own markets.
Your reference to Microsoft is a bit interesting because they are actually caught in the middle. If Microsoft had wanted to, they could have incorporated much more restrictive functions in Windows to really enforce DRM and other aspects which lean towards the media companies and not consumers. They didn't do it because there are market conditions which prevent it. Now add Linux and OS X, both of which are viable market alternatives to the Microsoft offering, and you have competition in a market for consumer dollars.
Don't get me wrong, I think DRM and every other restrictive functionality which media companies want to impose on the public are nasty and are often clearly just restraints of either fair use or free trade (think international markets). However, I have quite a bit of faith in the long term consequences of the free market to ensure that, in the famous words of Princess Leia, the tigher the grip the more worlds (e.g. markets and consumers) will slip through their fingers.
In most other ways, I am closer to being a socialist....
SO, you consider it balanced that this ruling basically turns the ARIA into all powerful regulators of all "potentially infringing" technology, able to punish anyone for "not doing enough".
Your rhetoric sounds nice but, to be blunt, is bullshit. First, the ARIA had to go to a court and get this decision. There is absolutely nothing abouth the decision from the court that gives the ARIA any power whatsoever to determine what constitutes a satisfactory response to blatant piracy.
Second, I can tell you that if you stand in front a judge (who is, despite what additional rhetoric you want to throw around, a person) and argue that the majority of content being passed over the Kazaa client is not copyrighted material that is shared without the permission of the copyright owner, the judge will judge kind of look increduously at you with a stare. You know it is true. Sharman Networks knows it is true. And he knows it was true. Don't get down on a judge who actually bothered to incorporate reality into the decision.
Your argument seems to be basically that, if a P2P product is forced to incorporate some functionality to block explicit pirated materials, then all technologies can be forced to incorporate such functionality. That is called, as we say, the slippery slope argument. Basically, you think that you should not consider the immediate merits and instead focus on the possible consequences. Sorry, but whether a CD burner has to have some built-in DRM or "anti-piracy" mechanism was never before this judge. What was before the judge is an example of a software product that has been promoted as a tool for violating copyrights.
I am no apologist for media companies or their lobbying groups. If I happen to purchase DRM'd products, it is only if I know the DRM can be stripped. Violation of US law? Absolutely. Do I live in the US? No.
When a court decides all burners must have "anti-piracy" functionality, I will stand right next to you and oppose it. But when you are offering up Kazaa as an example of freedom that must be protected, I think I will just stand on the sidelines.
The point is that this was a very specific case about a very specific product (not a technology) and was decided, if you look at it independently, in a quite reasonable way. I can only guess that you did not actually read the opinion because it never mentions anything other than Kazaa.
If you think Kazaa as a product (not as a P2P technology) is anything but a tool for the unauthorized sharing of copyrighted materials then we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
Actually, the court opinion is rather balanced. It basically says that Kazaa absolutely knew that rampant sharing of copyrighted materials has been going on through the Kazaa "network" and has taken no steps to prevent it. Instead, Kazaa has tried to capitalize on it by combining searches for copyrighted material being shared by individuals which was available on the network with copyrighted material which is authorized for sharing.
The judge also outlines some very basic steps that Kazaa should implement in order to be in compliance with the court order.
Yes, media companies are using piracy as an bullshit explanation of lost sales. Yes, DRM is just a way to block long established fair use rights. But people that are copying the stuff just contribute to problem. Anyone who buys DRMed content (including DVDs) or even a single item from these media companies is just financing the behavior. Don't like it? Stop giving them money. Yes, you are responsible for your own actions.
Slashdot Mirror
I will leave it to you to reread the article and figure out for yourself why California law applies here. As you are an attorney, I am confident you will figure it out.
You will have to enlighten us where this is actually true, because in California it is absolutely not true. You can be, at a minimum, disciplined and, at a maximum, disbarred, for not having a client agreement in writing. Exactly how do you think the law firm got its authority to file the lawsuit in the plaintiff's name? Firms cannot go around and just file lawsuits in people's names without an agreement ... in writing.
There is actually no such thing as a lawsuit that is filed as a class action. A lawsuit is filed on behalf of individuals. The attorneys can then petition the court to certify the petitioners as a class. This makes the lawsuit into a class action. So I am a bit at a loss to understand how that gets done without any written authority from the actual individual.
Well, fortunately for everyone whether you believe him or not is irrelevant. I am pretty sure that every state requires that attorneys obtain an agreement in writing with a client. I know for a fact that California requires it. Either they have a written agreement or not. There is no middle ground. His intentions are completely irrelevant. The signed agreement is the only relevant issue of fact. If they cannot provide proof of one, then there is no dispute of fact.
The sad point here is that they are just trying to bleed him of financial resources using legal tactics. I think they are playing a dangerous game here for two reasons. First, a judge is very likely to sanction them really heavily and make them pay all costs if he can get it that far. Second, the California Bar will very likely discipline some of these attorneys if he files a complaint.
IAAL
Wow. Usually just being an Oklahoman is enough to make one sad to be an Oklahoman.
P.S. I was born in Oklahoma, but we moved away when I was about 2. You can imagine how much grovelling and ass-kissing I have to do with my parents...
While your points are valid for you and obviously others who have similar requirements, it seems a bit strange to throw out the baby with the bath water. Your argument seems to be "It doesn't have the functionality that I need and therefore it is not a great laptop." Using that criteria, only you can judge the quality of the feature set.
However, in general it has some nice features that set it apart from your PowerBook G3 like integrated wireless, Bluetooth, USB 2, higher screen resolution, faster graphics chipset, and the obviously faster CPU. Plus, it is built on the CPU platform that will still be viable for the latest software in another 6 years. As for the comparison against PC laptops, that creates a whole different set of criteria for judging.
I'm not critizing your comments, just your inference that the MacBook is somehow a bad design because it discards old technologies or fails to implement the newest ones. The vast majority of people who currently want to purchase a laptop for OS X will get a very good laptop.
But if you combine both arguments, you get a more accurate prediction of the future. If you just play out the game publisher's argument, you will see that they may be right. It does starve them of revenue. And that may, in turn, make them reluctant to spend money on risky titles or innovate. Now add in the "bad games" affect that this could create in the marketplace. What happens? Existing publishers lose money and, if they continue their approach, eventually either stagnate and get by with low growth or even go out of business.
But if you focus on the marketplace instead of on the existing stakeholders, you see that the situation will address itself somehow. Obviously even the "bad" games have some market value if people are willing to buy them at a lower price point. So existing publishers could simply adjust their prices to compete with the second-hand market. Just because they made the same title that is being sold used doesn't mean they have a right to continued revenue on it. They made their revenue when they sold it the first time. However, if they lower their price after a time on a new box of the game then they can also share in the long term market for certain titles. They often do this by repacking titles with extra stuff like levels etc.
What happens to those publishers who don't adapt to the market (as opposed to their current desire to adapt the market to them)? There is some radical that happens! New publishers start up and actually develop business models to exist in the market. They do things like publish titles with higher demand and/or they develop business models to survive the peaks and troughs of publishing high visibility titles. Valve is a classic example of this kind of competing company. You can hate many of their practices, but you at least have to acknowledge that they have found a different way to profit in the market. They focus on revenue from add-ons, they "took back" the margins that the publisher was previously taking, and they developed different licenses for game cafes.
I think it is ridiculous the number of people, including executives at large game publishing companies, that claim they are so pro free market, but they constantly want to adapt the market to what they want instead of vice versa.
Now, where was the common sense of someone during the production process saying that it makes no sense to make an actual paying customer suffer through this insanity? I mean, if the copy actually was pirated then it would no longer have any restricted operations and the whole damn portion about piracy would have been removed. So the only people that are forced to endure such garbage are the very people who the commercial is not intended to address.
And that is why media companies are losing it. Copy protection and usage restrictions are nothing more than hassles for actual paying customers. And every time the content providers, whether it is music, movies, or videogames try to introduce another technological solution to their market problem, they only alienate paying customers. The actual people who are unwilling, uninterested, or unable to pay for the content just go out and get versions without the protection.
Great model.
The first 4 questions she is asked by her lawyer will be: 1) What is your name? 2) Where do you live? 3) Are you married? 4) Do you have any children?
No idiot plaintiff's attorney would object to such seemingly innocuous questions because they would look stupid. A judge would just glance at them in bewilderment. The jury will be instructed, of course, on which facts to focus in the instructions they are provided.
Or the standard SATA hard drive in it or standard DVD drive (which is a laptop form-factor drive). If I had a tower, I could easily upgrade things like the video card or monitor, which is again - surprise - using a DVI connector! Don't forget those strange USB keyboards and mice. Apple has a variety of models and each varies on the upgradability path.
If you cannot find valid reasons to criticize Apple then you aren't trying very hard, but price or upgradeability ain't one of them.
I have Windows machines, Linux machines, and an iMac G5. For me personally, I like all of them for very different reasons. But when I bought my parents new computers, I got them Macs. They love them. To each his or her own.
Perhaps you are alluding to the DOJ case against IBM or MS. MS is applicable to bundling or tying because there was a legal judgment that MS has a monopoly in the operating system market - therefore antitrust restrictions could have been applied. MS chose to settle instead, but only after being declared a monopoly then having this judgment upheld on appeal, giving it legal precedence.
The DOJ case(s) against IBM could never be cited as a legal authority because there was no judgment. The DOJ sued IBM and IBM settled before any judgment. In fact, IBM has only been explicitly judged (in a legal sense) as NOT having a monopoly in any market.
Perhaps now is the time to mention that it is perfectly fine to not have knowledge about something - so long as you don't pretend otherwise.
I just have to call bullshit on this one. It is such a myth that Mac prices are completely outrageous compared to generic x86 PCs. You should compare apples to apples - not that I invented that pun in this situation. Find me a comparably designed PC to a iMac G5 and you will come nowhere near 2x let alone 10x the price. You can get a 17 inch iMac G5 with built in WiFi, Bluetooth, and iSight camera. Please point me to a vendor that has these features for half the $1299 price of the iMac G5.
Do you pay a price premium for most Macs? Yep. Is it anywhere 2x the price of a "comparable" PC. Nope.
You cannot buy a Yugo with leather interior. There is no such thing as a McDonald's meal that is rated at 5 stars. Motel 66 is not a luxury hotel. And you should not perpetuate the myth that Mac prices are some super premium compared to equivalent x86 PCs. There are plenty of valid reasons to critize Apple, but you stretch yourself quite a bit when you rehash old bullshit that their prices are so outrageous.
And you can save yourself the typing if your reply is only that Macs are more expensive than even a comparable PC. You are right, but it isn't anywhere near 2x.
There are plenty of companies with cutting edge technology and the ethics that match up with what people want. If you went to Blizzcon or pay them a single cent for their games then you are just a whore for their crap. You pay for the lawyers that represent them in court, suing people who make a non-commercial alternative to their control of your life. Be ashamed. Be very ashamed.
Makes me wanna buy a Mac so I feel better about myself.
"The purpose of this rulemaking proceeding is to determine whether there are particular classes of works as to which users are, or are likely to be, adversely affected in their ability to make noninfringing uses due to the prohibition on circumvention."
Don't get your hopes up that commercial DVDs or FairPlay / WMA protected files will be considered in those classes of works.
There is no need to run the Novell client anymore. We run Netware servers all over the world and no one uses the Novell client to connect to the services on them. They have iPrint, iFolder, and the Zen gina for connecting to a middletier server that is used to push applications and manage workstations. None of that is needed, but it makes the client management relatively painless.
It seems that, with the miniscule pricing of eDirectory, there is not much incentive to develop and manage a separate bundle of LDAP services and tools. The problem often comes back to ignorance from the market, who do not realize the current offerings from Novell. Instead, the discussions is always about Novell products circa 1995, about the same year that Apple was going out of business.
Please note the assumption of 100 episodes of Dr. Who. While there may be numerous people on Slashdot who know the precise number, based on average human knowledge of actually relevant information, the number of 100 will be used to keep the math simple.
(4.99 x 100 x 1) - (cost of production)= sum much less than 0
Wow. How can BBC/Apple pass that little plum up?
Wow. I always wanted to meet the guy who was buying all those WMA songs. You must be the one. The One.
You can absolutely apply group policies using Zenworks, which is the absolute best Windows application distribution and management solution on the market. Fully integrated with eDirectory.
What that means is that you don't tie up your WAN link with unnecessary directory traffic sending sync messages when they aren't necessary.
What I find amazing is that people just reject eDirectory too often because it is from Novell. It is fully LDAP v2 and v3 compliance, so even if you don't use applications that support eDirectory natively, you can still get all the benefits with no downside. Active Directory, by the way, is not fully RFC compliance for LDAP v3. If you think it is, you haven't bothered to actually try using it in a scenario where v3 functionality is required.
In addition, if you really need a serious directory solution then Novell's Identity Manager really shows the strengths of their directory offerings. There is absolutely no such thing as an enterprise environment with a homogenous directory. With IDM, you can publish and subscribe between just about any "directory" available. Active Directory, LDAP, Notes, Exchange, other eDirectory trees, SQL databases, and just about any JDBC-compliant database.
Also, eDirectory is the only platform that truly provides a mechanism, using the Identity Manager solution, to synchronize across multiple directories. Dream on if you want, but there is no single directory solution. Even if you go with a 100% Microsoft set of solutions, you will inevitably get data that is stored outside of Active Directory and you will find some application that needs this data.
The author already rejected (or never even considered) eDirectory despite the fact that it is the only directory services solution that works well in a multi-site environment. You can partition the directory and set up replicas to contain only the relevant parts of the directory for different sites.
So irritated that I take another 30 seconds to vent my irritation.
Who were the parties in the Betamax case? Ah, yes. I remember now. It was all of those big, bad media companies versus that small little upstart called Sony.
I just suggest that you not get too wrapped up in the market battle that has been going on for the last 5-10 years. Media companies are big and want to protect their market, especially where they have virtual monopolies (but maybe not legal ones). I recommend you not discount that there are other companies who also have the resources to fight and protect their own markets.
Your reference to Microsoft is a bit interesting because they are actually caught in the middle. If Microsoft had wanted to, they could have incorporated much more restrictive functions in Windows to really enforce DRM and other aspects which lean towards the media companies and not consumers. They didn't do it because there are market conditions which prevent it. Now add Linux and OS X, both of which are viable market alternatives to the Microsoft offering, and you have competition in a market for consumer dollars.
Don't get me wrong, I think DRM and every other restrictive functionality which media companies want to impose on the public are nasty and are often clearly just restraints of either fair use or free trade (think international markets). However, I have quite a bit of faith in the long term consequences of the free market to ensure that, in the famous words of Princess Leia, the tigher the grip the more worlds (e.g. markets and consumers) will slip through their fingers.
In most other ways, I am closer to being a socialist....
Your rhetoric sounds nice but, to be blunt, is bullshit. First, the ARIA had to go to a court and get this decision. There is absolutely nothing abouth the decision from the court that gives the ARIA any power whatsoever to determine what constitutes a satisfactory response to blatant piracy.
Second, I can tell you that if you stand in front a judge (who is, despite what additional rhetoric you want to throw around, a person) and argue that the majority of content being passed over the Kazaa client is not copyrighted material that is shared without the permission of the copyright owner, the judge will judge kind of look increduously at you with a stare. You know it is true. Sharman Networks knows it is true. And he knows it was true. Don't get down on a judge who actually bothered to incorporate reality into the decision.
Your argument seems to be basically that, if a P2P product is forced to incorporate some functionality to block explicit pirated materials, then all technologies can be forced to incorporate such functionality. That is called, as we say, the slippery slope argument. Basically, you think that you should not consider the immediate merits and instead focus on the possible consequences. Sorry, but whether a CD burner has to have some built-in DRM or "anti-piracy" mechanism was never before this judge. What was before the judge is an example of a software product that has been promoted as a tool for violating copyrights.
I am no apologist for media companies or their lobbying groups. If I happen to purchase DRM'd products, it is only if I know the DRM can be stripped. Violation of US law? Absolutely. Do I live in the US? No.
When a court decides all burners must have "anti-piracy" functionality, I will stand right next to you and oppose it. But when you are offering up Kazaa as an example of freedom that must be protected, I think I will just stand on the sidelines.
The point is that this was a very specific case about a very specific product (not a technology) and was decided, if you look at it independently, in a quite reasonable way. I can only guess that you did not actually read the opinion because it never mentions anything other than Kazaa.
If you think Kazaa as a product (not as a P2P technology) is anything but a tool for the unauthorized sharing of copyrighted materials then we are just going to have to agree to disagree.
The judge also outlines some very basic steps that Kazaa should implement in order to be in compliance with the court order.
Yes, media companies are using piracy as an bullshit explanation of lost sales. Yes, DRM is just a way to block long established fair use rights. But people that are copying the stuff just contribute to problem. Anyone who buys DRMed content (including DVDs) or even a single item from these media companies is just financing the behavior. Don't like it? Stop giving them money. Yes, you are responsible for your own actions.