The browser compatibility is particularly important if you want users with mobile devices to be able to access the maps. In this case, Google maps is the only choice.
From what I've seen, a linear forcast might be too optimistic because of the change in Redhat licensing fees. Companies and universities now have to pay an annual per machine "support" fee to use a RedHat distribution. The cost of deploying Linux on hundreds or thousands of machines just went up dramatically for many of the existing and future Linux install bases.
I'm curious how others here have reacted to this change. Have you modified your Linux strategy?
It's probably just a hiccup in the relentless march towards Linux dominance, but it seems to me like another distribution will need to pick up the slack in the Enterprise server space before installs continue at the historical rate.
The simple answer is yes, the album art is covered under similar copyright as the music for an album.
Web sites and software applications can be authorized to use cover art if it is used expressly for the purpose of promoting a retail purchase of the album.
Windows Media player does not use CDDB, it uses metadata from AMG. The same data can be accessed directly at Allmusic.com. Windows Media player is able to use cover art because it provides links back to AMG to purchase music (hit album details).
Theoretically, it is likely you can be prosecuted by your local authority in any developed country covered by World Trade Organization (WTO) Intellectual Property treaties. These laws are used to successfully raid and dismantle piracy operations abroad.
The costs of enforcement and prosecution are so high that the RIAA can't afford to sue everyone. And I can't imagine that suing a few high profile file swappers will change the behavior of millions of users; there is protection in numbers. It will just shift the technology and our behavior once again. Users will just start posting anonymously to P2P 'file lockers' based in foreign (non WTO) countries. All of this legal rumbling just shifts user behavior and P2P technology. Kazaa has reacted to Napster by obfuscating and decentralizing their network so their is no choke point or liability point.
Record labels really appear willing to squander millions of dollars on a dying business model, rather than offering a superior product alternative. Perhaps P2P users should play their game. One idea: perhaps a sort of 'umbrella insurance policy' for P2P users. A few pennies from each user would create a legal defense fund for anyone sued by RIAA, so a reasonable defense can be mounted. Drain their legal budget.
Slashdot Mirror
The browser compatibility is particularly important if you want users with mobile devices to be able to access the maps. In this case, Google maps is the only choice.
From what I've seen, a linear forcast might be too optimistic because of the change in Redhat licensing fees. Companies and universities now have to pay an annual per machine "support" fee to use a RedHat distribution. The cost of deploying Linux on hundreds or thousands of machines just went up dramatically for many of the existing and future Linux install bases. I'm curious how others here have reacted to this change. Have you modified your Linux strategy? It's probably just a hiccup in the relentless march towards Linux dominance, but it seems to me like another distribution will need to pick up the slack in the Enterprise server space before installs continue at the historical rate.
The simple answer is yes, the album art is covered under similar copyright as the music for an album.
Web sites and software applications can be authorized to use cover art if it is used expressly for the purpose of promoting a retail purchase of the album.
Windows Media player does not use CDDB, it uses metadata from AMG. The same data can be accessed directly at Allmusic.com. Windows Media player is able to use cover art because it provides links back to AMG to purchase music (hit album details).
Cheers.
Theoretically, it is likely you can be prosecuted by your local authority in any developed country covered by World Trade Organization (WTO) Intellectual Property treaties. These laws are used to successfully raid and dismantle piracy operations abroad.
The costs of enforcement and prosecution are so high that the RIAA can't afford to sue everyone. And I can't imagine that suing a few high profile file swappers will change the behavior of millions of users; there is protection in numbers. It will just shift the technology and our behavior once again. Users will just start posting anonymously to P2P 'file lockers' based in foreign (non WTO) countries. All of this legal rumbling just shifts user behavior and P2P technology. Kazaa has reacted to Napster by obfuscating and decentralizing their network so their is no choke point or liability point.
Record labels really appear willing to squander millions of dollars on a dying business model, rather than offering a superior product alternative. Perhaps P2P users should play their game. One idea: perhaps a sort of 'umbrella insurance policy' for P2P users. A few pennies from each user would create a legal defense fund for anyone sued by RIAA, so a reasonable defense can be mounted. Drain their legal budget.