Hmmm. I always side with the person having the strongest logical argument. Doing anything less is using emotions and predjudices to make judgements instead of one's noggin.
I wonder how long it will be before Microsoft touts this gem as another "reason" they're better than open source (just like they're doing with their indemnity program).
I can see the FUD coming now...
"Microsoft puts its money where its mouth is with its money-back warranty." says Laura DiDio, analyst at the Yankee Group. "You won't see that with any open source software out there."
At work, I use Franklin-Covey's TabletPlanner for todo's, notes, meetings, etc. in Windows. At night I work on my KDE and LAMP projects on the family PC. I'd much rather get Linux working on this thing, so everything's in one place.
Ok, so let's say he is being prosecuted for the software, even for profiting from the software...
Let's use a VCR analogy. What happens when someday in the future the TV signals become encrypted? Does making (and selling) a VCR that can record despite the encryption now become a tool for "circumvention of a copy protection measure"? Or do the companies now get to use technology to de facto take away fair use-- since we would now be felons to attempt to exercise that which we already do legally today?
As I understand it, Adobe's eBook format "locks" the work to one computer. In other words, you have to be at that computer to read it. Do you think the author should have the right to dictate *where* you are permitted to *read* the book you bought? One fair use example of AEBPR is that it circumvents this restriction which allows you to have the gall to read the book where you want to.
But I digress... regardless of Skylarov's motives, he should be able to present the information, and his company sell a product based on it. Or should Sony have lost the Betamax case?
Where is the benefit for oracle to OSS? It uses free tools to draw in casual developers, who then become Oracle DBA's. But why would they throw away years of engineering just to give it all away? That's ridiculous.
What was the benefit to Jim Barksdale to give away Communicator? Why would he throw away years of engineering for free? Netscape was a very profitable company too.. at the beginning.
Here's the point: it just doesn't matter what Larry Ellison wants-- it's what he'll be forced to do. Mr. Barksdale discovered that people became unwilling to pay for his browser when an equivalent or better product could be had for free (IE3+). As MySQL (and especially PostgreSQL) mature, people will begin asking the same questions of Oracle v. OSS alternatives as they already are now with Windows NT v. Linux, Solaris v. Linux, Apache v. IIS, Apache v. iPlanet, Windows NT v. Samba, Perl/PHP v. ASP, etc.
Sharing movies is illegal. If someone shares a movie, they aren't going to buy it. That's money lost for the makers. What's wrong with crime prevention.
When someone borrows a book from me, that's money lost for the publisher; since my friend would have otherwise had to buy it.
The same goes for libraries as well. What happens when electronic books are the norm? What then? Only those with enough money to perpetually fork over the pay-per-use fees will have the privilege to learn to read?
Laws like the DMCA expand the definition of copyright from "permission to copy" to "permission to view"--even when no copy is made.
The MPAA is using the DMCA to go after DeCSS because it nullifies their precious region encoding (read control of playback)... not to protect themselves from the evil pirates.
Just like CSS, watch for other "digital rights management" to increasinging control playback so they can empty your wallets with pay-per-view; and have the government protect their *entitlement* to that business model.
One might argue that the DMCA is wrong, immoral or unconstitutional, but it is on the basis of the DMCA that the court case will be fought, not high-minded priciples of free speech, unless you want to argue that the DMCA violates the First Amendment.
This is exactly what must happen. The DCMA must be fought to the Supreme Court and stricken down just like the Communications Decency Act. Slashdot v. Microsoft could be the case to make this happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm. I always side with the person having the strongest logical argument. Doing anything less is using emotions and predjudices to make judgements instead of one's noggin.
I wonder how long it will be before Microsoft touts this gem as another "reason" they're better than open source (just like they're doing with their indemnity program). I can see the FUD coming now ...
"Microsoft puts its money where its mouth is with its money-back warranty." says Laura DiDio, analyst at the Yankee Group. "You won't see that with any open source software out there."
At work, I use Franklin-Covey's TabletPlanner for todo's, notes, meetings, etc. in Windows. At night I work on my KDE and LAMP projects on the family PC. I'd much rather get Linux working on this thing, so everything's in one place.
Yes, but who is concerned? My vote is it's not for the public. We'll see.
Let's use a VCR analogy. What happens when someday in the future the TV signals become encrypted? Does making (and selling) a VCR that can record despite the encryption now become a tool for "circumvention of a copy protection measure"? Or do the companies now get to use technology to de facto take away fair use-- since we would now be felons to attempt to exercise that which we already do legally today?
As I understand it, Adobe's eBook format "locks" the work to one computer. In other words, you have to be at that computer to read it. Do you think the author should have the right to dictate *where* you are permitted to *read* the book you bought? One fair use example of AEBPR is that it circumvents this restriction which allows you to have the gall to read the book where you want to.
But I digress... regardless of Skylarov's motives, he should be able to present the information, and his company sell a product based on it. Or should Sony have lost the Betamax case?
What was the benefit to Jim Barksdale to give away Communicator? Why would he throw away years of engineering for free? Netscape was a very profitable company too.. at the beginning.
Here's the point: it just doesn't matter what Larry Ellison wants-- it's what he'll be forced to do. Mr. Barksdale discovered that people became unwilling to pay for his browser when an equivalent or better product could be had for free (IE3+). As MySQL (and especially PostgreSQL) mature, people will begin asking the same questions of Oracle v. OSS alternatives as they already are now with Windows NT v. Linux, Solaris v. Linux, Apache v. IIS, Apache v. iPlanet, Windows NT v. Samba, Perl/PHP v. ASP, etc.
Sharing movies is illegal. If someone shares a movie, they aren't going to buy it. That's money lost for the makers. What's wrong with crime prevention.
When someone borrows a book from me, that's money lost for the publisher; since my friend would have otherwise had to buy it.
The same goes for libraries as well. What happens when electronic books are the norm? What then? Only those with enough money to perpetually fork over the pay-per-use fees will have the privilege to learn to read?
Laws like the DMCA expand the definition of copyright from "permission to copy" to "permission to view"--even when no copy is made.
The MPAA is using the DMCA to go after DeCSS because it nullifies their precious region encoding (read control of playback)... not to protect themselves from the evil pirates.
Just like CSS, watch for other "digital rights management" to increasinging control playback so they can empty your wallets with pay-per-view; and have the government protect their *entitlement* to that business model.
One might argue that the DMCA is wrong, immoral or unconstitutional, but it is on the basis of the DMCA that the court case will be fought, not high-minded priciples of free speech, unless you want to argue that the DMCA violates the First Amendment.
This is exactly what must happen. The DCMA must be fought to the Supreme Court and stricken down just like the Communications Decency Act. Slashdot v. Microsoft could be the case to make this happen.