I went back through a month or so of Business Week articles that mentioned Linux: None of them mentioned SCO, and when talking about the bright future for companies doing Linux related work, they never mentioned that these companies might have a problem with intellectual property or stolen code.
That right there says to me that no one in the business world is taking this seriously. So I suspect that it will shrivel up and blow away.
Let's not forget that copyright property is a state-sponsored temporary monopoly which creates a scarcity which does not correspond to any state in reality.
Interestingly, it would appear that my ownership of physical property is also a state-sponsored temporary monopoly, since the only thing stopping people from taking it from me is the law of the state. Or perhaps my cache of long arms.
From my observations, it's not so much that our government is evil. It's more that our government is inept, and caught up in the literal reading of its own regulations.
There is no need to invent a government conspiracy, when a simpler explanation exists: They just don't really do a very good job.
The Supremes have already ruled on the nature of e-mail:
From the fine article: Consider the nature of e-mail. Is it akin to a phone call -- fleeting and ephemeral -- or more like a written letter -- substantial and fixed?
Yeah, I've always agreed with this line of reasoning. I mean, there's all of those things that everyone _has_ to have: cable/satellite, cell phones, pagers, new cars...
I don't have any of those things, I drive a decent car, but it's fourteen years old, and that puts a lot of cash in my pocket.
Which I of course spend on something equally useless, but hey, the money is there, if people can do without the big screen TV and 152 channels of whatnot.
So all 17-year-olds (such as Avril Lavigne) are wise enough to ignore the bullshit, read the small print, etc?
While I think it is unconscionable for a label to use such terms in their contracts, it is business, and any adult entering a business contract is presumed to either understand the terms, or to have obtained advice from a professional who understands the terms.
That said, if Avril really is 17, then she is not legally able to enter into a contract in most states in the US, and so can claim youth in order to have the contract voided. If she so chooses...
...to provide himself or herself with services used as a substitute for any switched service or dedicated facility by which a dealer of communications services provides a communication path.
I'm not sure, but it seems like what they are trying to do is tax systems that bypass the already in place "public goods" that we know as our local telecom. But my LAN is not a substitute for a service that is provided by my local telecom, so how can it be taxed under this wording? On the other hand, it sure looks like it could be used to tax my LAN's connection to the 'net, providing that connection is not alreday taxed.
Good point - What I should have said was, "Sorry for the commercial link." I like to put out non-commercial links when possible, but yesterday I was being lazy. Work was encroaching on my social life, which it seems to be doing more and more, lately.
Thanks! Given my vague questions, you did a really good job of answering my questions. Sorry - I didn't think you'd said anything about copyright, I was just thinking this might be the right thread to try to ask my question.
I'm sort of unclear on what really is going on - I haven't read copyright law, and my "knowledge" of copyright law extends to having a vague notion that a personal copy is o.k. I'll try to re-word my original post so that it makes more sense:
I am under the impression that the GPL grants rights that are not granted by normal copyright law. I am also under the impression that DRM removes rights that appear to be granted by the same copyright law. So the question is: Why is it o.k. for the copyright holder to give greater rights than copyright law, but it is not o.k. for a copyright holder to give fewer rights?
Don't get me wrong, it seems obvious to me that giving greater rights is o.k, and restricting is not, but it seems vaguely disjointed somehow.
Maybe it's just the pork burrito I had for lunch coming back to haunt me...
Sorry for the Amazon link, but it was easy to find there. Strangely, going through this book, especially if you don't resort to the hintws and answers in the back, helps develop just the sort of insight mentioned.
I'm struck by how much this resembles the Smoking vs. Non-Smoking argument. That is, restaurants have the choice of declaring smoking or non-smoking, and then everyone has the choice of which to patronize. But it didn't work out that way, and many local governments stepped in to ban smoking in eating establishments. I like it, personally, but in the back of my mind, I'm thinking, "It's their restaurant, if they want to allow smoking they ought to be able to." (And of course, second hand smoke has potential health risks.)
I have to admit, I have never been bothered by a cell phone user in a restaurant, having never seen one in the establishments that I frequent. I suspect that they would be shown the door at the places I go regularly, and that's good enough for me.
But if it were a theater, that seems different somehow. I would be very disturbed by a cell phone going loud during a play, for instance, and I wouldn't be satisfied with the offender just being drummed out by an usher.
I think I've circled back to thinking that the establishment should be able to decide what is acceptable, smoking, non-smoking, cell phones wide open, cell phones blocked.
I suppose it explains why I don't go out much - Then I don't have to deal with it.
This is the first argument that I've heard that makes me think that maybe blocking all cell phones in restaurants and theaters might not be such a good idea. I agree with you that responsible/thoughtful cell users should not be penalized just because some self-absorbed folks have to have their bizarre ring-tone and conversations disturb my dining.
How about this: What if that fancy restaurant posted a sign, saying "We reserve the right to block cell phone use - Your cell may not operate within the confines of this establishment". Lord knows, if two restaurants were side-by-side, I'd choose the one least used by cell phones. And then that would mean it was everybody's choice whether they were unable to use their cell phone or not.
Congratulations on the new little dude/dudette, by the way.
Interestingly, there is an article in a very recent Business Week about this very topic, comparing CostCo (high paid and trusted workers) to WalMart (specifically Sam's Club, 40% lower paid and less happy workers).
CostCo has a much higher profit per employee than WalMart, and much much lower turnover.
Meanwhile, CostCo's stock is doing very poorly, especially compared with Wal Mart's, even though their profit is much higher.
Business Week's take on it is that Wall Street punishes CostCo for having higher employee costs, even though it makes them more money. So companies that are reacting to "stockholder needs" should be punishing their employees. Even though that makes them less money.
So maybe the problem is the "sophisticated" Wall Street investors...
[Sorry, it's on their website www.businessweek.com, but you have to resgister, so I didn't provide the URL.]
The correct term is "regional monopoly". It applies to phone companies, Department stores (i.e., target/Wal-Mart & home depot/Lowe's) and cable companies.
I don't know about your town, but in my town, Winchester, VA, USA, I can stand in one parking lot and throw rocks in four directions, hitting, in order, a Target, a Wal Mart, a Lowes, and a Home Depot.
None of them have a local monopoly, but they all call the law when you throw rocks at them.
Wow, I never did the math on that before. How in the heck do they get those kinds of per person figures? I know I spend maybe $30 per year at Wal-Mart...
But they can only push their suppliers so far, because at some point, the supplier goes out of business.
A large chain of video rental stores in Sydney Australia spring to mind...
Yeah ! I was kind of happy about the fact that what I rented at the local video store stayed on their server, so I could ask if I'd seen the movie before. (I know, I ought to be able to remember what movies I've seen, but there are so many that seem identical when you read the back of the box... And then I rented "Taxi Driver" for the third time in three years, and that was the last straw...)
And then I started thinking, "Wait a minute, they have a record of every movie I've ever seen!"
Slashdot Mirror
That right there says to me that no one in the business world is taking this seriously. So I suspect that it will shrivel up and blow away.
Interestingly, it would appear that my ownership of physical property is also a state-sponsored temporary monopoly, since the only thing stopping people from taking it from me is the law of the state. Or perhaps my cache of long arms.
There is no need to invent a government conspiracy, when a simpler explanation exists: They just don't really do a very good job.
I think so, too?
That was a really good question. Similarly, how does the USA get away with having a whole chunk of land called the Olympic Peninsula?
From the fine article: Consider the nature of e-mail. Is it akin to a phone call -- fleeting and ephemeral -- or more like a written letter -- substantial and fixed?
Appeals Circuit Ruling: ISPs Can Read E-Mail http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/30/20 14242&tid=158&tid=123&tid=95&tid=1 7 shows us that the Supreme Court does indeed see e-mail as ephemeral. I wonder how that decision affects the retention requirements?
I don't have any of those things, I drive a decent car, but it's fourteen years old, and that puts a lot of cash in my pocket.
Which I of course spend on something equally useless, but hey, the money is there, if people can do without the big screen TV and 152 channels of whatnot.
What I can't get over is that there are enough criminals working for your organization that high cost items like that ...tend to disappear.
I'm actually disgusted, to tell you the truth. Horrified even.
Perhaps even hopelessly naive.
While I think it is unconscionable for a label to use such terms in their contracts, it is business, and any adult entering a business contract is presumed to either understand the terms, or to have obtained advice from a professional who understands the terms.
That said, if Avril really is 17, then she is not legally able to enter into a contract in most states in the US, and so can claim youth in order to have the contract voided. If she so chooses...
I know what you mean, and I agree with you. But I think your metaphor is broken.
"The first rule of ATM security is: there is no ATM security".
"The second rule of ATM security is that we talk alot about ATM security."
"The third rule of ATM security is that at some point someone will mis-quote a movie."
You could have the ATM read out the numbers to the blind person as they type them in...
I'm not sure, but it seems like what they are trying to do is tax systems that bypass the already in place "public goods" that we know as our local telecom. But my LAN is not a substitute for a service that is provided by my local telecom, so how can it be taxed under this wording? On the other hand, it sure looks like it could be used to tax my LAN's connection to the 'net, providing that connection is not alreday taxed.
I don't get it - What does a Nigerian scam artist do with 10,000 light bulbs? Sell them on E-Bay?
1. Buy thousands of lightbulbs!
2. ???
3. Profit?
Good point - What I should have said was, "Sorry for the commercial link." I like to put out non-commercial links when possible, but yesterday I was being lazy. Work was encroaching on my social life, which it seems to be doing more and more, lately.
I'm sort of unclear on what really is going on - I haven't read copyright law, and my "knowledge" of copyright law extends to having a vague notion that a personal copy is o.k. I'll try to re-word my original post so that it makes more sense:
I am under the impression that the GPL grants rights that are not granted by normal copyright law. I am also under the impression that DRM removes rights that appear to be granted by the same copyright law. So the question is: Why is it o.k. for the copyright holder to give greater rights than copyright law, but it is not o.k. for a copyright holder to give fewer rights?
Don't get me wrong, it seems obvious to me that giving greater rights is o.k, and restricting is not, but it seems vaguely disjointed somehow.
Maybe it's just the pork burrito I had for lunch coming back to haunt me...
I'm probably just missing some crucial piece of info, but I was under the impression that GPL was o.k.
Why doesn't that work for DRM? That is, why can't they say that they want more restrictive protections than are afforded by copyright law?
Sorry for the Amazon link, but it was easy to find there. Strangely, going through this book, especially if you don't resort to the hintws and answers in the back, helps develop just the sort of insight mentioned.
As always, your mileage may vary.
You could be right...
I'm struck by how much this resembles the Smoking vs. Non-Smoking argument. That is, restaurants have the choice of declaring smoking or non-smoking, and then everyone has the choice of which to patronize. But it didn't work out that way, and many local governments stepped in to ban smoking in eating establishments. I like it, personally, but in the back of my mind, I'm thinking, "It's their restaurant, if they want to allow smoking they ought to be able to." (And of course, second hand smoke has potential health risks.)
I have to admit, I have never been bothered by a cell phone user in a restaurant, having never seen one in the establishments that I frequent. I suspect that they would be shown the door at the places I go regularly, and that's good enough for me.
But if it were a theater, that seems different somehow. I would be very disturbed by a cell phone going loud during a play, for instance, and I wouldn't be satisfied with the offender just being drummed out by an usher.
I think I've circled back to thinking that the establishment should be able to decide what is acceptable, smoking, non-smoking, cell phones wide open, cell phones blocked.
I suppose it explains why I don't go out much - Then I don't have to deal with it.
This is the first argument that I've heard that makes me think that maybe blocking all cell phones in restaurants and theaters might not be such a good idea. I agree with you that responsible/thoughtful cell users should not be penalized just because some self-absorbed folks have to have their bizarre ring-tone and conversations disturb my dining.
How about this: What if that fancy restaurant posted a sign, saying "We reserve the right to block cell phone use - Your cell may not operate within the confines of this establishment". Lord knows, if two restaurants were side-by-side, I'd choose the one least used by cell phones. And then that would mean it was everybody's choice whether they were unable to use their cell phone or not.
Congratulations on the new little dude/dudette, by the way.
I noticed a comment in the article by someone from Off-Road.com complaining about not being able to write "Jeep" without an ad being attached to it.
I went to the Off-Road.com forums, but couldn't see any instance of the word "Jeep" having green underlining.
Anyone seeing this actually work anywhere? Is it an ActiveX control or something that I'm blocking?
CostCo has a much higher profit per employee than WalMart, and much much lower turnover.
Meanwhile, CostCo's stock is doing very poorly, especially compared with Wal Mart's, even though their profit is much higher.
Business Week's take on it is that Wall Street punishes CostCo for having higher employee costs, even though it makes them more money. So companies that are reacting to "stockholder needs" should be punishing their employees. Even though that makes them less money.
So maybe the problem is the "sophisticated" Wall Street investors...
[Sorry, it's on their website www.businessweek.com, but you have to resgister, so I didn't provide the URL.]
I don't know about your town, but in my town, Winchester, VA, USA, I can stand in one parking lot and throw rocks in four directions, hitting, in order, a Target, a Wal Mart, a Lowes, and a Home Depot.
None of them have a local monopoly, but they all call the law when you throw rocks at them.
Wow, I never did the math on that before. How in the heck do they get those kinds of per person figures? I know I spend maybe $30 per year at Wal-Mart...
But they can only push their suppliers so far, because at some point, the supplier goes out of business.
A large chain of video rental stores in Sydney Australia spring to mind...
Yeah ! I was kind of happy about the fact that what I rented at the local video store stayed on their server, so I could ask if I'd seen the movie before. (I know, I ought to be able to remember what movies I've seen, but there are so many that seem identical when you read the back of the box... And then I rented "Taxi Driver" for the third time in three years, and that was the last straw...)
And then I started thinking, "Wait a minute, they have a record of every movie I've ever seen!"