"The question is why not kill pirated copies of Windows?"
Because it won't work on true pirated copies. Look, to force WGA on security updates (notice I didn't say feature updates) makes Microsoft a menace to networking in general. It makes those that are seen by Microsoft as not legit decide to live without updating. The decision by Microsoft to use critical updates as a mechanism to test legitimacy should concern anyone connected. I find it perfectly reasonable to test legitimacy for feature updates. If you want the new Windows Media Player, then you should have a clean bill of health from WGA. But to apply that to critical security updates only does everyone connected wrong INCLUDING Microsoft. Microsoft takes big PR hits every time a bug infests these pirated machines and what do they do? "Oh, let's test legitimacy on this update that will make this bug go away!" Doesn't sound very smart to me but then again it never was about doing the right thing but about making as much money as they can...
"... you should have used the original OEM license and spend the time removing the OEM crap instead of reinstalling again."
The problem with this strategy is the registry. All the crap installed by the OEM (usually "trialware") is heavily embedded in the registry in about a thousand places on purpose to prevent a user from getting around the time limit. Add to that the silly modifications OEMs do to those idiot installs and removal of ALL the OEM crap results in an unstable computer.
Depending on the OEM, it is sometimes quicker to simply reinstall from retail sources.
"Perhaps these statements are a consequence of the way WGA was rolled out, and the way, allegedly, some people have had WGA nags when they have legitimate licenses. My guess is that the Microsoft lawyers were smelling lawsuits (there's one already) and that's what put the company into clam mode."
That's exactly what happened. It would be a brilliant strategy to test the switch off waters with a "leak" that can be dumped if too much noise is made over it. Of course we will never see what Microsoft's true WGA intentions were / are because the case will never make it to discovery and even if it did it will be sealed. The ones who should be most interested in Microsoft's WGA ambitions should be the antitrust board. Of course, there is no word from them (or nobody thought to ask them).
"iCab and Konqueror almost passed (and claimed to pass) before Opera, but they both failed to apply one of the styles required by the test, and as a result they displayed a scrollbar even though they shouldn't. This was fixed in later releases, after the release of Opera."
It shouldn't be odd...They ARE requesting the source if "50 a month" are downloading it. Don't believe me? Take the link off and watch you inbox fill with requests...
"Is there a problem with "apt-get source linux-image-2.6.15-25-686"?"
He's already replied to this but yes if you don't have a working network.
It is a requirement to make source they used to build the distro available upon request period, end of story, full stop. No snide remarks are really needed. They had the source when they built the distro, and even if they didn't modify a single line of code are required to make the source available upon request if they wish to continue to distribute it. As has been often said here and elsewhere, the GPL covers distribution and Ubuntu is definitely distributing.
"When will software vendors realise that users want to install just a single program and dont need or want bundled extra crud? Maybe more important, how do we stop this trend with Windows programs?"
As long as there is profit in bundling software, there will be bundling of software. In fact, the revenue from bundling is considerably more substantial and stable than the revenues from users. You don't think Adobe is offering this bundling to Google for free do you?!?!
"Granted, I have installed Windows for relatives and they turned into virus and spyware hell in a really short time. So in the end it MUST be the user."
No it is not. It is poor design and implementation on the part of the manufacturer of the software. The root of their problems stem from their monopolistic mindset. They integrate components and bastardize standards to stifle competition and then wonder why they are vulnerable. Add on top of that their insistance on maintaining backwards compatibility ensuring that their past mistakes won't be forgoten any time soon and you have what is Windows today.
"I mainly agree with points one and two but we need to provide some incentive for companies to research genomes. It costs huge amounts of money to find useful gene sequences and a company isn't going to do that if another company could just come along and use the results. Note, however, that I am not saying patenting the sequence is the right way to protect it."
Any company that needs a patent to provide incentive to do further research has slipped to the patent troll level already. Let's talk about the genome specifically...
It is the pharmaceutical companies who are the primary users of the genome data and I see it as reasonable to grant the patent on their product (pill or otherwise) but NOT on the genome itself. There is your incentive.
And it makes even less sense to grant a patent preventing someone from even attempting to use that idea if you have no intention of doing so. In short, either shit or get off the pot.
"Then we're back to the days when people hide their research to protect it, and development progress grinds to a halt again where every company reinvents the wheel. Lots of unnecessarily wasted resources."
I call BS on this especially with method patents...
You are telling me that companies use the patent system for looking for new ideas?!?!? If they do that they are liable for willful infringement on anything they use. Most patent specialists advise their clients to NOT look at the patent office stuff for this reason alone.
Require that the patent upon issuance be actually used in half the life of the patent or the patent is invalidated. The whole idea behind this part is that the patent actually leads to a product.
"Freedom to compete with other people is good for the economy."
Except when your economy is based on (God I hate using this phrase but for lack of anything else...) "Intellectual property". The US has been moving farther and farther from manufacturing it's own goods for years (AKA globalization). When that happens all you have left to peddle is ideas. There was a piece here on/. not too long ago that was bemoaning the lack of technically qualified people in the US to come up with new ideas. That's the real reason the US continues to push its draconian intellectual laws on the rest of the world. It is also the reason the US is continually extending the time for the validity of those laws.
1.) Forbid "method patents". This would include software and business methods. 2.) Forbid "naturally occurring" patents. This would include genome sequences. 3.) Require a WORKING prototype before issuance.
Just those 3 would go a long way to eliminating patent trolls.
"Only if they use their patent to stop someone from doing something. If they use it to attract collaborators (Show me yours and I'll let you see mine...), or give it to the 'patent commons' that seems to be being established, then that might be something useful."
This logic is twisted to me. If a patent is so bad that you can't use it to "stop someone from doing something" then it is worthless. That is the whole point of a patent. Also, if you don't enforce a violation of that patent as soon as you learn about it then you stand to lose any case you bring later. The idea that patents can be used defensively is only valid if you are also willing to use them offensively.
I am just going to agree to disagree with you on what constitutes a monopoly. Copyright *IS* a grant of monopoly no matter how you dance around the issue. A Rolling Stones song != to a Grateful Dead song != Joe in his garage song no matter how you dance around the issue. Record labels use the fact the he who has the gold makes the rules no matter how you dance around the issue.
"No one is required to sign the rights of their content to a label. Artists are free to keep the copyrights of their songs all they want, or they can license it through multiple distributors. Many artists, however, choose to sign with only one record label, and that is their choice."
And you know full well that is pure bullshit as well. An established group MIGHT be able to get away with some LIMITED re-licensing but even that is highly unlikely. Labels routinely as a matter of contract require ALL rights or they don't sign. It is that simple. No sign, no release. Again, it is that simple. By having a strangle hold on the market through copyright the distributors can make the artists do whatever they want it is that simple.
"If the % cost of anything in that chain went up, you can bet that they'd immediately factor that right into any new contracts."
They don't have to since the artist is forced to sign over their copyright or not be distributed by that label. Copyright is the lever they use in this entire equation. What Al seems to be bitching about is the negotiated royalties. He apparently negotiated a fixed amount (something stupid IMO) in his contracts. That amount was set with distribution costs of physical medium factored in. He's upset he isn't getting more with digital content but that is what you get when you sign your rights away.
"So the question under iTunes is why does the Record Company get any of the wholesale iTune money?"
That's easy to answer....Copyright.
Record labels don't sign a contract that doesn't include the signing over of the copyright. This gives them the government granted monopoly to distribute the content how they see fit including selling to iTunes.
"Um, I didn't say go without music. I'm saying go without the artists whose music you think is too expensive. Go with artists who are cheaper. Competition is there; artists compete with each other for fame and fortune. You have a choice between them, and you base your decision on (A) the quality of their music and (B) the price of their music. How is this any different from other industries where competition thrives?"
A better example of why you are wrong is the following:
I need apples for my apple pie. You are telling me to go with grapefruits because of an artificial government granted monopoly with the distribution of apples. After all there is competition in the fruit market....
See how ridiculous your statements are?
We aren't talking about competition of artists here but true competition of distribution. An artist isn't allowed to have multiple distributors FOR THE SAME CONTENT because they are required to sign the rights to the content to the label. No competition == high prices.
"So eliminate the human experience entirely- let the machines read the law, and let them give us the answer. I just want the law to become deterministic- the same answer out for the same input variables, every time."
"Because school districts aren't equipped or funded to act as general law enforcement agencies, and have more than enough demands on their resources doing what they are supposed to do, without their staff trying to live out their "Internet cop" fantasies."
That is fine if something really is "illegal". The problem is the law enforcement agencies don't have the time or resources to deal with this stupid shit either. The true responsibility lies with the parents and not government agencies. It is a waste of tax dollars to even attempt something on this scale.
Your argument that one needs to quote large amounts of text to reply to that text is false (as this sentence shows). You should be paraphrasing others work to show that you grasp what they are trying to say using select quotes only when needed. In both cases proper citation should be given. I use quotes in only 2 instances. First, if I only want to reply to a specific sentence or 2 out of a whole text. Second, when there is little choice because of a challenge (such as "I didn't say that...") In both cases there is no reason to quote the whole thing.
Slashdot Mirror
"The question is why not kill pirated copies of Windows?"
Because it won't work on true pirated copies. Look, to force WGA on security updates (notice I didn't say feature updates) makes Microsoft a menace to networking in general. It makes those that are seen by Microsoft as not legit decide to live without updating. The decision by Microsoft to use critical updates as a mechanism to test legitimacy should concern anyone connected. I find it perfectly reasonable to test legitimacy for feature updates. If you want the new Windows Media Player, then you should have a clean bill of health from WGA. But to apply that to critical security updates only does everyone connected wrong INCLUDING Microsoft. Microsoft takes big PR hits every time a bug infests these pirated machines and what do they do? "Oh, let's test legitimacy on this update that will make this bug go away!" Doesn't sound very smart to me but then again it never was about doing the right thing but about making as much money as they can...
B.
"... you should have used the original OEM license and spend the time removing the OEM crap instead of reinstalling again."
The problem with this strategy is the registry. All the crap installed by the OEM (usually "trialware") is heavily embedded in the registry in about a thousand places on purpose to prevent a user from getting around the time limit. Add to that the silly modifications OEMs do to those idiot installs and removal of ALL the OEM crap results in an unstable computer.
Depending on the OEM, it is sometimes quicker to simply reinstall from retail sources.
B.
"Perhaps these statements are a consequence of the way WGA was rolled out, and the way, allegedly, some people have had WGA nags when they have legitimate licenses. My guess is that the Microsoft lawyers were smelling lawsuits (there's one already) and that's what put the company into clam mode."
That's exactly what happened. It would be a brilliant strategy to test the switch off waters with a "leak" that can be dumped if too much noise is made over it. Of course we will never see what Microsoft's true WGA intentions were / are because the case will never make it to discovery and even if it did it will be sealed. The ones who should be most interested in Microsoft's WGA ambitions should be the antitrust board. Of course, there is no word from them (or nobody thought to ask them).
B.
"and khtml/konqueror/safari already pass."
Yeah, and it was great competition...
"iCab and Konqueror almost passed (and claimed to pass) before Opera, but they both failed to apply one of the styles required by the test, and as a result they displayed a scrollbar even though they shouldn't. This was fixed in later releases, after the release of Opera."
From: http://www.howtocreate.co.uk/acid/
I do love a good race!
B.
It shouldn't be odd...They ARE requesting the source if "50 a month" are downloading it. Don't believe me? Take the link off and watch you inbox fill with requests...
B.
"Is there a problem with "apt-get source linux-image-2.6.15-25-686"?"
He's already replied to this but yes if you don't have a working network.
It is a requirement to make source they used to build the distro available upon request period, end of story, full stop. No snide remarks are really needed. They had the source when they built the distro, and even if they didn't modify a single line of code are required to make the source available upon request if they wish to continue to distribute it. As has been often said here and elsewhere, the GPL covers distribution and Ubuntu is definitely distributing.
B.
"When will software vendors realise that users want to install just a single program and dont need or want bundled extra crud? Maybe more important, how do we stop this trend with Windows programs?"
As long as there is profit in bundling software, there will be bundling of software. In fact, the revenue from bundling is considerably more substantial and stable than the revenues from users. You don't think Adobe is offering this bundling to Google for free do you?!?!
B.
"Granted, I have installed Windows for relatives and they turned into virus and spyware hell in a really short time. So in the end it MUST be the user."
No it is not. It is poor design and implementation on the part of the manufacturer of the software. The root of their problems stem from their monopolistic mindset. They integrate components and bastardize standards to stifle competition and then wonder why they are vulnerable. Add on top of that their insistance on maintaining backwards compatibility ensuring that their past mistakes won't be forgoten any time soon and you have what is Windows today.
B.
"Some of the sequences they get patents for are for gene therapy."
That falls into the or other category of my "pill or other". The therapy is patentable the genome isn't. It really isn't that hard.
B.
"what about semi-open and semi-closed products/projects?"
They are doomed from the start...
It is like being a little bit pregnant...
B.
"I mainly agree with points one and two but we need to provide some incentive for companies to research genomes. It costs huge amounts of money to find useful gene sequences and a company isn't going to do that if another company could just come along and use the results. Note, however, that I am not saying patenting the sequence is the right way to protect it."
Any company that needs a patent to provide incentive to do further research has slipped to the patent troll level already. Let's talk about the genome specifically...
It is the pharmaceutical companies who are the primary users of the genome data and I see it as reasonable to grant the patent on their product (pill or otherwise) but NOT on the genome itself. There is your incentive.
B.
And it makes even less sense to grant a patent preventing someone from even attempting to use that idea if you have no intention of doing so. In short, either shit or get off the pot.
B.
"Then we're back to the days when people hide their research to protect it, and development progress grinds to a halt again where every company reinvents the wheel. Lots of unnecessarily wasted resources."
I call BS on this especially with method patents...
You are telling me that companies use the patent system for looking for new ideas?!?!? If they do that they are liable for willful infringement on anything they use. Most patent specialists advise their clients to NOT look at the patent office stuff for this reason alone.
B.
Ok, then let's compromise...
Require that the patent upon issuance be actually used in half the life of the patent or the patent is invalidated. The whole idea behind this part is that the patent actually leads to a product.
B.
"Freedom to compete with other people is good for the economy."
/. not too long ago that was bemoaning the lack of technically qualified people in the US to come up with new ideas. That's the real reason the US continues to push its draconian intellectual laws on the rest of the world. It is also the reason the US is continually extending the time for the validity of those laws.
Except when your economy is based on (God I hate using this phrase but for lack of anything else...) "Intellectual property". The US has been moving farther and farther from manufacturing it's own goods for years (AKA globalization). When that happens all you have left to peddle is ideas. There was a piece here on
B.
It wasn't Amazon that pushed this problem into Congress's lap but the fact that they all almost lost their Blackberries over the RIM case.
B.
There is a better, simpler cure:
1.) Forbid "method patents". This would include software and business methods.
2.) Forbid "naturally occurring" patents. This would include genome sequences.
3.) Require a WORKING prototype before issuance.
Just those 3 would go a long way to eliminating patent trolls.
B.
"Only if they use their patent to stop someone from doing something. ...), or give it to the 'patent commons' that seems to be being established, then that might be something useful."
If they use it to attract collaborators (Show me yours and I'll let you see mine
This logic is twisted to me. If a patent is so bad that you can't use it to "stop someone from doing something" then it is worthless. That is the whole point of a patent. Also, if you don't enforce a violation of that patent as soon as you learn about it then you stand to lose any case you bring later. The idea that patents can be used defensively is only valid if you are also willing to use them offensively.
B.
I am just going to agree to disagree with you on what constitutes a monopoly. Copyright *IS* a grant of monopoly no matter how you dance around the issue. A Rolling Stones song != to a Grateful Dead song != Joe in his garage song no matter how you dance around the issue. Record labels use the fact the he who has the gold makes the rules no matter how you dance around the issue.
"No one is required to sign the rights of their content to a label. Artists are free to keep the copyrights of their songs all they want, or they can license it through multiple distributors. Many artists, however, choose to sign with only one record label, and that is their choice."
And you know full well that is pure bullshit as well. An established group MIGHT be able to get away with some LIMITED re-licensing but even that is highly unlikely. Labels routinely as a matter of contract require ALL rights or they don't sign. It is that simple. No sign, no release. Again, it is that simple. By having a strangle hold on the market through copyright the distributors can make the artists do whatever they want it is that simple.
B.
"If the % cost of anything in that chain went up, you can bet that they'd immediately factor that right into any new contracts."
They don't have to since the artist is forced to sign over their copyright or not be distributed by that label. Copyright is the lever they use in this entire equation. What Al seems to be bitching about is the negotiated royalties. He apparently negotiated a fixed amount (something stupid IMO) in his contracts. That amount was set with distribution costs of physical medium factored in. He's upset he isn't getting more with digital content but that is what you get when you sign your rights away.
B.
"So the question under iTunes is why does the Record Company get any of the wholesale iTune money?"
That's easy to answer....Copyright.
Record labels don't sign a contract that doesn't include the signing over of the copyright. This gives them the government granted monopoly to distribute the content how they see fit including selling to iTunes.
B.
"Um, I didn't say go without music. I'm saying go without the artists whose music you think is too expensive. Go with artists who are cheaper. Competition is there; artists compete with each other for fame and fortune. You have a choice between them, and you base your decision on (A) the quality of their music and (B) the price of their music. How is this any different from other industries where competition thrives?"
A better example of why you are wrong is the following:
I need apples for my apple pie. You are telling me to go with grapefruits because of an artificial government granted monopoly with the distribution of apples. After all there is competition in the fruit market....
See how ridiculous your statements are?
We aren't talking about competition of artists here but true competition of distribution. An artist isn't allowed to have multiple distributors FOR THE SAME CONTENT because they are required to sign the rights to the content to the label. No competition == high prices.
B.
"So eliminate the human experience entirely- let the machines read the law, and let them give us the answer. I just want the law to become deterministic- the same answer out for the same input variables, every time."
You mean 42 isn't good enough for you?!?!
B.
"Because school districts aren't equipped or funded to act as general law enforcement agencies, and have more than enough demands on their resources doing what they are supposed to do, without their staff trying to live out their "Internet cop" fantasies."
That is fine if something really is "illegal". The problem is the law enforcement agencies don't have the time or resources to deal with this stupid shit either. The true responsibility lies with the parents and not government agencies. It is a waste of tax dollars to even attempt something on this scale.
B.
Your argument that one needs to quote large amounts of text to reply to that text is false (as this sentence shows). You should be paraphrasing others work to show that you grasp what they are trying to say using select quotes only when needed. In both cases proper citation should be given. I use quotes in only 2 instances. First, if I only want to reply to a specific sentence or 2 out of a whole text. Second, when there is little choice because of a challenge (such as "I didn't say that...") In both cases there is no reason to quote the whole thing.
B.