Yes this logic is heard more often, and even lawsuits have been won using this logic. But I fail to see why a publicly traded company has an obligation to maximalize profits.
As a shareholder, I own a little part of the company. It is my free choice to invest ini that company, and I may have different purposes by investing. If I don't like what the company is doing (e.g. making not enough profit, but also behaving unethically, damaging the environment, competing with and damaging another company that I also happen to be shareholder of) I am free to sell by shares. So while I may hope that the companies management tries to give me a decent profit, I fail to see how this can be the only purpose of the company and how I should be able to demand it.
What is the reason a company exists? A (public) company has three classes of stakeholders: the shareholders, the employees and the customers (one might add a fourth one, the environment/community the company operates in). The companies actions should reflect a healthy balance and reflect the interests of all these stakeholders and not only serve the interests of the shareholders alone.
Doing the latter should, IMO, be forbidden by law. It leads to short sighted decisions, that damage the interests of other stakeholders and of society in general. In the long run, it will often even also damage the interests of the shareholders themselves.
I think XP will be my last windows, and I'm not the only one. By the time XP support runs out, I have moved all my gaming activities to some console and for the rest: either linux or OSX.
Who then does define what is right or wrong? Is there a natural law that mandates IP, does God mandate IP?
No no no, in the end it is the people. Something that more than 50% of the people, even after careful consideration, consider to be not wrong, by definition cannot be wrong except if you believe in higher powers.
Of course, anyone may keep his personal conviction and try to convince others. That is what politics should be: the majority defines right and wrong and the laws, and minorities try to become majorities by debate.
Yes, I can understand the RIAA/MPAA. But the politicians? They are supposed to represent the interests of the people. Therefore they are guilty of treason. They should be severely punished for that.
One has to admit that copyright is dead. It is not that I want everything for free, but the collateral damage of enforcing copyright in a world where (soon) one can put all music ever made on a single harddisk that can be easily copied even without the Internet is just too big. You would really need a total police state to prevent massive copyright infringement, which IMHO just is not worth the massive public ressources and sacrifice of individual freedom and privacy that a police state needs. Also it becomes "too easy" to commit a "horrible" crime. Any kid can copy for billions worth of "intellectual property" with a few mouse clicks. To weight the copyright infringement damages as is done today so heavily just is not in a healthy relationship to the physical actions needed.
Now given this fact, companies have to adapt or die, apart from your principal view on intellectual property.
On another note, please do not assume that everyone who opposes copyrights does so because of self interest (getting things for free). I am a principal opponent of copyright for different reasons (that I don't want to discuss now). On the other hand, I do acknowledge that there may be some proponents of copyrights for other reasons than pure self interests as well.
Assuming I'm not a liar, what are you implying? That anyone who doesn't like vista compared to xp is an idiot? What makes you think that your personal preference should be shared by anyone that is not an idiot?
I bought vista (ultimate) for a new PC, but got so annoyed with it that I bought a new XP pro licence after that. now why would I do that if I were just making up random shit and/or had never tried Vista?
and I hate it. I tried to use it for one month, then went back to XP (I even had to buy another XP licence).
I reinstalled vista in vmware in order to keep on trying it and get used to it, but I can't. It is hard to say why, but I just keep hating vista.
I've run Linux for years on my server and windows (98, 2000, XP) on my desktops. But if the XP option would dissapear and vista would be the only windows option, I guarantee: either I switch to a mac with OSX, or I would start using Linux for my desktop as well.
I built together a new computer 3 months ago, with vista in mind (i.e. all hardware selected so it is supported well), and bought a vista ultimate OEM to it. I have been using it for 3 months: there were no problems with the hardware, but still I could not get used to it: it is slow and really clumsy, after a while I disabled aero but still things where slow and annoying. Disabled UAC, got some hotfix to fix slow file copying/moving/deleting, but it didn't help.
Last week I bought an xppro OEM and reinstalled it on the machine. What a relief. It is just incomprehensible that this crap vista is being forced down everyones throat (most people that buy a new PC now). The arrogance of MSFT has reached new limits if they think they can get away with it.
If I were a dumb user and not able to reinstall xp myself, I would revert from windows alltogether in disgust and probably buy a mac now. Really, people keep telling that everyone will get used to it and will be using vista sooner or later since there won't be an alternative. I doubt it, I think this time they have gone too far and have overestimated there market power. This may well be the beginning of the end and cause further and larger scale defections towards Mac OSX and maybe also linux for some more advanced users. I cannot imagine that vista will really replace all other windows version, even with MSFT's power, this product is just too crappy even for them.
Most companies will wait till 2010 when the last commercial support for XP expires, and then who knows what is available in the market. I think there may be enough alternatives by then to being forced to 'upgrade' to vista in 2010.
Many years ago they used to accuse emacs (not entirely unjustified) of using lots of memory, "Eight Megabyte And Constantly Swapping". However, emacs still uses 8MB (in fact when I start it in text mode there is only 6.2MB resident) whereas other editors, even simple ones, have overtaken emacs in this respect and use many times more.
So it is quite ironical that emacs used to be a pig, but nowadays is lean and mean compared to most other editors. Still it is more powerful than most.
Who do you think has the stronger side: the one producing real products and adding real value, or the one producing only "IP", i.e. something that has no intrinsic value?
People can live without official licence for this and that (can live without movies for that matter but could also just ignore copyrights and do what they like). The US would get in real trouble without importing real products such as food, chips, steel etc. etc. Of course the US could try to transform itself back into a nation that adds real value instead of the card house it is at present (almost becoming as virtual as second life).
So, I think that China would laugh loudly if the US wants to start a trade war over this.
I bought a "desktop replacement" laptop with docking station 2 years ago. It was intended to be on by desk for 99% of the time. I use it with external monitor and keyboard.
Yes, desktops cost less for the same performance, maybe 60 or 70% from the price of the laptop. However:
the laptop is absolutely quiet. I work in a silent environment and cannot stand the noise from even 'silent' fans. silencing a desktop does add quite some extra cost.
it uses less power, so you earn some of the extra cost back over the years
not being able to tinker with it saves money too:), and time.
for the 1% that I absolutely need to be mobile, the only alternative would be to buy both a desktop and a laptop and have the (albeit cheaper) laptop unused for 99% of the time
what happens if my ipod is stolen with all watermarked (i.e. linked to me) songs? the thieve publishes to some p2p networks, and I am liable for millions of copies (i.e. billions of dollars)?
watermarks solve nothing, you cannot sue anyone for being robbed.
Something important with national and international importance obviously cannot be left to "the market" and commercial interests. It is long overdue to nationalize all drug companies and let the government(s) decide what research is done and what not (viagra etc.).
The reason: it offers significantly more storage capacity.
I am not interested in HD video, but I do hope that DVD-R/+R is replaced soon by a format with more capacity. From that point of view, HD-DVD just doesn't offer enough improvement.
The format that "wins" the video market will get cheaper media in the long run, and for all computer users it is thus to be hoped that the format with the most capacity wins.
When I was 5 (from 0 to 5) my parents had a trabant, which is about the same size as a tiny fiat 500. Somehow they managed, transporting me with all that baby stuff, shopping, going on camping holyday (I remember as a 5 year old sitting on sleeping bags with my had against the roof:). Now I don't say that something a bit more spacious is not justified and better suited, but it doesn't need to be any bigger than a small hatchback even if you have 2 small children.
Most countries do not have a "drinking age". In most of europe it is forbidden to sell alcohol to minors below 16 (18 for stronger drinks above 30% alcohol) but any parent may allow his children to drink (with moderation). I used to drink some wine at dinner from age 10. I've been drunk 2 times in my life (I'm about 40 now).
I think the US is the only country in the world with such a strict view on drinking, and it does not help. There is no less drinking amongst the youth in the US as in europe, and I just cannot understand where this phobia comes from. Maybe some after effect of the prohibition in the 1930s?
I do. I think artists should not be compensated for their work with state protection. If they find some model to make money, fine for them. If not, bad luck. Fact is that copying bits is just that, and if that makes the "business model" of many artists obsolete, so be it.
that democracy is being undermined. In democracy every man has one vote, so the system should guarantee that the little guy's interests are represented. However, democracy is undermined by lobbyist and corrupt politicians that serve not the interests of their voters but of those who pay enough.
IMO this is high treason, and deserves the final penalty. I think politicians that really want to represent the people should make this more clear, if only to deter those that might be tempted to corrupt democracy by lobbying/bribing.
I have been watching a move at a friend once, using a projector. I found it horrible. At home I do not want to feel like I'm in a cinema, sitting in the dark. Also the noise of the coolers is very irritating (I'm allergic to humming noises of any kind).
Since that fact might influence the ongoing debate in the EU on software patents. It'll show the grave negative effects of software patents, and defeat those that seem to think that more IP protection always is automatically good for the economy.
The OIN justifies software patents with their reaction. They defend against patent claims with their own patents. Thus, what was once free software not gets divided between warring commercial entities threatening each other with strike and counter strike. I think you cannot call it free software any longer, but you are at the mercy of entities that today mean the best for Linux, but who knows what is tomorrow?
It only shows that software patents in general are bad.
It would be nice if Linux really got into trouble because of them, because that would catch the attention of politics and media on the horrible potential and absurdity of patenting ideas instead of only true inventions. At least the ongoing discussion in europe would get a positive signal then. As it is now, the OIN members are only trying to silence such conflicts and avoid that they are causing a public relations problem for the evil battle for software patents worldwide.
I cannot accept this. DRM is only a reality if supported and protected by the state. If there were no laws against circumventing it, DRM would not be a reality at all. And the states actions and laws still are supposed to be the result of a democratic process.
In that sense, I am not so defaitist as you are. I think that once the majority sees how evil DRM is, and that alternative models do exist, it will go away. At the moment there is this idee fixe that without DRM protection there can be no healthy economy. That, IMHO, is the viewpoint of people and capitalists that are only protecting their own short term interests. As always in economic development, changes bring losses for some vested interests, and also offer new chances.
DRM is a fight against windmills. In the end, alternative economic models shall arise and the current models of distribution of media, for example, are doomed to fail. Some will loose (the ones that are at the moment trying to corrupt our democracy by buying laws and politicians) but the economy and people as a whole will gain from these changes.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes this logic is heard more often, and even lawsuits have been won using this logic. But I fail to see why a publicly traded company has an obligation to maximalize profits.
As a shareholder, I own a little part of the company. It is my free choice to invest ini that company, and I may have different purposes by investing. If I don't like what the company is doing (e.g. making not enough profit, but also behaving unethically, damaging the environment, competing with and damaging another company that I also happen to be shareholder of) I am free to sell by shares. So while I may hope that the companies management tries to give me a decent profit, I fail to see how this can be the only purpose of the company and how I should be able to demand it.
What is the reason a company exists? A (public) company has three classes of stakeholders: the shareholders, the employees and the customers (one might add a fourth one, the environment/community the company operates in). The companies actions should reflect a healthy balance and reflect the interests of all these stakeholders and not only serve the interests of the shareholders alone.
Doing the latter should, IMO, be forbidden by law. It leads to short sighted decisions, that damage the interests of other stakeholders and of society in general. In the long run, it will often even also damage the interests of the shareholders themselves.
I think XP will be my last windows, and I'm not the only one. By the time XP support runs out, I have moved all my gaming activities to some console and for the rest: either linux or OSX.
Who then does define what is right or wrong? Is there a natural law that mandates IP, does God mandate IP?
No no no, in the end it is the people. Something that more than 50% of the people, even after careful consideration, consider to be not wrong, by definition cannot be wrong except if you believe in higher powers.
Of course, anyone may keep his personal conviction and try to convince others. That is what politics should be: the majority defines right and wrong and the laws, and minorities try to become majorities by debate.
Yes, I can understand the RIAA/MPAA. But the politicians? They are supposed to represent the interests of the people. Therefore they are guilty of treason. They should be severely punished for that.
One has to admit that copyright is dead. It is not that I want everything for free, but the collateral damage of enforcing copyright in a world where (soon) one can put all music ever made on a single harddisk that can be easily copied even without the Internet is just too big. You would really need a total police state to prevent massive copyright infringement, which IMHO just is not worth the massive public ressources and sacrifice of individual freedom and privacy that a police state needs. Also it becomes "too easy" to commit a "horrible" crime. Any kid can copy for billions worth of "intellectual property" with a few mouse clicks. To weight the copyright infringement damages as is done today so heavily just is not in a healthy relationship to the physical actions needed.
Now given this fact, companies have to adapt or die, apart from your principal view on intellectual property.
On another note, please do not assume that everyone who opposes copyrights does so because of self interest (getting things for free). I am a principal opponent of copyright for different reasons (that I don't want to discuss now). On the other hand, I do acknowledge that there may be some proponents of copyrights for other reasons than pure self interests as well.
Assuming I'm not a liar, what are you implying? That anyone who doesn't like vista compared to xp is an idiot?
What makes you think that your personal preference should be shared by anyone that is not an idiot?
I bought vista (ultimate) for a new PC, but got so annoyed with it that I bought a new XP pro licence after that. now why would I do that if I were just making up random shit and/or had never tried Vista?
I disagree, even if vista ultimate were free it wouldn't "sell" compared to w2k and xp.
and I hate it. I tried to use it for one month, then went back to XP (I even had to buy another XP licence).
I reinstalled vista in vmware in order to keep on trying it and get used to it, but I can't. It is hard to say why, but I just keep hating vista.
I've run Linux for years on my server and windows (98, 2000, XP) on my desktops. But if the XP option would dissapear and vista would be the only windows option, I guarantee: either I switch to a mac with OSX, or I would start using Linux for my desktop as well.
I built together a new computer 3 months ago, with vista in mind (i.e. all hardware selected so it is supported well), and bought a vista ultimate OEM to it. I have been using it for 3 months: there were no problems with the hardware, but still I could not get used to it: it is slow and really clumsy, after a while I disabled aero but still things where slow and annoying. Disabled UAC, got some hotfix to fix slow file copying/moving/deleting, but it didn't help.
Last week I bought an xppro OEM and reinstalled it on the machine. What a relief. It is just incomprehensible that this crap vista is being forced down everyones throat (most people that buy a new PC now). The arrogance of MSFT has reached new limits if they think they can get away with it.
If I were a dumb user and not able to reinstall xp myself, I would revert from windows alltogether in disgust and probably buy a mac now. Really, people keep telling that everyone will get used to it and will be using vista sooner or later since there won't be an alternative. I doubt it, I think this time they have gone too far and have overestimated there market power. This may well be the beginning of the end and cause further and larger scale defections towards Mac OSX and maybe also linux for some more advanced users. I cannot imagine that vista will really replace all other windows version, even with MSFT's power, this product is just too crappy even for them.
Most companies will wait till 2010 when the last commercial support for XP expires, and then who knows what is available in the market. I think there may be enough alternatives by then to being forced to 'upgrade' to vista in 2010.
Many years ago they used to accuse emacs (not entirely unjustified) of using lots of memory, "Eight Megabyte And Constantly Swapping". However, emacs still uses 8MB (in fact when I start it in text mode there is only 6.2MB resident) whereas other editors, even simple ones, have overtaken emacs in this respect and use many times more.
So it is quite ironical that emacs used to be a pig, but nowadays is lean and mean compared to most other editors. Still it is more powerful than most.
Who do you think has the stronger side: the one producing real products and adding real value, or the one producing only "IP", i.e. something that has no intrinsic value?
People can live without official licence for this and that (can live without movies for that matter but could also just ignore copyrights and do what they like). The US would get in real trouble without importing real products such as food, chips, steel etc. etc. Of course the US could try to transform itself back into a nation that adds real value instead of the card house it is at present (almost becoming as virtual as second life).
So, I think that China would laugh loudly if the US wants to start a trade war over this.
Yes, desktops cost less for the same performance, maybe 60 or 70% from the price of the laptop. However:
Was playing mario and space invaders, at normal speed as if I had an early 80s PC in front of me. Impressive demo.
what happens if my ipod is stolen with all watermarked (i.e. linked to me) songs? the thieve publishes to some p2p networks, and I am liable for millions of copies (i.e. billions of dollars)?
watermarks solve nothing, you cannot sue anyone for being robbed.
Something important with national and international importance obviously cannot be left to "the market" and commercial interests. It is long overdue to nationalize all drug companies and let the government(s) decide what research is done and what not (viagra etc.).
The reason: it offers significantly more storage capacity.
I am not interested in HD video, but I do hope that DVD-R/+R is replaced soon by a format with more capacity. From that point of view, HD-DVD just doesn't offer enough improvement.
The format that "wins" the video market will get cheaper media in the long run, and for all computer users it is thus to be hoped that the format with the most capacity wins.
When I was 5 (from 0 to 5) my parents had a trabant, which is about the same size as a tiny fiat 500. :). Now I don't say that something a bit more spacious is not justified and better suited, but it doesn't need to be any bigger than a small hatchback even if you have 2 small children.
Somehow they managed, transporting me with all that baby stuff, shopping, going on camping holyday (I remember as a 5 year old sitting on sleeping bags with my had against the roof
Most countries do not have a "drinking age". In most of europe it is forbidden to sell alcohol to minors below 16 (18 for stronger drinks above 30% alcohol) but any parent may allow his children to drink (with moderation). I used to drink some wine at dinner from age 10. I've been drunk 2 times in my life (I'm about 40 now).
I think the US is the only country in the world with such a strict view on drinking, and it does not help. There is no less drinking amongst the youth in the US as in europe, and I just cannot understand where this phobia comes from. Maybe some after effect of the prohibition in the 1930s?
I do. I think artists should not be compensated for their work with state protection. If they find some model to make money, fine for them. If not, bad luck. Fact is that copying bits is just that, and if that makes the "business model" of many artists obsolete, so be it.
that democracy is being undermined. In democracy every man has one vote, so the system should guarantee that the little guy's interests are represented. However, democracy is undermined by lobbyist and corrupt politicians that serve not the interests of their voters but of those who pay enough.
IMO this is high treason, and deserves the final penalty. I think politicians that really want to represent the people should make this more clear, if only to deter those that might be tempted to corrupt democracy by lobbying/bribing.
I have been watching a move at a friend once, using a projector. I found it horrible.
At home I do not want to feel like I'm in a cinema, sitting in the dark.
Also the noise of the coolers is very irritating (I'm allergic to humming noises of any kind).
Since that fact might influence the ongoing debate in the EU on software patents. It'll show the grave negative effects of software patents, and defeat those that seem to think that more IP protection always is automatically good for the economy.
The OIN justifies software patents with their reaction. They defend against patent claims with their own patents.
Thus, what was once free software not gets divided between warring commercial entities threatening each other with strike and counter strike. I think you cannot call it free software any longer, but you are at the mercy of entities that today mean the best for Linux, but who knows what is tomorrow?
It only shows that software patents in general are bad.
It would be nice if Linux really got into trouble because of them, because that would catch the attention of politics and media on the horrible potential and absurdity of patenting ideas instead of only true inventions. At least the ongoing discussion in europe would get a positive signal then. As it is now, the OIN members are only trying to silence such conflicts and avoid that they are causing a public relations problem for the evil battle for software patents worldwide.
I cannot accept this. DRM is only a reality if supported and protected by the state. If there were no laws against circumventing it, DRM would not be a reality at all. And the states actions and laws still are supposed to be the result of a democratic process.
In that sense, I am not so defaitist as you are. I think that once the majority sees how evil DRM is, and that alternative models do exist, it will go away. At the moment there is this idee fixe that without DRM protection there can be no healthy economy. That, IMHO, is the viewpoint of people and capitalists that are only protecting their own short term interests. As always in economic development, changes bring losses for some vested interests, and also offer new chances.
DRM is a fight against windmills. In the end, alternative economic models shall arise and the current models of distribution of media, for example, are doomed to fail. Some will loose (the ones that are at the moment trying to corrupt our democracy by buying laws and politicians) but the economy and people as a whole will gain from these changes.