In other words the only thing that seperates you from your competitors right now is your linux drivers and by giving them away you are levelling the palying field and removing your main advantage.
That doesn't make sense. We're talking drivers, not POS software, and they're only useful with your hardware, which you're selling. Giving away the binaries, or even the sources, helps your customers, not your competitiors.
If both you and your competitor sell the same hardware as part of your solution, it's a bit different. Then you are giving away some advantage by open sourcing the drivers, but you're also gaining some advantages. Given the choice of two POS solutions, most Linux people would prefer the one whose company maintains the open source drivers for their hardware. And by open sourcing them, you reduce your legal liability - if you distribute closed source drivers, your competitors could put a kernel developer up to suing you for GPL violations or copyright infringement.
There's one other possibility. Many projects would move their hosting overseas. The availability of the software wouldn't be seriously threatened (this is the Internet, after all), but the projects would be forced underground, bringing a lot of otherwise law-abiding Americans with them. Explaining to John Q. Public why he can't use Gaim, Mozilla, or the GIMP could spark the widespread outrage needed to change the laws.
The hack makes the camera more functional, so Canon should be happy, right? But they aren't, which shows that either the expensive model is overpriced, or the cheap model is underpriced. The hack could bring the prices back to where they should be, and there's nothing wrong with that - now they won't be either overcharging or being anticompetitive.
But that's not what will happen. For one, only us Slashdot types will care about the hack, so the real effect will be nil. Second, their legal department won't want to bet on that, so they'll sue the hack into submission - DMCA, EULA violation, or something equally stupid. Oh well.
it's their content, in some cases artwork, and they can decide how they want it viewed/experianced.
No. Copyright gives them the ability to control reproduction, preparation of derivative works, distribution of copies, public performance and public display of their work. Period. If I have legally obtained a copy, I can view and experience it however, whenever, with whatever, and at whichever volume and quality I want. They can build technical barriers, but DMCA notwithstanding, those barriers are neither legally nor, in my opinion, morally binding.
I don't know how well this would be received, Flash being proprietary and all, but you might want to ask about this on LKML. It could be some strange interaction with the 2.6 scheduler.
A good portion of the things Windows users buy either come free with most distros (OO.org, DVD players, compilers, eye candy, tons of assorted apps) or aren't necessary (antivirus, registry cleaners). But if you sell something that is necessary, isn't otherwise available, and runs in Linux (Oracle, lagre games, Crossover office), we'll buy it. Flash development tools are a perfect example of this.
One reason the market is slow to pick up on this is that it's currently hard to tell who's using the Linux ports. I've bought several games whiich I wouldn't have if they didn't run in Linux, but aside from filling out the registration card, how do they know? If I buy Photoshop or Shockwave with the intention of running it in Wine, how do they know? And if there's something I would buy if there were a linux port, how do they know? I try to contact them sometimes, but most people don't.
The x86 architecture is register-starved. AMD's extensions allow 64-bit code to make use of many more registers, which gives a performance improvement. Lots of fast cache helps, but not as much, because the cache can't reliably know what's needed next or most often, while the compiler often can. For example, Vorbis encoding has a 30% improvement when compiled in 64-bit mode.
That's assuming you evacuate it while sitting on the ground, then let go, in which case you're in for a little jolt. But suppose you pumped the air out slowly: the pressure difference would be much smaller and would vary with the lifting force. I'll let you do the math, but I'd guess that from a materials perspective, it would be possible. The bigger challenge would be making the vacuum pump and its power source light enough.
Don't think he's joking, people. In America, blank music CDs have a fee that goes to them. Luckily, nobody uses those. But in many other countries, all blank CD media has taxes that pay RIAA equivalents.
What I'm saying is, one person's use of an idea does not interfere with another's use of it, which is not true when you substitute "land" or "widget" for "idea."
Let's say I have an idea, and I intend to profit from it. If you then copy my idea without my permission, you are interfering with my ability to profit from my invention.
... It may interfere with your incentive to share the idea,
or your ability to sell legal rights to use the idea, or the market for objects which embody or are produced using the idea, but it doesn't affect the utility of the idea itself.
(Would it kill you to read the whole paragraph?) In other words, if you invent and share a way to turn water into gasoline, my using it to turn my water into gasoline doesn't affect your using it to turn your water into gasoline.
Because once you start thinking about "government" as this abstract thing that has some existence of its own, above and beyond merely being an object of the collective will of the people, then you've opened the door to all sorts of tyrannies.
OK, fine, it's up to the collective will of the people to decide.
Of course it is. I have an idea or a creative work: you lack it. That's scarcity. "I could have thought of that!" is trumped by the fact that you didn't.
You're missing the distinction between an idea in your head and an idea "out in the open." What I'm saying is, one person's use of an idea does not interfere with another's use of it, which is not true when you substitute "land" or "widget" for "idea." It may interfere with your incentive to share the idea, or your ability to sell legal rights to use the idea, or the market for objects which embody or are produced using the idea, but it doesn't affect the utility of the idea itself.
On the whole I think I accept the theoretical framework being built here, but I don't see it's utility. Whether the government grants rights or simply recognizes them, it's still up to the government to decide to what extent it should do this. That decision should be the most beneficial one given the prevailing conditions, not one biased by any academic theory.
First, you only looked at the first set of results - scroll down to the bottom and see the average scores and average bitrates. Now, as a quick-n-dirty compensation, here's the average scores times 128 over the average bitrate.
________Vorbis__MPC___Lame__iTunes__Atrac3__WMA Q uality__4.59___4.47__4.18____4.26____3.73__3.98 B itrate___135____136___134_____128_____132___128 = Q*128/B_4.35___4.21__3.99____4.26____3.62__3.98
The ranking is Vorbis, MPC, iTunes, Lame, WMA, Atrac3.
Slashcode sucks.
# Please try to keep posts on topic.
# Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
# Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
# Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
# Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
Sure it does. See, what you need to do here is to come up with an argument for why these customs and traditions should no longer apply to all kinds of property, but rather only to some kinds.
IP rights, or if you prefer, governments' recognition of them, have become strong only recently, so don't argue from tradition (and lay off the ad hominem, while you're at it.). But to answer your question simply, the tragedy of the commons is not applicable to intangible things.
The greater wrong is to declare that an entire class of property rights no longer exists.
There can be a middle ground. Specifically, you can limit the scope, duration, and applicability to non-commercial, fair, or private use of protection of IP rights. Compromise, and not either extreme, will minimize the total harm.
But now you're using physical analogies, which doesn't cut it. The other guy took the same base of knowledge, added labor, and came up with a similar invention. But he's not only robbed of exclusivity (not that he had it), he also can't even use his own invention without paying. How is that not wrong?
Right, but what you've deprived me of, as the inventor, is exclusivity.
Accepting that the invention, being the fruit of your labor, is yours, how is its exclusivity yours? Someone else, unaware of your invention, could invent the same thing; it would then be theirs. Why should you be able to violate their right to it, as you can under the current patent system?
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't make sense. We're talking drivers, not POS software, and they're only useful with your hardware, which you're selling. Giving away the binaries, or even the sources, helps your customers, not your competitiors.
If both you and your competitor sell the same hardware as part of your solution, it's a bit different. Then you are giving away some advantage by open sourcing the drivers, but you're also gaining some advantages. Given the choice of two POS solutions, most Linux people would prefer the one whose company maintains the open source drivers for their hardware. And by open sourcing them, you reduce your legal liability - if you distribute closed source drivers, your competitors could put a kernel developer up to suing you for GPL violations or copyright infringement.
There's one other possibility. Many projects would move their hosting overseas. The availability of the software wouldn't be seriously threatened (this is the Internet, after all), but the projects would be forced underground, bringing a lot of otherwise law-abiding Americans with them. Explaining to John Q. Public why he can't use Gaim, Mozilla, or the GIMP could spark the widespread outrage needed to change the laws.
Multiple times, yes. But a plurality of times?
But that's not what will happen. For one, only us Slashdot types will care about the hack, so the real effect will be nil. Second, their legal department won't want to bet on that, so they'll sue the hack into submission - DMCA, EULA violation, or something equally stupid. Oh well.
For whom?
No. Copyright gives them the ability to control reproduction, preparation of derivative works, distribution of copies, public performance and public display of their work. Period. If I have legally obtained a copy, I can view and experience it however, whenever, with whatever, and at whichever volume and quality I want. They can build technical barriers, but DMCA notwithstanding, those barriers are neither legally nor, in my opinion, morally binding.
That's the same attitude that got us popups. Clients that obey external commands over the user's commands are stupid, plain and simple.
I really wish that dialog would tell me the URL of what it can't play, so I can try it in MPlayer.
I don't know how well this would be received, Flash being proprietary and all, but you might want to ask about this on LKML. It could be some strange interaction with the 2.6 scheduler.
A good portion of the things Windows users buy either come free with most distros (OO.org, DVD players, compilers, eye candy, tons of assorted apps) or aren't necessary (antivirus, registry cleaners). But if you sell something that is necessary, isn't otherwise available, and runs in Linux (Oracle, lagre games, Crossover office), we'll buy it. Flash development tools are a perfect example of this.
One reason the market is slow to pick up on this is that it's currently hard to tell who's using the Linux ports. I've bought several games whiich I wouldn't have if they didn't run in Linux, but aside from filling out the registration card, how do they know? If I buy Photoshop or Shockwave with the intention of running it in Wine, how do they know? And if there's something I would buy if there were a linux port, how do they know? I try to contact them sometimes, but most people don't.
Copyright infringement is illegal and generally bad. But P2P is neither illegal nor inherently bad. The headline equates them: that is bad.
I just didn't know the sentencing includes which prison you'll be in. Don't worry, my cynicism is intact.
linux e-penis uptime
How does your financial situation affect where you go to jail?
The x86 architecture is register-starved. AMD's extensions allow 64-bit code to make use of many more registers, which gives a performance improvement. Lots of fast cache helps, but not as much, because the cache can't reliably know what's needed next or most often, while the compiler often can. For example, Vorbis encoding has a 30% improvement when compiled in 64-bit mode.
That's assuming you evacuate it while sitting on the ground, then let go, in which case you're in for a little jolt. But suppose you pumped the air out slowly: the pressure difference would be much smaller and would vary with the lifting force. I'll let you do the math, but I'd guess that from a materials perspective, it would be possible. The bigger challenge would be making the vacuum pump and its power source light enough.
Don't think he's joking, people. In America, blank music CDs have a fee that goes to them. Luckily, nobody uses those. But in many other countries, all blank CD media has taxes that pay RIAA equivalents.
Because once you start thinking about "government" as this abstract thing that has some existence of its own, above and beyond merely being an object of the collective will of the people, then you've opened the door to all sorts of tyrannies.
OK, fine, it's up to the collective will of the people to decide.
You're missing the distinction between an idea in your head and an idea "out in the open." What I'm saying is, one person's use of an idea does not interfere with another's use of it, which is not true when you substitute "land" or "widget" for "idea." It may interfere with your incentive to share the idea, or your ability to sell legal rights to use the idea, or the market for objects which embody or are produced using the idea, but it doesn't affect the utility of the idea itself.
On the whole I think I accept the theoretical framework being built here, but I don't see it's utility. Whether the government grants rights or simply recognizes them, it's still up to the government to decide to what extent it should do this. That decision should be the most beneficial one given the prevailing conditions, not one biased by any academic theory.
Lame reply to self - actual ranking is Vorbis, iTunes, MPC, Lame, WMA, Atrac3
Slashcode sucks.
# Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
IP rights, or if you prefer, governments' recognition of them, have become strong only recently, so don't argue from tradition (and lay off the ad hominem, while you're at it.). But to answer your question simply, the tragedy of the commons is not applicable to intangible things. The greater wrong is to declare that an entire class of property rights no longer exists.
There can be a middle ground. Specifically, you can limit the scope, duration, and applicability to non-commercial, fair, or private use of protection of IP rights. Compromise, and not either extreme, will minimize the total harm.
(17500 miles / 1 hour) * 15 days * (24 hours / 1 day) / 4270000 pounds * 8.33 pounds / 1 gallon in mpg
Accepting that the invention, being the fruit of your labor, is yours, how is its exclusivity yours? Someone else, unaware of your invention, could invent the same thing; it would then be theirs. Why should you be able to violate their right to it, as you can under the current patent system?