(Slightly OT) That's actually pretty cheap. Most companies here charge US $35-$60 for onsite calls. I occasionally help my father-in-law out at his computer shop, and while he's toward the low end of that, the recent spike in gas prices has him considering raising the rates.
Alright, back on topic. That 90% fits one of my categories-the casual ones. Those kids are going to want the shiny, flashy merchandise. If they like the CD, they're going to buy it eventually, because it looks cool. They'll probably also buy the T-shirt, and the concert ticket-there's some things you can't digitize, imagine the difference between taking your girlfriend to the Dave Matthews concert and asking her to come over for a bootleg recording of one!
However, I seriously doubt if most of these know how to rip anything but an unprotected CD to a mediocre.mp3, and if they even contribute those it'll be because their friend wants it and they incidentally throw it in their "shared" folder.
In fact, for others, it's simply a convenience. Most of the mp3's I download are from CD's I already own, but it's faster for me, on broadband, to grab the mp3 from someone who's already gone to the trouble, then to find the CD, throw it in, and then fire up LAME and rip it. I also most certainly have a burned copy of every CD I own-about 8 years ago someone stole my CD collection out of my car, was worth over $600. (Oh, by the way, though you haven't personally used the term-this demonstrates well the difference between "theft" and "copyright infringement". Do you think, had they simply made copies of the CD's right there and left the originals alone, I would have minded?) If they do it this time, the most valuable thing they'll get is the $30 case, and all I'll have to buy again is another spindle of blank discs. And yes, I did re-download mp3's for those stolen CD's that I hadn't replaced yet. I don't feel a bit bad about that, I already purchased them. Just because the available means for consumers to make backups came -after- the fact doesn't mean I won't use it.
However, you effectively proved my point-I would imagine probably 60-70% of P2P users fall into the "casual" category I put forth, and you explained further, and probably 15-20% into the power user-heavy supplier end. The rest are the hardcore freeloaders, I would imagine mainly broke college students who wouldn't have a nickel to spend on the stuff anyway. It's -still- free advertising, they're still being exposed to the product. Do you really think the college studen with 8 gigabytes of mp3's and $2 in his wallet would've purchased 200 CD's but for the evil P2P network?
In some cases, it's people that don't ever move stuff out of that good old "shared" folder in Limewire. In other cases, you bet your ass it is. I know plenty of filesharers who are outraged at the tactics currently being used and impelled to share all the more.
There are plenty of people who believe that filesharing is ethical and acceptable, and laws to stop it are unethical and unacceptable. Do you really think that you can outlaw something millions of people do all the time, and not see a backlash? Do you think a culture who values free speech likes suddenly having large blocks of content walled off from showing to their friends? Do you really think someone who spent the better part of a thousand bucks for their shiny new computer wants to be told they're going to have to shell out a load more for basic software?
The mistake made by the anti-filesharing crowd is in presuming that filesharers are simply a bunch of freeloaders who wouldn't pay a nickel for the best cause in the world. That's true of some. But I don't think even most. For most, it is either a casual, try-before-you-buy concept, or an expression of outrage at the out of control power of corporations and their abuses of that power. THAT, is a good cause. You're free to disagree, and you're free to defend the rights of corporations who, UNLIKE those who fileshare, are quite often convicted criminals. (At least in the case of Microsoft and the RIAA, I would be HAPPY to back this up.) But you've got quite the uphill battle convincing the public that an infinitely replicatable resource should be made artificially scarce for the purpose of extracting enormous sums of money from their wallets. Good luck, and we shall see who prevails!
You can help them become aware of it by showing evidence that this is true. Do you have a citation? I've never met anybody who's been "angered into sharing more" upon hearing about litigation against pirates. Have you?
Yes, I've met plenty. I doubt they'd appreciate me sharing their identity. However, statistically, P2P use is still on the rise and showing no signs of slowing.
There are plenty of others. It is well known that Bittorrent, for example, makes up over 30% of Internet traffic, and (while I use it for them myself) that's not accounted for by Blizzard's patches and Linux distros.
It is pointless to try and stop a "crime" that millions of people are willing to permit, and even to commit. At this point, it's not a crime, it's an inevitability. Look at the failures of the various Prohibitions, for example.
Apple just sold its 50 millionth track online. The online music business is growing logarithmically. If you have evidence that their strategy isn't working, then great -- post it. Simple bromides like "the record industry doesn't get it" or "consumers don't want DRM" is great for self-congratulatory karma-whoring, but it looks like the record industry is finally taking hold of the online market.
I never said any of those things, so I feel no need to defend them, and in fact said that they are -not- fools. They are exploiters, they are monopolists, and they are in many ways operating at the edge or outside the edge of the law. But you don't get away with these behaviors for a century by being an idiot.
As I said none of the rest, you did, I'm not in the habit of wasting my time defending straw men.
Very broad statement. Some record companies are doing okay (particularly the conglomerates like Time Warner that have their fingers in a lot of pies and just happen to have a record label arm); some are scrimping by with 5% net margin over the year, and yeah, some of the publicly traded companies are losing money. But the vast majority of record labels -- the indies; the ones with twelve employees -- are not publicly traded.
Fair's fair, let's see YOUR sources. Indie labels overwhelmingly support and encourage filesharing, they're not about to turn down free advertising. Some even offer free downloads and a donation-based payment system right on their own website. This site has been operating for years now.
Correct again. If a company stops making money, it goes out of business. This is one of those universal things that isn't unique to the record industry.
Very true. And if a business doesn't give its consumers what they obviously want, they can't make money. That is also universally accepted in very diverse areas of business.
Your point is valid. However, CD's are the "old" medium, just as cassette tapes and records were decades ago, and will be naturally phased out in favor of the new-digital distribution. That will happen over a period of years, after all, people still own vinyl records! But very few seek to buy them anymore, and they are certainly not the source of anyone's profits. Cassette tapes still can be purchased, but again, are not the source of profits.
In the meantime, sure, CD's might remain a profit source, but ultimately a dwindling one. It's certainly not unnatural to see people not want to pay $15-$20 for a CD when they can burn their own (minus the songs they dislike, with whatever tracks they choose) for 15 cents or so. The only choice the "content providers" have now is clear-embrace digital distribution, the way the consumers want it, or go under. Every business has to serve the wants and desires of their consumers, those who have tried to have those desires legislated away are inevitably a footnote.
Well, this particular one deserves an answer regardless, so here it is.
It doesn't necessarily lead to that. It may lead to a prospective customer discovering an unknown band (whose CD they never would've bought or even considered without being able to download risk-free samples), falling in love, buying that band's CD's, T-shirts, and attending their concerts. A nice windfall for the band, AND for the consumer-neither would've known the other existed but for filesharing.
Of course any system will have freeloaders, that want to get out of paying for anything, ever. These are the same people that were borrowing or copying tapes from their friends nonstop. That's been happening for decades, and the sky hasn't fallen yet.
The world's major record labels, represented by the Recording Industry Association of America, have filed more than 14,000 such lawsuits since September 2003.
This is an infinitesimal percent of filesharers, estimated in the tens or hundreds of millions. For every person scared off by these tactics, two others will be angered into sharing more. I cannot imagine that they are not aware of that by now.
Really, though, I don't think it is. I can't imagine the **AA's are really dumb enough to believe that this strategy will work-the one thing said about them that is untrue is that they are idiots. They have gotten away with massively unethical practices for a very long time, and idiots don't do that.
This is, however, a way to keep them in the public eye while they desperately scramble for a way to regain control over distribution-which is their true goal. They're not losing money. Check their earnings reports. This is true despite the fact that they are consistently releasing garbage. But what they are losing is control over largescale methods of distribution. That's what they can't stomach.
I'm inclined to agree. I think it's more that the courts have ruled you actually have the right to anonymity, so they're going after the first guy they -can- identify. I really doubt if it's going to go over, though. Certainly, I'm sure there's mountains of libelous text in Slashdot's archives, but I don't really think you can sue Slashdot for that.
The existence of a possible alternative does not necessarily disprove monopoly. If a company is massively larger then its competitors, and tends toward stifling such competition (through legal maneuvering, buyouts, leveraging their market dominance), it can certainly be defined as a monopoly in practice.
You can argue whether or not Microsoft itself meets the definition, but the existence of Linux and Apple does -not- prove that the answer is no.
To my view, the "snowball effect" present in computer software (the biggest, most popular platform will tend to see the most programs available for it, and the platform with the most programs available for it will be the one which tends to grow) does indeed indicate that monopoly conditions can easily occur in that field. It may indicate that this monopoly, unlikely as it seems on its face, is a natural one rather than imposed.
However, even if that is the case, natural monopolies are supposed to be closely regulated. In this case, regulation should include:
Price regulation: Since Windows is such a de facto OS, its price should be closely regulated to prevent gouging. This may only apply to the desktop market, since Linux is a significant alternative in the server arena. This may also be something to evaluate removal of once Apple breaks into the x86 market-but that would depend on how well it does.
Closer evaluation of anticompetitive practices: Microsoft is a known, convicted antitrust violator, and has done some very unethical things all the way back to DrDOS. To begin, they should be required to use open and accessible standards, be forbidden from "lockdown" practices (such as file formats deliberately obfuscated to work only with their own software), and ensuring that Windows is designed in such a way that programs written for it can be run on other operating systems without a great deal of difficulty, when this is technologically feasible.
Anticompetitive patenting or patent litigation: While Microsoft, to my knowledge, has not been massively guilty of this so far, they have a ton of patents and might resort to it if other regulations were imposed.
Certainly so. Even the MUD I admin for has such an effect, and has for years (a 100 to -100 based "mind" status, a positive number representing insanity and negative representing fatigue. 0 is the optimal level.) Causes various in game effects, including failing to see things that are, seeing things that aren't, shifting colors in the text, random words getting scrambled, etc.
As they weren't patenting a specific "level" of graphics here, I wonder if even that would qualify for prior art? Is the EFF going to work to nail this one?
So you state, that during the period during which slavery was legal, and freeing a slave without his/her owner's permission was considered theft, it was wrong for the Underground Railroad to operate, in addition to illegal? That since it was illegal for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus, it was wrong? That since it was illegal for the 13 colonies to rebel against English authority, that it was wrong? That since dissent in totalitarian countries is illegal, it is wrong?
Given that, how is any system but totalitarianism a workable one, if we take the premise that the law is always right?
Well the RIAA, whatever they might like to think, is not a "law enforcement authority". Neither is it an "Internet service provider, network, or computing facility". And likely, the person who contacted them was a paralegal or something of that sort, not a "system administrator".
It says nothing about giving data to an "RIAA member", or anything that in a more general sense covers the RIAA, so this clause doesn't get 'em off the hook.
Given the situation you've described above (and I certainly empathize, I have three children of my own), I think we must ask ourselves, how free is our speech? For many of us who live paycheck-to-paycheck, getting fired is as grave a threat as jail time. Is our speech free while our employer is permitted to exercise such authority, even while that same authority is denied to elected officials?
For all those who are going to jump on me, I'm not talking about blogging WHILE at work-your employer has a right to expect that you are working while they are paying you. What I dispute that they have is a right to expect that you will live by their rules for your entire life, even while "off" of work. If that is the case, they should be paying you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year-otherwise, once they stop deciding that your time is worth their pay, they have also decided to relinquish any form of control.
Back under the bridge, troll. If it could be done, SOMEONE could have done it-if for no other reason then it can be an effective tactic to sneak in where no one's expecting it!
Is anyone saying that a Linux/Mac is absolutely invulnerable from attack and will be for all time? Well, some people do say that. Those people are idiots.
Is anyone saying that Linux and Mac are not INTRINSICALLY more secure then Windows? Well, some people say that, too. And those people are also idiots.
The "installed base" thing is garbage-these clueless script kids don't need a ton of machines to do their dirty work. What they DO need, given their (generally) limited skills, is an easy target, and Windows provides a nice, juicy one. Do you honestly think that with as many large servers on high-bandwidth lines use Linux, that if there was a way to bust in and own the machine, someone wouldn't be doing it by now?
And yes, if Linux and Macs become more popular, they WILL become more of a target. However, it is my firm belief, supported by quite a few professionals who have pretty sophisticated tests for these things, that they will STILL be harder targets.
Generally, I dislike feeding trolls, but this one has become far too pervasive and gone unchallenged way too many times. Now if you want to tell us that it's just as easy to attack a Linux box as a Windows box, please show me a study, that MICROSOFT DIDN'T PAY FOR, that says so.
There is no "relegating" of security and stability, both are part and parcel of functionality. If software is vulnerable to exploit or is unstable, then it cannot be considered functional.
Microsoft's mistake was not in "relegating"-it was in concentrating on making things LOOK functional to Joe Average User rather then making sure it WAS functional in every sense.
This, of course, completely ignores the basic ideas of property, including intellectual property, and good-faith agreements to not reveal your employer's secrets, not to mention fundamental ideas of ethics, and further ignores the idea that free speech is not, and never has been, absolute, in that it has ramifications.
1)Real, tangible property, 2)government-mandated artificial scarcity of artificial (intellectual) property, 3)contractual obligations, and 4)ethics are four different subjects. Lumping them together like that does us all a disservice.
What is NOT protected are their sources, who are breaking currently in force, legally binding confidentiality agreements to reveal the information
Apple sure hasn't been able to figure out the source of this stuff except for a bludgeon-style court proceeding! But presumably, in order to state that as fact, YOU must know who the source(s) is/are? Why don't you just tell Apple, then, and get the whole mess over with?
Unless, of course, it's you?
and the fact that the web sites, by publishing said information, are also in violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by 45 states including California.
Could you cite the ruling or source for that, please? I sure didn't see that in the opinion the judge gave.
If the distribution of data does not count as an "import" or "export", is it no longer illegal to, say, upload strong crypto to Cuba, since that (by your reasoning) does not count as an "export"?
I'd be interested to see a case that stated/ruled that distributing data to/receiving data from computers in a foreign country did NOT count as an export/import. I think this issue might be a little more grey then you make it out to be, I don't know of any rulings in the US that specifically address the issue of downloading from a foreign source. Now, of course, such import may be illegal anyway, rendering the question of whether it is an import or export moot, in this case. However, it was my understanding from the crypto cases and bans that data may absolutely be considered an import or export, even if it didn't involve any transfer of physical media.
Not trying to argue with you, just wishing for a little clarification on the point...
No...remember, copyright is only for the benefit of corporations too. You don't have the right to prevent the distribution of data that pertains to you, that right only extends to the latest pop song, that they've already chosen to release publicly, and then expect to tell said public what they may or may not do with it.
But that brings up an interesting point...isn't someone currently getting sued by Apple for collecting data on them without their authorization and distributing it? Are only corporations allowed to protect sensitive data, and punish those who distribute it without authorization? If "trade secrets" exist, surely "personal secrets" do too?
You are correct in that IP isn't really applied properly to trademarks. However, copyrights and patents both have one striking similarity-the concept that any one person can "own" an idea, even to the extent that they can forbid other people to speak it, work with it, or in any way act upon it. Why don't we come up with a counter-term for these toxic laws-how about "Idea Monopoly"? I can hear it now-"And don't you all know, infringing on our (we mean, the artists') Idea Monopoly is THEFT!!!!"
(cue laughter now, if someone hasn't patented that too)
I believe you're confusing "trademark" with "patent". BMW has the exclusive right to make cars called "BMW", but they are NOT trying to claim an exclusive right to make cars period.
I never said they shouldn't be able to fire you for failing to show up. If you fail to show up because you got arrested, that's no different then any other reason.
Actually, I've heard of wrongful-termination suits for quite a few different reasons, and many successful ones. That's in my state (Colorado). Just because there's not technically a law against something, doesn't mean that you can't sue on the grounds that it was unfair and damaging to you.
Slashdot Mirror
(Slightly OT) That's actually pretty cheap. Most companies here charge US $35-$60 for onsite calls. I occasionally help my father-in-law out at his computer shop, and while he's toward the low end of that, the recent spike in gas prices has him considering raising the rates.
Alright, back on topic. That 90% fits one of my categories-the casual ones. Those kids are going to want the shiny, flashy merchandise. If they like the CD, they're going to buy it eventually, because it looks cool. They'll probably also buy the T-shirt, and the concert ticket-there's some things you can't digitize, imagine the difference between taking your girlfriend to the Dave Matthews concert and asking her to come over for a bootleg recording of one!
However, I seriously doubt if most of these know how to rip anything but an unprotected CD to a mediocre .mp3, and if they even contribute those it'll be because their friend wants it and they incidentally throw it in their "shared" folder.
In fact, for others, it's simply a convenience. Most of the mp3's I download are from CD's I already own, but it's faster for me, on broadband, to grab the mp3 from someone who's already gone to the trouble, then to find the CD, throw it in, and then fire up LAME and rip it. I also most certainly have a burned copy of every CD I own-about 8 years ago someone stole my CD collection out of my car, was worth over $600. (Oh, by the way, though you haven't personally used the term-this demonstrates well the difference between "theft" and "copyright infringement". Do you think, had they simply made copies of the CD's right there and left the originals alone, I would have minded?) If they do it this time, the most valuable thing they'll get is the $30 case, and all I'll have to buy again is another spindle of blank discs. And yes, I did re-download mp3's for those stolen CD's that I hadn't replaced yet. I don't feel a bit bad about that, I already purchased them. Just because the available means for consumers to make backups came -after- the fact doesn't mean I won't use it.
However, you effectively proved my point-I would imagine probably 60-70% of P2P users fall into the "casual" category I put forth, and you explained further, and probably 15-20% into the power user-heavy supplier end. The rest are the hardcore freeloaders, I would imagine mainly broke college students who wouldn't have a nickel to spend on the stuff anyway. It's -still- free advertising, they're still being exposed to the product. Do you really think the college studen with 8 gigabytes of mp3's and $2 in his wallet would've purchased 200 CD's but for the evil P2P network?
In some cases, it's people that don't ever move stuff out of that good old "shared" folder in Limewire. In other cases, you bet your ass it is. I know plenty of filesharers who are outraged at the tactics currently being used and impelled to share all the more.
There are plenty of people who believe that filesharing is ethical and acceptable, and laws to stop it are unethical and unacceptable. Do you really think that you can outlaw something millions of people do all the time, and not see a backlash? Do you think a culture who values free speech likes suddenly having large blocks of content walled off from showing to their friends? Do you really think someone who spent the better part of a thousand bucks for their shiny new computer wants to be told they're going to have to shell out a load more for basic software?
The mistake made by the anti-filesharing crowd is in presuming that filesharers are simply a bunch of freeloaders who wouldn't pay a nickel for the best cause in the world. That's true of some. But I don't think even most. For most, it is either a casual, try-before-you-buy concept, or an expression of outrage at the out of control power of corporations and their abuses of that power. THAT, is a good cause. You're free to disagree, and you're free to defend the rights of corporations who, UNLIKE those who fileshare, are quite often convicted criminals. (At least in the case of Microsoft and the RIAA, I would be HAPPY to back this up.) But you've got quite the uphill battle convincing the public that an infinitely replicatable resource should be made artificially scarce for the purpose of extracting enormous sums of money from their wallets. Good luck, and we shall see who prevails!
You can help them become aware of it by showing evidence that this is true. Do you have a citation? I've never met anybody who's been "angered into sharing more" upon hearing about litigation against pirates. Have you?
Yes, I've met plenty. I doubt they'd appreciate me sharing their identity. However, statistically, P2P use is still on the rise and showing no signs of slowing.
However, requests for sources are always valid:
This story demonstrates the rise.
There are plenty of others. It is well known that Bittorrent, for example, makes up over 30% of Internet traffic, and (while I use it for them myself) that's not accounted for by Blizzard's patches and Linux distros.
It is pointless to try and stop a "crime" that millions of people are willing to permit, and even to commit. At this point, it's not a crime, it's an inevitability. Look at the failures of the various Prohibitions, for example.
Apple just sold its 50 millionth track online. The online music business is growing logarithmically. If you have evidence that their strategy isn't working, then great -- post it. Simple bromides like "the record industry doesn't get it" or "consumers don't want DRM" is great for self-congratulatory karma-whoring, but it looks like the record industry is finally taking hold of the online market.
I never said any of those things, so I feel no need to defend them, and in fact said that they are -not- fools. They are exploiters, they are monopolists, and they are in many ways operating at the edge or outside the edge of the law. But you don't get away with these behaviors for a century by being an idiot.
As I said none of the rest, you did, I'm not in the habit of wasting my time defending straw men.
Very broad statement. Some record companies are doing okay (particularly the conglomerates like Time Warner that have their fingers in a lot of pies and just happen to have a record label arm); some are scrimping by with 5% net margin over the year, and yeah, some of the publicly traded companies are losing money. But the vast majority of record labels -- the indies; the ones with twelve employees -- are not publicly traded.
Fair's fair, let's see YOUR sources. Indie labels overwhelmingly support and encourage filesharing, they're not about to turn down free advertising. Some even offer free downloads and a donation-based payment system right on their own website. This site has been operating for years now.
Correct again. If a company stops making money, it goes out of business. This is one of those universal things that isn't unique to the record industry.
Very true. And if a business doesn't give its consumers what they obviously want, they can't make money. That is also universally accepted in very diverse areas of business.
Your point is valid. However, CD's are the "old" medium, just as cassette tapes and records were decades ago, and will be naturally phased out in favor of the new-digital distribution. That will happen over a period of years, after all, people still own vinyl records! But very few seek to buy them anymore, and they are certainly not the source of anyone's profits. Cassette tapes still can be purchased, but again, are not the source of profits.
In the meantime, sure, CD's might remain a profit source, but ultimately a dwindling one. It's certainly not unnatural to see people not want to pay $15-$20 for a CD when they can burn their own (minus the songs they dislike, with whatever tracks they choose) for 15 cents or so. The only choice the "content providers" have now is clear-embrace digital distribution, the way the consumers want it, or go under. Every business has to serve the wants and desires of their consumers, those who have tried to have those desires legislated away are inevitably a footnote.
Did you read the study? Or are you trolling?
Well, this particular one deserves an answer regardless, so here it is.
It doesn't necessarily lead to that. It may lead to a prospective customer discovering an unknown band (whose CD they never would've bought or even considered without being able to download risk-free samples), falling in love, buying that band's CD's, T-shirts, and attending their concerts. A nice windfall for the band, AND for the consumer-neither would've known the other existed but for filesharing.
Of course any system will have freeloaders, that want to get out of paying for anything, ever. These are the same people that were borrowing or copying tapes from their friends nonstop. That's been happening for decades, and the sky hasn't fallen yet.
At first glance, this would seem futile.
From TFA:
The world's major record labels, represented by the Recording Industry Association of America, have filed more than 14,000 such lawsuits since September 2003.
This is an infinitesimal percent of filesharers, estimated in the tens or hundreds of millions. For every person scared off by these tactics, two others will be angered into sharing more. I cannot imagine that they are not aware of that by now.
Really, though, I don't think it is. I can't imagine the **AA's are really dumb enough to believe that this strategy will work-the one thing said about them that is untrue is that they are idiots. They have gotten away with massively unethical practices for a very long time, and idiots don't do that.
This is, however, a way to keep them in the public eye while they desperately scramble for a way to regain control over distribution-which is their true goal. They're not losing money. Check their earnings reports. This is true despite the fact that they are consistently releasing garbage. But what they are losing is control over largescale methods of distribution. That's what they can't stomach.
Everyone on this site is a convicted murderer who eats babies.
Just libeled all of you! (I hope). You may begin suing Slashdot now.
I'm inclined to agree. I think it's more that the courts have ruled you actually have the right to anonymity, so they're going after the first guy they -can- identify. I really doubt if it's going to go over, though. Certainly, I'm sure there's mountains of libelous text in Slashdot's archives, but I don't really think you can sue Slashdot for that.
The existence of a possible alternative does not necessarily disprove monopoly. If a company is massively larger then its competitors, and tends toward stifling such competition (through legal maneuvering, buyouts, leveraging their market dominance), it can certainly be defined as a monopoly in practice.
You can argue whether or not Microsoft itself meets the definition, but the existence of Linux and Apple does -not- prove that the answer is no.
To my view, the "snowball effect" present in computer software (the biggest, most popular platform will tend to see the most programs available for it, and the platform with the most programs available for it will be the one which tends to grow) does indeed indicate that monopoly conditions can easily occur in that field. It may indicate that this monopoly, unlikely as it seems on its face, is a natural one rather than imposed.
However, even if that is the case, natural monopolies are supposed to be closely regulated. In this case, regulation should include:
Price regulation: Since Windows is such a de facto OS, its price should be closely regulated to prevent gouging. This may only apply to the desktop market, since Linux is a significant alternative in the server arena. This may also be something to evaluate removal of once Apple breaks into the x86 market-but that would depend on how well it does.
Closer evaluation of anticompetitive practices: Microsoft is a known, convicted antitrust violator, and has done some very unethical things all the way back to DrDOS. To begin, they should be required to use open and accessible standards, be forbidden from "lockdown" practices (such as file formats deliberately obfuscated to work only with their own software), and ensuring that Windows is designed in such a way that programs written for it can be run on other operating systems without a great deal of difficulty, when this is technologically feasible.
Anticompetitive patenting or patent litigation: While Microsoft, to my knowledge, has not been massively guilty of this so far, they have a ton of patents and might resort to it if other regulations were imposed.
Certainly so. Even the MUD I admin for has such an effect, and has for years (a 100 to -100 based "mind" status, a positive number representing insanity and negative representing fatigue. 0 is the optimal level.) Causes various in game effects, including failing to see things that are, seeing things that aren't, shifting colors in the text, random words getting scrambled, etc.
As they weren't patenting a specific "level" of graphics here, I wonder if even that would qualify for prior art? Is the EFF going to work to nail this one?
So you state, that during the period during which slavery was legal, and freeing a slave without his/her owner's permission was considered theft, it was wrong for the Underground Railroad to operate, in addition to illegal? That since it was illegal for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus, it was wrong? That since it was illegal for the 13 colonies to rebel against English authority, that it was wrong? That since dissent in totalitarian countries is illegal, it is wrong?
Given that, how is any system but totalitarianism a workable one, if we take the premise that the law is always right?
Well the RIAA, whatever they might like to think, is not a "law enforcement authority". Neither is it an "Internet service provider, network, or computing facility". And likely, the person who contacted them was a paralegal or something of that sort, not a "system administrator".
It says nothing about giving data to an "RIAA member", or anything that in a more general sense covers the RIAA, so this clause doesn't get 'em off the hook.
Given the situation you've described above (and I certainly empathize, I have three children of my own), I think we must ask ourselves, how free is our speech? For many of us who live paycheck-to-paycheck, getting fired is as grave a threat as jail time. Is our speech free while our employer is permitted to exercise such authority, even while that same authority is denied to elected officials?
For all those who are going to jump on me, I'm not talking about blogging WHILE at work-your employer has a right to expect that you are working while they are paying you. What I dispute that they have is a right to expect that you will live by their rules for your entire life, even while "off" of work. If that is the case, they should be paying you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year-otherwise, once they stop deciding that your time is worth their pay, they have also decided to relinquish any form of control.
Back under the bridge, troll. If it could be done, SOMEONE could have done it-if for no other reason then it can be an effective tactic to sneak in where no one's expecting it!
Is anyone saying that a Linux/Mac is absolutely invulnerable from attack and will be for all time? Well, some people do say that. Those people are idiots.
Is anyone saying that Linux and Mac are not INTRINSICALLY more secure then Windows? Well, some people say that, too. And those people are also idiots.
The "installed base" thing is garbage-these clueless script kids don't need a ton of machines to do their dirty work. What they DO need, given their (generally) limited skills, is an easy target, and Windows provides a nice, juicy one. Do you honestly think that with as many large servers on high-bandwidth lines use Linux, that if there was a way to bust in and own the machine, someone wouldn't be doing it by now?
And yes, if Linux and Macs become more popular, they WILL become more of a target. However, it is my firm belief, supported by quite a few professionals who have pretty sophisticated tests for these things, that they will STILL be harder targets.
Generally, I dislike feeding trolls, but this one has become far too pervasive and gone unchallenged way too many times. Now if you want to tell us that it's just as easy to attack a Linux box as a Windows box, please show me a study, that MICROSOFT DIDN'T PAY FOR, that says so.
There is no "relegating" of security and stability, both are part and parcel of functionality. If software is vulnerable to exploit or is unstable, then it cannot be considered functional.
Microsoft's mistake was not in "relegating"-it was in concentrating on making things LOOK functional to Joe Average User rather then making sure it WAS functional in every sense.
Well, do you HAVE said proof, or are you trolling?
Would you sabotage your product to get people to buy more? Does this make any sense whatsoever?
Ever heard of a 486SX?
This, of course, completely ignores the basic ideas of property, including intellectual property, and good-faith agreements to not reveal your employer's secrets, not to mention fundamental ideas of ethics, and further ignores the idea that free speech is not, and never has been, absolute, in that it has ramifications.
1)Real, tangible property, 2)government-mandated artificial scarcity of artificial (intellectual) property, 3)contractual obligations, and 4)ethics are four different subjects. Lumping them together like that does us all a disservice.
You're sure having a better day then Apple!
What is NOT protected are their sources, who are breaking currently in force, legally binding confidentiality agreements to reveal the information
Apple sure hasn't been able to figure out the source of this stuff except for a bludgeon-style court proceeding! But presumably, in order to state that as fact, YOU must know who the source(s) is/are? Why don't you just tell Apple, then, and get the whole mess over with?
Unless, of course, it's you?
and the fact that the web sites, by publishing said information, are also in violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, versions of which have been adopted by 45 states including California.
Could you cite the ruling or source for that, please? I sure didn't see that in the opinion the judge gave.
If the distribution of data does not count as an "import" or "export", is it no longer illegal to, say, upload strong crypto to Cuba, since that (by your reasoning) does not count as an "export"?
I'd be interested to see a case that stated/ruled that distributing data to/receiving data from computers in a foreign country did NOT count as an export/import. I think this issue might be a little more grey then you make it out to be, I don't know of any rulings in the US that specifically address the issue of downloading from a foreign source. Now, of course, such import may be illegal anyway, rendering the question of whether it is an import or export moot, in this case. However, it was my understanding from the crypto cases and bans that data may absolutely be considered an import or export, even if it didn't involve any transfer of physical media.
Not trying to argue with you, just wishing for a little clarification on the point...
No...remember, copyright is only for the benefit of corporations too. You don't have the right to prevent the distribution of data that pertains to you, that right only extends to the latest pop song, that they've already chosen to release publicly, and then expect to tell said public what they may or may not do with it.
But that brings up an interesting point...isn't someone currently getting sued by Apple for collecting data on them without their authorization and distributing it? Are only corporations allowed to protect sensitive data, and punish those who distribute it without authorization? If "trade secrets" exist, surely "personal secrets" do too?
You are correct in that IP isn't really applied properly to trademarks. However, copyrights and patents both have one striking similarity-the concept that any one person can "own" an idea, even to the extent that they can forbid other people to speak it, work with it, or in any way act upon it. Why don't we come up with a counter-term for these toxic laws-how about "Idea Monopoly"? I can hear it now-"And don't you all know, infringing on our (we mean, the artists') Idea Monopoly is THEFT!!!!"
(cue laughter now, if someone hasn't patented that too)
I believe you're confusing "trademark" with "patent". BMW has the exclusive right to make cars called "BMW", but they are NOT trying to claim an exclusive right to make cars period.
I never said they shouldn't be able to fire you for failing to show up. If you fail to show up because you got arrested, that's no different then any other reason.
Actually, I've heard of wrongful-termination suits for quite a few different reasons, and many successful ones. That's in my state (Colorado). Just because there's not technically a law against something, doesn't mean that you can't sue on the grounds that it was unfair and damaging to you.