"sufficiently complex" and "decent amount of time" are so subjective as to be almost meaningless.
Are we going to have leaders in each field analyze patent applications so that they can best judge whether an idea is so unique that it deserves a monopoly? Probably not, so who's going to judge?
Are we going to make the "decent amount of time" relative to the uniqueness of the idea? Probably not, so how long should it be?
Are we going to impose our patents on the rest of the world?
The logistics of this subjective patenting process calls into question its very purpose. I like the idea behind patents (no secrets), but unless they are held to enormously high standards, they will deteriorate into what they often are in the US: an ugly hindrance to progress. -- Copyrights and Patents are optimization problems: maximize progress.
It may be different in various areas, but here 334Kbit DSL is about the same prices as 3Mbit cable. Roughly 10 times the data rate for roughly the same price isn't really equivalent...
334Kbps? Do you mean 384 Kbps? That's a bit low DL for comparable DSL in my area. 768 Kbps to 1.1 Mbps are more comparable in price.
Keep in mind that the cable cap of 3Mbps is theoretical and subject to sharing (usually just with those people in your area), while DSL is generally absolute (a point which is somehow never mentioned in Comcast's commercials or comparisons). Realistically, recently, I've gotten anywhere from 264 kbps to 1.1 Mbps with the average being in the high 700s. It used to be higher and cheaper before Comcast (back in 2002 I generally got 1414 kbps) and even higher and cheaper before ATT, though part of the bandwidth decline is simply them getting more customers without upgrading their equipment/lines. As I mentioned, with MediaOne, I had an uncapped (theoretical 10Mbps) connection for $35/mo.
As you can see, Comcast's recent "benevolent" theoretical bump from 1.5Mbps to 3Mbps made little difference in my case.
So, in my area, 3Mbps cable is approximately comparable to 768-1.1Mbps DSL in both bandwidth and price. Though I haven't investigated DSL in a while... maybe their prices have come down enough to make it worth switching. Ah, but then again, I might not be including the cost of the extra DSL phone line itself, so cable might still be a little cheaper.
DSL is not widespread, and won't be, considering the cost per bit is about 10 times the cost per bit of cable modem. The reliablility of DSL is better, but that doesn't help if you can't get it, or can't afford it...
Yup, coax is a much better transmission line than twisted pair. I think the higher cost comes from equipment and the small distances that can be traversed by DSL before irrecoverable signal degradation. I'm rather amazed DSL even exists at such high speeds. I blame the inherently high cost of DSL (along with the cable monopoly) for the reason my cable internet rates rose while service declined. While DSL seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of profit (probably also due to the messed up telco situation), Cable seems to have a huge profit margin.
as you say, we can always choose another provider
I keep arguing against this idea, since it is, in my experience, patently untrue.
Good point. I agree. I suppose that statement of mine was more theoretical than realistic. Cable is definitely a monopoly. I'm inclined to say they should be forced to share the physical coax and optics amongst service providers, but that would be logistically complex.
Time Warner/Road Runner actually sold me cable broadband without requiring me to buy television programming at one location I set up; I'll be interested to see how the fuhklehedded twits at comcast react when I suggest to them that they should do the same).
From my experience, they will just charge you a bit more (or rather, they'll charge you $5 less if you also pay $40/mo for basic analog cable TV). Most of the time they filter out the analog channels externally, so it's not like you'll get them for free.
Of course, it is; but that is true anywhere, even in the US. They are not mutually exclusive. I can only see it as a positive for the African countries that they are advancing technologically.
that the west should concentrate on sending food aid
IMHO, if "the west" wants to help, they should concentrate on helping them grow their own food. Teach a man to fish.
A bit like the clueless anti-globalisation protestors
Perhaps I am clueless, but I can't help but think that certain African countries would have been better off with isolationist policies. Becoming in debt and dependent upon external goods has caused them to essentially be under the control and mercy of foreign governments, corporations, the World Bank, etc.
Of course, corruption (which plagues all nations of the world) is probably a key underlying cause which must also be somehow obviated.
Don't get me wrong, canceling debt can be a good thing, but it's good that African economies can develop intellectual property for export if natural resources are not abundant.
Sounds like you're arguing against FOSS, which is best supported by ancillary funding rather than on direct lease or sale of IP.
Actually, under the US Constitution, people don't have that right.
The US Constitution protects rights, it does not give rights. Arguably, it could be associated with land property, but you're correct that ultimately, the fact that it is not explicitly mentioned leaves it to "The People" -- i.e. our representatives.
But anyway, the equal protection clause would prevent regulations that allowed Des Moines residents to run unlicensed radio stations while preventing New York City residents from doing the same.
IANAL, but I don't think "equal protection" covers geographical area... especially in this case since distance and landscape affects signal propagation.
I've read laws that apply only to very specific geographical areas along with other "independent" characteristics, essentially in order to make the law apply to a particular person or group. Theoretically, anyone can have or attain those characteristics, hence it does not fall under "equal protection". Of course, there are other laws which prohibit discrimination based upon other criteria, but again, I don't think "geographical area" is one of those criteria.
Perhaps it can even be argued that microbroadcasting isn't even a federal issue, but rather a state issue. IIRC, Feds are only supposed to get involved in interstate issues (EU be warned).
Because there are not enough of those resources for everyone to use them at the same time, even in Des Moines, IA.
I'm not sure of the veracity of that statement, at least in a practical sense, but the point is that unsold bandwidth could certainly be used by locals and that perhaps even a bigger chunk should be reserved for locals to use or allocate.
GGP: Why can't WE THE PEOPLE, by whose authority public resources are SUPPOSED to be available fairly (if not equally), use broadcast media for our own purposes?
GP: Because there are not enough of those resources for everyone to use them at the same time, even in Des Moines, IA.
P: Well, then, it's sure a good thing that rich companies get the vast majority of what's out there.
The problem is confusion over who "The People" are. "We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice,...". Our government officials believe they represent "The People", so in a sense, they are "The People". Hence, the government IS "The People". Hence, like it or not, "The People" decided to auction off bandwidth rather than another allocation scheme.
Furthermore, when bandwidth is auctioned off, the money goes to the government (i.e. "The People"). The fact that that money essentially disappears into a vague blackhole of government programs is what causes people to believe that the "rich companies" are getting away with something... perhaps along with the fact that the bandwidth might be worth more than it is sold for, but value is debatable.
Theoretically, if all bandwidth was not sold but maintained for local use, the money lost from the auctions would have to be made up for in taxes.
That said, I agree that more bandwidth should be allocated for local use... particularly in cases where bandwidth goes unsold for a reasonable price.
btw: is it the FCC who allocates all bandwidth, or does each state or community get to allocate some bandwidth?
I suspect you're right that it is for control over future network appliances, but Comcast already has their own telephone service. It travels over cable, but connects to traditional in-house telephone wiring. It uses the customer's power for the necessary voltage (generally with a backup battery). It might actually be VoIP, I'm not sure.
I'm not sure why you are more inclined to trust Comcast than AOLTW or ATT. I have seen nothing from Comcast to indicate they are any better than the others. In fact, I miss MediaOne -- back when uncapped cable internet access was only $35/mo. Now the prices are roughly equivalent to DSL. Don't even get me started on their crappy digital cable TV service.
The problem isn't one company having fine grained control over their customers, as you say, we can always choose another provider. The problem comes when most companies do it with relatively little negative impact until competitors who are not doing it are eliminated. It's like boiling a frog by slowly raising the temperature.
After all, the valuable stuff is the data (which Joe User won't have backed up recently), not the applications and configuration information that might be protected to non-root users.
I agree entirely. It's amazing how many people think Linux is inherently more secure than Windows. I even hesitated using Linux because I couldn't find an easy-to-use network ACL manager as exists in most modern Windows firewalls (actually, just ZoneAlarm at the time).
Without fine grained ACL management, the key is to (almost) never use root AND to use a different user for each important task, or at least a separate user for trying new programs (including attachments, packages, etc.) in order to minimize potential damage and independently analyze the resources used. Unfortunately, this is a huge hassle, so it is rarely done on either Windows or Linux.
If such precautions are not taken then it is debateable whether using root on a single user system is even that significant since it is the user data and basic access to the resources (e.g. for spreading a virus/worm) which is important to most people and not the OS or applications.
Personally, I have high hopes for SELinux in Fedora Core 2. Hopefully other distributions will proceed similarly toward sandboxing with fine grained ACLs. I'd love to have tools for easily and dynamically managing ACLs in Linux, with most of the standard ones already determined by the distributors.
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint throughout this thread. A couple of times when I was about to post a rebuttal, I found your post expressing something similar to my own sentiments.
I believe the NSA Linux modifications provide the functionality.
SELinux ("NSA Linux") actually allows much more fine grained control than modern windows firewalls (which obviously only restrict network access, usually in only very basic ways).
The problem is how difficult it can be to use -- especially dynamically. Once you set up a system with the right ACLs, it is very safe (though slower), but tools for dynamically forming those ACLs when an access violation occurs (e.g. new program requesting resources) are very poor and cumbersome (at least most of the free ones).
Ideally, I think a web of trust should be created which provides standard (minimal?) ACLs for each program from its developers. These provided ACLs can then be analyzed for reasonability (or ask the user in case of violation, all at once) and the program can then run in a sandbox with the given access rights.
IIRC, SELinux will be standard in Fedora Core 2, so maybe the necessary user-friendly tools will be developed?
Actually... Scott McNealey would have to use the patents....NET falls under most of the Java VM patents.
Somewhat true but, unfortunately, irrelevant.
Sun and Microsoft Settle Litigation Posted by michael on Fri Apr 02, '04 11:20 AM from the I-guess-we-can-all-just-get-along dept. spurious cowherd writes "According to The Register Sun Microsystems & Microsoft have reached a settlement in their several lawsuits against each other. Sun gets $2B and both parties agree to share intellectual property." There's a press release to read as well.
You make an excellent point. Of course, I think you could also use the ring tone argument to indicate that linux does have a consumer market... to save users $3.5 Billion so they can upload their own music to their cell. AFAICT, the main reason they are making that much money is because of their secret and non-standard means of uploading content to cell phones. It's like the basic cell phone service itself -- money is made through obscurity and confusing the customer.
I've been asked by many people to help them install ring tones (or images, etc.) on their diverse cell phones. Quite a few of them actually have the tune they want to use, the problem is getting it to their phone and integrating it. In some cases, there is info or hacks which work, but most of the time it is too time consuming and I tend to just give up and suggest they pay for whatever service the manufacturer is offering if it is important enough to them.
OTOH, if I could safely install linux and show them a standard process of transfer, I'm sure that most of them would use it and prefer it... even at a cost. e.g. You'd have the choice of either paying a subscription or per-ringtone, image, etc. or perhaps pay once to upgrade to linux and use your phone as you like.
If word spread that having "Linux" allowed you this freedom on your cell phone, I suspect many people will come to want it. Of course, as I indicated earlier, this whole idea of consumer freedom is contrary to the way these cell phone services make much of their money, so I'm not sure why they would be encouraged to use linux (unless they "crippled" it with proprietary extensions).
Fascinating. Thanks for the info. Is this intentional?... for some sort of potential copyright linking issues?... or do you think if someone submitted a patch to slashcode that it would be accepted?
Perhaps some of the ed2k clients could be patched for the whitespace issue, or we could use a simple web redirection script (is there a free redirector out there that redirects to the link encoded in the url?). It's a shame that it's so difficult.
btw: I noticed that if you ascii escape the colon, it keeps the rest of the characters, but makes the whole url relative to slashdot.org.
Its success seems to be due to the use of fast servers early on in its deployment. While its nature might improve spreading rate through coordination, the cost is centralization and "burst" pattern sharing.
I don't know why protocols like ed2k or overnet haven't caught on with the slashdot crowd.
Hmmm.... it looks like Sony's version may be more accurate than my prior understanding: Beta vs. VHS.
In any case, isolation through proprietary standards in order to maximize profit seems to be the current modus operandi of Sony. Though this strategy may reduce their market, if they profit from it, they may still consider it a success, and less risky than cooperating with others.
I wasn't even thinking about opera... more along the lines of Firefly, My So-Called Life, etc. Shows that I thought were high quality, but did not succeed past a single season, and therefore, by your argument, were not very good.
At least with "TV On Demand", we'd be able to see if those who like such shows can generate enough capital to keep them running. Unfortunately, while the viewer base is small, the price would be rather high, but that seems fair.
If they were only an electronics company, their products would probably much better from the consumer's standpoint.
Alas, I fear they do not have the consumer'$ best interest at heart.
But I agree with your point. The consumer would be much better off if the electronics manufacturers weren't taking their cue from the content industry (cf. DVD-Video), but rather the reverse.
But I don't think having control over both hardware and content really hinders Sony in any way, since the entire content industry is screaming for DRM. If any of the hardware manufacturers do not comply, they will either be breaking the law or using a standard for media that will not be used by the big content producers, thereby ensuring their demise.
The benefits of multi-national, cross-industry corporations seems overwhelming. Sony has instant content available for whatever electronic devices they create.
...are what first sprung to mind. Perhaps the analogy isn't quite right, but I think Sony's making a somewhat similar mistake here. But then I realized that maybe Sony considered Betamax to be a success?... and at the time, they didn't even control any content, like they do now.
It's interesting how Sony portrays their own history.
Any idea how the Japanese generally feel about DRM? They seem to be at the forefront of all technology, apparently buying all the new gadgets that come out.
Come to think of it, with my perceptions being warped by/., I'm not even sure how the vast US or EU feel about DRM, albeit they are much larger and perhaps harder to characterize.
btw: Did they start in Japan like electronics companies often do, or did they start this service in the US?
that might not be necessary, if you make a good value, easy to use product you automatically bypass potential for piracy by making it easier to just do things the legal way.
Since when have you known any media corporation to use that logic?
OT: I'm curious how the price of the TV license is determined? i.e. What is to prevent it from rising beyond its worth (which, granted, is quite subjective)? Not that I don't like BBC programming... I do.
Who said anything about burning to VCD or DVD? They do not have the necessary inherent DRM controls to accomplish the necessary time or usage restrictions.
My guess is that it will have to be played on a computer or across a network, using only DRM protected software (and maybe hardware), with macrovision at the end if it goes to an analog TV.
Digital TV has been mandated by the U.S. Congress. All television stations must convert to digital format or go off the air. Stations must also support the current analog format until 2006 or until 85% of households have digital equipment.
The Federal Communications Commission recently voted to require electronics manufacturers to include digital tuners in all new television sets by 2007 -- the agency's strongest action to speed the federally required conversion to digital television.
Hence, everyone who buys a television after 2007 will necessarily contribute to the 85% required before analog is ditched.
Theoretically, it is "possible" that everyone will stop buying new equipment, but realistically, the government has "mandated" digital content. Perhaps he should have said "effectively mandated".
By making content that can only be played on DRMed systems, companies are going to be betting their whole empire on the publuc accepting it... I doubt they'll be that dumb.
Somehow, the whole public accepted the DVD-Video standard, even though they included CSS, region codes, user operation prohibitions, and macrovision. If they can minimize negative impact upon the wishes of the majority while increasing some ease of use and/or desired content, they can successfully phase it in.
I don't even consider the present music services DRM as unbreakable because they all let you make at least one analog CD through the front door.
Since when are audio CDs "analog"? Little by little, step by step. You can make 10 CDs from the songs you purchased. Wow. That's actually a lot. Oops... now you can only make 7 CDs. Eh. It's still a lot. See how easy that was? Relatively little impact, too.
While I tend to agree with your sentiment, it is the modern copyright laws that scare me, and, IMHO, they should scare everyone, because it is only by the power of law that strict DRM will succeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Is the EU bound to obey the USPTO by some treaty? If so, you're right, that does sound kinda stupid.
"sufficiently complex" and "decent amount of time" are so subjective as to be almost meaningless.
Are we going to have leaders in each field analyze patent applications so that they can best judge whether an idea is so unique that it deserves a monopoly? Probably not, so who's going to judge?
Are we going to make the "decent amount of time" relative to the uniqueness of the idea? Probably not, so how long should it be?
Are we going to impose our patents on the rest of the world?
The logistics of this subjective patenting process calls into question its very purpose. I like the idea behind patents (no secrets), but unless they are held to enormously high standards, they will deteriorate into what they often are in the US: an ugly hindrance to progress.
--
Copyrights and Patents are optimization problems: maximize progress.
Keep in mind that the cable cap of 3Mbps is theoretical and subject to sharing (usually just with those people in your area), while DSL is generally absolute (a point which is somehow never mentioned in Comcast's commercials or comparisons). Realistically, recently, I've gotten anywhere from 264 kbps to 1.1 Mbps with the average being in the high 700s. It used to be higher and cheaper before Comcast (back in 2002 I generally got 1414 kbps) and even higher and cheaper before ATT, though part of the bandwidth decline is simply them getting more customers without upgrading their equipment/lines. As I mentioned, with MediaOne, I had an uncapped (theoretical 10Mbps) connection for $35/mo.
As you can see, Comcast's recent "benevolent" theoretical bump from 1.5Mbps to 3Mbps made little difference in my case.
So, in my area, 3Mbps cable is approximately comparable to 768-1.1Mbps DSL in both bandwidth and price. Though I haven't investigated DSL in a while... maybe their prices have come down enough to make it worth switching. Ah, but then again, I might not be including the cost of the extra DSL phone line itself, so cable might still be a little cheaper.Yup, coax is a much better transmission line than twisted pair. I think the higher cost comes from equipment and the small distances that can be traversed by DSL before irrecoverable signal degradation. I'm rather amazed DSL even exists at such high speeds. I blame the inherently high cost of DSL (along with the cable monopoly) for the reason my cable internet rates rose while service declined. While DSL seems to be scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of profit (probably also due to the messed up telco situation), Cable seems to have a huge profit margin.Good point. I agree. I suppose that statement of mine was more theoretical than realistic. Cable is definitely a monopoly. I'm inclined to say they should be forced to share the physical coax and optics amongst service providers, but that would be logistically complex.From my experience, they will just charge you a bit more (or rather, they'll charge you $5 less if you also pay $40/mo for basic analog cable TV). Most of the time they filter out the analog channels externally, so it's not like you'll get them for free.
Of course, corruption (which plagues all nations of the world) is probably a key underlying cause which must also be somehow obviated.Sounds like you're arguing against FOSS, which is best supported by ancillary funding rather than on direct lease or sale of IP.
Actually, under the US Constitution, people don't have that right.
The US Constitution protects rights, it does not give rights. Arguably, it could be associated with land property, but you're correct that ultimately, the fact that it is not explicitly mentioned leaves it to "The People" -- i.e. our representatives.
But anyway, the equal protection clause would prevent regulations that allowed Des Moines residents to run unlicensed radio stations while preventing New York City residents from doing the same.
IANAL, but I don't think "equal protection" covers geographical area... especially in this case since distance and landscape affects signal propagation.
I've read laws that apply only to very specific geographical areas along with other "independent" characteristics, essentially in order to make the law apply to a particular person or group. Theoretically, anyone can have or attain those characteristics, hence it does not fall under "equal protection". Of course, there are other laws which prohibit discrimination based upon other criteria, but again, I don't think "geographical area" is one of those criteria.
Perhaps it can even be argued that microbroadcasting isn't even a federal issue, but rather a state issue. IIRC, Feds are only supposed to get involved in interstate issues (EU be warned).
Because there are not enough of those resources for everyone to use them at the same time, even in Des Moines, IA.
I'm not sure of the veracity of that statement, at least in a practical sense, but the point is that unsold bandwidth could certainly be used by locals and that perhaps even a bigger chunk should be reserved for locals to use or allocate.
GGP: Why can't WE THE PEOPLE, by whose authority public resources are SUPPOSED to be available fairly (if not equally), use broadcast media for our own purposes?
...". Our government officials believe they represent "The People", so in a sense, they are "The People". Hence, the government IS "The People". Hence, like it or not, "The People" decided to auction off bandwidth rather than another allocation scheme.
GP: Because there are not enough of those resources for everyone to use them at the same time, even in Des Moines, IA.
P: Well, then, it's sure a good thing that rich companies get the vast majority of what's out there.
The problem is confusion over who "The People" are. "We the people, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice,
Furthermore, when bandwidth is auctioned off, the money goes to the government (i.e. "The People"). The fact that that money essentially disappears into a vague blackhole of government programs is what causes people to believe that the "rich companies" are getting away with something... perhaps along with the fact that the bandwidth might be worth more than it is sold for, but value is debatable.
Theoretically, if all bandwidth was not sold but maintained for local use, the money lost from the auctions would have to be made up for in taxes.
That said, I agree that more bandwidth should be allocated for local use... particularly in cases where bandwidth goes unsold for a reasonable price.
btw: is it the FCC who allocates all bandwidth, or does each state or community get to allocate some bandwidth?
I suspect you're right that it is for control over future network appliances, but Comcast already has their own telephone service. It travels over cable, but connects to traditional in-house telephone wiring. It uses the customer's power for the necessary voltage (generally with a backup battery). It might actually be VoIP, I'm not sure.
I'm not sure why you are more inclined to trust Comcast than AOLTW or ATT. I have seen nothing from Comcast to indicate they are any better than the others. In fact, I miss MediaOne -- back when uncapped cable internet access was only $35/mo. Now the prices are roughly equivalent to DSL. Don't even get me started on their crappy digital cable TV service.
The problem isn't one company having fine grained control over their customers, as you say, we can always choose another provider. The problem comes when most companies do it with relatively little negative impact until competitors who are not doing it are eliminated. It's like boiling a frog by slowly raising the temperature.
After all, the valuable stuff is the data (which Joe User won't have backed up recently), not the applications and configuration information that might be protected to non-root users.
I agree entirely. It's amazing how many people think Linux is inherently more secure than Windows. I even hesitated using Linux because I couldn't find an easy-to-use network ACL manager as exists in most modern Windows firewalls (actually, just ZoneAlarm at the time).
Without fine grained ACL management, the key is to (almost) never use root AND to use a different user for each important task, or at least a separate user for trying new programs (including attachments, packages, etc.) in order to minimize potential damage and independently analyze the resources used. Unfortunately, this is a huge hassle, so it is rarely done on either Windows or Linux.
If such precautions are not taken then it is debateable whether using root on a single user system is even that significant since it is the user data and basic access to the resources (e.g. for spreading a virus/worm) which is important to most people and not the OS or applications.
Personally, I have high hopes for SELinux in Fedora Core 2. Hopefully other distributions will proceed similarly toward sandboxing with fine grained ACLs. I'd love to have tools for easily and dynamically managing ACLs in Linux, with most of the standard ones already determined by the distributors.
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint throughout this thread. A couple of times when I was about to post a rebuttal, I found your post expressing something similar to my own sentiments.
I believe the NSA Linux modifications provide the functionality.
SELinux ("NSA Linux") actually allows much more fine grained control than modern windows firewalls (which obviously only restrict network access, usually in only very basic ways).
The problem is how difficult it can be to use -- especially dynamically. Once you set up a system with the right ACLs, it is very safe (though slower), but tools for dynamically forming those ACLs when an access violation occurs (e.g. new program requesting resources) are very poor and cumbersome (at least most of the free ones).
Ideally, I think a web of trust should be created which provides standard (minimal?) ACLs for each program from its developers. These provided ACLs can then be analyzed for reasonability (or ask the user in case of violation, all at once) and the program can then run in a sandbox with the given access rights.
IIRC, SELinux will be standard in Fedora Core 2, so maybe the necessary user-friendly tools will be developed?
Actually... Scott McNealey would have to use the patents... .NET falls under most of the Java VM patents.
Somewhat true but, unfortunately, irrelevant.
Sun and Microsoft Settle Litigation
Posted by michael on Fri Apr 02, '04 11:20 AM
from the I-guess-we-can-all-just-get-along dept.
spurious cowherd writes "According to The Register Sun Microsystems & Microsoft have reached a settlement in their several lawsuits against each other. Sun gets $2B and both parties agree to share intellectual property." There's a press release to read as well.
Also Update: Sun, Microsoft settle suit in billion-dollar pact
You make an excellent point. Of course, I think you could also use the ring tone argument to indicate that linux does have a consumer market... to save users $3.5 Billion so they can upload their own music to their cell. AFAICT, the main reason they are making that much money is because of their secret and non-standard means of uploading content to cell phones. It's like the basic cell phone service itself -- money is made through obscurity and confusing the customer.
I've been asked by many people to help them install ring tones (or images, etc.) on their diverse cell phones. Quite a few of them actually have the tune they want to use, the problem is getting it to their phone and integrating it. In some cases, there is info or hacks which work, but most of the time it is too time consuming and I tend to just give up and suggest they pay for whatever service the manufacturer is offering if it is important enough to them.
OTOH, if I could safely install linux and show them a standard process of transfer, I'm sure that most of them would use it and prefer it... even at a cost. e.g. You'd have the choice of either paying a subscription or per-ringtone, image, etc. or perhaps pay once to upgrade to linux and use your phone as you like.
If word spread that having "Linux" allowed you this freedom on your cell phone, I suspect many people will come to want it. Of course, as I indicated earlier, this whole idea of consumer freedom is contrary to the way these cell phone services make much of their money, so I'm not sure why they would be encouraged to use linux (unless they "crippled" it with proprietary extensions).
Dangit, I forgot to correct the link in my previous comment, sorry.
Wow, a +5 informative, and no one clicked the link. I'm impressed.
Fascinating. Thanks for the info. Is this intentional? ... for some sort of potential copyright linking issues? ... or do you think if someone submitted a patch to slashcode that it would be accepted?
Perhaps some of the ed2k clients could be patched for the whitespace issue, or we could use a simple web redirection script (is there a free redirector out there that redirects to the link encoded in the url?). It's a shame that it's so difficult.
btw: I noticed that if you ascii escape the colon, it keeps the rest of the characters, but makes the whole url relative to slashdot.org.
test
How BitTorrent became so popular, I don't know.
Its success seems to be due to the use of fast servers early on in its deployment. While its nature might improve spreading rate through coordination, the cost is centralization and "burst" pattern sharing.
I don't know why protocols like ed2k or overnet haven't caught on with the slashdot crowd.
Hmmm.... it looks like Sony's version may be more accurate than my prior understanding: Beta vs. VHS.
In any case, isolation through proprietary standards in order to maximize profit seems to be the current modus operandi of Sony. Though this strategy may reduce their market, if they profit from it, they may still consider it a success, and less risky than cooperating with others.
I really hate to crush such optimism, but patents are intended to be anti-competitive by their very nature (for a limited time).
Plus, looking at the results of the previous anti-trust trial (at least in the US), I'm not so optimistic.
I wasn't even thinking about opera... more along the lines of Firefly, My So-Called Life, etc. Shows that I thought were high quality, but did not succeed past a single season, and therefore, by your argument, were not very good.
At least with "TV On Demand", we'd be able to see if those who like such shows can generate enough capital to keep them running. Unfortunately, while the viewer base is small, the price would be rather high, but that seems fair.
If they were only an electronics company, their products would probably much better from the consumer's standpoint.
Alas, I fear they do not have the consumer'$ best interest at heart.
But I agree with your point. The consumer would be much better off if the electronics manufacturers weren't taking their cue from the content industry (cf. DVD-Video), but rather the reverse.
But I don't think having control over both hardware and content really hinders Sony in any way, since the entire content industry is screaming for DRM. If any of the hardware manufacturers do not comply, they will either be breaking the law or using a standard for media that will not be used by the big content producers, thereby ensuring their demise.
The benefits of multi-national, cross-industry corporations seems overwhelming. Sony has instant content available for whatever electronic devices they create.
...are what first sprung to mind. Perhaps the analogy isn't quite right, but I think Sony's making a somewhat similar mistake here. But then I realized that maybe Sony considered Betamax to be a success? ... and at the time, they didn't even control any content, like they do now.
It's interesting how Sony portrays their own history.
Any idea how the Japanese generally feel about DRM? They seem to be at the forefront of all technology, apparently buying all the new gadgets that come out.
/., I'm not even sure how the vast US or EU feel about DRM, albeit they are much larger and perhaps harder to characterize.
Come to think of it, with my perceptions being warped by
btw: Did they start in Japan like electronics companies often do, or did they start this service in the US?
that might not be necessary, if you make a good value, easy to use product you automatically bypass potential for piracy by making it easier to just do things the legal way.
Since when have you known any media corporation to use that logic?
OT: I'm curious how the price of the TV license is determined? i.e. What is to prevent it from rising beyond its worth (which, granted, is quite subjective)? Not that I don't like BBC programming... I do.
Who said anything about burning to VCD or DVD? They do not have the necessary inherent DRM controls to accomplish the necessary time or usage restrictions.
My guess is that it will have to be played on a computer or across a network, using only DRM protected software (and maybe hardware), with macrovision at the end if it goes to an analog TV.
Just in case you were serious...
Digital TV has been mandated by the U.S. Congress. All television stations must convert to digital format or go off the air. Stations must also support the current analog format until 2006 or until 85% of households have digital equipment.
The Federal Communications Commission recently voted to require electronics manufacturers to include digital tuners in all new television sets by 2007 -- the agency's strongest action to speed the federally required conversion to digital television.
Hence, everyone who buys a television after 2007 will necessarily contribute to the 85% required before analog is ditched.
Theoretically, it is "possible" that everyone will stop buying new equipment, but realistically, the government has "mandated" digital content. Perhaps he should have said "effectively mandated".
By making content that can only be played on DRMed systems, companies are going to be betting their whole empire on the publuc accepting it... I doubt they'll be that dumb.
Somehow, the whole public accepted the DVD-Video standard, even though they included CSS, region codes, user operation prohibitions, and macrovision. If they can minimize negative impact upon the wishes of the majority while increasing some ease of use and/or desired content, they can successfully phase it in.
I don't even consider the present music services DRM as unbreakable because they all let you make at least one analog CD through the front door.
Since when are audio CDs "analog"? Little by little, step by step. You can make 10 CDs from the songs you purchased. Wow. That's actually a lot. Oops... now you can only make 7 CDs. Eh. It's still a lot. See how easy that was? Relatively little impact, too.
While I tend to agree with your sentiment, it is the modern copyright laws that scare me, and, IMHO, they should scare everyone, because it is only by the power of law that strict DRM will succeed.