If a contract is invalidated in court, it means no one has any more rights from it. Apple stops selling the music under the terms of the contract. They do not magically get new terms just because the old ones have been declared null and void. Government puts a rule saying Apple can't sell DRM tunes. Fine, they stop. Until they can get labels to agree, they will not be able to sell any music.
I mean, why would someone really want high resolution pictures of sensitive facilities. I mean, damn. It's one thing to really want to read about Falun Gong on the internet, but to really have a need to know about sensitive facilities it quite something else.
It is OK for George Bush to entertain as his guest the President of the allegedly evil Chinese regime, and it is OK for the USA to support a country that has probably worse human rights violations (Saudi Arabia), but it is not OK for Google to remove results fro mthe index that are blocked by the great firewall of China.
Hmmm.
If the government wants to be taken seriously, then the first thing they should legislate is to make it illegal for them to kill innocent people in other countries because some baddies came and killed innocent people in their country. Now that would be progress.
But imagine if it was simpler to have your HD DVD and you Blu ray working properly on Linux, regardless the legality of it, and you couldn't do that with Windows. One small step for Linux.
It is fraud. The seller has agreed to sell it to the highest bidder, and then he manipulates the situation and puts in his fake bids to push the price up. The buyer, is buying on the understanding that someone wanted the item for, say, $34, and he buys it for 35. But in actual fact, the highest bid was $15.
If you go to an auction, and the auctioneer starts mouthing off prices no one is offering, people would ge mighty upset. That is no different to what is happening here.
Since Linux will invariably end up with hacks to get the new generation media to work, wouldn't it be mighty funny if the only OS you could watch your HD videos in all their glory on whatever monitor you choose ended up being Linux (or BSD or Solaris before some deities smite me)
I would have to disagree to a point. If producers will only produce for a 30% return, then that is what they will get. The equilibrium would just be at the market clearing price, where producers earn their 'cost + 30%', and consumer pay what they are willing to pay.
The only reason that people pay that much money is because it comes with seriously good software. Ergo, people are paying for the software. They just don't sell it separately. Why else do you think they charge people for newer versions of their software. They want to make money of it.
Apple doesn't sell hardware without software, so there is no way to say they make money on the hardware than on the software.
Google faced a choice. As a company, it was not good for them to lose customers because their site was unavailable at times because of the 'Great Firewall of China'. So they decided to put some servers in China.
As an employer, they would put many people at risk if they did not comply with the laws of China. Brin and co, from their luxurious offices at the googleplex, would not be affected by any backlash in China. Their employees could face jail time or even death if China deemed their actions to be subversive. So they decided to steer clear of that. Note that other companies had to hand over information to the authorities because in china, you have to comply with their laws (Yahoo comes to mind). Google would have been in the same position. Would you rather they a) ratted on troublemakers or b) sacrificed their own employees. Make no mistake, if the government wants to punish someone, they will find someone.
As a provider of a quality service, they did not think it was a good idea to have links that pointed to sites that 'did not exist', which is how these would seem to a casual Chinese browser. So they tell them instead that the information is censored in accordance with applicable laws.
Lastly, they left google.com accessible to the Chinese. In the uk, if try to go to google.com, it redirects me to google.co.uk. In China, it goes to google proper, and they can get the links to the sites that 'don't exist' there.
I would say, given the situation, the could probably not have done any better, besides leaving China in a huff.
No they don't. The amount of money they spend on software tends to prove that point. Apple sells the same hardware (more or less) as Dell nowadays. The software is the whole difference. That is why they make money.
I remember making this point once on Slashdot that this will likely fizzle out after a media storm, which the politicians will weather. People like telling themselves that Russia is no longer a world power, but no one really wants to put that assertion to the test. Plus with Gas, you're screwed. If they turn off their gas, the effect will be greater than an active act of war.
If the Saudi's had that sort of hold over Bush, they would be mighty proud.
So don't buy from the iTunes store. Buy Cds and rip them. Or is that too hard for you. You want the government to legislate to make it easier for you.
I do not have an iPod, but in my case because it won't play vorbis and flac. So there, I voted with my dollars (or pounds rather). This is not like the Windows situation where for a long time, there was not alternative. Now you do run Linux (Like I sometimes do), or buy a mac and choose between OSX and Vista.
Why do people need to be protected from themselves. It's not Apple. It's the people who keep on buying.
Besides, Apple does not make lots of money through iTMS. They make it by selling iPods. You can put unDRMd music on the iPod (mp3 and aac). So buy an iPod, avoid the store, and then buy a Zune next time around. (to become the 4th Zune owner)
Let's ban Apple so that Microsoft can come with their format which was hamstrung by Apple's popularity and actually hand over another monopoly to them. Norwegians should weep. Sure, Microsoft let others use PlaysForSure (NoItDoesn't! (TM)), and they went their own way with the Zune. I mean. Microsoft is having a problem with their monopoly, lets give them a hand.
This is such a suboptimal solution to the perceived problem.
This would actually be a good idea. Most people I know use their web mail for personal use. Its available everywhere. If you send more than 1000 emails from home, then you (usually) have way too much time on your hands. At the very least, they could limit all people until they ask for more. That would take care of the zombies. If you normally send about 200 emails, and you find you can't send anymore, because someone has used up your allocation, they you are quite likely to take action. I know it is punishing the user, but it is unavoidable. If users can't take care of their PCs, they should expect inconvenience here and there. And besides, they always have webmail.
Lets face it. The law makers here are not arguing to allow users to move the music they bought in iTunes to another player. They want other companies to have access to the secret juice that drives the innovative system that Apple created, so that they can, without effort, get into the business i nthe name of competition. Apple did the (almost) impossible. They actually convinced the record companies to sell their music with DRM which is not terribly restrictive. No competitor has come around yet to creating something that is as good, whilst appeasing the big record companies.
No emusic is not quite up there. Until Justin Timberlake starts selling on emusic, it will remain a very small sideshow in the whole online music scene.
Burn the music to CD (or a virtual CD if you can with Nero),
And rip it to a format of your choice. You will still have decent quality songs right there, and unencumbered. Unless you are trying to get them to legislate to make it easy for you to format shift.
It's strange, but this workaround is actually in iTunes, and Apple know about it, and just leave it there. It doesn't encourage mass copyright infringement though, since it's quite inconvenient to have to jump through so many hoops. I suppose that is why their model actually works.
Slashdot Mirror
If a contract is invalidated in court, it means no one has any more rights from it. Apple stops selling the music under the terms of the contract. They do not magically get new terms just because the old ones have been declared null and void. Government puts a rule saying Apple can't sell DRM tunes. Fine, they stop. Until they can get labels to agree, they will not be able to sell any music.
NO they are not. They might just be happy to play music on their PC or Mac.
But what self respecting paranoid tin foil hat geek is going to have anything less than full disc encryption. The shame would be too much to bear.
If anyone has infiltrated the systems, it's the atheists and the non Christian. Just to be pedantic.
After all, why would some atheists have ever allowed people to write "In God we Trust" on their notes.
I mean, why would someone really want high resolution pictures of sensitive facilities. I mean, damn. It's one thing to really want to read about Falun Gong on the internet, but to really have a need to know about sensitive facilities it quite something else.
Maybe I am not libertarian enough.
Just popped over to the Nutch page.
The search box there says search Google. Talk about eating your own dog food.
Some capitalists believe taxes are evil.
/me ducks and runs away.
So Google, by trying to pay as little tax as possible, are trying to do less evil.
A journalling FS like Fat32.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
It is OK for George Bush to entertain as his guest the President of the allegedly evil Chinese regime, and it is OK for the USA to support a country that has probably worse human rights violations (Saudi Arabia), but it is not OK for Google to remove results fro mthe index that are blocked by the great firewall of China.
Hmmm.
If the government wants to be taken seriously, then the first thing they should legislate is to make it illegal for them to kill innocent people in other countries because some baddies came and killed innocent people in their country. Now that would be progress.
But imagine if it was simpler to have your HD DVD and you Blu ray working properly on Linux, regardless the legality of it, and you couldn't do that with Windows. One small step for Linux.
It is fraud. The seller has agreed to sell it to the highest bidder, and then he manipulates the situation and puts in his fake bids to push the price up. The buyer, is buying on the understanding that someone wanted the item for, say, $34, and he buys it for 35. But in actual fact, the highest bid was $15. If you go to an auction, and the auctioneer starts mouthing off prices no one is offering, people would ge mighty upset. That is no different to what is happening here.
Since Linux will invariably end up with hacks to get the new generation media to work, wouldn't it be mighty funny if the only OS you could watch your HD videos in all their glory on whatever monitor you choose ended up being Linux (or BSD or Solaris before some deities smite me)
You could say the same and even more about the internet.
I would have to disagree to a point. If producers will only produce for a 30% return, then that is what they will get. The equilibrium would just be at the market clearing price, where producers earn their 'cost + 30%', and consumer pay what they are willing to pay.
The only reason that people pay that much money is because it comes with seriously good software. Ergo, people are paying for the software. They just don't sell it separately. Why else do you think they charge people for newer versions of their software. They want to make money of it.
Apple doesn't sell hardware without software, so there is no way to say they make money on the hardware than on the software.
Google faced a choice. As a company, it was not good for them to lose customers because their site was unavailable at times because of the 'Great Firewall of China'. So they decided to put some servers in China.
As an employer, they would put many people at risk if they did not comply with the laws of China. Brin and co, from their luxurious offices at the googleplex, would not be affected by any backlash in China. Their employees could face jail time or even death if China deemed their actions to be subversive. So they decided to steer clear of that. Note that other companies had to hand over information to the authorities because in china, you have to comply with their laws (Yahoo comes to mind). Google would have been in the same position. Would you rather they a) ratted on troublemakers or b) sacrificed their own employees. Make no mistake, if the government wants to punish someone, they will find someone.
As a provider of a quality service, they did not think it was a good idea to have links that pointed to sites that 'did not exist', which is how these would seem to a casual Chinese browser. So they tell them instead that the information is censored in accordance with applicable laws.
Lastly, they left google.com accessible to the Chinese. In the uk, if try to go to google.com, it redirects me to google.co.uk. In China, it goes to google proper, and they can get the links to the sites that 'don't exist' there.
I would say, given the situation, the could probably not have done any better, besides leaving China in a huff.
No they don't. The amount of money they spend on software tends to prove that point. Apple sells the same hardware (more or less) as Dell nowadays. The software is the whole difference. That is why they make money.
One word for you. Gas.
UK economy, very big. Russian leverage. Immense!!
That's the thing about leverage. You get to apply a disproportionate amount of force if you use it wisely.
I remember making this point once on Slashdot that this will likely fizzle out after a media storm, which the politicians will weather. People like telling themselves that Russia is no longer a world power, but no one really wants to put that assertion to the test. Plus with Gas, you're screwed. If they turn off their gas, the effect will be greater than an active act of war.
If the Saudi's had that sort of hold over Bush, they would be mighty proud.
So don't buy from the iTunes store. Buy Cds and rip them. Or is that too hard for you. You want the government to legislate to make it easier for you.
I do not have an iPod, but in my case because it won't play vorbis and flac. So there, I voted with my dollars (or pounds rather). This is not like the Windows situation where for a long time, there was not alternative. Now you do run Linux (Like I sometimes do), or buy a mac and choose between OSX and Vista.
Why do people need to be protected from themselves. It's not Apple. It's the people who keep on buying.
Besides, Apple does not make lots of money through iTMS. They make it by selling iPods. You can put unDRMd music on the iPod (mp3 and aac). So buy an iPod, avoid the store, and then buy a Zune next time around. (to become the 4th Zune owner)
Let's ban Apple so that Microsoft can come with their format which was hamstrung by Apple's popularity and actually hand over another monopoly to them. Norwegians should weep. Sure, Microsoft let others use PlaysForSure (NoItDoesn't! (TM)), and they went their own way with the Zune. I mean. Microsoft is having a problem with their monopoly, lets give them a hand.
This is such a suboptimal solution to the perceived problem.
When, where and why did you run?
This would actually be a good idea. Most people I know use their web mail for personal use. Its available everywhere. If you send more than 1000 emails from home, then you (usually) have way too much time on your hands. At the very least, they could limit all people until they ask for more. That would take care of the zombies. If you normally send about 200 emails, and you find you can't send anymore, because someone has used up your allocation, they you are quite likely to take action. I know it is punishing the user, but it is unavoidable. If users can't take care of their PCs, they should expect inconvenience here and there. And besides, they always have webmail.
Lets face it. The law makers here are not arguing to allow users to move the music they bought in iTunes to another player. They want other companies to have access to the secret juice that drives the innovative system that Apple created, so that they can, without effort, get into the business i nthe name of competition. Apple did the (almost) impossible. They actually convinced the record companies to sell their music with DRM which is not terribly restrictive. No competitor has come around yet to creating something that is as good, whilst appeasing the big record companies.
No emusic is not quite up there. Until Justin Timberlake starts selling on emusic, it will remain a very small sideshow in the whole online music scene.
You can:
Burn the music to CD (or a virtual CD if you can with Nero),
And rip it to a format of your choice. You will still have decent quality songs right there, and unencumbered. Unless you are trying to get them to legislate to make it easy for you to format shift.
It's strange, but this workaround is actually in iTunes, and Apple know about it, and just leave it there. It doesn't encourage mass copyright infringement though, since it's quite inconvenient to have to jump through so many hoops. I suppose that is why their model actually works.