You're inventing a problem. It's pretty trivial to count the number of colons before the first slash and then decide how to parse the hostname/protocol/port bit.
...Which still doesn't solve the problem.
Let's say that the number of colons is exactly one. Now, quick! Tell me, without using your human intuition of what that address is supposed to mean, what do those two fields separated by a colon represent?
Is it a protocol and host? (e.g. http:slashdot.org) Congratulations, you've just made it impossible to specify a port number without including a reasonable default protocol. This is how IE 6 works--you get an error if you type something like slashdot.org:80 in the address bar. You must fully type out http://slashdot.org:80, and as someone who works on test servers on alternate ports, to me, that's irritating as hell. But this "invented" problem makes that a standard--you would have to fully specify protocol, host, and port every time.
Okay, so do you assume that it's a site and port then? (e.g. slashdot.org:80) Well, that is no good, because how you can't specify web addresses in what would be their most common format, i.e. http:slashdot.org. It would parse as http being the host and slashdot.org being the port (or more likely, since it's text, the service).
Hopefully it's obvious why it's downright stupid to assume that it's a protocol and port; you wouldn't be able to easily specify a host name.
Now I'll grant you, there are probably some somewhat-safe assumptions that you can make while parsing, such as numbers indicate a port, alpha-numeric indicates a protocol or host. But you know what they say about when you assume something, right? Such assumptions only serve to needlessly limit the domain (no pun intended) of legal protocol, host, and/or port specifications.
I'm not saying that there's not a better way. But one thing is for certain; the GP is not making up a problem out of thin air. It would take some serious thought to come up with a sensible scheme that allows both reasonable defaults and unambiguous specification of the fields. While the current scheme might cost a few keystrokes here and there and there might be room for improvement, it certainly accomplishes those goals pretty well.
Well, also consider that even deep space isn't completely empty. There are always at least a few hydrogen atoms floating around in even the most remote corners of the universe, as well as lots of photons, background radiation, possibly dark matter and dark energy, and frankly, stuff that we might not even know of yet.
Just like the significant possibility that there's water and other resources on the moon that we once thought was a vast, barren wasteland of nothing useful, with enough research, we may yet find ways of sustaining ourselves even in the almost true nothingness that is outer space.
Yes, we are. Eventually. Might as well get it over with, eh?
Besides, you all are such pessimists. I like to think of it like this. If it hits us, dying will be the one thing that mankind finally comes together and actually achieves, something that everyone, everywhere can be a part of.
I always have mixed feelings when I hear that a judge vacated a verdict.
On the one hand, a lot of people are idiots, and I imagine that it's not that unusual to get seven idiots on a given jury at the same time. I kind of like the thought that there's a "fail safe" that has veto power over a bad jury.
On the other, I don't like the thought that one person has absolute power over the process like that. One guy (or gal) can basically overrule everything a jury deliberates on. I've known judges that are idiots, too, and when I see something like this, I can't help but wonder why we even bother to have the trial.
In the end, I suppose I lean more towards taking the power to vacate verdicts or awards from judges. After all, that's what the appeals process is there for, to be that fail safe, and to be honest, I think the odds are more likely that you'd get one idiot judge than seven idiot jurors if I'm the one in the courtroom. Plus, jurors are more likely to account for the human element in such cases than a judge who looks at everything in terms of the black-and-white letter of the law; they're more likely to come up with a right (i.e. moral and ethical) decision, even if it isn't the Right (i.e. legally correct) decision.
And it's not just because it's Microsoft. I'd feel the same way if this happened in the Jamie Thomas case and the judge had smacked down the RIAA. In theory, it shouldn't make a difference, but in reality, I always try to imagine how I'd feel if the tables were turned and the same thing happened.
I think the idea was, "It doesn't work, but it's still pretty neat."
Keep in mind that she never said, "This is as effective as the DAZZLER." That was the nominal goal, and at the end, she clearly states that they didn't get there. But I really don't think they expected to replicate a million-dollar device.
Sometimes, the cool stuff that comes out of making something like this isn't whether or not in the end it actually works or is as effective as you want it to be, but what you learn along the way and what you do end up with. (In this case, a device that is cool at raves.)
The submitted did submit it under a somewhat misleading title, though, in implying that the thing actually works.
Watching the video, at the end of their demonstration, she says, "Well, turns out it doesn't work that well, but it is great for raves." I'm not accusing them of shenanigans, because they're not misrepresenting that it actually works. However, I am accusing the submitter of exaggerating the effectiveness of this thing by calling it a "cheaper Bedazzler."
It's not like they have recreated for $250 what the DHS did for a million. I don't doubt that what they've created is irritating to look at, but the thing is five times the size of what the DHS had created for them, and would be totally ineffective in an actual situation in which it would be needed.
But she's right, it probably would be kind of fun at a party, and it does look like a neat project to play around with.
When I read the description, the first thing I thought was that it was the little Cursor*10 flash game. Very cleverly done, it kept me busy for a while.
This just goes to show, you can't count on big companies to do what's right. If there were more freedom and openness, we'd be a lot better off. Between Microsoft's FUD and Apple's fanboys, it's a wonder anything gets done.
Hopefully, once people realize what's going on and the Pirate Party gains ground and push back the anti-evolution religious nuts, everything will be much better.
There, that should milk a few karma points no matter what Slashdot article this comment ends up under.
Thanks, I was about to post this. It's amusing that the poster used wild and baseless paranoia to "prove" wild and baseless paranoia. Wish I had a mod point to give out.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has ruled in favor of John Law tracking you with secret GPS devices in Massachusetts provided a warrant is obtained.
To be fair, that's a lot better than in Wisconsin, where they use secret GPS devices to track you without a warrant.
As far as I can tell, after skimming TFA and watching the little demo video, they weren't actually copying the pictures, but using them to build a 3D model.
It would be kind of like aggregating a bunch of books in the library to come up with a letter distribution chart. You're not violating the copyrights of the authors, just compiling information from raw data.
The apples here that we're comparing is doing something that is in a very nitpicky technical sense wrong, but that the practical consequences of which are negligible. I'm sorry you didn't pick up on that.
If I walked into your house and took your favorite pair of scissors...
I'd probably be a bit irate. Not so much because you took my scissors, but because you walked into my house.
If I found out that some coworker I don't know took my scissors from my cube, though, I'd probably send them an e-mail saying something like, "Hey, I'd like my scissors back." Or if it's something piddly like in this case, say a pencil or a few pieces of paper, I'd just let it drop without even doing that, because I really don't care, and it means more to me to not be known as that prick at the office who flies off the handle because someone took a pencil.
What I wouldn't do, though, is post on a public website that you're a thief, and how I wish that I could sue you for non-compensatory damages, so I'm just going to try to embarrass and shame you instead.
Because even though in a very technical sense I might be correct, that would be something an asshole would do.
Bullshit, he licenses his stuff legally, if Amazon doesn't want to license it he doesn't use it.
I'll see your bullshit and raise you one.
He posted the iPhone app sometime around the beginning of April in spite of Amazon clearly stating, "You will not, without our express prior written approval...use any Product Advertising Content on or in connection with any site or application designed or intended for use with a mobile phone or other handheld device." He didn't pull his app until July 7.
From TFA:
Amazon gave D-M an ultimatum: pull the iPhone app, or lose the API access for the desktop version of Library.
(Emphasis mine)
In other words, he broke the terms of his agreement with Amazon, one that he probably figured was kind of insignificant and not worth getting worked up over, and they grossly overreacted by threatening him.
Kind of like how, you know, the developer who used his frickin' woodgrain texture was in minor violation of his copyright, something they probably figured was kind of insignificant (and that it's quite possible they weren't even aware of) and not worth getting worked up over, and he grossly overreacted by pulling out this "I'll Sue Ya!" bullshit and resorting to kindergarten name-calling instead.
If you've ever known an artist, you'd already know that even excellent artists don't make shit for their work.
...And then the bullshit got really thick.
I might agree with you on this point if the woodgrain texture--and I mean that specific woodgrain texture--were an integral part of his application. If it were somehow unique in some way that made that specific woodgrain texture scream, "This is Delicious Library!" As it is, it's just a plain ol' generic-looking woodgrain texure. If he spent more than ten minutes on creating the texture or paid more than $0.50 or so for it off a stock art site, he's an idiot. As it is, it's more like Ruby Tuesday suing a customer who posts a picture they took in one of their restaurants because the picture happened to capture the wood grain on one of their tables in the background. "Waaah! Copyright infringement! Furniture makers don't make shit, and it's because he--gasp!--took a picture!!!
By the way, look closely at this screenshot of Delicious Library posted on his site. Specifically, the black-and-white photo in the upper right corner. See that Dolby logo? That's trademarked, you know, and I'd bet that he didn't pay Dolby to use it. Look at his home page and notice all of the references to iPhone, iTunes, OS X, etc. Notice how he doesn't put any trademark symbol or registration mark after them? I also don't see any kind of "iPhone/iTunes/iWhatever is a registered trademark of Apple Inc." disclaimer. Technically, that's a violation, and Apple could sue him. Or better yet, let's just publicly shame him and call him a thief, the stealing bastard!
Bullshit indeed. Let's just crucify them all, shall we? Because that's obviously what these laws are for!
No, but there is such a thing as "reasonable perspective." This guy is so worked up about a frickin' woodgrain texture that he's wanting to sue for losses, and since that would actually cost some money, instead resorts to calling the other developer a thief? I don't care if they did knowingly swipe the texture, that's stupid, plain and simple.
Do you ever speed on a highway? Technically, you're breaking the law every time you do. How would you like it if a police officer decided that he just plain doesn't like you? He stakes out your house, and every time you go 56 in a 55, he dings you with a ticket. Even more, the judge doesn't like you either, so you don't get stuck with a minor violation, you get charged with reckless driving and have to go to jail.
It was a frickin' woodgrain texture. The appropriate response would have been to just let it slide. The "I'm irritated" response would have been to e-mail the developer and said, "Hey, that's my texture, please remove it from your app." His actual response, though, is stupid and petty.
Most artists don't make enough for their work as it is
Yeah, because I'm sure that's why people were using these applications. Not just because of the woodgrain texture, but because of that specific woodgrain texture. Any other woodgrain texture would have made both the original application and the iPhone app pieces of crap. People are seeing that specific woodgrain texture on the iPhone app and thinking, "The app is just okay, but that texture is so... beautiful...
Puhleeze. I'm sorry, I thought this was about an application, not a "work of art." Sounds like someone is a little too full of themselves.
Sounds to me like the guy has his chops busted by Amazon for violating a Terms of Service agreement. Feeling kind of sore over it, he's decided that if some anal third-party treats him like that, he might as well treat everyone else like that, too.
Problem is, his anger is misdirected. Getting all nasty with this guy over something so piddly in no way gets back at Amazon for whatever wrong, real or perceived, they rained down on him.
He had his iPhone app pulled, so he'll be damned if he lets someone else have their app out there, and this is just a convenient, lame excuse.
It sure sounds like a joke, doesn't it? I mean, come on, he's all bent out of shape over a woodgrain texture? It's not like they took his logo or something distinctive about his application. It sounds pretty petty to me.
I hate to say it, Mr. Shipley, but this is not the kind of trivial copyright stuff that we're constantly railing against. From TFA:
If the owner of the image has registered that copyright, it can open you up to RIAA v. The People sized damages: thousands to tens of thousands of dollars per infringement.
Congratulations Mr. Shipley, you're now being compared to organizations like the RIAA. Were you Right(TM) (as in, technically correct in that your copyright was violated)? Sure, I'll concede that, and if they knew that the texture came from you, they should have checked if it was okay before using it. But where you right (as in, responding in an ethically appropriate way)? Absolutely not. Again, from TFA:
So I'm going to call them thieves publicly and embarrass them. Skip the lawyers, let's go back to shaming people!
Mr. Shipley, it strikes me that you decided to publicly call someone a thief and unilaterally decided to shame them without really knowing the circumstances of the situation. Did they simply decide that they didn't want to pay for a texture, and maliciously rip yours off? Maybe. But I find it just as likely that they may have simply assumed that it was a public domain texture.
Or just maybe, being a small outfit or independent developer (which I can certainly empathize with), they got it from a third party who represented that it was either public domain or their texture. I know that for community projects I'm involved with, being as artistic as a two-by-four, when I need a resource like that, I usually post a message somewhere saying something like, "Hey, does anyone have an icon/texture/whatever that I can use?" If someone sends me one, I usually do the due diligence of asking them if I have the rights to use it (e.g. if it's public domain or, if they created it, if they are willingly giving me the rights to use it), but it's not like I hire a lawyer to do a detailed search of everything that's ever been copyrighted to verify it. I simply don't have the time or money to do so.
So according to TFA, "there are really two important take-away messages from this story." Actually there is at least one more. Some people can really be stupid and petty about such things, making mountains out of molehills, and unfortunately, the legal system today favors those people. Oh, and maybe another is that it's getting harder and harder to be a small, independent developer these days because of idiocy like this. Every time you turn around and no matter what you do, there are people out there who want to squash you like a bug, people ranging from other small developers to giant corporations. Everything from "Hey, you used a button, and we use a button, so we're suing you!" to "You thief, you stole my generic-looking woodgrain texture, waaah!"
Sorry to reply to my own reply, but a couple of other notes:
"All this stuff is available to you for no cost. Just click it, and you're good to go."
I also explain to them that when the next whiz-bang version comes out, they don't have to go out to any store and shell out hard-earned cash to get it. I get a notice that there's a new version, I click a button to install it, and voila, I'm good to go. Also, there's almost never a "home" version versus a "professional" or "ultimate" version. You get all of the features, plain and simple. For software that does have different versions (e.g. desktop versus server Ubuntu, Ubuntu versus Kubuntu, etc.), it is simply a matter of which feature set you need more and/or which you prefer. It's not a matter of how much you're willing to shell out; they all cost exactly the same whether you just want a simple command-line shell or the latest graphics card-busting bells and whistles.
It's in our best interest to actually educate people so that they will care.
To preempt accusations of being a zealot, I really don't even care of someone decides that they just plain like Windows better. It is a nice OS, and there are things about it that just plain work better than on Linux-based distributions. If someone makes an educated decision to go with Windows, more power to them. But I resent the notion that because Microsoft has a majority of market share, nothing else matters. That's stupid, and if everyone felt that way, we'd all probably still be using Internet Explorer 6 in all of its ActiveX glory.
99.997% of the people using these computers don't care.
First of all, I think that number is way too high. While it may seem that way sometimes, people do care. Maybe not even a majority of them, but enough that it does make a difference.
Second of all, those who in theory don't care, when explained why it's important, start to care. When you add up the cost of upgrading from Windows 95 to Windows XP to Windows Vista to Windows 7, along with all of its associated applications (I'm looking at you, Microsoft Office), versus the cost of upgrading through the various versions of Ubuntu or any of the other popular distributions and their associated applications, people really start to notice. One of my favorite things to do when I'm showing off Ubuntu to people is to open the package manager application. I tell them it's like the "Add or Remove Programs" applet, except that you can actually add programs. "All this stuff is available to you for no cost. Just click it, and you're good to go."
When you explain to these people how there is absolutely zero technical reason why they can't have a movie or song play on the DVD player in their living room, their iPod, their computer, and anywhere else (and anyway else) they want to play it, but that thanks to DRM systems incorporated into Windows 7 and Mac OS X, they are artificially restricted from doing so because some third party has decided to "manage their digital rights" for them, it definitely gets their attention.
When you explain to these people how honest competition from really smart people doing really smart things just because they can and because they feel that others should benefit from their collective knowledge is one of the reasons why a lot of commercial closed-source software these days that might otherwise cost hundreds or thousands of dollars is sold for really low cost or given away for free because of how hard it is to compete with volunteer work, it also gets their attention.
When I show people my web browser (Firefox with AdBlock) and how I don't see particularly onerous ads on web sites because the person who wrote my browser isn't beholden to financial interest or corporate mandates, it has raised a lot of eyebrows.
I could go on, but hopefully you see my point. Free and open source software benefits everyone, even people who don't otherwise care, even people who shun it in favor of commercial and/or closed-source options. And sitting back and saying that people don't care isn't very productive. It's in our best interest to actually educate people so that they will care.
Marvel... The company that sued NCsoft for making a game in which superheroes could be constructed because some of them could be made to look like Marvel characters? And then it turned out that the most egregious violators were actually Marvel employees?
Sounds like a good fit to me, I'm sure the companies will be really happy with each other.
Murdoch's News Corporation, one of the world's largest media conglomerates, owns the Times, the Sunday Times and Sun newspapers and pay TV provider BSkyB in the UK and the New York Post, Wall Street Journal, and Fox News TV in the US.
That is what is threatening the plurality and independence of news. Sounds to me like the guy doesn't want plurality, he just doesn't want competition.
The fact is that the BBC is known for its objectivity. I know a lot of American who only get their news from there because they regard the American press as either too liberal or too conservative. (Or more often than not, too sensationalistic or too "fluffy.")
Great! Just what we need! More ways people can walk around staring at a device in their hands while being utterly oblivious to their surroundings. And yet this is all about informing them of their surroundings. Oh, the irony...
Sounds to me like a great AR app. You walk around with your iPhone in front of you, and periodically, a message flashes up that says something like, "Move, dumbass, you're about to hit something."
What if you are a government employee who makes powerpoint presentations and you want to include a snippet of a public domain recording? Then you would be legally downloading music as part of your job. Hard to call that "STEALING!"
Then I would say something like, "I'm working on a PowerPoint presentation, and I am including a snippet of a public domain recording. It's not stealing." And I would most definitely not ask them if they wanted to go have lunch sometime, like I do with competent coworkers.
If they continued to be stupid, I would report them to their manager for disrupting my work.
Contrary to popular belief, not all government workers are idiots, and most have enough of a brain to know when someone is actually working and when someone is just scoring the latest torrent download of a popular album, when it's appropriate to escalate inappropriate workplace behavior (and how, for that matter), and when someone is actually being productive.
So if Time didn't file the DMCA notice, and DC Comics didn't file the DMCA notice, and the original photographer did not file the DMCA notice, then who exactly did?"
Slashdot Mirror
That's just it, though. They don't use decimals to represent decimals. They use... um... "commanals."
...Which still doesn't solve the problem.
Let's say that the number of colons is exactly one. Now, quick! Tell me, without using your human intuition of what that address is supposed to mean, what do those two fields separated by a colon represent?
Is it a protocol and host? (e.g. http:slashdot.org) Congratulations, you've just made it impossible to specify a port number without including a reasonable default protocol. This is how IE 6 works--you get an error if you type something like slashdot.org:80 in the address bar. You must fully type out http://slashdot.org:80, and as someone who works on test servers on alternate ports, to me, that's irritating as hell. But this "invented" problem makes that a standard--you would have to fully specify protocol, host, and port every time.
Okay, so do you assume that it's a site and port then? (e.g. slashdot.org:80) Well, that is no good, because how you can't specify web addresses in what would be their most common format, i.e. http:slashdot.org. It would parse as http being the host and slashdot.org being the port (or more likely, since it's text, the service).
Hopefully it's obvious why it's downright stupid to assume that it's a protocol and port; you wouldn't be able to easily specify a host name.
Now I'll grant you, there are probably some somewhat-safe assumptions that you can make while parsing, such as numbers indicate a port, alpha-numeric indicates a protocol or host. But you know what they say about when you assume something, right? Such assumptions only serve to needlessly limit the domain (no pun intended) of legal protocol, host, and/or port specifications.
I'm not saying that there's not a better way. But one thing is for certain; the GP is not making up a problem out of thin air. It would take some serious thought to come up with a sensible scheme that allows both reasonable defaults and unambiguous specification of the fields. While the current scheme might cost a few keystrokes here and there and there might be room for improvement, it certainly accomplishes those goals pretty well.
Well, also consider that even deep space isn't completely empty. There are always at least a few hydrogen atoms floating around in even the most remote corners of the universe, as well as lots of photons, background radiation, possibly dark matter and dark energy, and frankly, stuff that we might not even know of yet.
Just like the significant possibility that there's water and other resources on the moon that we once thought was a vast, barren wasteland of nothing useful, with enough research, we may yet find ways of sustaining ourselves even in the almost true nothingness that is outer space.
Yes, we are. Eventually. Might as well get it over with, eh?
Besides, you all are such pessimists. I like to think of it like this. If it hits us, dying will be the one thing that mankind finally comes together and actually achieves, something that everyone, everywhere can be a part of.
I always have mixed feelings when I hear that a judge vacated a verdict.
On the one hand, a lot of people are idiots, and I imagine that it's not that unusual to get seven idiots on a given jury at the same time. I kind of like the thought that there's a "fail safe" that has veto power over a bad jury.
On the other, I don't like the thought that one person has absolute power over the process like that. One guy (or gal) can basically overrule everything a jury deliberates on. I've known judges that are idiots, too, and when I see something like this, I can't help but wonder why we even bother to have the trial.
In the end, I suppose I lean more towards taking the power to vacate verdicts or awards from judges. After all, that's what the appeals process is there for, to be that fail safe, and to be honest, I think the odds are more likely that you'd get one idiot judge than seven idiot jurors if I'm the one in the courtroom. Plus, jurors are more likely to account for the human element in such cases than a judge who looks at everything in terms of the black-and-white letter of the law; they're more likely to come up with a right (i.e. moral and ethical) decision, even if it isn't the Right (i.e. legally correct) decision.
And it's not just because it's Microsoft. I'd feel the same way if this happened in the Jamie Thomas case and the judge had smacked down the RIAA. In theory, it shouldn't make a difference, but in reality, I always try to imagine how I'd feel if the tables were turned and the same thing happened.
I think the idea was, "It doesn't work, but it's still pretty neat."
Keep in mind that she never said, "This is as effective as the DAZZLER." That was the nominal goal, and at the end, she clearly states that they didn't get there. But I really don't think they expected to replicate a million-dollar device.
Sometimes, the cool stuff that comes out of making something like this isn't whether or not in the end it actually works or is as effective as you want it to be, but what you learn along the way and what you do end up with. (In this case, a device that is cool at raves.)
The submitted did submit it under a somewhat misleading title, though, in implying that the thing actually works.
Watching the video, at the end of their demonstration, she says, "Well, turns out it doesn't work that well, but it is great for raves." I'm not accusing them of shenanigans, because they're not misrepresenting that it actually works. However, I am accusing the submitter of exaggerating the effectiveness of this thing by calling it a "cheaper Bedazzler."
It's not like they have recreated for $250 what the DHS did for a million. I don't doubt that what they've created is irritating to look at, but the thing is five times the size of what the DHS had created for them, and would be totally ineffective in an actual situation in which it would be needed.
But she's right, it probably would be kind of fun at a party, and it does look like a neat project to play around with.
When I read the description, the first thing I thought was that it was the little Cursor*10 flash game. Very cleverly done, it kept me busy for a while.
http://www.nekogames.jp/mt/2008/01/cursor10.html
This just goes to show, you can't count on big companies to do what's right. If there were more freedom and openness, we'd be a lot better off. Between Microsoft's FUD and Apple's fanboys, it's a wonder anything gets done.
Hopefully, once people realize what's going on and the Pirate Party gains ground and push back the anti-evolution religious nuts, everything will be much better.
There, that should milk a few karma points no matter what Slashdot article this comment ends up under.
Well, damn, I got some mod points today, but since I posted a reply, I can't mod posts in this topic now. Of all the friggin' luck... :(
Thanks, I was about to post this. It's amusing that the poster used wild and baseless paranoia to "prove" wild and baseless paranoia. Wish I had a mod point to give out.
To be fair, that's a lot better than in Wisconsin, where they use secret GPS devices to track you without a warrant.
As far as I can tell, after skimming TFA and watching the little demo video, they weren't actually copying the pictures, but using them to build a 3D model.
It would be kind of like aggregating a bunch of books in the library to come up with a letter distribution chart. You're not violating the copyrights of the authors, just compiling information from raw data.
The apples here that we're comparing is doing something that is in a very nitpicky technical sense wrong, but that the practical consequences of which are negligible. I'm sorry you didn't pick up on that.
I'd probably be a bit irate. Not so much because you took my scissors, but because you walked into my house.
If I found out that some coworker I don't know took my scissors from my cube, though, I'd probably send them an e-mail saying something like, "Hey, I'd like my scissors back." Or if it's something piddly like in this case, say a pencil or a few pieces of paper, I'd just let it drop without even doing that, because I really don't care, and it means more to me to not be known as that prick at the office who flies off the handle because someone took a pencil.
What I wouldn't do, though, is post on a public website that you're a thief, and how I wish that I could sue you for non-compensatory damages, so I'm just going to try to embarrass and shame you instead.
Because even though in a very technical sense I might be correct, that would be something an asshole would do.
I'll see your bullshit and raise you one.
He posted the iPhone app sometime around the beginning of April in spite of Amazon clearly stating, "You will not, without our express prior written approval...use any Product Advertising Content on or in connection with any site or application designed or intended for use with a mobile phone or other handheld device." He didn't pull his app until July 7.
From TFA:
(Emphasis mine)
In other words, he broke the terms of his agreement with Amazon, one that he probably figured was kind of insignificant and not worth getting worked up over, and they grossly overreacted by threatening him.
Kind of like how, you know, the developer who used his frickin' woodgrain texture was in minor violation of his copyright, something they probably figured was kind of insignificant (and that it's quite possible they weren't even aware of) and not worth getting worked up over, and he grossly overreacted by pulling out this "I'll Sue Ya!" bullshit and resorting to kindergarten name-calling instead.
...And then the bullshit got really thick.
I might agree with you on this point if the woodgrain texture--and I mean that specific woodgrain texture--were an integral part of his application. If it were somehow unique in some way that made that specific woodgrain texture scream, "This is Delicious Library!" As it is, it's just a plain ol' generic-looking woodgrain texure. If he spent more than ten minutes on creating the texture or paid more than $0.50 or so for it off a stock art site, he's an idiot. As it is, it's more like Ruby Tuesday suing a customer who posts a picture they took in one of their restaurants because the picture happened to capture the wood grain on one of their tables in the background. "Waaah! Copyright infringement! Furniture makers don't make shit, and it's because he--gasp!--took a picture!!!
By the way, look closely at this screenshot of Delicious Library posted on his site. Specifically, the black-and-white photo in the upper right corner. See that Dolby logo? That's trademarked, you know, and I'd bet that he didn't pay Dolby to use it. Look at his home page and notice all of the references to iPhone, iTunes, OS X, etc. Notice how he doesn't put any trademark symbol or registration mark after them? I also don't see any kind of "iPhone/iTunes/iWhatever is a registered trademark of Apple Inc." disclaimer. Technically, that's a violation, and Apple could sue him. Or better yet, let's just publicly shame him and call him a thief, the stealing bastard!
Bullshit indeed. Let's just crucify them all, shall we? Because that's obviously what these laws are for!
No, but there is such a thing as "reasonable perspective." This guy is so worked up about a frickin' woodgrain texture that he's wanting to sue for losses, and since that would actually cost some money, instead resorts to calling the other developer a thief? I don't care if they did knowingly swipe the texture, that's stupid, plain and simple.
Do you ever speed on a highway? Technically, you're breaking the law every time you do. How would you like it if a police officer decided that he just plain doesn't like you? He stakes out your house, and every time you go 56 in a 55, he dings you with a ticket. Even more, the judge doesn't like you either, so you don't get stuck with a minor violation, you get charged with reckless driving and have to go to jail.
It was a frickin' woodgrain texture. The appropriate response would have been to just let it slide. The "I'm irritated" response would have been to e-mail the developer and said, "Hey, that's my texture, please remove it from your app." His actual response, though, is stupid and petty.
Yeah, because I'm sure that's why people were using these applications. Not just because of the woodgrain texture, but because of that specific woodgrain texture. Any other woodgrain texture would have made both the original application and the iPhone app pieces of crap. People are seeing that specific woodgrain texture on the iPhone app and thinking, "The app is just okay, but that texture is so... beautiful...
Puhleeze. I'm sorry, I thought this was about an application, not a "work of art." Sounds like someone is a little too full of themselves.
Sounds to me like the guy has his chops busted by Amazon for violating a Terms of Service agreement. Feeling kind of sore over it, he's decided that if some anal third-party treats him like that, he might as well treat everyone else like that, too.
Problem is, his anger is misdirected. Getting all nasty with this guy over something so piddly in no way gets back at Amazon for whatever wrong, real or perceived, they rained down on him.
He had his iPhone app pulled, so he'll be damned if he lets someone else have their app out there, and this is just a convenient, lame excuse.
But that's just how he comes across to me.
It sure sounds like a joke, doesn't it? I mean, come on, he's all bent out of shape over a woodgrain texture? It's not like they took his logo or something distinctive about his application. It sounds pretty petty to me.
I hate to say it, Mr. Shipley, but this is not the kind of trivial copyright stuff that we're constantly railing against. From TFA:
Congratulations Mr. Shipley, you're now being compared to organizations like the RIAA. Were you Right(TM) (as in, technically correct in that your copyright was violated)? Sure, I'll concede that, and if they knew that the texture came from you, they should have checked if it was okay before using it. But where you right (as in, responding in an ethically appropriate way)? Absolutely not. Again, from TFA:
Mr. Shipley, it strikes me that you decided to publicly call someone a thief and unilaterally decided to shame them without really knowing the circumstances of the situation. Did they simply decide that they didn't want to pay for a texture, and maliciously rip yours off? Maybe. But I find it just as likely that they may have simply assumed that it was a public domain texture.
Or just maybe, being a small outfit or independent developer (which I can certainly empathize with), they got it from a third party who represented that it was either public domain or their texture. I know that for community projects I'm involved with, being as artistic as a two-by-four, when I need a resource like that, I usually post a message somewhere saying something like, "Hey, does anyone have an icon/texture/whatever that I can use?" If someone sends me one, I usually do the due diligence of asking them if I have the rights to use it (e.g. if it's public domain or, if they created it, if they are willingly giving me the rights to use it), but it's not like I hire a lawyer to do a detailed search of everything that's ever been copyrighted to verify it. I simply don't have the time or money to do so.
So according to TFA, "there are really two important take-away messages from this story." Actually there is at least one more. Some people can really be stupid and petty about such things, making mountains out of molehills, and unfortunately, the legal system today favors those people. Oh, and maybe another is that it's getting harder and harder to be a small, independent developer these days because of idiocy like this. Every time you turn around and no matter what you do, there are people out there who want to squash you like a bug, people ranging from other small developers to giant corporations. Everything from "Hey, you used a button, and we use a button, so we're suing you!" to "You thief, you stole my generic-looking woodgrain texture, waaah!"
Sorry to reply to my own reply, but a couple of other notes:
I also explain to them that when the next whiz-bang version comes out, they don't have to go out to any store and shell out hard-earned cash to get it. I get a notice that there's a new version, I click a button to install it, and voila, I'm good to go. Also, there's almost never a "home" version versus a "professional" or "ultimate" version. You get all of the features, plain and simple. For software that does have different versions (e.g. desktop versus server Ubuntu, Ubuntu versus Kubuntu, etc.), it is simply a matter of which feature set you need more and/or which you prefer. It's not a matter of how much you're willing to shell out; they all cost exactly the same whether you just want a simple command-line shell or the latest graphics card-busting bells and whistles.
To preempt accusations of being a zealot, I really don't even care of someone decides that they just plain like Windows better. It is a nice OS, and there are things about it that just plain work better than on Linux-based distributions. If someone makes an educated decision to go with Windows, more power to them. But I resent the notion that because Microsoft has a majority of market share, nothing else matters. That's stupid, and if everyone felt that way, we'd all probably still be using Internet Explorer 6 in all of its ActiveX glory.
First of all, I think that number is way too high. While it may seem that way sometimes, people do care. Maybe not even a majority of them, but enough that it does make a difference.
Second of all, those who in theory don't care, when explained why it's important, start to care. When you add up the cost of upgrading from Windows 95 to Windows XP to Windows Vista to Windows 7, along with all of its associated applications (I'm looking at you, Microsoft Office), versus the cost of upgrading through the various versions of Ubuntu or any of the other popular distributions and their associated applications, people really start to notice. One of my favorite things to do when I'm showing off Ubuntu to people is to open the package manager application. I tell them it's like the "Add or Remove Programs" applet, except that you can actually add programs. "All this stuff is available to you for no cost. Just click it, and you're good to go."
When you explain to these people how there is absolutely zero technical reason why they can't have a movie or song play on the DVD player in their living room, their iPod, their computer, and anywhere else (and anyway else) they want to play it, but that thanks to DRM systems incorporated into Windows 7 and Mac OS X, they are artificially restricted from doing so because some third party has decided to "manage their digital rights" for them, it definitely gets their attention.
When you explain to these people how honest competition from really smart people doing really smart things just because they can and because they feel that others should benefit from their collective knowledge is one of the reasons why a lot of commercial closed-source software these days that might otherwise cost hundreds or thousands of dollars is sold for really low cost or given away for free because of how hard it is to compete with volunteer work, it also gets their attention.
When I show people my web browser (Firefox with AdBlock) and how I don't see particularly onerous ads on web sites because the person who wrote my browser isn't beholden to financial interest or corporate mandates, it has raised a lot of eyebrows.
I could go on, but hopefully you see my point. Free and open source software benefits everyone, even people who don't otherwise care, even people who shun it in favor of commercial and/or closed-source options. And sitting back and saying that people don't care isn't very productive. It's in our best interest to actually educate people so that they will care.
Marvel... The company that sued NCsoft for making a game in which superheroes could be constructed because some of them could be made to look like Marvel characters? And then it turned out that the most egregious violators were actually Marvel employees?
Sounds like a good fit to me, I'm sure the companies will be really happy with each other.
That is what is threatening the plurality and independence of news. Sounds to me like the guy doesn't want plurality, he just doesn't want competition.
The fact is that the BBC is known for its objectivity. I know a lot of American who only get their news from there because they regard the American press as either too liberal or too conservative. (Or more often than not, too sensationalistic or too "fluffy.")
Sounds to me like a great AR app. You walk around with your iPhone in front of you, and periodically, a message flashes up that says something like, "Move, dumbass, you're about to hit something."
Then I would say something like, "I'm working on a PowerPoint presentation, and I am including a snippet of a public domain recording. It's not stealing." And I would most definitely not ask them if they wanted to go have lunch sometime, like I do with competent coworkers.
If they continued to be stupid, I would report them to their manager for disrupting my work.
Contrary to popular belief, not all government workers are idiots, and most have enough of a brain to know when someone is actually working and when someone is just scoring the latest torrent download of a popular album, when it's appropriate to escalate inappropriate workplace behavior (and how, for that matter), and when someone is actually being productive.
Mabye it was Barack Obama?