That's not my point, if M$ did something against the law, punish them.
That's what they're doing.
Opera filing suit seems to me to be grasping at straws.
Most antitrust suits start with a lawsuit or complaint from a competitor. This is the normal way antitrust action begins.
They don't like being the red-headed step child that get's no love (like IE and Firefox do) so they will file a lawsuit in a locale that has already ruled against M$.
Sigh. Opera's main business is selling a browser for use mostly in embedded devices like smart phones. They're making less money at this than they could be because of MS's abuse of their monopoly, which has resulted in all browsers other than IE being artificially "broken" for a significant number of sites. Are you telling me if you were in business and another company were breaking the law in a way that was costing you money, you wouldn't do anything about it (like ask the courts to look into it)?
Do the developers work on them for free? Nope. So MS pays those developers somehow right? Where does that money come from? Gee from sales of a bundle of Windows and a bunch of software. Just because the cost is hidden does not mean they are free. And of course, none of this has anything to do with MS's monopoly abuse, since it doesn't matter if they are free.
Number 2.
It doesn't matter if you can download alternatives. Can the Firefox team force every Windows install to include their product? No. Thus it isn't a fair competition. Why can MS do that? Because they have a monopoly. Thus, they're using their monopoly to gain an advantage in a different market. That is what is illegal.
Number 3.
Maybe users are ignorant and don't care... that is irrelevant. Apple cares and they're competing with one of those products. The Firefox team cares and they're competing. Are you so self centered that you can't see it from the perspective of a software developer being unfairly competed with?
Number 4.
Linux and OS X do not have monopoly influence according to the courts, MS does. Your analogy is flawed because Sony does not have 90% of the portable game system market.
All I'm saying is that this is complete and utter stupidity.
Yes, having to explain the basics of antirust law to the clueless does seem pretty stupid. I wish you people would take Econ 101 before you bother making assertions.
Uh, if Microsoft had a monopoly on web browsers, or if the existence of IE caused Mozilla-based browsers (or others) not to work, then you might have a point.
Sigh, not again. How many bloody times do I have to explain it. Antitrust law makes bundling a monopolized product with a product in another market. The US, EU and several other jurisdictions have already convicted MS of abusing their monopoly in the desktop OS market, thus they legally have a monopoly in the desktop OS market. They bundled IE with that monopolized product. This is the same as someone with a monopoly in the car business bundling car accessories.
Except that, once again, this wasn't the real problem. Microsoft was come down on not because the bundled a browser, but because they forced OEMs to not bundle other browsers. Which, again, was caused primarily by Microsoft refusing to allow OEMs to bundle other browsers - not even instead of IE, but in addition to it.
That's just exacerbating the abuse. MS has already been convicted of bundling IE, which is illegal all by itself.
Bundling is not tying, because force is absent.
Bundling is the very first example of tying listed in US antitrust law and is the most common form of antitrust abuse prosecuted. Please learn the facts rather than arguing what you wish was true.
Bundling is not tying in the absence of pricing that prevents sales by an equally efficient competitor.
MS sells a bundle which includes both Windows and IE. Some of that money goes to develop IE. Users don't have the option of buying just Windows for a price that is lower than the bundle. Thus, users are forced to buy IE, rather than saving that money and buying a competing offering.
Monopoly leverage, using a monopoly to try to gain a monopoly in another area, is also not a violation of the Sherman act;
No it is a violation of the Clayton act. MS has already been convicted by the US on this count, how can you claim it isn't illegal?
The only web browser-producing "competitor" to Microsoft whose efficiency (in that market alone, naturally) even approached Microsoft's was Netscape, and they were giving the browser away. Thus, no sales were prevented.
Wrong, direct sales are not the only way to cause financial harm. For example, Firefox is paid for directing users to Google. They are paid less because of MS's actions using their monopoly to push IE.
In fact, Netscape was dumping their product on the market, by giving it away at a price substantially lower than the production cost, in order to gain purchase against IE.
It doesn't matter because Netscape didn't have a monopoly and aren't relevant. This is about what MS is doing today to affect the market.
Sigh, you are the worst MS apologist ever. You'll take any farfetched claim and make it, regardless of the facts. Sad.
Okay, do you understand antitrust law well enough to know what is and is not illegal antitrust action?
But that's not mentioned in the complaint at all...just a bunch of whining that "they aren't standards compliant." Yes, as a developer, it blows. But just because something blows doesn't mean it's abuse; it's just an asinine business practice.
Actually, MS bundling a browser with Windows is antitrust abuse all by itself. Their intentional breaking of standards is further abuse because it results in competing products being artificially broken through the use of MS's monopoly on desktop OS's. It further speaks to potential remedies of the problem, since simply forcing MS to not bundle IE it this point would not fix the broken Web browser market.
Furthermore, there are many other browsers available that work just fine with Windows, including Opera. In fact, FireFox is a great browser that is very successful on Windows.
Do you have any doubt that if MS had not bundled IE with Windows in the first place other browsers would have larger market share?No? Me neither. It doesn't matter if users can download Opera or Firefox. Most won't either out of laziness or ignorance or because the Web itself has been broken to be noncompliant as a result of MS's action. Here's a question for you. Can the Firefox development team do something to force every Windows user to have Firefox on their system? No they can't. MS can and did. That is proof of MS using a monopoly in one market to promote a product in another. That is what antitrust law makes illegal.
To me, it seems that Opera is whining, and the EU is protecting a company that resides within its borders.
Bullshit. First, Opera is based our of Norway, which is not an EU member. Second, the EU has enforced this same law against numerous companies based in the EU. Third, the US convicted MS of bundling IE... they just didn't do anything about it because there was an election and MS contributed large amounts of money to both parties and our corrupt politicians replaced the prosecutors with people who basically let MS off with no punishment.
I'm really tired of hearing this same, old, flawed argument from people who don't bother looking into it, but assume the EU acts like the US.
If this was really a question of companies including software w/ their OSes, then Apple should be included as well.
Please educate yourself. It is a matter of companies bundling any product in one market with another product with one which they have monopoly influence. And Apple is being investigated for bundling the iTunes software and for tying the iTunes store to said software given that they may have enough influence in the portable music player market to qualify as monopoly influence. The law applies the same to everyone.
Hell, any Linux distro includes more software by default than Windows does.
Yeah and Linux or the software qualifies as having monopoly influence in what market?
. And I'm not even sure what the.NET framework or Office has to do with any of this.
It's easy, both are tied to Windows, which is a monopoly. For example, MS has long bundled a text editor that reads the proprietary Word format with Windows. They don't include one which reads competing formats, thus giving them a competitive advantage in the word processing market. That is potentially illegal.
This is a ridiculous statement. Cars used to be separate from air conditioning too; people used to have to add a window evaporative cooler to their coupe back in the forties. Just try convincing the majority of people that cars don't need air conditioning!
Your analogy (like most that will be presented in this article) is flawed because it does not include a monopoly for one of the markets. No one has a monopoly on cars or on air conditioners or people might feel very differently about it. As a result of this, the AC market is not broken so people have no incentive to want change. If there was a single monopolist on cars and AC cost $5000 dollars per car and released a gas that broke other car add ons not from the car maker, then you might have an accurate analogy.
As for convincing people, why would you have to? This isn't about stopping OEMs from bundling IE it is about stopping Microsoft. By your analogy, antitrust law wouldn't stop the car dealership from installing AC into all the cars they sell, even AC made by the car manufacturer. It just stops the car maker from forcing car dealers to buy their AC regardless of which is the best deal or works best.
Naturally, no one else uses it to the extent that Microsoft does, to the point where folder views contain HTML. But why should Microsoft not be permitted to do this?
Am I the only one who stayed awake for my Econ 101 class? MS has monopoly influence on the desktop OS market. When they bundle a borwser with their OS, they break the Web browser market such that regardless of which browser is best, most people use IE. This is illegal in both the US and EU because it undermines the market. As a result of this behavior on the part of MS, Web technologies have been held back nearly a decade and the Web has been intentionally crippled to keep it from becoming a way to bypass MS's OS. At the same time, consumers have been deprived of the opportunity to use the best browser (most not knowing how to find and install other browsers).
Microsoft bundling IE wasn't the problem.
This is simply not true. Bundling is a form of tying, explicitly described in antitrust law. Bundling a Web browser with any other product on which they have a monopoly is sufficient to violate antitrust law. I know most people don't want that to be the case, but it doesn't change matters at all.
Yes, it's very limited (OS/Browser/Media Player) but remember, this is NOT a standalone service. People do not subscribe to Netflix to "watch streaming movies". No. The only purpose of streaming at this time is to provide a bonus extra feature. For those cases where you sit at the computer and want to run some movie in a background.
Yeah, that is how NetFlix treats it now, but I think it is clear to everyone that movie downloads will be the future. I'd much rather download a movie in a few minutes than wait for it to come in the mail and then wait for it to get back to them in the mail. I already have a computer hooked up to my TV/stereo full time, which I use as my DVD player, music server, etc. So if Apple or anyone else comes along with a solution that will let me download movies to a Mac media server, and the cost is not prohibitive, and they can get the interface/queuing right, NetFlix will lose my business and probably that of many other people. As the market matures, that trend will continue.
For those who really really want to watch it on TV there'll be a set-top box.
Who wants yet one more set top box from another vendor? I want one box plugged into my TV that is a DVR, DVD player, streaming media server, MP3 player, CD player, and everything else. I already have such a box. I'm not going to buy another one just for NetFlix streaming because they can't manage cross/platform compatibility with OS X.
For everyone else, Netflix will remain a DVD rental service.
Which they will be, and they'll slowly die as they are outcompeted by download services that work.
P.s. do they already make an iTunes for Linux? I thought so. So no matter what Apple announces, it'd be just as useless for the Linux crowd.
Probably, which is why a lot of us were hoping NetFlix would listen to their users and make a cross-platform solution not tied to MS and not tied exclusively to them. It would be awfully nice to have a real DRM standard adopted by a major player instead of yet another victim foolish enough to partner with MS, rely on MS, and compete with MS at the same time. RIP NetFlix, you were really innovative and cool for a while.
I submit that the world would not come to an end if you were to get off your high horse and plug your laptop into your TV.
No the world would not end, but that would be inconvenient. I don't know about you, but the whole reason I use NetFlix instead of walking down to the video store, is because it is more convenient. I don't want to bother plugging in cables and adaptors and unplugging my normal media server. I also like having m laptop handy when I watch a flick, in case I want to use IMDB to figure out where I've sen that actor before, or for some other reason.
I think you missed the point of my post. NetFlix is not listening to users, not innovating, and has made a decision to trust their business by relying on a partnership with MS, which they will not easily be able to abandon due to MS's lock-in strategy. Anyone who bets on simultaneously relying upon and competing with MS, with their history of screwing over competitors, is probably doomed. MS's entire business strategy relies upon luring in partners in new markets to help them make their protocol or format or whatever a de facto standard, then using their monopoly influence in other markets and control of the protocol or format to screw over those partners and take the entire market for themselves. If NetFlix actually goes through with committing to Silverlight, they're probably as good as dead in 5 years.
Netflix is forced to use Windows because the MPAA only allows windows DRM to be used. So they aren't mandating the codec, the MPAA is.
Bullshit. The MPAA sells movies protected by CSS, MS's WMP, and Apple's FairPlay. What makes you think they wouldn't approve another DRM format if someone presented it to them? It is in their best interests, in fact, to have as many stores and DRM types as possible for two reasons. First, they are a cartel that makes money by being gatekeepers and having a single DRM as a choke point would give another company as much power as they have. Second, they make money when consumers repurchase content because the DRM hinders their switching to other devices.
To me this seems like a plain old case of NetFlix foolishly listening to MS and being suckered by them. NetFlix did not innovate, nor did they find a DRM scheme that is not controlled by a direct competitor (I'd look at Sun's DReaM). They simply made a stupid choice and it will probably kill them in the long run. It's too bad, in the early days NetFlix made some really smart and bold moves, innovated and listened to customers. Sadly, when companies get bigger, they tend to stop doing any of those.
What RIAA-approved DRM do you think Blockbuster is going to use?
Umm, perhaps you mean MPAA? I'm sure they can get the MPAA to sign off on any restrictive DR they choose. There are several offerings, like Sun's DReaM, which are not tied to a vendor who is also a competitor.
Unfortunately, Windows Media DRM is probably the most usable solution for their customers.
NetFlix has the money to fund the development of hardware devices to connect to the TV and internet and use to download shows, they have enough cash to to develop their own DRM if need be.
Also, since Apple keeps their DRM all to themselves and (unlike M$) refuses to license their DRM to Netflix, you should be bitching to Apple.
Why? Using Apple-controlled DRM while competing with Apple would be only slightly less risky than using MS-controlled DR while competing with MS. Neither is a good move. And Apple has no responsibility to license their technology to anyone. NetFlix should have adopted a vendor neutral DRM or invented their own.(As an aside, you're incorrect about Apple, they did license their Fairplay DRM to several cell phone manufacturers.)
Did you miss the part where Silverlight has RIAA-approved DRM and will be compatible with Windows, Mac OS, and Linux.
Again, I think you mean the MPAA. And no, I did not miss that. Microsoft often is generous in licensing their technologies and making them cross platform in the beginning. It is only once they gain a large share of the market they start breaking compatibility with competing services and dropping support for OS's. In my opinion you'd have to be a bloody idiot to adopt Silverlight for such a service, less than a year after MS broke compatibility with PlayForSure audio DRM, screwing over all their partners to promote their own Zune hardware and Zune Marketplace service. You'd think by now people would know MS won't play by the rules and the courts are not going to stop them.
Betting the future of your company on MS not abusing their monopoly is moronic.
Good grief! No one is betting the future of their company on that.
I disagree. The future of video rentals is downloads. It is faster and more convenient. It is held back by three factors: lack of high speed internet, lack of internet skills, and technology hurdles such as getting video from the internet to the TV. Every month a new device comes out to connect TVs to internet content. Every day, more people get broadband access. As people age, fewer and fewer are lacking internet skills. Eventually, Netflix needs to have attractive online downloads or they will perish.
Given that this is the future of the market, betting on Silverlight which is completely controlled by Microsoft, while at the same time Microsoft offers the same service via the Zune Marketplace and has monopoly influence on the desktop OS market and offers a hardware device for portable viewing (Zune) and offers a hardware device for getting video on the TV (xbox) and completely controls the WMP software needed to play the content, well they can use any one of those things to crush NetFlix at their leisure.
their strategy for moving into streaming seems pretty smart to me - go slow, don't try to be all things to all people right from the start, gauge demand, don't risk a major newsworthy failure (like Wal Mart), etc.
Yeah going slow is fine, right up until you lock all your customers existing content and hardware into a proprietary format someone else controls. That means by the time downloadable video is a major part of your business you have to choose between screwing all your existing customers by switching to a different format and DRM (major bad press and brand poisoning) or sticking with Silverlight and letting MS kill you by making your service suck compared to theirs for technical reasons you can't control. They've done it to partners over and over again and I don't see why NetFlix would be an exception.
Look I'm a current NetFlix customer and have nothing but goodwill for them. I'd love for them to succeed in the long run. I don't, however, let that blind me to the realities of their choices and I actually hope they don't stick around just long enough o help MS create another monopoly before MS kills them.
Well gee, why don't you go and get yourself a Windows XP machine like the majority of other users then?
Everything I want my media server to do, it does just fine, right up until NetFlix offered a service tied into just one browser with one media player on one OS. I'm not going to scrap my expensive and time tested server to accommodate their stupid choice. Rather, I'll ask them to support more systems and if they don't I'll take my business to someone who will.
Haven't you heard? Business is about giving the customer what they want. In this case, I'm the customer, so either they make their service convenient for me and those like me (people using Macs, Linux, Windows+Firefox, etc.) or they risk losing those subscription dollars to a competitor like Apple. Aside from that choosing to partner with Microsoft and rely upon them, while at the same time competing with them seems pretty idiotic to me. I realize it is not NetFlix's core competency, but it seems to me like they made a fatal error. MS's "partners" in the music business will tell you how well sinking all that money in PlaysForSure based music solutions has worked out for them.
Umm... buy an s-video cable and a mini-jack to rca converter, grand total $15. Watch it on a television. And most of the on-demand movies are so-so anyway.
I already have a dedicated media server machine hooked up to my TV for movies, streaming, music, etc. It is a Mac. I'm not going to go to the effort of hooking up a second machine solely for the purpose of watching the occasional video that requires Windows. Rather, I'll do just as I do now and ignore that aspect of NetFlix... until someone else comes along and makes it convenient. It looks like Apple might be about to do that, which might lead to my NetFlix subscription being cancelled.
Netflix probably picked Microsoft DRM because it was ready off-the-shelf, and suits the needs of 90% of its users.
I'm sure they did.
They don't have the luxury Apple does, that is to say controlling the source of a widely popular media player. And software development, especially a cross-platform DRM system, isn't cheap or easy. Can you suggest any viable alternatives to Microsoft DRM?
Sure, there is Sun's DReaM platform which is cross platform and open protocol. There are also NetFlix has the cash to invest in making a software player, they just decided it wasn't worth the trouble. They have the money to invest in a hardware solution after all. I feel, however, they have been shortsighted and foolish to put themselves at the mercy of Microsoft who already has a competing offering in the Zune Marketplace. I'm sure MS is happy to have found a big name stupid enough to buy into Silverlight, but what is to say they won't break compatibility the next time they go to market, just as they did with PlaysForSure when they came out with the Zune? Nothing, that's what.
Netflix has a great business model, returning movies in 3-days is a pain in the ass. The on-demand is just a nicity that a minority of customers use.
NetFlix has a good business model and a well regarded brand. They have, however, ignored the requests of their users (like me) and if someone comes out with something better, I'll switch. On-demand is used by a minority of users because it has a very poor selection, and only works for a subset of users, most of whom don't have a TV plugged into their television. The thing is, every day more people get a fast Internet connection and more devices come out to hook TVs into that. Anyone can see it is the future and getting a movie in a few minutes is a lot better than ordering it and waiting a few days then shipping it back and waiting a few days. The future is downloads, which is why everyone is pushing to have a solution. I just think NetFlix picked the wrong path for the long term and it will crush them some day.
As for Apple, they may or may not come out with a better solution this week and it may or may not cause myself and others to take our business away from NetFlix, but if they don't it won' be because NetFlix has not given them the opportunity by their poor choices.
Computer running Windows XP with Service Pack 2 or higher, or Windows Vista
Internet Explorer version 6 or higher
Windows Media Player version 11 (DRM version 5145) or later
Well gee, that makes the service pretty much useless to me unless I want to watch movies in a VM on my laptop, instead of on my TV. No thanks. I told them a year ago that if they didn't come up with viable solution Blockbuster or Apple would and that would probably be enough to make me switch. They replied back with a comment that it was impossible but that as soon as MS's silverlight technology was good enough they'd use that. Who in their right minds would bet the future of their company on a technology that is both completely controlled by Microsoft and in a market MS will probably want to compete in? I foresee the end of Netflix.
Do you win all your arguments by dismissing people as astroturfers, shills, zealots and the like?
He didn't dismiss anyone, he simply stated his opinion that there are people astroturfing using AC accounts. Since an AC account can be used for such purposes responding as an AC, like you have, lacks credibility. In fact, everyone who replied negatively so far has been an AC, which is somewhat suspicious. So reply as an AC if you want, but actually provide some evidence as to whether people are astroturfing or aren't and don't expect people to value your opinion otherwise, since you aren't even willing to register an account and build credibility for an alias.
Did you ever notice that some people switch to posting as an anonymous coward for replies, right after they have their asses handed to them in a discussion, when their opponent points out their extreme ignorance and stupidity? Change your mind, it's starting to smell.
So what's GOOD and FREE alternative to Photoshop? Please don't even think of saying GiMP, because it's gimped compared to Photoshop.
There are two issues here. One is the definition of "FREE." Is that "free as in beer" or "free as in freedom?"
Second, GIMP/Seashore/Gimpshop works pretty well for some uses and better than photoshop for large, automated batch processing of images (like if you need to process 600 images for a catalogue). They also suffice for a lot of the low-end graphics work Photoshop is overkill for, but is still used for in corporate environments. Another poster mentioned Krita, which works quite well for many of the tasks people use photoshop for, but certainly not all of them. Really, for high-end one off photo touchups, there is not a lot of free as in beer or free as in freedom alternatives. For probably 80% of the cases where businesses are violating licenses though, I bet one of the above would substitute just fine. For a good chunk of the rest, a lower cost alternative would probably suffice as well, even if it is not free.
This is slashdot and quite frankly I don't think you all are capable of making the distinctions but causing someone else to lose their trust in you let alone their investment in time and effort is certainly as real as any BS excuse this forum can come up with for treating their fellow men like s**t over entertainment.
Hey clueless... how many artistic works died today because no one knows who owns the copyright and the last copy just deteriorated? Hey clueless... how many great works of the past would never have been recognized as such if the copyright period had not expired before the last copy was destroyed? Hey clueless... how many copyrighted works make a profit after the first 4 years?... after the first 20 years? Hey clueless... what percentage of commercial copyrighted works are owned or sold by the creator instead of being transferred to someone else?
Copyright can be a very useful motivation and foster innovation. It can also hinder innovation, be used as a form of censorship, and be abused by those who can influence the legal system. I don't know anyone educated on the topic of intellectual property who is willing to argue our current copyright laws are better at fostering innovation and getting works into the hands of the people than the laws we had in the 60s; that is unless they're being paid to make that argument.
A book my mother wrote when she was just out of college is out of print and has been for three decades and because in order to get it published and distributed in the first place she had to transfer the copyright to a publishing house. She's retired now. She can't even find or make a copy to give to her grandchildren without breaking the law. Given current interpretation of copyright law, there is no reason to believe it will ever be legal to make a copy, even if she found one in a library. Given current laws on the books, it won't be legal to make such a copy till about 2090. Do tell me, how is this fostering innovation? Our current copyright laws are very, very, very broken in order to profit a few big companies at the expense of the people. It is bad for books, and worse yet for newer media like music (nearly 80% of all classic blues is out of print an unobtainable), video games (can you legally play classic games whose copyright is assigned to unknown parties and hardware to play it on does not exist), movies (did you know "It's a Wonderful Life" would never have been popular unless its copyright had expired and it was aired for free on PBS, it tanked at the box office), etc.
Said by a man who can't even grasp the historic period he's in, typed on a machine, educated in a society that seen a greater growth than any other time in human history exactly because of IP.
Please. Innovation has slowed down considerably since say, the 50s. Just because copyright is useful to foster innovation, does not mean our current version of the laws can't do just the opposite. I make my living primarily by creating copyrighted works, but right now I think revoking all copyright law in the US would be better than keeping our current laws and relegating the majority of our artistic heritage to destruction. I'd be willing to find alternative ways to profit from my works, a great inconvenience, and opposed to my personal, best interests.
Maybe you need to educate yourself on the real issues before spouting off.
take v. to gain or obtain possession. This includes downloading copies.
Don't you think it is more than a little deceptive to include the second sentence, which is your own personal comment, on the same line? How do you figure making a copy of something is "taking" it. If I go to the museum and copy a photograph with my camera, do they arrest me on the way out for "stealing" a priceless painting? Gee, not they don't. Someone might say I've "taken" a photograph, but no one would tell the police or employees that I've "taken" the painting. They are separate laws with separate names for a reason. Trying to conflate them contributes to the dumbing down of our society and at the same time helps those people who abuse our legal system to make absurd copyright laws muddy the waters by confusing people into thinking they are the same things.
Copying vs. obtaining an original object does not affect these definitions.
Yes, it does. When you copy something you don't gain possession of it. The person who owns it still has possession. You take possession of a new item, which is a copy of the original and is a new thing, made of new molecules, or electrons or whatever. Copying != stealing and your argument to the contrary is crap.
MS actually donates BSA nice % of their money they use to look for the stealing companies.
This is Slashdot for crying out loud. Can't people get it right by now? It is "copyright infringement" not "stealing." They are two separate laws in two separate categories of law based upon completely different concepts of government. Stealing deprives a person of something real and violates their natural rights. Copyright infringement possibly deprives someone of "potential" revenue and violates a government granted privilege, designed for a specific purpose... motivating the creation and dissemination to the people of useful works.
I'm not saying it's right to steal software, but what I'm saying is, if one day, BSA agent is knocking at your door, DO NOT LET THEM IN without any court order. They have no right to check for your licenses without any court orders. keep that in mind.
There's that word again. The problem is, they can usually get a court order if they have probable cause, including a report from a current or former employee or the results of running their "free" license checking software they give people to "ensure your licenses are in order." In many businesses (especially very large or very small ones) simply tracking the licensing is a difficult task, especially if your employees have any level of autonomy. Employees buy software on their own or install things from home. No, restrictive security policies won't stop this completely because the people a the top do it and can override IT and because people in IT themselves do it.
Realistically, in small businesses where it is too costly to have IT manage everything, you're better off treating your employees well so they are not motivated to cause you pain. In large enterprises, using professional license tracking software and employee agreement that takes responsibility for anything installed and pervasive use of site licenses or open source licensed software is the way to go.
So here's what I think actually happened. Jepson (Ms. or Mrs anyone know?) got tired of turning down backroom deals from Microsoft and realized there was insane amounts of money to be made by creating a low end device and letting MS pay you to not install Linux on it. She figured she could make herself untold riches and at the same time drain some cash away from MS, potentially weakening them and helping third world countries. I see the business model as follows:
Spec out a new low end device including Linux ala OLPC.
Build a prototype.
Make a deal with a third world country to tentatively pre-order it.
Use connections to OLPC project and capitalize on the press OLPC gets for good work to get this hyped in the news.
Wait for MS to try to pay you off to use Windows and/or pay off the third world country to require Windows.
Profit!...err I mean ship the devices with Windows to be used as glorified calculators while splitting the profits between the new company and the third world country.
Wait for MS marketing to offer you money to tell everyone how great they are doing... then take it and profit some more.
On the upside small cars like the smart car(search youtube for the smart car road test hitting a brick wall at high speed with no cabin intrusion) are made to withstand accidents exceedingly well, while SUVs are not.
This does matter when you're talking about accidents where you go off the road or crash into a stationary object. If, on the other hand, you collide with another vehicle (SUV into a compact car) the story changes. The last data I saw was that the relative mass of the vehicles was pretty much directly proportional to the chance of serious injury or death. That is to say, the bigger the vehicle you're in, the better your chances.
The lack of maneuverability in SUVs and Trucks combined with their top heaviness, often makes what should have been a simple physics equation (heaviest guy wins) devolve into complete randomness.
As I said, when talking about two or more car collisions, I don't think this is factually correct according to the published statistics.
I'd add, I used to own a Geo tracker SUV, the same, exact body as the Suzuki Samurai (the reason there are rollover ratings). It was a great little truck with reliability I wish I could find in a truck for half again the price today. I never rolled it, but the friend I sold it to did about three years ago while going about 80 mph on the expressway in heavy snow (this was the third truck he's rolled). Some people stopped to help him, rolled it back upright and he drove it away from the crash. It still runs today and he had some minor bruises. Mind you, this is a convertible. Being an SUV does not mean a car is unsafe by any means. I strongly recommend everyone look into the safety rating for a given vehicle prior to buying. Do your research people and avoid new cars until the data is in.
Err, you can buy non SUV cars in the US still, not that you'd know it sometimes. So why not trade in your truck for something that does better mileage?
That sounds like what he's proposing. He said buying one of these to drive in the rain would be better gas mileage than his truck. Know of any cars that are a more affordable option for him than this one? Besides, he didn't say "SUV" he said truck. To people who haven't be Calfifornized that can mean a pickup, not an SUV.
People are totally forgetting or missing how Negroponte has been misleading people. This is all about supporting MIT groups instead of kids. He oversold this as a $100 laptop with lots of MIT tech and totally missed it.
What the hell are you talking about? OLPC laptops have shipped and are getting great reviews.
Now he's pissed about competition.
No, he's rightly pissed that Intel tried to use their membership to mislead people into buying a more expensive, less well made device.
Competition here is a *good* moral thing if we are talking about getting cheap laptops to kids.
Morality doesn't come into it as it is subjective. Ethically competition is good for innovation if, consumers are properly informed. If, however, consumers are misled, then competition in the free market is undermined. If you're going to quote market theory, quote all of it.
What should be happening is low cost screen tech going out to many laptops and Also what obligations did Intel not meet?
By joining the OLPC board they committed to helping to get OLPCs into the hands of as many children as possible, as that is the mission of the organization. Instead, Intel tried to deceive the Peruvian purchasing agents, claiming the charity was going under and would not be able to support the systems in the near future.
I read the Negroponte interview and he's claiming software, not hardware, deliverables and didn't even state what these are. It's all name trashing to me until I see the details.
You don't seem to have read the same interview or article as the rest of us or maybe you're completely misunderstanding why most of us find this distressing. How can you think getting low-end windows machines into the hands of half as many kids as getting OLPCs, designed specifically for kids with innovative software into twice as many hands could be a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what they're doing.
Opera filing suit seems to me to be grasping at straws.Most antitrust suits start with a lawsuit or complaint from a competitor. This is the normal way antitrust action begins.
They don't like being the red-headed step child that get's no love (like IE and Firefox do) so they will file a lawsuit in a locale that has already ruled against M$.Sigh. Opera's main business is selling a browser for use mostly in embedded devices like smart phones. They're making less money at this than they could be because of MS's abuse of their monopoly, which has resulted in all browsers other than IE being artificially "broken" for a significant number of sites. Are you telling me if you were in business and another company were breaking the law in a way that was costing you money, you wouldn't do anything about it (like ask the courts to look into it)?
Horse Crap!
Opera is a Norwegian company, who are not EU members. The EU has enforced this law against plenty of EU companies.
Do the developers work on them for free? Nope. So MS pays those developers somehow right? Where does that money come from? Gee from sales of a bundle of Windows and a bunch of software. Just because the cost is hidden does not mean they are free. And of course, none of this has anything to do with MS's monopoly abuse, since it doesn't matter if they are free.
Number 2.It doesn't matter if you can download alternatives. Can the Firefox team force every Windows install to include their product? No. Thus it isn't a fair competition. Why can MS do that? Because they have a monopoly. Thus, they're using their monopoly to gain an advantage in a different market. That is what is illegal.
Number 3.Maybe users are ignorant and don't care... that is irrelevant. Apple cares and they're competing with one of those products. The Firefox team cares and they're competing. Are you so self centered that you can't see it from the perspective of a software developer being unfairly competed with?
Number 4.Linux and OS X do not have monopoly influence according to the courts, MS does. Your analogy is flawed because Sony does not have 90% of the portable game system market.
All I'm saying is that this is complete and utter stupidity.Yes, having to explain the basics of antirust law to the clueless does seem pretty stupid. I wish you people would take Econ 101 before you bother making assertions.
Sigh, not again. How many bloody times do I have to explain it. Antitrust law makes bundling a monopolized product with a product in another market. The US, EU and several other jurisdictions have already convicted MS of abusing their monopoly in the desktop OS market, thus they legally have a monopoly in the desktop OS market. They bundled IE with that monopolized product. This is the same as someone with a monopoly in the car business bundling car accessories.
Except that, once again, this wasn't the real problem. Microsoft was come down on not because the bundled a browser, but because they forced OEMs to not bundle other browsers. Which, again, was caused primarily by Microsoft refusing to allow OEMs to bundle other browsers - not even instead of IE, but in addition to it.That's just exacerbating the abuse. MS has already been convicted of bundling IE, which is illegal all by itself.
Bundling is not tying, because force is absent.Bundling is the very first example of tying listed in US antitrust law and is the most common form of antitrust abuse prosecuted. Please learn the facts rather than arguing what you wish was true.
Bundling is not tying in the absence of pricing that prevents sales by an equally efficient competitor.MS sells a bundle which includes both Windows and IE. Some of that money goes to develop IE. Users don't have the option of buying just Windows for a price that is lower than the bundle. Thus, users are forced to buy IE, rather than saving that money and buying a competing offering.
Monopoly leverage, using a monopoly to try to gain a monopoly in another area, is also not a violation of the Sherman act;No it is a violation of the Clayton act. MS has already been convicted by the US on this count, how can you claim it isn't illegal?
The only web browser-producing "competitor" to Microsoft whose efficiency (in that market alone, naturally) even approached Microsoft's was Netscape, and they were giving the browser away. Thus, no sales were prevented.Wrong, direct sales are not the only way to cause financial harm. For example, Firefox is paid for directing users to Google. They are paid less because of MS's actions using their monopoly to push IE.
In fact, Netscape was dumping their product on the market, by giving it away at a price substantially lower than the production cost, in order to gain purchase against IE.It doesn't matter because Netscape didn't have a monopoly and aren't relevant. This is about what MS is doing today to affect the market.
Sigh, you are the worst MS apologist ever. You'll take any farfetched claim and make it, regardless of the facts. Sad.
Okay, do you understand antitrust law well enough to know what is and is not illegal antitrust action?
But that's not mentioned in the complaint at all...just a bunch of whining that "they aren't standards compliant." Yes, as a developer, it blows. But just because something blows doesn't mean it's abuse; it's just an asinine business practice.Actually, MS bundling a browser with Windows is antitrust abuse all by itself. Their intentional breaking of standards is further abuse because it results in competing products being artificially broken through the use of MS's monopoly on desktop OS's. It further speaks to potential remedies of the problem, since simply forcing MS to not bundle IE it this point would not fix the broken Web browser market.
Furthermore, there are many other browsers available that work just fine with Windows, including Opera. In fact, FireFox is a great browser that is very successful on Windows.Do you have any doubt that if MS had not bundled IE with Windows in the first place other browsers would have larger market share?No? Me neither. It doesn't matter if users can download Opera or Firefox. Most won't either out of laziness or ignorance or because the Web itself has been broken to be noncompliant as a result of MS's action. Here's a question for you. Can the Firefox development team do something to force every Windows user to have Firefox on their system? No they can't. MS can and did. That is proof of MS using a monopoly in one market to promote a product in another. That is what antitrust law makes illegal.
To me, it seems that Opera is whining, and the EU is protecting a company that resides within its borders.Bullshit. First, Opera is based our of Norway, which is not an EU member. Second, the EU has enforced this same law against numerous companies based in the EU. Third, the US convicted MS of bundling IE... they just didn't do anything about it because there was an election and MS contributed large amounts of money to both parties and our corrupt politicians replaced the prosecutors with people who basically let MS off with no punishment.
I'm really tired of hearing this same, old, flawed argument from people who don't bother looking into it, but assume the EU acts like the US.
If this was really a question of companies including software w/ their OSes, then Apple should be included as well.Please educate yourself. It is a matter of companies bundling any product in one market with another product with one which they have monopoly influence. And Apple is being investigated for bundling the iTunes software and for tying the iTunes store to said software given that they may have enough influence in the portable music player market to qualify as monopoly influence. The law applies the same to everyone.
Hell, any Linux distro includes more software by default than Windows does.Yeah and Linux or the software qualifies as having monopoly influence in what market?
. And I'm not even sure what theIt's easy, both are tied to Windows, which is a monopoly. For example, MS has long bundled a text editor that reads the proprietary Word format with Windows. They don't include one which reads competing formats, thus giving them a competitive advantage in the word processing market. That is potentially illegal.
Your analogy (like most that will be presented in this article) is flawed because it does not include a monopoly for one of the markets. No one has a monopoly on cars or on air conditioners or people might feel very differently about it. As a result of this, the AC market is not broken so people have no incentive to want change. If there was a single monopolist on cars and AC cost $5000 dollars per car and released a gas that broke other car add ons not from the car maker, then you might have an accurate analogy.
As for convincing people, why would you have to? This isn't about stopping OEMs from bundling IE it is about stopping Microsoft. By your analogy, antitrust law wouldn't stop the car dealership from installing AC into all the cars they sell, even AC made by the car manufacturer. It just stops the car maker from forcing car dealers to buy their AC regardless of which is the best deal or works best.
Naturally, no one else uses it to the extent that Microsoft does, to the point where folder views contain HTML. But why should Microsoft not be permitted to do this?Am I the only one who stayed awake for my Econ 101 class? MS has monopoly influence on the desktop OS market. When they bundle a borwser with their OS, they break the Web browser market such that regardless of which browser is best, most people use IE. This is illegal in both the US and EU because it undermines the market. As a result of this behavior on the part of MS, Web technologies have been held back nearly a decade and the Web has been intentionally crippled to keep it from becoming a way to bypass MS's OS. At the same time, consumers have been deprived of the opportunity to use the best browser (most not knowing how to find and install other browsers).
Microsoft bundling IE wasn't the problem.This is simply not true. Bundling is a form of tying, explicitly described in antitrust law. Bundling a Web browser with any other product on which they have a monopoly is sufficient to violate antitrust law. I know most people don't want that to be the case, but it doesn't change matters at all.
Yeah, that is how NetFlix treats it now, but I think it is clear to everyone that movie downloads will be the future. I'd much rather download a movie in a few minutes than wait for it to come in the mail and then wait for it to get back to them in the mail. I already have a computer hooked up to my TV/stereo full time, which I use as my DVD player, music server, etc. So if Apple or anyone else comes along with a solution that will let me download movies to a Mac media server, and the cost is not prohibitive, and they can get the interface/queuing right, NetFlix will lose my business and probably that of many other people. As the market matures, that trend will continue.
For those who really really want to watch it on TV there'll be a set-top box.Who wants yet one more set top box from another vendor? I want one box plugged into my TV that is a DVR, DVD player, streaming media server, MP3 player, CD player, and everything else. I already have such a box. I'm not going to buy another one just for NetFlix streaming because they can't manage cross/platform compatibility with OS X.
For everyone else, Netflix will remain a DVD rental service.Which they will be, and they'll slowly die as they are outcompeted by download services that work.
P.s. do they already make an iTunes for Linux? I thought so. So no matter what Apple announces, it'd be just as useless for the Linux crowd.Probably, which is why a lot of us were hoping NetFlix would listen to their users and make a cross-platform solution not tied to MS and not tied exclusively to them. It would be awfully nice to have a real DRM standard adopted by a major player instead of yet another victim foolish enough to partner with MS, rely on MS, and compete with MS at the same time. RIP NetFlix, you were really innovative and cool for a while.
No the world would not end, but that would be inconvenient. I don't know about you, but the whole reason I use NetFlix instead of walking down to the video store, is because it is more convenient. I don't want to bother plugging in cables and adaptors and unplugging my normal media server. I also like having m laptop handy when I watch a flick, in case I want to use IMDB to figure out where I've sen that actor before, or for some other reason.
I think you missed the point of my post. NetFlix is not listening to users, not innovating, and has made a decision to trust their business by relying on a partnership with MS, which they will not easily be able to abandon due to MS's lock-in strategy. Anyone who bets on simultaneously relying upon and competing with MS, with their history of screwing over competitors, is probably doomed. MS's entire business strategy relies upon luring in partners in new markets to help them make their protocol or format or whatever a de facto standard, then using their monopoly influence in other markets and control of the protocol or format to screw over those partners and take the entire market for themselves. If NetFlix actually goes through with committing to Silverlight, they're probably as good as dead in 5 years.
Bullshit. The MPAA sells movies protected by CSS, MS's WMP, and Apple's FairPlay. What makes you think they wouldn't approve another DRM format if someone presented it to them? It is in their best interests, in fact, to have as many stores and DRM types as possible for two reasons. First, they are a cartel that makes money by being gatekeepers and having a single DRM as a choke point would give another company as much power as they have. Second, they make money when consumers repurchase content because the DRM hinders their switching to other devices.
To me this seems like a plain old case of NetFlix foolishly listening to MS and being suckered by them. NetFlix did not innovate, nor did they find a DRM scheme that is not controlled by a direct competitor (I'd look at Sun's DReaM). They simply made a stupid choice and it will probably kill them in the long run. It's too bad, in the early days NetFlix made some really smart and bold moves, innovated and listened to customers. Sadly, when companies get bigger, they tend to stop doing any of those.
Umm, perhaps you mean MPAA? I'm sure they can get the MPAA to sign off on any restrictive DR they choose. There are several offerings, like Sun's DReaM, which are not tied to a vendor who is also a competitor.
Unfortunately, Windows Media DRM is probably the most usable solution for their customers.NetFlix has the money to fund the development of hardware devices to connect to the TV and internet and use to download shows, they have enough cash to to develop their own DRM if need be.
Also, since Apple keeps their DRM all to themselves and (unlike M$) refuses to license their DRM to Netflix, you should be bitching to Apple.Why? Using Apple-controlled DRM while competing with Apple would be only slightly less risky than using MS-controlled DR while competing with MS. Neither is a good move. And Apple has no responsibility to license their technology to anyone. NetFlix should have adopted a vendor neutral DRM or invented their own.(As an aside, you're incorrect about Apple, they did license their Fairplay DRM to several cell phone manufacturers.)
Did you miss the part where Silverlight has RIAA-approved DRM and will be compatible with Windows, Mac OS, and Linux.Again, I think you mean the MPAA. And no, I did not miss that. Microsoft often is generous in licensing their technologies and making them cross platform in the beginning. It is only once they gain a large share of the market they start breaking compatibility with competing services and dropping support for OS's. In my opinion you'd have to be a bloody idiot to adopt Silverlight for such a service, less than a year after MS broke compatibility with PlayForSure audio DRM, screwing over all their partners to promote their own Zune hardware and Zune Marketplace service. You'd think by now people would know MS won't play by the rules and the courts are not going to stop them.
Betting the future of your company on MS not abusing their monopoly is moronic.
I disagree. The future of video rentals is downloads. It is faster and more convenient. It is held back by three factors: lack of high speed internet, lack of internet skills, and technology hurdles such as getting video from the internet to the TV. Every month a new device comes out to connect TVs to internet content. Every day, more people get broadband access. As people age, fewer and fewer are lacking internet skills. Eventually, Netflix needs to have attractive online downloads or they will perish.
Given that this is the future of the market, betting on Silverlight which is completely controlled by Microsoft, while at the same time Microsoft offers the same service via the Zune Marketplace and has monopoly influence on the desktop OS market and offers a hardware device for portable viewing (Zune) and offers a hardware device for getting video on the TV (xbox) and completely controls the WMP software needed to play the content, well they can use any one of those things to crush NetFlix at their leisure.
their strategy for moving into streaming seems pretty smart to me - go slow, don't try to be all things to all people right from the start, gauge demand, don't risk a major newsworthy failure (like Wal Mart), etc.Yeah going slow is fine, right up until you lock all your customers existing content and hardware into a proprietary format someone else controls. That means by the time downloadable video is a major part of your business you have to choose between screwing all your existing customers by switching to a different format and DRM (major bad press and brand poisoning) or sticking with Silverlight and letting MS kill you by making your service suck compared to theirs for technical reasons you can't control. They've done it to partners over and over again and I don't see why NetFlix would be an exception.
Look I'm a current NetFlix customer and have nothing but goodwill for them. I'd love for them to succeed in the long run. I don't, however, let that blind me to the realities of their choices and I actually hope they don't stick around just long enough o help MS create another monopoly before MS kills them.
Everything I want my media server to do, it does just fine, right up until NetFlix offered a service tied into just one browser with one media player on one OS. I'm not going to scrap my expensive and time tested server to accommodate their stupid choice. Rather, I'll ask them to support more systems and if they don't I'll take my business to someone who will.
Haven't you heard? Business is about giving the customer what they want. In this case, I'm the customer, so either they make their service convenient for me and those like me (people using Macs, Linux, Windows+Firefox, etc.) or they risk losing those subscription dollars to a competitor like Apple. Aside from that choosing to partner with Microsoft and rely upon them, while at the same time competing with them seems pretty idiotic to me. I realize it is not NetFlix's core competency, but it seems to me like they made a fatal error. MS's "partners" in the music business will tell you how well sinking all that money in PlaysForSure based music solutions has worked out for them.
I already have a dedicated media server machine hooked up to my TV for movies, streaming, music, etc. It is a Mac. I'm not going to go to the effort of hooking up a second machine solely for the purpose of watching the occasional video that requires Windows. Rather, I'll do just as I do now and ignore that aspect of NetFlix... until someone else comes along and makes it convenient. It looks like Apple might be about to do that, which might lead to my NetFlix subscription being cancelled.
Netflix probably picked Microsoft DRM because it was ready off-the-shelf, and suits the needs of 90% of its users.I'm sure they did.
They don't have the luxury Apple does, that is to say controlling the source of a widely popular media player. And software development, especially a cross-platform DRM system, isn't cheap or easy. Can you suggest any viable alternatives to Microsoft DRM?Sure, there is Sun's DReaM platform which is cross platform and open protocol. There are also NetFlix has the cash to invest in making a software player, they just decided it wasn't worth the trouble. They have the money to invest in a hardware solution after all. I feel, however, they have been shortsighted and foolish to put themselves at the mercy of Microsoft who already has a competing offering in the Zune Marketplace. I'm sure MS is happy to have found a big name stupid enough to buy into Silverlight, but what is to say they won't break compatibility the next time they go to market, just as they did with PlaysForSure when they came out with the Zune? Nothing, that's what.
Netflix has a great business model, returning movies in 3-days is a pain in the ass. The on-demand is just a nicity that a minority of customers use.NetFlix has a good business model and a well regarded brand. They have, however, ignored the requests of their users (like me) and if someone comes out with something better, I'll switch. On-demand is used by a minority of users because it has a very poor selection, and only works for a subset of users, most of whom don't have a TV plugged into their television. The thing is, every day more people get a fast Internet connection and more devices come out to hook TVs into that. Anyone can see it is the future and getting a movie in a few minutes is a lot better than ordering it and waiting a few days then shipping it back and waiting a few days. The future is downloads, which is why everyone is pushing to have a solution. I just think NetFlix picked the wrong path for the long term and it will crush them some day.
As for Apple, they may or may not come out with a better solution this week and it may or may not cause myself and others to take our business away from NetFlix, but if they don't it won' be because NetFlix has not given them the opportunity by their poor choices.
System Requirements:
Well gee, that makes the service pretty much useless to me unless I want to watch movies in a VM on my laptop, instead of on my TV. No thanks. I told them a year ago that if they didn't come up with viable solution Blockbuster or Apple would and that would probably be enough to make me switch. They replied back with a comment that it was impossible but that as soon as MS's silverlight technology was good enough they'd use that. Who in their right minds would bet the future of their company on a technology that is both completely controlled by Microsoft and in a market MS will probably want to compete in? I foresee the end of Netflix.
He didn't dismiss anyone, he simply stated his opinion that there are people astroturfing using AC accounts. Since an AC account can be used for such purposes responding as an AC, like you have, lacks credibility. In fact, everyone who replied negatively so far has been an AC, which is somewhat suspicious. So reply as an AC if you want, but actually provide some evidence as to whether people are astroturfing or aren't and don't expect people to value your opinion otherwise, since you aren't even willing to register an account and build credibility for an alias.
Did you ever notice that some people switch to posting as an anonymous coward for replies, right after they have their asses handed to them in a discussion, when their opponent points out their extreme ignorance and stupidity? Change your mind, it's starting to smell.
There are two issues here. One is the definition of "FREE." Is that "free as in beer" or "free as in freedom?"
Second, GIMP/Seashore/Gimpshop works pretty well for some uses and better than photoshop for large, automated batch processing of images (like if you need to process 600 images for a catalogue). They also suffice for a lot of the low-end graphics work Photoshop is overkill for, but is still used for in corporate environments. Another poster mentioned Krita, which works quite well for many of the tasks people use photoshop for, but certainly not all of them. Really, for high-end one off photo touchups, there is not a lot of free as in beer or free as in freedom alternatives. For probably 80% of the cases where businesses are violating licenses though, I bet one of the above would substitute just fine. For a good chunk of the rest, a lower cost alternative would probably suffice as well, even if it is not free.
That would be LaTeX. Go on laugh, it's supposed to be funny even if it is true in a way.
Hey clueless... how many artistic works died today because no one knows who owns the copyright and the last copy just deteriorated? Hey clueless... how many great works of the past would never have been recognized as such if the copyright period had not expired before the last copy was destroyed? Hey clueless... how many copyrighted works make a profit after the first 4 years? ... after the first 20 years? Hey clueless... what percentage of commercial copyrighted works are owned or sold by the creator instead of being transferred to someone else?
Copyright can be a very useful motivation and foster innovation. It can also hinder innovation, be used as a form of censorship, and be abused by those who can influence the legal system. I don't know anyone educated on the topic of intellectual property who is willing to argue our current copyright laws are better at fostering innovation and getting works into the hands of the people than the laws we had in the 60s; that is unless they're being paid to make that argument.
A book my mother wrote when she was just out of college is out of print and has been for three decades and because in order to get it published and distributed in the first place she had to transfer the copyright to a publishing house. She's retired now. She can't even find or make a copy to give to her grandchildren without breaking the law. Given current interpretation of copyright law, there is no reason to believe it will ever be legal to make a copy, even if she found one in a library. Given current laws on the books, it won't be legal to make such a copy till about 2090. Do tell me, how is this fostering innovation? Our current copyright laws are very, very, very broken in order to profit a few big companies at the expense of the people. It is bad for books, and worse yet for newer media like music (nearly 80% of all classic blues is out of print an unobtainable), video games (can you legally play classic games whose copyright is assigned to unknown parties and hardware to play it on does not exist), movies (did you know "It's a Wonderful Life" would never have been popular unless its copyright had expired and it was aired for free on PBS, it tanked at the box office), etc.
Said by a man who can't even grasp the historic period he's in, typed on a machine, educated in a society that seen a greater growth than any other time in human history exactly because of IP.Please. Innovation has slowed down considerably since say, the 50s. Just because copyright is useful to foster innovation, does not mean our current version of the laws can't do just the opposite. I make my living primarily by creating copyrighted works, but right now I think revoking all copyright law in the US would be better than keeping our current laws and relegating the majority of our artistic heritage to destruction. I'd be willing to find alternative ways to profit from my works, a great inconvenience, and opposed to my personal, best interests.
Maybe you need to educate yourself on the real issues before spouting off.
Don't you think it is more than a little deceptive to include the second sentence, which is your own personal comment, on the same line? How do you figure making a copy of something is "taking" it. If I go to the museum and copy a photograph with my camera, do they arrest me on the way out for "stealing" a priceless painting? Gee, not they don't. Someone might say I've "taken" a photograph, but no one would tell the police or employees that I've "taken" the painting. They are separate laws with separate names for a reason. Trying to conflate them contributes to the dumbing down of our society and at the same time helps those people who abuse our legal system to make absurd copyright laws muddy the waters by confusing people into thinking they are the same things.
Copying vs. obtaining an original object does not affect these definitions.Yes, it does. When you copy something you don't gain possession of it. The person who owns it still has possession. You take possession of a new item, which is a copy of the original and is a new thing, made of new molecules, or electrons or whatever. Copying != stealing and your argument to the contrary is crap.
This is Slashdot for crying out loud. Can't people get it right by now? It is "copyright infringement" not "stealing." They are two separate laws in two separate categories of law based upon completely different concepts of government. Stealing deprives a person of something real and violates their natural rights. Copyright infringement possibly deprives someone of "potential" revenue and violates a government granted privilege, designed for a specific purpose... motivating the creation and dissemination to the people of useful works.
I'm not saying it's right to steal software, but what I'm saying is, if one day, BSA agent is knocking at your door, DO NOT LET THEM IN without any court order. They have no right to check for your licenses without any court orders. keep that in mind.There's that word again. The problem is, they can usually get a court order if they have probable cause, including a report from a current or former employee or the results of running their "free" license checking software they give people to "ensure your licenses are in order." In many businesses (especially very large or very small ones) simply tracking the licensing is a difficult task, especially if your employees have any level of autonomy. Employees buy software on their own or install things from home. No, restrictive security policies won't stop this completely because the people a the top do it and can override IT and because people in IT themselves do it.
Realistically, in small businesses where it is too costly to have IT manage everything, you're better off treating your employees well so they are not motivated to cause you pain. In large enterprises, using professional license tracking software and employee agreement that takes responsibility for anything installed and pervasive use of site licenses or open source licensed software is the way to go.
So here's what I think actually happened. Jepson (Ms. or Mrs anyone know?) got tired of turning down backroom deals from Microsoft and realized there was insane amounts of money to be made by creating a low end device and letting MS pay you to not install Linux on it. She figured she could make herself untold riches and at the same time drain some cash away from MS, potentially weakening them and helping third world countries. I see the business model as follows:
This does matter when you're talking about accidents where you go off the road or crash into a stationary object. If, on the other hand, you collide with another vehicle (SUV into a compact car) the story changes. The last data I saw was that the relative mass of the vehicles was pretty much directly proportional to the chance of serious injury or death. That is to say, the bigger the vehicle you're in, the better your chances.
The lack of maneuverability in SUVs and Trucks combined with their top heaviness, often makes what should have been a simple physics equation (heaviest guy wins) devolve into complete randomness.As I said, when talking about two or more car collisions, I don't think this is factually correct according to the published statistics.
I'd add, I used to own a Geo tracker SUV, the same, exact body as the Suzuki Samurai (the reason there are rollover ratings). It was a great little truck with reliability I wish I could find in a truck for half again the price today. I never rolled it, but the friend I sold it to did about three years ago while going about 80 mph on the expressway in heavy snow (this was the third truck he's rolled). Some people stopped to help him, rolled it back upright and he drove it away from the crash. It still runs today and he had some minor bruises. Mind you, this is a convertible. Being an SUV does not mean a car is unsafe by any means. I strongly recommend everyone look into the safety rating for a given vehicle prior to buying. Do your research people and avoid new cars until the data is in.
That sounds like what he's proposing. He said buying one of these to drive in the rain would be better gas mileage than his truck. Know of any cars that are a more affordable option for him than this one? Besides, he didn't say "SUV" he said truck. To people who haven't be Calfifornized that can mean a pickup, not an SUV.
What the hell are you talking about? OLPC laptops have shipped and are getting great reviews.
Now he's pissed about competition.No, he's rightly pissed that Intel tried to use their membership to mislead people into buying a more expensive, less well made device.
Competition here is a *good* moral thing if we are talking about getting cheap laptops to kids.Morality doesn't come into it as it is subjective. Ethically competition is good for innovation if, consumers are properly informed. If, however, consumers are misled, then competition in the free market is undermined. If you're going to quote market theory, quote all of it.
What should be happening is low cost screen tech going out to many laptops and Also what obligations did Intel not meet?By joining the OLPC board they committed to helping to get OLPCs into the hands of as many children as possible, as that is the mission of the organization. Instead, Intel tried to deceive the Peruvian purchasing agents, claiming the charity was going under and would not be able to support the systems in the near future.
I read the Negroponte interview and he's claiming software, not hardware, deliverables and didn't even state what these are. It's all name trashing to me until I see the details.You don't seem to have read the same interview or article as the rest of us or maybe you're completely misunderstanding why most of us find this distressing. How can you think getting low-end windows machines into the hands of half as many kids as getting OLPCs, designed specifically for kids with innovative software into twice as many hands could be a good thing.