3. They inform this guy that he is infringing on their trademark.
That is called "lying" since he was not infringing their trademark.
4. He decides not to challenge them.
Well, if the Australian courts are anything like the US courts, money talks and everyone knows it. What would be the point of his going to court and spending tons of money, only to lose and open himself up to a counter-suit for the millions MS spent in legal fees with their pricey lawyers? I'm sure MS made that very clear to him. Would you have taken that risk?
You claim that Microsoft has no trademark on Windows. That's irrelevant. The guy decided not to fight.
It is not irrelevant, it demonstrates that MS lied.
He lost nothing that he wouldn't have given up freely, (he claims) while gaining publicity and some misguided sympathy. Some people just have no class.
Yeah like Microsoft. Lying to people and bullying them with the threat of expensive legal action to make them give up the name to something they were making and marketing in good faith shows a complete lack of class. Only the most dyed in the wool Microsoft apologizer could claim this man was not wronged. Or maybe you think lying and barratry are OK for large, wealthy businesses. For the rest of us it is just one more example of why we should never give MS any money for anything.
That's just plain wrong. I'm a Linux user and I'm no Microsoft fan but to be fair, spyware isn't Microsoft's fault. If a malicious programmer wants to write a program to say, monitor your keystrokes, or send your computer ads, and a user willingly installs it, there's really nothing Microsoft can do to stop it short of prohibiting the user from running any and all programs.
You're wrong on both your points. First, a lot of malware (most infections) run without user intervention. That is certainly MS's fault. Second, assuming all malware is installed by users, MS can do a much, much, much better job of both providing users with application level privileges/ACLs and with a much better user interface for informing a user what is going on. When a user installs a little game, or just tries to view some data, like pictures, users should be alerted and given options to apply permissions to programs. Let users know when something is an executable, let them know when it wants to connect to the internet, let them know when it wants to touch their files, let them know when it wants to make alterations to the OS. More importantly, let them know all of these things in clear English, with a default option of stopping the action. Throwing up a OK/Cancel dialogue box is crappy UI design, especially when paired with text in techno-speak. Your false dichotomy of all programs can run and do anything vs. users can't install anything may be the way Windows works now, but it is not the proper behavior for a well designed OS.
Ideally the system could have warnings on the level of, "This program would like to record all your typing, even when you are using other programs. (Stop it from recoding your typing)(Allow it to record your typing)(Allow it to record your typing only when it is in focus)." This is doable, but even some basic default restrictions and virtual machines for programs just downloaded would be a huge obstruction to spyware. A lot of people claim ignorant users will agree to anything, well give them the choice and we'll see. And for the love of Buddha, get rid of the stupid OK/Cancel scheme. Asking someone what looks like the same question, not in English, over and over again while training them that "OK" means that things will work to pick out the few instances where that is not true is the most ridiculous UI idea I've ever seen.
this does add up my friend, another article like this was available the day after the crappy rokr came out. apple likely plans on releasing a phone that they design themself in the future.
How does that add up? You claim they intentionally made a crappy product branded with the itunes name and they made it crappy to promote sales of a new phone they plan to release with the itunes name? It's called poisoning the brand and it is not a good thing. People that buy a crappy itunes phone are unlikely to buy another. And will advise others against it, even if all the drawbacks of the first one are solved.
That's not necessarily true. MS got in trouble for bundling IE because they didn't offer a way to uninstall it and replace it, and they made it impossible for anyone to compete.
No they got in trouble because they were bundling a product for a new market with one for a market they had monopolized. The ability to uninstall and replace it was not a factor.
If you're saying that any form of bundling is illegal, then when you buy an OS, all you should recieve is the kernel. Adding in a window manager is bundling. Adding in a file explorer is bundling. Right?
No, not at all. Bundling is illegal when you are an already existing monopoly and when you use that bundling to move into a new market. If no one is selling stand-alone window managers or file explorers then you are not moving into a new market.
I got a remote control "bundled" with my DVD player. That doesn't stop me from going out and buying a universal remote, though.
That's not the point. You already had to pay for the first remote, thus the stereo manufacturer got paid for a product you don't want. If your stereo manufacturer was a monopoly it would be illegal to start bundling remotes if they did not already do so. Further, it would be normal practice to legally force the stereo manufacturer to un-bundle them if later cases of other abuse were found.
"Bundling" is not inherently anti-competitive, and it is not always illegal. It's all a matter of how you do it, and whether or not the end user has a choice. That's why MS is allowing you to swap out their software, if you want.
You completely miss the point of why bundling is illegal. It is because it forces consumers to buy things they don't want or need by abusing an existing monopoly. Right now any car company is free to bundle a lifetime supply of cheese with all the cars they sell. Even if they somehow build that cheese into the frame of the car so it cannot be easily removed or replaced it is no problem. If, however, a car company gained a monopoly, it would be illegal for them to give away a lifetime supply of cheese with each car. The reason for this is that they can raise the price of the car to cover the cheese and no one has an alternative. Thus everyone gets cheese whether they want it or not, or whether they prefer the car co's cheese of someone else's. As a result their cheese does not have to compete. Consumers suffer because they pay for products they don't want and they get potentially inferior products. They no longer choose the best cheese. The car company only has to make cheese good enough so that people are not willing to pay for both their cheese and a competitor's cheese in order to get a good product, and even if they do, the car company has already been paid.
Bundling is illegal when it is being applied by a monopoly to a new market (note, market not product). Whether or not you can subsequently buy a second product and use it interchangeably is immaterial.
End users are still going to compromise themselves, though, with software installs and stuff.
Currently most infection do not involve user interaction. If the OS was secure enough that they did need user interaction, a lot could be done to stop them via that interaction. Running all new applications in a virtual machine with no internet access, access to to other files, access to the system, etc. without specifically warning the user and asking for that privilege would be a good start. There will always be users that will agree to everything (especially when presented as OK/Cancel that is the dumbest UI convention ever) but that number is very small. Give users the tools, and make those tools actually make a difference and you'll find that education solves 99% of the problem.
So, they're bundling spyware software, and they're making sure you can exchange it for your favorite, if you like. What's wrong with that?
A monopoly bundling a product as a way to dominate a new market is the first example the antitrust statues use when explaining what abuse of a monopoly is.
Still, not having a contingency plan in place for if Malware finds it's way through would be just as stupid, in my oppinion.
I agree, users should have a contingency plan, but it is illegal for MS to provide it on unequal footing. If they want to sell it fine (yeah conflict of interest there too) but bundling is illegal and with good reason.
That is stupid. Many viruses are files that users are tricked into opening. "Look Pamela Anderson naked" and they click the.exe. There is no way for windows to distinguish what programs a user wants to run vs not run.
First, the majority of infections are from worms that require no user interaction. Second, decent user permissions partially mitigate trojans, especially if MS would fix their bloody local privilege escalations. Third, assuming MS did both of the above and malware writes adapted and moved mostly to trojans, a decent OS should still run downloaded binaries in a jail, virtual machine, or with kernel enforced, application level, ACLs. Sure lots of people want to look at Pamela Anderson, but their is no reason why pictures of Pamela Anderson need permission to touch any other files, run binaries, connect to the internet, modify the host OS, or do much of anything else other than be opened by an image viewer. Right now other OS's only have mediocre or experimental support for that functionality, and the UIs are still weak, but that is because other OS's don't currently have a trojan problem, unlike Windows. It's not like 99.999% of viruses, worms, and trojans cannot be prevented with some simple permissions and good, well made UI. If MS had to respond to their customers or lose business they would have fixed this a decade ago, or someone else would have. That is a big part of the problem with monopolies. They don't have to innovate, since they have their customers trapped.
PS. ALL Operating Systems are susceptible to this type of attack.
Actually, most are much less susceptible than Windows and you can bet dollars to donuts that if this became a problem on Linux, Mac OS, or Solaris the problem would be fixed in short order.
Your case is comparable to saying Automatic Updates is an anti-trust issue. Of course it's not. This software is designed to protect the OS (or the 'product') from threats, just like auto-updates.
Yeah, you go to court and try arguing that the similarity of the end result of a service is the definition of a market. Markets are defined by cash, sales, and the companies that compete in a space. There is a difference between making a market go away (preventing viruses) and entering into that market (making a competing product and bundling it). No other companies sold updates to Windows, hence no market. Lots of companies sell AV, hence a market. maybe you're confusing the term "market" with "product."
You can't be serious. MS might put out some crappy products, but they also put out some really good ones. Office comes to mind. Bad coding?
Word consistently corrupts and fails to open large files. My favorite is when the spell checker would see certain acronyms, think they were spanish, and change the whole menu system into spanish with no way to change it back, other than restarting. Yeah, that sure is some stellar programming.
Server 2003 is very well written and is the OS that has given them huge increases in market share for the server market. It's not cheap either.
They had no where to go but up in the server market. People don't buy Server 2003 because it is better, they buy it because they only know Windows (due to monopoly) or because they need something to talk to Windows and MS has broken compatibility with standards (abusing a monopoly to move into the server space).
MS has recruited some of the best "coders" in the word[sic].
But somehow their products are technologically inferior in most ways. MS generally hires people straight out of college and yes I know a number of people who have worked there. I know exactly what kind of coders and environment they have. Just because they hire some competent people does not mean that they can or do produce good products and the fact that they have not put out any real additions to their OS in so many years is a good example of that. They don't have to compete on quality, which means
And just maybe they should have thought of that before sinking the $$$ into the 'net, since after all it is connected to those nasty bastards in the USA.
Why? Their investment in the net is just fine, it is the agreement between all the nations interconnected networks to use the same "phone book" that is in question. The deal is, no one trusts the U.S. to be the one making entries in that book, and everyone has a copy. Now they have said, we're using a different copy as the authoritative one, which is chosen by everyone, not just you. It's called "democracy." The US, however, does not seem to fond of democracy and refuses to talk tot he rest of the world. That affects me, since I live in the US.
Tell me again why looking out for your own interests isn't a good thing?
Tell me again why it is better to break a toy than share it with your sibling. US==spoiled_brat.
Oh yeah, because you're a sensitive emasculated girly-man
Why is it people who use such phrases always piss in their pants when they actually come to face to face with someone like me?
Were the root servers manipulated during Gulf War II? Were they manipulated after 9/11? Didn't think so.
Ahh yes, the "something hasn't happened so it never will" argument. Take a look at all the abuse of the DNS system to date, from letting religious extremists nix new TLDs to reassigning.com to irresponsible criminals. ICANN is not exactly a poster child for doing the right thing.
I don't see why we should give them the time of day, let alone control of the root servers.
You act as if the US has a choice. The decision was made, now it is a matter of if the US still wants to be on the same internet as the rest of the world, or if they will move towards isolationism because of some politician's ego and so they can have an "us against them" speaking point for more nationalist campaigning.
I still maintain that we should still act in our own best interest regardless of other's opinions.
So breaking the US's compatibility with the rest of the world to get the votes of uninformed right-wing hate mongers is in the best interests of the US? Why is that again?
Leave. And no, I'm not joking.
Screw you. I'm staying. Maybe you haven't heard about it, but political free speech is still ostensibly my right. Why don't you leave, or die, or something.
Economic warfare is where it's at in the 21st century, and there's no way in hell we should risk part of our infrastructure to appease what is largely a bunch of European whining. China is coming up strong and fast and we need every advantage we can lay hands on. Being nice at the end of the day simply isn't going to cut it.
Fucking brilliant! That's not the only kind of warfare likely and guess what, alienating all our allies and going it alone is about as brain-dead as you can get. Maybe if look up the word "arrogance" you'll find some good examples of why it isn't the best official policy for a government. Making people hate the US by trying to bully them is not good for the US long-term. It is only good for politicians who like a fearful populace and need something for the citizens to fear.
We seriously need a root server split just to get over this, otherwise there will be no resolution to everybody's (as in the countries involved) satisfaction. Economic impact? Sure, it'll be nasty at first, until a cottage industry of DNS proxies make their appearance.
Do tell, how does the US having communication problems with the rest of the world benefit the US, long term? Should we move to an incompatible phone system, postal system, and time keeping method too? Isolationism. Why don't you take a look at what happens to empires that become isolationist. I'll give you a hint, it has to do with being a few centuries behind the rest of the world.
As far as it being- an anti-trust issue, I don't believe it is. This is a tool that fixes/protects against exploits in their software. They aren't adding a product from an unrelated market (e.g. web browser or media player). This is a logical step, similar to service packs and updates. The fact is if they didn't offer updates, a company would emerge that patches windows, just like the virus industry emerged.
I disagree completely. Markets are defined by products and the flow of money, not by how technologically similar or dependent upon another product something is. If they made the OS better so it did not have so many bugs and was not so susceptible to viruses, and thus ruined the anti-virus market, well that would be fine. As it is, however, a market exists that MS has not been in and they are not only moving into that market (which is fine) but they are bundling their product with Windows. That means everyone has to buy it, regardless of whether or not it is the best solution. That is bundling and is specifically used as an example of anti-competative business practices in anti-trust law.
All in all I tihnk[sic] this is a good thing for windows users. I think the anti-ms crowd is going to throw a fit, and wrongfully claim abuse of monopoly, but what can ya do?
It is a textbook abuse of a monopoly. If they wanted to do the right (and legal) thing, they would secure their bloody OS, stop exposing services to the network that have no business being there, implement good, user level permissions, fix all the local escalation bugs, and implement virtualization or other ACLs to defeat the trojan vector. Of course that would require good coding and development, and MS "just doesn't do that sort of thing." Maybe you should take a look at anti-trust law and think about how many companies this will put out of business before you decide it is legal and "right." What makes you think this is either, other than the fact that you get stuff "free" even though the price of the OS goes up mysteriously?
What they desire is control, and the power that it brings. If they wanted to secure the operation of 'their' Internets, they could have done so long ago. The fact that they want a single set of root servers *AND* want control of them is nothing less than proof that they are greedy power-mongering asshats!
You're an idiot. The value of the DNS system is that it is accepted by nearly everyone. Without that it is worth little to the US or anyone else. As for the "UN" wanting power over the internet, you're way off. No one wants control, they just want no one (especially not the US) to have control. A UN committee making decisions on the DNS root is akin to making sure no one can do anything radical with it. So many different factions result in mostly inaction with the occasional benefit that is very obvious and most everyone can agree on. That means no real censorship, or sanctions using DNS.
If I were considering investing another few billion dollars into a technology I've already dumped billions into, I might also talk to a few peers and question the guarantees for that system's uptime and reliability. I might further object to some radical party having their finger on the "off" button. I can't believe all the anthropomorphizing of the U.N and all the U.S. nationalist, isolationist bullshit I hear on this topic from clueless morons. How about taking a few minutes and actually learning more about the U.N. than the latest 60 second blurb on some scandal involving a dozen individuals and how about looking at things from the perspective of someone else, just this once. Man, it makes one ashamed to be from the U.S. these days. No wonder the US embassy tells everyone to claim to be Canadian when abroad.
Lock-in to a specific service (Comcast On-Demand) or lock-in to a specific codec (Fairplay/ACC/iTunes)?
Well given that Apple is the only company to offer their codec (thus far) it is the same as locking yourself into one service right now. That said, with Apple's solution you can keep them forever and have to deal with the possible implications of their DRM. With these other offers the shows expire in a week. With Apple's service you just have to buy the episode. With the other solutions you have to pay a monthly fee and use specific hardware you rent from them. It's not really a difficult call for me (not that I will buy either).
To respond to two points you made; removing the DRM from a DVD is not, technically illegal. Distributing tools that let you rip the DRM from DVDs is illegal. Also, this only applies if they move all TV to digital, through their proprietary boxes, broadcast, not if they keep pushing it over the air and through analogue cable. I have no doubt they fully intend to move to such a model, but it is really hard to move that large of an install base, many of whom refuse to make their current equipment useless and many of whom do not want to accept the downgraded feature set digital cable gives them. This is just an attempt to offer new features that will make it more attractive. Give up being able to have your own PVR and we will store the content for you and show it when we want. Of course their strategy is undermined by immediate greed and committee decision making. We can't threaten DVD sales so we'll make the episodes expire quickly. Gee lets charge money for these shows they have already paid for and can see for free with a PVR. Etc.
My experiences with TortoiseCVS have been very mixed. It is easy for beginners to learn, better than WinCVS anyway as it does not confuse them with multiple views of the same files. At the same time I've had it die trying to do checkouts because it can't write some file to disk for some unspecified reason, which kills the rest of the checkout as well. Also, while it might have the very basics down, it provides no easy way to do more complex CVS options, except using a pseudo CLI. When it comes to piping, diffs, and scripted jobs, it sucks and it just does not have the flexibility, speed, or ease of the CLI for an experienced user. I've installed it for some Windows using co-workers, but to suggest it as a replacement for someone already familiar with the CLI version is a mistake.
ould someone please tell Apple to fund the development of a real competitor to Office? One called OpenOffice.org is a prime candidate, but they need help.
Well, if all you're looking for is the word processor component, they already made Pages.app.
And is anyone keeping track of the number of people that switched BACK after discovering that they have to re...invest substantial amount of money into Mac version of software titles they already own for the x86?
Anecdotally, I can say that among the security geeks here at work the number of macs has overtaken the number of Windows/Linux/BSD workstations in short order. Two years ago, there were a handful, now they are the clear majority. Of those only one person I know has abandoned OS X and gone back to Linux as his primary OS.
It's really this simple: OSS is a loss-leader used to drive sales in other services like consulting and training. It requires a huge leap of faith (Linus) or desperation (Sun) to offer up so much hard work in hopes of future rewards, but it can be done.
You've got the cart before the horse here. Unlike traditional software development, OSS development works as a business model when it is customer initiated and directed. Linux was not a "leap of faith" because Linus was his own customer. He did not want to sell support and services, he wanted an OS so he funded development of it. OSS is ideal for a business or other organization that needs a tool to do something. They can get half the work for free by starting with existing OSS code, don't have to worry about vendor lock-in or missing features, and always get competitive bidding. Better yet, they often get free development from others who need the software to have some feature.
I'm not convinced that starting an OSS project with a business model based upon support and service from that software is a long-term viable model, since good, usable software should not require much support or service. A more workable OSS business model is to sell companies and organizations on OSS and sell commission work creating, adding features, or otherwise modifying software. Support and service can provide extra income, but in the long run they cannot be relied upon.
Just out of curiosity, if the "Orthodox" rabbis consider the first 11 chapters of Genesis to be merely a story about YHWH's power, how do they deal with the rest of the Pentateuch?
I'm only somewhat well read on the subject of judaism and may be off base in what I'm about to say. Pretty much anyone who studies the history of the bible, torah, koran, etc. quickly realizes that they are dealing with something that is based upon collected works, written by different authors at different times, and translated imperfectly. Further, due to the contradictions contained in all these works it is obvious that interpreting them literally means that the work is wrong, in one or more instances. This leads most intelligent people to view the works less as a matter of "chapter 1 is wrong, so why should we believe chapter 4" and more as a matter of, "chapter one has beautiful imagery and is a great parable for understanding, while chapter 4 is very down to earth and provides useful guidelines for everyday life, as well as some outdated dietary advice." I know a lot of people don't view things that way, but I am suspicious of the motives and/or intelligence of anyone who looks at such a work and tries to interpret it literally. Most of the jewish sects I've read about are very into tradition, which helps define them as a culture, but few of them literally interpret those traditions as orders from on high.
Ah, you mean that "obtain licenses" box - well, you have to go through that setup screen to rip your CD's at all pretty much, and I can't imagine anyone leaving it checked or checking it.
90% of people don't ever touch the default settings because they don't know what they do. Hence, the problem and the perception.
On the whole video front though, I keep getting into arguments with zealots who've told me they're going to get every episode of lost at 2 bucks a pop. They just sort of whimper when I point out you can get 24 episodes on DVD for about 25 bucks on ebay.
Why would you argue with zealots? Anyway, the benefits of Apple's iTunes TV show sales have little to do with price. The main benefits are that they play on the iPod which some people want for some wacky reason, they don't require media (no storing/carrying a DVD), they are available right away (thus you can buy one episode you missed before the next one plays), and instant gratification (you can get it now without going to the store). I might buy an episode of something to preview the technology, but none of those value propositions appeal to me, so in general I doubt I'd buy episodes there either.
Re:Google, Books and the internet..
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
All lawyers I have spoken to so far, none have any personal take on this case, have quite quickly got the the conclusiuon that what google is doing is copyright violation.
Funny they seem to disagree with the expert legal opinions that the media has written up thus far, huh?
Your claims that it helps people, amd that its hard to trace the copyright owners is failing to understand that hard work (or impossible situation) does not give you right to break the law.
You seem to be having problems with the English language. Are you, perhaps, a non-native speaker? That was an argument as to why Google may not want to use an opt-in scheme, not to the legality of the situation. You have not yet presented an argument why they should switch to such a scheme other than your assertions that it is wrong and illegal, neither of which you can support with facts.
Not being able to abide by the law does not mean you can break it.
Why don't you think about that statement for a bit, and see if you don't change your mind (not that it has anything to do with our discussion).
Copyright laws were there to protect writers.
No. They are not. In the U.S. the only legal purpose of copyright is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" ostensibly, "for the Good of the People." Copyright was originally enacted as a trade-off. The people had their free speech right to copy works restricted for a limited time. Thus artists and scientists could make money off their works. In exchange the people were rewarded with more works and authors could not keep their works secret, but had to send multiple copies to the library of congress who held them for said limited time until they were freely copyable by the people again. Since that time the limit has became virtually limitless, the reference works are no longer required, and the result is works are discouraged as much as encouraged. Why make works when you can survive of the royalties from your grandfather's works?
If you'd bother to do a little reading, like the supreme court decisions on the issue you'd see the only reason that it is constitutional is because the courts don't believe it is their job to decide what does and does not benefit arts and sciences and although they are of the opinion that what the law is doing does not promote arts and sciences.
because its the law... I don't care what will happen in 100 years. Copyright laws are good.
Hmm, three assertions, one of which expresses that you don't care what the effects of the law are and two with no backing at all. Are you trying to convince me you have just beliefs founded on logical reasons, or just that you have lots of annoying opinions for some unspecified reason?
If a copyright holder wanted to sue google, he would not have to notify google in advance anymore.
Do you mean copyright violation notice? Umm you're very wrong.
The burder[sic] of abiding by the law is always on the offender.
Sigh, please learn the difference between criminal law and civil law. Next reference innocent until proven guilty. Finally, if you think someone is infringing your copyright and you want them to stop, you have to send them a notice, otherwise you can't claim any damages.
But when google knows in advance quite clearly they are breaking the law, prior notice is not needed.
Well, some very prominent and well respected lawyers have spoken in the press their belief that Google is not violating the law. Why then, would you assume Google "knows it is violating the law" as you put it?
It is the law. Your view basically erases the term copyright. What else would you say copyright is if not the right for the creation and the way it is accessed, published or used? You need to review the copyright law.
Copyright is the right to restrict most republishing of a work, for a limited time, subject to certain restrictions. Situations where permission from
OK, I'll take the bait. Tell me how WMP is applying DRM to my ripped file?
I believe, by default any CD you rip to WMA with WMP, unless you turn that option off, is issued a key. Not being connected to the internet is a pretty minor issue, since without internet you can't access the online database to add the ID3 tags. It's not a big issue, you just have to turn it off before ripping. The issue is many users don't know it is being applied or that it can be turned off.
I move WMA files all over the place, never once have I run into a DRM issue, and I can just burn it all back to CDs.
I believe it restrict play to only your computer, but I don't recall the specifics. That is what Google is for. I don't have WMP even installed anywhere anymore.
I'm convinced that many many people dig iTunes more for what it CAN do, not because it necessarily does it better, more efficiently, or cheaper than the old way. Renting a movie at Blockbuster is still a vastly more economical model than payign 8 bucks for it, unless I plan on watching it more than 3 times. And I guarantee you they ain't gonna let me burn a DVD (in DVD quality) of my 8 dollar movie, even if they give it to me in DVD quality with all the extras (which they wont).
Umm, it is Sony talking about offering movies for $8 and I doubt they will let you burn a DVD and bandwidth will not really support DVD quality downloads for the masses yet. As for iTunes it is a very nice player, easy to use and powerful, but a bit crippled and slow on Windows.
OS X is Apple's real core product yet, they are becoming more and more, instead of the Apple Computer Company, rather the iPod company.
Apple makes most of its money selling computers, bundled with OS X and a pile of other nice software. This is a pretty good model for them for a number of reasons. First selling the hardware and the software allows for better compatibility and QA testing. Second, it keeps them competing with Dell instead of Microsoft. Third, it allows them to build lots of useful software that people want, but would likely not find and buy and package it all together.
Microsoft is already seeing the consequences of its horrendous licensing schemes with the upstart of Linux use and development -- I am unsure why Apple cannot see the same thing.
What consequences? They have the whole desktop computer market locked down and are losing a small amount of market to Apple and none to Linux. The percentage of people who buy a desktop computer to run Linux and who don't pay for Windows is so small that it does not even show up on charts of the market.
The day Apple decides to put OS X onto a DVD and let you install it on your whitebox built computer is the day the grave is dug for Microsoft.
What makes you say that? Because OS X is better than Windows? Sure it is, but so was BeOS. 99.9% of people never buy a computer without the OS pre-installed. Microsoft has contracts that assure anyone who tries to pre-install anything but Windows will be at a huge disadvantage to their competitors in a market with very thin margins. Basically, only companies on the brink of ruin, would possibly sell OS X pre-installed, and then they could not sell Windows competitively. Apple already tried that with the clones back in the day. Other companies largely turned our crappy, poor quality boxes that undercut Apple on specs, but broke constantly. This gave Apple a reputation for being unreliable while at the same time losing them tons of money. The day Apple sells the OS without requiring purchase of their hardware is the day they lose more than half of their revenue stream and are betting the farm that MS's anti-competative contracts won't put them out of business like they have every superior OS who has tried to move into that market.
I see lots of technical people who want Apple to sell for whiteboxes but I have yet to see a business case for it. Geeks are a small market. Just because you , personally, want them to sell a product does not mean they can sell to the masses that way without going out of business.
Re:Scripting Plug-ins with Javascript - the new VB
on
Google Desktop 2 Live
·
· Score: 1
The application was not bad, it just crashed my computer anytime I left it up overnight.
An application crashed your whole computer... and that's not bad? The last application I found that could accidentally crash my OS was years ago. Ouch, it still sucks to be a Windows user I guess.
It can't be the ability to burn to CD - again, Apple's competitors support this too.
Well originally that was a big part of it since Apple's competitor's did not allow burning until they were beaten to a pulp by Apple. Many people who evaluated the different DRM schemes in the past have not realized this is now available on other DRM systems. Also for Windows Media based systems less technical users don't realize that the CD is a way of removing DRM, since Windows Media Player applies DRM to ripped files by default, unlike iTunes.
I think a big part of the reason people favor Apple's scheme is that it does not get in their way (for the most part). People are unhappy with Real and WM because when they try to play them on a portable it does not work (most portables are iPods). That is just the way the market has shaped up and has nothing to do with the DRM scheme per-se. For slightly more tech savvy people, look at the competition. No one trusts Real since they killed their reputation with spyware. No one trusts MS since they always abuse their formats to lock people in. Who else is a major player in the space?
I've purchased songs from the iTunes store, but not because their DRM is any better (now) but because they had what I wanted and it was unavailable elsewhere and because they don't use a stupid rental scheme, and because they were not too expensive, and because I could take the DRM off of the music easily and legally using the CD burning method, or using easily available freeware without losing any quality.
I agree that DRM in general, and closed, proprietary DRM is a terrible thing for the industry, but at the same time if I am going to buy something with DRM on it, I'd rather it was from Apple rather than Real or Microsoft simply because I trust them more. Also, it is apparent that Apple executives know that DRM is useless and will always be able to be bypassed, so they don't try too hard to do annoying new things with it. Basically the DRM is not really any better, just the people providing it are more trustworthy (IMHO).
Re:Google, Books and the internet..
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
However, you simply have to ask lawyers (which is what I do) about copyright and they will you that using if for your befenit (especially financial) against the will of the copyright holder is illegal. Maybe you now hold poor opinion over the lawyers I talk to.
Damn straight I do. Are you sure they are really lawyers and not people with mental problems that think they are lawyers? Every single post in this discussion is copyrighted, and how many times are people quoted in it and in other publications? Guess what, all those publications are making money either through ads or direct sales and doing so using a "fair use" excerpt of another copyrighted work. (You do know everything you write is copyrighted since 76 right?)
You talk about unknown authors and IP in general and seem to fail to realize we talk here about printed books in libraries. I am fairly sure that 95% or even more of the works found in libraries that are still copyrighted are very easy to trace back to the authors.
You fail to understand that the principal of the law applies the same whether it is for books, random papers, or anything else. Google, or someone else, will eventually begin scanning in everything possible to make these databases more useful. But let's ignore that and assume for the sake of argument that you are right and 95% of works in libraries that they will scan is able to be traced at a somewhat reasonable expense. Is it right that those 5% of works are effectively lost to the people who copyright laws are supposed to benefit? What do you predict this situation will be like in 75 years? Copyright terms have been extended again and again and the average book written today will be copyrighted for 120 years. For works that have been around for 100 years, how many of the publishers will have vanished? How many individually produced works will be easily traceable through five or more generations of inheritance? More importantly, you've never answered why Google should bear this burden. Lets also assume for the sake of argument that what Google is doing is a violation of copyright. The copyright holder is still obligated to notify them of any copyright infringement and give them a reasonable amount of time to stop republishing a work before they can be held liable for damages. Now you want to shift the burden of keeping works unavailable to the public to Google instead of the people who are supposed to be profiting from them and thus being motivated to make more works? Preposterous!
As for the millions they will spend on contacting publishers, they will spend much more on scanning. So again, weak argument.
Allow me to debunk your argument by analogy. Why should you care take $100 from you? You just spent that much buying groceries. Non sequitur.
Regardless, not having money to do the right thing is no excuse for doing the wrong thing.
You have not yet given any reason why you think what they are doing is wrong, only asserted that that is your opinion for some unspecified reason.
Especially not for a "poor" company like google.
Ahh, the old, stealing from the rich is not immoral argument. I think that one was thoroughly beaten down about two thousand years ago.
You seem to live in a place where copyright can easily be broken and ignored. I live in a different place. You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that the world is not the US. that there are other countries there. Maybe I live in one of them?
This discussion was about the legality of Google's project and the court case against them. That case is in the U.S. and follows U.S. law. As for moral arguments that are relevant across national boundaries, you have not made any. Drugs are bad m'kay?
If I remember correctly, in the Arriba case they only served up thumbnails, and they served up the same thumbnail to each viewer.
Actually they did serve up different thumbnails of the same image at different times, but you are correct in that they did not serve up bits that could be used to reassemble an entire work. Of course it is not clear that Google will ever do that either, and it is much less likely that the courts will find Google is doing so in a manner that will both allow someone to reassemble an entire work and that that will affect the commercial market for buying that given work. This falls under the categories of market effect (seems good to me) and quantity (which is judged per publication, not en masse).
Arriba used thumbnails for commercial benefit. Google use the entire text for commercial benefit. This is a highly non-trivial difference.
Except you are not thinking of this in terms of the the fair use criteria. Is Google's purpose for the work the same as the copyright holder's? Google is making money helping people find relevant works, while the copyright holder is selling copies of the work. That is a completely different purpose, which is the criteria upon which this aspect of fair use is evaluated.
Consider reference works. Owners of such books rarely read the entire book. Over their lifetime they may only read a small fraction of the book. But they might not know in advance what sections they will need (Who knows what works you'll look up in a dictionary before you get it?). Owning the book is valuable because at any time you know that whichever snippet you want, it's available in the book, even though over a lifetime you only use a handful of snippets.
OK, the value of a reference work is in being able to look up given pieces of the book, but ones not known beforehand. Google will serve up given pieces, but only a few of them to a given person unless that person changes IP addresses and deletes cookies in order to hide their identity. (At which point it is arguably not Google's responsibility since they are making an effort to prevent wholesale copying and easier methods are available.) So Google's purpose is to help someone find the work, and they do not provide the same amount of functionality as owning the work. Now consider an article about how common use and dictionary definitions differ. This article might use the phrase "Webster defines $foo as..." multiple times, but that is certainly fair use of the work, even though they are presenting entire, valuable chunks of the work. It is not the usefulness of the information that matters for either the article or Google but the amount of the work compared to the whole (according to the fair use criteria).
I understand your points, and I believe most copyright holders of reference works like dictionaries and recipe books will opt out of this system, but lets face it, anyone who wants to look up a dictionary definition or a recipe and is willing to use Google print, can find just as much information by just using Google search. I think you really need to look at what Google is doing, what Arriba Soft did, and then compare them based upon the fair use criteria, not upon other random differences.
And your comparison is great if the form factor is more important to you than anything else.
No my comparison is valid if form factor is a considered criteria. You can't do a valid comparison by ignoring features and form factor is definitely a feature. The problem with comparisons like yours are that they are trying to pick a random type of computer, which Apple does not sell an equivalent version of, and compare it to some computer Apple does sell a version of. Apple offers a limited selection of computer types, but that is a separate issue. There are mac mini like x86 computers. They are all much more expensive, not half to one tenth the price, as the earlier post claimed.
Try doing a comparison with the ibook, and see if you can find a consumer grade laptop with the same feature set, for less. Is it significantly less, as the previous poster claimed? Sorry, but this FUD has lasted plenty long enough. Apple's prices are pretty comparable, sometimes more sometimes less than other vendors for similar machines. If you want to bitch about something, bitch that they don't offer enough variety of machines, not about the price of what they do offer.
Slashdot Mirror
3. They inform this guy that he is infringing on their trademark.
That is called "lying" since he was not infringing their trademark.
4. He decides not to challenge them.
Well, if the Australian courts are anything like the US courts, money talks and everyone knows it. What would be the point of his going to court and spending tons of money, only to lose and open himself up to a counter-suit for the millions MS spent in legal fees with their pricey lawyers? I'm sure MS made that very clear to him. Would you have taken that risk?
You claim that Microsoft has no trademark on Windows. That's irrelevant. The guy decided not to fight.
It is not irrelevant, it demonstrates that MS lied.
He lost nothing that he wouldn't have given up freely, (he claims) while gaining publicity and some misguided sympathy. Some people just have no class.
Yeah like Microsoft. Lying to people and bullying them with the threat of expensive legal action to make them give up the name to something they were making and marketing in good faith shows a complete lack of class. Only the most dyed in the wool Microsoft apologizer could claim this man was not wronged. Or maybe you think lying and barratry are OK for large, wealthy businesses. For the rest of us it is just one more example of why we should never give MS any money for anything.
That's just plain wrong. I'm a Linux user and I'm no Microsoft fan but to be fair, spyware isn't Microsoft's fault. If a malicious programmer wants to write a program to say, monitor your keystrokes, or send your computer ads, and a user willingly installs it, there's really nothing Microsoft can do to stop it short of prohibiting the user from running any and all programs.
You're wrong on both your points. First, a lot of malware (most infections) run without user intervention. That is certainly MS's fault. Second, assuming all malware is installed by users, MS can do a much, much, much better job of both providing users with application level privileges/ACLs and with a much better user interface for informing a user what is going on. When a user installs a little game, or just tries to view some data, like pictures, users should be alerted and given options to apply permissions to programs. Let users know when something is an executable, let them know when it wants to connect to the internet, let them know when it wants to touch their files, let them know when it wants to make alterations to the OS. More importantly, let them know all of these things in clear English, with a default option of stopping the action. Throwing up a OK/Cancel dialogue box is crappy UI design, especially when paired with text in techno-speak. Your false dichotomy of all programs can run and do anything vs. users can't install anything may be the way Windows works now, but it is not the proper behavior for a well designed OS.
Ideally the system could have warnings on the level of, "This program would like to record all your typing, even when you are using other programs. (Stop it from recoding your typing)(Allow it to record your typing)(Allow it to record your typing only when it is in focus)." This is doable, but even some basic default restrictions and virtual machines for programs just downloaded would be a huge obstruction to spyware. A lot of people claim ignorant users will agree to anything, well give them the choice and we'll see. And for the love of Buddha, get rid of the stupid OK/Cancel scheme. Asking someone what looks like the same question, not in English, over and over again while training them that "OK" means that things will work to pick out the few instances where that is not true is the most ridiculous UI idea I've ever seen.
this does add up my friend, another article like this was available the day after the crappy rokr came out. apple likely plans on releasing a phone that they design themself in the future.
How does that add up? You claim they intentionally made a crappy product branded with the itunes name and they made it crappy to promote sales of a new phone they plan to release with the itunes name? It's called poisoning the brand and it is not a good thing. People that buy a crappy itunes phone are unlikely to buy another. And will advise others against it, even if all the drawbacks of the first one are solved.
That's not necessarily true. MS got in trouble for bundling IE because they didn't offer a way to uninstall it and replace it, and they made it impossible for anyone to compete.
No they got in trouble because they were bundling a product for a new market with one for a market they had monopolized. The ability to uninstall and replace it was not a factor.
If you're saying that any form of bundling is illegal, then when you buy an OS, all you should recieve is the kernel. Adding in a window manager is bundling. Adding in a file explorer is bundling. Right?
No, not at all. Bundling is illegal when you are an already existing monopoly and when you use that bundling to move into a new market. If no one is selling stand-alone window managers or file explorers then you are not moving into a new market.
I got a remote control "bundled" with my DVD player. That doesn't stop me from going out and buying a universal remote, though.
That's not the point. You already had to pay for the first remote, thus the stereo manufacturer got paid for a product you don't want. If your stereo manufacturer was a monopoly it would be illegal to start bundling remotes if they did not already do so. Further, it would be normal practice to legally force the stereo manufacturer to un-bundle them if later cases of other abuse were found.
"Bundling" is not inherently anti-competitive, and it is not always illegal. It's all a matter of how you do it, and whether or not the end user has a choice. That's why MS is allowing you to swap out their software, if you want.
You completely miss the point of why bundling is illegal. It is because it forces consumers to buy things they don't want or need by abusing an existing monopoly. Right now any car company is free to bundle a lifetime supply of cheese with all the cars they sell. Even if they somehow build that cheese into the frame of the car so it cannot be easily removed or replaced it is no problem. If, however, a car company gained a monopoly, it would be illegal for them to give away a lifetime supply of cheese with each car. The reason for this is that they can raise the price of the car to cover the cheese and no one has an alternative. Thus everyone gets cheese whether they want it or not, or whether they prefer the car co's cheese of someone else's. As a result their cheese does not have to compete. Consumers suffer because they pay for products they don't want and they get potentially inferior products. They no longer choose the best cheese. The car company only has to make cheese good enough so that people are not willing to pay for both their cheese and a competitor's cheese in order to get a good product, and even if they do, the car company has already been paid.
Bundling is illegal when it is being applied by a monopoly to a new market (note, market not product). Whether or not you can subsequently buy a second product and use it interchangeably is immaterial.
End users are still going to compromise themselves, though, with software installs and stuff.
Currently most infection do not involve user interaction. If the OS was secure enough that they did need user interaction, a lot could be done to stop them via that interaction. Running all new applications in a virtual machine with no internet access, access to to other files, access to the system, etc. without specifically warning the user and asking for that privilege would be a good start. There will always be users that will agree to everything (especially when presented as OK/Cancel that is the dumbest UI convention ever) but that number is very small. Give users the tools, and make those tools actually make a difference and you'll find that education solves 99% of the problem.
So, they're bundling spyware software, and they're making sure you can exchange it for your favorite, if you like. What's wrong with that?
A monopoly bundling a product as a way to dominate a new market is the first example the antitrust statues use when explaining what abuse of a monopoly is.
Still, not having a contingency plan in place for if Malware finds it's way through would be just as stupid, in my oppinion.
I agree, users should have a contingency plan, but it is illegal for MS to provide it on unequal footing. If they want to sell it fine (yeah conflict of interest there too) but bundling is illegal and with good reason.
That is stupid. Many viruses are files that users are tricked into opening. "Look Pamela Anderson naked" and they click the .exe. There is no way for windows to distinguish what programs a user wants to run vs not run.
First, the majority of infections are from worms that require no user interaction. Second, decent user permissions partially mitigate trojans, especially if MS would fix their bloody local privilege escalations. Third, assuming MS did both of the above and malware writes adapted and moved mostly to trojans, a decent OS should still run downloaded binaries in a jail, virtual machine, or with kernel enforced, application level, ACLs. Sure lots of people want to look at Pamela Anderson, but their is no reason why pictures of Pamela Anderson need permission to touch any other files, run binaries, connect to the internet, modify the host OS, or do much of anything else other than be opened by an image viewer. Right now other OS's only have mediocre or experimental support for that functionality, and the UIs are still weak, but that is because other OS's don't currently have a trojan problem, unlike Windows. It's not like 99.999% of viruses, worms, and trojans cannot be prevented with some simple permissions and good, well made UI. If MS had to respond to their customers or lose business they would have fixed this a decade ago, or someone else would have. That is a big part of the problem with monopolies. They don't have to innovate, since they have their customers trapped.
PS. ALL Operating Systems are susceptible to this type of attack.
Actually, most are much less susceptible than Windows and you can bet dollars to donuts that if this became a problem on Linux, Mac OS, or Solaris the problem would be fixed in short order.
Your case is comparable to saying Automatic Updates is an anti-trust issue. Of course it's not. This software is designed to protect the OS (or the 'product') from threats, just like auto-updates.
Yeah, you go to court and try arguing that the similarity of the end result of a service is the definition of a market. Markets are defined by cash, sales, and the companies that compete in a space. There is a difference between making a market go away (preventing viruses) and entering into that market (making a competing product and bundling it). No other companies sold updates to Windows, hence no market. Lots of companies sell AV, hence a market. maybe you're confusing the term "market" with "product."
You can't be serious. MS might put out some crappy products, but they also put out some really good ones. Office comes to mind. Bad coding?
Word consistently corrupts and fails to open large files. My favorite is when the spell checker would see certain acronyms, think they were spanish, and change the whole menu system into spanish with no way to change it back, other than restarting. Yeah, that sure is some stellar programming.
Server 2003 is very well written and is the OS that has given them huge increases in market share for the server market. It's not cheap either.
They had no where to go but up in the server market. People don't buy Server 2003 because it is better, they buy it because they only know Windows (due to monopoly) or because they need something to talk to Windows and MS has broken compatibility with standards (abusing a monopoly to move into the server space).
MS has recruited some of the best "coders" in the word[sic].
But somehow their products are technologically inferior in most ways. MS generally hires people straight out of college and yes I know a number of people who have worked there. I know exactly what kind of coders and environment they have. Just because they hire some competent people does not mean that they can or do produce good products and the fact that they have not put out any real additions to their OS in so many years is a good example of that. They don't have to compete on quality, which means
And just maybe they should have thought of that before sinking the $$$ into the 'net, since after all it is connected to those nasty bastards in the USA.
Why? Their investment in the net is just fine, it is the agreement between all the nations interconnected networks to use the same "phone book" that is in question. The deal is, no one trusts the U.S. to be the one making entries in that book, and everyone has a copy. Now they have said, we're using a different copy as the authoritative one, which is chosen by everyone, not just you. It's called "democracy." The US, however, does not seem to fond of democracy and refuses to talk tot he rest of the world. That affects me, since I live in the US.
Tell me again why looking out for your own interests isn't a good thing?
Tell me again why it is better to break a toy than share it with your sibling. US==spoiled_brat.
Oh yeah, because you're a sensitive emasculated girly-man
Why is it people who use such phrases always piss in their pants when they actually come to face to face with someone like me?
Were the root servers manipulated during Gulf War II? Were they manipulated after 9/11? Didn't think so.
Ahh yes, the "something hasn't happened so it never will" argument. Take a look at all the abuse of the DNS system to date, from letting religious extremists nix new TLDs to reassigning .com to irresponsible criminals. ICANN is not exactly a poster child for doing the right thing.
I don't see why we should give them the time of day, let alone control of the root servers.
You act as if the US has a choice. The decision was made, now it is a matter of if the US still wants to be on the same internet as the rest of the world, or if they will move towards isolationism because of some politician's ego and so they can have an "us against them" speaking point for more nationalist campaigning.
I still maintain that we should still act in our own best interest regardless of other's opinions.
So breaking the US's compatibility with the rest of the world to get the votes of uninformed right-wing hate mongers is in the best interests of the US? Why is that again?
Leave. And no, I'm not joking.
Screw you. I'm staying. Maybe you haven't heard about it, but political free speech is still ostensibly my right. Why don't you leave, or die, or something.
Economic warfare is where it's at in the 21st century, and there's no way in hell we should risk part of our infrastructure to appease what is largely a bunch of European whining. China is coming up strong and fast and we need every advantage we can lay hands on. Being nice at the end of the day simply isn't going to cut it.
Fucking brilliant! That's not the only kind of warfare likely and guess what, alienating all our allies and going it alone is about as brain-dead as you can get. Maybe if look up the word "arrogance" you'll find some good examples of why it isn't the best official policy for a government. Making people hate the US by trying to bully them is not good for the US long-term. It is only good for politicians who like a fearful populace and need something for the citizens to fear.
We seriously need a root server split just to get over this, otherwise there will be no resolution to everybody's (as in the countries involved) satisfaction. Economic impact? Sure, it'll be nasty at first, until a cottage industry of DNS proxies make their appearance.
Do tell, how does the US having communication problems with the rest of the world benefit the US, long term? Should we move to an incompatible phone system, postal system, and time keeping method too? Isolationism. Why don't you take a look at what happens to empires that become isolationist. I'll give you a hint, it has to do with being a few centuries behind the rest of the world.
As far as it being- an anti-trust issue, I don't believe it is. This is a tool that fixes/protects against exploits in their software. They aren't adding a product from an unrelated market (e.g. web browser or media player). This is a logical step, similar to service packs and updates. The fact is if they didn't offer updates, a company would emerge that patches windows, just like the virus industry emerged.
I disagree completely. Markets are defined by products and the flow of money, not by how technologically similar or dependent upon another product something is. If they made the OS better so it did not have so many bugs and was not so susceptible to viruses, and thus ruined the anti-virus market, well that would be fine. As it is, however, a market exists that MS has not been in and they are not only moving into that market (which is fine) but they are bundling their product with Windows. That means everyone has to buy it, regardless of whether or not it is the best solution. That is bundling and is specifically used as an example of anti-competative business practices in anti-trust law.
All in all I tihnk[sic] this is a good thing for windows users. I think the anti-ms crowd is going to throw a fit, and wrongfully claim abuse of monopoly, but what can ya do?
It is a textbook abuse of a monopoly. If they wanted to do the right (and legal) thing, they would secure their bloody OS, stop exposing services to the network that have no business being there, implement good, user level permissions, fix all the local escalation bugs, and implement virtualization or other ACLs to defeat the trojan vector. Of course that would require good coding and development, and MS "just doesn't do that sort of thing." Maybe you should take a look at anti-trust law and think about how many companies this will put out of business before you decide it is legal and "right." What makes you think this is either, other than the fact that you get stuff "free" even though the price of the OS goes up mysteriously?
What they desire is control, and the power that it brings. If they wanted to secure the operation of 'their' Internets, they could have done so long ago. The fact that they want a single set of root servers *AND* want control of them is nothing less than proof that they are greedy power-mongering asshats!
You're an idiot. The value of the DNS system is that it is accepted by nearly everyone. Without that it is worth little to the US or anyone else. As for the "UN" wanting power over the internet, you're way off. No one wants control, they just want no one (especially not the US) to have control. A UN committee making decisions on the DNS root is akin to making sure no one can do anything radical with it. So many different factions result in mostly inaction with the occasional benefit that is very obvious and most everyone can agree on. That means no real censorship, or sanctions using DNS.
If I were considering investing another few billion dollars into a technology I've already dumped billions into, I might also talk to a few peers and question the guarantees for that system's uptime and reliability. I might further object to some radical party having their finger on the "off" button. I can't believe all the anthropomorphizing of the U.N and all the U.S. nationalist, isolationist bullshit I hear on this topic from clueless morons. How about taking a few minutes and actually learning more about the U.N. than the latest 60 second blurb on some scandal involving a dozen individuals and how about looking at things from the perspective of someone else, just this once. Man, it makes one ashamed to be from the U.S. these days. No wonder the US embassy tells everyone to claim to be Canadian when abroad.
Lock-in to a specific service (Comcast On-Demand) or lock-in to a specific codec (Fairplay/ACC/iTunes)?
Well given that Apple is the only company to offer their codec (thus far) it is the same as locking yourself into one service right now. That said, with Apple's solution you can keep them forever and have to deal with the possible implications of their DRM. With these other offers the shows expire in a week. With Apple's service you just have to buy the episode. With the other solutions you have to pay a monthly fee and use specific hardware you rent from them. It's not really a difficult call for me (not that I will buy either).
To respond to two points you made; removing the DRM from a DVD is not, technically illegal. Distributing tools that let you rip the DRM from DVDs is illegal. Also, this only applies if they move all TV to digital, through their proprietary boxes, broadcast, not if they keep pushing it over the air and through analogue cable. I have no doubt they fully intend to move to such a model, but it is really hard to move that large of an install base, many of whom refuse to make their current equipment useless and many of whom do not want to accept the downgraded feature set digital cable gives them. This is just an attempt to offer new features that will make it more attractive. Give up being able to have your own PVR and we will store the content for you and show it when we want. Of course their strategy is undermined by immediate greed and committee decision making. We can't threaten DVD sales so we'll make the episodes expire quickly. Gee lets charge money for these shows they have already paid for and can see for free with a PVR. Etc.
My experiences with TortoiseCVS have been very mixed. It is easy for beginners to learn, better than WinCVS anyway as it does not confuse them with multiple views of the same files. At the same time I've had it die trying to do checkouts because it can't write some file to disk for some unspecified reason, which kills the rest of the checkout as well. Also, while it might have the very basics down, it provides no easy way to do more complex CVS options, except using a pseudo CLI. When it comes to piping, diffs, and scripted jobs, it sucks and it just does not have the flexibility, speed, or ease of the CLI for an experienced user. I've installed it for some Windows using co-workers, but to suggest it as a replacement for someone already familiar with the CLI version is a mistake.
ould someone please tell Apple to fund the development of a real competitor to Office? One called OpenOffice.org is a prime candidate, but they need help.
Well, if all you're looking for is the word processor component, they already made Pages.app.
And is anyone keeping track of the number of people that switched BACK after discovering that they have to re...invest substantial amount of money into Mac version of software titles they already own for the x86?
Anecdotally, I can say that among the security geeks here at work the number of macs has overtaken the number of Windows/Linux/BSD workstations in short order. Two years ago, there were a handful, now they are the clear majority. Of those only one person I know has abandoned OS X and gone back to Linux as his primary OS.
It's really this simple: OSS is a loss-leader used to drive sales in other services like consulting and training. It requires a huge leap of faith (Linus) or desperation (Sun) to offer up so much hard work in hopes of future rewards, but it can be done.
You've got the cart before the horse here. Unlike traditional software development, OSS development works as a business model when it is customer initiated and directed. Linux was not a "leap of faith" because Linus was his own customer. He did not want to sell support and services, he wanted an OS so he funded development of it. OSS is ideal for a business or other organization that needs a tool to do something. They can get half the work for free by starting with existing OSS code, don't have to worry about vendor lock-in or missing features, and always get competitive bidding. Better yet, they often get free development from others who need the software to have some feature.
I'm not convinced that starting an OSS project with a business model based upon support and service from that software is a long-term viable model, since good, usable software should not require much support or service. A more workable OSS business model is to sell companies and organizations on OSS and sell commission work creating, adding features, or otherwise modifying software. Support and service can provide extra income, but in the long run they cannot be relied upon.
Just out of curiosity, if the "Orthodox" rabbis consider the first 11 chapters of Genesis to be merely a story about YHWH's power, how do they deal with the rest of the Pentateuch?
I'm only somewhat well read on the subject of judaism and may be off base in what I'm about to say. Pretty much anyone who studies the history of the bible, torah, koran, etc. quickly realizes that they are dealing with something that is based upon collected works, written by different authors at different times, and translated imperfectly. Further, due to the contradictions contained in all these works it is obvious that interpreting them literally means that the work is wrong, in one or more instances. This leads most intelligent people to view the works less as a matter of "chapter 1 is wrong, so why should we believe chapter 4" and more as a matter of, "chapter one has beautiful imagery and is a great parable for understanding, while chapter 4 is very down to earth and provides useful guidelines for everyday life, as well as some outdated dietary advice." I know a lot of people don't view things that way, but I am suspicious of the motives and/or intelligence of anyone who looks at such a work and tries to interpret it literally. Most of the jewish sects I've read about are very into tradition, which helps define them as a culture, but few of them literally interpret those traditions as orders from on high.
Ah, you mean that "obtain licenses" box - well, you have to go through that setup screen to rip your CD's at all pretty much, and I can't imagine anyone leaving it checked or checking it.
90% of people don't ever touch the default settings because they don't know what they do. Hence, the problem and the perception.
On the whole video front though, I keep getting into arguments with zealots who've told me they're going to get every episode of lost at 2 bucks a pop. They just sort of whimper when I point out you can get 24 episodes on DVD for about 25 bucks on ebay.
Why would you argue with zealots? Anyway, the benefits of Apple's iTunes TV show sales have little to do with price. The main benefits are that they play on the iPod which some people want for some wacky reason, they don't require media (no storing/carrying a DVD), they are available right away (thus you can buy one episode you missed before the next one plays), and instant gratification (you can get it now without going to the store). I might buy an episode of something to preview the technology, but none of those value propositions appeal to me, so in general I doubt I'd buy episodes there either.All lawyers I have spoken to so far, none have any personal take on this case, have quite quickly got the the conclusiuon that what google is doing is copyright violation.
Funny they seem to disagree with the expert legal opinions that the media has written up thus far, huh?
Your claims that it helps people, amd that its hard to trace the copyright owners is failing to understand that hard work (or impossible situation) does not give you right to break the law.
You seem to be having problems with the English language. Are you, perhaps, a non-native speaker? That was an argument as to why Google may not want to use an opt-in scheme, not to the legality of the situation. You have not yet presented an argument why they should switch to such a scheme other than your assertions that it is wrong and illegal, neither of which you can support with facts.
Not being able to abide by the law does not mean you can break it.
Why don't you think about that statement for a bit, and see if you don't change your mind (not that it has anything to do with our discussion).
Copyright laws were there to protect writers.
No. They are not. In the U.S. the only legal purpose of copyright is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" ostensibly, "for the Good of the People." Copyright was originally enacted as a trade-off. The people had their free speech right to copy works restricted for a limited time. Thus artists and scientists could make money off their works. In exchange the people were rewarded with more works and authors could not keep their works secret, but had to send multiple copies to the library of congress who held them for said limited time until they were freely copyable by the people again. Since that time the limit has became virtually limitless, the reference works are no longer required, and the result is works are discouraged as much as encouraged. Why make works when you can survive of the royalties from your grandfather's works?
If you'd bother to do a little reading, like the supreme court decisions on the issue you'd see the only reason that it is constitutional is because the courts don't believe it is their job to decide what does and does not benefit arts and sciences and although they are of the opinion that what the law is doing does not promote arts and sciences.
because its the law... I don't care what will happen in 100 years. Copyright laws are good.
Hmm, three assertions, one of which expresses that you don't care what the effects of the law are and two with no backing at all. Are you trying to convince me you have just beliefs founded on logical reasons, or just that you have lots of annoying opinions for some unspecified reason?
If a copyright holder wanted to sue google, he would not have to notify google in advance anymore.
Do you mean copyright violation notice? Umm you're very wrong.
The burder[sic] of abiding by the law is always on the offender.
Sigh, please learn the difference between criminal law and civil law. Next reference innocent until proven guilty. Finally, if you think someone is infringing your copyright and you want them to stop, you have to send them a notice, otherwise you can't claim any damages.
But when google knows in advance quite clearly they are breaking the law, prior notice is not needed.
Well, some very prominent and well respected lawyers have spoken in the press their belief that Google is not violating the law. Why then, would you assume Google "knows it is violating the law" as you put it?
It is the law. Your view basically erases the term copyright. What else would you say copyright is if not the right for the creation and the way it is accessed, published or used? You need to review the copyright law.
Copyright is the right to restrict most republishing of a work, for a limited time, subject to certain restrictions. Situations where permission from
OK, I'll take the bait. Tell me how WMP is applying DRM to my ripped file?
I believe, by default any CD you rip to WMA with WMP, unless you turn that option off, is issued a key. Not being connected to the internet is a pretty minor issue, since without internet you can't access the online database to add the ID3 tags. It's not a big issue, you just have to turn it off before ripping. The issue is many users don't know it is being applied or that it can be turned off.
I move WMA files all over the place, never once have I run into a DRM issue, and I can just burn it all back to CDs.
I believe it restrict play to only your computer, but I don't recall the specifics. That is what Google is for. I don't have WMP even installed anywhere anymore.
I'm convinced that many many people dig iTunes more for what it CAN do, not because it necessarily does it better, more efficiently, or cheaper than the old way. Renting a movie at Blockbuster is still a vastly more economical model than payign 8 bucks for it, unless I plan on watching it more than 3 times. And I guarantee you they ain't gonna let me burn a DVD (in DVD quality) of my 8 dollar movie, even if they give it to me in DVD quality with all the extras (which they wont).
Umm, it is Sony talking about offering movies for $8 and I doubt they will let you burn a DVD and bandwidth will not really support DVD quality downloads for the masses yet. As for iTunes it is a very nice player, easy to use and powerful, but a bit crippled and slow on Windows.
OS X is Apple's real core product yet, they are becoming more and more, instead of the Apple Computer Company, rather the iPod company.
Apple makes most of its money selling computers, bundled with OS X and a pile of other nice software. This is a pretty good model for them for a number of reasons. First selling the hardware and the software allows for better compatibility and QA testing. Second, it keeps them competing with Dell instead of Microsoft. Third, it allows them to build lots of useful software that people want, but would likely not find and buy and package it all together.
Microsoft is already seeing the consequences of its horrendous licensing schemes with the upstart of Linux use and development -- I am unsure why Apple cannot see the same thing.
What consequences? They have the whole desktop computer market locked down and are losing a small amount of market to Apple and none to Linux. The percentage of people who buy a desktop computer to run Linux and who don't pay for Windows is so small that it does not even show up on charts of the market.
The day Apple decides to put OS X onto a DVD and let you install it on your whitebox built computer is the day the grave is dug for Microsoft.
What makes you say that? Because OS X is better than Windows? Sure it is, but so was BeOS. 99.9% of people never buy a computer without the OS pre-installed. Microsoft has contracts that assure anyone who tries to pre-install anything but Windows will be at a huge disadvantage to their competitors in a market with very thin margins. Basically, only companies on the brink of ruin, would possibly sell OS X pre-installed, and then they could not sell Windows competitively. Apple already tried that with the clones back in the day. Other companies largely turned our crappy, poor quality boxes that undercut Apple on specs, but broke constantly. This gave Apple a reputation for being unreliable while at the same time losing them tons of money. The day Apple sells the OS without requiring purchase of their hardware is the day they lose more than half of their revenue stream and are betting the farm that MS's anti-competative contracts won't put them out of business like they have every superior OS who has tried to move into that market.
I see lots of technical people who want Apple to sell for whiteboxes but I have yet to see a business case for it. Geeks are a small market. Just because you , personally, want them to sell a product does not mean they can sell to the masses that way without going out of business.
The application was not bad, it just crashed my computer anytime I left it up overnight.
An application crashed your whole computer... and that's not bad? The last application I found that could accidentally crash my OS was years ago. Ouch, it still sucks to be a Windows user I guess.
It can't be the ability to burn to CD - again, Apple's competitors support this too.
Well originally that was a big part of it since Apple's competitor's did not allow burning until they were beaten to a pulp by Apple. Many people who evaluated the different DRM schemes in the past have not realized this is now available on other DRM systems. Also for Windows Media based systems less technical users don't realize that the CD is a way of removing DRM, since Windows Media Player applies DRM to ripped files by default, unlike iTunes.
I think a big part of the reason people favor Apple's scheme is that it does not get in their way (for the most part). People are unhappy with Real and WM because when they try to play them on a portable it does not work (most portables are iPods). That is just the way the market has shaped up and has nothing to do with the DRM scheme per-se. For slightly more tech savvy people, look at the competition. No one trusts Real since they killed their reputation with spyware. No one trusts MS since they always abuse their formats to lock people in. Who else is a major player in the space?
I've purchased songs from the iTunes store, but not because their DRM is any better (now) but because they had what I wanted and it was unavailable elsewhere and because they don't use a stupid rental scheme, and because they were not too expensive, and because I could take the DRM off of the music easily and legally using the CD burning method, or using easily available freeware without losing any quality.
I agree that DRM in general, and closed, proprietary DRM is a terrible thing for the industry, but at the same time if I am going to buy something with DRM on it, I'd rather it was from Apple rather than Real or Microsoft simply because I trust them more. Also, it is apparent that Apple executives know that DRM is useless and will always be able to be bypassed, so they don't try too hard to do annoying new things with it. Basically the DRM is not really any better, just the people providing it are more trustworthy (IMHO).
However, you simply have to ask lawyers (which is what I do) about copyright and they will you that using if for your befenit (especially financial) against the will of the copyright holder is illegal. Maybe you now hold poor opinion over the lawyers I talk to.
Damn straight I do. Are you sure they are really lawyers and not people with mental problems that think they are lawyers? Every single post in this discussion is copyrighted, and how many times are people quoted in it and in other publications? Guess what, all those publications are making money either through ads or direct sales and doing so using a "fair use" excerpt of another copyrighted work. (You do know everything you write is copyrighted since 76 right?)
You talk about unknown authors and IP in general and seem to fail to realize we talk here about printed books in libraries. I am fairly sure that 95% or even more of the works found in libraries that are still copyrighted are very easy to trace back to the authors.
You fail to understand that the principal of the law applies the same whether it is for books, random papers, or anything else. Google, or someone else, will eventually begin scanning in everything possible to make these databases more useful. But let's ignore that and assume for the sake of argument that you are right and 95% of works in libraries that they will scan is able to be traced at a somewhat reasonable expense. Is it right that those 5% of works are effectively lost to the people who copyright laws are supposed to benefit? What do you predict this situation will be like in 75 years? Copyright terms have been extended again and again and the average book written today will be copyrighted for 120 years. For works that have been around for 100 years, how many of the publishers will have vanished? How many individually produced works will be easily traceable through five or more generations of inheritance? More importantly, you've never answered why Google should bear this burden. Lets also assume for the sake of argument that what Google is doing is a violation of copyright. The copyright holder is still obligated to notify them of any copyright infringement and give them a reasonable amount of time to stop republishing a work before they can be held liable for damages. Now you want to shift the burden of keeping works unavailable to the public to Google instead of the people who are supposed to be profiting from them and thus being motivated to make more works? Preposterous!
As for the millions they will spend on contacting publishers, they will spend much more on scanning. So again, weak argument.
Allow me to debunk your argument by analogy. Why should you care take $100 from you? You just spent that much buying groceries. Non sequitur.
Regardless, not having money to do the right thing is no excuse for doing the wrong thing.
You have not yet given any reason why you think what they are doing is wrong, only asserted that that is your opinion for some unspecified reason.
Especially not for a "poor" company like google.
Ahh, the old, stealing from the rich is not immoral argument. I think that one was thoroughly beaten down about two thousand years ago.
You seem to live in a place where copyright can easily be broken and ignored. I live in a different place. You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that the world is not the US. that there are other countries there. Maybe I live in one of them?
This discussion was about the legality of Google's project and the court case against them. That case is in the U.S. and follows U.S. law. As for moral arguments that are relevant across national boundaries, you have not made any. Drugs are bad m'kay?
If I remember correctly, in the Arriba case they only served up thumbnails, and they served up the same thumbnail to each viewer.
Actually they did serve up different thumbnails of the same image at different times, but you are correct in that they did not serve up bits that could be used to reassemble an entire work. Of course it is not clear that Google will ever do that either, and it is much less likely that the courts will find Google is doing so in a manner that will both allow someone to reassemble an entire work and that that will affect the commercial market for buying that given work. This falls under the categories of market effect (seems good to me) and quantity (which is judged per publication, not en masse).
Arriba used thumbnails for commercial benefit. Google use the entire text for commercial benefit. This is a highly non-trivial difference.
Except you are not thinking of this in terms of the the fair use criteria. Is Google's purpose for the work the same as the copyright holder's? Google is making money helping people find relevant works, while the copyright holder is selling copies of the work. That is a completely different purpose, which is the criteria upon which this aspect of fair use is evaluated.
Consider reference works. Owners of such books rarely read the entire book. Over their lifetime they may only read a small fraction of the book. But they might not know in advance what sections they will need (Who knows what works you'll look up in a dictionary before you get it?). Owning the book is valuable because at any time you know that whichever snippet you want, it's available in the book, even though over a lifetime you only use a handful of snippets.
OK, the value of a reference work is in being able to look up given pieces of the book, but ones not known beforehand. Google will serve up given pieces, but only a few of them to a given person unless that person changes IP addresses and deletes cookies in order to hide their identity. (At which point it is arguably not Google's responsibility since they are making an effort to prevent wholesale copying and easier methods are available.) So Google's purpose is to help someone find the work, and they do not provide the same amount of functionality as owning the work. Now consider an article about how common use and dictionary definitions differ. This article might use the phrase "Webster defines $foo as..." multiple times, but that is certainly fair use of the work, even though they are presenting entire, valuable chunks of the work. It is not the usefulness of the information that matters for either the article or Google but the amount of the work compared to the whole (according to the fair use criteria).
I understand your points, and I believe most copyright holders of reference works like dictionaries and recipe books will opt out of this system, but lets face it, anyone who wants to look up a dictionary definition or a recipe and is willing to use Google print, can find just as much information by just using Google search. I think you really need to look at what Google is doing, what Arriba Soft did, and then compare them based upon the fair use criteria, not upon other random differences.
And your comparison is great if the form factor is more important to you than anything else.
No my comparison is valid if form factor is a considered criteria. You can't do a valid comparison by ignoring features and form factor is definitely a feature. The problem with comparisons like yours are that they are trying to pick a random type of computer, which Apple does not sell an equivalent version of, and compare it to some computer Apple does sell a version of. Apple offers a limited selection of computer types, but that is a separate issue. There are mac mini like x86 computers. They are all much more expensive, not half to one tenth the price, as the earlier post claimed.
Try doing a comparison with the ibook, and see if you can find a consumer grade laptop with the same feature set, for less. Is it significantly less, as the previous poster claimed? Sorry, but this FUD has lasted plenty long enough. Apple's prices are pretty comparable, sometimes more sometimes less than other vendors for similar machines. If you want to bitch about something, bitch that they don't offer enough variety of machines, not about the price of what they do offer.