a) sell it to everybody at the lowest allowable level based on the cheapest market (so an album is $3 because that's all the people in Fooistan can afford), or
b) sell it to everybody at $18, thereby eliminating Fooistanians from buying the album.
how about:
c) sell to it everybody at a single price somewhere in between, calculated to maximise revenue across the whole market?
I'm not sure I understand why it's 'not fair' for companies to not be able to sell the same product to different countries at different prices, based on capacity to pay. I earn more than some of my colleagues, but the local sandwich bar doesn't bitch and moan about not being able to charge me more for lunch than they charge the others, despite the fact I may theoretically be prepared to pay more. Instead, they charge a single price that they've found to give them maximum profit (and yes, I know that Amazon would like to change all that).
I think my question still stands - where's the public interest in state-facilitated enforcement of market segmentation?
I would think so - it's the norm for contract details to be confidential. WMF's argument appears to be: "Steve hasn't called me up and personally explained why he's not doing what he's not doing, therefore he's a lying hypocrite."
I might as well just go get the physical CD and rip it myself.
Personally, I find the theoretical lower quality (unnoticeable on my crappy sound system) of a ten-second download to be a valid trade-off for the convenience of saving the half an hour going to the record store & back, followed by five minutes ripping the CD onto my computer in a similar lossy format & finding somewhere to store it. Not to mention I don't have to buy the filler tracks if I don't want them, and that iTunes has a vastly better range than my local store. But hey, if you've got time to go buy shiny discs, good on you.
without DRM, how can content owners control releases and pricing in different market?
I think that's the point - most traditional media organisations have not yet grasped the concept that for digital media, there's only one market. They're stuck on the idea that DRM is a convenient way to artificially segment the global market and apply their traditional means based pricing mechanisms. Most software vendors realised the futility of this years ago and, with relatively few exceptions, have roughly comparable pricing worldwide. Yes, this means products are less affordable in poorer countries. Yes, this means price gouging is limited in richer countries. Ultimately though, this means that poorer countries get a leg up in selling their own software/digital content - behold the beauty of the free market.
Your assertion is that content owners have the 'right' to segment the market this way to maximise profits - I disagree. What gives them that right and why? They already have sufficient rights granted to them via Berne, WIPO etc to guarantee a worldwide monopoly on reproduction of their content. Where's the public interest in legal frameworks purely for enforcing variable price & availability depending on the physical location of the consumer? Does anyone validly believe Hollywood would stop making movies if they couldn't sell downloads to Fooistan for less than they sell to Canada without reducing the Canadian price?
Appleworks has not been in active development for many years, and is reportedly never going to be released as a universal binary - expect it to be quietly EOL'd within a year or two. iWork doesn't contain a spreadsheet application (yet), so it's not able to fill the void at this stage.
It's probably worth noting that even if Apple had a full-featured Office suite, they would be unlikely to make a great deal of money out of it; it would exist purely to help sell Macs. I have no doubt they would much prefer to see MS Office supported on the Mac indefinitely rather than having to worry about building their own.
No, you can't do a conversion later without first changing THE LAW. Not to mention the fact that no-one will be designing such a format as govt departments will not be permitted to use it. This is pretty wrong-headed IMO - it's like 1960's legislators mandating the use of the 8 bit computers for interoperability.
I don't know. Apple's patents are all available on the internet free of technological copying restrictions. What's protecting them is that fact that copying [the ideas in] the patent is unlawful, ie they have exactly the same protection as hypothetical DRM-free Sonny & Cher MP3s.
No, these people are stupid. I'm fairly sure you need an IQ under 70 to be an Austalian TV exec.
Some might try and argue that they're just evil, and taking advantage of a docile TV-watching public by treating us like crap, but the increasing piracy figures show that at least some of us aren't taking it. And the argument violates Hanlon's law.
I agree, although I have to also say that improving mail server performance is probably a lot cheaper, quicker & more realistic than waiting for an exotic printer to hit the market.
I have a mental image of almost every retarded manager in my organisation going "Excellent, some piece of technology that can magically make my problem go away without me expending any effort to try and actually solve it."
Apple's high-priced lawyers could no doubt fairly easily argue that loading a copy of OS X into a virtualised environment is not an 'essential step in the utilization of the computer program'. I'd also add that no such exclusion exists under Australian copyright law (that I know of) - IIRC you theoretically need a license from the copyright owner just to load software from disk into memory.
Pro-linux I get, it's all about philosophy, but pro-apple, pro-microsoft, pro-nintendo, pro-proctor-and-gamble, I don't get - unless you're an employee or stockholder.
I'd call myself pro-Apple - I've been a Mac owner since '92 (and a user prior to that), I like and enjoy their products, and I'm happy to give them my hard-earned in exchange for new kit. Similarly, I'm 'pro-Nikon' since picking up my Dad's Nikonos fifteen years ago; even to the extent I'm willing to pay more for one than a comparable Canon. Just because you don't 'get' it doesn't mean loyalty to a company is irrational or misplaced. It's kind of like having a favourite sports team - there doesn't have to be a philosophical reason behind it.
Regarding the Slashdot coverage, I don't think it's necessarily all pro-Apple as much as pro-not-Microsoft. One day we'll reach a point where OS choice in the average school/home/work environment is not predestined. IMO, that's a good outcome for everyone (except MS stockholders & employees).
We use FogBugz & are very happy with it, but note that the screenshot client can only be used by licensed users - 'anonymous' requests need to go via email or the web interface. I haven't yet grasped the reasoning behind this particular product design decision.
It does come in a php version, but I haven't used it, so I can't say how well it works in that environment.
I do know that nutrition is not a science I wouldn't put much faith into it.
My sister-in-law is a dietitian (clinical nutritionist), and it most definitely is a science - she has patients who depend on her correct assessment of dietary needs. I can tell you've been listening to 'pop-sci' nutritionists - these are sometimes doctors (but mostly completely unqualified people) who are attempting to flog thinly disguised diet books.
I agree that exercise is probably more important to people in western countries these days - even 'poor' diets are relatively nutritious compared to what our ancestors would have been eating. However, if your fat or energy intake is too high, AND you are overweight, there's an obvious course of action.
Hmm - it sounds to me more like the most drastic change was lifestyle (spare time) rather than location. I obviously don't know the specifics though.
Regardless, I don't believe city planning can or should be used to attempt to control people's weight. If a government wanted to go an authoritarian route, why wouldn't they just mandate that everyone has to own a dog? (Or ban fast food, as a more popular example).
"as one chooses or pleases". Your employer may terminate your employment as they choose without legal or contractual impediments. You may lose weight as you choose (by changing your lifestyle) without having to ask for permission from the authorities, apply for acceptance to a reality TV show or wait for technological body-shaping breakthroughs.
IMO, blaming city planners for obesity is the most spectacular display of buck-passing I've seen in a long time. Here I was thinking it was caused by lack of exercise and eating crap.
Being caught doing this (likely, as sooner or later a customer will say something) would make your filtering work dry up pretty quickly - the email scanning employees would probably not have direct access to email in an attempt to prevent this. I'm not saying it's a good idea or that it's not susceptible to abuse, but it could theoretically work.
What is most concerning is not that the justices ruled it was illegal, it was the reasoning they used to arrive at the ruling (reasoning which sets a common law precedent).
What is striking, however, is the breadth of Branson J's comments on this. As she puts it:
'I conclude that, within the meaning of the paragraph, a person's power to prevent the doing of an act comprised in a copyright includes the person's power not to facilitate the doing of that act by, for example, making available to the public a technical capacity calculated to lead to the doing of that act.
The evidence leads to the inexorable inference that it was the deliberate choice of Mr Cooper to establish and maintain his website in a form which did not give him the power immediately to prevent, or immediately to restrict, internet users from using links on his website to access remote websites for the purpose of copying sound recordings in which copyright subsisted.'
In other words, it would seem - Cooper had the 'power to prevent' infringements because he had the power to take the website down, or to design it a different way.
...
More striking, on this score, is what the judges have to say about the ISP. Both judges suggest that the ISP had the power to prevent, and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the infringements. The evidence? The ISP could have withdrawn hosting. Yes, that's right - because the ISP did not withdraw hosting, it was liable. Safe Harbour anyone? Not under current Australian law, where only Carriage Service providers get safe harbours from copyright infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
how about:
c) sell to it everybody at a single price somewhere in between, calculated to maximise revenue across the whole market?
I'm not sure I understand why it's 'not fair' for companies to not be able to sell the same product to different countries at different prices, based on capacity to pay. I earn more than some of my colleagues, but the local sandwich bar doesn't bitch and moan about not being able to charge me more for lunch than they charge the others, despite the fact I may theoretically be prepared to pay more. Instead, they charge a single price that they've found to give them maximum profit (and yes, I know that Amazon would like to change all that).
I think my question still stands - where's the public interest in state-facilitated enforcement of market segmentation?
I would think so - it's the norm for contract details to be confidential. WMF's argument appears to be: "Steve hasn't called me up and personally explained why he's not doing what he's not doing, therefore he's a lying hypocrite."
Personally, I find the theoretical lower quality (unnoticeable on my crappy sound system) of a ten-second download to be a valid trade-off for the convenience of saving the half an hour going to the record store & back, followed by five minutes ripping the CD onto my computer in a similar lossy format & finding somewhere to store it. Not to mention I don't have to buy the filler tracks if I don't want them, and that iTunes has a vastly better range than my local store. But hey, if you've got time to go buy shiny discs, good on you.
I think that's the point - most traditional media organisations have not yet grasped the concept that for digital media, there's only one market. They're stuck on the idea that DRM is a convenient way to artificially segment the global market and apply their traditional means based pricing mechanisms. Most software vendors realised the futility of this years ago and, with relatively few exceptions, have roughly comparable pricing worldwide. Yes, this means products are less affordable in poorer countries. Yes, this means price gouging is limited in richer countries. Ultimately though, this means that poorer countries get a leg up in selling their own software/digital content - behold the beauty of the free market.
Your assertion is that content owners have the 'right' to segment the market this way to maximise profits - I disagree. What gives them that right and why? They already have sufficient rights granted to them via Berne, WIPO etc to guarantee a worldwide monopoly on reproduction of their content. Where's the public interest in legal frameworks purely for enforcing variable price & availability depending on the physical location of the consumer? Does anyone validly believe Hollywood would stop making movies if they couldn't sell downloads to Fooistan for less than they sell to Canada without reducing the Canadian price?
Appleworks has not been in active development for many years, and is reportedly never going to be released as a universal binary - expect it to be quietly EOL'd within a year or two. iWork doesn't contain a spreadsheet application (yet), so it's not able to fill the void at this stage.
It's probably worth noting that even if Apple had a full-featured Office suite, they would be unlikely to make a great deal of money out of it; it would exist purely to help sell Macs. I have no doubt they would much prefer to see MS Office supported on the Mac indefinitely rather than having to worry about building their own.
Silly me. Link referenced by GP actually explains this. He just didn't read it (I must be new here).
Actually, no it's not.
No, you can't do a conversion later without first changing THE LAW. Not to mention the fact that no-one will be designing such a format as govt departments will not be permitted to use it. This is pretty wrong-headed IMO - it's like 1960's legislators mandating the use of the 8 bit computers for interoperability.
I don't know. Apple's patents are all available on the internet free of technological copying restrictions. What's protecting them is that fact that copying [the ideas in] the patent is unlawful, ie they have exactly the same protection as hypothetical DRM-free Sonny & Cher MP3s.
From my observations, the hardest change for most people is the control/command key and the lack of (forward) delete on some keyboards.
No, these people are stupid. I'm fairly sure you need an IQ under 70 to be an Austalian TV exec.
Some might try and argue that they're just evil, and taking advantage of a docile TV-watching public by treating us like crap, but the increasing piracy figures show that at least some of us aren't taking it. And the argument violates Hanlon's law.
Fascinating - a typical Slashdot troll's exhortation to perform fellatio would be almost on-topic here.
I agree, although I have to also say that improving mail server performance is probably a lot cheaper, quicker & more realistic than waiting for an exotic printer to hit the market.
I have a mental image of almost every retarded manager in my organisation going "Excellent, some piece of technology that can magically make my problem go away without me expending any effort to try and actually solve it."
Apple's high-priced lawyers could no doubt fairly easily argue that loading a copy of OS X into a virtualised environment is not an 'essential step in the utilization of the computer program'. I'd also add that no such exclusion exists under Australian copyright law (that I know of) - IIRC you theoretically need a license from the copyright owner just to load software from disk into memory.
I'd call myself pro-Apple - I've been a Mac owner since '92 (and a user prior to that), I like and enjoy their products, and I'm happy to give them my hard-earned in exchange for new kit. Similarly, I'm 'pro-Nikon' since picking up my Dad's Nikonos fifteen years ago; even to the extent I'm willing to pay more for one than a comparable Canon. Just because you don't 'get' it doesn't mean loyalty to a company is irrational or misplaced. It's kind of like having a favourite sports team - there doesn't have to be a philosophical reason behind it.
Regarding the Slashdot coverage, I don't think it's necessarily all pro-Apple as much as pro-not-Microsoft. One day we'll reach a point where OS choice in the average school/home/work environment is not predestined. IMO, that's a good outcome for everyone (except MS stockholders & employees).
That's not flamebait, it's just excessively obvious. If you're not that interested in running Mac applications, there's no point buying a Mac.
We use FogBugz & are very happy with it, but note that the screenshot client can only be used by licensed users - 'anonymous' requests need to go via email or the web interface. I haven't yet grasped the reasoning behind this particular product design decision.
It does come in a php version, but I haven't used it, so I can't say how well it works in that environment.
We've certainly got it in Australia. I can't imagine the sort of trouble we'd have if we jumped straight from the 3rd to the 5th.
I totally agree. City planning doesn't stop people exercising, lack of desire to exercise stops people exercising.
My sister-in-law is a dietitian (clinical nutritionist), and it most definitely is a science - she has patients who depend on her correct assessment of dietary needs. I can tell you've been listening to 'pop-sci' nutritionists - these are sometimes doctors (but mostly completely unqualified people) who are attempting to flog thinly disguised diet books.
I agree that exercise is probably more important to people in western countries these days - even 'poor' diets are relatively nutritious compared to what our ancestors would have been eating. However, if your fat or energy intake is too high, AND you are overweight, there's an obvious course of action.
Hmm - it sounds to me more like the most drastic change was lifestyle (spare time) rather than location. I obviously don't know the specifics though.
Regardless, I don't believe city planning can or should be used to attempt to control people's weight. If a government wanted to go an authoritarian route, why wouldn't they just mandate that everyone has to own a dog? (Or ban fast food, as a more popular example).
"as one chooses or pleases". Your employer may terminate your employment as they choose without legal or contractual impediments. You may lose weight as you choose (by changing your lifestyle) without having to ask for permission from the authorities, apply for acceptance to a reality TV show or wait for technological body-shaping breakthroughs.
IMO, blaming city planners for obesity is the most spectacular display of buck-passing I've seen in a long time. Here I was thinking it was caused by lack of exercise and eating crap.
Being caught doing this (likely, as sooner or later a customer will say something) would make your filtering work dry up pretty quickly - the email scanning employees would probably not have direct access to email in an attempt to prevent this. I'm not saying it's a good idea or that it's not susceptible to abuse, but it could theoretically work.
I've obviously been a little bit obtuse - I'll rephrase:
How do you certify to Windows those are the bits you shipped when you're shipping source code?
AFAICT, Vista will treat all open source applications (or at least, source distributions of them) as untrusted.
What is most concerning is not that the justices ruled it was illegal, it was the reasoning they used to arrive at the ruling (reasoning which sets a common law precedent).
As Kim Weatherall put it: