It all depends on whether it is really something the markets wants. I personally don't like the idea of thin clients as a home user, and I think businesses will have a hard time warming to it unless they own the servers. Microsoft might be scared shitless of what Google is doing, but it doesn't mean Google is really doing anything the market will want. Microsoft said they underestimated the internet once and now they are paranoid about it happening again.
Trademark question from Ars:D... Wouldn't trademarks prevent people from doing all the building on/mashups/new story type stuff that they arguing for in shorter copyrights?
Movies though are very expensive to make, and I could see where they would want longer time periods.
Another issue that could up though is big corporations using your work to make millions of dollars. If Star Wars copyright expired after 14 years, anybody in the world could left frames from the movie and do their own "promotions" whenever the next movie came out. Scenes from the original could be plastered on fast food soda cups all over the world just in time for the next movie release.
Dispassionate does not mean non-biased. There has to be certain assumptions made behind various calculations, and the author is likely biased in a particular way. He has already written various essays and papers promoting ip reform before undertaking this particular paper. This is not to say he is wrong, but "dispassionate" doesn't mean he is right. He is like an expert witness at a trial, he is trying to be technically correct as possible but he is still siding with a particular viewpoint.
Personally I think 14 years is a little short, but 14 + 14 renewal I think would work fairly well.
>>Windows Media already lost this battle years ago
I'm not up on this stuff, but I believe I read here that all of the BBC's competitors in Britain all use Windows Media as well. I could be wrong though.
Microsoft has suggested this type of thing before and it never took off. It is not a swan song - they just see what Google is doing and are moving that direction as something of a hedge. Netscape years ago tried to push itself as a sort of thin client platform, and MS responded by talking some about software-as-service type stuff even back then.
I think MS is setting pretty happy. There is nothing really on the horizon that threatens Office or Windows right now except if Google ever became successful as an application sever. They are just hedging their bets, but you see how successful Netscape was.
>>My email, calendar, and web server were all hosted on my home systems
I think you are talking about extremes here. I have no wish to host my own email or web server at home, but I don't want somebody else to host my porn files, word processor, games, etc...
From a home-user perspective, I kinda of hate the idea of thin clients (as well as software as a service). I don't want to be limited by the speed of my internet connection (unless I have the 40GB/s one mentioned earlier). And I don't want to lose total functionality because of something beyond my control up the pipe. And if I have a version of software I'm happy with, I don't want to be "upgraded" to a less stable or more bloated version because the software company decides to do it for me.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that Google adwords editorial people are supposed to visit the website linked to from the ad and ensure that it satisfies their editorial policy as well. Ads can get rejected if the linked to page does not have enough original content for example.
This goes back to if Google is allowing ads to link to competitors, is this condoned or do their editors suck?
The newspaper would be held responsible if it contained porn...
There is usually an editorial policy in place. It has been awhile since I used Google Adwords, but I believe they did have a policy against using trademarked company names for example. They had an automated system that would scan for trademarked names, forbidden words ("online poker"), and that type stuff, then it had to undergo review by a real person.
A good question is if you were to complain, would Google respond or just blow you off.
I came across a fraudelant ad on Ebay several times over the years where somebody hijacked an account with good feedback and was trying to scam somebody into sending them money ($25K in one case), and everytime I reported this I got some form response back saying that the ad did not appear to violate their terms of service or something to that effect.
Just yesterday my wife was referred by a friend to a particular carpet cleaner, and when she searched for it online she got several ads with that company's name but they took her to different sites.
I was wondering if it would do any good to complain to Google or whether this is considered fair business practice. I thought of even letting the carpet cleaning company know what was happening, but since they did not even seem to have a website to begin with I doubt they would have even known what I was talking about.
Is there already an open standard for DRM? I don't know about that stuff.
I think the way they went is probably the most cost effective for the vast majority of people paying the license fee for the time being. People already complain they have to pay the license fee but don't even watch the BBC. How many people (in Britain who pay the license fee) that don't watch the BBC will actually download the BBC?
I think they can worry about an open standard when a proven one becomes available and they have determined that enough people will actually use the download service to begin with.
The logical consequence would be to require a license fee for every computer, then that way they could afford to support all the users...
Downloading programs in a way is a value added service that works beyond the TV. People complain already that they don't watch the BBC but they still have to pay the fee. Now, the fee is going to pay for even more stuff they don't use.
I think it is reasonable to go with the most cost effective solution that works for the vast majority of people to begin with. They can worry about expanding it later on when they see what the demand really is and get all the kinks worked out.
I don't think anyone is saying there is bugs in Excel or any consumer product. I think they are complaining about MS's *description* of formulas for the OOXML format, though nobody has actually seen MS's actual software code implementation. If a software developer mindlessly implemented these formulas based purely on this description there might be problems, but if he had any knowledge in this area he would know what was intended or he would know to ask for better clarification.
I got it for free with 2-year commitment (same as iPhone). It has custom ringtones, video recording, blue tooth, contact info sending, web browsing, email, etc...
>>A lot of that shit by Brian Lam is pointless bitching, without acknowledging the other 1000 fantastic features of the iPhone or acknowledging that Apple...
Why do Apple fanboys require others to worship the products before they are allowed to talk about them?
Society, political systems, etc... are not really about individuals to begin with; it is more about the collective. If corporations exert undue influence, it is because enough people don't care enough to stop it. I read something once where someone claimed middle-class suburbia is the pinnacle of human civilization; members of this set as a group really don't have much to get all too worked up about. Whining about DRM is kind of a luxury if you don't have any water or somebody keeps setting off truck bombs in your neighborhood.
It does give them a clear path for version 2. They make a huge amount of money selling version 1 to the cool gadget crowd, then they come out with version 2 and fill in the holes to appeal to the average user/business user. In addition, a lot of version 1 people, being the cool gadget crowd, will decide to buy version 2 also. They make more money in the long run by leaving enough holes in to have more models in the pipeline, but not enough holes that it deters a significant portion of their target audience.
In fairness, your original most did not say that you did it for fun, and the gest of your post was about the value of software. If someone spends 50-60 hours a week programming at work, they may look at somethings in a cost per hour perspective if it would not be an enjoyable project for them.
I also think if you are working 50-60 hours a week and have a wife and kids, you are pretty selective in what you do in your free time that doesn't involve the wife and kids since you have so little of it.
I don't put a price on my free time, but after the second baby is born you get a greater appreciation how valuable it is.
Bagging on DRM is even more popular than bagging on Vista, just wait a few minutes. I will probably even be modded down because the word "bag" might somehow belittle the importance of defying the evil of DRM. Baggin on Vista is a pasttime; bagging on DRM is every Slashdotter's duty.
Correct, maximizing profits is the core of all business.
I was just trying to make the point that with high volume you can have lower margins than you do with low volume, and if your volume is low you probably need a higher margin to make money.
If they are a company trying to make money, then they have to charge.
There will always be somebody willing to pay for certain conveniences, and it's just supply and demand. Taking an example out of a "how to program" book and making a lot of money off it is a great business plan if it works. The cost might be more in support and marketing than actual programming.
>>It didn't take him a few hours to get it working, it took him a few hours to write another program that does the same thing. That means that, polish aside, the program that the developer was trying to charge for was probably not worth the asking price
A commercial product requires "polish" and testing and support and marketing and accounting and etc... You have to recover enough money to pay all the staff and expenses. If you have a small market, you have to charge more.
>>The point being, people pay bucks for stuff with animation, not stuff that does stuff, and that is f'ed up.
Some people pay for animation. Some people pay for the convenience. Some people are not concerned with "doing stuff"; it's just entertainment. People go nuts changing their color scheme just because they can.
Slashdot Mirror
>> So really, TFH should read "Optimum Copyright Period Decided by Economics".
I don't really like the word "decided" either. It makes it sound like it is the final/best answer that economics can come up with.
It all depends on whether it is really something the markets wants. I personally don't like the idea of thin clients as a home user, and I think businesses will have a hard time warming to it unless they own the servers. Microsoft might be scared shitless of what Google is doing, but it doesn't mean Google is really doing anything the market will want. Microsoft said they underestimated the internet once and now they are paranoid about it happening again.
>>Hey! No copying your own comments from Ars :D
:D ... Wouldn't trademarks prevent people from doing all the building on/mashups/new story type stuff that they arguing for in shorter copyrights?
Trademark question from Ars
Movies though are very expensive to make, and I could see where they would want longer time periods.
Another issue that could up though is big corporations using your work to make millions of dollars. If Star Wars copyright expired after 14 years, anybody in the world could left frames from the movie and do their own "promotions" whenever the next movie came out. Scenes from the original could be plastered on fast food soda cups all over the world just in time for the next movie release.
Dispassionate does not mean non-biased. There has to be certain assumptions made behind various calculations, and the author is likely biased in a particular way. He has already written various essays and papers promoting ip reform before undertaking this particular paper. This is not to say he is wrong, but "dispassionate" doesn't mean he is right. He is like an expert witness at a trial, he is trying to be technically correct as possible but he is still siding with a particular viewpoint.
Personally I think 14 years is a little short, but 14 + 14 renewal I think would work fairly well.
>>Windows Media already lost this battle years ago
I'm not up on this stuff, but I believe I read here that all of the BBC's competitors in Britain all use Windows Media as well. I could be wrong though.
Microsoft has suggested this type of thing before and it never took off. It is not a swan song - they just see what Google is doing and are moving that direction as something of a hedge. Netscape years ago tried to push itself as a sort of thin client platform, and MS responded by talking some about software-as-service type stuff even back then.
I think MS is setting pretty happy. There is nothing really on the horizon that threatens Office or Windows right now except if Google ever became successful as an application sever. They are just hedging their bets, but you see how successful Netscape was.
>>My email, calendar, and web server were all hosted on my home systems
I think you are talking about extremes here. I have no wish to host my own email or web server at home, but I don't want somebody else to host my porn files, word processor, games, etc...
From a home-user perspective, I kinda of hate the idea of thin clients (as well as software as a service). I don't want to be limited by the speed of my internet connection (unless I have the 40GB/s one mentioned earlier). And I don't want to lose total functionality because of something beyond my control up the pipe. And if I have a version of software I'm happy with, I don't want to be "upgraded" to a less stable or more bloated version because the software company decides to do it for me.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that Google adwords editorial people are supposed to visit the website linked to from the ad and ensure that it satisfies their editorial policy as well. Ads can get rejected if the linked to page does not have enough original content for example.
This goes back to if Google is allowing ads to link to competitors, is this condoned or do their editors suck?
The newspaper would be held responsible if it contained porn...
There is usually an editorial policy in place. It has been awhile since I used Google Adwords, but I believe they did have a policy against using trademarked company names for example. They had an automated system that would scan for trademarked names, forbidden words ("online poker"), and that type stuff, then it had to undergo review by a real person.
A good question is if you were to complain, would Google respond or just blow you off.
I came across a fraudelant ad on Ebay several times over the years where somebody hijacked an account with good feedback and was trying to scam somebody into sending them money ($25K in one case), and everytime I reported this I got some form response back saying that the ad did not appear to violate their terms of service or something to that effect.
Just yesterday my wife was referred by a friend to a particular carpet cleaner, and when she searched for it online she got several ads with that company's name but they took her to different sites.
I was wondering if it would do any good to complain to Google or whether this is considered fair business practice. I thought of even letting the carpet cleaning company know what was happening, but since they did not even seem to have a website to begin with I doubt they would have even known what I was talking about.
Is there already an open standard for DRM? I don't know about that stuff.
I think the way they went is probably the most cost effective for the vast majority of people paying the license fee for the time being. People already complain they have to pay the license fee but don't even watch the BBC. How many people (in Britain who pay the license fee) that don't watch the BBC will actually download the BBC?
I think they can worry about an open standard when a proven one becomes available and they have determined that enough people will actually use the download service to begin with.
The logical consequence would be to require a license fee for every computer, then that way they could afford to support all the users...
Downloading programs in a way is a value added service that works beyond the TV. People complain already that they don't watch the BBC but they still have to pay the fee. Now, the fee is going to pay for even more stuff they don't use.
I think it is reasonable to go with the most cost effective solution that works for the vast majority of people to begin with. They can worry about expanding it later on when they see what the demand really is and get all the kinks worked out.
I don't think anyone is saying there is bugs in Excel or any consumer product. I think they are complaining about MS's *description* of formulas for the OOXML format, though nobody has actually seen MS's actual software code implementation. If a software developer mindlessly implemented these formulas based purely on this description there might be problems, but if he had any knowledge in this area he would know what was intended or he would know to ask for better clarification.
+3 Funny post modded "Off-Topic"
Apple fanboys have no sense of humor
Judge declares Apple fanboys lack mental acuity by wasting negative mod points on anonymous cowards
Apple fanboys sentenced to find another sub-culture, like the Goths.
Karma disappearing...
News at 11.
Here's my phone: http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/phones/Detail.aspx?de vice=a3823c12-6ced-4420-9110-26a9baa0c22c
I got it for free with 2-year commitment (same as iPhone). It has custom ringtones, video recording, blue tooth, contact info sending, web browsing, email, etc...
>>A lot of that shit by Brian Lam is pointless bitching, without acknowledging the other 1000 fantastic features of the iPhone or acknowledging that Apple...
Why do Apple fanboys require others to worship the products before they are allowed to talk about them?
Society, political systems, etc... are not really about individuals to begin with; it is more about the collective. If corporations exert undue influence, it is because enough people don't care enough to stop it. I read something once where someone claimed middle-class suburbia is the pinnacle of human civilization; members of this set as a group really don't have much to get all too worked up about. Whining about DRM is kind of a luxury if you don't have any water or somebody keeps setting off truck bombs in your neighborhood.
It does give them a clear path for version 2. They make a huge amount of money selling version 1 to the cool gadget crowd, then they come out with version 2 and fill in the holes to appeal to the average user/business user. In addition, a lot of version 1 people, being the cool gadget crowd, will decide to buy version 2 also. They make more money in the long run by leaving enough holes in to have more models in the pipeline, but not enough holes that it deters a significant portion of their target audience.
In fairness, your original most did not say that you did it for fun, and the gest of your post was about the value of software. If someone spends 50-60 hours a week programming at work, they may look at somethings in a cost per hour perspective if it would not be an enjoyable project for them.
I also think if you are working 50-60 hours a week and have a wife and kids, you are pretty selective in what you do in your free time that doesn't involve the wife and kids since you have so little of it.
I don't put a price on my free time, but after the second baby is born you get a greater appreciation how valuable it is.
Bagging on DRM is even more popular than bagging on Vista, just wait a few minutes. I will probably even be modded down because the word "bag" might somehow belittle the importance of defying the evil of DRM. Baggin on Vista is a pasttime; bagging on DRM is every Slashdotter's duty.
Correct, maximizing profits is the core of all business.
I was just trying to make the point that with high volume you can have lower margins than you do with low volume, and if your volume is low you probably need a higher margin to make money.
If they are a company trying to make money, then they have to charge.
There will always be somebody willing to pay for certain conveniences, and it's just supply and demand. Taking an example out of a "how to program" book and making a lot of money off it is a great business plan if it works. The cost might be more in support and marketing than actual programming.
>>It didn't take him a few hours to get it working, it took him a few hours to write another program that does the same thing. That means that, polish aside, the program that the developer was trying to charge for was probably not worth the asking price
A commercial product requires "polish" and testing and support and marketing and accounting and etc... You have to recover enough money to pay all the staff and expenses. If you have a small market, you have to charge more.
>>The point being, people pay bucks for stuff with animation, not stuff that does stuff, and that is f'ed up.
Some people pay for animation. Some people pay for the convenience. Some people are not concerned with "doing stuff"; it's just entertainment. People go nuts changing their color scheme just because they can.
Articles such as this serve to provide a regular oppurtunity to bag on Vista, which is a popular pasttime on Slashdot.