They have to charge $20 since not many people (relatively speaking) will purchase it. If they knew 50 million people were going to purchase, then they could charge a lot less.
You get a quicker payoff if someone buys you out. For a million dollar buyout, the company might only be making profits of $200K/year or so.
I think there is also the perception of Google buying companies to add to their portfolio, not necessarily ones that generate a good profit. I think there might be some hope that you could come up with an interesting idea, not necessarily a very profitable one, and Google would buy you out for the cool factor alone.
The question was whether he had a "better" moral compass. He didn't really "break in"; he peaked. It wasn't professional or ethical, but I don't think I would call it immoral.
I would almost expect people to peak if I were to give them my computer, so I would hide/remove/encrypt everything I didn't want anybody to see.
Yep. It was kind of a bummer because I thought I might get some easy money.
In reality it wasn't really that big of a deal. The program was just some project I did to teach myself C++, and I thought I would try to sell some shareware copies and maybe make some beer money. It wasn't anything special, but I was selling it real cheap and that was probably what they wanted to stop. It was a weird sensation though when the president of the company goes from blowing smoke up your ass one day to never returning your calls the next. I would periodically check the computer stores for about a year later, but I only ever saw one title from that company and it was something else entirely. They probably wouldn't have sold many copies even if they tried.
Allways talk to a lawyer, AND talk to one that knows what's going on.
For some reason Webster's example sentences, did not show up when I pasted, but for "c : to take surreptitiously or without permission", the example was "to steal a kiss". That seems appropriate to the situation - they are not leaving one kissless. I don't know about legal terms - "identity theft" for example, they don't "take" away your identity and leave you without one, they share it with you - but in terms of common English language usuage, "steal" is an appropriate choice of words. Nitpicking about the word in common usuage situations just makes it seem like one is desparate for moral/legal absolution.
steal transitive verb 1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of
>>What they seemed to be worked up about was Microsoft *preventing* Netscape from being given away for free. In particular, in the OEM channels, and where they could, by making deals with ISPs. Basically, the automatic distribution channels.
I can understand that, but that was never what I heard in the news. The press always framed it a certain way - the issue was MS giving away a browser for free. The average public response was "it's their software and they can give away for free if they want. Netscape are just crybabies."
I never heard that part before, but it is possible he just made a bad deal and/or had poor lawyers advising.
I was in a similar boat once. Years ago (when I was like 20 or 21) I created some shareware, and this software company contacted me and wanted to sell it. I signed an exclusive contract in return for royalties. They suggested I would make around $30K based on how well their other products sold. Once I signed, I never heard from them again. I think their only purpose was just to remove a potential competitor from the marketplace.
In Hollywood, they say never sign a deal for a percentage of the profits because the bookkeepers always make sure there is never a profit.
This type of behavior may be pretty common in the business world, and I suppose you have to be sure and protect yourself.
>>If it is ruled that desktop search is a separate market to operating systems, then Microsoft are acting illegally by including desktop search with their operating system, rather than providing it as a separate product.
I think search is an intrinsic part of the operating system, and I don't think even Google thinks it should be a separate product. Because of the previous settlement, Google is claiming they should be given easier access to replacing components of the operating system.
I don't know enough about it, but a fair number of people seem to think that Google is being a crybaby about this, while others think Google is just laying the groundwork for some secret strategy on their part.
I do know that I hated it when AOL and Norton decided to replace parts of the OS with their own components, and I refused to fix friends' computers that had these installed. I think this was part of MS's original mindset, but now I think they are trying to figure out what Google is up to.
I never understood the whole Netscape thing. The guy that was paid by the US government to create a free browser, Mosaic, turns around and starts a company to sell a browser based on one that the US govt was giving away for free, then complains that browsers should not be given away for free.
I understood the concern about MS forcing vendors to bundle Office if they wanted a good deal on Windows and all that, but the Netscape issue always was the one that made the news. I think a lot of average people tended to side with MS because that is all they heard about.
I used to think "off-topic" got used a lot when someone didn't get a reference in a joke, but I'm starting to think there are a fair number of people that just don't like jokes period.
>>That said, he is a great author though from what I've read about him as a man, he is rumoured to be a bit pompous
Years ago he played himself in some stupid sci-fi movie. Something about how aliens sent an asteroid towards the earth to say "hello", and when we blew it up, they got pissed and sent thousands more. I think it was shot as live news coverage or something, but it sucked. After appearing in that, maybe he would have some humility.
>>It's not very convenient to discover that you can't play your FairPlay music on your new PlaysForSure device (or vice-versa), for example.
I think his wealth would help mediate this though. He could always buy multiple copies of the same song to play on different devices, but the average person would be reluctant and pissed.
Given who he is, I bet he has mainly stuck with iPod/iTunes and probably never really had any bad experiences with DRM within that limited framework (though I have never used iPod/iTunes so I don't know how much of an incovenience DRM is in that setting.)
From what I understand you can rip the song to CD (or even virtual CD) and remove the DRM, and that's probably enough to placate whatever doubts he might have about it.
I think too much spam and trolls would preclude it from ever being considered as "published" or have much respectability by the patent office. It could become just a bunch of male enhancement ads. It could also just become a huge adwords-type project where every search term returned a bunch of focused advertising.
I also used an example of a novel, which cannot be patented to begin with. Some people will confuse copyrights, patents, and trademarks. (I don't know if an idea for a novel can be patented, but I could see if this kind of database ever became a somewhat authoritative reference, then someone filling it up with ideas for novels then trying to sue anytime a similar idea is used in a bestseller.)
I think it would need to be well organized, AND free of spam and trolls, or otherwise the patent office (and maybe everybody else) would not take it seriously. What if every other listing was a picture of some guy's penis labeled "the ultimate sex machine." If the user indexes his own entry, they could be all over the place - "the ultimate sex machine" is also a perpetual motion machine...
The question is does every idea get included, or is there editorial control. I think it's value would be in indexing and sorting and that kind of stuff.
Do you spend the time and effort indexing things like:
2031 Previously undiscovered variations on the cheeseburger My list of favorite beers My first novel (full text) The best algorithm for making my wife orgasm etc...
>>You might have heard of Slashdot, where people with varying kinds of brain matter make varying kinds of comments about varying kinds of "news."
Where everybody thinks they are legal expert AND a quantum physicist, and where there is a lot of noise to filter out. And where many people think that a fair number of the moderations are wrong (or even absurd) and think the moderation system itself kinda sucks (how 'bout only giving one negative mod point, for example.)
I think the idea does have merit, but various wikis could become trashed, especially if the posters have an agenda. Or if there are enough people totally against patents to begin with, they could repeatedly try to trash the whole system.
It would take a lot of time, effort, and money to make the website something worthwhile. There would probably have to be some editorial control, but since you are trying to list everything obvious, it would become kind of overwhelming. In addition to some of the problems mentioned in the parent, there would be arguments about what is "appropriately" obvious and what is just stupid.
>>What a load of crap. Because he is wealthy, he could have bought all of this music on CDs, completely DRM free. The wealthier you are the more capability you have to follow your convictions.
I think the point is that he doesn't have any real convictions towards DRM. I haven't read any of his other statements on the issue (and he is not that coherent of a guy sometimes anyway), but like I said in my earlier "load of crap" post, just based on this one statement it is hard to surmise that he is strongly opposed to DRM.
Just because he said DRM doesn't make sense doesn't mean he really cares one way or another. I think his actions pretty much say he just wants the convenience of iTunes and DRM is not that important of an issue for him to give up what convenience he has. I think millions of people apparently feel the same way, so it should not be all that surprising.
Being a billionaire means a lot of things are trivial in your everyday experience. Convenience may be more an issue than anything else.
I mentioned Apple just recently selling DRM-free music because that was the context he was talking about. I imagine he owns literaly thousands (or even more) of CD's (without DRM), but he was talking about his iTunes purchases that were DRM-free. In reality, you can't say much about it unless you know his ratio of non-DRM/DRM purchases over a specific period of time when they were both available. But I don't think he really cares - I imagine if he wants a song he just buys it and doesn't think much about the DRM because convenience is probably more important to him.
Slashdot Mirror
They have to charge $20 since not many people (relatively speaking) will purchase it. If they knew 50 million people were going to purchase, then they could charge a lot less.
You get a quicker payoff if someone buys you out. For a million dollar buyout, the company might only be making profits of $200K/year or so.
I think there is also the perception of Google buying companies to add to their portfolio, not necessarily ones that generate a good profit. I think there might be some hope that you could come up with an interesting idea, not necessarily a very profitable one, and Google would buy you out for the cool factor alone.
The question was whether he had a "better" moral compass. He didn't really "break in"; he peaked. It wasn't professional or ethical, but I don't think I would call it immoral.
I would almost expect people to peak if I were to give them my computer, so I would hide/remove/encrypt everything I didn't want anybody to see.
>>I guess you learnt that the hard way.
Yep. It was kind of a bummer because I thought I might get some easy money.
In reality it wasn't really that big of a deal. The program was just some project I did to teach myself C++, and I thought I would try to sell some shareware copies and maybe make some beer money. It wasn't anything special, but I was selling it real cheap and that was probably what they wanted to stop. It was a weird sensation though when the president of the company goes from blowing smoke up your ass one day to never returning your calls the next. I would periodically check the computer stores for about a year later, but I only ever saw one title from that company and it was something else entirely. They probably wouldn't have sold many copies even if they tried.
Allways talk to a lawyer, AND talk to one that knows what's going on.
Maybe not here on Slashdot, but most people would say he had a better moral compass.
I think it is common human nature to peak. Maybe it wasn't professional or ethical, but morally it is better than child porn.
For some reason Webster's example sentences, did not show up when I pasted, but for "c : to take surreptitiously or without permission", the example was "to steal a kiss". That seems appropriate to the situation - they are not leaving one kissless. I don't know about legal terms - "identity theft" for example, they don't "take" away your identity and leave you without one, they share it with you - but in terms of common English language usuage, "steal" is an appropriate choice of words. Nitpicking about the word in common usuage situations just makes it seem like one is desparate for moral/legal absolution.
From Webster:
steal
transitive verb
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of
That must be how they always catch the child porn guys that are having their computer worked on. A technician always "just accidently discovers" it.
>>What they seemed to be worked up about was Microsoft *preventing* Netscape from being given away for free. In particular, in the OEM channels, and where they could, by making deals with ISPs. Basically, the automatic distribution channels.
I can understand that, but that was never what I heard in the news. The press always framed it a certain way - the issue was MS giving away a browser for free. The average public response was "it's their software and they can give away for free if they want. Netscape are just crybabies."
I never heard that part before, but it is possible he just made a bad deal and/or had poor lawyers advising.
I was in a similar boat once. Years ago (when I was like 20 or 21) I created some shareware, and this software company contacted me and wanted to sell it. I signed an exclusive contract in return for royalties. They suggested I would make around $30K based on how well their other products sold. Once I signed, I never heard from them again. I think their only purpose was just to remove a potential competitor from the marketplace.
In Hollywood, they say never sign a deal for a percentage of the profits because the bookkeepers always make sure there is never a profit.
This type of behavior may be pretty common in the business world, and I suppose you have to be sure and protect yourself.
>>If it is ruled that desktop search is a separate market to operating systems, then Microsoft are acting illegally by including desktop search with their operating system, rather than providing it as a separate product.
I think search is an intrinsic part of the operating system, and I don't think even Google thinks it should be a separate product. Because of the previous settlement, Google is claiming they should be given easier access to replacing components of the operating system.
I don't know enough about it, but a fair number of people seem to think that Google is being a crybaby about this, while others think Google is just laying the groundwork for some secret strategy on their part.
I do know that I hated it when AOL and Norton decided to replace parts of the OS with their own components, and I refused to fix friends' computers that had these installed. I think this was part of MS's original mindset, but now I think they are trying to figure out what Google is up to.
I never understood the whole Netscape thing. The guy that was paid by the US government to create a free browser, Mosaic, turns around and starts a company to sell a browser based on one that the US govt was giving away for free, then complains that browsers should not be given away for free.
I understood the concern about MS forcing vendors to bundle Office if they wanted a good deal on Windows and all that, but the Netscape issue always was the one that made the news. I think a lot of average people tended to side with MS because that is all they heard about.
I used to think "off-topic" got used a lot when someone didn't get a reference in a joke, but I'm starting to think there are a fair number of people that just don't like jokes period.
>>That said, he is a great author though from what I've read about him as a man, he is rumoured to be a bit pompous
Years ago he played himself in some stupid sci-fi movie. Something about how aliens sent an asteroid towards the earth to say "hello", and when we blew it up, they got pissed and sent thousands more. I think it was shot as live news coverage or something, but it sucked. After appearing in that, maybe he would have some humility.
>>apparently Microsoft...is embracing the new, non-viral GPLv3
Not sure where you got "embracing" from...
>>It's not very convenient to discover that you can't play your FairPlay music on your new PlaysForSure device (or vice-versa), for example.
I think his wealth would help mediate this though. He could always buy multiple copies of the same song to play on different devices, but the average person would be reluctant and pissed.
Given who he is, I bet he has mainly stuck with iPod/iTunes and probably never really had any bad experiences with DRM within that limited framework (though I have never used iPod/iTunes so I don't know how much of an incovenience DRM is in that setting.)
From what I understand you can rip the song to CD (or even virtual CD) and remove the DRM, and that's probably enough to placate whatever doubts he might have about it.
Oh, yeah, the jerk store called...
>>Including every idea would be a necessity
I think too much spam and trolls would preclude it from ever being considered as "published" or have much respectability by the patent office. It could become just a bunch of male enhancement ads. It could also just become a huge adwords-type project where every search term returned a bunch of focused advertising.
I also used an example of a novel, which cannot be patented to begin with. Some people will confuse copyrights, patents, and trademarks. (I don't know if an idea for a novel can be patented, but I could see if this kind of database ever became a somewhat authoritative reference, then someone filling it up with ideas for novels then trying to sue anytime a similar idea is used in a bestseller.)
I think it would need to be well organized, AND free of spam and trolls, or otherwise the patent office (and maybe everybody else) would not take it seriously. What if every other listing was a picture of some guy's penis labeled "the ultimate sex machine." If the user indexes his own entry, they could be all over the place - "the ultimate sex machine" is also a perpetual motion machine...
The question is does every idea get included, or is there editorial control. I think it's value would be in indexing and sorting and that kind of stuff.
Do you spend the time and effort indexing things like:
2031 Previously undiscovered variations on the cheeseburger
My list of favorite beers
My first novel (full text)
The best algorithm for making my wife orgasm
etc...
>>You might have heard of Slashdot, where people with varying kinds of brain matter make varying kinds of comments about varying kinds of "news."
Where everybody thinks they are legal expert AND a quantum physicist, and where there is a lot of noise to filter out. And where many people think that a fair number of the moderations are wrong (or even absurd) and think the moderation system itself kinda sucks (how 'bout only giving one negative mod point, for example.)
I think the idea does have merit, but various wikis could become trashed, especially if the posters have an agenda. Or if there are enough people totally against patents to begin with, they could repeatedly try to trash the whole system.
It would take a lot of time, effort, and money to make the website something worthwhile. There would probably have to be some editorial control, but since you are trying to list everything obvious, it would become kind of overwhelming. In addition to some of the problems mentioned in the parent, there would be arguments about what is "appropriately" obvious and what is just stupid.
>>What a load of crap. Because he is wealthy, he could have bought all of this music on CDs, completely DRM free. The wealthier you are the more capability you have to follow your convictions.
I think the point is that he doesn't have any real convictions towards DRM. I haven't read any of his other statements on the issue (and he is not that coherent of a guy sometimes anyway), but like I said in my earlier "load of crap" post, just based on this one statement it is hard to surmise that he is strongly opposed to DRM.
Just because he said DRM doesn't make sense doesn't mean he really cares one way or another. I think his actions pretty much say he just wants the convenience of iTunes and DRM is not that important of an issue for him to give up what convenience he has. I think millions of people apparently feel the same way, so it should not be all that surprising.
My bad. I thought he cashed out better (like Paul Allen).
Being a billionaire means a lot of things are trivial in your everyday experience. Convenience may be more an issue than anything else.
I mentioned Apple just recently selling DRM-free music because that was the context he was talking about. I imagine he owns literaly thousands (or even more) of CD's (without DRM), but he was talking about his iTunes purchases that were DRM-free. In reality, you can't say much about it unless you know his ratio of non-DRM/DRM purchases over a specific period of time when they were both available. But I don't think he really cares - I imagine if he wants a song he just buys it and doesn't think much about the DRM because convenience is probably more important to him.