If you've ever tried re-installing Windows - as opposed to just running it as it comes installed - things certainly do not "just work" when you do so. Oh, how I recall the joy of installing ten separate drivers, in precisely the right order, rebooting between each one. Bleh.
Installing Linux is, in many ways, a simpler and more satisfying experience. However, naturally it is less simple than just powering up a PC with Windows installed and preconfigured.
As for saying, "Linux still has a long way to go", well who says it's trying to go where you think it's trying to go? For a dead simple, idiot-proof computing experience, yes, Linux "still has a long way to go" (namely, from outside the OEM manufacturers' plants to the inside of them). But part of the appeal of Linux for those who use it is precisely the aspect of getting closer to the workings of your PC, having greater control and freedom at the expense of some degree of simplicity.
My main feeling on going back to using Windows (e.g. each day at work) is how boring Windows is. Sure, it works - but you call that working?
There are two differences here. First, the betting case involved using a service, not the reproduction of copyright material. Similarly your Amazon example is about buying goods, rather than copying digital content. Secondly, in each case both countries are in the EU.
If an AllOfMP3-type service were running, lawfully, in the EU, then any EU citizen could use it regardless of local law. The point is that no-one could run such a service legally anywhere in the EU.
The legality or otherwise of AllOfMP3 etc in Russia was always a bit of a red herring. Even if AllOfMP3 was acting legally under Russian law, that didn't make it legal to download the material outside Russia. Certainly in Europe, at least, you would be infringing copyright by downloading music from AllOfMP3, because you yourself are carrying out copying without the permission of the copyright holder. I'd be surprised if the position in the US were radically different.
The fact that MS's source code is closed is irrelevant, because MS's patents are public documents. The problem for Linux (and other free software) is that its own source code is open to scrutiny, making it easier to spot patent violations.
What some of us "want" is the ability to burn our content onto a CD (so I can listen to it in the car) without using up limited burning entitlements. What some of us "want" is the ability to keep listening to our music without needing to pay a monthly subscription fee. What some of us "want" is the ability to move to another country without repurchasing our entire music collection. What some of us "want" is an unrestricted choice for our next digital music player (bought it all on iTunes? Too bad you're locked into Apple's iPod even after it ceases being the cool/best thing).
Of course, if all you "want" is the ability to listen to content on somebody else's terms and at somebody else's price, then I'm not going to interfere with your choice on that. But there's no need to treat those of us who "want" more than that as ideologically-driven weirdos.
I suspect the Debian developers are far more focused on a smooth upgrade path using APT than are Ubuntu. I gather than using APT for the Dapper-Edgy upgrade was not the official, recommended method - contrast Debian, where APT is fundamental to upgrading/updating, and where a large element of getting Etch ready for release will be ensuring that the upgrade from Sarge works without a hitch.
"most CDs are simply used for ripping onto digital audio players"
I refuse to buy DRMed music, so all my music is either on CD or from eMusic. But when it comes to CDs - yup, I buy it, rip it and stick it on the shelf. But at least I have the full-quality master version - usually for the same money I'd have had to pay on iTunes.
(And of course, Apple have saved me the trouble of having to make an "ethical" decision on whether to use iTunes or not. No Linux version = no DRMed iTunes stuff, even if I wanted to.)
A similar legal exemption applies in Europe, where you are exempt from liability for material in respect of which you are the "host", a "mere conduit" (which would cover your ISP). There's also an exemption for "caching", but that only covers caching for the purpose of improving performance, rather than, say, Google's website cache (which would infringe copyright if hosted in Europe).
The hosting exemption is subject to "notice and take down" provisions, which I gather also apply in the US. Ironically, the wording of the EU law means YouTube would increase its liability were it to monitor content for copyright violations - because you only need to look at YouTube for 15 seconds to come across material that self-evidently infringes copyright, and the moment YouTube is aware of infringing material then (under the EU law) it would be required to take it down "expeditiously" even if it has not received any complaint from a copyright owner. One of those areas where ignorance can be bliss.
But the bottom line is that, without these exemptions, the internet would be unworkable. No ISP or website host could remain in business for five minutes if it was potentially liable for material it hosted or transmitted. And without these laws, the ISP or host would be liable in many cases (eg for hosting child pr0n).
This story doesn't seem to be telling us anything new - "Mozilla and Debian are having a tussle over the Firefox name, some people have suggested Debian may rename Firefox as Iceweasel, here are my thoughts". Um,/. home page, here we come!
TFA even refers to Debian "having done this" when in fact Firefox is still called Firefox in Debian, and there is no iceweasel package in Debian as yet.
Please could people now just shut up about this issue until some actual news comes through of what is actually going to happen. "Debian releases iceweasel package, announces timeline for phasing out firefox" is a story. "Debian decides to rename it 'Firefox Community Edition, Debian' and dares Mozilla to argue it's not complying with Mozilla's policies" is another story (the one I, personally, would like to see). "Some guy on a blog links to a few other people who are yakking about this", isn't.
The licence agreement is admirably clear in setting out its rather less admirable provisions.
1. If you are the first-time buyer, you may transfer the software to a new physical device (e.g. PC or motherboard) once, and once only. After that: you'll need to buy a new licence (ka-ching!) or the validation system will shut you down.
2. If you are the first-time buyer, you may transfer the software to a third party, either installed on your PC or (provided you uninstall) separately from it. If you have acquired the software this way, then you are not permitted to make a further transfer. In other words: it will not be possible to resell a PC that you have purchased secondhand, unless you or the purchaser relicense or uninstall Vista. Nice, eh? (The only good news here is that this aspect may be more difficult to police, as compared with installation on a new device, where validation will allow MS to enforce the licence restrictions.)
3. The virtualisation licence for Ultimate is not an additional licence. You are still only allowed to have one instance of Ultimate installed on the physical device; it is simply that the Ultimate licence allows this instance to be contained within a VM run under a separately-licensed OS. Plus, the VM installation of Ultimate is crippled so that you can't run DRMed material on there - presumably to stop this being a circumvention route, but having the effect of preventing people from running Ultimate as a VM on their Macs (or Linux boxen) to access DRMed material that is unplayable on a non-Windows system.
All I can say is, I'm sticking to Debian. If the worst idiocy I have to put up with is calling Firefox "Iceweasel", then that's a price worth paying compared with this insane control-freakery.
Bringing a physical, non-infringing article (eg a CD) into the country is not an infringement of copyright, unless it's done in the course of trade. But that is fundamentally different (in legal terms at least) from creating an infringing copy in your home country.
Sorry, yes, I chose a poor comparison there. Of course copyright infringement != stealing, my point was just that there is no doubt as to the legal permissibility of using AllOfMP3.com in many non-Russian jurisdictions - I particularly had the UK in mind.
The point is that copyright infringement occurs where the copying takes place. If you download something off AllOfMP3.com, then the copying is taking place in your country. So the legality of AllOfMP3.com in Russia is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether the copying *you* are doing in *your* country is legal. And in many (I suspect most) countries, there really is no doubt as to what the position is, which is all I was trying to say.
While the legality of the former [AllOfMP3.com] is questionable...
...um, in the same way as the legality of bank robbery is questionable. Even if (*big* if) it is legal in Russia for AllOfMP3.com and its ilk to put the material online, that doesn't make it legal for people outside Russia to download that material.
Oh boy, you are in *big* trouble. That's one incidental copy in the left outer ear, one in the left middle ear, one in the left inner ear. Repeat for the right ear. Then there's an incidental copy in your brain. And you're thinking about it right now, aren't you? That's another incidental copy.
Mercifully Apple have been able to retain the 99c flat rate, so you're only 8 dollars in the hole so far.
Yes, the terms do include a bar on on "employing and/or providing software programs, browser scripts, or other technologies that serve to block or substantially impair the display of advertisements on LiveJournal pages", but this is part of a list headed by the words, "You agree to NOT use the Service to" do the list of items.
In other words, you violate the terms if you use the service to employ or provide adblocking software. This will not include using adblocking software on your own computer. It will include putting links on your site to places where people can download adblocking software ("Firefox user? Sick of these ads? Click here to install Adblock now!").
Which seems fair enough, really. This applies to the Subscription+ option in which you get paid-for functionality at the cost of having ads on your site. It's a bit rich to go for that and then block the ads.
The trade mark system (I'm British, so "trade mark" is two words) is pretty broken in many respects, precisely because it has moved beyond the common-sense "guarantee of origin" for which trade marks were originally intended.
Two key problems with the trade mark system:
1. Excessive breadth of coverage: people obtain trade mark registrations covering a wide range of goods and services, which locks other people out of using a similar name even where there's no real risk of confusion. As with spurious patents, an excessively wide trade mark can be challenged, but (also as with spurious patents) that's an expensive and time-consuming process.
2. Excessive breadth of enforceability: sure, we don't want any Pepsi selling something called "Coca Cola" (parent's example given of "Coke" actually begs the question - I'm not sure Coca Cola would risk enforcing that against Pepsi because of the risk of revocation as a "generic" name). But trade mark infringement increasingly covers more nebulous concepts of "brand dilution" and so on. So for example, the infamous 90s cases involving websites like "AOLsucks.com", and the UK case in which Arsenal Football Club prevented a guy from selling unofficial Arsenal scarves from his front garden - using trade marks to force fans to pay for the overpriced official merchandise.
So trade marks, like patents, add risk and expense to start-ups and smaller businesses (who may find it hard to choose a compelling name that has not already been registered, however spuriously), can be exploited for anti-competitive ends, and can be used to stifle free expression. And it all comes down to the same issue: an originally-sensible means of protecting legitimate interests, that gradually gets pushed further and further by the lobbying of vested interests until it ends up threatening the very interests it was originally intended to protect.
Who are *you* calling "a moron in a hurry"?
on
On Apple vs Apple
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The CNN article gets a little over-excited about Apple Computer's barrister saying that "even a moron in a hurry" could tell the difference between the two brands.
The lawyer wasn't being gratuitously offensive - the "moron in a hurry" is an established figure in English passing off/trade mark law, like the "man on the Clapham omnibus". The phrase comes from an action for "passing off" (i.e. infringement of an unregistered trade mark) a few years ago, where the court held that there would be no infringement where the only person likely to be confused by two different usages of a mark is the said "moron in a hurry".
Well that's true, but in the context it seemed rather more likely he meant the figure was lower. Otherwise it would be a rather evasive and misleading answer, and I was being charitable to the guy.;-)
I'm sure you're right that Dell is keen to gently discourage the "average" user from buying these Linux boxes. Just look at the descriptions on the linked page: they're described as "workstations" (message: not one for Mom and Pop), and have suitably intimidating subtitles ("Elite", "Performance", "Advanced").
Then there are the descriptions of "ideal owner": "Demanding, price-conscious users requiring the power of a workstation over a desktop for specialized tasks". Again, it's a "get lost, n00bs" message.
...DRM will only hit the buffers when ordinary users realise they're paying for their own shackles. At the moment I suspect it's still only a tiny minority of users who care about this issue, so "the market" still makes it worth record companies' while to impose DRM.
Hence, while Emusic is a great service, it only has quite a limited selection - and even more limited if you live in the UK, and run up regularly against "This is not available for download in your country" notices even on Emusic.
Slashdot Mirror
If you've ever tried re-installing Windows - as opposed to just running it as it comes installed - things certainly do not "just work" when you do so. Oh, how I recall the joy of installing ten separate drivers, in precisely the right order, rebooting between each one. Bleh.
Installing Linux is, in many ways, a simpler and more satisfying experience. However, naturally it is less simple than just powering up a PC with Windows installed and preconfigured.
As for saying, "Linux still has a long way to go", well who says it's trying to go where you think it's trying to go? For a dead simple, idiot-proof computing experience, yes, Linux "still has a long way to go" (namely, from outside the OEM manufacturers' plants to the inside of them). But part of the appeal of Linux for those who use it is precisely the aspect of getting closer to the workings of your PC, having greater control and freedom at the expense of some degree of simplicity.
My main feeling on going back to using Windows (e.g. each day at work) is how boring Windows is. Sure, it works - but you call that working?
There are two differences here. First, the betting case involved using a service, not the reproduction of copyright material. Similarly your Amazon example is about buying goods, rather than copying digital content. Secondly, in each case both countries are in the EU.
If an AllOfMP3-type service were running, lawfully, in the EU, then any EU citizen could use it regardless of local law. The point is that no-one could run such a service legally anywhere in the EU.
The legality or otherwise of AllOfMP3 etc in Russia was always a bit of a red herring. Even if AllOfMP3 was acting legally under Russian law, that didn't make it legal to download the material outside Russia. Certainly in Europe, at least, you would be infringing copyright by downloading music from AllOfMP3, because you yourself are carrying out copying without the permission of the copyright holder. I'd be surprised if the position in the US were radically different.
The fact that MS's source code is closed is irrelevant, because MS's patents are public documents. The problem for Linux (and other free software) is that its own source code is open to scrutiny, making it easier to spot patent violations.
What some of us "want" is the ability to burn our content onto a CD (so I can listen to it in the car) without using up limited burning entitlements. What some of us "want" is the ability to keep listening to our music without needing to pay a monthly subscription fee. What some of us "want" is the ability to move to another country without repurchasing our entire music collection. What some of us "want" is an unrestricted choice for our next digital music player (bought it all on iTunes? Too bad you're locked into Apple's iPod even after it ceases being the cool/best thing).
Of course, if all you "want" is the ability to listen to content on somebody else's terms and at somebody else's price, then I'm not going to interfere with your choice on that. But there's no need to treat those of us who "want" more than that as ideologically-driven weirdos.
I suspect the Debian developers are far more focused on a smooth upgrade path using APT than are Ubuntu. I gather than using APT for the Dapper-Edgy upgrade was not the official, recommended method - contrast Debian, where APT is fundamental to upgrading/updating, and where a large element of getting Etch ready for release will be ensuring that the upgrade from Sarge works without a hitch.
"most CDs are simply used for ripping onto digital audio players"
I refuse to buy DRMed music, so all my music is either on CD or from eMusic. But when it comes to CDs - yup, I buy it, rip it and stick it on the shelf. But at least I have the full-quality master version - usually for the same money I'd have had to pay on iTunes.
(And of course, Apple have saved me the trouble of having to make an "ethical" decision on whether to use iTunes or not. No Linux version = no DRMed iTunes stuff, even if I wanted to.)
A similar legal exemption applies in Europe, where you are exempt from liability for material in respect of which you are the "host", a "mere conduit" (which would cover your ISP). There's also an exemption for "caching", but that only covers caching for the purpose of improving performance, rather than, say, Google's website cache (which would infringe copyright if hosted in Europe).
The hosting exemption is subject to "notice and take down" provisions, which I gather also apply in the US. Ironically, the wording of the EU law means YouTube would increase its liability were it to monitor content for copyright violations - because you only need to look at YouTube for 15 seconds to come across material that self-evidently infringes copyright, and the moment YouTube is aware of infringing material then (under the EU law) it would be required to take it down "expeditiously" even if it has not received any complaint from a copyright owner. One of those areas where ignorance can be bliss.
But the bottom line is that, without these exemptions, the internet would be unworkable. No ISP or website host could remain in business for five minutes if it was potentially liable for material it hosted or transmitted. And without these laws, the ISP or host would be liable in many cases (eg for hosting child pr0n).
This story doesn't seem to be telling us anything new - "Mozilla and Debian are having a tussle over the Firefox name, some people have suggested Debian may rename Firefox as Iceweasel, here are my thoughts". Um, /. home page, here we come!
TFA even refers to Debian "having done this" when in fact Firefox is still called Firefox in Debian, and there is no iceweasel package in Debian as yet.
Please could people now just shut up about this issue until some actual news comes through of what is actually going to happen. "Debian releases iceweasel package, announces timeline for phasing out firefox" is a story. "Debian decides to rename it 'Firefox Community Edition, Debian' and dares Mozilla to argue it's not complying with Mozilla's policies" is another story (the one I, personally, would like to see). "Some guy on a blog links to a few other people who are yakking about this", isn't.
The licence agreement is admirably clear in setting out its rather less admirable provisions.
1. If you are the first-time buyer, you may transfer the software to a new physical device (e.g. PC or motherboard) once, and once only. After that: you'll need to buy a new licence (ka-ching!) or the validation system will shut you down.
2. If you are the first-time buyer, you may transfer the software to a third party, either installed on your PC or (provided you uninstall) separately from it. If you have acquired the software this way, then you are not permitted to make a further transfer. In other words: it will not be possible to resell a PC that you have purchased secondhand, unless you or the purchaser relicense or uninstall Vista. Nice, eh? (The only good news here is that this aspect may be more difficult to police, as compared with installation on a new device, where validation will allow MS to enforce the licence restrictions.)
3. The virtualisation licence for Ultimate is not an additional licence. You are still only allowed to have one instance of Ultimate installed on the physical device; it is simply that the Ultimate licence allows this instance to be contained within a VM run under a separately-licensed OS. Plus, the VM installation of Ultimate is crippled so that you can't run DRMed material on there - presumably to stop this being a circumvention route, but having the effect of preventing people from running Ultimate as a VM on their Macs (or Linux boxen) to access DRMed material that is unplayable on a non-Windows system.
All I can say is, I'm sticking to Debian. If the worst idiocy I have to put up with is calling Firefox "Iceweasel", then that's a price worth paying compared with this insane control-freakery.
From the ReiserFS Wikipedia entry: "Hans Reiser ... is referred to as the project's Benevolent Dictator for Life."
The "benevolent" bit may need rethinking if the guy's convicted...
I dread to think what the "tactile" password for a pr0n site would be like...
...is getting people to spell it "millennium". Cracking that one would be a million dollars of anybody's money...
Bringing a physical, non-infringing article (eg a CD) into the country is not an infringement of copyright, unless it's done in the course of trade. But that is fundamentally different (in legal terms at least) from creating an infringing copy in your home country.
Sorry, yes, I chose a poor comparison there. Of course copyright infringement != stealing, my point was just that there is no doubt as to the legal permissibility of using AllOfMP3.com in many non-Russian jurisdictions - I particularly had the UK in mind.
The point is that copyright infringement occurs where the copying takes place. If you download something off AllOfMP3.com, then the copying is taking place in your country. So the legality of AllOfMP3.com in Russia is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether the copying *you* are doing in *your* country is legal. And in many (I suspect most) countries, there really is no doubt as to what the position is, which is all I was trying to say.
While the legality of the former [AllOfMP3.com] is questionable...
...um, in the same way as the legality of bank robbery is questionable. Even if (*big* if) it is legal in Russia for AllOfMP3.com and its ilk to put the material online, that doesn't make it legal for people outside Russia to download that material.
Oh boy, you are in *big* trouble. That's one incidental copy in the left outer ear, one in the left middle ear, one in the left inner ear. Repeat for the right ear. Then there's an incidental copy in your brain. And you're thinking about it right now, aren't you? That's another incidental copy.
Mercifully Apple have been able to retain the 99c flat rate, so you're only 8 dollars in the hole so far.
IMHO a simple improvement to email would be no more than twice a day delivery.
Let me guess. You have stock in fax machine manufacturer?
Yes, the terms do include a bar on on "employing and/or providing software programs, browser scripts, or other technologies that serve to block or substantially impair the display of advertisements on LiveJournal pages", but this is part of a list headed by the words, "You agree to NOT use the Service to" do the list of items.
In other words, you violate the terms if you use the service to employ or provide adblocking software. This will not include using adblocking software on your own computer. It will include putting links on your site to places where people can download adblocking software ("Firefox user? Sick of these ads? Click here to install Adblock now!").
Which seems fair enough, really. This applies to the Subscription+ option in which you get paid-for functionality at the cost of having ads on your site. It's a bit rich to go for that and then block the ads.
The trade mark system (I'm British, so "trade mark" is two words) is pretty broken in many respects, precisely because it has moved beyond the common-sense "guarantee of origin" for which trade marks were originally intended.
Two key problems with the trade mark system:
1. Excessive breadth of coverage: people obtain trade mark registrations covering a wide range of goods and services, which locks other people out of using a similar name even where there's no real risk of confusion. As with spurious patents, an excessively wide trade mark can be challenged, but (also as with spurious patents) that's an expensive and time-consuming process.
2. Excessive breadth of enforceability: sure, we don't want any Pepsi selling something called "Coca Cola" (parent's example given of "Coke" actually begs the question - I'm not sure Coca Cola would risk enforcing that against Pepsi because of the risk of revocation as a "generic" name). But trade mark infringement increasingly covers more nebulous concepts of "brand dilution" and so on. So for example, the infamous 90s cases involving websites like "AOLsucks.com", and the UK case in which Arsenal Football Club prevented a guy from selling unofficial Arsenal scarves from his front garden - using trade marks to force fans to pay for the overpriced official merchandise.
So trade marks, like patents, add risk and expense to start-ups and smaller businesses (who may find it hard to choose a compelling name that has not already been registered, however spuriously), can be exploited for anti-competitive ends, and can be used to stifle free expression. And it all comes down to the same issue: an originally-sensible means of protecting legitimate interests, that gradually gets pushed further and further by the lobbying of vested interests until it ends up threatening the very interests it was originally intended to protect.
The CNN article gets a little over-excited about Apple Computer's barrister saying that "even a moron in a hurry" could tell the difference between the two brands.
The lawyer wasn't being gratuitously offensive - the "moron in a hurry" is an established figure in English passing off/trade mark law, like the "man on the Clapham omnibus". The phrase comes from an action for "passing off" (i.e. infringement of an unregistered trade mark) a few years ago, where the court held that there would be no infringement where the only person likely to be confused by two different usages of a mark is the said "moron in a hurry".
Well that's true, but in the context it seemed rather more likely he meant the figure was lower. Otherwise it would be a rather evasive and misleading answer, and I was being charitable to the guy. ;-)
If you RTFA, a Mozilla board member says that the quoted figure of $72 million is too high, but "not off by an order of magnitude".
I'm sure you're right that Dell is keen to gently discourage the "average" user from buying these Linux boxes. Just look at the descriptions on the linked page: they're described as "workstations" (message: not one for Mom and Pop), and have suitably intimidating subtitles ("Elite", "Performance", "Advanced").
Then there are the descriptions of "ideal owner": "Demanding, price-conscious users requiring the power of a workstation over a desktop for specialized tasks". Again, it's a "get lost, n00bs" message.
...DRM will only hit the buffers when ordinary users realise they're paying for their own shackles. At the moment I suspect it's still only a tiny minority of users who care about this issue, so "the market" still makes it worth record companies' while to impose DRM. Hence, while Emusic is a great service, it only has quite a limited selection - and even more limited if you live in the UK, and run up regularly against "This is not available for download in your country" notices even on Emusic.