Giving the songs to five of your friends has never been the problem. They haven't really cared much if you made a mix tape or mix CD and given them away to people you know. You certainly have the right to do that and no one has really tried to stop that. In fact, they encourage that by distributing blank media and recording hardware.
Even selling used CDs hasn't come under fire. There are plenty of record stores that buy and sell CDs.
No, the problem has been uploading the songs to some P2P network and allowing millions of your "friends" to download the song. That is what they're really trying to stop. The difference between the five and the million has to do with the numbers. You are likely to have five friends, not a million. Five copies don't hurt the companies, but a million copies do. That never came up before since you would never buy a million blank CDs to copy and pass around to complete strangers.
The company which previously held the patent, furthermore, is in business with the grill companies now. If you had stopped to process what you'd read, you'd realize that this "partnership" could have occurred prior to the patent expiring, since THEY HELD THE PATENT.
Yes, it COULD have happened before 2000, but it DID NOT. Why is that? The grill companies wanted to work with this technology, but something was holding them back. THAT was most definitely the patent, held by a group of people who did not want to give up the technology.
No, you haven't done much research. The infrared grills have been around since 1960. However, the new designs didn't come out until recently since the patent expired in 2000.
If you're going to be disagreeable, then at least read the article first.
GP: This is a perfect example of one of the big problems of patents as currently implemented. They're supposed to be there to reward inventors and promote innovation -- but here the patent was doing the exact opposite, it's preventing new grill designs.
P: Well, the patent expired 7 years ago, so there goes that theory.
I don't follow. The patent expired 7 years ago and now we have new grill designs that don't require fragile ceramic pieces. The fact is that we did not have those designs before 2000 when the patent expired. So yes, this is a perfect example of a patent preventing new grill designs.
How, how, HOW(!?!?) is this related to my rights online?
This thing was patented in the 60s, which recently expired. Previously, the grills cost $5000, meaning only professional chefs and wealthy people used them. Now that there's actual competition for production, prices have lowered to the $500-$1000 range and other manufacturers are now improving the design. Take this example and apply it to any other patent discussion you wish... If that doesn't satisfy you as an explanation, then realize that infrared grill doesn't exactly fit most categories on Slashdot.
As for why this is on Slashdot at all, that has to do with the fact that they're infrared, which instantly makes it geeky.
You've basically repeated what the last two posters already said and which I already addressed. 1763 comes hundreds of years later than 1492 and hundreds of years later than the first mass deaths of native Americans.
Me: And before anyone thinks the Europeans did this on purpose, let me remind everyone that germ theory came about hundreds of years later.
You: Are you telling me that giving native americans blankets infested with smallpox was an accident?
The smallpox blankets occurred in the late 1700s, long after Europeans had first entered the Americas and long after the first mass deaths of native Americans.
You looked at the first sentence of the paragraph, while conveniently ignoring the second sentence of the same paragraph, which was the entire point:
The Europeans certainly did not know that merely coming in contact with the native Americans would end in mass death.
You're talking about events that first happened in the late 1700's, hundreds of years after colonists first arrived in the Americas and hundreds of years after the first mass deaths. I wouldn't label that "pretty damn quick".
Argentina, 40,301,927 people: 97% white (mostly Spanish and Italian), 3% mestizo (mixed white and Amerindian ancestry), Amerindian, or other non-white groups
Brazil, 190,010,647 people: 53.7% white, 38.5% mulatto (mixed white and black), 6.2% black, 0.9% other (includes Japanese, Arab, Amerindian)
The closest example of colonization in Africa was what, South Africa? Even today, that country is 79% black African and 9.6% white. The indigenous people rule and are the vast majority. That's hardly the same as what happened in the Americas or Australia, which were both geographically isolated.
The whole Danish cartoon reaction in the US didn't appear as fear of reprisal. Maybe some of it was, but certainly not all of it. The lack of printing appeared as a capitulation to diversity. If the press was afraid of anything, it wasn't that Muslims would attack, but that the press would look bad by appearing intolerant.
Nevermind the fact that the press couldn't accurately and objectively tell the Danish cartoon story without showing the cartoons. No reader or viewer had any idea what the problem was about without viewing the materials themselves. In today's day and age, accurately and objectively telling the news is a secondary objective for news stations. Their primary goals are diversity and inclusiveness in order to keep their viewers and advertisers happy and the money rolling in.
It is interesting that Europeans also attempted colonizing Africa, Australia, and Asia. Outside of the Americas, they were really only successful in Australia. The native populations of every place was able to fight back except for the Americas and Australia. There is a reason for that.
The fact is that most of the Indian deaths were from disease and infection. There were a whole host of diseases brought from Europe with which the native Americans had no resistance due to geographic isolation. Without a land connection to tropical locations in Africa and Asia where disease breeds even today, those diseases were unable to travel to locations in Australia and especially the Americas. Prior to the arrival of the Europeans, the Americas was a relatively disease-free paradise. However, the native Americans ended up paying once the Europeans did arrive.
Every single European expedition that went through resulted in mass deaths of natives in that area. That's why when British colonists landed in North America there were large areas already cleared and ready for farming. The native people had recently lived there, but had died from mass disease.
And before anyone thinks the Europeans did this on purpose, let me remind everyone that germ theory came about hundreds of years later. The Europeans certainly did not know that merely coming in contact with the native Americans would end in mass death.
First off, this is an American website run by Americans specifically for an American audience. Just because you can access the website through the internet from a different country does not mean this website is for a global audience.
Secondly, you do not need to bring up the fact that laws are different in other countries to defeat this logic. The plain and simple fact is that people who live in democracies ultimately decide the laws of their countries. Just because something is illegal today does not mean it will be illegal tomorrow. Were enough people to get together and decide to change this law, then that behavior would be legal. The question is whether we want to go through that process or not.
That doesn't make any sense. Apple, Commodore, and Amiga software were highly pirated as well. Piracy certainly didn't help them. Apple limped through the '90s. Commodore and Amiga both died.
No, Microsoft became dominant because they were the operating system for the IBM PC, the computer used by business. Businesses back then were the same as today in that they tend to not pirate software. Microsoft became dominant because they were pirated less than the rest.
This whole line of reasoning is a load of crap. It completely neglects the history of the last 25 years.
Microsoft didn't win against Apple, Commodore, and Amiga by making their software pirated more than the rest. Microsoft became dominant because it teamed up with IBM and Intel and went for the business customer. They won because they were the software for the IBM PC, the desktop computer adopted by commercial business. If a business bought a PC, then they DID pay for a copy of DOS along with it. Businesses tend to follow the law and not pirate software.
Apple, Commodore, and Amiga went for school/home use and ended up competing amongst themselves and losing out. Commodore is long gone. Amiga is reborn, but limping. Apple barely managed to stay on during the '90s and ended up taking a huge investment from Bill Gates. All their software was pirated, but it certainly didn't help them much.
The fact is ONE of those companies was bound to become dominant sooner or later. It happened to be Microsoft because they went along with IBM and Intel and targeted the business market. Their dominance had NOTHING to do with encouraging piracy, especially since Apple, Commodore, and Amiga were all pirated as well.
Microsoft became dominant because since their primary customers were businesses, they were pirated less than the others.
GP: In fact, Microsoft BENEFITS from such "piracy".
P: Until I read this story, I had always assumed that MS understood this fact. Now I see that, as in so many other things, they were just lucky.
In the 1980's, Microsoft competed with Apple, Commodore, and Amiga. I can remember computer stores at the time where all of these systems were given equal self space. Apple and Commodore had all the cool games. Amiga had all the cool stuff for nerds. And the IBM PCs (Microsoft) had all the boring business software.
Microsoft did luck out. Since IBM PCs were the business computer, everyone used them at work. Adults would buy their own to do work at home and then the kids tried it too. Apples and Commodores were considered toys, so few people took them seriously. And Amiga... well, there's the perfect example of how a well designed and well received machine doesn't do well in the marketplace because of addressing the wrong audience.
I doubt that there would even be a Microsoft monopoly today without the lock-in caused by over two decades of pirated copies of DOS and Windows
Actually, people pirated the Apple, Commodore, and Amiga software too. Vendor lock-in didn't help them. It probably didn't help Microsoft either, at least with becoming the dominant PC vendor.
ONE of those companies was bound to become dominant, sooner or later. It just happened to be Microsoft.
As for today, Microsoft no longer has a monopoly on operating systems for the x86. Linux has been out for 15 years. Apple OS X and Sun Solaris for x86 have relatively recently come out.
"... six PC dealers in Gujarat received notices from Microsoft for selling pirated copies of Windows."
"Microsoft demanding a payment of 200,000 Rupee ($4,955) and a fine of 1,600,000 Rupee ($39,638) if the vendor continued to sell pirated copies of the OS."
"Microsoft conducted the raids..."
"... Microsoft India sees the raids as a firm, but loving hand; guiding the vendors to the world of IP..."
"Microsoft, though its own efforts in partnership with other industry groups, is committed to increasing the understanding and appreciate for intellectual property rights and original [bought] software"
"Microsoft is committed to working with the channel to help them understand the benefits of original [bought] software."
"We expect our channel partners to support us in further spreading the message of the value of original [bought] software among the end-consumers, and we will continue to support all initiatives to do so."
I'd say that even in 1998, Microsoft was arguably not a monopoly. A monopoly means they have the only product on the market, in this case x86 operating systems. That hasn't been true since Linux came out. At the time, Linux was solid and cutting into Microsoft's market share on x86 hardware.
Since 1998, Linux has improved dramatically, both in technology, driver support, technical support, and market share. Further, Windows now has competition from Apple's OS X and Sun's Solaris running on x86 platforms, which were not in the x86 market previously.
The fact is, with the success of all these other players on Microsoft's turf, if there ever was a Microsoft monopoly, it certainly doesn't exist today.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't know a million people. They aren't your friends.
There are plenty of stores that buy and sell used CDs.
Giving the songs to five of your friends has never been the problem. They haven't really cared much if you made a mix tape or mix CD and given them away to people you know. You certainly have the right to do that and no one has really tried to stop that. In fact, they encourage that by distributing blank media and recording hardware.
Even selling used CDs hasn't come under fire. There are plenty of record stores that buy and sell CDs.
No, the problem has been uploading the songs to some P2P network and allowing millions of your "friends" to download the song. That is what they're really trying to stop. The difference between the five and the million has to do with the numbers. You are likely to have five friends, not a million. Five copies don't hurt the companies, but a million copies do. That never came up before since you would never buy a million blank CDs to copy and pass around to complete strangers.
The company which previously held the patent, furthermore, is in business with the grill companies now. If you had stopped to process what you'd read, you'd realize that this "partnership" could have occurred prior to the patent expiring, since THEY HELD THE PATENT.
Yes, it COULD have happened before 2000, but it DID NOT. Why is that? The grill companies wanted to work with this technology, but something was holding them back. THAT was most definitely the patent, held by a group of people who did not want to give up the technology.
No, you haven't done much research. The infrared grills have been around since 1960. However, the new designs didn't come out until recently since the patent expired in 2000.
If you're going to be disagreeable, then at least read the article first.
GP: This is a perfect example of one of the big problems of patents as currently implemented. They're supposed to be there to reward inventors and promote innovation -- but here the patent was doing the exact opposite, it's preventing new grill designs.
P: Well, the patent expired 7 years ago, so there goes that theory.
I don't follow. The patent expired 7 years ago and now we have new grill designs that don't require fragile ceramic pieces. The fact is that we did not have those designs before 2000 when the patent expired. So yes, this is a perfect example of a patent preventing new grill designs.
How, how, HOW(!?!?) is this related to my rights online?
This thing was patented in the 60s, which recently expired. Previously, the grills cost $5000, meaning only professional chefs and wealthy people used them. Now that there's actual competition for production, prices have lowered to the $500-$1000 range and other manufacturers are now improving the design. Take this example and apply it to any other patent discussion you wish... If that doesn't satisfy you as an explanation, then realize that infrared grill doesn't exactly fit most categories on Slashdot.
As for why this is on Slashdot at all, that has to do with the fact that they're infrared, which instantly makes it geeky.
You've basically repeated what the last two posters already said and which I already addressed. 1763 comes hundreds of years later than 1492 and hundreds of years later than the first mass deaths of native Americans.
Me: And before anyone thinks the Europeans did this on purpose, let me remind everyone that germ theory came about hundreds of years later.
You: Are you telling me that giving native americans blankets infested with smallpox was an accident?
The smallpox blankets occurred in the late 1700s, long after Europeans had first entered the Americas and long after the first mass deaths of native Americans.
You looked at the first sentence of the paragraph, while conveniently ignoring the second sentence of the same paragraph, which was the entire point:
The Europeans certainly did not know that merely coming in contact with the native Americans would end in mass death.
We caught on pretty damn quick, though.
You're talking about events that first happened in the late 1700's, hundreds of years after colonists first arrived in the Americas and hundreds of years after the first mass deaths. I wouldn't label that "pretty damn quick".
South America still native? I'd hardly call it that. Let's look at the actual statistics. From https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world -factbook/index.html
Argentina, 40,301,927 people: 97% white (mostly Spanish and Italian), 3% mestizo (mixed white and Amerindian ancestry), Amerindian, or other non-white groups
Brazil, 190,010,647 people: 53.7% white, 38.5% mulatto (mixed white and black), 6.2% black, 0.9% other (includes Japanese, Arab, Amerindian)
Columbia, 44,379,598 people: 58% mestizo (mixes Amerindian and white), 20% white, 14% mulatto, 4% black, 3% mixed black-Amerindian, 1% Amerindian
Peru, 28,674,757 people: 45% Amerindian, 37% mestizo (mixes Amerindian and white), 15% white, 3% other (includes black, Japanese, Chinese)
The closest example of colonization in Africa was what, South Africa? Even today, that country is 79% black African and 9.6% white. The indigenous people rule and are the vast majority. That's hardly the same as what happened in the Americas or Australia, which were both geographically isolated.
The whole Danish cartoon reaction in the US didn't appear as fear of reprisal. Maybe some of it was, but certainly not all of it. The lack of printing appeared as a capitulation to diversity. If the press was afraid of anything, it wasn't that Muslims would attack, but that the press would look bad by appearing intolerant.
Nevermind the fact that the press couldn't accurately and objectively tell the Danish cartoon story without showing the cartoons. No reader or viewer had any idea what the problem was about without viewing the materials themselves. In today's day and age, accurately and objectively telling the news is a secondary objective for news stations. Their primary goals are diversity and inclusiveness in order to keep their viewers and advertisers happy and the money rolling in.
It is interesting that Europeans also attempted colonizing Africa, Australia, and Asia. Outside of the Americas, they were really only successful in Australia. The native populations of every place was able to fight back except for the Americas and Australia. There is a reason for that.
The fact is that most of the Indian deaths were from disease and infection. There were a whole host of diseases brought from Europe with which the native Americans had no resistance due to geographic isolation. Without a land connection to tropical locations in Africa and Asia where disease breeds even today, those diseases were unable to travel to locations in Australia and especially the Americas. Prior to the arrival of the Europeans, the Americas was a relatively disease-free paradise. However, the native Americans ended up paying once the Europeans did arrive.
Every single European expedition that went through resulted in mass deaths of natives in that area. That's why when British colonists landed in North America there were large areas already cleared and ready for farming. The native people had recently lived there, but had died from mass disease.
And before anyone thinks the Europeans did this on purpose, let me remind everyone that germ theory came about hundreds of years later. The Europeans certainly did not know that merely coming in contact with the native Americans would end in mass death.
Right here, asshole: http://slashdot.org/faq/editorial.shtml#ed850
When a law is unjust, people not only have a right to defy it, but a duty.
No, when a law is unjust, your duty is to fight to change the law.
First off, this is an American website run by Americans specifically for an American audience. Just because you can access the website through the internet from a different country does not mean this website is for a global audience.
Secondly, you do not need to bring up the fact that laws are different in other countries to defeat this logic. The plain and simple fact is that people who live in democracies ultimately decide the laws of their countries. Just because something is illegal today does not mean it will be illegal tomorrow. Were enough people to get together and decide to change this law, then that behavior would be legal. The question is whether we want to go through that process or not.
At the time, DOS only worked on the IBM PC platform with Intel chips. So, to use your logic, DOS was not "highly pirated" at all either.
Of course, that logic is plainly false.
That doesn't make any sense. Apple, Commodore, and Amiga software were highly pirated as well. Piracy certainly didn't help them. Apple limped through the '90s. Commodore and Amiga both died.
No, Microsoft became dominant because they were the operating system for the IBM PC, the computer used by business. Businesses back then were the same as today in that they tend to not pirate software. Microsoft became dominant because they were pirated less than the rest.
This whole line of reasoning is a load of crap. It completely neglects the history of the last 25 years.
Microsoft didn't win against Apple, Commodore, and Amiga by making their software pirated more than the rest. Microsoft became dominant because it teamed up with IBM and Intel and went for the business customer. They won because they were the software for the IBM PC, the desktop computer adopted by commercial business. If a business bought a PC, then they DID pay for a copy of DOS along with it. Businesses tend to follow the law and not pirate software.
Apple, Commodore, and Amiga went for school/home use and ended up competing amongst themselves and losing out. Commodore is long gone. Amiga is reborn, but limping. Apple barely managed to stay on during the '90s and ended up taking a huge investment from Bill Gates. All their software was pirated, but it certainly didn't help them much.
The fact is ONE of those companies was bound to become dominant sooner or later. It happened to be Microsoft because they went along with IBM and Intel and targeted the business market. Their dominance had NOTHING to do with encouraging piracy, especially since Apple, Commodore, and Amiga were all pirated as well.
Microsoft became dominant because since their primary customers were businesses, they were pirated less than the others.
GP: In fact, Microsoft BENEFITS from such "piracy".
P: Until I read this story, I had always assumed that MS understood this fact. Now I see that, as in so many other things, they were just lucky.
In the 1980's, Microsoft competed with Apple, Commodore, and Amiga. I can remember computer stores at the time where all of these systems were given equal self space. Apple and Commodore had all the cool games. Amiga had all the cool stuff for nerds. And the IBM PCs (Microsoft) had all the boring business software.
Microsoft did luck out. Since IBM PCs were the business computer, everyone used them at work. Adults would buy their own to do work at home and then the kids tried it too. Apples and Commodores were considered toys, so few people took them seriously. And Amiga... well, there's the perfect example of how a well designed and well received machine doesn't do well in the marketplace because of addressing the wrong audience.
I doubt that there would even be a Microsoft monopoly today without the lock-in caused by over two decades of pirated copies of DOS and Windows
Actually, people pirated the Apple, Commodore, and Amiga software too. Vendor lock-in didn't help them. It probably didn't help Microsoft either, at least with becoming the dominant PC vendor.
ONE of those companies was bound to become dominant, sooner or later. It just happened to be Microsoft.
As for today, Microsoft no longer has a monopoly on operating systems for the x86. Linux has been out for 15 years. Apple OS X and Sun Solaris for x86 have relatively recently come out.
http://www.answers.com/monopoly&r=67
There's the definition of monopoly. Figure it out yourself.
Gee, I dunno, dumbass. Ask the author of the article.
Gee... let's actually quote from the article:
..." ..."
"... six PC dealers in Gujarat received notices from Microsoft for selling pirated copies of Windows."
"Microsoft demanding a payment of 200,000 Rupee ($4,955) and a fine of 1,600,000 Rupee ($39,638) if the vendor continued to sell pirated copies of the OS."
"Microsoft conducted the raids
"... Microsoft India sees the raids as a firm, but loving hand; guiding the vendors to the world of IP
"Microsoft, though its own efforts in partnership with other industry groups, is committed to increasing the understanding and appreciate for intellectual property rights and original [bought] software"
"Microsoft is committed to working with the channel to help them understand the benefits of original [bought] software."
"We expect our channel partners to support us in further spreading the message of the value of original [bought] software among the end-consumers, and we will continue to support all initiatives to do so."
I'd say that even in 1998, Microsoft was arguably not a monopoly. A monopoly means they have the only product on the market, in this case x86 operating systems. That hasn't been true since Linux came out. At the time, Linux was solid and cutting into Microsoft's market share on x86 hardware.
Since 1998, Linux has improved dramatically, both in technology, driver support, technical support, and market share. Further, Windows now has competition from Apple's OS X and Sun's Solaris running on x86 platforms, which were not in the x86 market previously.
The fact is, with the success of all these other players on Microsoft's turf, if there ever was a Microsoft monopoly, it certainly doesn't exist today.