The reason I support the concept of IP (although not how it is enforced and defined currently) is that it encourages people to disseminate knowledge.
Prior to IP laws, dissemination of trade secrets was extremely rare. The master craftsman would not give his knowledge freely, and so advances in his craft were limited. IP laws allowed people to share knowledge while still making money off it, which led to remarkable advances in technology. br.
Does this still apply, do you think?
As an addendum to my earlier reply, I want to mention that I totally agree with you that the publisher should not be liable for aftermarket content mods.
I've not seen anything that qualifies as nudity, just some bad fashion sense.
Then I'm going to sue Rockstar/Take2 and the ESRB for false advertising. I just last night bought a copy of the game so I could see some nudity, which the new ESRB label clearly states is included.
At the very least, I want my money back, so I can pay for 15 days of unlimited access to my pr0n webring.
As to the argument that she believed her 14 year old grandchild is/was as mature as a 17 year old, that's absurd and her lawyers would be best to prevent that from ever airing in a court of law.
Actually, this is not absurd. As acting guardian of the child, it was her right and responsiblity to make those decisions. That is the point of the ESRB system, to allow guardians to make informed decisions about the content they allow their wards to see.
The ESRB rating of M does not mean "This material is only appropriate for persons age 17 and older."
Instead, it means: This material contains content that most people would not find appropriate for persons under age 17.
The fact remains that this lady purchased mature content for an imature grandchild and is now pursuing legal action as a result.
This lady is not pursuing legal action because she purchased mature content -- she is pursuing legal action because she was not given full disclosure of the content of the game as originally labeled, and has content significantly more "mature" than was disclosed on the label.
It can be argued that she deemed M material appropriate for her grandchild, as is her right. Her complaint is that the game contained material too graphic for an M rating, which was not disclosed by Rockstar/Take2.
The four questions the court needs to determine are:
1) Did inclusion of the material in the media, whether easily accessible or not, constitute publication of that material?
2) If so, did Rockstar/Take2 fail to disclose the content to the ESRB and the public, willfully or not?
3) If so, was the undisclosed material sufficiently more "adult" to make it possibly inappropriate for persons for whom the "normal" content of the game was appropriate?
4) Can she demonstrate injury to herself, or her ward, through the actions of Rockstar/Take2?
Why should the publisher be responsible for unused content? That's like holding a filmmaker responsible for stuff that's on the cutting room floor.
It would only be like this if the cut frames were included with the distro of the movie.
I'm not saying that any possible mods need to be disclosed at publication. I'm saying that, if you publish content, regardless of whether or not it is accessible in the "normal" game, you should be required to disclose that content.
The point here is that Rockstar/TakeTwo published material some people consider not suitable for a minor. Whether or not that material is "easily" accessible or not, it was accessible, and should have been disclosed.
Sure, they could do that, but I believe that would cause a HUGE backlash.
As Open Source and other alternatives gain more marketshare, Microsoft is more dependent upon the goodwill of their users and the people who advise their users.
I believe their M.O. has not changed significantly, they are just getting better at spinning the press to make it seem like they are embracing the Open Source community.
Sorry, I didn't realize that the nudity in Hot Coffee was an additional mod. But still, why is Nudity now included on the ESRB label detail, while before it wasn't? Seems to me that there MUST be some nudity in the game (which I haven't played), which means that there was not full disclosure on the label prior to the revision. Not that I think nudity is something a 14-year-old can't handle, but disclosure is the key.
And one of my points is that the publisher should be responsible for all content included on the disc(s) they release, whether or not it is included in the "regular" version of the game. Any game publisher knows that all content shipped is eventually going to be viewable.
In my mind, this stinks of a publicity stunt gone bad.
However, assuming that argument is true, then she did, in fact, judge that her 14-year-old could handle "Strong sexual content."
Sure, but the ESRB details on the package should list "Nudity" or "Partial nudity" separately -- especially in this case, the nudity was prolonged. If Rockstar/Take2 had disclosed the Hot Coffee segment to th ESRB, they probably would have included "Nudity."
If Rockstar -did- know the Hot Coffee code was still in there and potentially accessible to players with a modicum of savvy, then they are at fault. However, as far as I know from reading about the "mod," the most graphic thing(s) you see are naked digital breasts and "sex" such as you'd see on a late-night soft-porn movie on Showtime or Cinemax-i.e. two people going at it, but never showing more than the guy between the woman's legs and some grunting and groaning. All of which should be more than covered by the "Strong sexual content" warning.
Also, whether or not Rockstar/Take2 was aware of the content being included does not affect their responsibility to disclose the content. Since they distributed the game, they are responsible for all of its contents.
And regardless of what employee at Rockstar/Take2 is responsible for the content being there, the company will be held liable, not the individual, should the Court decide in Granny's favor.
Regarding exposure to good music, you can listen to streaming samples of things for free. That, and word of mouth, are how I find good new things to listen to.
It seems we also disagree about whether or not it is acceptable to break a law you dislike or do not agree with.
I believe that laws should not be ignored just because they are broken; they should be fixed instead.
Re: making a copy vs. theft, I think you are missing my point. You are not stealing the file; you are stealing an intangible, their IP. If you borrow a book from the library, photocopy it in its entirety, and then return the book, then you did not steal the book... but you did steal the contents of the book, which is their IP. What you are depriving them of is the right to exercise their ownership of the IP with regards to your use of it.
I also believe that if you would not pay for the music, because of the reasons you listed, you should not copy it either. If it's not worth paying for, then it's not worth getting for free. Whether or not you would have paid for the music, you are still depriving them of their rights to exercise their ownership of the IP.
The ESRB age rating is a recommendation. That's all it is. She judged her grandson to be mature enough to handle material that the ESRB thinks a typical 17-year-old can handle.
She is suing because Rockstar misled the ESRB, and her, and included content that she believes is not appropriate for a typical 17-year-old (who she believes her grandson to be as mature as).
IANAL. But, seems to me that whether her grandson is 8, 14, or 17, she is allowed to judge what material is appropriate for him to view. But if Rockstar misled her, then they should be held liable.
The real issue is whether or not Rockstar is liable for material that they distributed, although said material is not legally accessible.
As an analogy, what about this scenario:
1) A video rental store listing in the Yellow Pages says they have rated R movies, but no porn
2) Video store has a softcore porn section, but it is in an enclosed area and minors are not allowed to enter said area
3) A parent brings their child into the store; the child then sneaks into the adult section and is exposed to softcore porn.
Is the parent liable for allowing the child into the videostore? Or liable for not preventing the child from entering the porn section?
Is the child liable for sneaking into the pron section?
Is the store liable for not catching the child in the act of sneaking into the porn section? Or liable for advertising that they have no porn?
Are the Yellow Pages liable for falsely representing the contents of the store? Is the video store liable for giving the Yellow Pages false information?
The answer is simple. Tell the grandmother to shove it, since she can't demonstrate damages caused by Rockstar. Tell the ESRB to get it's act together; they must start verifying gamemakers' claims as to content. FULL verification. Force Rockstar and other game publishers to disclose more information about content.
1. Yes, it is bad management. They should have foreseen the problem, and put a licensed download distribution scheme in place earlier. But this is a straw man, their management skills have nothing to do with whether or not filesharing of copyrighted material is theft.
2. Like it or not, there is something called Intellectual Property. This has existed for centuries, if not longer, and is a driving force for innovation. While I do believe the RCAA (and others) are abusing the idea of IP, that does not mean that the concept of IP does not have value.
3. Copying, in this case, is stealing. IP is a good that you are taking from someone else without compensating them for it. It's very simple: did you take something you did not pay for, without permission?
4. I'm getting really sick of the "Waaah! They won't let me have it for free!" Don't like it? Don't listen to RCAA music. Support alternatives. Purchase songs from independent artists, so that they don't have to go to the RCAA for money. Write letters to your legislators demanding change in IP laws. Pay the cover charge to go see your favorite truly independent band at a small venue. Boycott Clearchannel advertisers, and encourage your friends to do the same. Make sure to let the advertisers know you are boycotting, and why.
But don't say that filesharing of copyrighted music is not theft. You're stealing the copyright, whether you can admit that you are a thief or not.
Yes, they have LOST money. Take some accounting classes, and understand that cash accounting is pretty useless on a this scale.
You don't have to literally have the money for it to be lost. Consider your taxes, for example. You get paid by your employer, and before you LITERALLY get your money, some portion of it is withheld and sent to the federal government. Was that money ever yours? Did your taxes COST you anything? YES, they did.
Loss of revenue due to theft is indeed a cost.
They spent money to produce the track that you have downloaded. At the very least, they lost a small fraction of the cost of producing that track.
I am also in favor of a whopping inheritance tax. But, if we don't have it, you can be dang sure I want my kids to be rich -- better them than someone else.
Good parenting can prevent the Hilton situation. Plenty of extremely wealthy people have had well-adjusted, pretty normal children.
I don't know if you have children. But I would ensure that, upon my passing, they would:
-have enough money to ensure that they do not live in want of anything
-have enough money to donate to charities or to support ideas of their own choosing
-have enough cash flow to maintain the estates I will leave them
-have enough cash flow to ensure they can join the political class if they so choose. This might require the most money of all.
In addition, I would endow, as one of my heirs, a charitable trust.
How could ANYONE, having been *gifted* with such a large some of money, not redistribute some of it to their friends and family? I mean really, what kind of greedy creep would not share with friends, who've stuck with you through the bad times?
Never mind the fact that I will want to spend money doing things I enjoy with the people I enjoy spending time with. And I'm not going to desert my friends simply because they can't take a month off of work to chill on the Mediterranean... simple solution, make it so they don't have to work that crappy job.
But of course, that doesn't mean I'll be subsidizing casual friends who all the sudden love me.
Not really.
Example: A woman from Massachusetts won a $294 mil lottery drawing. Lump-sum, she only got $168 mil (would have gotten full amount only if spread over 30 years or so). After $60 mil in taxes, she was left with $108 mil.
Leaving her with $8 mil to live on. Plus the crap she'd be expected to buy for friends, family, etc. Plus leaving money for the heirs.
If I win the lottery, I want to live on the earnings on $100 mil, not $8 mil.
The figures given by the authors of the study are for online purchases of music. Many of the people who are not participating in illegal filesharing are still purchasing music on CDs. This makes their 4 1/2 times factor misleading.
I have absolutely no problem with the music industry protecting its property. Actually, I wish that it would cost $5.00 each to download their songs via itunes.
Then maybe we'd see artists willing to forgo the RIAA, and maybe (gasp!) independent music on mainstream radio again.
I would have read your links, but I'm too lazy to use bugmenot this afternoon.
As the share of world research resources invested in pharmaceuticals keeps increasing, it might be interesting to see trends in advanced education in the field. From my stint at a pharma college focused on research, I can tell you that the most advanced and groundbreaking research was being done by Chinese professors. And the field of doctoral candidates was dominated by Chinese and Indian nationals.
From what I understand, most of that research is still being done in the US, but the brain drain has started.
How long are we willing to wait until the most valuable research is being done elsewhere?
Of note, corporate-sponsored researchers are motivated to produce more *profitable* treatments; government-sponsored research is not limited (as much?) by this, and so could produce treatments more beneficial to mankind... maybe even cures instead of treatments.
From the article:
"Microsoft spokesman Chris Warfield explained that Virtual Earth is being released as a test and that images will be updated regularly. "
Not from the article (but sound familiar?:
While counterfeit copies of Virtual Earth will be prevented from downloading updates, Lazar said Microsoft is not including security updates in the lock-out. Even customers who do not check their copies of Virtual Earth for authenticity will be allowed to download security updates through Virtual Earth Update, Microsoft Update for Virtual Earth and the Download Center, he said.
I use google maps because of the ease of switching to satellite view. No routing software (umm, paved-roadway-route-establishing) software will be always accurate or even understandable, so being able to zoom in on intersections to look for identifying landmarks really helps for me.
This also means that up-to-date images are much, much more useful to me... so I'll stick with google maps for now.
From the article:
"[Gary Price] said the feature would be a lot more useful if users could click on an image for data such as census information about the neighborhood shown."
My understanding is that Google is allowing third-party implementations to do this. Something about crime statistics in Chicago, and other examples I don't recall.
I can't see Microsoft opening up enough to allow the same, which is why I believe Google will have majority market share in this feature as more implementations are developed.
Slashdot Mirror
"...discharged about 19 million amps of current through an aluminum cylindrical shell about the size of a tuna can."
Hey bro, I'm gonna go online. Can you hand me my cantenna?"
Zolt!
Bro? You there?
I was wondering how they were going to stop people from using cantennas...
The reason I support the concept of IP (although not how it is enforced and defined currently) is that it encourages people to disseminate knowledge.
Prior to IP laws, dissemination of trade secrets was extremely rare. The master craftsman would not give his knowledge freely, and so advances in his craft were limited. IP laws allowed people to share knowledge while still making money off it, which led to remarkable advances in technology.
br. Does this still apply, do you think?
As an addendum to my earlier reply, I want to mention that I totally agree with you that the publisher should not be liable for aftermarket content mods.
I've not seen anything that qualifies as nudity, just some bad fashion sense. Then I'm going to sue Rockstar/Take2 and the ESRB for false advertising. I just last night bought a copy of the game so I could see some nudity, which the new ESRB label clearly states is included.
At the very least, I want my money back, so I can pay for 15 days of unlimited access to my pr0n webring.
As to the argument that she believed her 14 year old grandchild is/was as mature as a 17 year old, that's absurd and her lawyers would be best to prevent that from ever airing in a court of law.
Actually, this is not absurd. As acting guardian of the child, it was her right and responsiblity to make those decisions. That is the point of the ESRB system, to allow guardians to make informed decisions about the content they allow their wards to see.
The ESRB rating of M does not mean "This material is only appropriate for persons age 17 and older."
Instead, it means: This material contains content that most people would not find appropriate for persons under age 17.
The fact remains that this lady purchased mature content for an imature grandchild and is now pursuing legal action as a result.
This lady is not pursuing legal action because she purchased mature content -- she is pursuing legal action because she was not given full disclosure of the content of the game as originally labeled, and has content significantly more "mature" than was disclosed on the label.
It can be argued that she deemed M material appropriate for her grandchild, as is her right. Her complaint is that the game contained material too graphic for an M rating, which was not disclosed by Rockstar/Take2.
The four questions the court needs to determine are:
1) Did inclusion of the material in the media, whether easily accessible or not, constitute publication of that material?
2) If so, did Rockstar/Take2 fail to disclose the content to the ESRB and the public, willfully or not?
3) If so, was the undisclosed material sufficiently more "adult" to make it possibly inappropriate for persons for whom the "normal" content of the game was appropriate?
4) Can she demonstrate injury to herself, or her ward, through the actions of Rockstar/Take2?
Why should the publisher be responsible for unused content? That's like holding a filmmaker responsible for stuff that's on the cutting room floor.
It would only be like this if the cut frames were included with the distro of the movie.
I'm not saying that any possible mods need to be disclosed at publication. I'm saying that, if you publish content, regardless of whether or not it is accessible in the "normal" game, you should be required to disclose that content.
The point here is that Rockstar/TakeTwo published material some people consider not suitable for a minor. Whether or not that material is "easily" accessible or not, it was accessible, and should have been disclosed.
Sure, they could do that, but I believe that would cause a HUGE backlash.
As Open Source and other alternatives gain more marketshare, Microsoft is more dependent upon the goodwill of their users and the people who advise their users.
I believe their M.O. has not changed significantly, they are just getting better at spinning the press to make it seem like they are embracing the Open Source community.
Sorry, I didn't realize that the nudity in Hot Coffee was an additional mod. But still, why is Nudity now included on the ESRB label detail, while before it wasn't? Seems to me that there MUST be some nudity in the game (which I haven't played), which means that there was not full disclosure on the label prior to the revision. Not that I think nudity is something a 14-year-old can't handle, but disclosure is the key.
And one of my points is that the publisher should be responsible for all content included on the disc(s) they release, whether or not it is included in the "regular" version of the game. Any game publisher knows that all content shipped is eventually going to be viewable.
In my mind, this stinks of a publicity stunt gone bad.
OK.
;)
Could've been mentioned earlier
However, assuming that argument is true, then she did, in fact, judge that her 14-year-old could handle "Strong sexual content."
Sure, but the ESRB details on the package should list "Nudity" or "Partial nudity" separately -- especially in this case, the nudity was prolonged. If Rockstar/Take2 had disclosed the Hot Coffee segment to th ESRB, they probably would have included "Nudity."
If Rockstar -did- know the Hot Coffee code was still in there and potentially accessible to players with a modicum of savvy, then they are at fault. However, as far as I know from reading about the "mod," the most graphic thing(s) you see are naked digital breasts and "sex" such as you'd see on a late-night soft-porn movie on Showtime or Cinemax-i.e. two people going at it, but never showing more than the guy between the woman's legs and some grunting and groaning. All of which should be more than covered by the "Strong sexual content" warning.
Please see notes above, prolonged nudity is not covered by "Strong Sexual Content." http://www.esrb.org/esrbratings_guide.asp
Also, whether or not Rockstar/Take2 was aware of the content being included does not affect their responsibility to disclose the content. Since they distributed the game, they are responsible for all of its contents.
And regardless of what employee at Rockstar/Take2 is responsible for the content being there, the company will be held liable, not the individual, should the Court decide in Granny's favor.
Regarding exposure to good music, you can listen to streaming samples of things for free.
That, and word of mouth, are how I find good new things to listen to.
It seems we also disagree about whether or not it is acceptable to break a law you dislike or do not agree with.
I believe that laws should not be ignored just because they are broken; they should be fixed instead.
Re: making a copy vs. theft, I think you are missing my point. You are not stealing the file; you are stealing an intangible, their IP. If you borrow a book from the library, photocopy it in its entirety, and then return the book, then you did not steal the book... but you did steal the contents of the book, which is their IP. What you are depriving them of is the right to exercise their ownership of the IP with regards to your use of it.
I also believe that if you would not pay for the music, because of the reasons you listed, you should not copy it either. If it's not worth paying for, then it's not worth getting for free. Whether or not you would have paid for the music, you are still depriving them of their rights to exercise their ownership of the IP.
The ESRB age rating is a recommendation. That's all it is. She judged her grandson to be mature enough to handle material that the ESRB thinks a typical 17-year-old can handle.
She is suing because Rockstar misled the ESRB, and her, and included content that she believes is not appropriate for a typical 17-year-old (who she believes her grandson to be as mature as).
IANAL. But, seems to me that whether her grandson is 8, 14, or 17, she is allowed to judge what material is appropriate for him to view. But if Rockstar misled her, then they should be held liable.
The real issue is whether or not Rockstar is liable for material that they distributed, although said material is not legally accessible.
As an analogy, what about this scenario:
1) A video rental store listing in the Yellow Pages says they have rated R movies, but no porn
2) Video store has a softcore porn section, but it is in an enclosed area and minors are not allowed to enter said area
3) A parent brings their child into the store; the child then sneaks into the adult section and is exposed to softcore porn.
Is the parent liable for allowing the child into the videostore? Or liable for not preventing the child from entering the porn section?
Is the child liable for sneaking into the pron section?
Is the store liable for not catching the child in the act of sneaking into the porn section? Or liable for advertising that they have no porn?
Are the Yellow Pages liable for falsely representing the contents of the store? Is the video store liable for giving the Yellow Pages false information?
The answer is simple. Tell the grandmother to shove it, since she can't demonstrate damages caused by Rockstar. Tell the ESRB to get it's act together; they must start verifying gamemakers' claims as to content. FULL verification.
Force Rockstar and other game publishers to disclose more information about content.
1. Yes, it is bad management. They should have foreseen the problem, and put a licensed download distribution scheme in place earlier. But this is a straw man, their management skills have nothing to do with whether or not filesharing of copyrighted material is theft.
2. Like it or not, there is something called Intellectual Property. This has existed for centuries, if not longer, and is a driving force for innovation. While I do believe the RCAA (and others) are abusing the idea of IP, that does not mean that the concept of IP does not have value.
3. Copying, in this case, is stealing. IP is a good that you are taking from someone else without compensating them for it. It's very simple: did you take something you did not pay for, without permission?
4. I'm getting really sick of the "Waaah! They won't let me have it for free!" Don't like it? Don't listen to RCAA music. Support alternatives. Purchase songs from independent artists, so that they don't have to go to the RCAA for money. Write letters to your legislators demanding change in IP laws. Pay the cover charge to go see your favorite truly independent band at a small venue. Boycott Clearchannel advertisers, and encourage your friends to do the same. Make sure to let the advertisers know you are boycotting, and why.
But don't say that filesharing of copyrighted music is not theft. You're stealing the copyright, whether you can admit that you are a thief or not.
And lose control of the market? Why, oh why, would anyone in Microsoft's position do that?
MS doesn't want two-way interoperability (though they'll spin it to seem they do).
Microsoft wants Office to be able to read docs from other apps, not the other way around.
This way, when people realize how good Vista really is, they won't be scared to switch over to Windows because of file accessibility issues.
Yes, they have LOST money. Take some accounting classes, and understand that cash accounting is pretty useless on a this scale.
You don't have to literally have the money for it to be lost. Consider your taxes, for example. You get paid by your employer, and before you LITERALLY get your money, some portion of it is withheld and sent to the federal government. Was that money ever yours? Did your taxes COST you anything? YES, they did.
Loss of revenue due to theft is indeed a cost.
They spent money to produce the track that you have downloaded. At the very least, they lost a small fraction of the cost of producing that track.
I am also in favor of a whopping inheritance tax. But, if we don't have it, you can be dang sure I want my kids to be rich -- better them than someone else.
Good parenting can prevent the Hilton situation. Plenty of extremely wealthy people have had well-adjusted, pretty normal children.
Don't blame the #foo, blame the parents.
I don't know if you have children. But I would ensure that, upon my passing, they would: -have enough money to ensure that they do not live in want of anything -have enough money to donate to charities or to support ideas of their own choosing -have enough cash flow to maintain the estates I will leave them -have enough cash flow to ensure they can join the political class if they so choose. This might require the most money of all.
In addition, I would endow, as one of my heirs, a charitable trust.
How could ANYONE, having been *gifted* with such a large some of money, not redistribute some of it to their friends and family? I mean really, what kind of greedy creep would not share with friends, who've stuck with you through the bad times?
Never mind the fact that I will want to spend money doing things I enjoy with the people I enjoy spending time with. And I'm not going to desert my friends simply because they can't take a month off of work to chill on the Mediterranean... simple solution, make it so they don't have to work that crappy job.
But of course, that doesn't mean I'll be subsidizing casual friends who all the sudden love me.
Not really. Example: A woman from Massachusetts won a $294 mil lottery drawing. Lump-sum, she only got $168 mil (would have gotten full amount only if spread over 30 years or so). After $60 mil in taxes, she was left with $108 mil.
Leaving her with $8 mil to live on. Plus the crap she'd be expected to buy for friends, family, etc. Plus leaving money for the heirs.
If I win the lottery, I want to live on the earnings on $100 mil, not $8 mil.
The entire reason it is illegal is because it costs them money. This is true in the UK as well as the US.
That's the foundation for all copyright law.
The figures given by the authors of the study are for online purchases of music. Many of the people who are not participating in illegal filesharing are still purchasing music on CDs. This makes their 4 1/2 times factor misleading.
I have absolutely no problem with the music industry protecting its property. Actually, I wish that it would cost $5.00 each to download their songs via itunes.
Then maybe we'd see artists willing to forgo the RIAA, and maybe (gasp!) independent music on mainstream radio again.
I would have read your links, but I'm too lazy to use bugmenot this afternoon.
As the share of world research resources invested in pharmaceuticals keeps increasing, it might be interesting to see trends in advanced education in the field. From my stint at a pharma college focused on research, I can tell you that the most advanced and groundbreaking research was being done by Chinese professors. And the field of doctoral candidates was dominated by Chinese and Indian nationals.
From what I understand, most of that research is still being done in the US, but the brain drain has started.
How long are we willing to wait until the most valuable research is being done elsewhere?
Of note, corporate-sponsored researchers are motivated to produce more *profitable* treatments; government-sponsored research is not limited (as much?) by this, and so could produce treatments more beneficial to mankind... maybe even cures instead of treatments.
From the article:
"Microsoft spokesman Chris Warfield explained that Virtual Earth is being released as a test and that images will be updated regularly. "
Not from the article (but sound familiar?:
While counterfeit copies of Virtual Earth will be prevented from downloading updates, Lazar said Microsoft is not including security updates in the lock-out. Even customers who do not check their copies of Virtual Earth for authenticity will be allowed to download security updates through Virtual Earth Update, Microsoft Update for Virtual Earth and the Download Center, he said.
I use google maps because of the ease of switching to satellite view. No routing software (umm, paved-roadway-route-establishing) software will be always accurate or even understandable, so being able to zoom in on intersections to look for identifying landmarks really helps for me.
This also means that up-to-date images are much, much more useful to me... so I'll stick with google maps for now.
From the article:
"[Gary Price] said the feature would be a lot more useful if users could click on an image for data such as census information about the neighborhood shown."
My understanding is that Google is allowing third-party implementations to do this. Something about crime statistics in Chicago, and other examples I don't recall.
I can't see Microsoft opening up enough to allow the same, which is why I believe Google will have majority market share in this feature as more implementations are developed.
Please see my previous response re: screen width cutting off the next button when page is formatted to 800 width.
;)
I forgot, when I troll myself and then respond to my troll, I should have them in the same post