This liability approach is all wrong. All we need is an unbiased standard of security. If you want to tout your product as "secure", it has to pass some sort of audit. This wouldn't be trivial to implement, but it would be highly effective if done right.
There is a place in the market for inexpensive software, so you shouldn't try to legislate it out of existence. Any legislation should have more of a "Truth in Advertising" approach.
I'll assume that these mud pies are artistically significant and unique (otherwise, copyright doesn't apply, though even then it may be more of a trademark issue).
Your argument about "forcing every one else to comply" isn't really accurate. Nor do my statements imply that "society owes you any sort of privilege". I am simply performing work and offering the fruits of that labor to society under my terms. If the fruits of that labor offer no value to society, no one will take me up on my offer and I will go broke. That's my fault for not researching the market properly.
If, on the other hand, no equivelant to copyrights existed, I would not even undertake the effort, knowing that I would be unlikely to get a proper return on my investment, even if society found my labor extremely valuable. Thus, society would be denied the opportunity to purchase my artistically significant mud pies.
I do concede that the current system is flawed (mostly in that copyrights last entirely too long), but if copyrights were implemented ideally, they would be very beneficial to society by protecting creators long enough to make it worthwhile for them to create.
Our current system could stand a lot of improving, but what is so wrong with the nature of copyrights? If I spend a year of my life developing something, why don't I have the right to control, on some level, how it can be used?
If I don't, why would I develop anything when it would be perfectly legal for a corporation to take it and sell it as their own?
Well, this Google project would allow multiple people to see the book at the same time. Libraries can only share the book with one person at a time. This difference has significant copyright implications.
To be perfectly honest, we don't know what Dell is demanding. They engage in negotiations every now and then, but they don't come to a deal. It's possible that's Intel's fault, but it's also possible that Dell is just asking for too much, too fast.
It's quite possible that Dell doesn't want the overhead of a second supplier/product line unless they're sure they can move a million more PCs.
If by "due to some unholy deal they made with intel", you mean "due to the fact that AMD has nowhere near the capacity to supply Dell", you are correct.
That's a bit exaggerated. It's true that most retails consumers are incapable of spec'ing a computer, but the vast majority of them have long been aware of the brands "Intel" and "Pentium".
They'll probably say "Huh?" when you mention "Celeron" and "Centrino", but they're aware of the old faithful brands. A few years ago, none of them had even heard of "AMD". Now that people have been using computers with "AMD" stickers on them for a few years, the brand is starting to stick in their minds.
There's no doubt that this is only a portion of the battle between the two manufacturers, but the point is that 5 years ago, AMD was getting slaughtered by every measure. They weren't even a factor.
Now, they've caught up to Intel by atleast a couple metrics. That's not insignificant, especially considering that retail sales have a strong correlation to "mindshare" amongst consumers, as pointed out by a sibling poster.
They should be able to charge whatever they want for their services.
I'm a firm believer in a free market economy too, but copyright law sees to it that artistic industries aren't truly free markets. Even if you ignore the possible (MHO=probable) collusion within the RIAA, it isn't possible to choose from 5 similar albums based on The Dark Side of the Moon, so there is significantly less competition than bathroom cleaning sprays.
Besides, who is the "artist?" Is not the work of a skillful remastering artist as valuable as a singer/actor/foo?
I specifically allowed for remastering costs (including salaries, of course) and even a reasonable profit. My point was that I find it very unlikely that it costs them as much for a second run as it does for the first.
The upgrade should not be free, but it should be at a reduced price, similar to the discount you could get by purchasing WinXP Upgrade rather than the full version.
The copyright owner should be able to:
1) Recoup the redistribution costs (media/bandwidth)
2) Recoup any remastering costs
3) Earn a reasonable profit to make it worth their while
They should not be able to charge the same price as the original copy as you HAVE already compensated them for the artist's work.
I think you're missing the point. We're geeks. We know where to find this information when we want it. (Why we keep coming back to/. is still a mystery though.)
The problem is that the average person isn't given the opportunity to stay up to speed. They're not exactly demanding it, but we're gonna have a hard time keeping <Centricity Type=USA>this country</Centricity> ahead of the curve if we don't find a way to give it to them anyways.
You are wrong. The items mentioned are assets, that's why you can borrow against them. Assets may fluctuate in value and they may depreciate over time, but they still have infinitely more value than a one-time use subway token.
It's still better to have liquid assets (like cash and CDs), but non-liquid assets still have value.
Micropayments have significant challenges, but I don't think this is one of them. It's every bit as expensive for me to dispute few pennies as it is for them to resolve the dispute. I've been known to throw away pennies when cleaning because I didn't care enough to find a jar.
Certainly, I would file a dispute if a pattern of overcharges arose, but I doubt I would even take the time to go over my statement unless it amounted to more than $5/month.
Are there really people here that value their time at a couple pennies per minute?
This has been talked about for some time now. The break even point is estimated at between $30 and $40 per barrel. The technology itself is really old too. There were huge investments in it during the supply shocks of the 70s, but the companies took a beating when the prices dropped back down.
This time around, the problem is on the demand side, so the current price levels are very likely to represent the new norm. The energy companies are obviously hesitant to invest the 10s of billions of dollars necessary to make this a reality, but it's probably just a matter of time.
As a side note, there's also been talk about turning coal into diesel.
How is this any different from other applications of DRM (assuming they don't conflict with fair use)???
The ENTIRE idea behind DRM is "to offer digital content, without screwing over the copyright holder". Non-digital media have physical limitations that end up protecting the copyright holder. Digital media don't.
I'm not saying DRM has always been used appropriately by copyright holders, but the basic idea behind it is fair.
As a side not, the "people who use this content" are paying for it. They're just doing it as a group effort through taxes.
While he most certainly shouldn't have commented under his registered name (thus giving the illusion of speaking on behalf of the company), he said nothing about tablets. All he said was that laptops are allowed under the license agreement and I would bet that his interpretation is accurate.
Of course their "dominance" can evaporate. Heck, half of it hasn't even materialized yet.
Hotmail and Yahoo still kill GMail in marketshare
Mapquest is still probably ahead of Google Maps
Yahoo & MSN both have very respectable search marketshare amongst the Joe Sixpacks
I also realize that they don't force any sort of "lock-in", but there's no reason they couldn't once they decided they had enough mindshare.
Really, my only point was to say that there is a justification for the mood swing from "Google rules!" to "Damn, another good product. Are you sure this isn't too good to be true?"
You're right that the tone has changed, but it isn't completly unwarranted. We like Google for all of the products and services they've offered us (free), but only a fool could watch a business acquire the kind of widespread power and dominance Google is working towards without atleast a little apprehension.
Slashdot Mirror
This liability approach is all wrong. All we need is an unbiased standard of security. If you want to tout your product as "secure", it has to pass some sort of audit. This wouldn't be trivial to implement, but it would be highly effective if done right.
There is a place in the market for inexpensive software, so you shouldn't try to legislate it out of existence. Any legislation should have more of a "Truth in Advertising" approach.
..if people like you would stop going along with it.
I'll assume that these mud pies are artistically significant and unique (otherwise, copyright doesn't apply, though even then it may be more of a trademark issue).
Your argument about "forcing every one else to comply" isn't really accurate. Nor do my statements imply that "society owes you any sort of privilege". I am simply performing work and offering the fruits of that labor to society under my terms. If the fruits of that labor offer no value to society, no one will take me up on my offer and I will go broke. That's my fault for not researching the market properly.
If, on the other hand, no equivelant to copyrights existed, I would not even undertake the effort, knowing that I would be unlikely to get a proper return on my investment, even if society found my labor extremely valuable. Thus, society would be denied the opportunity to purchase my artistically significant mud pies.
I do concede that the current system is flawed (mostly in that copyrights last entirely too long), but if copyrights were implemented ideally, they would be very beneficial to society by protecting creators long enough to make it worthwhile for them to create.
Our current system could stand a lot of improving, but what is so wrong with the nature of copyrights? If I spend a year of my life developing something, why don't I have the right to control, on some level, how it can be used?
If I don't, why would I develop anything when it would be perfectly legal for a corporation to take it and sell it as their own?
Well, this Google project would allow multiple people to see the book at the same time. Libraries can only share the book with one person at a time. This difference has significant copyright implications.
/Still hopes google wins
May God have mercy on anyone that mistakes that for a coherent though.
To be perfectly honest, we don't know what Dell is demanding. They engage in negotiations every now and then, but they don't come to a deal. It's possible that's Intel's fault, but it's also possible that Dell is just asking for too much, too fast.
It's quite possible that Dell doesn't want the overhead of a second supplier/product line unless they're sure they can move a million more PCs.
If by "due to some unholy deal they made with intel", you mean "due to the fact that AMD has nowhere near the capacity to supply Dell", you are correct.
That's a bit exaggerated. It's true that most retails consumers are incapable of spec'ing a computer, but the vast majority of them have long been aware of the brands "Intel" and "Pentium".
They'll probably say "Huh?" when you mention "Celeron" and "Centrino", but they're aware of the old faithful brands. A few years ago, none of them had even heard of "AMD". Now that people have been using computers with "AMD" stickers on them for a few years, the brand is starting to stick in their minds.
There's no doubt that this is only a portion of the battle between the two manufacturers, but the point is that 5 years ago, AMD was getting slaughtered by every measure. They weren't even a factor.
Now, they've caught up to Intel by atleast a couple metrics. That's not insignificant, especially considering that retail sales have a strong correlation to "mindshare" amongst consumers, as pointed out by a sibling poster.
They should be able to charge whatever they want for their services.
I'm a firm believer in a free market economy too, but copyright law sees to it that artistic industries aren't truly free markets. Even if you ignore the possible (MHO=probable) collusion within the RIAA, it isn't possible to choose from 5 similar albums based on The Dark Side of the Moon, so there is significantly less competition than bathroom cleaning sprays.
Besides, who is the "artist?" Is not the work of a skillful remastering artist as valuable as a singer/actor/foo?
I specifically allowed for remastering costs (including salaries, of course) and even a reasonable profit. My point was that I find it very unlikely that it costs them as much for a second run as it does for the first.
The upgrade should not be free, but it should be at a reduced price, similar to the discount you could get by purchasing WinXP Upgrade rather than the full version. The copyright owner should be able to: 1) Recoup the redistribution costs (media/bandwidth) 2) Recoup any remastering costs 3) Earn a reasonable profit to make it worth their while They should not be able to charge the same price as the original copy as you HAVE already compensated them for the artist's work.
I think you're missing the point. We're geeks. We know where to find this information when we want it. (Why we keep coming back to /. is still a mystery though.)
The problem is that the average person isn't given the opportunity to stay up to speed. They're not exactly demanding it, but we're gonna have a hard time keeping <Centricity Type=USA>this country</Centricity> ahead of the curve if we don't find a way to give it to them anyways.
You are wrong. The items mentioned are assets, that's why you can borrow against them. Assets may fluctuate in value and they may depreciate over time, but they still have infinitely more value than a one-time use subway token.
It's still better to have liquid assets (like cash and CDs), but non-liquid assets still have value.
True, but it's self-limiting. These people will be too busy counting pennies to incur many charges.
I'm on my lunch break, but nice try.
Micropayments have significant challenges, but I don't think this is one of them. It's every bit as expensive for me to dispute few pennies as it is for them to resolve the dispute. I've been known to throw away pennies when cleaning because I didn't care enough to find a jar.
Certainly, I would file a dispute if a pattern of overcharges arose, but I doubt I would even take the time to go over my statement unless it amounted to more than $5/month.
Are there really people here that value their time at a couple pennies per minute?
This has been talked about for some time now. The break even point is estimated at between $30 and $40 per barrel. The technology itself is really old too. There were huge investments in it during the supply shocks of the 70s, but the companies took a beating when the prices dropped back down.
This time around, the problem is on the demand side, so the current price levels are very likely to represent the new norm. The energy companies are obviously hesitant to invest the 10s of billions of dollars necessary to make this a reality, but it's probably just a matter of time.
As a side note, there's also been talk about turning coal into diesel.
There's no mention of Google or Apple and it's already at 100 comments. I'd say they've got a pretty good feel for their audience....
/Didn't RTFA. It could be about Google and Apple merging into a bite size wireless router for all I care.
How is this any different from other applications of DRM (assuming they don't conflict with fair use)???
The ENTIRE idea behind DRM is "to offer digital content, without screwing over the copyright holder". Non-digital media have physical limitations that end up protecting the copyright holder. Digital media don't.
I'm not saying DRM has always been used appropriately by copyright holders, but the basic idea behind it is fair.
As a side not, the "people who use this content" are paying for it. They're just doing it as a group effort through taxes.
Go ahead and flame me now.
While he most certainly shouldn't have commented under his registered name (thus giving the illusion of speaking on behalf of the company), he said nothing about tablets. All he said was that laptops are allowed under the license agreement and I would bet that his interpretation is accurate.
PC = Personal Computer
It really doesn't matter whether the computer is based on x86 or PPC.
Of course their "dominance" can evaporate. Heck, half of it hasn't even materialized yet.
I also realize that they don't force any sort of "lock-in", but there's no reason they couldn't once they decided they had enough mindshare.
Really, my only point was to say that there is a justification for the mood swing from "Google rules!" to "Damn, another good product. Are you sure this isn't too good to be true?"
You're right that the tone has changed, but it isn't completly unwarranted. We like Google for all of the products and services they've offered us (free), but only a fool could watch a business acquire the kind of widespread power and dominance Google is working towards without atleast a little apprehension.
If you say so.