And what if there will be fewer innovations as a result of this? Would it be a big problem? Yes, the pace of technological development would be slower. So what?
But that's the real heart of it, isn't it? While there may be some hold-outs, I'd suggest that most people who seriously advocate monopoly protections agree that there would still be innovation - just slower.
And the idea is to promote the useful arts and sciences; as in "make more faster".
Personally, I think it stands to reason that patent protection slows the pace of innovation at this time. This idea is built on two facts:
All invention is built on the invention that happened before it. In other words, no one needs to invent the wheel and the lever when they set about building a faster computer. Real invention is to take 99.99999% of existing ideas, and add your 0.00001%. When there is a 'necessity' (aka: Mother Of Invention) and all the other parts are already known, someone will add that last piece (aka: the New Idea, or Invention, or Patent Application).
Invention moves at the speed of communication. When it takes months (years?) for a new idea to disseminate, then it will take months and years before something new can get built on top of that idea. (short of someone independantly arriving at the same idea at the same time, which is extremely common, see point #1)
Since any idea can be transmitted instantly and freely all over the world today, it stands to reason that anything that impedes the flow of information is actually slowing the rate of progress. Patents are one such mechanism for slowing the rate of information exchange, because although you may still have access to the idea, you can't (legally) use it.
In short: the more frequently someone adds a (very) small idea to the pool, the more quickly the pool of knowledge expands.
I like to use Windows and Linux as examples here, and not in a trash-MS kind of way, but just to look at the approach that is taken: Linux is built incrementally, with everyone contributing as little as a line of code, or a comment, but as much as whole products (or more!) but they key is that some contribute very little to the pool of code. Yet, over time, Linux has matured to the point where fancy desktop eye-candy is available just 'cause people wanted it. Importantly, no one needs to recoup substantial sums of money to make a return on their line of code. Contrast with Vista where MS spent (billions?) of dollars writing a gargantuan new product. Without copyright, this would be impossible to ever recoup.
Both have arrived a new shiney operating system taking very different paths.
Bottom line: While people think that the monopoly laws are required for innovation, this is simply false. People having open access to new ideas, and adding a very small new part is the fastest way for ever more ideas, invention and innovation.
The weakness is that it can not distinguish between permitted normal behavior and abnormal behavior that still is permitted.
Of course this really means that you design a system and software that has only the minimum rights it needs to run.
This is of course why unix-es are inherently more secure than Windows. Unix was designed with the idea of separation of user rights from day-1 as it was intended as a multi-user system. Windows was a single-user system and it shows in the design.
I question why internet connecting programs like web-browsers and mail-clients still run as the user. Sure, the javascript is supposed to play in it's own sandbox, but what if there's a flaw? Security isn't just a single application (like a firewall or a virus scanner). Security is layers of defense, such that if a flaw is found in one layer, another layer should outright stop or at least minimize the damage that can be done by this flaw.
To get back to web-browsers and mail-clients I've played with running them as specialized users that don't have rights to my personal data. That way I'm not relying on just the browser code to keep me safe on the net; the OS would also have to have a hole. I'm no Sysadmin, so initial setup didn't have sound when playing videos like youtube, and saving/using attachments from the mail-client was a PIA... I see system applications running as a specialized user so as to restrict what the application has access to - why don't user applications have this same set-up? Maybe not every application needs to be run as it's own user, but certainly anything that is going to have 'net access. Lastly, I would want to shut off 'net access from any application that wasn't locked down. Internet access should be a right explicitly granted to an application, not assumed.
It was just a general observation - directed at no one in particular. (I don't even know you)
If this mortally wounded you I'm sorry - no offence was intended.
As I've stated already, if you want to give away 20-30k lines of code, have at it. It's not that the GPL is the only open source license, or the best open source license, just that it ensures a level playing field. If that doesn't concern you, then don't let me stop you from releasing another 100k lines of code as BSD...
The GPL is a "commons" (in quotes). Not sure why it's so hard to understand that the GPL creates a publicly available source code pool that ensures that everyone has equal access. It's not the commons as in the pool of non-copyrighted works, but these days there's nothing new going into the public domain (thanks mickey).
It's been a long, long time since Windows had a BSD-derived IP stack.
Imagine if all that code was now GPL'd. If MS had had to return the favor, and put their code back in for others to adapt and make use of. Computing would be much advanced from where it is today. And I don't just mean the IP stack MS (re)used, I mean if all the (children of) open source code that was written and closed off was still open.
Incidentally, the Linux community did exactly what you describe. They took the BSD licensed code and GPLed it - or, conceptually, the same thing you're so annoyed at Microsoft doing.
After the code was gpl'd, all changes etc are still open source.
After MS closed their source, we don't have access to their changes.
Very big difference. When MS drank from the pool, the pool remained stagnant: only MS grew. When Linux drinks from the same pool, the public benefits, because all downstream changes are still open source.
Why should someone whose software is 90% their own work and 10% GPLed code...
If it's such a small part, then why don't they just write it themselves, and if it's not a small part of the code, then it's not much of a question, is it? You can't draw an arbitrary line in the sand: at 89% I'll share back, otherwise it's "mine".
As I stated before, the point of the GPL is to ensure that everyone shares. Everyone.
BSD allows people to take and give nothing back, the GPL ensures that anyone who takes gives back. I notice that most "BSD Defenders" talk about the usage rights from a 'taker' point of view, not a 'contributer'.
Again, to each their own, etc. If you like to give away your code, your money or your time there's nothing wrong with that. What you do is your personal business, I'm just objectively stating a difference between the two licenses. You chose what you want to do.
In theory, I should be able to do whatever I want with GPL code as long as it remains free; In practice, I can't, and that's the problem.
You can do whatever you want with GPL'd code, so long as you contribute your changes back into the "commons". Hence, everyone's code is free (as in speech) which met your requirement of "remains free".
But the most important reason to prefer BSD/MIT over the GPL is freedom from restrictions.
BSD license is ok as long as you're ok with writing code and someone else taking that code, profiting from it without giving you *anything* in return. You don't even have the right to run your own code without paying them. I believe MS took a BSD-licensed IP stack, modified it, and are now (potentially) selling Windows back to the people who wrote the stack without any compensation. This would not be possible with a GPL'd implementation. MS would have either had to incur the expense of writing their own, or (better?!) return their changes back into the commons for others to use as well.
Obviously, to each their own, but I personally wouldn't want to share with people who don't share back. I've no problem with sharing with people who will share back, and that is the definition of the GPL.
...just my 2-cents, to each their own, ymmv, etc etc.
utter crap from an AC, but somehow this got modded up. mod this sh!t back into oblivion.
The EULA can be invalid and I can still have rights to use the software. There is no requirement for an either/or situation.
Copyright doesn't address usage of copyright material, it addresses copying and distribution of material.
The GPL also does not address your rights to use the software: it addresses your right to copy and distribute. So in the case of the GPL we are in fact talking about an acceptance of the license or else you don't have the right to re-distribute the code (which would then be a copyright violation). There is no "license" to accept with the GPL unless you are redistributing the code.
If I don't accept an EULA as being valid, or don't abide by an EULA then there is no copyright violation as I made no copy. There is possibly a contractual violation, your legal status varies by locale.
In otherwords, there is no "/. double-standard", just people on/. who don't understand the difference between copyright and contracts.
SHAME ON THOSE OF YOU WHO WENT OUT AND BOUGHT PS3s
I understand each PS3 costs Sony money (they sell at a loss)...so as long as you don't buy any games, you can cost Sony money by buying PS3s.
And since you can run linux on it, it might actually provide pretty good bang-for-buck AND have the added benefit of draining some cash out of Sony.
so shame on those of you who went out and bought games for their PS3s, instead of running linux on it:)
Once upon a time the car manufacturers sued to stop 3rd party modders from making parts for their cars (aka: their IP). The car companies lost, and today we have a vibrant and profitable after-market for car parts that not only doesn't impede the car companies from making car sales, but often determines which car someone will purchase.
I'm not sure how we ended up down the path where just because a mod happens electronically it's suddenly possible for the manufacturer to win the same argument. It's important to note that he's in fact not "profiting off (Creative's) IP", he is actually profiting from his addition to their product, just like car modders of days gone by...
Sorry, but you're completely wrong. And an Anonymous Coward to boot.
Without copyright, an author has basically two choices: sell it once or hide it. With copyright the author has two different choices: sell it lots of times according to the collective rules of society or hide it. That's basically it. Anything else (e.g. giving it away) is just a variation of those two choices.
Trent Reznor disagrees with you.
He made 2500 signed units that people paid $300 for. Copyright law was unnecessary for this to occur (trademark maybe, to ensure that the public got authentic works. And since these orders were placed directly with nin.com, trademark doesn't even really play into it. Maybe later, when copies go for re-sale, trademark will be important again in this discussion.)
So basically, you need to find a way to make people value what you're selling, over a copy of what you're selling. In principle, this is no different than BMW wanting you to value their copy of the model-T more than Honda's copy of it. Obviously, when what you're selling is content, and this content can be easily copied then you need to do something more creative than BMW in order to differentiate The Original from the copy.
As he sold all 300 copies, it's clear that Mr. Reznor has been succesful in generating something that people will pay for: to the tune of $750-thousand. And another $850-thousand from people who either just like him enough to pay for something they could get for free, or believe that paying for it is easier than finding a pirate copy. And that all in the first week.
installing Linux - need to understand partitioning, drives and obscure notations -
[k]ubuntu doesn't require me to do any manual partitioning. I can if I want to but don't have to. Windows also asks you how/if you want to partition. I fail to see a difference here.
Dual or triple boot requires even more knowledge
The users we're talking about don't do this. If you're tech-savvy enough to do this, then you can't complain about the complexity.
obscure program names
These are "branding" issues which in general I agree with you on. Marketing and branding are real issues for Linux. However, various distro's hide this via menu that calls "xmms" 'Media Player' , or similar.
Data files with no relations to applications
Behaves exactly the same on Windows are in Kubuntu for me. There are some defaults included, when a program installs itself via apt-get they know which extensions they want to open.
All in all, it seems to me that your complaints fall into my final point: oft repeated things that either were never true, or are no longer true.
Let me count, #1 - Me, #2 - Probably you #3 - a few other geeks who know how to "sudo" around the Operating System.
yes, me, but also my in-laws who know nothing about computers. It boots. They open Firefox (occasionally) to browse the 'net, and Thunderbird to get e-mail. They play some simply card games and such. They never administer the system except to let it auto-update. They have no idea what sudo is.
While I will agree that X is a mess the myth of the difficulties of linux are (today) greatly exaggerated.
imho, the real reason linux is at 1% is due to a few issues:
MS anti-competitive practices makes it difficult for anyone else to play (think OS/2)
Most people have no idea that they have a choice (windows is included with every PC they've ever bought, there is no distinction between 'computer' and 'windows')
Most people are afraid of change, and would rather dance with the devil they know
Linux has no marketing presence, look at how well FireFox did after marketing itself.
The oft-repeated difficulties of using linux, many of which are no longer true, or were never true. This line also ignores or discounts the difficulties of using Windows. There is a trade-off, but it seems that people have accepted windows short-falls as 'normal', but expect linux to be 'perfect'.
Really? If me, and 6 of my friends, and a few dozen of their friends, decide we want to use your backyard, can you stop us without using third parties? Hell, you'd have every right to - but it's that "i.e. law enforcement" 3rd party that makes it all possible without you hiring a private army and fighting force with force. Maybe we want to torch your garage while we're at it - think "real" property rights are any more enforceable without government?
I probably should reply further up the tree, but this 'enforcement' bit isn't quite accurately discussed: it's been framed wrong.
With physical property I (or me and both my friends) can (attempt to) physically secure property from you and your roving band of 6^2^2 friends. Regardless of whether or not I'm successful, only one of us ends up with it. Either I'm successful in defending it, or you manage to take it from me. This idea led mankind to villages and countries: To defend my property from the invaders.
Contrast this with an idea: Once I publish my idea (or even tell one person) it is impossible for me to ever be sure that no one else uses my idea. I suppose I could kill the first person I told, but this is an unusually harsh 'defence' for 'property' and still doesn't guarantee that either they already told someone else, or (as often happens) someone else had the same idea as me.
The reality is that physical property can be protected, but ideas can not.
The 'net is a perfect example of this: the more some organization tries to stifle the dissemination of something (perhaps internal e-mails) the more it gets copied throughout the net until it becomes literally impossible for anyone (including the government) to halt this spread.
That we may or may not make use of the government to help protect our physical property isn't really important. What is important is that physical property can be protected, while ideas can not. And this is true due to the rivalrous nature of property, and the non-rivalrous nature of ideas. This "problem" has been exacerbated by the internet, which is of course a giant idea copying machine: your idea goes in once, but comes out everywhere...
For example, a public golf course near us has a public easement over the back yards of adjoining houses -- if you hit your golf ball onto their lot, you have the right to go and get it. That is a non-rivalrous property right: my ability to get my golf ball is not impeded by the number of other people who have that right.
This is a false example - as all examples attempting to use physical property end up being. Fundamentally physical property is rivalrous and ideas are not. This is fact, and this is why all attempts to make an analogy using physical property are ultimately false.
The misleading term in this analogy is "non-rivalrous property right". What exactly does this mean? Rivalrous, in economic terms is discussing the ability (not the right!) of more than one individual to make use of something at the same time. Clearly the property in discussion is the backyard of the home-owners. And clearly this is rivalrous: If the entire backyard (every square inch) is being occupied by friends of the homeowner, then the golfer will need to ask someone to move in order to retrieve their ball. The fact that there is an easement that allows the golfer access has not changed the 'rivalrous' status of the property.
The final line in the quote is the misdirection, and borders on a Chewbacca defence. "Rivalrous" doesn't discuss how many have the right, but how many can make use of the right at once. Easements and public places are not non-rivalrous because many have access. That's not what the word means.
So are judges in any way responsible this kind of error? And isn't lying something lawyers should get disbarred for? It already seems to me that the 'little guy' has a hard enough time getting a fair trial that when the Goliath lies outright, or the impartial judge makes a mistake there should be some kind of correction, no?
Hi Ray;
You've mentioned a couple of times in this discussion that in the Capitol v. Thomas case the judge was wrong or made an error.
That's strong wording, leaving me (a/.-er) with some questions. Is this "error" your opinion, or a legal fact? And if it's fact, is there an appeal in the works and/or can they appeal? Do judges bear any responsibility for making such errors?
...just trying to understand how something this basic can get two completely different rulings: it seems pretty clear to me that only one of the two rulings can be a correct interpretation of the law.
which is why I think ultimately the "South Park" disclaimer will be on everything, as in:...and as such should not be viewed by anyone.
So all products might contain something like "This product is unsuitable for any use" which isn't much of a stretch if you've read a software license...
Writing to people with counter-points whose minds are already made up seems rather futile no matter how many people tell them they're wrong.
Then democracy is as dead in the UK as it is in the US.
Here in Canada, we blocked the "DMCA" thanks in large part to Michael Geist, but it was the 30k+ people who signed up as facebook-friends, and the untold number of people who sent e-mail and snail-mail to Jim Prentice and others that I think really made the final difference.
Unless you Brits are corrupt like the US*, your politicians will change their mind if enough people make their voice heard.
I'm sorry if I offend my friends to the south, but the proper word for "campaign contribution" is bribery and used to be an offence. As long as companies can buy legislation, your votes are worthless.
I can see anti-dumping laws, but prohibiting price variation entirely is not very similar.
This is in effect an anti-dumping law. Anti-dumping is to ensure the survival of more and smaller operations. By setting a profitable minimum, and a minimum that is not based on buying power, France ensures that large corporations don't have an automatic upper-hand.
Without anti-dumping laws, we will eventually have a single company on this planet. By restraining large companies, smaller companies survive and consumers have more choice.
how will that benefit the consumer?
How about creating an environment where small companies can exist, and perhaps actually specialize in a type of book, or offer services that the big-box stores don't? Big companies are generally good at one thing: offering products for less. That doesn't mean good service, or knowledgeable salespersons. As big-box stores put price pressure on the little guy, they generally go out of business, or are forced to also cut service to compete. As more companies go under, there is less competition and quality of service diminishes.
As I said at the beginning: I'm on the fence on this one, I can just see the other side of the arguments for something like this. Looking at the path of destruction that Walmart leaves in it's wake I'm concerned about where business is heading. The relentless crushing of the competitors is not a good thing in the long term for the consumer, so while it might be counter-intuitive, forcing minimum prices might not be such a bad thing in the long term.
and Amazon should be free to ask whatever price they want to when reselling the books.
Even in the US, there is anti-dumping laws, so Amazon is in fact *not* free to ask whatever price they want. France has simply set their bar higher than the US.
What about the net effect on the consumer of the government setting prices?
To be specific, the government isn't setting price (the publisher is) the government is in effect setting a really high bar for anti-dumping.
I suppose that the argument can be made that not allowing aggressive or predatory pricing ensures that there will be lots of companies offering the product; many offers means a competitive environment, which is also good for the consumer. And, just as important, it shapes the businesses that do business: mom'n pop have a hard time competing with large multi-nationals. Laws like this one keep more French people as small independent business owners. I do believe there is value in this.
Looking at the net results of Walmart, I don't think it's a totally unsupportable position that simply allowing business to drive all others out of business for the sake of saving a couple buck is a good thing.
This may mean that you need to artificially hold a price up, to ensure that many people can play in the space, and that no one business can kill the market.
Where that point is, and how much inefficiency is left on the table is of course the point of the argument. In the US, dumping is only called dumping when it's below cost (even then: loss leaders are perfectly acceptable!)
I don't have a final opinion on this: obviously the US economy has proved to be the strongest in history, so there is a lot to be said for limiting guv involvement. On the other hand, I don't think it's sustainable: the very valuable manufacturing sector is just about gone in the American economy: largely by Walmart. How this will play out over the long term is anyone's guess at this point.
since shipping is OBVIOUSLY an ancillary service that adds no value to the product
no, the #1 reason I typically don't end up buying something on-line is the shipping price. If the price of product plus shipping is more than the B&M price, I'll pick it up on the way home.
For me (YMMV) the total price (product+shipping+taxes) is the total price.
Ask any mall-owner why they have free parking, and any store owner the lease price difference between a location with and without parking. The "price" of getting something includes it's delivery to you (or your cost of picking it up). There is a premium charged to those stores that have their own parking, which they are willing to pay because they get more business because the customer doesn't have to deal with paying for parking etc.
oh,and to head off the obvious argument: As a linux user my time is free, so that doesn't count.:)
Whatever price they decide to sell them should be up to Amizon.
actually i believe in the Grand Old U. S. of A has anti-dumping and other competition laws. These laws are France's. Yes, they will be different from those in the US, but the intent is the same: keep companies from exerting undue market pressure, which (in theory) causes competition, which (in theory) is better for the consumer.
The real question for Amazon's lawyers is why they don't relate the "free shipping" to "free parking" at a mall...that *should* wipe out the argument and put it in perspective
... but IANALMLAFL (...Much Less A French Lawyer)
Re:Morals aside - what's the end result?
on
Sony BMG Dropping DRM
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Frankly, if nobody pays to see movies, no movies will get made
I guess all that TV I watch is just my imagination hard at work? 'Cause I haven't paid for any TV content (the signal, yes if you have cable/satellite, the content is paid by ads)
Don't confuse "how it's financed under the current system" with "the only way content will get financed"
Beyond that, you're also ignoring the fact that large percentages of the costs of making movies is clearing copyright -- if movies get made using cc content, then they won't cost what they do now. Furthermore, there is nothing that Actor-X does that makes him worth $20-million for a movie. He gets paid that because there is an expectation that the movie will make enough to pay him that. Stage actors make working-type wages (since that is what stage can afford to pay) and they are still able to attract talent. Clearly if movies make less in general, the Big Name Actors and Big Name Producers and Directors will be the first to take massive pay cuts. That doesn't equate to "no more movies being made"
And then the final question I always ask is: who cares if they don't make $100million films any more? If we actually care about the cost of a movie, then the question of "what could we do to make sure that $500-million movies get made?" becomes an equally valid question. Or perhaps 25% of the GDP should be directed at movies to make sure that multi-billion-dollar movies can be made?
Purely speaking, "cost" isn't really a factor in determining the artistic merit, or even quality. "Relative cost" seems to be positively related to quality (roughly), but still no relation to artistic merit.
So if the "cost" bar lowers from $50-million average movie to $1-million, those movies will still have excellent quality - the actors et.al will just be driving Toyota's like the rest of us instead of picking out the Porsche-du-jour.
Slashdot Mirror
And the idea is to promote the useful arts and sciences; as in "make more faster".
Personally, I think it stands to reason that patent protection slows the pace of innovation at this time. This idea is built on two facts:
Since any idea can be transmitted instantly and freely all over the world today, it stands to reason that anything that impedes the flow of information is actually slowing the rate of progress. Patents are one such mechanism for slowing the rate of information exchange, because although you may still have access to the idea, you can't (legally) use it.
In short: the more frequently someone adds a (very) small idea to the pool, the more quickly the pool of knowledge expands.
I like to use Windows and Linux as examples here, and not in a trash-MS kind of way, but just to look at the approach that is taken:
Linux is built incrementally, with everyone contributing as little as a line of code, or a comment, but as much as whole products (or more!) but they key is that some contribute very little to the pool of code. Yet, over time, Linux has matured to the point where fancy desktop eye-candy is available just 'cause people wanted it. Importantly, no one needs to recoup substantial sums of money to make a return on their line of code.
Contrast with Vista where MS spent (billions?) of dollars writing a gargantuan new product. Without copyright, this would be impossible to ever recoup.
Both have arrived a new shiney operating system taking very different paths.
Bottom line: While people think that the monopoly laws are required for innovation, this is simply false. People having open access to new ideas, and adding a very small new part is the fastest way for ever more ideas, invention and innovation.
This is of course why unix-es are inherently more secure than Windows. Unix was designed with the idea of separation of user rights from day-1 as it was intended as a multi-user system. Windows was a single-user system and it shows in the design.
I question why internet connecting programs like web-browsers and mail-clients still run as the user. Sure, the javascript is supposed to play in it's own sandbox, but what if there's a flaw? Security isn't just a single application (like a firewall or a virus scanner). Security is layers of defense, such that if a flaw is found in one layer, another layer should outright stop or at least minimize the damage that can be done by this flaw.
To get back to web-browsers and mail-clients I've played with running them as specialized users that don't have rights to my personal data. That way I'm not relying on just the browser code to keep me safe on the net; the OS would also have to have a hole. I'm no Sysadmin, so initial setup didn't have sound when playing videos like youtube, and saving/using attachments from the mail-client was a PIA ... I see system applications running as a specialized user so as to restrict what the application has access to - why don't user applications have this same set-up? Maybe not every application needs to be run as it's own user, but certainly anything that is going to have 'net access. Lastly, I would want to shut off 'net access from any application that wasn't locked down. Internet access should be a right explicitly granted to an application, not assumed.
If this mortally wounded you I'm sorry - no offence was intended.
As I've stated already, if you want to give away 20-30k lines of code, have at it. It's not that the GPL is the only open source license, or the best open source license, just that it ensures a level playing field.
If that doesn't concern you, then don't let me stop you from releasing another 100k lines of code as BSD...
Happy coding.
After MS closed their source, we don't have access to their changes.
Very big difference. When MS drank from the pool, the pool remained stagnant: only MS grew. When Linux drinks from the same pool, the public benefits, because all downstream changes are still open source.
If it's such a small part, then why don't they just write it themselves, and if it's not a small part of the code, then it's not much of a question, is it? You can't draw an arbitrary line in the sand: at 89% I'll share back, otherwise it's "mine".As I stated before, the point of the GPL is to ensure that everyone shares. Everyone.
BSD allows people to take and give nothing back, the GPL ensures that anyone who takes gives back. I notice that most "BSD Defenders" talk about the usage rights from a 'taker' point of view, not a 'contributer'.
Again, to each their own, etc. If you like to give away your code, your money or your time there's nothing wrong with that. What you do is your personal business, I'm just objectively stating a difference between the two licenses. You chose what you want to do.
Obviously, to each their own, but I personally wouldn't want to share with people who don't share back. I've no problem with sharing with people who will share back, and that is the definition of the GPL.
...just my 2-cents, to each their own, ymmv, etc etc.
The EULA can be invalid and I can still have rights to use the software. There is no requirement for an either/or situation.
Copyright doesn't address usage of copyright material, it addresses copying and distribution of material.
The GPL also does not address your rights to use the software: it addresses your right to copy and distribute. So in the case of the GPL we are in fact talking about an acceptance of the license or else you don't have the right to re-distribute the code (which would then be a copyright violation). There is no "license" to accept with the GPL unless you are redistributing the code.
If I don't accept an EULA as being valid, or don't abide by an EULA then there is no copyright violation as I made no copy. There is possibly a contractual violation, your legal status varies by locale.
In otherwords, there is no "/. double-standard", just people on /. who don't understand the difference between copyright and contracts.
And since you can run linux on it, it might actually provide pretty good bang-for-buck AND have the added benefit of draining some cash out of Sony.
so shame on those of you who went out and bought games for their PS3s, instead of running linux on it :)
I'm not sure how we ended up down the path where just because a mod happens electronically it's suddenly possible for the manufacturer to win the same argument. It's important to note that he's in fact not "profiting off (Creative's) IP", he is actually profiting from his addition to their product, just like car modders of days gone by...
He made 2500 signed units that people paid $300 for. Copyright law was unnecessary for this to occur (trademark maybe, to ensure that the public got authentic works. And since these orders were placed directly with nin.com, trademark doesn't even really play into it. Maybe later, when copies go for re-sale, trademark will be important again in this discussion.)
So basically, you need to find a way to make people value what you're selling, over a copy of what you're selling. In principle, this is no different than BMW wanting you to value their copy of the model-T more than Honda's copy of it. Obviously, when what you're selling is content, and this content can be easily copied then you need to do something more creative than BMW in order to differentiate The Original from the copy.
As he sold all 300 copies, it's clear that Mr. Reznor has been succesful in generating something that people will pay for: to the tune of $750-thousand. And another $850-thousand from people who either just like him enough to pay for something they could get for free, or believe that paying for it is easier than finding a pirate copy. And that all in the first week.
All in all, it seems to me that your complaints fall into my final point: oft repeated things that either were never true, or are no longer true.
While I will agree that X is a mess the myth of the difficulties of linux are (today) greatly exaggerated.
imho, the real reason linux is at 1% is due to a few issues:
With physical property I (or me and both my friends) can (attempt to) physically secure property from you and your roving band of 6^2^2 friends. Regardless of whether or not I'm successful, only one of us ends up with it. Either I'm successful in defending it, or you manage to take it from me. This idea led mankind to villages and countries: To defend my property from the invaders.
Contrast this with an idea: Once I publish my idea (or even tell one person) it is impossible for me to ever be sure that no one else uses my idea. I suppose I could kill the first person I told, but this is an unusually harsh 'defence' for 'property' and still doesn't guarantee that either they already told someone else, or (as often happens) someone else had the same idea as me.
The reality is that physical property can be protected, but ideas can not.
The 'net is a perfect example of this: the more some organization tries to stifle the dissemination of something (perhaps internal e-mails) the more it gets copied throughout the net until it becomes literally impossible for anyone (including the government) to halt this spread.
That we may or may not make use of the government to help protect our physical property isn't really important. What is important is that physical property can be protected, while ideas can not. And this is true due to the rivalrous nature of property, and the non-rivalrous nature of ideas. This "problem" has been exacerbated by the internet, which is of course a giant idea copying machine: your idea goes in once, but comes out everywhere...
The misleading term in this analogy is "non-rivalrous property right". What exactly does this mean? Rivalrous, in economic terms is discussing the ability (not the right!) of more than one individual to make use of something at the same time. Clearly the property in discussion is the backyard of the home-owners. And clearly this is rivalrous: If the entire backyard (every square inch) is being occupied by friends of the homeowner, then the golfer will need to ask someone to move in order to retrieve their ball. The fact that there is an easement that allows the golfer access has not changed the 'rivalrous' status of the property.
The final line in the quote is the misdirection, and borders on a Chewbacca defence. "Rivalrous" doesn't discuss how many have the right, but how many can make use of the right at once. Easements and public places are not non-rivalrous because many have access. That's not what the word means.
So are judges in any way responsible this kind of error? And isn't lying something lawyers should get disbarred for? It already seems to me that the 'little guy' has a hard enough time getting a fair trial that when the Goliath lies outright, or the impartial judge makes a mistake there should be some kind of correction, no?
Thanks again.
You've mentioned a couple of times in this discussion that in the Capitol v. Thomas case the judge was wrong or made an error.
That's strong wording, leaving me (a /.-er) with some questions. Is this "error" your opinion, or a legal fact? And if it's fact, is there an appeal in the works and/or can they appeal? Do judges bear any responsibility for making such errors?
...just trying to understand how something this basic can get two completely different rulings: it seems pretty clear to me that only one of the two rulings can be a correct interpretation of the law.
Thanks for all the updates and posts.
which is why I think ultimately the "South Park" disclaimer will be on everything, as in: ...and as such should not be viewed by anyone.
So all products might contain something like "This product is unsuitable for any use" which isn't much of a stretch if you've read a software license...
Here in Canada, we blocked the "DMCA" thanks in large part to Michael Geist, but it was the 30k+ people who signed up as facebook-friends, and the untold number of people who sent e-mail and snail-mail to Jim Prentice and others that I think really made the final difference.
Unless you Brits are corrupt like the US*, your politicians will change their mind if enough people make their voice heard.
I'm sorry if I offend my friends to the south, but the proper word for "campaign contribution" is bribery and used to be an offence. As long as companies can buy legislation, your votes are worthless.
Without anti-dumping laws, we will eventually have a single company on this planet. By restraining large companies, smaller companies survive and consumers have more choice. How about creating an environment where small companies can exist, and perhaps actually specialize in a type of book, or offer services that the big-box stores don't?
Big companies are generally good at one thing: offering products for less. That doesn't mean good service, or knowledgeable salespersons. As big-box stores put price pressure on the little guy, they generally go out of business, or are forced to also cut service to compete. As more companies go under, there is less competition and quality of service diminishes.
As I said at the beginning: I'm on the fence on this one, I can just see the other side of the arguments for something like this. Looking at the path of destruction that Walmart leaves in it's wake I'm concerned about where business is heading. The relentless crushing of the competitors is not a good thing in the long term for the consumer, so while it might be counter-intuitive, forcing minimum prices might not be such a bad thing in the long term.
I suppose that the argument can be made that not allowing aggressive or predatory pricing ensures that there will be lots of companies offering the product; many offers means a competitive environment, which is also good for the consumer. And, just as important, it shapes the businesses that do business: mom'n pop have a hard time competing with large multi-nationals. Laws like this one keep more French people as small independent business owners. I do believe there is value in this.
Looking at the net results of Walmart, I don't think it's a totally unsupportable position that simply allowing business to drive all others out of business for the sake of saving a couple buck is a good thing.
This may mean that you need to artificially hold a price up, to ensure that many people can play in the space, and that no one business can kill the market.
Where that point is, and how much inefficiency is left on the table is of course the point of the argument. In the US, dumping is only called dumping when it's below cost (even then: loss leaders are perfectly acceptable!)
I don't have a final opinion on this: obviously the US economy has proved to be the strongest in history, so there is a lot to be said for limiting guv involvement. On the other hand, I don't think it's sustainable: the very valuable manufacturing sector is just about gone in the American economy: largely by Walmart. How this will play out over the long term is anyone's guess at this point.
For me (YMMV) the total price (product+shipping+taxes) is the total price.
Ask any mall-owner why they have free parking, and any store owner the lease price difference between a location with and without parking. The "price" of getting something includes it's delivery to you (or your cost of picking it up). There is a premium charged to those stores that have their own parking, which they are willing to pay because they get more business because the customer doesn't have to deal with paying for parking etc.
oh,and to head off the obvious argument: As a linux user my time is free, so that doesn't count. :)
The real question for Amazon's lawyers is why they don't relate the "free shipping" to "free parking" at a mall...that *should* wipe out the argument and put it in perspective
... but IANALMLAFL (...Much Less A French Lawyer)
Don't confuse "how it's financed under the current system" with "the only way content will get financed"
Beyond that, you're also ignoring the fact that large percentages of the costs of making movies is clearing copyright -- if movies get made using cc content, then they won't cost what they do now. Furthermore, there is nothing that Actor-X does that makes him worth $20-million for a movie. He gets paid that because there is an expectation that the movie will make enough to pay him that. Stage actors make working-type wages (since that is what stage can afford to pay) and they are still able to attract talent. Clearly if movies make less in general, the Big Name Actors and Big Name Producers and Directors will be the first to take massive pay cuts. That doesn't equate to "no more movies being made"
And then the final question I always ask is: who cares if they don't make $100million films any more? If we actually care about the cost of a movie, then the question of "what could we do to make sure that $500-million movies get made?" becomes an equally valid question. Or perhaps 25% of the GDP should be directed at movies to make sure that multi-billion-dollar movies can be made?
Purely speaking, "cost" isn't really a factor in determining the artistic merit, or even quality. "Relative cost" seems to be positively related to quality (roughly), but still no relation to artistic merit.
So if the "cost" bar lowers from $50-million average movie to $1-million, those movies will still have excellent quality - the actors et.al will just be driving Toyota's like the rest of us instead of picking out the Porsche-du-jour.