If you mean the morality of it, I don't think you'll find many "liberal" perspectives that it's not so bad.
I think you'll find plenty that believe murder is still worse, however, which can be a... controversial position to hold in front of some of the nuttier elements of our society.
Which, chances are, they won't. The best thing about large multinationals such as Sony and Disney is the whole "left hand, right hand" business they've got going on internally.
Sony's music and movie divisions have long complained about the ease of playing "pirated" music and movies on the PS3, PSP and portable media players, but the electronic division's response? fuck off, it's your problem not ours. I can't see the guys in charge of History Channel or ESPN reacting any different to the latest Hannah Montana album being copied online, either.
So, unless they manage to convince the *real* head honchos of their respective corporations to throw the weight of the entire business group just to help a single division (ha!), their respective movie and music income is all they're gonna get for their little turf war.
What's your definition of "direct" and "indirect" profit, exactly? they certainly aren't selling you the files or access to them, so that definition goes right out the window.
Because it means they don't get to rub their ePeens in the face of all those dumb, "casual" gamers.
Remember when being a geek meant you taught yourself programming by the time you were 15 and learned, the hard way, how to make the most out of obsolete computers? now it's all about making daddy spend $2k+ on a quad-core CPU and a dual GPU all to run Crysis on its highest settings and post a video of it on Youtube afterwards.
That's because your average nerd couldn't sell himself to his own mother if he tried to.
For starters, you're not a "computer geek", you "have a high-paying job in the tech industry", you don't "fix people's computers up for a living", you "utilize your skills to provide assistance throughout the whole business", and for the love of God and all that is mighty, you are not there to "pick up chicks" you desperate nerd (or worse, "meet people"!), you're there "to take a break from work and relax a bit". Basically, speak Managerese from the moment you enter the bar to the instant you ejaculate inside her. Not that it matters much, though, most bar-going women put out without even a single word given enough alcohol beforehand.
Dunno where the comparison with iOS comes from, as Apple is notorious for abandoning their users software-wise in a generation or two, even on their desktop PCs.
In fact, on that regard currently the best company would be Sony, of all things, the PSP was released back in 2004 and it's still receiving software updates. Which makes me wonder, do they make a cheap tablet PC?
So? what advantage does the iPad provide over the Kindle? obscenely rich corporations for the most part don't get obscenely rich by wasting money "just because".
You're correct on "theft" of course, but "piracy" is the act of hijacking passing ships with either a cutlass and a sharp wit or, in modern times, a bazooka and a bunch of AKs. The act of making a copy that infringes on the author's state-granted rights to control them is, unsurprisingly, called "copyright infringement".
People still have the right to smoke and drink, while the rest of us still have the right to tell them they're absolute morons for doing so. Bill Gates is essentially doing the same here, he's not asking for government intervention in dealing with these idiots, he's merely reminding them of their idiot status to the rest of the world.
Well, hard to do anything about it, half the proposed alternatives are even worse evils than Flash, and the other half doesn't give technophiles a stiffy.
And technophiles are, by the way, the main reason we're stuck with Flash in the first place: Adobe has tried to do the same with Adobe Reader, but since almost nobody uses all the random scripting crap they've added to it and only uses the baseline standard, alternative PDF viewers are able to display 99% of documents out there perfectly in spite of not catching up to Adobe's reader. Alas, that's too much to ask for video and animation, and since the nerds *must* use the latest codec and features, we are where we are.
so what? Whether it's good or bad, it's still copyright infringement. The most this study could argue for is to encourage copyright holders to ignore piracy. It does not provide an excuse, or even a rationalization, for piracy. If you're looking for an ethical out, this isn't it.
Ethics is irrelevant of the law, so the fact that it's still copyright infringement doesn't affect whether it's good or bad.
I have no problem with laws protecting IP for limited periods (relative to the useful lifetime - longer for philosophical works, shorter for technological ones)
And inflict upon ourselves the hell of every copyright creator and their dog trying to claim their work, regardless of media or content, mysteriously falls under the category with the longest terms? or worse yet, *change* the work so it fits?
It'll be great seeing the protagonist of a comedy suddenly jump into a philosophical diatribe just so the studio can get a couple extra years out of it. Oh, wait, it won't. Fixed terms, to be determined by scientific studies looking to maximize the number of works on the Public Domain, it's the only way to do it properly and painlessly.
Actually, it's more like the X-Files on an LSD trip, without Scully and replacing the "aliens" excuse with ghosts.
I'd recommend you give it a try, it's fun stuff. Besides, you'd only need to watch a single episode, while there's *some* sort of Myth Arc overall the formula is pretty constant so if you don't like it, there's nothing that'd make you change your mind later.
Only now? check up the list of winners on Wikipedia, both it and the Literature prize have been little but tools for political shills for at least half a century now.
Because the other definition of "open" is already covered by the word "standard".
Although not applied to a standard, the open source Firefox project is actually less free in some ways than H.264. Look into Iceweasel to see what I'm referring to.
That's an issue of trademarks, not copyright or patents. But, in case you're wondering, yes I would not call a standard whose trademarks are not freely available "open" either, though in that case the solution would be so simple as to be trivial.
Also, x264 is a valid and legal open source project, even in the US where software patents are valid. What it's not, however, is truly and completely free. That's because the copyright (which is open) is properly licensed. The ability to actually use the source code is limited by patents.
Only due to a particular reading of the GPL2 that allows for a legal loophole in it.
Open, in the case of H.264, also refers to the standard's creation, which was done out in the open. Also, everyone is allowed to license it. And finally, the source code for it is open source.
The first is "by commitee", the second is also covered by "standard", and the third is irrelevant, the status of a standard is not and should not be determined by the status of the existing implementations.
It is not, however, completely free, although it is completely free in some contexts, so in those contexts, it is also a free standard. But no one calls it that because you can't really do so without qualification. It is a fair point to consider, however.
Now you're just fucking with me. Seriously, that's not even a coherent argument, that's just school-level wordplay.
Everything over 200 lines is probably patent-encumbered, which of course doesn't mean that something *under* 200 lines is not. The US patent system is completely fucked up, "probably encumbered" is the best you can hope since the only other option is "certain to be encumbered", ala h.264.
GNU freedom is on the hard left. Closed standards for use by anyone who will pay a lot of money up front is to the far right. Why can't we bask in some middle ground.
An open standard must be freely available for implementation, otherwise the 'open' adjective would be superfluous as disclosure is already a requirement for it to be a standard in the first place.
It encourages the prevalence of a heavily patent encumbered format on the Internet, which is bad for everybody, except possibly a few large players like Microsoft (though ultimate I don't think it's in their best long-term interests either).
But of course it is, look at how much a tiny little project like Mozilla has hurt them, raising the barrier of entry to the browser market is clearly in their best interest even if it costs them some cash. Of course, the downside is that they can't keep copying innovations off Opera as they'd go under too, but hey! with complete dominance over the browser market they don't even need to innovate.
Not even close. I've never, ever, received a link to a video on wikipedia (or any other wikimedia project). Ever. I bet most people aren't even aware that there *are* videos on wikipedia.
I've never, ever received a link to a HTML5/h.264 video either, and I doubt many people are even aware you can watch online videos without Flash.
So yeah, not supporting Theora can hardly be called a deal-breaker, but dropping h.264 support can't be honestly called "useful" either.
Remember back when we all believed Linux would rule the world through netbooks? and how, only a year later, we were complaining about how pretty much every new model came with Windows 7 instead?
I sincerely hope Android fares better than good ol' Ubuntu did, but you can't blame me for having my doubts about it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you mean the morality of it, I don't think you'll find many "liberal" perspectives that it's not so bad.
I think you'll find plenty that believe murder is still worse, however, which can be a... controversial position to hold in front of some of the nuttier elements of our society.
Which, chances are, they won't. The best thing about large multinationals such as Sony and Disney is the whole "left hand, right hand" business they've got going on internally.
Sony's music and movie divisions have long complained about the ease of playing "pirated" music and movies on the PS3, PSP and portable media players, but the electronic division's response? fuck off, it's your problem not ours. I can't see the guys in charge of History Channel or ESPN reacting any different to the latest Hannah Montana album being copied online, either.
So, unless they manage to convince the *real* head honchos of their respective corporations to throw the weight of the entire business group just to help a single division (ha!), their respective movie and music income is all they're gonna get for their little turf war.
What's your definition of "direct" and "indirect" profit, exactly? they certainly aren't selling you the files or access to them, so that definition goes right out the window.
Because it means they don't get to rub their ePeens in the face of all those dumb, "casual" gamers.
Remember when being a geek meant you taught yourself programming by the time you were 15 and learned, the hard way, how to make the most out of obsolete computers? now it's all about making daddy spend $2k+ on a quad-core CPU and a dual GPU all to run Crysis on its highest settings and post a video of it on Youtube afterwards.
That's because your average nerd couldn't sell himself to his own mother if he tried to.
For starters, you're not a "computer geek", you "have a high-paying job in the tech industry", you don't "fix people's computers up for a living", you "utilize your skills to provide assistance throughout the whole business", and for the love of God and all that is mighty, you are not there to "pick up chicks" you desperate nerd (or worse, "meet people"!), you're there "to take a break from work and relax a bit". Basically, speak Managerese from the moment you enter the bar to the instant you ejaculate inside her. Not that it matters much, though, most bar-going women put out without even a single word given enough alcohol beforehand.
Because for this past decade at least, being a NATO member has been codeword for "the US' little bitch".
Dunno where the comparison with iOS comes from, as Apple is notorious for abandoning their users software-wise in a generation or two, even on their desktop PCs.
In fact, on that regard currently the best company would be Sony, of all things, the PSP was released back in 2004 and it's still receiving software updates. Which makes me wonder, do they make a cheap tablet PC?
So? what advantage does the iPad provide over the Kindle? obscenely rich corporations for the most part don't get obscenely rich by wasting money "just because".
You're correct on "theft" of course, but "piracy" is the act of hijacking passing ships with either a cutlass and a sharp wit or, in modern times, a bazooka and a bunch of AKs. The act of making a copy that infringes on the author's state-granted rights to control them is, unsurprisingly, called "copyright infringement".
People still have the right to smoke and drink, while the rest of us still have the right to tell them they're absolute morons for doing so. Bill Gates is essentially doing the same here, he's not asking for government intervention in dealing with these idiots, he's merely reminding them of their idiot status to the rest of the world.
If your sole measure of success is the money you make, you have far bigger problems than mere cluelessness.
Well, hard to do anything about it, half the proposed alternatives are even worse evils than Flash, and the other half doesn't give technophiles a stiffy.
And technophiles are, by the way, the main reason we're stuck with Flash in the first place: Adobe has tried to do the same with Adobe Reader, but since almost nobody uses all the random scripting crap they've added to it and only uses the baseline standard, alternative PDF viewers are able to display 99% of documents out there perfectly in spite of not catching up to Adobe's reader. Alas, that's too much to ask for video and animation, and since the nerds *must* use the latest codec and features, we are where we are.
so what? Whether it's good or bad, it's still copyright infringement. The most this study could argue for is to encourage copyright holders to ignore piracy. It does not provide an excuse, or even a rationalization, for piracy. If you're looking for an ethical out, this isn't it.
Ethics is irrelevant of the law, so the fact that it's still copyright infringement doesn't affect whether it's good or bad.
I have no problem with laws protecting IP for limited periods (relative to the useful lifetime - longer for philosophical works, shorter for technological ones)
And inflict upon ourselves the hell of every copyright creator and their dog trying to claim their work, regardless of media or content, mysteriously falls under the category with the longest terms? or worse yet, *change* the work so it fits?
It'll be great seeing the protagonist of a comedy suddenly jump into a philosophical diatribe just so the studio can get a couple extra years out of it. Oh, wait, it won't. Fixed terms, to be determined by scientific studies looking to maximize the number of works on the Public Domain, it's the only way to do it properly and painlessly.
Actually, it's more like the X-Files on an LSD trip, without Scully and replacing the "aliens" excuse with ghosts.
I'd recommend you give it a try, it's fun stuff. Besides, you'd only need to watch a single episode, while there's *some* sort of Myth Arc overall the formula is pretty constant so if you don't like it, there's nothing that'd make you change your mind later.
Abandon ship en masse. Quite likely the worst thing that could happen to a publicly traded company such as Apple.
Only now? check up the list of winners on Wikipedia, both it and the Literature prize have been little but tools for political shills for at least half a century now.
Why does "open" imply "free"?
Because the other definition of "open" is already covered by the word "standard".
Although not applied to a standard, the open source Firefox project is actually less free in some ways than H.264. Look into Iceweasel to see what I'm referring to.
That's an issue of trademarks, not copyright or patents. But, in case you're wondering, yes I would not call a standard whose trademarks are not freely available "open" either, though in that case the solution would be so simple as to be trivial.
Also, x264 is a valid and legal open source project, even in the US where software patents are valid. What it's not, however, is truly and completely free. That's because the copyright (which is open) is properly licensed. The ability to actually use the source code is limited by patents.
Only due to a particular reading of the GPL2 that allows for a legal loophole in it.
Open, in the case of H.264, also refers to the standard's creation, which was done out in the open. Also, everyone is allowed to license it. And finally, the source code for it is open source.
The first is "by commitee", the second is also covered by "standard", and the third is irrelevant, the status of a standard is not and should not be determined by the status of the existing implementations.
It is not, however, completely free, although it is completely free in some contexts, so in those contexts, it is also a free standard. But no one calls it that because you can't really do so without qualification. It is a fair point to consider, however.
Now you're just fucking with me. Seriously, that's not even a coherent argument, that's just school-level wordplay.
A different set of input files will also produce a different output, yet magically that doesn't stop the decoder from, well, decoding them.
You really should learn how computers work, you know.
Everything over 200 lines is probably patent-encumbered, which of course doesn't mean that something *under* 200 lines is not. The US patent system is completely fucked up, "probably encumbered" is the best you can hope since the only other option is "certain to be encumbered", ala h.264.
GNU freedom is on the hard left. Closed standards for use by anyone who will pay a lot of money up front is to the far right. Why can't we bask in some middle ground.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
An open standard must be freely available for implementation, otherwise the 'open' adjective would be superfluous as disclosure is already a requirement for it to be a standard in the first place.
It encourages the prevalence of a heavily patent encumbered format on the Internet, which is bad for everybody, except possibly a few large players like Microsoft (though ultimate I don't think it's in their best long-term interests either).
But of course it is, look at how much a tiny little project like Mozilla has hurt them, raising the barrier of entry to the browser market is clearly in their best interest even if it costs them some cash. Of course, the downside is that they can't keep copying innovations off Opera as they'd go under too, but hey! with complete dominance over the browser market they don't even need to innovate.
Not even close. I've never, ever, received a link to a video on wikipedia (or any other wikimedia project). Ever. I bet most people aren't even aware that there *are* videos on wikipedia.
I've never, ever received a link to a HTML5/h.264 video either, and I doubt many people are even aware you can watch online videos without Flash.
So yeah, not supporting Theora can hardly be called a deal-breaker, but dropping h.264 support can't be honestly called "useful" either.
I still remember the same thing being said with respect to Android and the futility to go against Apple's dominance, and yet here we are.
Remember back when we all believed Linux would rule the world through netbooks? and how, only a year later, we were complaining about how pretty much every new model came with Windows 7 instead?
I sincerely hope Android fares better than good ol' Ubuntu did, but you can't blame me for having my doubts about it.