Note the presence of the word "and" in that definition. Note the lack of definition in that definition--it's not the complete definition, just merely enough to demonstrate that you're talking out of your ass. The U.S. Code defining piracy, indeed.
You can play semantics around it all day long and call it whatever you want, but there's no theft going on. That's exactly right, but until you learn how to read, it's not going to matter. Theft != stealing.
The legal violation is defined by the nature of who owns it, not what it is. No. The law punishes the perpetrators of an unlawful act. It does not presume a position of identification with the victims. Were that the case, there would be no affirmative defenses to criminal prosecutions and the entire burden system would be inverted.
The legal wrong is the intent and act of the wrongdoer. You can use the word "semantics" until you turn blue, but because you don't apparently grasp elementary concepts in the field like agents and patients, you've got no leg to stand on.
Apparently it IS too much to ask, since you choose to make up your own definitions. Unless you're crediting me with authoring the OED, you're quite mistaken.
I could be more precise and say that according to the U.S. Code, the definition of piracy has to do with sea-going vessels. And you would be wrong. Video piracy: "The illegal copying and sale or rental of copyrighted motion pictures." Black's, 8th.
You've been wrong for 130 years, too: "[T]he test of piracy [is] not whether the identical language, the same words, are used, but whether the substance of the production is unlawfully appropriated." Eaton S. Drone, A Treatise on the Law of Property in Intellectual Productions 97 (1879)
There are two types of musical copyrights. The owner of the sound recording is NOT entitled to be paid for each copy offered for sale, only the ones they sell. They are entitled to payment for each copy of the goods conveyed. It has nothing to do with copyright law, but basic commerce. If something is available for sale, and you take it, you have deprived the vendor of income they are legally due. Again, your lack of precision leads you far off the path.
I'm sorry. With all the talk of entitlement, I thought I was talking to someone familiar with the music business and how the authors are compensated for their work. Your example does not specify a particular harm. You really do have a problem with careful reading, don't you? You argued that "deducting for 'new media' and promotions" is stealing without specifying. You're likely talking about the labels taking away from payments to authors, but your scenario does not presuppose any "stealing" there because it contains at least four unstated assumptions and touches on contract issues, not whether the label should or should not be able to make said deductions. The point being that stealing has a definition which you are STILL failing to apply to your rhetorical nonsense.
That's pretty damn arrogant, not to mention being flat-ass wrong. Prove it. You can't, because it's not wrong. They are entitled to payment for each copy--that's the whole basis of the harm. If copyright owners were not entitled to such, there'd be no relief under the law.
In 2003, someone stole a car out of my garage, Yes! Someone took something that did not belong to them! We as a society punish the wrongdoers. Regard for the effect on the "victim" is a matter considered in sentencing, not a matter for determining whether the wrong occurred. We act against the wrongdoers, not for the wronged--your loss, replaceable or not, valuable or not, is beside the point. This is an essential point that most people have completely ass-backwards. Someone took something. THAT is the wrong. The perpetrator's act, not the victim's response.
Piracy is not theft, Yes, that's right. You know what ALSO isn't theft? Stealing. They are not interchangeable. I don't know what's so difficult about that, but here you go, Mr. Slashdot, waddling down that path again.
Casual p2p users are not making any money from anyone else's music, they're just looking for new music. That's absolutely true, and why, for about the fourth time in this thread, I'll say the statutory damages need to be restructured to accomodate this uncontemplated reality.
Not paying artists the royalties they earned? Settling for 10 cents on the dollar when they do catch you? Still deducting for "new media" and promotional goods? That's stealing. Not paying artists as contractually obligated would be stealing. Not paying artists because they're greedy bastards who have negotiated pathetic royalties is just being a greedy bastard. Your second example isn't stealing unless the person lacks culpability, since they're entitled to that money if they can make their case. Your third example is too vague to go anywhere with. Who is deducting? Deducting from what?
That the RIAA is a festering pile of asswipes should surprise no one. They're greedy bastards, their allies are just completely flat-out wrong about the whole WGA strike, about DRM, and about pricing of digital content. They're completely out of line going after college students. They're scum. We in the legal profession know this. The courts know this.
That is not the issue here though. The issue is that people who commit copyright infringement are stealing, and thickheaded mobs on Slashdot time and again try to carve out some bogus rationale for why it's not, usually resorting to the same off-point frameworks you use here--relying on deprivation, or saying "it's not theft," both of which are true facts, but not germane to stealing, an affirmative act performed by a person.
Stealing is taking something you don't have a right to take. Taking is coming into possession; acquiring; occupancy. Stealing is not theft; it is not larceny; it is not conversion; it is not robbery. For a bunch of people making a slippery semantic argument, you wouldn't think knowing what words mean and being precise would be too much to ask.
I fail to see why that one angry moderator wasted so many mod points on this. It's all perfectly illustrative of the system. Copyright owners are entitled to control distribution of copies and entitled to be paid for the copies they make available for sale. That's a basic premise which is not at issue in the real world.
No one is endorsing the RIAA or arguing that what they're doing is reasonable or appropriate.
It's really very simple. Piracy is stealing--that's the only exception I take to GP's post. The problem is that casual p2p should not figure so centrally into the strategy, and casual p2p sharing should be structured into the law such that the damages are reasonable for the infringement committed. Individuals should not be held responsible for the kinds of judgments that suit bigger-scale piracy operations.
So by your logic, the latest DVD release that outsells the movie that's been out for a year means that the latest release is a huge deal. It is when the market is 1/18th the size and it outsells by a factor of 100 per head. OS X is the "small indie film" that even with vigorous uptake should basically break even.
so if an independent film sells 5000 copies in 6 days after release, compared to a major studio release that sold slightly fewer in the 30 day time frame, then the independent film is more popular? How do you get from "outselling in a short period" to "more popular"? You REALLY want to talk logic? My God.
Here's the secret, Dexter: if an indie film even just approached the monthly sales of a major studio film, that would be HUGE news. If it managed to sell a month's worth of a major studio film in less than a week's time, it would be press-stopping news in the motion picture industry.
OS X in its first month of release just matching Windows sales in a month would be an accomplishment, but understandable because of its new release status. Doing it in less than a WEEK in a country where Apple has a market share less than the US is definitely "big deal" territory.
Exclusivity and deprivation are the heart and soul of theft and taking. Yawn. No one's talking about theft, and exclusivity and deprivation are the heart of being taken from, not taking. The actor is the agent of the verb and the subject of legal inquiry. This is basic linguistics, for which you clearly have no appreciation.
have a number of CDs, if I were to make 100,000 copies of them, and distribute them throughout the world, the RIAA hasn't been deprived of the copies that they made. No, they have been deprived of their legal right to be the sole legally authorized party to make and distribute those copies. They were entitled to the sales price for each of those 100,000 copies. You stole their copyright, and everyone who acquired a copy stole a copy.
You had no legal right to make and distribute those copies. The copyright owner had a right to be paid their asking price for each of them. It does not matter that they can make more for little cost. It only matters that you acquired something (whether it be someone else's property right or an unlawful copy) to which you were not entitled. Period. You have no leg to stand on. It simply is not within your rights to do so. Each of those unlawful copies is a stolen copy.
They're only worse if people expect a windfall out of a class action suit. Class actions are meant to take a stab at the wrongdoer (i.e. fix the SOCIAL harm), not deal with individual complaints or fatten up some plaintiffs' wallets.
That there is ANY compensation for the members of the class beyond legal fees and whatever corrective action is ordered as a result is simply a bonus. It's not like you really chose to do anything about it. You put your name on a list somewhere, while someone else bears the risk of having to pay expensive attorneys for their services.
You sit with your hand held out, but rarely were you actually bothered or upset enough to do anything about it. Without someone else filing the suit and retaining (highly expensive) counsel, would you have taken action? Probably not. No risk, no work, no measurable lost time. It seems pretty ridiculous to complain about your pittance--two months of free Comcast Internet service? That's $75 saved right there, and if it forces Comcast to fix the problem (or at least spend time and money finding a different way to screw their customers), that's a perfectly legitimate outcome.
The 11 words you refer to do not signify an act which constitutes a license, genius. Take your crap elsewhere, or learn the difference between a grant and a license.
It's not creating if the thing already exists. The right to duplicate is vested. Making a copy is taking a right which is not yours in order to produce a copy which is not legally yours. Read more carefully:
Nothing + act to obtain = taking.
Alternatively, you could go to the dictionary. There are about 114 entries in the OED, ranging from acquiring to occupancy to assuming possession. They all conform to the proper agency of the verb. None of them supports your claim.
I'm sorry, let me get this straight. You start with nothing, and you perform an act to obtain a thing, which results in you having that thing you didn't before the act. That's taking. Taking is a verb with the perpetrator as the agent, not the patient. Exclusivity is not a factor. Deprivation is not a factor.
but using the word "stealing" is inflammatory, and that is what people object to. Too bad. You are taking something that doesn't belong to you and that you have no right to have. Your offended sensibilities are irrelevant. It was not yours to take, and you took it. If you're so spineless as to not own up to that basic fact, you should reconsider your actions.
It doesn't have to last. It's not supposed to last. Once everyone upgrades, there's not going to be ongoing demand for a product everyone already has.
Clearly you missed the point. It goes to show enthusiasm. It doesn't have anything to do with market share increases (because anyone buying Leopard is *already* a Mac user).
The light that burns twice as bright lasts half as long. The light that consumes its fuel first wins the race. The faster and brighter, the better.
No matter how many times you repeat this bullshit about stealing, piracy has nothing to do with stealing. No matter how many times this gets modded up on Slashdot, it will never be true. Piracy has everything to do with stealing.
You people continually try to parse a semantic argument and fail. What you're describing and reacting against is not what you believe it to be. Copyright infringement is not theft. It is not larceny. Generally, it is also not conversion (but sometimes it is). It is stealing, though, which is not a crime, a misdemeanor, or even itself a tort. It is a means to one of those infractions.
Piracy is stealing. Stealing is simply the taking of something to which you are not entitled. That's it. Under the law, the copyright holders are entitled to compensation for each of those unlawfully conveyed copies. They are entitled to statutory damages for doing so (damages which were established in a time where casual, individual infringement was not contemplated and which need to be restructured). Every illegal copy for which compensation is due is unequivocally a deprivation of money they are due. It is not relevant whether or not the person doing the taking and/or distribution would have paid for it or not. It is only relevant that each of those copies is one that is protected by law. If you take it without a right to do so, you've stolen it. End of story.
The copyright holder is entitled to whatever the copy sells for, whether supply is infinite or whether the file is "worth" what they charge for it. Those are not legally relevant issues. The copyright holder's damages are also not limited to the cost of lost income, but also to statutory damages, which treble the costs to the wrongdoer. This encourages responsible participation--if the only consequence to your taking something without permission would be that you might have to pay for it if you get caught, there'd be no deterrent and no value, hence the treble effect of being punished for doing something you know you're not supposed to.
Bottom line, it's not yours. You have no authority to interfere or make unilateral determinations about which rights you'll take without entitlement. If the terms aren't fair and if the product isn't worth the asking price, walk the other way. Do without.
Nonsense. People buy boxed Windows copies all the time, especially people who are adding a second OS or buying one to virtualize.
TFA explains this pretty clearly, but had you simply read the summary you'd have a better perspective--OS X's previous high was 15.5%. Meanwhile, in just five days, it accounted for over 50% of sales for the entire month. That means that the number of copies that moved was four times higher than ever before while simultaneously occurring in barely more than one-sixth the time.
That's a pretty big showing.
You also fail to recognize that every Mac also includes an OS X license, so why would OEM Windows licenses matter? Bottom line: a company with maybe 5% market share outsold a company with 90% market share, and did it in less than a week--in order for it just to MATCH Windows sales, it'd have to sell 18 times the number of copies per capita, averaged daily for the month--Leopard did that in less than a week, effectively selling over 100 times better per capita. That is, beyond a doubt, a "huge" deal.
A decent license, now open-sourcing Windows would be excellent but just having it under a "you bought the copy now do whatever you want with it" would be a ton better then [sic] the usual "Microsoft owns your computer" What you describe is not a license. It also makes no sense.
A simpler license might be a reasonable request, but kingly dominion for few dollars just simply will not happen.
I think this statement is flat-out incorrect. Even on this article (as well as my personal confirmation), it has been stated that T-Mobile offers a perfectly useable $20/month internet plan with EDGE/GPRS and potentially 3G when it gets rolled out sometime this or next year. Why are you talking about T-Mobile? The iPhone is an AT&T device. The rate plans are better with the iPhone than with the smartphone plans before it, and the features are better too.
You seem to be talking about what's available at other providers, though I'm not sure why. It does go to show, however, that there's no "premium" being charged for Apple's cut. If the customer were getting ripped off, one would think Apple's "blood money" would come from higher, inflated rates. That is not the case, and so GP's post is a baseless rant.
No, you've exhausted your supply of metaphors without providing substance to accompany.
Push email only extends the MDA link to the MUA. That link was never the slowest in the chain. One final time, identify a user who is disadvantaged in a meaningful way by a 30 second delay in the delivery of an email to his client. You can't do this, because no one relies on real-time availability of email. It is nothing more than a false comfort. There is no effective difference between a one minute poll and pushing from the MDA to the MUA.
No, it's not reality vs. anything. You haven't answered the question. Datacenters and network planning are considerable issues for infrastructure development, but has little to do with push email. Again, find someone who is disadvantaged in a meaningful way by receiving an email 30 seconds later.
The last link in the chain (destination server to client) is not the problem. Email cannot be relied upon for realtime communication, and push email is therefore a false comfort. I also have no idea where you're getting 10 or 20 minute polling times from. Set it shorter. Push email does nothing to address the bulk of transmission. There is no control over how long it takes to get to your network, and it does nothing to speed up the time required for internal routing. It's a gimmick. The email has to be in the user store in order to be pushed anywhere, and if there's going to be a delay, it's going to happen before that stage.
"Tens of millions" describes the worldwide smartphone market. Most of those users are not using push email. Most of those who do use push do so because it's available. Find me someone who would actually be disadvantaged in a meaningful way by an email arriving 30 seconds later and we'll talk.
The problem with email is arrival at the end server, not retrieval from the last stop to the client. It cannot be relied upon as a real-time communications method. It was not designed that way and it doesn't work that way.
Okay. Here's the honest question then: the iPhone rate plans are priced below what comparable plans were before the launch (and in many cases, what other smartphone plans are even now). $59 a month with unlimited data and the REAL Internet. How are you getting "raped" (and why must everyone use such absurd and vulgar imagery to describe *voluntary* business transactions)?
Frankly, who cares where the money goes? If the price is reasonable for the service (I think cell phone service is a ripoff on the whole, but if you look relatively), what difference does it make whether Apple gets a portion of that in the long term?
If getting more money encourages phone makers to make better phones and it doesn't raise the service price, I'm all for it (it's not like AT&T was going to slash rates but then chose not to because of their deal with Apple). Further, if the phone makers have an incentive to develop new technology and push better hardware, then it helps bring the networks into a position to improve their infrastructure. Look at visual voicemail. We've been waiting years for just that feature. A real web browser on a phone and connectivity everywhere there's service. It's fair to say that both of those are fairly monumental accomplishments in the US cellular market.
Nothing you've mentioned has anything to do at all with being a smartphone. You've just run through a list of third-party applications that are available for select users with certain specific needs.
But you know what's worse? Having NONE AT ALL. No, none at all is MUCH better. Everything Office Mobile has ever touched has been utterly destroyed, requiring more work on the other end to fix than simply waiting to use a laptop. Those crappy apps should be viewers and nothing more. Word is no more useful than Textpad. Apart from editing text, the Mobile versions provide nothing.
Actually, for those kind of environments, it is. It is like a vaccination No, no it's not. Further, what are "those kind of environments"?
Yes, how could those tens of millions of people who depend on it be so wrong? Nobody depends on push email. Nobody. It's a false comfort. There's no way "tens of millions" of people even USE it, let alone "depend" on it.
Most people would call Windows Mobile a closed system because MS only provides source... Source has absolutely nothing to do with anything.
You've veered completely off the path and now are basically just a spewing advertisement for the things people can write for an open development platform. You really DO have an issue focusing your thoughts on a single topic and relating back to it, don't you? Are most smartphone users Blackberry users? No. Do most smartphone users use Office Mobile for anything other than viewing (with limited success at that because of its arbitrary reformatting)? No. Does relative price have anything to do with anything? No. Does push email change your world over a 1 minute polling interval? No. Does source code or Java development have anything to do with phone classification? No.
Thanks, that was my point. Reconcile that with your "Windows is a closed system" statement.
That is a new definition of "smart", and is impressive. It's not a new definition. It tracks the one used by industry analysts (Gartner, IDC) and marketing (Symbian, Motorola, et al.) that a smartphone offers PIM, synchronization, data storage, local applications that manipulate data, and advanced voice and data connectivity.
What you've described sounds very like the Helio. Is that a smart phone? Sure.
Really? You got push working, and you can schedule and adjust appointments on the server? Your calendar also updates in real-time when other people make changes? You can do directory lookups and browse shared folders? Impressive. I had heard that the iphone did not have an Exchange connector. How did you configure this exactly, without any third-party software? Or are you just downloading POP/IMAP files from a central store? Again with the arbitrary assignment of features and requirements! Connectivity is not a binary state--ask Blackberry users. If you'd take the time to come off your sugar rush and think through your thoughts before posting them, you'd save everyone a lot of time. Where does it say anything about push being a requirement, or server-side appointment editing, or "browsing network folders"? Where did you make any statement about calendaring through Exchange? Your assumptions simply don't pan out, and instead you made a malformed declaration. I have no problems getting information from Exchange, which is not to say that there couldn't be improvements.
I get email and appointment information from my Exchange server with no trouble right in my mailbox. I can browse all the contacts I need to carry (or use the web directory for the extended Global lists). More importantly, though, tell me how I'm supposed to do the things you mention using the Outlook client on Windows Mobile.
I have yet to understand the fuss over push email or the crappy versions of Office apps included on Windows phones. The editing features are a complete joke, with format-destroying Word Mobile, spreadsheet-truncating Excel Mobile, and notepad-esque editing features of Powerpoint Mobile. The thought of saving 30 seconds in the receipt of an email is likewise absurd--nothing so time critical should be bounced around corporate email servers with the hope that it is delivered within a minute or two.
Windows Mobile is most definitely a closed system Windows Mobile is the epitome of an OPEN mobile platform. Again, the fundamental distinction is outside your assessment: the Windows Mobile SDK is fully open to development. I can only imagine you're referring to some sort of open source paradigm, but there again, open development does not mean open source development.
Compared to the alternative "open" phone systems available, it seems to have an undue edge in application availability. This is some sort of paradox. "Alternative open systems" would directly contradict your previous claim by way of redundancy. There is no paradox. Windows CE is an open platform with a fairly consistent and workable SDK, using familiar tools. It's kind of sloppy in many areas, but it's Microsoft.
However, how easy is it today to actually *buy* a phone with just "voice and text functions"? Pretty difficult. No, not difficult at all. There are literally hundreds of basic handsets available. Cameras, MMS, and video do not fall in any working definition of "smart." Whereas before you attempted to color the term with irrelevant development perspectives, now you're doing the same with simple content delivery. What about taking and sending pictures or delivering content is "smart"? Nothing. Further, ability to connect to BB servers or inclusion of a "database browser" do not a smartphone make.
You continue to impose arbitrary criteria without stopping to consider what makes a smartphone a smart phone. It's integration and performance, and dismissing the iPhone as a glitzy UI shows the basic failure to comprehend. Most of what makes a smartphone lies in the UI and how it connects the user to his data.
Evolutionary components like QWERTY keyboards, mail and web clients, cross-application integration (searching Google for local places and seamlessly handing off to the Maps application for directions, including a direct and prominent link to dial, to save to favorites/contacts, or visit the location's web page would be one example. Automatic detection of numbers and associations (visit Facebook or your online contacts manager and immediately link numbers to the dialer app). Email that automatically links meeting information to your calendar and syncs back to your desktop is another. A smartphone goes beyond content delivery to content integration. I use my iPhone with my Exchange server seamlessly without any third-party applications, and I have no idea what you're talking about re: contacts/calendar syncing--it works just like the T-Mobile MDA it replaced.
They don't face competition from a "free community" because a "free community" couldn't get a cellular network running.
It's not like Wifi because Wifi isn't a complete infrastructure. At some point someone is paying an ISP who has developed and paid for a multi-billion dollar infrastructure. It's not like you're recreating a whole new Internet when you plug in a router. That's like saying you installed a new electrical outlet in your corner bedroom and now you're ready to tackle being a power company.
Let's say I get some people together and we pony up for the license. Then what? Who is going to build, maintain, and operate a network of towers? (In the alternative, who will pay for the right to piggyback and leech?) Who is going to regulate network traffic to preserve availability? Who is going to subscribe to service that costs more than a land line to pass off calls outside the three cells the "free community" can afford to launch? Who is going to serve as agent for service of process; who is going to be held liable for damages? What insurance company is going to underwrite a "free community"? Who is going to ensure that member of the "free community" all play by the same rules to ensure continuity of service?
It's not just a service issue. It's an infrastructure issue, too. Let's be honest: it takes big iron and bigger money to pull something like this off. At the end of the day, there are some thing that just can't be done without corporations or a massive public enterprise (i.e. government). It certainly can't be pulled off more cheaply than the crappy big providers.
And in America, the dollar is king. People will put up with shitty service rather than pay $5 more to do it right. They'll bitch about it, but ignore the better options.
The key problem with your assessment is that you're describing an "openphone" and not a "smartphone."
A "smart" phone deals with data integration and extended functionality. It simply offers a greater level of service than a simple phone with voice and text functions. There is no requirement that it be open to third party development, that there be an extensible SDK, or anything of the sort. These features are often included, but they are not central to the "smartness" of the device. The relative degree of "openness" is independent of "smartness."
Slashdot Mirror
The legal wrong is the intent and act of the wrongdoer. You can use the word "semantics" until you turn blue, but because you don't apparently grasp elementary concepts in the field like agents and patients, you've got no leg to stand on.
You've been wrong for 130 years, too:
"[T]he test of piracy [is] not whether the identical language, the same words, are used, but whether the substance of the production is unlawfully appropriated." Eaton S. Drone, A Treatise on the Law of Property in Intellectual Productions 97 (1879) There are two types of musical copyrights. The owner of the sound recording is NOT entitled to be paid for each copy offered for sale, only the ones they sell. They are entitled to payment for each copy of the goods conveyed. It has nothing to do with copyright law, but basic commerce. If something is available for sale, and you take it, you have deprived the vendor of income they are legally due. Again, your lack of precision leads you far off the path. I'm sorry. With all the talk of entitlement, I thought I was talking to someone familiar with the music business and how the authors are compensated for their work. Your example does not specify a particular harm. You really do have a problem with careful reading, don't you? You argued that "deducting for 'new media' and promotions" is stealing without specifying. You're likely talking about the labels taking away from payments to authors, but your scenario does not presuppose any "stealing" there because it contains at least four unstated assumptions and touches on contract issues, not whether the label should or should not be able to make said deductions. The point being that stealing has a definition which you are STILL failing to apply to your rhetorical nonsense.
That the RIAA is a festering pile of asswipes should surprise no one. They're greedy bastards, their allies are just completely flat-out wrong about the whole WGA strike, about DRM, and about pricing of digital content. They're completely out of line going after college students. They're scum. We in the legal profession know this. The courts know this.
That is not the issue here though. The issue is that people who commit copyright infringement are stealing, and thickheaded mobs on Slashdot time and again try to carve out some bogus rationale for why it's not, usually resorting to the same off-point frameworks you use here--relying on deprivation, or saying "it's not theft," both of which are true facts, but not germane to stealing, an affirmative act performed by a person.
Stealing is taking something you don't have a right to take. Taking is coming into possession; acquiring; occupancy. Stealing is not theft; it is not larceny; it is not conversion; it is not robbery. For a bunch of people making a slippery semantic argument, you wouldn't think knowing what words mean and being precise would be too much to ask.
I fail to see why that one angry moderator wasted so many mod points on this. It's all perfectly illustrative of the system. Copyright owners are entitled to control distribution of copies and entitled to be paid for the copies they make available for sale. That's a basic premise which is not at issue in the real world.
No one is endorsing the RIAA or arguing that what they're doing is reasonable or appropriate.
It's really very simple. Piracy is stealing--that's the only exception I take to GP's post. The problem is that casual p2p should not figure so centrally into the strategy, and casual p2p sharing should be structured into the law such that the damages are reasonable for the infringement committed. Individuals should not be held responsible for the kinds of judgments that suit bigger-scale piracy operations.
Here's the secret, Dexter: if an indie film even just approached the monthly sales of a major studio film, that would be HUGE news. If it managed to sell a month's worth of a major studio film in less than a week's time, it would be press-stopping news in the motion picture industry.
OS X in its first month of release just matching Windows sales in a month would be an accomplishment, but understandable because of its new release status. Doing it in less than a WEEK in a country where Apple has a market share less than the US is definitely "big deal" territory.
You had no legal right to make and distribute those copies. The copyright owner had a right to be paid their asking price for each of them. It does not matter that they can make more for little cost. It only matters that you acquired something (whether it be someone else's property right or an unlawful copy) to which you were not entitled. Period. You have no leg to stand on. It simply is not within your rights to do so. Each of those unlawful copies is a stolen copy.
They're only worse if people expect a windfall out of a class action suit. Class actions are meant to take a stab at the wrongdoer (i.e. fix the SOCIAL harm), not deal with individual complaints or fatten up some plaintiffs' wallets.
That there is ANY compensation for the members of the class beyond legal fees and whatever corrective action is ordered as a result is simply a bonus. It's not like you really chose to do anything about it. You put your name on a list somewhere, while someone else bears the risk of having to pay expensive attorneys for their services.
You sit with your hand held out, but rarely were you actually bothered or upset enough to do anything about it. Without someone else filing the suit and retaining (highly expensive) counsel, would you have taken action? Probably not. No risk, no work, no measurable lost time. It seems pretty ridiculous to complain about your pittance--two months of free Comcast Internet service? That's $75 saved right there, and if it forces Comcast to fix the problem (or at least spend time and money finding a different way to screw their customers), that's a perfectly legitimate outcome.
The 11 words you refer to do not signify an act which constitutes a license, genius. Take your crap elsewhere, or learn the difference between a grant and a license.
It's not creating if the thing already exists. The right to duplicate is vested. Making a copy is taking a right which is not yours in order to produce a copy which is not legally yours. Read more carefully:
Nothing + act to obtain = taking.
Alternatively, you could go to the dictionary. There are about 114 entries in the OED, ranging from acquiring to occupancy to assuming possession. They all conform to the proper agency of the verb. None of them supports your claim.
Clearly you missed the point. It goes to show enthusiasm. It doesn't have anything to do with market share increases (because anyone buying Leopard is *already* a Mac user). The light that burns twice as bright lasts half as long. The light that consumes its fuel first wins the race. The faster and brighter, the better.
You people continually try to parse a semantic argument and fail. What you're describing and reacting against is not what you believe it to be. Copyright infringement is not theft. It is not larceny. Generally, it is also not conversion (but sometimes it is). It is stealing, though, which is not a crime, a misdemeanor, or even itself a tort. It is a means to one of those infractions.
Piracy is stealing. Stealing is simply the taking of something to which you are not entitled. That's it. Under the law, the copyright holders are entitled to compensation for each of those unlawfully conveyed copies. They are entitled to statutory damages for doing so (damages which were established in a time where casual, individual infringement was not contemplated and which need to be restructured). Every illegal copy for which compensation is due is unequivocally a deprivation of money they are due. It is not relevant whether or not the person doing the taking and/or distribution would have paid for it or not. It is only relevant that each of those copies is one that is protected by law. If you take it without a right to do so, you've stolen it. End of story.
The copyright holder is entitled to whatever the copy sells for, whether supply is infinite or whether the file is "worth" what they charge for it. Those are not legally relevant issues. The copyright holder's damages are also not limited to the cost of lost income, but also to statutory damages, which treble the costs to the wrongdoer. This encourages responsible participation--if the only consequence to your taking something without permission would be that you might have to pay for it if you get caught, there'd be no deterrent and no value, hence the treble effect of being punished for doing something you know you're not supposed to.
Bottom line, it's not yours. You have no authority to interfere or make unilateral determinations about which rights you'll take without entitlement. If the terms aren't fair and if the product isn't worth the asking price, walk the other way. Do without.
Nonsense. People buy boxed Windows copies all the time, especially people who are adding a second OS or buying one to virtualize.
TFA explains this pretty clearly, but had you simply read the summary you'd have a better perspective--OS X's previous high was 15.5%. Meanwhile, in just five days, it accounted for over 50% of sales for the entire month. That means that the number of copies that moved was four times higher than ever before while simultaneously occurring in barely more than one-sixth the time.
That's a pretty big showing.
You also fail to recognize that every Mac also includes an OS X license, so why would OEM Windows licenses matter? Bottom line: a company with maybe 5% market share outsold a company with 90% market share, and did it in less than a week--in order for it just to MATCH Windows sales, it'd have to sell 18 times the number of copies per capita, averaged daily for the month--Leopard did that in less than a week, effectively selling over 100 times better per capita. That is, beyond a doubt, a "huge" deal.
A simpler license might be a reasonable request, but kingly dominion for few dollars just simply will not happen.
Cute, but just as vacuous as the rest of your comments.
You seem to be talking about what's available at other providers, though I'm not sure why. It does go to show, however, that there's no "premium" being charged for Apple's cut. If the customer were getting ripped off, one would think Apple's "blood money" would come from higher, inflated rates. That is not the case, and so GP's post is a baseless rant.
No, you've exhausted your supply of metaphors without providing substance to accompany.
Push email only extends the MDA link to the MUA. That link was never the slowest in the chain. One final time, identify a user who is disadvantaged in a meaningful way by a 30 second delay in the delivery of an email to his client. You can't do this, because no one relies on real-time availability of email. It is nothing more than a false comfort. There is no effective difference between a one minute poll and pushing from the MDA to the MUA.
No, it's not reality vs. anything. You haven't answered the question. Datacenters and network planning are considerable issues for infrastructure development, but has little to do with push email. Again, find someone who is disadvantaged in a meaningful way by receiving an email 30 seconds later.
The last link in the chain (destination server to client) is not the problem. Email cannot be relied upon for realtime communication, and push email is therefore a false comfort. I also have no idea where you're getting 10 or 20 minute polling times from. Set it shorter. Push email does nothing to address the bulk of transmission. There is no control over how long it takes to get to your network, and it does nothing to speed up the time required for internal routing. It's a gimmick. The email has to be in the user store in order to be pushed anywhere, and if there's going to be a delay, it's going to happen before that stage.
"Tens of millions" describes the worldwide smartphone market. Most of those users are not using push email. Most of those who do use push do so because it's available. Find me someone who would actually be disadvantaged in a meaningful way by an email arriving 30 seconds later and we'll talk.
The problem with email is arrival at the end server, not retrieval from the last stop to the client. It cannot be relied upon as a real-time communications method. It was not designed that way and it doesn't work that way.
Okay. Here's the honest question then: the iPhone rate plans are priced below what comparable plans were before the launch (and in many cases, what other smartphone plans are even now). $59 a month with unlimited data and the REAL Internet. How are you getting "raped" (and why must everyone use such absurd and vulgar imagery to describe *voluntary* business transactions)?
Frankly, who cares where the money goes? If the price is reasonable for the service (I think cell phone service is a ripoff on the whole, but if you look relatively), what difference does it make whether Apple gets a portion of that in the long term?
If getting more money encourages phone makers to make better phones and it doesn't raise the service price, I'm all for it (it's not like AT&T was going to slash rates but then chose not to because of their deal with Apple). Further, if the phone makers have an incentive to develop new technology and push better hardware, then it helps bring the networks into a position to improve their infrastructure. Look at visual voicemail. We've been waiting years for just that feature. A real web browser on a phone and connectivity everywhere there's service. It's fair to say that both of those are fairly monumental accomplishments in the US cellular market.
You've veered completely off the path and now are basically just a spewing advertisement for the things people can write for an open development platform. You really DO have an issue focusing your thoughts on a single topic and relating back to it, don't you? Are most smartphone users Blackberry users? No. Do most smartphone users use Office Mobile for anything other than viewing (with limited success at that because of its arbitrary reformatting)? No. Does relative price have anything to do with anything? No. Does push email change your world over a 1 minute polling interval? No. Does source code or Java development have anything to do with phone classification? No.
I get email and appointment information from my Exchange server with no trouble right in my mailbox. I can browse all the contacts I need to carry (or use the web directory for the extended Global lists). More importantly, though, tell me how I'm supposed to do the things you mention using the Outlook client on Windows Mobile.
I have yet to understand the fuss over push email or the crappy versions of Office apps included on Windows phones. The editing features are a complete joke, with format-destroying Word Mobile, spreadsheet-truncating Excel Mobile, and notepad-esque editing features of Powerpoint Mobile. The thought of saving 30 seconds in the receipt of an email is likewise absurd--nothing so time critical should be bounced around corporate email servers with the hope that it is delivered within a minute or two.
You continue to impose arbitrary criteria without stopping to consider what makes a smartphone a smart phone. It's integration and performance, and dismissing the iPhone as a glitzy UI shows the basic failure to comprehend. Most of what makes a smartphone lies in the UI and how it connects the user to his data.
Evolutionary components like QWERTY keyboards, mail and web clients, cross-application integration (searching Google for local places and seamlessly handing off to the Maps application for directions, including a direct and prominent link to dial, to save to favorites/contacts, or visit the location's web page would be one example. Automatic detection of numbers and associations (visit Facebook or your online contacts manager and immediately link numbers to the dialer app). Email that automatically links meeting information to your calendar and syncs back to your desktop is another. A smartphone goes beyond content delivery to content integration. I use my iPhone with my Exchange server seamlessly without any third-party applications, and I have no idea what you're talking about re: contacts/calendar syncing--it works just like the T-Mobile MDA it replaced.
They don't face competition from a "free community" because a "free community" couldn't get a cellular network running.
It's not like Wifi because Wifi isn't a complete infrastructure. At some point someone is paying an ISP who has developed and paid for a multi-billion dollar infrastructure. It's not like you're recreating a whole new Internet when you plug in a router. That's like saying you installed a new electrical outlet in your corner bedroom and now you're ready to tackle being a power company.
Let's say I get some people together and we pony up for the license. Then what? Who is going to build, maintain, and operate a network of towers? (In the alternative, who will pay for the right to piggyback and leech?) Who is going to regulate network traffic to preserve availability? Who is going to subscribe to service that costs more than a land line to pass off calls outside the three cells the "free community" can afford to launch? Who is going to serve as agent for service of process; who is going to be held liable for damages? What insurance company is going to underwrite a "free community"? Who is going to ensure that member of the "free community" all play by the same rules to ensure continuity of service?
It's not just a service issue. It's an infrastructure issue, too. Let's be honest: it takes big iron and bigger money to pull something like this off. At the end of the day, there are some thing that just can't be done without corporations or a massive public enterprise (i.e. government). It certainly can't be pulled off more cheaply than the crappy big providers.
And in America, the dollar is king. People will put up with shitty service rather than pay $5 more to do it right. They'll bitch about it, but ignore the better options.
The key problem with your assessment is that you're describing an "openphone" and not a "smartphone."
A "smart" phone deals with data integration and extended functionality. It simply offers a greater level of service than a simple phone with voice and text functions. There is no requirement that it be open to third party development, that there be an extensible SDK, or anything of the sort. These features are often included, but they are not central to the "smartness" of the device. The relative degree of "openness" is independent of "smartness."