Wal-Mart just re-sells copies that were sold to it. A copyright license simply doesn't apply and isn't even required. Wal-Mart didn't conduct any activity that is protected by copyright, and thus doesn't need to obtain with or comply with a license to conduct that activity.
Meanwhile Apple actually makes and distributes copies of the zip file. This is an activity that is covered by copyright. They are prohibited from doing this without a licnese. So they need a license... which they have...the GPL. But they must abide by its terms.
I set it up exactly as she like to surf, which is one tab at the Yahoo home page, one tab for her email, and one for FB. And that's it.
So while this might work for a/. [...] I can say average folks just don't do that.
Don't speculate, experiment. Next time your GF leaves her computer for an extended length of time, rearrange the tabs so facebook is on the left instead of the right, and logout of facebook.
See if she freaks out and panics or simply logs back into facebook when she gets back.
Either way, a single data point is pretty meaningless, but I give better than 50/50 odds that when she gets back she'll log into facebook without batting an eye at it, and if she does your entire hypothesis is blown.
Plagiarism is not illegal in and of itself, except for where it's fraudulent
Plagiarism is always fraudulent. Its taking credit for work you did not do.
If we have rules for intellectual property, we should have them for intellectual fraud too.
Even in the "real world", where it should be (and is) perfectly fine to use someone elses work to solve a problem its still wrong to take credit for it.
Avoiding plagiarism doesn't mean you can't copy. It just means you can't take credit when you do.
Avoiding plagiarism is as simple as crediting the source.
Except that's where things are headed, and there are an ever increasing number of titles where you -don't- have a choice.
It depends on the price, doesn't it?... If I can buy a CD for 40, or rent it on Steam for 30...
I'd agree if:
a) when i buy a CD in the store for 40 it doesn't sometimes end up being a rental anyway.
b) Most consumers don't read the 'haha your really not buying a license to a copy. instead your buying a non-transferable subscription to use a license to a copy, gotcha!' fine print. Of those who do, the subtle differences of which most don't even understand -- until they decide the game they bought isn't their thing find they can't return it, can't sell it for a few bucks towards another game, can't even give it away as a gift, can't lend it a friend,...
Most people think they bought a game for 30, and saved 10 bucks. They don't actually even know. That makes the whole transaction dishonest.
Steam exploits people not understanding what they are selling. Now you can blather on about caveat emptor and personal responsbility and I even agree with all of that too, but consumer protection laws exist so people don't have to have a lawyer on retainer just to go to the mall.
People understand buying. There are established norms for how it works and what rights each party has. People understand renting. There are established norms for how it works and what rights each party has.
People don't really understand 'single-payment perpetual subscription' that's being passed of as if it was 'buying'. Inventing a new model, and then dressing it up in the terminology of a well established model ('buy this game!'), and making it feel like the same experience... right down to picking up a box and putting it onto a counter, paying for it in a brick and mortor store, and taking it home. That is quite frankly dishonest.
there are always great deals on steam that you just don't find in B&M stores.
There were always great deals in stores. Sierra classics, 3-packs, entire series-in-a-box deals, etc.
But I'll grant that there are better deals available online, but those deals are the result of online distribution not the drm/rental situation. With a boxed game promo you still had to produce a master CD, box art, and warehouse and distribute the thing, and you had to project enough sales to cover costs. Online a promo its little more than adding a sku to a database with a description and some artwork. So its easy to do a "1 week promo", or make a 3-pack of games that wouldn't be commercially viable on shelves...
But that's not a feature of 'steam' that's 'online distribution'. They could actually SELL those games online just as well for the same prices, instead of dicking you around with this perpetual rental bullshit. Other companies SELL copies online, and have deals just as good as steam. Better actually... because you actually own a licensed copy, rather than having paid the same amount for a subscription.
Unlike a normal game", you paid less, or at least should have.
I've 'bought' exactly 2 and only 2 steam games. I've 'purchased' portal, and lost planet.
Both were 'bought' in brick and mortar stores. (EB Games, and Best Buy). They were in game boxes, on shelves, next to all the other games that really were for sale.
From what I can tell, these both were just as tied into the whole steam account as had I bought them online through steam directly.
If I can't buy a game outside the steam system then arguing I somehow paid less for it to compensate me for my reduced rights is meaningless.
One person can share a steam account as much as one can copy a CD. Multiple people can even play online should it be a non-valve game.
I'm not worried about copying a CD, but i do like being able to move them from PC to PC. After I finished portal, I'd like to *give* it to my brother. But unlike a normal game, that's not possible. Either I give him my whole steam account (which is against the ToS), share it with him (which is against the ToS), or create a separate steam account for each steam game i buy (which makes steam a hassle, is frowned upon by valve, and may even be against the ToS, and then give him that... which is against the ToS)...
Steam kills the right of transfer and resale. They do it by claiming you are entering into a perpetual rental agreement instead of a sale in the fine print. (Despite advertising that you can "buy" games.)
I'd rather just get a CD.
I don't want to live in a world where the rights of property ownership have been subverted by making all purchases perpetual rental agreements with onerous terms and conditions. How long before you go into a store and buy a pair of ice skates with fineprint that you are entering into a rental agreement, and that you aren't allowed to lend anyone the skates, or give them away, or cover the sponsored logos, and that they've been implanted with sensors and rfid tracking technology to enable them to enforce these rules... and you aren't allowed to tamper with it... not because of a DMCA... but simply because its just a rental after all. You don't even really own them.
Well, for one thing, because between iphones, blackberries, androids, and windows mobiles, pretty much everyone and their dog can trivially bypass any corporate controls.
What's the solution? Prevent employees from bringing their cellphone to work? Except in isolated scenarios that just isn't going to be enforceable, or even practical.
There are hundreds of global warming scientists who would disagree with you on the likelihood of global collapse. When we displace 3 billion people, we may well see the end of our current civilization.
Even then, it will be replaced by a new civilization by the survivors. Once the short-term chaos is sorted, gold will almost inevitably be negotiable as currency, where fiat money will not be worth the paper it was printed on.
If there aren't any survivors, then it REALLY doesn't matter.
True for the apocalypse, but the reality is the entire world is unlikely to undergo total collapse. Gold might not be terribly negotiable at ground zero of a national disaster, but it will still be worth something in the rest of the world.
If anything makes "piracy" wrong it's the disdainful attitude pirates have for the law.
If anything makes intellectual property rights holders wrong, its the disdainful attitude they have for people who would be customers. And come to think of it they don't have a good attitude towards the law either, seeing as they keep rewriting them and foisting newer more egregious ones on us at every opportunity.
Indeed if there is ONE saving grace to the american two party system its that the split is almost 50/50. A small shift in either direction would be complete tyranny. Can you imagine if either the gop or dems could reliably count on 60% of the vote.:(
Analog copies after 1 or 2 copies of copies you can tell the difference.
Of course, one would digitize the first copy from analog sans drm, and be able to reproduce it millions of times from there without further degradation.
I could buy a car I can fix or I could buy a MUCH better car I have no hope of fixing given my skill set.
Just because YOU can't figure out how to fix the much better car doesn't mean all of us can't. And I hate to burst your bubble, but an iphone is not some magical future phone that only apple engineers could hope to figure out.
That's the choice we all have.
Its a false choice. Some of us can fix either car.
The iPhone is a choice like anything else. You don't like it, don't buy it.
Another false choice. If I don't like it I have more options available than 'don't buy it'. I can also stand on a soapbox and tell other people that its bad model so they don't buy it. I can also apply pressure to a government that represents my interests to weigh in on my behalf.
Personally, I like things like emissions standards, and the fact that its illegal for my bank to require me to have their life insurance to get a mortgage from them (tying), and that lead isn't allowed in childrens toys...
I really doubt 'don't like it don't buy it' all by itself would have accomplished any of this stuff.
Maybe you believe the market will really address everything, and that 'don't like it, don't buy it' would lead to a better world. I wish there was someplace you could go live like that. But I have little interest in being there with you.
But nobody disputes that I have the right to invalidate my warranty. Apple actually disputes that I even have the right to make modifications. They aren't saying "You may do it, but it may void your warranty", they are saying "You may not do it."
They sell a style or rather a UI. It's like going to Casa Bonita; you go there for the scenery not the food.
No its different because I don't own Casa Bonita. I do own my phone.
I'll put it in Star Trek terms: If you built your house to look like the bridge of Voyager, you'd be pissed if your [insert related person here] up and installed an ugly looking "crystal" SG-Atlantis control panel.
But if I sold my house to [insert related person here] then its THEIR house. They can do what they want to it, no matter how much I find it an affront to my personal sense of aesthetics.
It's illegal to make emissions modifications in some states, without approved parts...
Not quite. As far as I know its illegal to license those vehicles for street use. You are free to make the changes. Its a fine point to be sure, but the more important and relevant aspect is that you are free to do whatever you want within the confines of state legislation vs having a 'thou shalt not do anything not approved by the ford motor company' contract.
Further, cell phones, even the most open ones you can buy have equivalent restraints. After all you cannot legally use one after they are modified to operate on unsanctioned frequencies, or at different transmission level, etc.
And some subset of users of Apple iProducts 'jailbreak" them. Sounds like they have freedom, too.
Jailbreaking your phone is like buying a car with a locked hood, and a contract not to open it. The fact that you can still take a crowbar to it when you get home and likely not get sued for it is not: 'sounds like they have freedom'.
Freedom is having the right or privilege to do something. Being able to get away with doing something is not freedom, and relying on being able to get away with something as a substitute for a right/privilege will eventually fail you.
Re:Article needs a course in experimental design
on
The Data-Driven Life
·
· Score: 1
Frankly, I'm not even sure what you are arguing here. It seems like you are arguing he should draw no conclusion from his efforts, due to its lack of rigor, and unexplored limitations...
But people MUST make countless decisions each day based on far less than that. So having even this little serves as very convincing evidence in a world that usually gives you far less. It is entirely rational for him to lay off the coffee based on his experiment.
Really, I think all apple has to do is ship iphones with 'use app store only' turned on in options, and it can set up its walled garden app store, advertise the hell out of it, and make it the standard. Do all that and most 'ignorant' people will stay in the garden.
Top that up with making it easy to reset the device back to a supported state. Then if people get out and things go sour its a quick fix.
Personally, I don't want root access to my phone. I'm happy to give up full freedom on my phone in exchange for it NEVER failing to do what I need it to do.
That's a false choice.
This is ripe for a car analogy actually. You can pop the hood, swap in OEM parts, and tinker to your hearts content, and accept the consequences. Or you can leave it alone, and have it serviced exclusively by factory trained technicians in factory authorized dealers.
The point is, most people leave their engines unmodified (and receive the security of the factory stock maintained engine), but EVERYONE has the freedom to pop the hood.
Why exactly do you think you need to give up that freedom?
Slashdot Mirror
So.... how's Walmart not an acceptable analogy?
Wal-Mart just re-sells copies that were sold to it. A copyright license simply doesn't apply and isn't even required. Wal-Mart didn't conduct any activity that is protected by copyright, and thus doesn't need to obtain with or comply with a license to conduct that activity.
Meanwhile Apple actually makes and distributes copies of the zip file. This is an activity that is covered by copyright. They are prohibited from doing this without a licnese. So they need a license... which they have...the GPL. But they must abide by its terms.
I set it up exactly as she like to surf, which is one tab at the Yahoo home page, one tab for her email, and one for FB. And that's it.
So while this might work for a /. [...] I can say average folks just don't do that.
Don't speculate, experiment. Next time your GF leaves her computer for an extended length of time, rearrange the tabs so facebook is on the left instead of the right, and logout of facebook.
See if she freaks out and panics or simply logs back into facebook when she gets back.
Either way, a single data point is pretty meaningless, but I give better than 50/50 odds that when she gets back she'll log into facebook without batting an eye at it, and if she does your entire hypothesis is blown.
On the plus side, not being able to smell can also be a killer feature: 15 minutes saved per day, not having to shower.
Only if you don't interact with people who still do have a sense of smell.
Plagiarism is not illegal in and of itself, except for where it's fraudulent
Plagiarism is always fraudulent. Its taking credit for work you did not do.
If we have rules for intellectual property, we should have them for intellectual fraud too.
Even in the "real world", where it should be (and is) perfectly fine to use someone elses work to solve a problem its still wrong to take credit for it.
Avoiding plagiarism doesn't mean you can't copy. It just means you can't take credit when you do.
Avoiding plagiarism is as simple as crediting the source.
It's only a problem when you don't have a choice.
Except that's where things are headed, and there are an ever increasing number of titles where you -don't- have a choice.
It depends on the price, doesn't it? ... If I can buy a CD for 40, or rent it on Steam for 30...
I'd agree if:
a) when i buy a CD in the store for 40 it doesn't sometimes end up being a rental anyway.
b) Most consumers don't read the 'haha your really not buying a license to a copy. instead your buying a non-transferable subscription to use a license to a copy, gotcha!' fine print. Of those who do, the subtle differences of which most don't even understand -- until they decide the game they bought isn't their thing find they can't return it, can't sell it for a few bucks towards another game, can't even give it away as a gift, can't lend it a friend,...
Most people think they bought a game for 30, and saved 10 bucks. They don't actually even know. That makes the whole transaction dishonest.
Steam exploits people not understanding what they are selling. Now you can blather on about caveat emptor and personal responsbility and I even agree with all of that too, but consumer protection laws exist so people don't have to have a lawyer on retainer just to go to the mall.
People understand buying. There are established norms for how it works and what rights each party has.
People understand renting. There are established norms for how it works and what rights each party has.
People don't really understand 'single-payment perpetual subscription' that's being passed of as if it was 'buying'. Inventing a new model, and then dressing it up in the terminology of a well established model ('buy this game!'), and making it feel like the same experience... right down to picking up a box and putting it onto a counter, paying for it in a brick and mortor store, and taking it home. That is quite frankly dishonest.
there are always great deals on steam that you just don't find in B&M stores.
There were always great deals in stores. Sierra classics, 3-packs, entire series-in-a-box deals, etc.
But I'll grant that there are better deals available online, but those deals are the result of online distribution not the drm/rental situation. With a boxed game promo you still had to produce a master CD, box art, and warehouse and distribute the thing, and you had to project enough sales to cover costs. Online a promo its little more than adding a sku to a database with a description and some artwork. So its easy to do a "1 week promo", or make a 3-pack of games that wouldn't be commercially viable on shelves...
But that's not a feature of 'steam' that's 'online distribution'. They could actually SELL those games online just as well for the same prices, instead of dicking you around with this perpetual rental bullshit. Other companies SELL copies online, and have deals just as good as steam. Better actually... because you actually own a licensed copy, rather than having paid the same amount for a subscription.
Unlike a normal game", you paid less, or at least should have.
I've 'bought' exactly 2 and only 2 steam games. I've 'purchased' portal, and lost planet.
Both were 'bought' in brick and mortar stores. (EB Games, and Best Buy). They were in game boxes, on shelves, next to all the other games that really were for sale.
From what I can tell, these both were just as tied into the whole steam account as had I bought them online through steam directly.
If I can't buy a game outside the steam system then arguing I somehow paid less for it to compensate me for my reduced rights is meaningless.
One person can share a steam account as much as one can copy a CD. Multiple people can even play online should it be a non-valve game.
I'm not worried about copying a CD, but i do like being able to move them from PC to PC. After I finished portal, I'd like to *give* it to my brother. But unlike a normal game, that's not possible. Either I give him my whole steam account (which is against the ToS), share it with him (which is against the ToS), or create a separate steam account for each steam game i buy (which makes steam a hassle, is frowned upon by valve, and may even be against the ToS, and then give him that... which is against the ToS)...
Steam kills the right of transfer and resale. They do it by claiming you are entering into a perpetual rental agreement instead of a sale in the fine print. (Despite advertising that you can "buy" games.)
I'd rather just get a CD.
I don't want to live in a world where the rights of property ownership have been subverted by making all purchases perpetual rental agreements with onerous terms and conditions. How long before you go into a store and buy a pair of ice skates with fineprint that you are entering into a rental agreement, and that you aren't allowed to lend anyone the skates, or give them away, or cover the sponsored logos, and that they've been implanted with sensors and rfid tracking technology to enable them to enforce these rules... and you aren't allowed to tamper with it... not because of a DMCA... but simply because its just a rental after all. You don't even really own them.
Why not block them entirely?
Well, for one thing, because between iphones, blackberries, androids, and windows mobiles, pretty much everyone and their dog can trivially bypass any corporate controls.
What's the solution? Prevent employees from bringing their cellphone to work? Except in isolated scenarios that just isn't going to be enforceable, or even practical.
There are hundreds of global warming scientists who would disagree with you on the likelihood of global collapse. When we displace 3 billion people, we may well see the end of our current civilization.
Even then, it will be replaced by a new civilization by the survivors. Once the short-term chaos is sorted, gold will almost inevitably be negotiable as currency, where fiat money will not be worth the paper it was printed on.
If there aren't any survivors, then it REALLY doesn't matter.
True for the apocalypse, but the reality is the entire world is unlikely to undergo total collapse. Gold might not be terribly negotiable at ground zero of a national disaster, but it will still be worth something in the rest of the world.
If anything makes "piracy" wrong it's the disdainful attitude pirates have for the law.
If anything makes intellectual property rights holders wrong, its the disdainful attitude they have for people who would be customers. And come to think of it they don't have a good attitude towards the law either, seeing as they keep rewriting them and foisting newer more egregious ones on us at every opportunity.
Ironically, "http://www.bankofamercia.com" is probably close enough to fool some people too, and doesn't require any fancy javascript. ;)
Why Canada would even consider such a terrible piece of legislation is beyond me.
Its probably something stupid like a bargaining chip in the softwood lumber tarrif disputes or some such nonsense.
Indeed if there is ONE saving grace to the american two party system its that the split is almost 50/50. A small shift in either direction would be complete tyranny. Can you imagine if either the gop or dems could reliably count on 60% of the vote. :(
Analog copies after 1 or 2 copies of copies you can tell the difference.
Of course, one would digitize the first copy from analog sans drm, and be able to reproduce it millions of times from there without further degradation.
All Apple needs to do to avoid this is publish performance and stability guidelines that can only be met by Objective-C or C++ code...
So what happens if Adobe CS5 which can take a flash app and emit objective-C for it meets those performance and stability guidelines?
The primary reason Apple has this rule is to prevent flash apps from being so easily ported to its platform.
I could buy a car I can fix or I could buy a MUCH better car I have no hope of fixing given my skill set.
Just because YOU can't figure out how to fix the much better car doesn't mean all of us can't. And I hate to burst your bubble, but an iphone is not some magical future phone that only apple engineers could hope to figure out.
That's the choice we all have.
Its a false choice. Some of us can fix either car.
The iPhone is a choice like anything else. You don't like it, don't buy it.
Another false choice. If I don't like it I have more options available than 'don't buy it'. I can also stand on a soapbox and tell other people that its bad model so they don't buy it. I can also apply pressure to a government that represents my interests to weigh in on my behalf.
Personally, I like things like emissions standards, and the fact that its illegal for my bank to require me to have their life insurance to get a mortgage from them (tying), and that lead isn't allowed in childrens toys...
I really doubt 'don't like it don't buy it' all by itself would have accomplished any of this stuff.
Maybe you believe the market will really address everything, and that 'don't like it, don't buy it' would lead to a better world. I wish there was someplace you could go live like that. But I have little interest in being there with you.
In many cases your Warranty is exactly that..
But nobody disputes that I have the right to invalidate my warranty. Apple actually disputes that I even have the right to make modifications. They aren't saying "You may do it, but it may void your warranty", they are saying "You may not do it."
That is a big difference.
They sell a style or rather a UI. It's like going to Casa Bonita; you go there for the scenery not the food.
No its different because I don't own Casa Bonita. I do own my phone.
I'll put it in Star Trek terms: If you built your house to look like the bridge of Voyager, you'd be pissed if your [insert related person here] up and installed an ugly looking "crystal" SG-Atlantis control panel.
But if I sold my house to [insert related person here] then its THEIR house. They can do what they want to it, no matter how much I find it an affront to my personal sense of aesthetics.
It's illegal to make emissions modifications in some states, without approved parts...
Not quite. As far as I know its illegal to license those vehicles for street use. You are free to make the changes. Its a fine point to be sure, but the more important and relevant aspect is that you are free to do whatever you want within the confines of state legislation vs having a 'thou shalt not do anything not approved by the ford motor company' contract.
Further, cell phones, even the most open ones you can buy have equivalent restraints. After all you cannot legally use one after they are modified to operate on unsanctioned frequencies, or at different transmission level, etc.
And some subset of users of Apple iProducts 'jailbreak" them. Sounds like they have freedom, too.
Jailbreaking your phone is like buying a car with a locked hood, and a contract not to open it. The fact that you can still take a crowbar to it when you get home and likely not get sued for it is not: 'sounds like they have freedom'.
Freedom is having the right or privilege to do something. Being able to get away with doing something is not freedom, and relying on being able to get away with something as a substitute for a right/privilege will eventually fail you.
Frankly, I'm not even sure what you are arguing here. It seems like you are arguing he should draw no conclusion from his efforts, due to its lack of rigor, and unexplored limitations...
But people MUST make countless decisions each day based on far less than that. So having even this little serves as very convincing evidence in a world that usually gives you far less. It is entirely rational for him to lay off the coffee based on his experiment.
Really, I think all apple has to do is ship iphones with 'use app store only' turned on in options, and it can set up its walled garden app store, advertise the hell out of it, and make it the standard. Do all that and most 'ignorant' people will stay in the garden.
Top that up with making it easy to reset the device back to a supported state. Then if people get out and things go sour its a quick fix.
Personally, I don't want root access to my phone. I'm happy to give up full freedom on my phone in exchange for it NEVER failing to do what I need it to do.
That's a false choice.
This is ripe for a car analogy actually. You can pop the hood, swap in OEM parts, and tinker to your hearts content, and accept the consequences. Or you can leave it alone, and have it serviced exclusively by factory trained technicians in factory authorized dealers.
The point is, most people leave their engines unmodified (and receive the security of the factory stock maintained engine), but EVERYONE has the freedom to pop the hood.
Why exactly do you think you need to give up that freedom?