I have traveled throughout Muslim countries, and while local people have been extremely generous and hospitable to me as an individual, I've constantly heard them complain that Europe has not embraced Islam, that Europe has a culture they find odious, and that the West must be attacked both with force and subterfuge until it is brought to its knees.
Do listen to what people in 'Europe and the West' say about Muslims and Islam? I constantly hear people say that their culture is backwards and ignorant, and that the only thing that will solve the problems in the middle east is for them to embrace Christiantity and our way of life... well... that or a 'nuke from orbit'.
How is that any different from what they say about us?
Or is the only difference that they have 'zealot terrorist organizations seeking to cause us harm'? I suppose that's a difference... we only have state sanctioned organizations seeking to alternately exploit them for resources and that only cause them harm if they don't fall in line.
Even if the US tried hard to atone for its past, it wouldn't change much when so many hate the West just because of its cultural values.
It would change everything.
Bush might have been a dumbass, but comments along the lines of "They hate us because we are free" speak much truth.
Bush might have been a dumbass, but comments along the lines of "They hate us because we are free" speak much truth.
That's just idiocy. They don't "hate us because we are free". They disagree with us on religious issues. They hate us because we exploit them and interfere with them, and they (perhaps rightly) see our relative wealth as a direct result of that exploitation and interference.
And extremists use the religious differences to fan that hatred into self-damaging levels of action.
But if we didn't interfere and exploit them, sure, the religious disagreement wouldn't go away, but it would settle down to the same level of agreeability that all relgious factions reach when you have mutual respect.
You can install Ubuntu and then KDE without any issuse (and without needing Kubuntu). You can't install Vista home and use the networking features given by Pro, or at least not without some nasty registry hacks.
Or you can buy ultimate and use all the features from all the other versions.
Besides this debate is about the confusion of having 6+ versions, not about cost. At least MS Windows 7 has 6 tiers, where each tier up adds features instead of 'switching them around' which is what ubuntu does... and that's probably MORE confusing than windows 7.
And you can switch between any of them by installing the appropriate meta-package through the repository system. No extra charge, even.
And with Vista you can start at the bottom, and upgrade as you need without reinstalling, just pay, and hit windows update. Or start at the top, and then you don't need to switch because you start with everything from all of them.
Granted its not 'free', but this isn't a debate about OSS vs Proprietary, this is about 'hey lots of versions is confusing'.
With vista, if you want to keep your financial information on your home computer, you need to buy Ultimate, because that, inexplicably, is the only version which offers whole-disk encryption.
Frankly, this is almost a good thing. Most users don't bother to create or keep their password recovery disk, so when windows crashes and they need their financial information... they're fucked. The fewer joe-sixpacks with full disk encryption, the better. They are FAR more likely to fuck themselves over with full disk encryption than prevent a data breach.
(I will however grant that whole disk encryption in Ubuntu is not something that a regular user is going to be able to set up. It's possible, but it's not very polished yet.)
See above. Regular Windows users can set it up, but they can't be trusted to keep their keys, which means it does more harm than good more often than not.
To be fair, they're all free, and you can start with any one of those versions and move to any other without formatting and starting over.
1) Its probably faster to format and start over in most cases though.
2) The fact that they are all free doesn't make it less confusing to determine which you need. If anything, I actually find ubuntu MORE confusing.
At least with windows I know I need Business/Professional or better. With Ubuntu, I can't tell whether I should get Server and then add a zillion desktop packages, or get a desktop and then add a zillion server packages...
It'd be one thing if all the Windows versions cost the same, and you could switch between them freely.
1) You can start with the cheapest and upgrade as you need. (Without reinstalling.)
2) Or you can start with the top version and get everything from all lesser versions so there would never be any reason to ever switch.
Most consumers get confused with the difference between how much ram a computer has and how much disk space it has. Adding 7 different versions of Windows just makes an already complicated purchase more complicated.
No, no it doesn't.
Consumers won't be overly confused by the situation, because most of them will be offered one choice, and in some cases two choices... home premium or professional. which is what they are offered now.
Most consumers buy from OEMs. OEMs will give them practically no choice. If they buy the cheapest thing under the sun they'll get home basic. If they buy a half decent home pc they'll get home premium. If they buy a higher end 'workstation' pc they'll get professional.
Starter won't likely be around in the first world. Enterprise is only for VLAs, so consumers aren't EVER going to see it. Ultimate is just retail enterprise so its not even really a separate edition, and its slated for 'limited release' which means it might be hard to find outside of MSDN subscriptions or something.
So in an argument about whether Windows editions is more confusing than Ubuntu editions, your primary argument is about cost? Your missing the point.
What's your point?
That selecting a 'Ubuntu' is just as "confusing" as selecting a 'Windows'.
Canonical chooses those "flavors" of Ubuntu for marketing reasons
Same as windows.
It's very easy to switch between the Ubuntu versions and cost-free.
Windows isn't free? Everyone already knows that. That's not the debate here.
Besides if you buy Ultimate you can configure it the same as any of the lesser versions easily and without any cost too.
Now if you don't need ALL the enterprisey features of ultimate, you can cut your cost a chunk by selecting Home Premium or Professional. And if you change your mind and want to upgrade you can.
What version of Ubuntu limits you to 1 gig of ram or only three apps?
Good luck finding a PC in the 1st world with starter installed on it.
So your argument fails because you just don't have a clue about Ubuntu.
The point people are complaining about was that having too many versions of Windows needlessly confuses consumers. It really doesn't matter if they are free, or can be 'easily reconfigured' from one to the next.
Difference here being that any of those can be made into one another for free if so wanted
Same with Windows, except not for Free. And Windows isn't free/open source, so not free is to be expected.
Why else would they charge more for the Prof. and Ultimate versions if not to squeeze the lemon?
I doubt anyone in the first world will see a copy of starter unless they torrent one for themselves. Home Basic - I doubt we'll see that much in the first world either, except perhaps on ultra low spec machines that can't run anything better. (i.e. its the 'crappy hardware edition')
Home Premium pretty much has everything a regular user will need, and isn't really 'crippled'.
Professional adds domain networking and remote desktop. Extra features = extra money.
Enterprise adds bitlocker, and the ability to boot from a virtual hard drive, its also only available via Volume Licensing.
Ultimate is just the retail version of enterprise. It barely qualifies as its own 'edition', and Microsoft has stated it will be a pretty limited release.
So... the average consumer will choose between Home Premium and Professional. Corporate customers buying VLA will get Enterprise.
Its not really as big a deal as people make out. Their are more editions of the 2009 Honda Civic than their are of windows, and nobody throws a fit about that.
Not the OP, but my advice is that you should get into a profession where you can be in that top 10%, or re-educate yourself in your current profession until you are top 10%.
You realize of course that it is mathematically impossible for more than 10% of the people in a given profession to be in the top 10% of their profession. And further, that if everyone tried to follow this advice it is a mathematical certainty that 90% of them would fail.
It feels like you are invoking the fallacy that most of us think we are above average. Most people aren't significantly above average.
Layoffs tend to be a way to get rid of a lot of the sub-average to average performers.
You are telling this to the people who just got laid off!! So if they were laid off and looking for work, you are essentially telling them that they are probably on the lower side of average. And yet "if they are well above average they will have no trouble finding work". This doesn't bode well.
Plus you can typically hire one of them to do the work of 3 or 4 of the people you just fired.
So these people are both head and shoulders above average, and are willing to do the work of a small team to boot? Oh and they'll accept the same wages of the semi-morons he replaced too?
Yes these mythological creatures will always have jobs.
Technically, yes, you are right, Microsoft lays of 5000 people, and the top few percent will land new jobs right away.
Do you have any advice for the other 80-90%? Those are the ones that need it. The top 5-10% probably won't be unemployed long enough to have to start dipping into their savings anyway.
The thing that bothers me about this argument is that there is no law against me, in the USA, ordering music from a store in Brazil over the mail, and them delivering the product over the mail. I don't know Brazilian law, but I would guess they don't have any laws like that either.
See my other response in this thread. Your right, its not usually illegal. Its called 'grey market'. And there is nothing -legally- stopping anyone.
The reason a store in Brazil might not ship you the CD isn't legal, its contractual. If they are a small store and interested in taking your money, they will. If they are a large store, they probably have signed agreements with their suppliers in exchange for preferential pricing that would restrict them from doing so... so if they sent you the CD, and got caught, they risk losing their preferential pricing. So its not just not worth it for them to make a few extra bucks on the side.
Small businesses are unlikely to have real relationships with the music publishers, and unlikely to have preferential pricing deals that are at risk, and are unlikely to attract much notice, so they can get away with it.
Suppose Apple decided to export songs in contradiction with the publishers wishers: 1) they do have contractual relationships with all those publishers 2) need those contracts to do business at all 3) iTunes is high profile
If apple engaged in the grey market Apple would quickly find itself without any songs to distribute at all.
This is easy enough to work around. If Warner owns the copyright to song X in the US, and Sony owns it in Brazil, make the copy here in the US. Then export that copy to Brazil. Exporting the copy over the internet as opposed to the mail shouldn't matter.
That is called 'grey market product', and while not actually illegal is really only viable for small companies/entrepreneurs who are effectively immune from retaliation. If apple were to try 'exporting' Warner tracks to Brazil where Sony has the rights, then Sony will simply retaliate against Apple by denying Apple the license to ANY of its music anywhere which would hurt Apple far more than what they gain by exporting warner tracks into brazil, where sony is the authorized distributor.
If song X is out of copyright in Europe, but under copyright in the US, there's nothing stopping me from paying you to legally make a copy and ship it to me. Same thing here.
Right. It works on the individual scale, even the small business scale. But large multinationals can't get away with it because they typically have relationships with all of the parties, and the benefit they get from legally stepping on someones toes results in legal retaliation that makes it not worth it.
The set of where the company offices are, and where the physical services are. Google has offices in Italy, therefor it does business in italy, and is subject to Italian law.
Web sites are available there, so even your local pizzeria with a brochureware Web page is potentially subject to Italian prosecution just like Google.
No, because my local pizzeria has has no physical presence in Italy whatsoever.
The Internet is without borders, but the law isn't. That's the real challenge here...
Its not really a challenge. If I'm not physically in your country, then I am not within your borders, and you have no jurisdiction.
And if someone in your country accesses my server, and requests files or data that is illegal in your country from my server, then you can arrest them. Or you can institute a great-firewall to keep people in your country from accessing my server if you like.
Its only a "challenge" because some jurisdictions want to be able to prosecute anyone on the internet whether they have a physical presence in their country or not, but that is categorically stupid, for what I think are obvious reasons.
As the poster of the original article, I'll point out that assuming that "plain text" is "the most protected form of speech going" is a very US-only attitude.
Agreed, and understood.
As I said, the minefield google stumbled into is combining being a content provider with running their business in multiple countries. Legally its just not going to work.
This case and others like it underscore the point -- if you want to do something 'risky' on the internet, like crowdsource your content, you should only do business in countries where you are protected.
Even if they win -this- case, they'll just be nailed in China or somewhere else down the road. Being a multinational and crowd sourcing content to publish just don't combine well.
I'm very happy with my eee901. I've debianised it and it's replaced my "big" 13 inch vaio for casual use. I still use the vaio for anythin cpu intensive, or if I want a bigger screen. Or for typing anything other than the odd email/slashdot post.
So its 'replaced' your Vaio for casual use... yet you use the vaio for anything cpu intensive, when you want a bigger screen, or if your typing something longer than a/. post. Serious question: what does that leave?
I've been eyeing netbooks, myself, but am having trouble assessing whether I'd actually use it... I suspect I'd practically -always- want the bigger screen, more comfortable keyboard, etc.
I currently have an ipod touch, and really, I almost NEVER use its web capabilities; the laptop is only a few feet away, and as good as the ipod touch browser is, (and it IS good), I find I prefer the laptop. I only use the touch if I want to look something up when I'm out, because its in my pocket, and laptop is at home. If I had a netbook... it wouldn't fit in my pocket, and thus would never be more than a 20 feet closer to me than my laptop...and if I'm going somewhere where I need an ultra portable -- either I can bring the laptop... or the ipod touch...
I'm not criticicing your choice. I'm just trying to get the niche where the netbook comes into its own... without buying one to see where/if I'd actually use it.:)
If there were no software patents, it would be much harder to maintain the telecoms cartels, the high prices, and the jobs and profits they generate. So for many people, software patents are very, very useful.
The telecom cartels primarily exist because of the massive infrastructure requirements to be a 'real' telecom. Its very little to do with software patents.
He wants to be a customer. He wants to give them money. But they (iTunes, or whichever content providers require this rule) want to restrict things regionally.
In some cases yes, in many cases its not that they WANT to restrict things, its that they HAVE to.
If Warner owns song X in the US, and Sony owns it Brazil, then no matter how much Warner wants to sell you the song in Brazil they CAN'T. And if Sony owns it but doesn't want to sell it, or wants to sell it but charge more than Warner, that's life. Warner can't do squat about it except say, hey, come to the US and buy a copy while you are actually here.
In the case I describe Warner isn't trying to restrict things regionally, but don't own the rights to distribute the song in Brazil, and someone else does, so they just can't.
Anyone who discovers that the product they are using and need to bug fix or update is 99% BSD code, and yet they have zero freedom, because BSD didn't extend freedom downstream, so while the original authors said the code was free, and some developers along the way got some of that goodness, by the time the end users got it the freedom was gone.
Look, I get it, this is the point of the BSD, and nobody did anything 'wrong' in the above scenario. But that's what the criticism with the BSD is: while it starts out free, it doesn't necessarily stay free, and that's its drawback.
With BSD often the best version of a product isn't BSD. Or it can happen that the original BSD code has been abandoned and has become obsolete, while its surviving offspring are awesome... but no longer free. That is the drawback with BSD.
GPL conversely does preserve that freedom, so the best derivative is as free as the original. That's not to say the GPL doesn't have drawbacks to it, it can't be mixed with code from incompatible licenses - of which there are several.
It also dictates that the derivate work must continue to be under the GPL. That's not really a drawback though, just a limitation. Its a drawback in the sense that it limits the author of the derivative work, but at the same time is its strength because it ensures the user of that derivative work has freedom, so that limitation is precisely its reason for being.
Between the two I prefer GPL, because I buy into the idea of preserving freedom downstream, but neither license is perfect.
What a wonderful idea: Google, Internet Censor for the World.
You mean "Google, Internet censor for its own website."
What is so difficult to understand about User Generated Content?
I'm not having difficulty understanding it. I'm having trouble caring about legally protecting the crowdsourcing business model.
Perhaps blogspot could pre-screen entries before they publish them, in case anyone wrote anything subversive? How about flikr, myspace, facebook? Perhaps Slashdot should filter crap too?
myspace, facebook? The world would probably be better if they didn't exist. blogspot, flikr? Same thing, provide photo and bloghosting as a service and let the customers control it themselves instead of, having them submit content to a master branded site that they control.
Perhaps Slashdot should filter crap too?
Perhaps, but slashdot comments are simple plain text, which are about the most protected form of speech going, to the point that its hard to really fall afoul of the law. The only thing slashdot might need to do is ensure its based out of countries and operates its business in countries where its protected.
Google fell afoul of italy not simply for its content, but for its content plus the fact that it has operations in italy.
Less free to whom? BSD license has less restrictions, period.
Essentially, the BSD is great if you actually have something with a BSD license. The trouble with the BSD license is that by the time BSD derived software gets to you, there is no guarantee it will be BSD, or anything remotely resembling free.
The matrix quote "what good is a phone call if you cannot speak." comes to mind. Oh sure, the BSD license is great, look at all this freedom the BSD gives you, if you had it... too bad the derivative you are working with isn't BSD anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
I have traveled throughout Muslim countries, and while local people have been extremely generous and hospitable to me as an individual, I've constantly heard them complain that Europe has not embraced Islam, that Europe has a culture they find odious, and that the West must be attacked both with force and subterfuge until it is brought to its knees.
Do listen to what people in 'Europe and the West' say about Muslims and Islam? I constantly hear people say that their culture is backwards and ignorant, and that the only thing that will solve the problems in the middle east is for them to embrace Christiantity and our way of life... well... that or a 'nuke from orbit'.
How is that any different from what they say about us?
Or is the only difference that they have 'zealot terrorist organizations seeking to cause us harm'? I suppose that's a difference... we only have state sanctioned organizations seeking to alternately exploit them for resources and that only cause them harm if they don't fall in line.
Even if the US tried hard to atone for its past, it wouldn't change much when so many hate the West just because of its cultural values.
It would change everything.
Bush might have been a dumbass, but comments along the lines of "They hate us because we are free" speak much truth.
Bush might have been a dumbass, but comments along the lines of "They hate us because we are free" speak much truth.
That's just idiocy. They don't "hate us because we are free". They disagree with us on religious issues. They hate us because we exploit them and interfere with them, and they (perhaps rightly) see our relative wealth as a direct result of that exploitation and interference.
And extremists use the religious differences to fan that hatred into self-damaging levels of action.
But if we didn't interfere and exploit them, sure, the religious disagreement wouldn't go away, but it would settle down to the same level of agreeability that all relgious factions reach when you have mutual respect.
No, Canotical doesn't make all of those. They make two.
visit www.ubuntu.com and look at the "products" menu:
Ubuntu
Ubuntu MID
Ubuntu Server
Ubuntu Netbook Remix
are all listed as "products" on the Ubuntu site.
next visit:
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu
Where you can, and I quote: "Request a free Ubuntu, Edubuntu or Kubuntu CD from Canonical."
Now as an average consumer, tell me that you wouldn't be confused by that.
You can install Ubuntu and then KDE without any issuse (and without needing Kubuntu). You can't install Vista home and use the networking features given by Pro, or at least not without some nasty registry hacks.
Or you can buy ultimate and use all the features from all the other versions.
Besides this debate is about the confusion of having 6+ versions, not about cost. At least MS Windows 7 has 6 tiers, where each tier up adds features instead of 'switching them around' which is what ubuntu does... and that's probably MORE confusing than windows 7.
And you can switch between any of them by installing the appropriate meta-package through the repository system. No extra charge, even.
And with Vista you can start at the bottom, and upgrade as you need without reinstalling, just pay, and hit windows update. Or start at the top, and then you don't need to switch because you start with everything from all of them.
Granted its not 'free', but this isn't a debate about OSS vs Proprietary, this is about 'hey lots of versions is confusing'.
With vista, if you want to keep your financial information on your home computer, you need to buy Ultimate, because that, inexplicably, is the only version which offers whole-disk encryption.
Frankly, this is almost a good thing. Most users don't bother to create or keep their password recovery disk, so when windows crashes and they need their financial information... they're fucked. The fewer joe-sixpacks with full disk encryption, the better. They are FAR more likely to fuck themselves over with full disk encryption than prevent a data breach.
(I will however grant that whole disk encryption in Ubuntu is not something that a regular user is going to be able to set up. It's possible, but it's not very polished yet.)
See above. Regular Windows users can set it up, but they can't be trusted to keep their keys, which means it does more harm than good more often than not.
To be fair, they're all free, and you can start with any one of those versions and move to any other without formatting and starting over.
1) Its probably faster to format and start over in most cases though.
2) The fact that they are all free doesn't make it less confusing to determine which you need. If anything, I actually find ubuntu MORE confusing.
At least with windows I know I need Business/Professional or better. With Ubuntu, I can't tell whether I should get Server and then add a zillion desktop packages, or get a desktop and then add a zillion server packages...
It'd be one thing if all the Windows versions cost the same, and you could switch between them freely.
1) You can start with the cheapest and upgrade as you need. (Without reinstalling.)
2) Or you can start with the top version and get everything from all lesser versions so there would never be any reason to ever switch.
Most consumers get confused with the difference between how much ram a computer has and how much disk space it has. Adding 7 different versions of Windows just makes an already complicated purchase more complicated.
No, no it doesn't.
Consumers won't be overly confused by the situation, because most of them will be offered one choice, and in some cases two choices... home premium or professional. which is what they are offered now.
Most consumers buy from OEMs. OEMs will give them practically no choice. If they buy the cheapest thing under the sun they'll get home basic.
If they buy a half decent home pc they'll get home premium.
If they buy a higher end 'workstation' pc they'll get professional.
Starter won't likely be around in the first world.
Enterprise is only for VLAs, so consumers aren't EVER going to see it.
Ultimate is just retail enterprise so its not even really a separate edition, and its slated for 'limited release' which means it might be hard to find outside of MSDN subscriptions or something.
So in an argument about whether Windows editions is more confusing than Ubuntu editions, your primary argument is about cost? Your missing the point.
What's your point?
That selecting a 'Ubuntu' is just as "confusing" as selecting a 'Windows'.
Canonical chooses those "flavors" of Ubuntu for marketing reasons
Same as windows.
It's very easy to switch between the Ubuntu versions and cost-free.
Windows isn't free? Everyone already knows that. That's not the debate here.
Besides if you buy Ultimate you can configure it the same as any of the lesser versions easily and without any cost too.
Now if you don't need ALL the enterprisey features of ultimate, you can cut your cost a chunk by selecting Home Premium or Professional. And if you change your mind and want to upgrade you can.
What version of Ubuntu limits you to 1 gig of ram or only three apps?
Good luck finding a PC in the 1st world with starter installed on it.
So your argument fails because you just don't have a clue about Ubuntu.
The point people are complaining about was that having too many versions of Windows needlessly confuses consumers. It really doesn't matter if they are free, or can be 'easily reconfigured' from one to the next.
Difference here being that any of those can be made into one another for free if so wanted
Same with Windows, except not for Free. And Windows isn't free/open source, so not free is to be expected.
Why else would they charge more for the Prof. and Ultimate versions if not to squeeze the lemon?
I doubt anyone in the first world will see a copy of starter unless they torrent one for themselves. Home Basic - I doubt we'll see that much in the first world either, except perhaps on ultra low spec machines that can't run anything better. (i.e. its the 'crappy hardware edition')
Home Premium pretty much has everything a regular user will need, and isn't really 'crippled'.
Professional adds domain networking and remote desktop. Extra features = extra money.
Enterprise adds bitlocker, and the ability to boot from a virtual hard drive, its also only available via Volume Licensing.
Ultimate is just the retail version of enterprise. It barely qualifies as its own 'edition', and Microsoft has stated it will be a pretty limited release.
So... the average consumer will choose between Home Premium and Professional. Corporate customers buying VLA will get Enterprise.
Its not really as big a deal as people make out. Their are more editions of the 2009 Honda Civic than their are of windows, and nobody throws a fit about that.
Uh no, the difference is in the different Linux versions, all made by different groups of people.
Ubuntu Desktop Edition
Ubuntu MID Edition
Ubuntu Server Edition
Ubuntu Netbook Remix
Kubuntu
Xubuntu
Edbuntu
7 official versions of Ubuntu alone. You were saying..?
Hmm, I'm having trouble remembering. But it will come back to me in a second!
er... those are different distros...
how about:
Ubuntu Desktop Edition
Ubuntu MID Edition
Ubuntu Server Edition
Ubuntu Netbook Remix
Kubuntu
Xubuntu
Edbuntu
Not to mention:
Gobuntu ...
Mythbuntu
Ubuntu JeOS
Ubuntu Studio
Super Ubuntu
Not the OP, but my advice is that you should get into a profession where you can be in that top 10%, or re-educate yourself in your current profession until you are top 10%.
You realize of course that it is mathematically impossible for more than 10% of the people in a given profession to be in the top 10% of their profession. And further, that if everyone tried to follow this advice it is a mathematical certainty that 90% of them would fail.
If you're good, you can always find a new job.
It feels like you are invoking the fallacy that most of us think we are above average. Most people aren't significantly above average.
Layoffs tend to be a way to get rid of a lot of the sub-average to average performers.
You are telling this to the people who just got laid off!! So if they were laid off and looking for work, you are essentially telling them that they are probably on the lower side of average. And yet "if they are well above average they will have no trouble finding work". This doesn't bode well.
Plus you can typically hire one of them to do the work of 3 or 4 of the people you just fired.
So these people are both head and shoulders above average, and are willing to do the work of a small team to boot? Oh and they'll accept the same wages of the semi-morons he replaced too?
Yes these mythological creatures will always have jobs.
Technically, yes, you are right, Microsoft lays of 5000 people, and the top few percent will land new jobs right away.
Do you have any advice for the other 80-90%? Those are the ones that need it. The top 5-10% probably won't be unemployed long enough to have to start dipping into their savings anyway.
The thing that bothers me about this argument is that there is no law against me, in the USA, ordering music from a store in Brazil over the mail, and them delivering the product over the mail. I don't know Brazilian law, but I would guess they don't have any laws like that either.
See my other response in this thread. Your right, its not usually illegal. Its called 'grey market'. And there is nothing -legally- stopping anyone.
The reason a store in Brazil might not ship you the CD isn't legal, its contractual. If they are a small store and interested in taking your money, they will. If they are a large store, they probably have signed agreements with their suppliers in exchange for preferential pricing that would restrict them from doing so... so if they sent you the CD, and got caught, they risk losing their preferential pricing. So its not just not worth it for them to make a few extra bucks on the side.
Small businesses are unlikely to have real relationships with the music publishers, and unlikely to have preferential pricing deals that are at risk, and are unlikely to attract much notice, so they can get away with it.
Suppose Apple decided to export songs in contradiction with the publishers wishers:
1) they do have contractual relationships with all those publishers
2) need those contracts to do business at all
3) iTunes is high profile
If apple engaged in the grey market Apple would quickly find itself without any songs to distribute at all.
This is easy enough to work around. If Warner owns the copyright to song X in the US, and Sony owns it in Brazil, make the copy here in the US. Then export that copy to Brazil. Exporting the copy over the internet as opposed to the mail shouldn't matter.
That is called 'grey market product', and while not actually illegal is really only viable for small companies/entrepreneurs who are effectively immune from retaliation. If apple were to try 'exporting' Warner tracks to Brazil where Sony has the rights, then Sony will simply retaliate against Apple by denying Apple the license to ANY of its music anywhere which would hurt Apple far more than what they gain by exporting warner tracks into brazil, where sony is the authorized distributor.
If song X is out of copyright in Europe, but under copyright in the US, there's nothing stopping me from paying you to legally make a copy and ship it to me. Same thing here.
Right. It works on the individual scale, even the small business scale. But large multinationals can't get away with it because they typically have relationships with all of the parties, and the benefit they get from legally stepping on someones toes results in legal retaliation that makes it not worth it.
Where exactly does a Web site "do business"?
The set of where the company offices are, and where the physical services are.
Google has offices in Italy, therefor it does business in italy, and is subject to Italian law.
Web sites are available there, so even your local pizzeria with a brochureware Web page is potentially subject to Italian prosecution just like Google.
No, because my local pizzeria has has no physical presence in Italy whatsoever.
The Internet is without borders, but the law isn't. That's the real challenge here...
Its not really a challenge. If I'm not physically in your country, then I am not within your borders, and you have no jurisdiction.
And if someone in your country accesses my server, and requests files or data that is illegal in your country from my server, then you can arrest them. Or you can institute a great-firewall to keep people in your country from accessing my server if you like.
Its only a "challenge" because some jurisdictions want to be able to prosecute anyone on the internet whether they have a physical presence in their country or not, but that is categorically stupid, for what I think are obvious reasons.
As the poster of the original article, I'll point out that assuming that "plain text" is "the most protected form of speech going" is a very US-only attitude.
Agreed, and understood.
As I said, the minefield google stumbled into is combining being a content provider with running their business in multiple countries. Legally its just not going to work.
This case and others like it underscore the point -- if you want to do something 'risky' on the internet, like crowdsource your content, you should only do business in countries where you are protected.
Even if they win -this- case, they'll just be nailed in China or somewhere else down the road.
Being a multinational and crowd sourcing content to publish just don't combine well.
I'm very happy with my eee901. I've debianised it and it's replaced my "big" 13 inch vaio for casual use. I still use the vaio for anythin cpu intensive, or if I want a bigger screen. Or for typing anything other than the odd email/slashdot post.
So its 'replaced' your Vaio for casual use... yet you use the vaio for anything cpu intensive, when you want a bigger screen, or if your typing something longer than a /. post. Serious question: what does that leave?
I've been eyeing netbooks, myself, but am having trouble assessing whether I'd actually use it... I suspect I'd practically -always- want the bigger screen, more comfortable keyboard, etc.
I currently have an ipod touch, and really, I almost NEVER use its web capabilities; the laptop is only a few feet away, and as good as the ipod touch browser is, (and it IS good), I find I prefer the laptop. I only use the touch if I want to look something up when I'm out, because its in my pocket, and laptop is at home. If I had a netbook... it wouldn't fit in my pocket, and thus would never be more than a 20 feet closer to me than my laptop...and if I'm going somewhere where I need an ultra portable -- either I can bring the laptop... or the ipod touch...
I'm not criticicing your choice. I'm just trying to get the niche where the netbook comes into its own... without buying one to see where/if I'd actually use it. :)
But if you invented a gene that gave a person really great night vision, yeah I'd give you a patent for that.
What if you 'invented' it by looking at a creature with really great night vision, and then copy and pasted it over?
What if someone was born with really great night vision, and you just copy and pasted it from them?
What if someone was born with really great night vision AFTER you patented it -- are they in violation of your patent?
What if the children of the people you modified with night vision inherit the gene? Do they owe royalties?
If there were no software patents, it would be much harder to maintain the telecoms cartels, the high prices, and the jobs and profits they generate. So for many people, software patents are very, very useful.
The telecom cartels primarily exist because of the massive infrastructure requirements to be a 'real' telecom. Its very little to do with software patents.
He wants to be a customer. He wants to give them money. But they (iTunes, or whichever content providers require this rule) want to restrict things regionally.
In some cases yes, in many cases its not that they WANT to restrict things, its that they HAVE to.
If Warner owns song X in the US, and Sony owns it Brazil, then no matter how much Warner wants to sell you the song in Brazil they CAN'T. And if Sony owns it but doesn't want to sell it, or wants to sell it but charge more than Warner, that's life. Warner can't do squat about it except say, hey, come to the US and buy a copy while you are actually here.
In the case I describe Warner isn't trying to restrict things regionally, but don't own the rights to distribute the song in Brazil, and someone else does, so they just can't.
Who says that's "trouble?"
Anyone who discovers that the product they are using and need to bug fix or update is 99% BSD code, and yet they have zero freedom, because BSD didn't extend freedom downstream, so while the original authors said the code was free, and some developers along the way got some of that goodness, by the time the end users got it the freedom was gone.
Look, I get it, this is the point of the BSD, and nobody did anything 'wrong' in the above scenario. But that's what the criticism with the BSD is: while it starts out free, it doesn't necessarily stay free, and that's its drawback.
With BSD often the best version of a product isn't BSD. Or it can happen that the original BSD code has been abandoned and has become obsolete, while its surviving offspring are awesome... but no longer free. That is the drawback with BSD.
GPL conversely does preserve that freedom, so the best derivative is as free as the original. That's not to say the GPL doesn't have drawbacks to it, it can't be mixed with code from incompatible licenses - of which there are several.
It also dictates that the derivate work must continue to be under the GPL. That's not really a drawback though, just a limitation. Its a drawback in the sense that it limits the author of the derivative work, but at the same time is its strength because it ensures the user of that derivative work has freedom, so that limitation is precisely its reason for being.
Between the two I prefer GPL, because I buy into the idea of preserving freedom downstream, but neither license is perfect.
What a wonderful idea: Google, Internet Censor for the World.
You mean "Google, Internet censor for its own website."
What is so difficult to understand about User Generated Content?
I'm not having difficulty understanding it. I'm having trouble caring about legally protecting the crowdsourcing business model.
Perhaps blogspot could pre-screen entries before they publish them, in case anyone wrote anything subversive? How about flikr, myspace, facebook? Perhaps Slashdot should filter crap too?
myspace, facebook? The world would probably be better if they didn't exist.
blogspot, flikr? Same thing, provide photo and bloghosting as a service and let the customers control it themselves instead of, having them submit content to a master branded site that they control.
Perhaps Slashdot should filter crap too?
Perhaps, but slashdot comments are simple plain text, which are about the most protected form of speech going, to the point that its hard to really fall afoul of the law. The only thing slashdot might need to do is ensure its based out of countries and operates its business in countries where its protected.
Google fell afoul of italy not simply for its content, but for its content plus the fact that it has operations in italy.
Less free to whom? BSD license has less restrictions, period.
Essentially, the BSD is great if you actually have something with a BSD license. The trouble with the BSD license is that by the time BSD derived software gets to you, there is no guarantee it will be BSD, or anything remotely resembling free.
The matrix quote "what good is a phone call if you cannot speak." comes to mind. Oh sure, the BSD license is great, look at all this freedom the BSD gives you, if you had it... too bad the derivative you are working with isn't BSD anymore.
First, the US didn't tear down the shoe, Iraq did.
What's the difference. The Iraqi government was established by and exists at the sufferance of the US.
If we didn't like what they were doing, we'd topple it and install someone else.
Indeed, that is PRECISELY what happened to the last Iraqi government.