Rubbish. What Google is doing should be protected by fair use rights.
Imagine if a friend asked you to search through a book for him and let him know what you found. Would this also be a violation? Chances are, you'd only quote a paragraph or so back to him - Google quotes even less of the book.
Why should small/medium sized companies develop software in the US? It's too damn risky. If they compete with or are considered a threat to any of the larger companies, they will just get sued out of existence for "patent infringement". It doesn't even matter whether they have infringed patents, because suing someone for patent infringement is am easy way to cost them a lot of money and not have it immediately obvious about whether you're bluffing. Patents are usually very difficult to read and understand.
I think Microsoft has been hit with a few big patent lawsuits that they're probably still feeling a little bitter about. They're going to do what makes business sense for them rather than take an ideological stance against software patents, though. Based on what you said, they might prefer that they didn't exist, but you can bet that they'll keep patenting and suing based on patents while they still do exist!
If it weren't for the DRM that so many people complain about, the BBC would not even be able to make alot of its content available on the internet. They would almost certainly have to break contracts to release this content without DRM.
They should start refusing those contracts. They're a public broadcaster. They have a responsibility to act in the interests of the public.
The problem is that Microsoft have kept the details of their proprietary file format secret. There is no way for OpenOffice to properly implement it.
OpenDocument specifications are available and anyone is allowed to implement the format, so it is up to Microsoft to make their software work properly.
I realise it seems that way, but you're forgetting one thing: copyright law is restrictive by default. No one actually has to agree to the GPL to use a GPL'ed program. If they want to distribute it, however, they usually wouldn't be able to because they need the permission of the author(s) first. The GPL, if they agree to it, grants them the distribute permission as long as they agree to some other terms. (must include source code or a written offer for it, and so on...)
No, the story is about DLink being offered a (free!) GPL license and refusing it, and yet continuing to distribute the code that they were offered the GPL license for.
You evaluate the current offerings and try to do the same thing, but better. Microsoft does this. They have Microsoft Research. There's nothing wrong with them getting into video sharing, although it is a bit of bizarre move. Microsoft's sins relate to the way they attempt to make life difficult for users of non-Microsoft software.
Sometimes this involves going as far as preventing effective communication between users of Microsoft software and users of non-Microsoft software, for example, the proprietary and secret Word document file format. While it has been mostly reverse-engineered, there are problems, and Microsoft's lack of cooperation (by refusing to release the file format specifications) is immoral, unethical, and anti-competitive.
With this new "Soapbox" website, my guess is that they will push proprietary formats owned by Microsoft and attempt to exclude media players that do not use the Windows Media framework using their patents on the Windows Media file formats/codecs. By owning a popular website and excluding non-Microsoft users, they put pressure on users to switch to Microsoft software. Again, this is immoral.
If governments don't allow companies to create cool new stuff and sell them however they want, then consumers won't get to buy cool new stuff. That'd be free market thinkin.
No, no... free markets don't have laws in place to artificially create "property" where there is none.
It is possible to encrypt something to keep it from its recipient. When every single program on your computer is encrypted, and people need licenses to write programs or own recording devices, how are you planning on defeating that encryption?
Slashdot Mirror
Team America is investigating.
Yes, one of the main changes to the GPLv3 is that it prevents this.
Rubbish. What Google is doing should be protected by fair use rights.
Imagine if a friend asked you to search through a book for him and let him know what you found. Would this also be a violation? Chances are, you'd only quote a paragraph or so back to him - Google quotes even less of the book.
Hmm.
Why should small/medium sized companies develop software in the US? It's too damn risky. If they compete with or are considered a threat to any of the larger companies, they will just get sued out of existence for "patent infringement". It doesn't even matter whether they have infringed patents, because suing someone for patent infringement is am easy way to cost them a lot of money and not have it immediately obvious about whether you're bluffing. Patents are usually very difficult to read and understand.
I think Microsoft has been hit with a few big patent lawsuits that they're probably still feeling a little bitter about. They're going to do what makes business sense for them rather than take an ideological stance against software patents, though. Based on what you said, they might prefer that they didn't exist, but you can bet that they'll keep patenting and suing based on patents while they still do exist!
Yeah, it's called "laws in other countries". Newsflash: US not world police.
Or fuck them over with a huge number of copyright infringement lawsuits. Those pirate aliens are probably recording everything!
Becoming?
It would be illegal for me to view those videos. I don't have a license, and due to unreasonable licensing terms, I am unable to obtain one.
Complain to them.
If it weren't for the DRM that so many people complain about, the BBC would not even be able to make alot of its content available on the internet. They would almost certainly have to break contracts to release this content without DRM.
They should start refusing those contracts. They're a public broadcaster. They have a responsibility to act in the interests of the public.
Any of the patent-free ones. There's no point in having video that is illegal to view.
Complain to them. Ask for Ogg Vorbis/Theora.
The problem is that Microsoft have kept the details of their proprietary file format secret. There is no way for OpenOffice to properly implement it.
OpenDocument specifications are available and anyone is allowed to implement the format, so it is up to Microsoft to make their software work properly.
Actually, drivers on 64-bit Windows Vista need to be signed by Microsoft before they will run.
Shouldn't both types of shutdowns offered, then?
I realise it seems that way, but you're forgetting one thing: copyright law is restrictive by default. No one actually has to agree to the GPL to use a GPL'ed program. If they want to distribute it, however, they usually wouldn't be able to because they need the permission of the author(s) first. The GPL, if they agree to it, grants them the distribute permission as long as they agree to some other terms. (must include source code or a written offer for it, and so on...)
Since when are there programs that don't need to be compiled on Windows but do need to be compiled on Linux?
For your information, my copy of Ubuntu came pre-compiled...
Suing people without any evidence works better at scaring other people, in fact. Absolutely anyone could get sued!
No, the story is about DLink being offered a (free!) GPL license and refusing it, and yet continuing to distribute the code that they were offered the GPL license for.
You evaluate the current offerings and try to do the same thing, but better. Microsoft does this. They have Microsoft Research. There's nothing wrong with them getting into video sharing, although it is a bit of bizarre move. Microsoft's sins relate to the way they attempt to make life difficult for users of non-Microsoft software.
Sometimes this involves going as far as preventing effective communication between users of Microsoft software and users of non-Microsoft software, for example, the proprietary and secret Word document file format. While it has been mostly reverse-engineered, there are problems, and Microsoft's lack of cooperation (by refusing to release the file format specifications) is immoral, unethical, and anti-competitive.
With this new "Soapbox" website, my guess is that they will push proprietary formats owned by Microsoft and attempt to exclude media players that do not use the Windows Media framework using their patents on the Windows Media file formats/codecs. By owning a popular website and excluding non-Microsoft users, they put pressure on users to switch to Microsoft software. Again, this is immoral.
if(1) {
printf("Your battery is not affected.\n");
}
else {
printf("Your battery is affected.\n");
}
If governments don't allow companies to create cool new stuff and sell them however they want, then consumers won't get to buy cool new stuff. That'd be free market thinkin.
No, no... free markets don't have laws in place to artificially create "property" where there is none.
Then perhaps you can explain why the hardware manufacturers are going along with it.
It is possible to encrypt something to keep it from its recipient. When every single program on your computer is encrypted, and people need licenses to write programs or own recording devices, how are you planning on defeating that encryption?