Creating a trademark and a brand based around an every day object is a nice ploy for broadening the scope of infringement claims: they can sue anyone who makes a logo with an apple in it. I don't think it should be allowed; companies should come up with original names and logos, thus keeping the scope for infringement claims at a fair degree, and reducing the likelihood of accidental infringement. The downside is logo designers will need greater imagination.
You sound American (by your use of phone companies - over here BT still has a defacto monopoly in all but name). When you pay a DSL fee over here part of the money goes from the ISP to BT as rental for the equipment installed at the line exchange. So you are still paying some money to them indirectly. Actually, I'm British and I'm aware of this. I meant what I said in a general sense and internationally in context: There are many 'phone' or telecommunications companies throughout the world and I'm pretty sure that all of them that rent lines over which DSL is transmitted would be very disappointed if people started using their lines for free:)
Regardless of whether it's possible or not, I doubt the phone companies would like you to not pay line rental, especially due to the fact they put the lines in place.
if I understood it correctly, this mandatory cooling off period during which returns must be accepted would only apply to content that has interoperability problems. In other words, it is very likely that it would only apply to DRM-protected content. At first I was concerned that such legislation would encourage DRM as that would be the only possible means of revoking downloaded media from a buyer, assuming that they would want to do that if they forced to provide refunds. On the other hand, assuming that you are correct, the legislation could encourage the adoption of DRM-free downloads as the company, presumably, wouldn't have to give anyone refunds. Personally I'd be much more happy without the DRM than without a refund policy:)
The only logical purpose I can think of for them doing this, in conjunction with the possibility that extra will be charged, is to simply 'fabricate' a new product for effectively very little cost to them. No suprise that the end result is a poor quality product.
Possibly true, although the most common reason for not gaining the quoted bandwidth for ADSL connection at least, is related to the distance your connection is from the exchange. I don't know if this applies to cable as well; it may not.
In the article, it quotes Peter Jamieson, BPI chairman:
"We have said for months that it is unacceptable for ISPs to turn a blind eye to industrial-scale copyright infringement."
Is it really in the interest of ISPs to not turn a blind eye? As I see it, it is potentially against their interest: First of all, ISPs are barely, if it all, affected music piracy. In fact they may even benefit from 'pirates' choosing to use their service because they, for example, don't block P2P ports (although on the flipside, the increased bandwidth usage of P2P may be to their detriment). If I recall correctly, Tiscali attempted to set up a music store of some kind, which was thwarted, presumably by the music industry, so ISPs can't get in the way of effects of piracy, even if they wanted to! I'm fairly confident that piracy having a direct negative impact on the business is not a reason for why it is disallowed in their EULAs (legal requirement, minimisation of legal action against them are probably more likely reasons).
So even if ISPs kindly decided to be altruistic towards their fellow big business, the BPI, and help root out big-time pirates, they would have to go to all the trouble of trawling through all of its paying customer's activity, invading their privacy, handing them in as criminals and then loosing their custom. That seems like a great deal to give up for no gain!
I don't get the idea, or are they just trying to be clever? What's wrong with a regular digital camera or web cam? I'm sure a miniture spy camera would be adequate. Do Apple think because it's technically clever that it will sell, even though it provides no real advantage over other older technology and will cost way more?
Slashdot Mirror
Creating a trademark and a brand based around an every day object is a nice ploy for broadening the scope of infringement claims: they can sue anyone who makes a logo with an apple in it. I don't think it should be allowed; companies should come up with original names and logos, thus keeping the scope for infringement claims at a fair degree, and reducing the likelihood of accidental infringement. The downside is logo designers will need greater imagination.
You can also sign this petition: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/openinternet/
To Prince it seems music is more than just about the money. To the music industry it seems music is only about the money.
Regardless of whether it's possible or not, I doubt the phone companies would like you to not pay line rental, especially due to the fact they put the lines in place.
I'm provided with PHP, but I would like a MySQL server database for my website.
OMG. What about http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5398230.stm Bunch of killjoys.
The only logical purpose I can think of for them doing this, in conjunction with the possibility that extra will be charged, is to simply 'fabricate' a new product for effectively very little cost to them. No suprise that the end result is a poor quality product.
Possibly true, although the most common reason for not gaining the quoted bandwidth for ADSL connection at least, is related to the distance your connection is from the exchange. I don't know if this applies to cable as well; it may not.
In the article, it quotes Peter Jamieson, BPI chairman:
Is it really in the interest of ISPs to not turn a blind eye? As I see it, it is potentially against their interest: First of all, ISPs are barely, if it all, affected music piracy. In fact they may even benefit from 'pirates' choosing to use their service because they, for example, don't block P2P ports (although on the flipside, the increased bandwidth usage of P2P may be to their detriment). If I recall correctly, Tiscali attempted to set up a music store of some kind, which was thwarted, presumably by the music industry, so ISPs can't get in the way of effects of piracy, even if they wanted to! I'm fairly confident that piracy having a direct negative impact on the business is not a reason for why it is disallowed in their EULAs (legal requirement, minimisation of legal action against them are probably more likely reasons).
So even if ISPs kindly decided to be altruistic towards their fellow big business, the BPI, and help root out big-time pirates, they would have to go to all the trouble of trawling through all of its paying customer's activity, invading their privacy, handing them in as criminals and then loosing their custom. That seems like a great deal to give up for no gain!
I'm hoping such labels will reveal to consumers that who have not considered the implications of DRM how draconian and unjust it is.
I think DRM labels will be great - I'll easily be able to tell which CDs not to buy.
Nothing against file sharing, but good ridance to that malware infested excuse for a file sharing app.
I don't get the idea, or are they just trying to be clever? What's wrong with a regular digital camera or web cam? I'm sure a miniture spy camera would be adequate. Do Apple think because it's technically clever that it will sell, even though it provides no real advantage over other older technology and will cost way more?