Any entrenched market leader will always claim anything different and competitive is a fad. Travel by train was supplanted by air travel. That was claimed to be a fad. The horse and buggy businesses claimed the automobile was a fad. Radio claimed TV was a fad. The Bells all claimed the cellphone was a fad. Now the company entrenched as the market leader for operating systems for computers is claiming the same of tablets (of which they have nearly no offerings). I'm sure they are watching the market for tablets pass by as companies swerve to avoid their OS on that platform (I seriously hope we don't get trapped by vendor lock-in the way we have with the Windows platform). The fact of the matter is, just because Microsoft can't make a tablet OS that anyone wants doesn't mean that the market for these devices won't exist for a very long time and have significant utility.
The problem with tablets is that everyone wants one but no one can afford them. The Apple product is far too restrictive and the price is very high over the long haul, being consumers are locked into their Apple walled garden (similar to cell phone contracts--phones are cheap but when combined with contracts the cost is exorbitant). Tablet PCs are significantly cheaper to "design" than PCs once you have your first model. Anything after that is incredibly inexpensive as the thermal design set, the engineering and art are complete. Right now the tablet market is trying to suck as much money out everyone for a series of products that will be incredibly cheap in the future even though it's extremely cheap for them to design and build them today.
There has to be probable cause. They won't just get warrants to search your account because they think you have music stored there that you obtained through copyright violations. That'd be like saying that the music cartel could get a warrant to search your home because over a 6 month period you bought 3 2tb drives. It's just not enough probable cause. They'd need to show that you are distributing and provide proof of that.
I wonder if the music cartel will convince ICE and DSH to seize Amazon.com.
This is not a new type of service. Amazon.com allows for streaming of music you place up there. Canonical sells music through their UbuntuOne music store and that's stored in the cloud. You can then access those music files from the web in a similar manner to Amazon.com.
And, as far as the other loosing bankrupt entity goes, maybe they shouldn't have been forced to pay $53 million and been bankrupted. Maybe the courts would have seen it differently on appeal and the only reason they didn't was due to a lack of funds. Amazon.com probably has enough to fight and appeal.
But what right does the music cartel have to tell Amazon that they can't allow us to have access to our own files from a service we signed up for. Technically, it is up to the music cartel to prove that the music is there in violation of copyright laws. Good luck with that as the music is privately stored and only accessible to someone with the email address and password of the service.
Or pay Microsoft to get off their liability list. Imagine GM having had DHS and ICE seize their property/facilities. Then GM realizing that it would be cheaper to just pay Microsoft to get out from under this. Microsoft would still have the liability created by the company pirating their software, but GM would be off the hook while having the wallet a bit lighter.
This could be used in an manner many would call extortion.
In countries that don't have the same copyright laws as the US. And, to be honest, these types of laws end up making ICE the private police force of Microsoft. Really, Microsoft can just address ICE and have them get with DHS and seize US business interests due to an activity that may not even be illegal in their own country. And, even it it is illegal they need not even prove it to get the US to seize more than just goods.
In the case of Sony's PS3 property was seized which seriously hurt their interests in Europe, not to mention their reputation. Was their a trial prior to the seizure?
In the case of Microsoft vs. all US businesses that have interests in countries where supplies might not be legally using software the impact would be much worse.
Health and Safety issues are handled by a different agency which isn't in the habit of seizing US interests (funds and facilities) at the behest of a private entity without a trial and without proof that the foreign interests involved are in violation of any US or their own country's laws. If an overseas entity is involved in human trafficing or in child prostitution those laws and the violations are very clear. The foreign entities likely are from organized crime and those crimes are their major interest. In the case of health issues those are far less likely to be easily proven, let alone have a private entity produce even a cogent semi-provable accusation. We know this because it is pretty hard even in the US to prove such accusations and mostly require trials that overburden our courts with their complexity and duration.
I think the issue that worries me is that this would permit them freedom to sue far too many companies that have no liability and likely no prior knowledge, and that Microsoft could get actions taken by ICE & Homeland Security to, at the very least, threaten to seize US interests without due process. I understand they aren't pushing this Federally, but they don't have to, not to get DHS and ICE to act.
Consider the amount of influence they'd have on business interests in any State where they get this passed. It would have serious consequences and it wouldn't do much to stop pirating. It would likely close off US interest to those foreign companies and hurt sales in the US, as well as jobs. It might also have the side affect of transferring US businesses out of the states where those laws exist.
This is what happens when you allow DHS & ICE to seize interests such as these without due process. This is clearly a lead by example, as they are following the RIAA & MPAA in using DHS & ICE as their private police force.
Stupidity abounds. I don't drink, at all. But I'd like to avoid the possibility of being pulled over by the cops. Nothing like spoiling my day/evening.
What's stupid about this is that if they are drunk enough to get into a car and not care then they aren't going to look at their cellphone apps to avoid the police sobriety checkpoints.
The music industry doesn't need to buy the rights to music. Their contracts are so onerous and one sided that the bands just give them the rights to the music. Frankly, I consider that stealing.
Are these RIAA statistics? Are we sure that these aren't just the same old debunked numbers (regarding the high end) being spread around again? And, if the RIAA is so successful then why do they still need all this government sanctioned protection?
Hehe, I was wondering. But, though the 90s saw a greater acceptance it was due mostly to the fact that the costs of the units declined more than the experience level or the open-mindedness of those approaching the industry. Much of that acceptance was through business in the 90s utilizing computers and the acceptance that people would either take their computers home or they'd have a computer at home to do work.
I don't think contributory copyright inducement allows for statutory damages like that. I believe they are far less. These music cartel members need to still prove contributory inducement--they don't get to just float a bunch of numbers out there. So, these numbers are really just for sensationalistic headlines meant to scare the kiddies into not downloading. As far as I know there's no such thing as criminal copyright inducement.
Come on RIAA member companies, die already. End the misery. Either you are going to figure out how to fix your own problems through innovation or you are going to die. So, die already, since it's obvious you can't figure out a better business model.
Apple is trying to trademark the term App Store. Microsoft has disputed it. Apple responded claiming that Microsoft's objections were disingenuous because Microsoft tried to trademark terms such as "Windows" in the past (and that term was considered very generic also). Apple just recently sued Amazon over their use of the term App Store --for their Android app store.
These responses are disingenuous. Having your browser (which is exposed to the outside world, and integrated into the OS) leaves your OS subject to some very nasty things by virtue of that integration. Please, everyone reading this, don't read into this that you are safe. You should be reading the opposite. IE is unsafe due primarily to the fact that it is exposed to the outside world and thus exposes your OS. Other browsers don't have this dubious distinction.
Yesterday evening I was looking at the stats too and they were the same as far as Japan/Australia and Africa go. Nonetheless, the average number of downloads per minute is around 8,100.
People that are 60 and older are the ones that began this desktop computer revolution. People in their 40s were not early adopters, they were one of the first generation of people to use a computer day in and day out without really knowing that computers on the desktop didn't exist prior to their being born. There will always be people of every generation that has nearly no computer experience.
I see little to no activity in Africa, Australia, Central South America, the Middle East. Japan, and parts of Asia thereabouts has a seemingly slow take up. The mid-west in the US is also slow, particularly around Montana, North and South Dakota, and northern Texas.
If you are a resident in one of those areas maybe you should try to wake your neighbors to the idea of FF.
The term app is far to generic. Though Apple is trying to trademark it and is playing a game with the trademark office by claiming App means Apple, they'll loose. Far too many companies have used the term app long before Apple. In fact, almost everyone used to call computer programs apps (as in that app). To add store onto the end doesn't detract from the fact that it's just an app store.
Slashdot Mirror
Any entrenched market leader will always claim anything different and competitive is a fad. Travel by train was supplanted by air travel. That was claimed to be a fad. The horse and buggy businesses claimed the automobile was a fad. Radio claimed TV was a fad. The Bells all claimed the cellphone was a fad. Now the company entrenched as the market leader for operating systems for computers is claiming the same of tablets (of which they have nearly no offerings). I'm sure they are watching the market for tablets pass by as companies swerve to avoid their OS on that platform (I seriously hope we don't get trapped by vendor lock-in the way we have with the Windows platform). The fact of the matter is, just because Microsoft can't make a tablet OS that anyone wants doesn't mean that the market for these devices won't exist for a very long time and have significant utility.
The problem with tablets is that everyone wants one but no one can afford them. The Apple product is far too restrictive and the price is very high over the long haul, being consumers are locked into their Apple walled garden (similar to cell phone contracts--phones are cheap but when combined with contracts the cost is exorbitant). Tablet PCs are significantly cheaper to "design" than PCs once you have your first model. Anything after that is incredibly inexpensive as the thermal design set, the engineering and art are complete. Right now the tablet market is trying to suck as much money out everyone for a series of products that will be incredibly cheap in the future even though it's extremely cheap for them to design and build them today.
Probably a patented business model to boot.
There has to be probable cause. They won't just get warrants to search your account because they think you have music stored there that you obtained through copyright violations. That'd be like saying that the music cartel could get a warrant to search your home because over a 6 month period you bought 3 2tb drives. It's just not enough probable cause. They'd need to show that you are distributing and provide proof of that.
I wonder if the music cartel will convince ICE and DSH to seize Amazon.com.
This is not a new type of service. Amazon.com allows for streaming of music you place up there. Canonical sells music through their UbuntuOne music store and that's stored in the cloud. You can then access those music files from the web in a similar manner to Amazon.com.
And, as far as the other loosing bankrupt entity goes, maybe they shouldn't have been forced to pay $53 million and been bankrupted. Maybe the courts would have seen it differently on appeal and the only reason they didn't was due to a lack of funds. Amazon.com probably has enough to fight and appeal.
But what right does the music cartel have to tell Amazon that they can't allow us to have access to our own files from a service we signed up for. Technically, it is up to the music cartel to prove that the music is there in violation of copyright laws. Good luck with that as the music is privately stored and only accessible to someone with the email address and password of the service.
By DOD definition http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/520001r.pdf FOUO documents can't be classified.
Or pay Microsoft to get off their liability list. Imagine GM having had DHS and ICE seize their property/facilities. Then GM realizing that it would be cheaper to just pay Microsoft to get out from under this. Microsoft would still have the liability created by the company pirating their software, but GM would be off the hook while having the wallet a bit lighter.
This could be used in an manner many would call extortion.
In countries that don't have the same copyright laws as the US. And, to be honest, these types of laws end up making ICE the private police force of Microsoft. Really, Microsoft can just address ICE and have them get with DHS and seize US business interests due to an activity that may not even be illegal in their own country. And, even it it is illegal they need not even prove it to get the US to seize more than just goods.
In the case of Sony's PS3 property was seized which seriously hurt their interests in Europe, not to mention their reputation. Was their a trial prior to the seizure?
In the case of Microsoft vs. all US businesses that have interests in countries where supplies might not be legally using software the impact would be much worse.
Health and Safety issues are handled by a different agency which isn't in the habit of seizing US interests (funds and facilities) at the behest of a private entity without a trial and without proof that the foreign interests involved are in violation of any US or their own country's laws. If an overseas entity is involved in human trafficing or in child prostitution those laws and the violations are very clear. The foreign entities likely are from organized crime and those crimes are their major interest. In the case of health issues those are far less likely to be easily proven, let alone have a private entity produce even a cogent semi-provable accusation. We know this because it is pretty hard even in the US to prove such accusations and mostly require trials that overburden our courts with their complexity and duration.
I think the issue that worries me is that this would permit them freedom to sue far too many companies that have no liability and likely no prior knowledge, and that Microsoft could get actions taken by ICE & Homeland Security to, at the very least, threaten to seize US interests without due process. I understand they aren't pushing this Federally, but they don't have to, not to get DHS and ICE to act.
Consider the amount of influence they'd have on business interests in any State where they get this passed. It would have serious consequences and it wouldn't do much to stop pirating. It would likely close off US interest to those foreign companies and hurt sales in the US, as well as jobs. It might also have the side affect of transferring US businesses out of the states where those laws exist.
This is what happens when you allow DHS & ICE to seize interests such as these without due process. This is clearly a lead by example, as they are following the RIAA & MPAA in using DHS & ICE as their private police force.
Didn't Motorola recently claim that Android had been it's savior? Weren't they seriously dying as a company prior to their Android line?
The holy trinity comes from EQ and it comprised of the Tank, Healer, and Slower. DPS concept didn't play into that and was an afterthought.
Not to mention the minimum $10,000 fines they collect.
Stupidity abounds. I don't drink, at all. But I'd like to avoid the possibility of being pulled over by the cops. Nothing like spoiling my day/evening.
What's stupid about this is that if they are drunk enough to get into a car and not care then they aren't going to look at their cellphone apps to avoid the police sobriety checkpoints.
The music industry doesn't need to buy the rights to music. Their contracts are so onerous and one sided that the bands just give them the rights to the music. Frankly, I consider that stealing.
Are these RIAA statistics? Are we sure that these aren't just the same old debunked numbers (regarding the high end) being spread around again? And, if the RIAA is so successful then why do they still need all this government sanctioned protection?
Hehe, I was wondering. But, though the 90s saw a greater acceptance it was due mostly to the fact that the costs of the units declined more than the experience level or the open-mindedness of those approaching the industry. Much of that acceptance was through business in the 90s utilizing computers and the acceptance that people would either take their computers home or they'd have a computer at home to do work.
I don't think contributory copyright inducement allows for statutory damages like that. I believe they are far less. These music cartel members need to still prove contributory inducement--they don't get to just float a bunch of numbers out there. So, these numbers are really just for sensationalistic headlines meant to scare the kiddies into not downloading. As far as I know there's no such thing as criminal copyright inducement.
Come on RIAA member companies, die already. End the misery. Either you are going to figure out how to fix your own problems through innovation or you are going to die. So, die already, since it's obvious you can't figure out a better business model.
Apple is trying to trademark the term App Store. Microsoft has disputed it. Apple responded claiming that Microsoft's objections were disingenuous because Microsoft tried to trademark terms such as "Windows" in the past (and that term was considered very generic also). Apple just recently sued Amazon over their use of the term App Store --for their Android app store.
These responses are disingenuous. Having your browser (which is exposed to the outside world, and integrated into the OS) leaves your OS subject to some very nasty things by virtue of that integration. Please, everyone reading this, don't read into this that you are safe. You should be reading the opposite. IE is unsafe due primarily to the fact that it is exposed to the outside world and thus exposes your OS. Other browsers don't have this dubious distinction.
Yesterday evening I was looking at the stats too and they were the same as far as Japan/Australia and Africa go. Nonetheless, the average number of downloads per minute is around 8,100.
Same here, on all platforms. Firefox 4 seems faster, more responsive, and overall very stable.
People that are 60 and older are the ones that began this desktop computer revolution. People in their 40s were not early adopters, they were one of the first generation of people to use a computer day in and day out without really knowing that computers on the desktop didn't exist prior to their being born. There will always be people of every generation that has nearly no computer experience.
I see little to no activity in Africa, Australia, Central South America, the Middle East. Japan, and parts of Asia thereabouts has a seemingly slow take up. The mid-west in the US is also slow, particularly around Montana, North and South Dakota, and northern Texas.
If you are a resident in one of those areas maybe you should try to wake your neighbors to the idea of FF.
You know, IE9 is still integrated into the OS. That makes it a very dangerous tool. Period.
Yes, it did, haha. With ie6 getting a perfect 100 on the acid score recently it should tell you the power of that little bundled app of joy.
I'm just being sarcastic.
The term app is far to generic. Though Apple is trying to trademark it and is playing a game with the trademark office by claiming App means Apple, they'll loose. Far too many companies have used the term app long before Apple. In fact, almost everyone used to call computer programs apps (as in that app). To add store onto the end doesn't detract from the fact that it's just an app store.