The computer was in use decades before Wozniak built his version. The CRT used on those early Apple computers was nothing but a TV set. The CRT was in long use as terminals to large computers. The GUI was copied and improved from Xerox park, though some have opined that some of the features included in Xerox's OS were very useful and better than Apple's. This isn't to say that overall it was better. No competition there. Apple beat them at their own game.
What Apple did then, as they do today, is that they popularized small computing devices.
I would tend to disagree with them being one of the hottest selling segments. They have been disruptive of the normal sales segments, but I couldn't conclude nor agree with them being one of the hottest.
I agree with you. The reason they are expensive is because they can be. Apple did set the price. This will change, but clearly it shows that the manufacturers are more interested in making huge profits rather than producing something affordable that invites consumers loyalty.
The production costs of these devices are very low primarily due a lack of expandability and the need to control the thermal factor.
The chip designs for all the pieces have been available for a long time.
If people are paying these high prices they are gullible and being taken to the cleaners by the vendors.
I swear to you, we have a bunch of nutjobs in the House. How on earth could these people know enough to make such a complex decision in such a short period of time? It's not possible. Most of them don't know the slightest thing about the internet, how it works, and what drives it. It baffles me to see them making such a statement.
You are implying I said $1.00 per DVD. I didn't. I said $1.00 per episode. And, even so, you have it and can watch it whenever you want.
If I buy 5 episodes a week every week instead of watching on TV I will have those 5 episodes to watch when I want. Two and a Half Men is about 1/2 hour. I could watch 4 episodes every 1.5-2 hours. If I watch 4 45 minute episodes of some program I'm still watching around 6 hours of shows a week (including Two and a Half Men).
If I save them up and go back and watch again, say some weekend where I am just relaxing, I can binge on them until I get bored or tired.
My logic makes perfect sense.
Again, if I automatically buy the episodes I like every week at $1.00 and if 30% of those other 14.9 million people that watch Two and a Half Men they make considerably more than selling them at $5.00 to far fewer people.
Beer is a finite resource that when "pirated" denies someone their opportunity to make a sale off that item. Digital entertainment is an infinite resource that when "pirated" denies no one their opportunity to make a sale off that item.
It makes no sense since you have so many people that have interests in quite a number of pieces of entertainment. I watch several CSI episodes a week and then watch a couple comedy episodes. Add to that various shows such as NCIS and Law and Order and I'd be spending a great deal of money at $5.00. If the prices were sane and at $1.00 an episode I'd be able to purchase and watch most of my favorites.
But, then you have to deal with all that awful DRM.
They can sell what, 50k copies of an episode of Two and a Half men a week at $5.00. Or they can make a greater number of sales to those 14.9 million people that watched it weekly in 2009. Would you rather have 2.5 million weekly sales at $1.00 or 50k at $5.00 a week? I'm sure 2.5 million sales a week at $1.00 would seriously offset the production cost of $4 million an episode, plus they'd still have their advertisers for the TV broadcasts.
My impression of that guys response "worth of entertainment" is that he is an industry shill.
A buck a TV episode in the best format available is what those are worth. I'd buy a month's episodes just to have them even if I watch them infrequently. But $5.00 an episode is ludicrous. I do not value those shows as much as I value that $5.00, especially over a year's worth of purchases.
I swear, this guy will do anything to get the spotlight off Microsoft, even if it means he has to turn off his brain while taking the Glen Beck approach to his outcry.
Come on Microsoft, the problem is you. I see it every day in my shop. Stop blaming the customer.
This Microsoft guy is so out of touch with the consumer.
I would agree that Google knows precisely which, if any, patents they may even remotely infringe. A question that comes up in my mind is whether MPEG-LA, or anyone else, has gone to Google informing them of infringements while demanding royalties. In other words, could they claim willfulness?
Given On2's history they have shown a high degree of integrity and willingness to research and implement their technology in such a way as to be unencumbered.
The member companies of MPEG-LA may have other patent issues to deal with if they begin pressuring Google, and their allies. Don't be too shocked if a patent war breaks out where some big guns come to the table against MPEG-LA.
This is clearly a case where MPEG-LA is using this as FUD to destroy any confidence the industry may have in their competition.
So, your router that connects to your cable or DSL box would require IPV6? I would think that only the cable/DSL box would need it. At that, only externally. Internally to your network it should not care.
Unfortunately the easy answer is that maybe you shouldn't go on the internet. For me, I'm impressed with the creativity people use in making their analogies.
Road builders build roads directly to banks, and the vaults they maintain. The road builders didn't build the roads to empower bank robbers. That's what you mean.
What is at stake here is: are the DMCA safe harbors pertinent to Hotfile? The answer is yes, if they didn't encourage infringement. The courts require that the MPAA prove that Hotfile's service is intended to promote infringement instead of legitimate use.
Yeah, the owner that buys property in a bad neighborhood and rents it out must be liable as they know crimes occur in that neighborhood. They must be guilty of contributory crimes, because they didn't filter out the bad tenant (mainly due to the fact that the courts that told them they can't discriminate).
Certainly this is an extreme, but that is essentially what the MPAA is claiming.
The difference is that the MPAA can search through Hotfile on their own, they can identify content they believe is infringing and they can address that. It isn't up to Hotfile to act as the policeman for the MPAA or anyone else.
It's not the cyberlocker's job to police the content. That's why the safe harbors portion of the DMCA was created, in fact, specifically because of that. It provided a mechanism where the content could be challenged and addressed by all parties without requiring the ISP or other service provider to become the policing agency for the alleged aggrieved.
Just as a point of fact, deleting non-infringing content that you think is infringing makes you liable to lawsuits.
Say you buy space from a company called Rapidshare. Someone then files a takedown for one file. Rapidshare then removes 20 files because they think those might be illegal. That puts them at risk. The DMCA process allows for counter notices, so the Rapidshare can't technically delete the content, they can only move it to a secure place, because if a counter notice is filed they are required to put it back up within a very specific period of time.
The DMCA takdown process is there to protect all parties. If a counter notice is filed and the cyberlocker puts it back up then the party filing the takedown notice must file their lawsuit to pursue it further. The cyberlocker is not required to be the policeman for the MPAA or anyone else.
Google has infringing content on their site. We all know that. They know that. You know that. Google receives DMCA takedown notices all the time. They take down the infringing content. Hotfile has infringing content. Hotfile receives takedown notices all the time. They takedown the infringing content.
Google receives money through ads, and other ways. They make money off the potential infringing content. It is not Google's job to search the content and remove it. It is not Hotfile's job either. There's no law that requires filters. No one by law is required to implement filters. If you sent Google or Hotfile a DMCA takedown with the specifics of the infringing content they will be removed by both.
Again, this is a matter of fact that's in dispute. There's plenty of case law concerning safe harbors. In fact, Rapidshare has been sued multiple times and found to be legal. If Rapidshare can't make money off their cyberlocker that's their fault. And, I would suspect that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for you to prove that they aren't making money, for it takes a huge amount of money to pay for the bandwidth and to purchase and maintain their equipment and salaries. So, don't go trying to feed us that shit.
Rapidshare has won every time it has been taken to court and has challenged anyone that spreads falsities about them being illegal. Hotfile is the same. Maybe their business plan is a bit different. But the bottom line is that they pay for their bandwidth, their manpower, and equipment. Because their users violate copyright law it doesn't mean that Hotfile (and the other legitimate users of the site) should have to pay. The DMCA provides the mechanism that the MPAA can use to get the infringing material removed. I find it hard to believe they will prevail in court if they chose not comply with the law. Hotfile is immune with safe harbor protections unless they knowingly encourage infringement. Proving that would require a trial.
Slashdot Mirror
The computer was in use decades before Wozniak built his version. The CRT used on those early Apple computers was nothing but a TV set. The CRT was in long use as terminals to large computers. The GUI was copied and improved from Xerox park, though some have opined that some of the features included in Xerox's OS were very useful and better than Apple's. This isn't to say that overall it was better. No competition there. Apple beat them at their own game.
What Apple did then, as they do today, is that they popularized small computing devices.
He was saying that they copied the ideas. Stealing was a bad term for him to use.
The point is that they didn't *invent*, they copied.
I would tend to disagree with them being one of the hottest selling segments. They have been disruptive of the normal sales segments, but I couldn't conclude nor agree with them being one of the hottest.
I agree with you. The reason they are expensive is because they can be. Apple did set the price. This will change, but clearly it shows that the manufacturers are more interested in making huge profits rather than producing something affordable that invites consumers loyalty.
The production costs of these devices are very low primarily due a lack of expandability and the need to control the thermal factor.
The chip designs for all the pieces have been available for a long time.
If people are paying these high prices they are gullible and being taken to the cleaners by the vendors.
Why not pen and paper on a clipboard?
I swear to you, we have a bunch of nutjobs in the House. How on earth could these people know enough to make such a complex decision in such a short period of time? It's not possible. Most of them don't know the slightest thing about the internet, how it works, and what drives it. It baffles me to see them making such a statement.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110215/22214113120/once-again-why-homeland-securitys-domain-name-seizures-are-almost-certainly-not-legal.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110216/11305113129/ron-wyden-speaks-out-against-coica-we-shouldnt-toss-out-first-amendment-just-to-go-after-few-bad-actors.shtml
Useful info on getting the straight line on the domain name seizures.
You are implying I said $1.00 per DVD. I didn't. I said $1.00 per episode. And, even so, you have it and can watch it whenever you want.
If I buy 5 episodes a week every week instead of watching on TV I will have those 5 episodes to watch when I want. Two and a Half Men is about 1/2 hour. I could watch 4 episodes every 1.5-2 hours. If I watch 4 45 minute episodes of some program I'm still watching around 6 hours of shows a week (including Two and a Half Men).
If I save them up and go back and watch again, say some weekend where I am just relaxing, I can binge on them until I get bored or tired.
My logic makes perfect sense.
Again, if I automatically buy the episodes I like every week at $1.00 and if 30% of those other 14.9 million people that watch Two and a Half Men they make considerably more than selling them at $5.00 to far fewer people.
Beer is a finite resource that when "pirated" denies someone their opportunity to make a sale off that item. Digital entertainment is an infinite resource that when "pirated" denies no one their opportunity to make a sale off that item.
It makes no sense since you have so many people that have interests in quite a number of pieces of entertainment. I watch several CSI episodes a week and then watch a couple comedy episodes. Add to that various shows such as NCIS and Law and Order and I'd be spending a great deal of money at $5.00. If the prices were sane and at $1.00 an episode I'd be able to purchase and watch most of my favorites.
But, then you have to deal with all that awful DRM.
They can sell what, 50k copies of an episode of Two and a Half men a week at $5.00. Or they can make a greater number of sales to those 14.9 million people that watched it weekly in 2009. Would you rather have 2.5 million weekly sales at $1.00 or 50k at $5.00 a week? I'm sure 2.5 million sales a week at $1.00 would seriously offset the production cost of $4 million an episode, plus they'd still have their advertisers for the TV broadcasts.
My impression of that guys response "worth of entertainment" is that he is an industry shill.
A buck a TV episode in the best format available is what those are worth. I'd buy a month's episodes just to have them even if I watch them infrequently. But $5.00 an episode is ludicrous. I do not value those shows as much as I value that $5.00, especially over a year's worth of purchases.
I swear, this guy will do anything to get the spotlight off Microsoft, even if it means he has to turn off his brain while taking the Glen Beck approach to his outcry.
Come on Microsoft, the problem is you. I see it every day in my shop. Stop blaming the customer.
This Microsoft guy is so out of touch with the consumer.
I would agree that Google knows precisely which, if any, patents they may even remotely infringe. A question that comes up in my mind is whether MPEG-LA, or anyone else, has gone to Google informing them of infringements while demanding royalties. In other words, could they claim willfulness?
Given On2's history they have shown a high degree of integrity and willingness to research and implement their technology in such a way as to be unencumbered.
The member companies of MPEG-LA may have other patent issues to deal with if they begin pressuring Google, and their allies. Don't be too shocked if a patent war breaks out where some big guns come to the table against MPEG-LA.
This is clearly a case where MPEG-LA is using this as FUD to destroy any confidence the industry may have in their competition.
Document formats are what maintains Microsoft's Office monopoly. Need I say more?
So, your router that connects to your cable or DSL box would require IPV6? I would think that only the cable/DSL box would need it. At that, only externally. Internally to your network it should not care.
Just as he posted as an anonymous coward.
Unfortunately the easy answer is that maybe you shouldn't go on the internet. For me, I'm impressed with the creativity people use in making their analogies.
Road builders build roads directly to banks, and the vaults they maintain. The road builders didn't build the roads to empower bank robbers. That's what you mean.
What is at stake here is: are the DMCA safe harbors pertinent to Hotfile? The answer is yes, if they didn't encourage infringement. The courts require that the MPAA prove that Hotfile's service is intended to promote infringement instead of legitimate use.
Yeah, the owner that buys property in a bad neighborhood and rents it out must be liable as they know crimes occur in that neighborhood. They must be guilty of contributory crimes, because they didn't filter out the bad tenant (mainly due to the fact that the courts that told them they can't discriminate).
Certainly this is an extreme, but that is essentially what the MPAA is claiming.
The difference is that the MPAA can search through Hotfile on their own, they can identify content they believe is infringing and they can address that. It isn't up to Hotfile to act as the policeman for the MPAA or anyone else.
It's not the cyberlocker's job to police the content. That's why the safe harbors portion of the DMCA was created, in fact, specifically because of that. It provided a mechanism where the content could be challenged and addressed by all parties without requiring the ISP or other service provider to become the policing agency for the alleged aggrieved.
You are simply stating that a cyberlocker couldn't possibly have a legitimate purpose.
Just as a point of fact, deleting non-infringing content that you think is infringing makes you liable to lawsuits.
Say you buy space from a company called Rapidshare. Someone then files a takedown for one file. Rapidshare then removes 20 files because they think those might be illegal. That puts them at risk. The DMCA process allows for counter notices, so the Rapidshare can't technically delete the content, they can only move it to a secure place, because if a counter notice is filed they are required to put it back up within a very specific period of time.
The DMCA takdown process is there to protect all parties. If a counter notice is filed and the cyberlocker puts it back up then the party filing the takedown notice must file their lawsuit to pursue it further. The cyberlocker is not required to be the policeman for the MPAA or anyone else.
This also is not true.
Google has infringing content on their site. We all know that. They know that. You know that. Google receives DMCA takedown notices all the time. They take down the infringing content. Hotfile has infringing content. Hotfile receives takedown notices all the time. They takedown the infringing content.
Google receives money through ads, and other ways. They make money off the potential infringing content. It is not Google's job to search the content and remove it. It is not Hotfile's job either. There's no law that requires filters. No one by law is required to implement filters. If you sent Google or Hotfile a DMCA takedown with the specifics of the infringing content they will be removed by both.
Stop spreading your bullshit.
Again, this is a matter of fact that's in dispute. There's plenty of case law concerning safe harbors. In fact, Rapidshare has been sued multiple times and found to be legal. If Rapidshare can't make money off their cyberlocker that's their fault. And, I would suspect that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for you to prove that they aren't making money, for it takes a huge amount of money to pay for the bandwidth and to purchase and maintain their equipment and salaries. So, don't go trying to feed us that shit.
Rapidshare has won every time it has been taken to court and has challenged anyone that spreads falsities about them being illegal. Hotfile is the same. Maybe their business plan is a bit different. But the bottom line is that they pay for their bandwidth, their manpower, and equipment. Because their users violate copyright law it doesn't mean that Hotfile (and the other legitimate users of the site) should have to pay. The DMCA provides the mechanism that the MPAA can use to get the infringing material removed. I find it hard to believe they will prevail in court if they chose not comply with the law. Hotfile is immune with safe harbor protections unless they knowingly encourage infringement. Proving that would require a trial.