If memory serves me correctly wintel wasn't just a term describing that the two products worked together but that there was a much tighter relationship aimed at stifling the competition in both markets. At first the term was one expressing their relationship but later it was one highlighting the angst of the industry because of the success in keeping all competition out.
The computer in the car could be used in the same way. The component descriptors could be encrypted and only available via specific hardware scanners in order to fulfill the demands of the manufacturer (to hide trade secrets revealed only if you know the component system and have access to the scanners).
It's the same freaking thing. It's protection of the market not protection of copyright. That's why the DMCA is not constitutional. Clearly one must see this. And that's what these cases are about.
Notice how Microsoft chose the little guy to pursue? So they could set some precedent? Once you have the little guy and he buckles you defeat a lot of other little guys (and the industry that would be created would implode).
These companies need to stop hiding behind the DMCA to protect their markets rather than to protect their copyright.
And, sheesh, the cat is out of the bag. The mods are available. Instead of one guy doing it for others everyone will be doing it for themselves after purchasing the necessary tools from sources outside of the US. Prosecuting this guy won't change that at all.
The purpose and actions are exactly the same. In fact, the intent is exactly the same. The jailbreaking of the iPhone can be used for undesirable purposes just as the jailbreaking of an xbox360 can be used. The fact that you can run unverified software from another source on the iPhone is exactly like running unverified software on the XBox360.
Listen, any denial this (of their same purpose and intent) is almost criminal in itself by denying people the right to make an informed decision. It's a freaking computer that's locked down. The iPhone is a computer that's locked down. The iPhone may be used to make calls but it can be used to install software such a new OS, games and applications. Jailbreaking (hacking) the XBox360 is the same thing. It's a computer where you are gaining access to the internals to perform actions that the hardware developer didn't intend (their purpose was to protect their market-share rather than copyright).
What can't you figure out? You can't come to grips with the fact that it's a computer? Or that it's a computer with software, or that it is locked down to protect the market of the developer? Or that it can be used to do things that would violate someone's copyright? Both devices can be used for the same intent and purpose.
In case you guys don't know it, the Xbox360 has some serious issues with quality resulting in a 60% failure rate. If it wasn't for the developers there'd have been no reason to stay with xbox360. In fact, if the investment of games wasn't so high those owners of the failed xboxes would have moved to another platform. Steve Ballmer had it right with his developers, developers, developers, developers rant.
This means that if anyone can crack these things and allow owners to do other things with them, yes, even copy games, it damages the incentive for the developers.
This is a loss leader and only recently have they made progress in terms of making some money.
The PS3 consoles are much superior to these products. Given time game development will be at the same level or greater. That means that development will be so high for the PS3 that purchasing them will create incentives to the consumers to buy buy buy. And that means fewer sales for Microsoft's console, this reducing developer incentive more.
This makes it extremely important for Microsoft because modding xbox360s means that their dominance will be whittled away over time and we all know Microsoft can't compete in any market but by selling a loss leader or by using their monopoly position to gain another.
Now, I will say that the Kinect is awesome, but thankfully it is also designed sufficiently to allow it to be used on a PC (Linux, Mac, and Windows), which is where I intend to use mine.
There is also this 5 year lifecycle thing that affects console releases, and we are at it right now. Maybe we won't see a new series of these consoles this time around. But expect even worse types of protection in any new consoles developed.
If he really got it he'd be ruling as a matter of law that the exemption for jail-breaking a phone applies to this as well, because the purpose and actions are the same.
If I were the guy I would not accept a plea and I would appeal repeatedly if I lost.
The DMCA exemption for modding an cell phone applies completely to modding any other device you own or someone gives you to work on.
Individual shareholders don't make gobs of money, though they probably make a decent amount off the dividend. Being the case, it is still up to the shareholders to reign in the BOD. These types of lawsuits can be seen as senseless spending and be condemned by the shareholders rightfully, especially if it does turn out that Apple is suing re: Jobs' likeness.
That's trademark, and as long as it doesn't dilute the Apple products it can be used. This doesn't dilute Apple's products. Just because a company thinks they can lock down the trademark doesn't mean that they can claim that someone using it is doing so to dilute Apple's product/company.
Even so, it appears that they are suing due to Jobs' image being used too.
In order to gain anything from this they'll have to prove they tried to work it out. They can't just see the item and then sue wildly. I'm sure they think they can, but they have to have tried to settle the dispute. Otherwise, they'll probably only win an injunction and the company will just offer a slightly different doll.
The rocks that formed the Earth certainly were from outer space.
The Earth's upper atmosphere is bombarded with water every second. This is a known fact, so I don't know where these scientists are coming from. It's not likely, IMHO, that these scientists are even remotely close, because we have a lot of water here on Earth.
When you see the icons on the Windows desktop change to generic and then slowly back to their icon that's the windows desktop manager crashing and reloading.
KDE doesn't crash on me. Yes, programs can and do crash, but to say that KDE crashes all the time indicates you have something wrong with your system.
That's disingenuous. Most KDE apps are selected from the menu and have descriptive names. The executable may be obscure yet when you look at the executables from Microsoft's product they too use obscure naming.
Virtually everything under Gnome and KDE is presented with descriptive names, because they too are just links to the executable (just like Windows).
I use Linux every day for everything. I demo it to customers. Most are awe inspired by it, by what it does, how it looks, and that it is free. I have used Linux in my business for the past 4 years as servers, diagnostic machines, workstations for myself and for customers. One thing I have noticed is that if I set someone down in front of Linux without telling them about it, even those who know little to nothing about computers, they'll begin using it as if it were Windows. So please don't get me wrong. I genuinely want to have these issues fixed, but the devs seem to have their own agenda which doesn't always match that of the user.
No doubt KDE (yes, even 4.6) needs some work. The designers seem to have a mindset that they are right, about all things. There's nary an effort to recognize the wisdom of the users.
One thing that currently bites at me is that there's a bug where if you drag and drop a file or folder onto another on the desktop (such as dropping a file into a folder) all the icons realign to the left side of the desktop, thus wiping out any folder and file organization you have. To top that off it is a well reported bug that is extremely annoying to the average user. One of the bug reports has it marked as important and fixes have been made, but not completely. Due to this it became clear, from reading the comments by the devs, that there would be need to change many places in the code to fix it. That leads me to believe that it is quite messy.
It used to be that any attempt to do something on the desktop would cause the icons to realign. If you made a link it would happen. If you created a folder it would happen. If you deleted a file it would happen. If you moved a file into a folder it would happen. They cured some of them but they seem to have abandoned the rest so we still have to deal with the issue and it is very annoying.
I have used KDE from 4.2 and up, up until this problem cropped up. What's worse is that this problem occurred a few releases back and was fixed. Now it's back and only partially fixed.
Gnome has a simpler aspect to itself, though it too is messy and can annoy you. Clicking too fast with the right mouse button can and will cause gnome to choose the option under the cursor when the menu pops up. That has been reported over and over to the gnome devs but no one will take the time and effort to resolve it. It is one aspect that shows gnome to be messy and unpolished.
I've thought about the EFF's involvement only to come to the notion that there are so many misbehaving companies and so much misuse of power that the EFF is stretched so thin that those they try to help won't be adequately represented--not through negligence but through the EFF being spread so thin.
I'm sure these people behind the torrent sites have their own arsenal to combat such efforts. I pity the dimwits that thought this scheme up. I don't think they want these guys attacking their infrastructure and redirecting tons of their sites, or even taking down of their servers for extended periods of time.
That aside, I don't think the government's actions are compliant with due process. This is purely prior restraint.
We don't know the stages that lead up to this. It could simply be some companies banded together to allege claims against a series of sites and a judged issued the order. But those orders don't last forever and something has to be done to pursue them. Of those sites that are innocent and caught in the middle they will have cause to sue, not just the government but those private entities that swore out the complaint.
I see it as a series of entertainment companies get with a few companies that are suffering from counterfeit goods getting the government to take down the counterfeit good's sites and sweeping the torrent sites with them, while hoping the government and the judge doesn't adequately understand the difference.
This is another misuse of the power granted to the Department of Homeland Security. Their charter is to protect Americans from terrorism. I'm sure at least in part this is the Homeland Security hoping to find some relevance. It's hard to have a nationwide body of authority with so little to do and so little that justifies their existence.
Even the US Supreme Court has stated that copyright infringement isn't stealing. They distinguish between finite goods and infinite goods. A digital reproduction is an infinite good (meaning no one has lost something by having it reproduced). Hence, no one had anything stolen from them. Copyright infringement is a concept in that if someone reproduces an item and they don't own the rights to that item they are infringing. Stealing something is when you deprive the owner of their goods (and others) of the item that they could use to sell for money.
In your analogy, as with so many fallacious arguments, you presume that each copy is a loss because that person copying it would have purchased a copy. Even the US Government has chosen to cease using that debunked argument. There's no guarantee that anyone that copies an item would have bought it otherwise. As a fact, it doesn't deprive anyone of their sale, and thus it doesn't equate to lost jobs.
Come on, you have to at least understand that this whole counter argument has been thoroughly vetted.
What your masters need to do is get it through their heads that they need to compete in the digital world. Instead of raping the public for $15.00 - 20.00 a CD they should be providing the public with incentives to buy, to buy some finite good. That means they need to come to grips with the fact that this world is changing.
This whole debate here isn't new. There are repeated instances throughout history where advances in technology has driven the currently entrenched business models to seek government protections. The horse and carriage when cars were invented, live performances were felt to be in jeopardy when recordings were created, recording sales were felt in jeopardy when the radio was invented. This goes on and on going backwards in history and moving forward. Adapt or die. Your business model can't survive the onslaught of technological advances.
People are fully aware of the facts that the entertainment industry has been seeking protectionist policies and laws from the lawmakers to prop up their failing business models. The world is changing, either you adapt or you die as a business.
Many recording artists feel that the biggest pirates of all are the members of the RIAA cartel. Their contracts are onerous. Their accounting practices only add to that by denying artists their due. Imagine an artists selling a million copies of their album (at around $15.00 per CD) and still owing their label millions. And how about the very problematic fact that the RIAA had a Congressional staffer named Mitch Glazier sneak four words into a big Congressional bill in the middle of the night when no one noticed making all sound recordings into works-made-for-hire. This had the chilling effect of denying the artists their due rights to reclaim their copyright after a period of time. Since people noticed this they raised their voices loud enough to force Congress to correct it.
Do you not understand that those methodologies used by the RIAA and even the MPAA are greater acts of theft than anyone downloading a song or movie for their own use?
Now, distribution on the other hand is covered. Distributing copyrighted material, especially for profit, is against the law.
Let's get real here. So far, as far as most of the lawsuits where the RIAA/MPAA have sued their customers (thus creating a hostile environment) there have been no criminal charges filed.
That's an extreme point of view. Nothing like shouting to the world that you are a biased individual.
Do you own a Macintosh? Do you own an iPhone? Do you own an Android phone? Do you own a DVR such as a Tivo? Do you use a web browser (Chrome, Safari, Firefox)? Do you use hotmail (MSN mail)? Do you use your ISPs email? Does your company use Apache as their web server? Do you query Google, or use gmail or use Google Voice or Google Docs, or any other Google service?
Most of those things, and countless others, are part of open source projects. Apple's Macintosh OSX's core piece is open source. Apple's Safari uses webkit which was created by KDE (which is an open source project). The vast majority of web services are based on open source projects. You wouldn't have the web without it, and yes, even Hotmail uses Linux.
NASA uses open source. NASA has been a major contributor to open source from way back and has created drivers for the kernel. Many of the top corporations use Linux and contribute to it. I believe some or all of the stock exchanges use Linux. 90% of the super computers in the world use open source.
Slashdot Mirror
It's action without due process. No trial, no charges, just seizure. That's illegal.
Silverlight is not available on most platforms.
Please Netflix.com, drop Silverlight and go with something that's open and cross platform.
If memory serves me correctly wintel wasn't just a term describing that the two products worked together but that there was a much tighter relationship aimed at stifling the competition in both markets. At first the term was one expressing their relationship but later it was one highlighting the angst of the industry because of the success in keeping all competition out.
The computer in the car could be used in the same way. The component descriptors could be encrypted and only available via specific hardware scanners in order to fulfill the demands of the manufacturer (to hide trade secrets revealed only if you know the component system and have access to the scanners).
It's the same freaking thing. It's protection of the market not protection of copyright. That's why the DMCA is not constitutional. Clearly one must see this. And that's what these cases are about.
Notice how Microsoft chose the little guy to pursue? So they could set some precedent? Once you have the little guy and he buckles you defeat a lot of other little guys (and the industry that would be created would implode).
These companies need to stop hiding behind the DMCA to protect their markets rather than to protect their copyright.
And, sheesh, the cat is out of the bag. The mods are available. Instead of one guy doing it for others everyone will be doing it for themselves after purchasing the necessary tools from sources outside of the US. Prosecuting this guy won't change that at all.
The purpose and actions are exactly the same. In fact, the intent is exactly the same. The jailbreaking of the iPhone can be used for undesirable purposes just as the jailbreaking of an xbox360 can be used. The fact that you can run unverified software from another source on the iPhone is exactly like running unverified software on the XBox360.
Listen, any denial this (of their same purpose and intent) is almost criminal in itself by denying people the right to make an informed decision. It's a freaking computer that's locked down. The iPhone is a computer that's locked down. The iPhone may be used to make calls but it can be used to install software such a new OS, games and applications. Jailbreaking (hacking) the XBox360 is the same thing. It's a computer where you are gaining access to the internals to perform actions that the hardware developer didn't intend (their purpose was to protect their market-share rather than copyright).
What can't you figure out? You can't come to grips with the fact that it's a computer? Or that it's a computer with software, or that it is locked down to protect the market of the developer? Or that it can be used to do things that would violate someone's copyright? Both devices can be used for the same intent and purpose.
Your whole post is extremely short-sighted.
Not like you are showing yours.
It is exactly the same thing. In task and intent.
I'm unimpressed even as a long time Linux and Ubuntu user. In fact, I'd say it sucks.
In case you guys don't know it, the Xbox360 has some serious issues with quality resulting in a 60% failure rate. If it wasn't for the developers there'd have been no reason to stay with xbox360. In fact, if the investment of games wasn't so high those owners of the failed xboxes would have moved to another platform. Steve Ballmer had it right with his developers, developers, developers, developers rant.
This means that if anyone can crack these things and allow owners to do other things with them, yes, even copy games, it damages the incentive for the developers.
This is a loss leader and only recently have they made progress in terms of making some money.
The PS3 consoles are much superior to these products. Given time game development will be at the same level or greater. That means that development will be so high for the PS3 that purchasing them will create incentives to the consumers to buy buy buy. And that means fewer sales for Microsoft's console, this reducing developer incentive more.
This makes it extremely important for Microsoft because modding xbox360s means that their dominance will be whittled away over time and we all know Microsoft can't compete in any market but by selling a loss leader or by using their monopoly position to gain another.
Now, I will say that the Kinect is awesome, but thankfully it is also designed sufficiently to allow it to be used on a PC (Linux, Mac, and Windows), which is where I intend to use mine.
There is also this 5 year lifecycle thing that affects console releases, and we are at it right now. Maybe we won't see a new series of these consoles this time around. But expect even worse types of protection in any new consoles developed.
If he really got it he'd be ruling as a matter of law that the exemption for jail-breaking a phone applies to this as well, because the purpose and actions are the same.
If I were the guy I would not accept a plea and I would appeal repeatedly if I lost.
The DMCA exemption for modding an cell phone applies completely to modding any other device you own or someone gives you to work on.
So, if Apple trademarked penis then they could sue you any time you used yours?
Not necessarily. His Apple stylized chair doesn't necessarily dilute Apple's product/company.
Individual shareholders don't make gobs of money, though they probably make a decent amount off the dividend. Being the case, it is still up to the shareholders to reign in the BOD. These types of lawsuits can be seen as senseless spending and be condemned by the shareholders rightfully, especially if it does turn out that Apple is suing re: Jobs' likeness.
That's trademark, and as long as it doesn't dilute the Apple products it can be used. This doesn't dilute Apple's products. Just because a company thinks they can lock down the trademark doesn't mean that they can claim that someone using it is doing so to dilute Apple's product/company.
Even so, it appears that they are suing due to Jobs' image being used too.
In order to gain anything from this they'll have to prove they tried to work it out. They can't just see the item and then sue wildly. I'm sure they think they can, but they have to have tried to settle the dispute. Otherwise, they'll probably only win an injunction and the company will just offer a slightly different doll.
I guess Steve Jobs is now owned by Apple.
My initial thought is that this case can be thrown out because Apple isn't a party to the action.
Steve Jobs is the one that should be suing them.
Water from stones? Next thing you'll be telling me is that we can get blood from turnips.
The rocks that formed the Earth certainly were from outer space.
The Earth's upper atmosphere is bombarded with water every second. This is a known fact, so I don't know where these scientists are coming from. It's not likely, IMHO, that these scientists are even remotely close, because we have a lot of water here on Earth.
That purple theme has to go. I was looking at an older version of a default install of Mac OSX and I can see where they got the idea.
When you see the icons on the Windows desktop change to generic and then slowly back to their icon that's the windows desktop manager crashing and reloading.
KDE doesn't crash on me. Yes, programs can and do crash, but to say that KDE crashes all the time indicates you have something wrong with your system.
That's disingenuous. Most KDE apps are selected from the menu and have descriptive names. The executable may be obscure yet when you look at the executables from Microsoft's product they too use obscure naming.
Virtually everything under Gnome and KDE is presented with descriptive names, because they too are just links to the executable (just like Windows).
I use Linux every day for everything. I demo it to customers. Most are awe inspired by it, by what it does, how it looks, and that it is free. I have used Linux in my business for the past 4 years as servers, diagnostic machines, workstations for myself and for customers. One thing I have noticed is that if I set someone down in front of Linux without telling them about it, even those who know little to nothing about computers, they'll begin using it as if it were Windows. So please don't get me wrong. I genuinely want to have these issues fixed, but the devs seem to have their own agenda which doesn't always match that of the user.
No doubt KDE (yes, even 4.6) needs some work. The designers seem to have a mindset that they are right, about all things. There's nary an effort to recognize the wisdom of the users.
One thing that currently bites at me is that there's a bug where if you drag and drop a file or folder onto another on the desktop (such as dropping a file into a folder) all the icons realign to the left side of the desktop, thus wiping out any folder and file organization you have. To top that off it is a well reported bug that is extremely annoying to the average user. One of the bug reports has it marked as important and fixes have been made, but not completely. Due to this it became clear, from reading the comments by the devs, that there would be need to change many places in the code to fix it. That leads me to believe that it is quite messy.
It used to be that any attempt to do something on the desktop would cause the icons to realign. If you made a link it would happen. If you created a folder it would happen. If you deleted a file it would happen. If you moved a file into a folder it would happen. They cured some of them but they seem to have abandoned the rest so we still have to deal with the issue and it is very annoying.
I have used KDE from 4.2 and up, up until this problem cropped up. What's worse is that this problem occurred a few releases back and was fixed. Now it's back and only partially fixed.
Gnome has a simpler aspect to itself, though it too is messy and can annoy you. Clicking too fast with the right mouse button can and will cause gnome to choose the option under the cursor when the menu pops up. That has been reported over and over to the gnome devs but no one will take the time and effort to resolve it. It is one aspect that shows gnome to be messy and unpolished.
I've thought about the EFF's involvement only to come to the notion that there are so many misbehaving companies and so much misuse of power that the EFF is stretched so thin that those they try to help won't be adequately represented--not through negligence but through the EFF being spread so thin.
I'm sure these people behind the torrent sites have their own arsenal to combat such efforts. I pity the dimwits that thought this scheme up. I don't think they want these guys attacking their infrastructure and redirecting tons of their sites, or even taking down of their servers for extended periods of time.
That aside, I don't think the government's actions are compliant with due process. This is purely prior restraint.
We don't know the stages that lead up to this. It could simply be some companies banded together to allege claims against a series of sites and a judged issued the order. But those orders don't last forever and something has to be done to pursue them. Of those sites that are innocent and caught in the middle they will have cause to sue, not just the government but those private entities that swore out the complaint.
I see it as a series of entertainment companies get with a few companies that are suffering from counterfeit goods getting the government to take down the counterfeit good's sites and sweeping the torrent sites with them, while hoping the government and the judge doesn't adequately understand the difference.
This is another misuse of the power granted to the Department of Homeland Security. Their charter is to protect Americans from terrorism. I'm sure at least in part this is the Homeland Security hoping to find some relevance. It's hard to have a nationwide body of authority with so little to do and so little that justifies their existence.
Even the US Supreme Court has stated that copyright infringement isn't stealing. They distinguish between finite goods and infinite goods. A digital reproduction is an infinite good (meaning no one has lost something by having it reproduced). Hence, no one had anything stolen from them. Copyright infringement is a concept in that if someone reproduces an item and they don't own the rights to that item they are infringing. Stealing something is when you deprive the owner of their goods (and others) of the item that they could use to sell for money.
In your analogy, as with so many fallacious arguments, you presume that each copy is a loss because that person copying it would have purchased a copy. Even the US Government has chosen to cease using that debunked argument. There's no guarantee that anyone that copies an item would have bought it otherwise. As a fact, it doesn't deprive anyone of their sale, and thus it doesn't equate to lost jobs.
Come on, you have to at least understand that this whole counter argument has been thoroughly vetted.
What your masters need to do is get it through their heads that they need to compete in the digital world. Instead of raping the public for $15.00 - 20.00 a CD they should be providing the public with incentives to buy, to buy some finite good. That means they need to come to grips with the fact that this world is changing.
This whole debate here isn't new. There are repeated instances throughout history where advances in technology has driven the currently entrenched business models to seek government protections. The horse and carriage when cars were invented, live performances were felt to be in jeopardy when recordings were created, recording sales were felt in jeopardy when the radio was invented. This goes on and on going backwards in history and moving forward. Adapt or die. Your business model can't survive the onslaught of technological advances.
People are fully aware of the facts that the entertainment industry has been seeking protectionist policies and laws from the lawmakers to prop up their failing business models. The world is changing, either you adapt or you die as a business.
Many recording artists feel that the biggest pirates of all are the members of the RIAA cartel. Their contracts are onerous. Their accounting practices only add to that by denying artists their due. Imagine an artists selling a million copies of their album (at around $15.00 per CD) and still owing their label millions. And how about the very problematic fact that the RIAA had a Congressional staffer named Mitch Glazier sneak four words into a big Congressional bill in the middle of the night when no one noticed making all sound recordings into works-made-for-hire. This had the chilling effect of denying the artists their due rights to reclaim their copyright after a period of time. Since people noticed this they raised their voices loud enough to force Congress to correct it.
Do you not understand that those methodologies used by the RIAA and even the MPAA are greater acts of theft than anyone downloading a song or movie for their own use?
Now, distribution on the other hand is covered. Distributing copyrighted material, especially for profit, is against the law.
Let's get real here. So far, as far as most of the lawsuits where the RIAA/MPAA have sued their customers (thus creating a hostile environment) there have been no criminal charges filed.
That's an extreme point of view. Nothing like shouting to the world that you are a biased individual.
Do you own a Macintosh? Do you own an iPhone? Do you own an Android phone? Do you own a DVR such as a Tivo? Do you use a web browser (Chrome, Safari, Firefox)? Do you use hotmail (MSN mail)? Do you use your ISPs email? Does your company use Apache as their web server? Do you query Google, or use gmail or use Google Voice or Google Docs, or any other Google service?
Most of those things, and countless others, are part of open source projects. Apple's Macintosh OSX's core piece is open source. Apple's Safari uses webkit which was created by KDE (which is an open source project). The vast majority of web services are based on open source projects. You wouldn't have the web without it, and yes, even Hotmail uses Linux.
NASA uses open source. NASA has been a major contributor to open source from way back and has created drivers for the kernel. Many of the top corporations use Linux and contribute to it. I believe some or all of the stock exchanges use Linux. 90% of the super computers in the world use open source.
So, what exactly makes open source suck?