I disagree that the bolded section is a giant leap of logic, flawed or not. Nor all of it shared "by choice". By ignorance or stupidity certainly but not choice.
Far too many people, adults who really ought to know better, yell into their cell phones not only the lurid tales of their gall bladder operation in crowded coffee shops but the equally lurid details of their partner's sexual drawbacks or their child throwing up on the kitchen floor. They seem to think that their iPhone, Blackberry or Android phone come complete with a magical cone of silence and are offended when someone points out that they don't want to sit there with their Tim's Espresso and Apple Fritter. The response is always "you don't have to listen, this is a private call!!!" that for the last 15 minutes has become very, very public.
Similarly if you allow yourself to be tracked via your smart phone or a GPS device in your car and "broadcast" all over Facebook and Twitter don't complain when your house is broken into.
Governments, bless their intrusive hides, will latch onto all of this as will law enforcement. Don't bet that they already don't. We, the people, put it out there the cops are "out there" too. If we don't behave as if some of what we send out to the world is private it won't be private.
I'll break with the Judge where he talks about what he perceives of as the dangers of Web 2.0. Web crawler bots existed long before Web 2.0 became fashionable as they do now.
Like others I take this more as a warning than a threat. The more we share of ourselves online, the more our information crazy governments will expect us to share then demand that we share it.
The assumptions that we go along with all of this will start, as they always do, with police, then security agencies then eventually tax agencies and then all government apparatus' will want that information too.
The notion that we are governed by the consent of the people will, at some point, morph into being governed, for our own good, by the nanny state which has become all knowing and all seeing. A nanny state aided and abetted by Facebook like private entities, Tweets and...well, you can see where I'm going.
By then it will be up to others, perhaps not yet born, to rebel. I have enough faith in humanity that we will rebel one day.
We had this happen at the Vancouver/Whistler Winter Games too. IOC inspired silly rules about who could do what where and DON'T YOU DARE take photos at events and post them online.
Of course, people with camera phones did just that. And posted them and the IOC went bonkers.
This after a four or five year lead up to the event where the IOC inspected the Metro Vancouver area to assure that absolutely nothing, even at the microscopic level it seemed, violated any one of their copyrights or trademarks.
Even to the point of trying to get a court enforced order on a pizza place that had been operating for over 40 years called Olympia Pizza. They failed.
I don't know how successful they were at getting women and girls to change their names if they happened to be named Olympia.
I'm sure that they wanted to go after the name Olympic Peninsula in Washington State except that, perhaps, some bright lawyer or the US Console in Vancouver talked them out of it.
The games themselves were wonderful as were the athletes. The IOC got a gold medal for being completely and incredibly out of touch and micromanaging.
I respectfully disagree that blaming copyright as the trigger event is wrong. By all reports he was never the same after the High Court ruling, all over an 11 note sequence.
With all respect, and I mean that seriously, please don't judge unless you've been to the places he'd been in terms of his addictions and whatnot. You'll never know. I pray you never will.
If you'd bother to read the source material you'd find that it wasn't Mike that made the connection but others and was reprinted in newspapers and, I'm sure, spread by other media in "The Land Down Under", if I can say that without infringing on Larrikan's copyright.
For whatever reasons he relapsed into his addictions and died. That's tragic. All over a flute solo that was a few seconds long.
Save your faux outrage for Larrikan, if it's outrage you want.
Save your faux outrage for IP maximalism if you need outrage.
Me? I'll stick to regret and sadness that the world is less one talented and skill musician and songwriter. And the loss of one more traveler down the road of addiction and recovery that I'm on. (11 years clean and sober next month.) I know that place he went to, I've been there myself over the years. I just wish I could have helped somehow.
He didn't copy, he paid homage two different things yet somehow the Aussie courts couldn't figure that out.
Nor will he be remembered for copying but for the hours of joy and entertainment he and his bandmates brought to the world even at their most serious.
For Greg and his family: "Rest Eternal grant to Greg, oh Lord, and may light perpetual shine upon him."
Re: Re: Re: Would this be another good time to repeat . . .
In an ideal world, say the one postulated in "The Wealth of Nations", income redistribution would happen as a consequence of vigorous competition in the marketplace and not by "stripping the wealthy" by legislated means.
You're right about short term thinking causes more problems that it solves. A great many more. I wouldn't accuse Masnick of that though I would say that politicians are very guilty of that. If your chances of re-election are dependent on a short term "fix" that's popular a great many politicians will take that over a longer term unpopular one that will actually result in "progress".
There's nothing wrong with a cost/benefit analysis being done on legislation that requires spending or sets a budget keeping in mind that the state has to find the money to pay for this somewhere. Stripping the wealthy has never worked but then again creating a permanent underclass hasn't either. So there must be a balance struck between wealth and poverty in tax structures in order to pay for what the state wants to spend on.
Then comes the problem that what constitutes "progress" to some is taken as the polar opposite to others.
Let me bring this one up with respect to "Intellectual property", a phrase I'm coming to loath. What is commonly misquoted from the Bible as "money is the root of all evil" is actually "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil".
In the context of this post I'd suggest that the problem with the *AAs if of the world and the companies that make them up the so-called "content industry" is guilty of the latter. And swimming in money has hardly made them less risk-averse, in fact it's made them MORE risk-averse. Which explains their actions which, if it was a flesh and blood human being, we'd call miserly.
Leaving sexual orientation out of this for a moment I'd agree that lawyers practicing for and in a single industry do get myopic and, therefore, lose touch with the realities of the world. Most politicians are lawyer which might go some way to explaining the *AA's supporters in Parliaments and Congresses around the world suddenly share the same myopia as WeHo lawyers, gay, straight, bi, trans or something else.
Having lived in Vancouver's West End for a number of years I do know a few gay lawyers who find the whole IP maximalist thing ridiculous. I'm straight, incidentally.
Leaving sexual orientation out of this for a moment I'd agree that lawyers practicing for and in a single industry do get myopic and, therefore, lose touch with the realities of the world. Most politicians are lawyer which might go some way to explaining the *AA's supporters in Parliaments and Congresses around the world suddenly share the same myopia as WeHo lawyers, gay, straight, bi, trans or something else.
Having lived in Vancouver's West End for a number of years I do know a few gay lawyers who find the whole IP maximalist thing ridiculous. I'm straight, incidentally.
From a quick read of the stories it appears that this is a very good ruling from Australia's version of a federal Supreme Court.
The judges ruling is unanimous and, better, there is no minority opinion from any of the justices. Even better is the costs award which judges often use to express their opinion of the validity of the lawsuit to start with and whether or not they consider the time and costs to have been "wasted".
In my mind even better is that the judges acknowledge that bittorrent is a protocol that is an inherent part of the Internet not a peer-to-peer network and not inherently blockable by an ISP as it's built in. AND the futility of it all by pointing out the futility of it all by the alleged infringer switching ISPs. (Bittorrent is described as a swarm by it's developers which more accurately describes how it functions.)
"It would seem apparent that the current Australian Copyright Act isn't capable of protecting content once it hits the internet and peer-to-peer networks...," AFACT managing director Neil Gane said.
As others have pointed out no copyright act is capable of "protecting content" once it hits the Web or Net. Once it's there it's there.
iiNet CEO Michael Malone welcomed the ruling and said Hollywood should now focus on increasing the availability of lawful content in a timely and affordable manner. "We have consistently said we are eager to work with the studios to make their very desirable material legitimately available to a waiting customer base - and that offer remains the same today," he said.
iiNet has the right idea here though it's doubtful the *AA's will get that now or, perhaps, ever. They haven't so far.
Germany seems to be a hotbed of bad decisions on "IP" issues. Or at least some courts and states seem to be. The West Texas of Europe, as it were.
Ironically the Hamburg court is located in the very city that uses open source software to conduct all its business. Not that there's a direct connection between the two but it is ironic.
You'd do well to educate yourself on existing trade arrangements between Chile and the United States before mouthing off like that.
The Pharmaceutical industry's research and development is done globally not just in the United States, just in case you didn't know that either. So as much as Big Pharma loves US IP laws I'm not all that sure they want to lose the R&D they do elsewhere in the world to make an example of Chile.
But if the US did want to make an example of Chile I suspect all that would do is, as far as trade is concerned, push them into the waiting arms of China, India and Brazil. Not to mention Europe once ACTA fails there.
So they'll find a way to get their heavy equipment and aircraft imports satisfied and new markets for their wine. Not to mention movies, television, books and all the stuff the American "content" business does. Almost all in English.
Canada has been a frequent guest on that list. Bogus and silly is putting it mildly.
Not every country is as enamored of the IP rights of Big Pharma and Hollywood are or Senator Orrin Hatch's questioning of Chile's notice and notice policy around allegedly infringing web sites in Chile.
In the link provided in the Mike's story the Chileans point out that the world has changed and that, for now, Chile is more concerned that signing onto TPP will make it impossible to get better trading arrangements with China and India. Chile already has an FTA with the United States so they have access to that market TPP or no TPP. (Chile also has an FTA with Canada.)
Chile is also looking at trade with the huge Chinese economy and the rapidly growing Indian economy while questioning the value of knuckling under to the US over the American attempt to export their IP rights regime.
And the speakers at the conference from Chile did invite their civil society to take part in and monitor the negotiations on TPP so their public will be included. While, officially, the US citizenry is excluded.
That I agree with. Though most AC's will say it's all about providing some sort of guaranteed income for the inventor(s). And that that is the true incentive. That's the viewpoint I responded to. And it does rear it's ugly head here far too often.
Author advances are only a cost if you pay one. I don't know if it's common practice at your publishing house or not but if you do then I agree with what follows beginning with "We pay you to write the book.." assuming the you is the author. As well as designers, editors and all the other things which go into it. Lovingly or not. ;-) Not all publishers pay advances to all their authors, though, so that cost for that/those books doesn't exist. Incidentally there are some incredible artists at DeviantArt who would do a wonderful job designing a cover for a book. I'd worry about them selecting the type face, mind you, because that's not what they do. And that's part of the "interior" design of a book.
For all of that sort of thing I stand by what I said about the public (aka the Market) doesn't care about any of that. Nor should it. If you as a publisher set the price too high the book won't sell no matter how wonderful it is. After all, in a free market nothing guarantees that you will recoup your costs much less make a profit and that's where you and I part company if I read you correctly.
As you say, there's not really just a comparison between the paperback editions or the ebook edition any more than there is a direct comparison between the hard cover or the paperback or the soft cover of that same book. (Though often I've seen that the soft cover and hard cover have the same cover, layout and type face along with other design features.)
I can agree till the cows come home about all of that and the rest of the P&L the moment I become a customer I just don't care. I want the best price I can get or I'm not buying. The same issue arises with the ebook. Particularly if the ebook comes encumbered by DRM which reduces it's value to me. A book, hardcover, softcover, paperback or ebook is not a video game though I do expect to be able to do with the ebook what I can do with the dead tree editions. That is NOT an unreasonable expectation. In fact, it's perfectly reasonable.
Yes, more people are buying books, perhaps not reading them but buying them.
But if your industry doesn't wish to be tarred with the same well-deserved brush that the RIAA and MPAA have been then I suggest that you need to drop DRM on ebooks and stop pretending that the price on the cover is the price the retailer must sell the book for no matter what format that it's in. And work with and for your customers/readers in getting a standard ebook format that will work on a Kindle, iPad or whatever device it is placed on. You'll get nothing but praise. Perhaps a few more sales too.
A reduction in infringing files floating around out there? I'd suggest very strongly that you would but if fear of piracy is all that strong then I guess you'll stick with DRM which will only increase piracy and legitimate buyers cracking the DRM attached to their legally purchased book.
It all doesn't have to be too depressing, just a bit of a rethink on the publishers part about things like DRM and behaving publicly like the MPAA and RIAA. Or lining up with them. Take a chance and work with your customers. Don't treat them (us) as real or potential thieves.
No, publishing is not monolithic. Nor is all publishing commercial in nature. Though I'd argue that not all university publishers are non-profits particularly after looking at the list of books that are not curriculum books printed and sold by the likes of Oxford University Press.
Part of the issue with scholarly presses at the University level is that the market is built in particularly with books set on curriculum so the sales are, to some degree, built in. Some university presses do work co-cooperatively with other schools to bring down pricing as well. I don't know about your institution. Not all are non-profit which is why I mentioned Oxford though I do understand that a percentage of what profits they do make is returned to the school. That and I don't know what co-operative relationships you may have with other schools.
I will congratulate you, and other university presses, in the wealth of information I find on the Web that were originally published on paper and are now freely available if somewhat out of date. It's enabled me to research a couple of topics that would otherwise have been difficult to do when I took up an new "hobby".
You're perfectly correct in pointing out that publishing covers a lot of ground from the Big Six to small presses in small towns publishing local material of various sorts. And that we shouldn't fall into the trap of lumping it all into the same basket as the big commercial presses. Thanks for pointing that out and good luck.
On the post: Men At Work Musician Found Dead; Ridiculous Copyright Ruling Against Band Blamed
Re: Re: Re:
I didn't take this as ghoulish and I don't know.
Again, point your fake outrage somewhere else.
On the post: Judge Alex Kozinski Fears That People Share Too Much Info Online; But Does That Mean We Give Up All Privacy Rights?
Far too many people, adults who really ought to know better, yell into their cell phones not only the lurid tales of their gall bladder operation in crowded coffee shops but the equally lurid details of their partner's sexual drawbacks or their child throwing up on the kitchen floor. They seem to think that their iPhone, Blackberry or Android phone come complete with a magical cone of silence and are offended when someone points out that they don't want to sit there with their Tim's Espresso and Apple Fritter. The response is always "you don't have to listen, this is a private call!!!" that for the last 15 minutes has become very, very public.
Similarly if you allow yourself to be tracked via your smart phone or a GPS device in your car and "broadcast" all over Facebook and Twitter don't complain when your house is broken into.
Governments, bless their intrusive hides, will latch onto all of this as will law enforcement. Don't bet that they already don't. We, the people, put it out there the cops are "out there" too. If we don't behave as if some of what we send out to the world is private it won't be private.
I'll break with the Judge where he talks about what he perceives of as the dangers of Web 2.0. Web crawler bots existed long before Web 2.0 became fashionable as they do now.
Like others I take this more as a warning than a threat. The more we share of ourselves online, the more our information crazy governments will expect us to share then demand that we share it.
The assumptions that we go along with all of this will start, as they always do, with police, then security agencies then eventually tax agencies and then all government apparatus' will want that information too.
The notion that we are governed by the consent of the people will, at some point, morph into being governed, for our own good, by the nanny state which has become all knowing and all seeing. A nanny state aided and abetted by Facebook like private entities, Tweets and...well, you can see where I'm going.
By then it will be up to others, perhaps not yet born, to rebel. I have enough faith in humanity that we will rebel one day.
On the post: London 2012 Olympics Win Gold Medal For Cluelessness By Banning Video And Photo Uploads To Social Media During Games
The great IOC clampdown..again
Of course, people with camera phones did just that. And posted them and the IOC went bonkers.
This after a four or five year lead up to the event where the IOC inspected the Metro Vancouver area to assure that absolutely nothing, even at the microscopic level it seemed, violated any one of their copyrights or trademarks.
Even to the point of trying to get a court enforced order on a pizza place that had been operating for over 40 years called Olympia Pizza. They failed.
I don't know how successful they were at getting women and girls to change their names if they happened to be named Olympia.
I'm sure that they wanted to go after the name Olympic Peninsula in Washington State except that, perhaps, some bright lawyer or the US Console in Vancouver talked them out of it.
The games themselves were wonderful as were the athletes. The IOC got a gold medal for being completely and incredibly out of touch and micromanaging.
On the post: Men At Work Musician Found Dead; Ridiculous Copyright Ruling Against Band Blamed
Re:
With all respect, and I mean that seriously, please don't judge unless you've been to the places he'd been in terms of his addictions and whatnot. You'll never know. I pray you never will.
On the post: Men At Work Musician Found Dead; Ridiculous Copyright Ruling Against Band Blamed
Re:
For whatever reasons he relapsed into his addictions and died. That's tragic. All over a flute solo that was a few seconds long.
Save your faux outrage for Larrikan, if it's outrage you want.
Save your faux outrage for IP maximalism if you need outrage.
Me? I'll stick to regret and sadness that the world is less one talented and skill musician and songwriter. And the loss of one more traveler down the road of addiction and recovery that I'm on. (11 years clean and sober next month.) I know that place he went to, I've been there myself over the years. I just wish I could have helped somehow.
He didn't copy, he paid homage two different things yet somehow the Aussie courts couldn't figure that out.
Nor will he be remembered for copying but for the hours of joy and entertainment he and his bandmates brought to the world even at their most serious.
For Greg and his family: "Rest Eternal grant to Greg, oh Lord, and may light perpetual shine upon him."
On the post: Rep. Zoe Lofgren Quizzes US Register Of Copyrights Over Close Connection To Industry
Re: Re: Re: Would this be another good time to repeat . . .
You're right about short term thinking causes more problems that it solves. A great many more. I wouldn't accuse Masnick of that though I would say that politicians are very guilty of that. If your chances of re-election are dependent on a short term "fix" that's popular a great many politicians will take that over a longer term unpopular one that will actually result in "progress".
There's nothing wrong with a cost/benefit analysis being done on legislation that requires spending or sets a budget keeping in mind that the state has to find the money to pay for this somewhere. Stripping the wealthy has never worked but then again creating a permanent underclass hasn't either. So there must be a balance struck between wealth and poverty in tax structures in order to pay for what the state wants to spend on.
Then comes the problem that what constitutes "progress" to some is taken as the polar opposite to others.
Let me bring this one up with respect to "Intellectual property", a phrase I'm coming to loath. What is commonly misquoted from the Bible as "money is the root of all evil" is actually "the LOVE of money is the root of all evil".
In the context of this post I'd suggest that the problem with the *AAs if of the world and the companies that make them up the so-called "content industry" is guilty of the latter. And swimming in money has hardly made them less risk-averse, in fact it's made them MORE risk-averse. Which explains their actions which, if it was a flesh and blood human being, we'd call miserly.
On the post: Hollywood Loses Its Big Copyright Lawsuit Against ISP iiNet Down Under
Re: Re: Can we get a consensus on this one?
On the post: Hollywood Loses Its Big Copyright Lawsuit Against ISP iiNet Down Under
Re: Can we get a consensus on this one?
Having lived in Vancouver's West End for a number of years I do know a few gay lawyers who find the whole IP maximalist thing ridiculous. I'm straight, incidentally.
On the post: Hollywood Loses Its Big Copyright Lawsuit Against ISP iiNet Down Under
Re: Can we get a consensus on this one?
Having lived in Vancouver's West End for a number of years I do know a few gay lawyers who find the whole IP maximalist thing ridiculous. I'm straight, incidentally.
On the post: Hollywood Loses Its Big Copyright Lawsuit Against ISP iiNet Down Under
The judges ruling is unanimous and, better, there is no minority opinion from any of the justices. Even better is the costs award which judges often use to express their opinion of the validity of the lawsuit to start with and whether or not they consider the time and costs to have been "wasted".
In my mind even better is that the judges acknowledge that bittorrent is a protocol that is an inherent part of the Internet not a peer-to-peer network and not inherently blockable by an ISP as it's built in. AND the futility of it all by pointing out the futility of it all by the alleged infringer switching ISPs. (Bittorrent is described as a swarm by it's developers which more accurately describes how it functions.)
As others have pointed out no copyright act is capable of "protecting content" once it hits the Web or Net. Once it's there it's there.
iiNet has the right idea here though it's doubtful the *AA's will get that now or, perhaps, ever. They haven't so far.
On the post: Hollywood Loses Its Big Copyright Lawsuit Against ISP iiNet Down Under
Re:
Ironically the Hamburg court is located in the very city that uses open source software to conduct all its business. Not that there's a direct connection between the two but it is ironic.
On the post: Cargo Cult Reverse Activism: Maximalists Think That If They Use Social Media They Can Counteract Public Concerns
Re: Re:
The subspecies LOLfeline will rise up in revolt, I tell ya!
On the post: Countries In TPP Negotiations Begin To Wonder Why They Should Let The US Push Them Around
Re: If only...
On the post: Countries In TPP Negotiations Begin To Wonder Why They Should Let The US Push Them Around
Re:
The Pharmaceutical industry's research and development is done globally not just in the United States, just in case you didn't know that either. So as much as Big Pharma loves US IP laws I'm not all that sure they want to lose the R&D they do elsewhere in the world to make an example of Chile.
But if the US did want to make an example of Chile I suspect all that would do is, as far as trade is concerned, push them into the waiting arms of China, India and Brazil. Not to mention Europe once ACTA fails there.
So they'll find a way to get their heavy equipment and aircraft imports satisfied and new markets for their wine. Not to mention movies, television, books and all the stuff the American "content" business does. Almost all in English.
On the post: Countries In TPP Negotiations Begin To Wonder Why They Should Let The US Push Them Around
Re: Shame?
Not every country is as enamored of the IP rights of Big Pharma and Hollywood are or Senator Orrin Hatch's questioning of Chile's notice and notice policy around allegedly infringing web sites in Chile.
In the link provided in the Mike's story the Chileans point out that the world has changed and that, for now, Chile is more concerned that signing onto TPP will make it impossible to get better trading arrangements with China and India. Chile already has an FTA with the United States so they have access to that market TPP or no TPP. (Chile also has an FTA with Canada.)
Chile is also looking at trade with the huge Chinese economy and the rapidly growing Indian economy while questioning the value of knuckling under to the US over the American attempt to export their IP rights regime.
And the speakers at the conference from Chile did invite their civil society to take part in and monitor the negotiations on TPP so their public will be included. While, officially, the US citizenry is excluded.
On the post: It's Time To Re-Establish That If A Patent Blocks Progress, It's Unconstitutional
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: If Publishers Can't Cover Their Costs With $10 Ebooks, Then They Deserve To Go Out Of Business
Re: Oh god it's too depressing.
For all of that sort of thing I stand by what I said about the public (aka the Market) doesn't care about any of that. Nor should it. If you as a publisher set the price too high the book won't sell no matter how wonderful it is. After all, in a free market nothing guarantees that you will recoup your costs much less make a profit and that's where you and I part company if I read you correctly.
As you say, there's not really just a comparison between the paperback editions or the ebook edition any more than there is a direct comparison between the hard cover or the paperback or the soft cover of that same book. (Though often I've seen that the soft cover and hard cover have the same cover, layout and type face along with other design features.)
I can agree till the cows come home about all of that and the rest of the P&L the moment I become a customer I just don't care. I want the best price I can get or I'm not buying. The same issue arises with the ebook. Particularly if the ebook comes encumbered by DRM which reduces it's value to me. A book, hardcover, softcover, paperback or ebook is not a video game though I do expect to be able to do with the ebook what I can do with the dead tree editions. That is NOT an unreasonable expectation. In fact, it's perfectly reasonable.
Yes, more people are buying books, perhaps not reading them but buying them.
But if your industry doesn't wish to be tarred with the same well-deserved brush that the RIAA and MPAA have been then I suggest that you need to drop DRM on ebooks and stop pretending that the price on the cover is the price the retailer must sell the book for no matter what format that it's in. And work with and for your customers/readers in getting a standard ebook format that will work on a Kindle, iPad or whatever device it is placed on. You'll get nothing but praise. Perhaps a few more sales too.
A reduction in infringing files floating around out there? I'd suggest very strongly that you would but if fear of piracy is all that strong then I guess you'll stick with DRM which will only increase piracy and legitimate buyers cracking the DRM attached to their legally purchased book.
It all doesn't have to be too depressing, just a bit of a rethink on the publishers part about things like DRM and behaving publicly like the MPAA and RIAA. Or lining up with them. Take a chance and work with your customers. Don't treat them (us) as real or potential thieves.
On the post: If Publishers Can't Cover Their Costs With $10 Ebooks, Then They Deserve To Go Out Of Business
Re:
Part of the issue with scholarly presses at the University level is that the market is built in particularly with books set on curriculum so the sales are, to some degree, built in. Some university presses do work co-cooperatively with other schools to bring down pricing as well. I don't know about your institution. Not all are non-profit which is why I mentioned Oxford though I do understand that a percentage of what profits they do make is returned to the school. That and I don't know what co-operative relationships you may have with other schools.
I will congratulate you, and other university presses, in the wealth of information I find on the Web that were originally published on paper and are now freely available if somewhat out of date. It's enabled me to research a couple of topics that would otherwise have been difficult to do when I took up an new "hobby".
You're perfectly correct in pointing out that publishing covers a lot of ground from the Big Six to small presses in small towns publishing local material of various sorts. And that we shouldn't fall into the trap of lumping it all into the same basket as the big commercial presses. Thanks for pointing that out and good luck.
On the post: If Publishers Can't Cover Their Costs With $10 Ebooks, Then They Deserve To Go Out Of Business
Re: Response to: TtfnJohn on Apr 17th, 2012 @ 3:58pm
On the post: Microsoft: Open Standards Are Good... If They're The Open Standards We Get Paid For
Re: How?
Next >>