Personally I'm less worried about being spied on than I am of the knowledge that our governments don't seem to be able to comprehend security.
Highly sensitive US military networks are apparently vulnerable to anybody with a few scrip-kiddie tools and in the UK our government can't even keep social security records on laptops safe.
I mean my god the NSA just grabbed everybody's data in a drag net to catch one or two people. Does anybody think Fox Mulder is going to be sitting there reading every single e-mail and web search? Uncaring emotionless computers will do all the grunt work.
Nobody cares you watch lesbian granny porn and pay for the privilege.
Now Google and other similar companies already track everything you do on-line. And they can't even claim it's in the interests of national security.
It's really sad people in the nation that proclaims it's self to be the leader of the free world are fighting over a tips jar in court. Even worse, they still have a tips jar!
"Open source licenses are often described as the "constitutions" for the communities that form around the software they govern. That would seem to imply that in their absence, alongside other unwanted consequences, the communities would collapse. A provocative paper by Clark Asay, Assistant Professor at Penn State University Dickinson School of Law, suggests that this isn't the case, and that software could be released into the public domain and yet still thrive as a collaborative project."
I've never known anybody to even suggest this. The purpose of the GPL is to stop industry or other entities building on open source code and then refusing to share their improvements. Clearly such entities would not really be part of the core community and would just be bit part actors on the side lines scraping up scraps of code from the web.
The problem is not so much the "not sharing". It's the unfair advantage they gain.
Telsa have to admit we have a long way to go before their electric cars can match standard American gas guzzlers.
The Times need to make sure the next time they send a reporter to review what is essentially an oversized child's electric go-cart, they send someone who can at least operate a toaster without instruction. I think their reporter in this case would have struggled with that task.
This is really just one more reason to use LibreOffice.org instead or even Google Docs.
That way everybody is a winner. Microsoft's software doesn't get pirated and users get to use their software as they see fit and save �100 or so into the bargain.
Even more shocking than this policy of Microsoft's is how EMC licences Captiva. They do it "per image captured". When you reach your pre-paid level of images you can't scan any more until you buy a new licence package.
Imagine if Microsoft charged per Word document? Perhaps by page produced in Word? Or even per word typed in Word?
I know 6 to 8 years isn't exactly a lifetime, but so far as free offers or discounted hosting deals go it's a damn good run.
The company could probably phase this out more gradually. If the hardware's failing and it's going to cost them too much to virtualise then what else can they do? Sticking to the line "we promised" isn't a viable business model.
Techdirt is always ready to criticize companies and organizations for sticking belligerently to failing business models. Well when things change there are often casualties. You can't have it both ways.
Patents and copyright are government sponsored licensed monopolies. Given that they are "licensed", meaning your monopoly doesn't last forever (in theory), it should be illegal to sell them on.
Think of it this way. You apply for a drivers licence, pay the fee, take the test and if you meet the criteria you get your drivers license. You are no however allowed to sell that license on. Now some people will say "yeah but that drivers license is unique to you and covers only you". Which is true.
However the whole point about copyright and patents is the IP created is unique. An inventor is granted a patent when the inventor creates a unique innovation nobody else would have thought of because it's not obvious. Which makes that invention or innovation unique to the inventor.
Of course the USPTO and the US government know full well the overwhelmingly vast majority of patents are not for unique innovations or inventions. Which is why they are moving to "first to file" rather than "first to invent". Which really brings into question the legitimacy of most patents.
LOL! This whole IP ownership nonsense gets more ridiculous by the day. Before you know it every human on the planet will have to devise his/her/it's own language and totally unique name just to live without being sued. Of course we'll all have to pay each other royalties every time we talk to one another using the other's language.
So what this guy is saying that just by using consumer technologies, bought and paid for from a high street store, consumers are infringing on patents? God help us if this is allowed to set a precedent. Can you imagine how many patents the average consumer could be accused of violating? How many patents are involved in PCs, cars, TVs, mobile phones, land line phones, cookers, microwave ovens, iPods, MP3 players, bues, power tools, toys, trains and planes and any other consumer device or object you care to name?
The Amish life is looking appealing. Although I'm pretty sure someone has a patent on the horse and cart.
If you can't use information or knowledge then what's the point of knowing about it? And that's what IP laws do. They lock-down knowledge and stop people from using it. So it really makes no difference if people kept their knowledge secrete without IP protection. It's a rare event when there's only one person working on an idea. The world wouldn't suffer without IP laws.
What these patents demonstrate is that anything can be patented if you fill in the form correctly and pay the money. Now who's patented blogging? Seriously that's got to be more lucrative than a temporary snow person.
I predict an anti-trust law suit in the next few years when Windows 8 hits the stores. Apparently Microsoft are insisting OEMs and ODMs producing "Ultrabooks" who are participating in the Windows 8 logo program use a "security" feature of UEFI which requires an OS to be digitally signed with special keys. Which will of course lock out many GNU/Linux distributions from the mainstream PC market.
I think this will come down to the format rights for the shows. If the Italian show infringes on the BBC's format rights then the BBC could have a case. As dumb as that sounds. I think the BBC are being really stupid here.
I think maybe all these little developers should move to a country where copyright is considered sufficient to protect original software works. Maybe then the US and other countries where software patents are problematic will get a clue.
Have the TechDirt staff been taking stupid pills lately? I don't think anybody calls e-mail "file sharing software". I think we know what sort of applications this university are talking about. Torrent clients and the like.
It's also not a bad thing to get people to learn about copyright, what is or isn't infringement. Isn't that part of what you guys try to do here. Make people aware?
Who cares?
Highly sensitive US military networks are apparently vulnerable to anybody with a few scrip-kiddie tools and in the UK our government can't even keep social security records on laptops safe.
I mean my god the NSA just grabbed everybody's data in a drag net to catch one or two people. Does anybody think Fox Mulder is going to be sitting there reading every single e-mail and web search? Uncaring emotionless computers will do all the grunt work.
Nobody cares you watch lesbian granny porn and pay for the privilege.
Now Google and other similar companies already track everything you do on-line. And they can't even claim it's in the interests of national security.
What Facebook page?
Why Would They?
We all know the UK follows. It does not lead.
So sad :(
(untitled comment)
I've never known anybody to even suggest this. The purpose of the GPL is to stop industry or other entities building on open source code and then refusing to share their improvements. Clearly such entities would not really be part of the core community and would just be bit part actors on the side lines scraping up scraps of code from the web.
The problem is not so much the "not sharing". It's the unfair advantage they gain.
(untitled comment)
The real lesson is ...
The Times need to make sure the next time they send a reporter to review what is essentially an oversized child's electric go-cart, they send someone who can at least operate a toaster without instruction. I think their reporter in this case would have struggled with that task.
Just use Libre Office
That way everybody is a winner. Microsoft's software doesn't get pirated and users get to use their software as they see fit and save �100 or so into the bargain.
Even more shocking than this policy of Microsoft's is how EMC licences Captiva. They do it "per image captured". When you reach your pre-paid level of images you can't scan any more until you buy a new licence package.
Imagine if Microsoft charged per Word document? Perhaps by page produced in Word? Or even per word typed in Word?
Life Sucks, Move On!
The company could probably phase this out more gradually. If the hardware's failing and it's going to cost them too much to virtualise then what else can they do? Sticking to the line "we promised" isn't a viable business model.
Techdirt is always ready to criticize companies and organizations for sticking belligerently to failing business models. Well when things change there are often casualties. You can't have it both ways.
Selling Patents And IP should Be Illegal
Think of it this way. You apply for a drivers licence, pay the fee, take the test and if you meet the criteria you get your drivers license. You are no however allowed to sell that license on. Now some people will say "yeah but that drivers license is unique to you and covers only you". Which is true.
However the whole point about copyright and patents is the IP created is unique. An inventor is granted a patent when the inventor creates a unique innovation nobody else would have thought of because it's not obvious. Which makes that invention or innovation unique to the inventor.
Of course the USPTO and the US government know full well the overwhelmingly vast majority of patents are not for unique innovations or inventions. Which is why they are moving to "first to file" rather than "first to invent". Which really brings into question the legitimacy of most patents.
IPMAX In Thunderdrome!
Re:
(untitled comment)
The Amish life is looking appealing. Although I'm pretty sure someone has a patent on the horse and cart.
(untitled comment)
Fill in the form and pay the money!
Microsoft and UEFI
Format Rights?
(untitled comment)
Maybe they should move?
(untitled comment)
It's also not a bad thing to get people to learn about copyright, what is or isn't infringement. Isn't that part of what you guys try to do here. Make people aware?
More comments from aikiwolfie >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by aikiwolfie.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt