I'll start off with this quote from McClatchy-Tribune Information Services' Jon Dawson who is reviewing the new Britney Spears release: "The Singles Collection gathers all of Britney Spears singles released between the years of 1999 and 2009. This is a good thing, because if they're all in one place, maybe somebody with a flamethrower can destroy them before more people are exposed to them. The earth is running out of oil and water, yet both of these fragile resources were used to create this 29-disc box set." That's fantastic. That's more brutal than almost anything I've ever written. I laughed. I posted it on FaceBook. I want to share it with my readers because it's hysterically funny.
This link goes to a list of theme parks and various brochures and maps of them, some back to the 1930s. It's got Carowinds, Opryland, Disney, Six Flags, Great American, and many, many more. There's a European section too. Thanks to John Carney for this link.
I rarely take the side of Microsoft or say anything nice about them. If you feel the shock of me saying nice things will be too much for your system, you might want to skip this bit. As you're well aware, the only Microsoft product of the modern era I don't hate are some of their mouse products. I use an Optical IntelliMouse at home and the wireless version at work and the Bluetooth one with the laptop (the mouse is mine, not work's).
Earlier this week Microsoft did something that warmed my heart considerably. Microsoft decided that anyone who modified their X-Box wasn't allowed to use their on-line servers any more. Now, before you get your knickers in a knot or your panties in a wad, I absolutely and unequivocally support your right to do whatever you want to your X-Box (PS3, Wii, etc.) once you own it. It's yours, not theirs.
However, they are in business to make money -- leaving aside any argument whether or not they deserver it -- and so if their terms of use for their On-Line service say, only original unmodified equipment can be used, then that is their right. It's a private company and nobody has right of access. That's the end of that. Period. You can bet others will follow suit. Microsoft told BBC News that banned machines will be permanently barred and "unable to connect to Xbox Live." Users will have to buy new machines if they want to do that. Yeah, it's a bit harsh, but there ya' go. When you did it, you knew there would be consequences, so don't be mad that this is what they are. The unit will still work for off-line play. Will someone come up with a mod-chip that bypasses this? Likely so. Do I care? Not at all. I am just amused at all the whiners -- they won't win, can't win this battle. Microsoft, to use their own terms PWND them.
This parallels my feelings for Psystar vs Apple. If Psystar actually buys the copies of OS-X as it claims -- which I am skeptical about -- then they should be allowed to modify them. Sadly, courts have time and time again ruled that software that you buy is not your software. In most cases, you are purchasing a license to use the software. That means you can't legally modify it. I modify software for various reasons, mostly performance tweaks and such. Considering I actually buy my software and don't steal (pirate) it, I feel perfectly entitled to do what I want with it including installing it on more than one machine. If I'm only using one copy at a time, I think that's fine -- many companies have seen the light and now let you install the software on both a desktop and laptop. Others continue to suck.
Our corporate Twitter account continues to gain followers though it's still something we're not active with. Same goes for our FaceBook page. I've packed for the trade show and managed to get it all into one overstuffed piece of luggage and one way-too-heavy backpack. If I'm lucky, I'll be able to ship most of it back and not have to check luggage. I have to check in for my flight, cancel the paper, and all those things.
I heard U2's With Or Without You today. I happened to look at the RDS data and noticed this song was from 1987. Damn. 22 years old. I think I'll just go to a retirement home now.
Due to the trade show, I will be slow to reply to e-mails, moderate comments, and all that good stuff. Be patient. And this cough, I hate it: I'm a bit more phlegmy and a lot more coughy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Copyright is crucial in Psystar vs. Apple. So let's talk about First Sale. The point of the First Sale doctrine is that once you've sold a good, you cannot control what is done with that good (aka resales, &c.). But First Sale only makes sense in the physical world. This, to me, goes to the heart of "software piracy is stealing," because I'm pedantic: for something to be stolen, by definition, you have to feel its lack.
ReplyDeleteSo when I make a perfect digital copy of your music, guess what? You still have your music. I've stolen nothing, other than the possibility that I might pay for your music. So I'm depriving you of dollars that I *may* have given you had the mechanism of perfect digital copies not existed. More than likely, I *wouldn't* have bought your music, if I'm just curious about it.
If, however, I gank a physical CD off of a store shelf, that store will not be able to sell it to a legitimate buyer. I have stolen it. To me, this is why rules that apply to physical media don't make sense in the digital realm. If I buy a book at a bookstore, I own that copy. I can't hand it in pretending that it is a manuscript I've written, but I *can* sell it to you. Or give it away to a library. Or sell it to a used bookstore. This is First Sale, but implicit here is the change of hands: the bookstore had one copy. It sold it. It cannot sell it again, because that copy is now in my possession. The author or publisher remains the copyright holder, which is what protects them, in theory, from someone passing the book off as their own. Yes, you own the copy, but you don't own the BOOK, the content, and you never will unless you buy the rights to it from the copyright holder.
In the digital world, when the bookstore sells me a digital book, they're not out a book in inventory. They have a virtual printing press that reduces the cost of reprinting to zero. This is why I don't think Psystar should win: we're not talking about Apple selling them the only copy of OS X, we're talking about a company diluting Apple's trademarks and ignoring Apple's copyrights. Psystar seems to be trying to sell a modified OS X; to me, that's like my taking one of your stories and trying to pass it off as my own. If I succeed, it makes you look bad (trademark dilution), but further, I have violated your copyright: you have not given me permission to modify your story by slapping my name on it. Neither has Apple given Psystar that permission, no matter how many copies of OS X they obtain. The Apple EULA may be unclear, or stupid, but in mind, it is irrelevant. What matters here is that Apple owns the rights to OS X. They get to decide who can make copies, something that the digital realm facilitates.
Groklaw is keeping an eye on that case from the perspective that Psystar may be trying to do away with EULAs (a good thing) or possible with licenses that grant you additional rights beyond standard copyright (BSD license, GPL). Given the immature, clownish nature of the Psystar guys, I'm not inclined to support them even if I felt they had a case. I don't think they do; nor do I think they *should*.
Thanks for the rarity: a well thought out reply.
ReplyDeleteIf you pirate something -- say my CD -- you have deprived me of the income I would have otherwise earned. That is stealing. Every court case agrees piracy is theft. Period.
However, "first sale" is important as well. As I said I agree. Once I own it, you cannot control what I do with it. I think EULAs are absolute shit with a few exceptions (for example the prohibition of export to certain countries).
Yeah, Psystar are shysters. I went by their place as it's not far from my house. Interesting. I like your analogy as to the changing the work and slapping their name on it. They should lose 'cause they suck.
But answer me this. What if they sold you a computer without MacOS-X, then sold you a program that would transfer a USER PROVIDED LEGAL COPY of Leopard to the computer Psystar sold. Is the sale of Psystar's program illegal? I don't know. Lots of Movie companies have sued (and lost) against DVD ripping programs.
I hate EULAs, I like GPL (bot not the new v3 so much). The BSD license is okay but it's got some very funky stuff in it.
If you pirate something -- say my CD -- you have deprived me of the income I would have otherwise earned. That is stealing. Every court case agrees piracy is theft. Period.
ReplyDeleteThen every court case is wrong. Period. It may be a few generations before we get judges and justices who *understand* the internet intuitively, but every court case that says piracy is theft is approaching the matter from the bricks-and-mortar world, which doesn't work as an analogy for the digital world.
The one major fallacy in their thinking is that someone that pirates a CD would have bought it had they been unable to pirate it. The second, and more important, fallacy is that a physical CD and a digital version are somehow equivalent. They aren't.
Again, if I take the CD off the shelf and don't pay for it, that's definitely stealing; no argument here. But the *reason* it's stealing is that I have deprived you of your property: the CD. And while I may not have been planning on buying it no matter what, by taking your physical property, I'm also depriving you of the ability to sell it to a law-abiding customer.
When I pirate your CD, on the other hand, I am not stealing! I am violating your copyright. "Piracy = theft" makes for nice dramatic headlines, but it's a phony argument. I haven't deprived you of your property (unless you think the money in my pocket is your property), because you still have your CD to sell. Recording a song off of the radio and sending the tape around to all your friends is not stealing either, it's a possible copyright violation.
If we want to go for the full reductio ad absurdum, say I am fortunate enough to have an eidetic memory. I hear your song on the radio. Or maybe one of my friends plays the entire album for me. I really like it, so I replay it in its perfect entirety in my mind, for my enjoyment. Over and over again. I'm not taking money out of your pocket when I do so, because it wasn't in your pocket to begin with. Further, I have made a perfect, completely untraceable copy of your media without depriving you of same. Calling this sort of thing "theft" is disingenuous to the extreme; you have to be completely ignorant of the reality of the digital world (not exactly a leap of imagination for the judges and justices of our court system), or be deliberately trying to sensationalize the issue.