* Posts by james

6 publicly visible posts • joined 9 Aug 2007

Google tosses free texting

Thumb Down

Don't assume

Just because Google couldn't do it doesn't mean someone else can not. It isn't as if Google is the only source of talent or business knowledge on the planet... I think you might be giving Google too much credit...

Google scrubs urinating woman from Street View



The question El Mundo needs to ask is should anyone expect privacy on a public street? The person in the photo may be urinating or picking up a spilled drink (we can hope..). Either way, do you expect nobody to see you on a public street? Just curious. I bet their story would change if the lady had been mugged...

Apple's secret iPhone app blacklist


suggest apps that might be included ...

Who else is waiting for netshare to disappear from their phone? Just me?...

Start-up sued in US courts over GPL 'violation'



This is why Apple went with the BSD license, and I imagine that the BSD license is looking much more appealing to the start-up crowd at this point.

That is the ONLY place I would be looking if I wanted to make money on software I did not create myself.

Nothing wrong with the GPL if that is what you are looking for (recognition, tinkering ability, etc.). Great for a new programmer to use to get his/her name out there.

Financial returns for code are easier to get using the BSD--of course, the financial return the programmer may be wanting is that for a job. To each their own...

Pirated Simpsons movie traced to phone


Uneducated discussion...

This is different that buying content on a published/distributed DVD and converting the video to your phone's format so you can watch it on your phone. While "illegal" under the DMCA, this is "allowed" by the industry (e.g., MPAA, RIAA, etc.) because you have, in fact, obtained a license (even if that license does not allow viewing the content on your phone). The industry is not yet ready to attack that type of use.

eddie wrote about "technologically-backward idiots" who should release the full content for $2.00 to stop "illegal" activity. What about the first group of people who intercept the video over a wireless connection and post the content on torrent networks? Where is the the "savings" or "profit" there?

It isn't about the cost of distribution, it is about theft and people who don't want to pay for property. Like real property (...land), personal property has value. The owner of property, whether real or personal, has a "bundle" of rights. You, without acquiring a license or other right, have no "right" to anything in relation to that property.

What would you think of a person who showed up on a parcel of property and stated that they owned it because the "owner" was not using it and didn't know it was "missing" (Assuming here that the period for possession had not run...)? What would you think of someone who rented a car for 1 week argued, upon his arrest, that he had rented (i.e., paid for) the car and should be able to keep it for a month? You, likely, would think they were "idiots."

You would not walk into the store and steal a DVD, but you feel you have a right to not have to pay their asking price to see the same content if it is available "on-line" for "free." While I agree the asking price may be artificially inflated, I have a solution:

Don't want to pay their fee? Don't watch it.

Justifying theft by saying "it isn't worth the asking price" does not make logical sense (i.e., the "reason" does not justify your action).

If you create something, should others get to watch it or possess it without paying you for the content or item (even if you thought it was too expensive)? Math shows that they are pricing their product to maximize their return (which may be different than maximizing their total profit)

Whether it "funds terrorism" or is "right" or "wrong" does not apply (here or in many instances of the law). "It," copying movies without obtaining the proper license (usually for a fee), is illegal. Try to wrap your mind around that concept.

If you don't like that certain "fair use" is illegal, contact your politicians and get them to amend the DMCA--tried many times, and none have succeeded (See H.R. 1201, the Digital Media Consumers's; Rights Act of 2005 that was introduced on 3/9/2005 for instance). Be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Just my 2 pennies...

Hacker cracks Netflix copy restrictions


Read the License


Do you read a EULA? Many of you have complained about what is in the EULA, so I know some of you have read them.

Are you aware that you are agreeing to a License when you install the software? Read the license. You are limiting your use of the content by using the software.

Similar to iTunes, you get limited benefits. Don't get me wrong, I use iTunes and like the freedom and simplicity. However, I don't get the "full bundle of rights" that I would have if I bought the CD and copied the songs to whichever format I wanted.

Why don't I?

Because I agreed to it in the license. Want to complain about your choices being limited? Complain to yourself for agreeing to a license you don't want to be bound by...

Find one that suits you better. If you can't, perhaps you should try and make a better solution rather than not paying for something--you are not entitled to it.

Why does it seem people don't understand this idea unless "someone" takes "something" from them without paying for it and preventing them from earning income from that item? If a robber breaks into your house and steals your wallet and cash, do you support them by saying property should not be locked up?