NationStates Jolt Archive

They just don't understand the concept of proprietary, do they? Why else would they force Apple and Microsoft to turn over the details of their DRM technology to a competitor? I would just stop selling my product in France, if the legislation becomes law. Which, coincidentally, is what Apple is likely to do.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/03/21/france/index.php

The French National Assembly approved a digital copyright bill on Tuesday that will require DRM (digital rights management) developers to reveal details of their technology to rivals that wish to build interoperable systems. The bill could affect the FairPlay DRM used by Apple in its iTunes Music Store and iPod music players, and Microsoft Corp.'s Windows Media DRM, used by rival French music stores Fnac.com and Virginmega.fr to lock downloaded tracks to particular music players.

The French the French. High unemployment, how do we solve it? Anti-business leglislation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The French the French. High unemployment, how do we solve it? Anti-business leglislation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's not anti-business at all. It's anti-monopoly.

They're simply saying that Apple can't restrict its downloads to iPods, therefore using its position as the dominant provider of downloads to become the dominant seller of mp3 players.

The free market relies on competition, not one company destroying the others.

The French the French. High unemployment, how do we solve it? Anti-business leglislation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But now, no one has to buy an iPod to play iTunes, so they've got that going for them.

Or actually burn the iTunes to a cd, then rip the cd to an mp3 before downloading it to the player.

This is the first step towards communism.

It's not anti-business at all. It's anti-monopoly.

They're simply saying that Apple can't restrict its downloads to iPods, therefore using its position as the dominant provider of downloads to become the dominant seller of mp3 players.

The free market relies on competition, not one company destroying the others.
So there is no room in your world for proprietary material? How do you generate a competitive edge, or even advance technology, if you can't keep the advances within your company?

They're simply saying that Apple can't restrict its downloads to iPods, therefore using its position as the dominant provider of downloads to become the dominant seller of mp3 players.

They were the dominant seller of MP3 players before they were the dominant provider of downloads.

So there is no room in your world for proprietary material? How do you generate a competitive edge, or even advance technology, if you can't keep the advances within your company?
It's not advanced technology - it's encryption. Apple are preventing people from using something they've bought.

They were the dominant seller of MP3 players before they were the dominant provider of downloads.

Not in France. See how this works? Things are different in other countries? Amazing, no?

It's not advanced technology - it's encryption. Apple are preventing people from using something they've bought.

Uhh, how?

So there is no room in your world for proprietary material? How do you generate a competitive edge, or even advance technology, if you can't keep the advances within your company?
Because this has been proven to foster so much competition and technology advancement.

If they've got a problem with Microsoft and Apple having so much of the market, they could just not buy their products.

It's not advanced technology - it's encryption. Apple are preventing people from using something they've bought.
Wrong argument. Why is proprietary technology wrong? This begs the next question, too. Why is competition wrong? All that a new company like Virgin, for instance, needs to do is roll out something better.

I love how Americans always feel the need to tell other countries how to run their lives. It's funny. Thanks for the giggles.

It's not advanced technology - it's encryption. Apple are preventing people from using something they've bought.

Perhaps those people should read their EULAs? It makes perfect sense that Apple requires things purchased off its network to be compatible with its devices only. Certainly there are many other MP3 options available to consumers. iTunes is not the only service and no one is forced to use it.

Perhaps those people should read their EULAs? It makes perfect sense that Apple requires things purchased off its network to be compatible with its devices only. Certainly there are many other MP3 options available to consumers. iTunes is not the only service and no one is forced to use it.
Actually read what you agree to?

I love how Americans always feel the need to tell other countries how to run their lives. It's funny. Thanks for the giggles.

I also think it's hilarious how being on the side of the consumer is "anti-business," and how quick they are to defend monopolistic tendencies, as long as it's a private company that is abusing its position, but when a government has a monopoly, omg, wtf!!!! Silly flip-flopping "capitalists"...

Perhaps those people should read their EULAs?

EULAs are legally invalid.

I also think it's hilarious how being on the side of the consumer is "anti-business," and how quick they are to defend monopolistic tendencies, as long as it's a private company that is abusing its position, but when a government has a monopoly, omg, wtf!!!! Silly flip-flopping "capitalists"...

Oooh yeah ... mmmm ... tastey capitalistic hypocricy ... I bet that goes great with a nice merlot. And people wonder why I'm not a capitalist.

They just don't understand the concept of proprietary, do they? Why else would they force Apple and Microsoft to turn over the details of their DRM technology to a competitor? I would just stop selling my product in France, if the legislation becomes law. Which, coincidentally, is what Apple is likely to do.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/03/21/france/index.php
Silly Frogs! Tsk! :D

Let me start off by saying I dislike I-tunes because of the limit of file formats and they are not compatible with my mp3 player but, it only makes sense that Apple makes I-tunes work for there players only. If people don't like Apple that much they will make there own music download site that supports all formats. Thats how capitalism works if there is a need in a market someone will fill it.

Oooh yeah ... mmmm ... tastey capitalistic hypocricy ... I bet that goes great with a nice merlot. And people wonder why I'm not a capitalist.

Oh, oh, and I just love when they go "this would be better done privately" about everything. They've usually nothing to back that claim up, but just seem to have it as a mantra.

Silly Frogs! Tsk! :D
Silly Troll!

I also think it's hilarious how being on the side of the consumer is "anti-business," and how quick they are to defend monopolistic tendencies, as long as it's a private company that is abusing its position, but when a government has a monopoly, omg, wtf!!!! Silly flip-flopping "capitalists"...
There's a difference. If a government operates a business, it doesn't have the same burden that a commercial entity does. The government has no need, whatsoever, to be profitable. Thus, they can do pretty much what they like with that business, regardless of how customers view the products. A privately owned business must still satisfy enough of the customer base to stay in business. It doesn't have the luxury of creating some new debt, in the form of a deficit, or coercing the population to pay for it's operation with a tax.

There's no flip-flop, just a misunderstanding on your part that must be due to a socialistic upbringing.

There's no flip-flop, just a misunderstanding on your part that must be due to a socialistic upbringing.

*zombie walk*
Must crush Capitalism...grr...Must crush Capitalism...grr...Must crush Capitalism...

Silly Troll!
ROFLMAO! [ slaps Nadkor with a silly trout ] :D

EULAs are legally invalid.

Why? People are free to agree to whatever terms they want. If I sell you something based on a contractual agreement, you can't cop out and say you don't agree to it, unless the terms of the contract itself turn out to be illegal.

If I sell you, and all other consumers equally, an apple on the contingency that you cluck like a chicken and spin in a circle while you eat it, and then I proceed to sell you the apple, you should not be able to duck our agreement and say that it is invalid because you do not feel like it, or feel you should enjoy the apple in some other way. I am not taking advantage of you, as I am not the only fruit seller in the city. Certainly my stand is the largest, but you have options.

So there is no room in your world for proprietary material? How do you generate a competitive edge, or even advance technology, if you can't keep the advances within your company?

You do it the Microsoft way, by bribing every politician in sight, spend an amount greater than the total budget of some states on crooked attorneys and copy every piece of software you can get your hands on (including the box) claiming it as your own. You then sue the poor bastard that wrote it for anything and everything your crooked lawyers can think of, until such time he either runs out of money, agrees to work for you, or settles out of court because the program is now out of date and been milked by you for what it is worth.

In all seriousness, things like DRM, and the laws that support it in this country have gone completely off the deep end, and brought technological advances to a screeching halt. Fair use has become a joke and quite frankly so has copyright law, patent law, and public domain thanks to these people.
The way these laws read now, if applied to a book, the author would have the right to enter your house at any time to examine your bookshelf to ensure your copy was in the place they authorized, and no one but you has read it.
This is the one issue I have to agree totally with the EU and as distasteful as it is, "The French".

There's a difference. If a government operates a business, it doesn't have the same burden that a commercial entity does. The government has no need, whatsoever, to be profitable. Thus, they can do pretty much what they like with that business, regardless of how customers view the products. A privately owned business must still satisfy enough of the customer base to stay in business. It doesn't have the luxury of creating some new debt, in the form of a deficit, or coercing the population to pay for it's operation with a tax.

There's that mantra I was talking about. "Monolopy bad. But private monopoly good. Because private is good. Because it's private."

There's no flip-flop, just a misunderstanding on your part that must be due to a socialistic upbringing.

Yes, I was fortunate in that respect.

Why? People are free to agree to whatever terms they want. If I sell you something based on a contractual agreement, you can't cop out and say you don't agree to it, unless the terms of the contract itself turn out to be illegal.

EULAs are not contracts.

There's no flip-flop, just a misunderstanding on your part that must be due to a socialistic upbringing.

So where does my Communism come from ... my farm upbringing?

ROFLMAO! [ slaps Nadkor with a silly trout ] :D
What have you done with the gif? Haven't seen it about. I'm disappointed :(

EULAs are not contracts.

By the very definition of the term "contract", that is absurd. Most EULAs indicates that a person may not install software if they do not agree to the terms. How can that not be a contract? A contract, in its simplest forms, is an agreement to terms stipulated between the parties. Many may question the legal enforceability of such agreements, but one cannot change what they actually are.

There's that mantra I was talking about. "Monolopy bad. But private monopoly good. Because private is good. Because it's private."

You almost have it right. "Competition, good. Government regulation, bad."

Keep working at it.

What have you done with the gif? Haven't seen it about. I'm disappointed :(
It's not trout season, yet.
SATURDAY!!!

It's not trout season, yet.
SATURDAY!!!
Saturday? :confused:

So where does my Communism come from ... my farm upbringing?
Liberal, Commie Profs at the Junior College.

Saturday? :confused:
It's the first day of trout season in Georgia. The bad part is that it overlaps with turkey season and one has to be careful not to look like a turkey when in certain areas. I'm also wondering where the trout slap went.

:trout:

What have you done with the gif? Haven't seen it about. I'm disappointed :(
I would hate to disappoint you! :D

http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/2659/smileytroutsmack28xh.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Liberal, Commie Profs at the Junior College.

Nah ... I was Communist long before college.

I would hate to disappoint you! :D

http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/2659/smileytroutsmack28xh.gif (http://imageshack.us)
:D

They just don't understand the concept of proprietary, do they? Why else would they force Apple and Microsoft to turn over the details of their DRM technology to a competitor? I would just stop selling my product in France, if the legislation becomes law. Which, coincidentally, is what Apple is likely to do.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/03/21/france/index.php
That's what they get for voting Communism.

By the very definition of the term "contract", that is absurd. Most EULAs indicates that a person may not install software if they do not agree to the terms. How can that not be a contract? A contract, in its simplest forms, is an agreement to terms stipulated between the parties. Many may question the legal enforceability of such agreements, but one cannot change what they actually are.

You know nothing about contractual law, do you? No, writing down on a piece of paper "if you pick your nose, you give me all your money, and you accept this by accepted this by accepting this paper" and handing it to someone is not a contract. EULAs are not contracts. Clicking something is not enough for you to be bound by it. How do they prove you clicked it? You could have had your 8 year old click past the EULA. And 8 year olds can't sign contracts.

Under European law, EULAs can be used as toilet paper. They bind you to nothing.

By the very definition of the term "contract", that is absurd. Most EULAs indicates that a person may not install software if they do not agree to the terms. How can that not be a contract? A contract, in its simplest forms, is an agreement to terms stipulated between the parties. Many may question the legal enforceability of such agreements, but one cannot change what they actually are.
so tell me, on these contracts, where exactly do you sign and date it? Where do they sign and date it? And where does a 3rd party witness sign and date it?

I say good. I got an ipod when the first ones came out (they were the only thing that held more than 13 songs). When Itunes came out, it converted all my files to their format. Now, I have a choice...convert all that music, plus burn all my purchased music and re-rip it, or stay with an ipod.

You know nothing about contractual law, do you? No, writing down on a piece of paper "if you pick your nose, you give me all your money" and handing it to someone is not a contract. EULAs are not contracts. Clicking something is not enough for you to be bound by it. How do they prove you clicked it? You could have had your 8 year old click past the EULA. And 8 year olds can't sign contracts.

Under European law, EULAs can be used as toilet paper. They bind you to nothing.
under American law as well. Best I can tell is that they exist simply to scare some people who believe they are legally binding.

This is the first step towards communism.

France has been sliding towards socialism for a long time. In fact, they were socialists for about two months during 1871.

You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune

Oooh yeah ... mmmm ... tastey capitalistic hypocricy ... I bet that goes great with a nice merlot. And people wonder why I'm not a capitalist.
Who do you vote for then?

There's no flip-flop, just a misunderstanding on your part that must be due to a socialistic upbringing.
No, Sweden is a capitalist country like America.

This is the one issue I have to agree totally with the EU and as distasteful as it is, "The French".
This a French law, not an EU law. What is so awful about agreeing with the French government on one issue?

Liberal, Commie Profs at the Junior College.
Liberals aren't communists. You're walking right into his traps and making yourself look stupid.

You almost have it right. "Competition, good. Government regulation, bad."

"Private lack of competition is good. Other lacks of competition are bad. Because they're not private. Because private is good."

Keep working at it.

I'd say the same thing, especially since you seem to actually think you're a capitalist.

The situation with online music vendors reminds me of the very early days of radio, perhaps some of you remember too.

Back then radio stations also sold you the radio receiver that only tuned to that single frequency and they also made whatever they could to make sure you only received their signal, like introducing static on other frequencies, boosting their own signal, etc.

Then the government intervened, they created the FCC, assigned a band to commercial radio stations and mandated that they couldn't sell propietary receivers or block other stations. Guess what happened? That's right, the radio industry never took off and disappeared into oblivion to be forgotten by all.

I also remember when TV broadcasters were allowed to own NFL teams. They had 3 or 4 and then would only broadcast those games. In this case there was no government intervention, but the NFL mandated that no TV stations or networks could own teams and distributed the broadcasting rights to the networks in a more equitative manner. Yup, NFL football also died an awful death.

That's what happens when socialist practices that attempt against the capitalists rights to keep competitors out of the "free market" are put in place.

Liberals aren't communists. You're walking right into his traps and making yourself look stupid.

Hush, you can't actually expect a capitalist like him to know that liberalism is a capitalist economic philosophy. You know, things like free markets, and invisible hands, and Adam Smiths - all liberal things.

Under European law, EULAs can be used as toilet paper. They bind you to nothing.

For some reason, I think that would be extremely difficult to do. I guess you could print it, but that would seem a bit.... rough.

They just don't understand the concept of proprietary, do they? Why else would they force Apple and Microsoft to turn over the details of their DRM technology to a competitor? [/url]
Because the French have no word for entrepeneur!!!!

The only place for monopolies in a capitalist society is in the infrastructure and departments that deal with the governing and preservation of the citizens. Private armies and medical care are not in the interests of the citizen, unless that citizen is reaping wild profits off of the suffering of others. A utilities monopoly can be of benefit to the citizen, if it is regulated to keep the monopoly from preying on the citizen.

Government media outlets can provide a valuable service to the citizen, provided they do not exist at the expense of private media or as a monopoly with the absence of private media. This so long as the government media exists without undue government influence and are allowed to objectively report on their own government, something sometimes corporately controlled medias only do selectively. Being capitalist shouldn’t mean giving up your entire government establishment for the sake of profit, to the negligence of the care of your citizens.

The funny thing with corporations and banks is that they’re the first to pony up for government grants; ask the government to bail out their investors; protect us from foreign competition; and request more funding for research and development. Once they get their bag of cash though it’s all about quit regulating our industry and leave us the hell alone. You can’t have it both ways. You're either a free wheeling capitalist or a company subsisting on corporate welfare.

The Bruce

Because the French have no word for entrepeneur!!!!

I remember when Bush used that line in his first meeting with Blair, in reference to an EU trade issue with France, causing the Prime Minister to suddenly feel uncomfortable about the company he was keeping. It was a sign of things to come.

“They don’t even have a word for entrepreneur!”

Oh, oh, and I just love when they go "this would be better done privately" about everything. They've usually nothing to back that claim up, but just seem to have it as a mantra.

nothing to back up the "privatization over government-run-entity" argument?

How about:

-More entrepreneurialism
-More investment opportunities (sprung from greater entrepreneurialism)
-Better prices and products for consumers

...to start.

Who competes with the GOVERNMENT when the GOVERNMENT owns everything?

Apple has a great product; their right to use that product to make money should not be diminished. If competitors want a piece of that pie, well, come up with a competing product.

Je les aime bien, les Français! I really do! :D

I remember when Bush used that line in his first meeting with Blair, in reference to an EU trade issue with France, causing the Prime Minister to suddenly feel uncomfortable about the company he was keeping. It was a sign of things to come.

“They don’t even have a word for entrepreneur!”
What a memory! You can remember things that haven't ever happened. Is that a paranormal ability, or just the result of believing the big lie? But it would have been a good joke, if it were true.

From our favorite debunker, http://www.snopes.com/quotes/bush.htm

The source was Shirley Williams, also known as the Baroness Williams of Crosby, who claimed "my good friend Tony Blair" had recently regaled her with this anecdote in Brighton.

Lloyd Grove of The Washington Post was unable to reach Baroness Williams to gain her confirmation of the tale, but he did receive a call from Alastair Campbell, Blair's director of communications and strategy. "I can tell you that the prime minister never heard George Bush say that, and he certainly never told Shirley Williams that President Bush did say it," Campbell told The Post. "If she put this in a speech, it must have been a joke."

The source was Shirley Williams, also known as the Baroness Williams of Crosby, who claimed "my good friend Tony Blair" had recently regaled her with this anecdote in Brighton.
Ah, good old Shirley. She gets everywhere!

I love how Americans always feel the need to tell other countries how to run their lives. It's funny. Thanks for the giggles.

Yeah, you noticed that too huh? I think the lesson here is that America should really stop screwing around with other countries. Their foreign policy is deplorable....or is that their foreign reputation :mp5:

It's not advanced technology - it's encryption. Apple are preventing people from using something they've bought.
Then they own it.

Look, you can download MP3's from a dozen music stores. You don't have to get them from iTunes. Further, you don't have to buy your MP3s from iTunes in order to play them on your iPod. While I've never tried to play an iTunes MP3 on another player, I have played MP3s from other stores on my iPod. If you have a different MP3 player and it doesn't play iTunes music then get your songs somewhere else. If Apple developed it they should own it.

Sorry for the sidetrack, I'll let you guys find the truth to this matter about France.

Then they own it.

Look, you can download MP3's from a dozen music stores. You don't have to get them from iTunes. Further, you don't have to buy your MP3s from iTunes in order to play them on your iPod. While I've never tried to play an iTunes MP3 on another player, I have played MP3s from other stores on my iPod. If you have a different MP3 player and it doesn't play iTunes music then get your songs somewhere else. If Apple developed it they should own it.
I believe someone else answered this point very well earlier when they said this is the equivalent too an author having the right to come into your house at any point, check that their book is only on a pre-approved book shelf and check you're the only one who has read it.

When you've bought something it is yours, and you should be able to do with it as you please. It is a sale, not a lease.

Who competes with the GOVERNMENT when the GOVERNMENT owns everything?

I don't think that Fass agrees with nationalising everything. He's just pointing out the contradiction when right-wingers say that privately owned monopolies are better than government owned monopolies. I don't think that Fass likes either kind of monopoly.

I remember when Bush used that line in his first meeting with Blair, in reference to an EU trade issue with France, causing the Prime Minister to suddenly feel uncomfortable about the company he was keeping. It was a sign of things to come.

“They don’t even have a word for entrepreneur!”
It's good that his fancy Yale and Harvard degrees payed off.

Silly Frogs! Tsk! :D
No doubt you were totally in favour of Microsoft's anti-competitive practises back in the 90s, mmm?

Oh wait. That time it was the US govt forcing them to change. Guess that makes it ok then, doesn't it? But if another govt - French even! - does it. OMG! They are so silly!

I'd say the same thing, especially since you seem to actually think you're a capitalist.

He is a capitalist, he just seems not to accept that privatisation and nationalisation are twin pillars of capitalism.