On Jan 1, 1:00 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 01 January 2008 15:28 : \____
> > Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> >> ____/ ness...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Monday 31 December 2007 17:21 : \____
> >>> But copyright only works
> >>> if we can rein in the robber barons.
Copyright cuts both ways. The same laws that allow Microsoft to
create rather draconian licenses enable Richard Stallman to create the
GNU Public License, and allow others to publish under any of the other
30 or more OSS licenses.
> >> "Hey, Steve, just because you broke into Xerox?s store before I did and took
> >> the TV doesn?t mean I can?t go in later and steal the stereo."
Wasn't that what Bill supposedly said after Steve Jobs accused Bill
Gates of pirating Apple's intellectual property related to the Mac.
Microsoft and Apple slugged it out in the courts for almost 10 years,
until Microsoft decided to settle, probably because FVWM-95 was so
much like Windows 95 (even though all they did was add icons and
backgrounds to the standard FVWM window manager (all of the
functionality was already in FVWM).
Ironically, Bill may have settled because he was worried about other
lawsuits by others, and possibly wanted to protect Windows. After
all, if Microsoft lost, the creators of FVWM might have been able to
go after Microsoft, and if Microsoft won, Linux distributors could
ship work-alikes with impunity. The settlement let Microsoft play it
both ways.
Ironically, FVWM couldn't compete with GNOME and KDE, which were
superior interfaces, and may have been the "Inspiration" for Windows
XP and Vista user interfaces.
> >> --Bill Gates, Microsoft
> >> Bill Gates' piracy confession
> >> "If you read way down to the bottom of a Wall Street Journal interview with
> >> Bill Gates that ran yesterday, you'll discover that the Microsoft executive
> >> admitted to watching pirated movies on the Internet. The confession came as
> >> he was talking about content he had viewed on YouTube."
>
> >>http://blogs.computerworld.com/node/2803
>
> >> Corbis and copyrights, you say?
>
> > Don't be fooled - Bill Gates does everything for a reason. This was
> > done in order to demonstrate that YouTube is a hotbed of illegal
> > material and should be shut-down, and the Microsoft version would be
> > full of DRM and would have no such problems.
The irony is that Google will even help prosecute those who publish
pirated material to YouTube when such piracy is discovered.
Very often, Google will not only remove the offending material, help
prosecute the perpetrators, and purge the site of other possibly
related materials, they will often allow the legitimate owner to
replace the original video clip with promotional information.
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | To that point, Soapbox was littered with pirated videos. This put
> | Microsoft in a pickle. The software giant was agreeing to distribute
> | content for entertainment companies whose copyright was commonly
> | violated at its video-sharing site.
The courts have ruled that a public access BBS cannot be censored.
Each poster is responsible for the content they publish. Normally the
BBS operator will maintain records to help track perpetrators,
information such as MAC address, ethernet address, user related
information, credit card information if payments were made for related
services, and any other information that might help lead to a
conviction. It's not required by the courts, but it does help improve
relations between law enforcement and the BBS operators, as well as
many victims of illegal perpetrations.
A BBS operator is allowed to remove certain kinds of content without
jeopardizing his status as a BBS operator. These include copyright
violations that are known to be copyright violations and fall outside
the reasonable definition of "Fair Use", information related to
criminal investigations or criminal activities, for example times and
meeting places for such things as drug deals, attempts to solicit
minors, or documented evidence related to criminal activities.
For example, videos of a rape, where the victim informed the BBS
operator that it was rape, would be removed because it was related to
a criminal act. At the same time, the BBS operator will usually
report all evidence, including the video itself, along with all
information related to the poster of the information, to the
appropriate law enforcement agencies.
> http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9725064-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&ta...
> > Bill's point was the there
> > was "illegal" material /on/ youtube.
There is often illegal material on most bulletin boards. Ironically,
this often helps law enforcement agencies solve cases. Pedophiles
often get baited into meeting with undercover officers, hate crime
advocates and perpetrators are often lured out into the open, where
law enforcement agents can arrest them. Even pirates and malware
authors are often traced through their BBS activities.
Microsoft doesn't care about the 2,000 or so BBS operators that make
less than a $billion, many of whom make less than $1 million in
revenue. Microsoft goes after Google because they want Google's share
of the advertizing revenue.
The irony is that Microsoft had the same opportunity to do what Google
did, all the way back when MSN was first being formed. Instead,
Microsoft tried to shove unwanted ads to people who's internet
activity had nothing to do with the advertiser whose ad was being
shown. As a result, Microsoft ads were ineffective. Users would get
page views, but didn't follow the links.
Google on the other hand, provides links to everything related to a
specific topic, and places related advertiser links in a prominant
position, which means that even though the links are very simple
(allowing more of them to be placed on a page), the advertising is
often exactly what the viewer is looking for, which means that the
user follows more of the links, and often makes a purchase as a result
of following the links. This makes Google links and placements really
valuable and effective, which makes Google a "must pay" publisher.
The irony is that about 99.999% of the content is provided free of
charge, by people who also want to have their opinions viewed. If you
go to Google groups, you will find thousands of articles, submitted at
no cost, to a public usenet BBS, and on the right hand frame, you will
see dozens of related advertisements, nearly all closely related to
even the most bizarre topics.
> Microsoft and Viacom recently partnered for advertising.
Viacom tried to sue Google, and many analysts on the business news
networks were saying, "be careful what you ask for". In the case,
Google pointed out to the court that all Viacom had to do to have any
content removed was to file a request, and state the copyright
violation as the reason. However, since Viacom didn't use this,
Google was willing to remove all content making ANY mention of Viacom,
from ALL of their web sites and search engines.
It was amazing how quickly Viacom settled. It seems that they really
didn't want to have their content removed, they just wanted a bit more
"consideration". Of course, the terms of the deal were sealed, and
nobody knows what Google and Viacom agreed to but them.
It is worth noting, that Google has been very aggressive about
providing support to commercial distributors. There are digital
watermarks on most copyrighted video that help Google to identify most
pirated video, and Google often contacts the publishers and works with
them on how to handle it. Ironically, the perpetrators are often sued
or prosecuted, Google gets to keep using the video, and the
distributor gets to slap advertising and promotional video links all
over that site's page.
Generally, pirating video and posting it to YouTube is a really bad
idea. Of course, Google doesn't make a big deal about this, because
this might lead to perpetrators attempting to disguise their
identities, attempt to mislead Google and other authorities, and
otherwise complicate the whole process of tracking down the pirates.
> Microsoft Befriends Google's Foes
Maybe not. Microsoft may actually have a harder time tracking
fraudulent cyber crime than Google, because they are more open in
their hostilities toward pirates. We know that there have been over
250 million viruses released, and most of theme were released through
fraudulent means, often using Microsoft software that was "supposedly
secure". If you have a public intersection, and you know that crimes
are frequently committed there, it's often much more effective to put
concealed cameras all over the place, along with a few visible
cameras, and leave just a few uniformed officers in highly visable
locations, making easily predictable rounds. The perpetrators will
avoid the locations covered by the visible cameras, and wait until the
uniform is in another area, then make his move. It doesn't matter
whether he's a shoplifter or a pick-pocket, or even a mugger, he will
be arrested almost immediately, and the conviction is almost certain.
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | After a government- and monopoly-inspired period in which Microsoft had
> | to pretend to be a gentle force for global good, the company is being
> | forced to return to its ruthless roots.
Microsoft has never stopped it's ruthlessness. They have openly
defied every element of the court ordered settlement, and the Bush
administration has thwarted all attempts to enforce any portion of the
settlement other than the disclosure, and even this was such open
defiance that it was probably a diversionary tactic, intended to allow
the judge to extend only the one element of the judgment, letting all
other elements of the judgment lapse. Microsoft will probably never
admit to all of the "back doors" it has deliberately placed in
Windows, and by the time they do release something, they will have
adopted the public standard - just long enough to satisfy the judge
and the DOJ and be declared "compliant", then go back to it's back
doors, trap doors, and other hacker-friendly practices.
> | Ironically, it is doing this
> | in part by decrying the unfair practices of a competitor and
> | shamelessly sucking up to the Establishment.
Microsoft has had a cozy relationship with "the establishment" for
decades. Microsoft helped law enforcement agencies recover erased
files on PCs seized during searches. Later, they helped track and
save e-mail and other "private" communications passed through MSN
customers. They may have even provided information gathered by
"Wiretapping" PCs. Remember, Microsoft can set up sites to recognize
particular customers or cookies, and "feed" them ActiveX controls that
perform such actions as searching for particular files and downloading
them to a protected anonymous web site or e-mail address, they could
even install voice recognition software and connect it to the
microphone on the PC of a laptop, to not only get a transcript, but
save 'interesting' periods of recorded conversation, and send both the
transcripts and the interesting MP3 files.
> http://www.forbes.com/2007/03/06/microsoft-google-blodget-tech-cx_hb_...
> http://tinyurl.com/3bewws
Keep in mind that publishers, especially members of the Association of
American Publishers, have had a love-hate relationship with the
Internet since the 1990s. Many of the publishers of major newspapers
wanted very much to publish their content on the Internet, and they
wanted cheap access to high bandwidth, but they were also very unhappy
with the millions of other publishers.
Microsoft has routinely offered monopolistic control of it's media
outlets, such as MSN. Remember that Microsoft partnered with NBC to
form MSNBC, and also CNBC. Microsoft also partnered with other
publishers, including McGraw-Hill, Reuters, and News Corp. In
exchange, Microsoft formed web sites that provided replacements for
Classified advertizing, including Expedia, CarPoint, and several
others. Microsoft also purchased controlling interests in satellite
companies, and charged higher premiums to media companies that
competed with it's partners, especially when it came to distributing
content.
Ironically, this also gave Microsoft several enemies, including
Gannett, Scripps-Howard, and Time-Warner, all of whom saw Microsoft
ripping away their "bread and butter" revenue, and giving it to their
competitors in the form of under-priced advertising.
Microsoft finally crossed the line when they broke the Monica Lewinsky
story by leaking it on the MSNBC bulletin board, then making that
story their lead story on the MSNBC web site, then making it a lead
story on the MSNBC television network, and eventually getting the
broken story covered on the other NBC affiliates as well as News Corp
and their other partners.
> ~~ Best of wishes
> "We should dedicate a cross-group team to come up with ways to leverage Windows
> technically more."
> --Jim Allchin, Microsoft
Ranks up there with other famous quotes like:
- The check's in the mail.
- I'm with the IRS and I'm here to "help" you with your "little tax
problem".
- All I want is Peace - Adolf Hitler - days before invading Poland.
- Beware of geeks bearing gifts - it could be a trojan horse.
|
|
