PDA

View Full Version : open source codecs -- someone should sue windows and Quicktime



ThirdWorld
November 3rd, 2005, 05:22 PM
How is that there is no law that protect us agaisnt technology segregation? what windows and quicktime are doing is segregation, if you dont use windows or apple hardware or software (codecs) you cant have access to multimedia content on the internet. The rest of humanity cant.

We should start a worldwide movement to persue an open source codec compatible with windows, real and quicktime or at least a unique linux open media player for all distros so if a web page want to show movies in your browser they must be forced by law to give you the choice of what media player you want to use and wich codec. So imagine a open media player besides windows media player, quicktime or real player.

there are so many players for linux like xine, mplayer, totem etc we need to focus in just one and spread its use to the pc and apple world like we are doing with openoffice, firefox and thunderbird.

towsonu2003
November 3rd, 2005, 05:29 PM
/me agrees
/me newbie, so /me can't do
/me also would like to sue winmodem ppl

Donnut
November 3rd, 2005, 05:44 PM
Is that why I have such a hard time playing my old iTunes songs on linux?

chazzjazz
November 3rd, 2005, 07:03 PM
ONE PLAYER TO RULE THEM ALL: opensource and streaming too



http://www.videolan.org/

poofyhairguy
November 3rd, 2005, 07:08 PM
Is that why I have such a hard time playing my old iTunes songs on linux?

Bingo

Malphas
November 3rd, 2005, 07:13 PM
A law forcing website owners to offer a choice of formats would be unjust and completely unenforcable.

xequence
November 3rd, 2005, 09:43 PM
A law forcing website owners to offer a choice of formats would be unjust and completely unenforcable.

Yes, but a law forcing owners of formats to open them up so others can play them is better. That, or find SOME way to let linux users stream things.

Live 8 was about freedom, but their concerts on the internet were broadcasted in WMV.

Master Magnus
November 3rd, 2005, 10:06 PM
I'm in, but I can't program something. I can just spread the word and go for anti-ms :)

poptones
November 3rd, 2005, 10:15 PM
Live 8 was about freedom, but their concerts on the internet were broadcasted in WMV.

Ummm no. Live8 was about money, and they got a sizeable "donation" in exchange for that exclusive licensing deal.

Saying you're about freedom while calling for more laws restraining speech isn't at all logical. We each have the right to publish in whatever format we wish, and we each have the right to make use - or not - of that publication.

The market responds to money. If you want to change things then stop lying to yourself that you don't matter, and stop giving the bad players your money, time, and attention.

bjweeks
November 3rd, 2005, 10:15 PM
Have fun sueing some of the bigest companys for not doing something illegal.:rolleyes:

Stormy Eyes
November 3rd, 2005, 10:21 PM
How is that there is no law that protect us agaisnt technology segregation? what windows and quicktime are doing is segregation, if you dont use windows or apple hardware or software (codecs) you cant have access to multimedia content on the internet. The rest of humanity cant.

Talk about an inflated sense of entitlement! When did the ability to view the trailers for the latest Hollywood boondoggles become a fundamental human right worthy of mention alongside freedom of speech?

Hallavej
November 4th, 2005, 12:10 AM
How is that there is no law that protect us agaisnt technology segregation? what windows and quicktime are doing is segregation, if you dont use windows or apple hardware or software (codecs) you cant have access to multimedia content on the internet. The rest of humanity cant.

We should start a worldwide movement to persue an open source codec compatible with windows, real and quicktime or at least a unique linux open media player for all distros so if a web page want to show movies in your browser they must be forced by law to give you the choice of what media player you want to use and wich codec. So imagine a open media player besides windows media player, quicktime or real player.

there are so many players for linux like xine, mplayer, totem etc we need to focus in just one and spread its use to the pc and apple world like we are doing with openoffice, firefox and thunderbird.

Is M$ to blame because other companies chose to use their producs.
This is an "ONLY IN AMERICA, ONLY IN AMERICA, ONLY IN AMERICA" law suit.
I Think you have a chance.

Stormy Eyes
November 4th, 2005, 12:19 AM
Is M$ to blame because other companies chose to use their producs.
This is an "ONLY IN AMERICA, ONLY IN AMERICA, ONLY IN AMERICA" law suit.
I Think you have a chance.

And I think that such a lawsuit is disgusting. Free Software is supposed to be about freedom of choice, remember? That includes the choice to stick to proprietary software. You don't have a right to content.

ThirdWorld
November 4th, 2005, 04:15 AM
Have fun sueing some of the bigest companys for not doing something illegal.:rolleyes:

bjweeks dont you think is not illegal to FORCE humankind to purchase an operating system (windows) or a piece of hardware + OS (apple) so they can watch the news on the bbc website, or pay expensive royalties so children in 3rd world countries can attend virtual classrooms?

Is that legal? to collect $200 for a winXP copy? if you dont pay you dont have access to media content that is FREE.
It is legal to distribute a copy of the windows media player with the OS that come preinstalled in your new PC (no options here neither) so humanity is forced to use your technology? who said XP should cost 200? who regulate it? see..... too much questions...

We as consumers must stop the "technological Dictatorship"

Stormy Eyes
November 4th, 2005, 05:04 AM
We as consumers must stop the "technological Dictatorship"

What do you mean "we", ThirdWorld? Some of us realize that use of a computer is not a fundamental human right, to say nothing of watching news on the BBC's website. By all means, send politely written letters to content providers asking them to provide content in nonproprietary formats, but don't go thumping your chest and trying to foment a revolution over a crappy OS.

Keep in mind that if not for IBM and Microsoft, you probably wouldn't be able to afford a PC, let alone one with a halfway open architecture that allows the development of Linux. The invisible hand feeds you, ThirdWorld; do have the good manners to refrain from biting it.

Malphas
November 4th, 2005, 05:12 AM
bjweeks dont you think is not illegal to FORCE humankind to purchase an operating system (windows) or a piece of hardware + OS (apple) so they can watch the news on the bbc website, or pay expensive royalties so children in 3rd world countries can attend virtual classrooms?

Is that legal? to collect $200 for a winXP copy? if you dont pay you dont have access to media content that is FREE.
It is legal to distribute a copy of the windows media player with the OS that come preinstalled in your new PC (no options here neither) so humanity is forced to use your technology? who said XP should cost 200? who regulate it? see..... too much questions...

We as consumers must stop the "technological Dictatorship"
No, actually none of that is illegal. In the cases where Microsoft is threatening or bribing people to use their formats then it may be illegal and certainly unethical but this is not always the case, in fact it probably isn't the vast majority of the time.

Website owners are entitled to use whatever format they want to distribute media and if you lack the software to view that media then it's simply tough luck. In the cases where you have a right to access that media, such as from a government related website, then you may have a case for them to use another non-proprietary, open-source format, but in the cases you mentioned you don't have a leg to stand on - the BBC has no obligation to provide you with content via their website at all.

The way to approach this is to send emails, petitions, etc. to the operators of these websites and explain the predicament and outline the reasons why they should provide a non-proprietary alternative.

Collin
November 4th, 2005, 05:46 AM
Well as long as the internet doesn't become a "public" ressource it will never happen, the day the internet goes public it will mean that all and any content will have to be accessible to all, regardless of financial limitation. Therefore open standard will be mandatory.

Why do you think gov. are going for open source document, not only it is for integrity of the files over the years and the ability to read them years later but also to "democratize" the computer world.

Right now the internet is a priviledge not a right.

MakubeX
November 4th, 2005, 06:18 AM
Is that why I have such a hard time playing my old iTunes songs on linux?

Huh? How come it works well on CrossOver? *grin*

bjweeks
November 4th, 2005, 06:55 AM
bjweeks dont you think is not illegal to FORCE humankind to purchase an operating system (windows) or a piece of hardware + OS (apple) so they can watch the news on the bbc website, or pay expensive royalties so children in 3rd world countries can attend virtual classrooms?


MS is not forceing anybody to use windows. If you want to see news clips use Windows or find a differnt news site. What royalties? You could use open source software to attend virtual classrooms, could you not?


Is that legal? to collect $200 for a winXP copy? if you dont pay you dont have access to media content that is FREE.

That is the content distributors problem


It is legal to distribute a copy of the windows media player with the OS that come preinstalled in your new PC (no options here neither) so humanity is forced to use your technology?

That depends on where the os is sold. I would think I'm part of humanity but I don't use WMP. Well if we hold ubuntu to the same standerd, ubuntu would be "forceing" us to use totem.


who said XP should cost 200? who regulate it?

Bill Gates. duh?

ThirdWorld
November 4th, 2005, 08:37 AM
MS is not forceing anybody to use windows. If you want to see news clips use Windows or find a differnt news site. What royalties? You could use open source software to attend virtual classrooms, could you not?



That is the content distributors problem



That depends on where the os is sold. I would think I'm part of humanity but I don't use WMP. Well if we hold ubuntu to the same standerd, ubuntu would be "forceing" us to use totem.




Bill Gates. duh?




well so legal it is that the EU demand microsoft to remove windows media player and internet explorer in windows XP. i dont think you people realise the danger of humanity's over dependance with windows.

ThirdWorld
November 4th, 2005, 08:56 AM
What do you mean "we", ThirdWorld? Some of us realize that use of a computer is not a fundamental human right, to say nothing of watching news on the BBC's website. By all means, send politely written letters to content providers asking them to provide content in nonproprietary formats, but don't go thumping your chest and trying to foment a revolution over a crappy OS.

Keep in mind that if not for IBM and Microsoft, you probably wouldn't be able to afford a PC, let alone one with a halfway open architecture that allows the development of Linux. The invisible hand feeds you, ThirdWorld; do have the good manners to refrain from biting it.


Well stormy eyes, im not going to argue with you, its your point of view and i respect it, you probably dont understand it because you live in a rich country, maybe you are not used to see rich children with access to internet learning lots of stuff besides poor children from slumbs with no posiblities to access the internet, believe me its heart breaking to see this huge abbys between the two groups. the royalties to microsoft are so high that community centers and public libraries in thirdworld countries cant afford to pay them. Yes my friend, the access to world wide web of information (internet) is a human rigth. You will probably change your mind one day: remember what Ubuntu means? something about humanity to others?

bjweeks
November 4th, 2005, 11:41 AM
Ok, I'm lost you are saying that "community centers and public libraries" can not afford to use windows? We here are all using ubuntu rember? A library does not need it's patrons to access most multimedia content. So ubuntu would be suted well for library use. Ok, so poor library uses ubuntu problem solved. As you can see M$ doesn't controls much of what you NEED to do but WANT to do. The "Windows XP N" has sold very little because people don't care! If you use windows chances are you will use WMP.

Hallavej
November 4th, 2005, 11:45 AM
And I think that such a lawsuit is disgusting. Free Software is supposed to be about freedom of choice, remember? That includes the choice to stick to proprietary software. You don't have a right to content.

I agree. Maybe I'm not good at expressing my sarcasm in english, but that was actually what i meant.

darkmatter
November 4th, 2005, 12:38 PM
i dont think you people realise the danger of humanity's over dependance with windows.

I don't see how depending on an OS can be dangerous...

Granted, the ethical questions behind MS's push for DRM and other consumer lock-ins are real issues to contend with, but they do not affect you personally...at least not for another fifty or so years. Then we'll have to contend with Digital Thought Management...

But really...it's not like Windows is used to transmit ebola or anything......

Malphas
November 4th, 2005, 02:08 PM
Yeah, it's easy to caught up in IT issues too much and forget that there's a real world out there with far more serious issues to contend with.

Stormy Eyes
November 4th, 2005, 03:07 PM
the royalties to microsoft are so high that community centers and public libraries in thirdworld countries cant afford to pay them.

That's what Linux is for; use that if you can't afford to pay Microsoft. Keep in mind that most news websites do not provide news as a public service, but do so as a means to make money. That's why you see adverts on their pages.


Yes my friend, the access to world wide web of information (internet) is a human rigth.

I don't agree, but I'm not used to viewing something that somebody else has to provide as a human right. Thinking that way is, to me, tantamount to thinking that I have a right to enslave others.


You will probably change your mind one day: remember what Ubuntu means? something about humanity to others?

I never claimed to ascribe to the ideal of "ubuntu".

Stormy Eyes
November 4th, 2005, 03:08 PM
i dont think you people realise the danger of humanity's over dependance with windows.

I don't think you realize how paranoid you're starting to sound. We should be more concerned about our overdependence on Middle Eastern oil, IMHO.

Teroedni
November 4th, 2005, 03:32 PM
What do you mean "we", ThirdWorld? Some of us realize that use of a computer is not a fundamental human right, to say nothing of watching news on the BBC's website. By all means, send politely written letters to content providers asking them to provide content in nonproprietary formats, but don't go thumping your chest and trying to foment a revolution over a crappy OS.

Keep in mind that if not for IBM and Microsoft, you probably wouldn't be able to afford a PC, let alone one with a halfway open architecture that allows the development of Linux. The invisible hand feeds you, ThirdWorld; do have the good manners to refrain from biting it.

I do not agree on your last post. That we would not have come so long if not for ms is............. It was coincidence that Ms got the chance,and had they not got the chance others would have been there instead. Also even if not Ibm had pushed, the computer age would still get there .If you look at all the marvels of home computers (Amiga, and others) who were developing and coming out with better hardware;) .Yes i known people say this was game computer, but the truth is that already in the A500 glory years you could write documents and print them out.
There were also paint program ,music producing etc.The reason the computer age come was that the manufactoring was getting better, and people were getting more interested in computers as they was getting cheaper and smaller.

poofyhairguy
November 4th, 2005, 07:04 PM
Yeah, it's easy to caught up in IT issues too much and forget that there's a real world out there with far more serious issues to contend with.


True dat.

Collin
November 4th, 2005, 07:46 PM
I'm doing some studies about the open source and close source aspect on government. It is actually really important to push toward open source OS, software and standard when it comes to public insitution, I know that the word "public" is a little strange for the folks from the USA but for the rest of the world public domain is something really important.

Yet again as I said in an earlier post the internet is not yet a right but more of a privilege. A few weeks ago there was a meeting (I think it was something related to the UN) and they were discussing the future of internet if it had to remain in private the control of the USA or if it had to go public as an internationaly shared ressource.

Open source is not really about the quality or performance issue, it's about the transparency of the process the level of thrust if you will.

An amazing paper on the topic: http://www.sida.se/content/1/c6/02/39/55/SIDA3460en_Open%20SourceWEB.pdf

I highly recommend that you read the appendix D

here's a part of the letter:

It is also necessary to make it clear that the aim of the Bill we are discussing
is not directly related to the amount of direct savings that can by
made by using free software in state institutions. That is in any case a
marginal aggregate value, but in no way is it the chief focus of the Bill.
The basic principles which inspire the Bill are linked to the basic guarantees
of a state of law, such as:

Free access to public information by the citizen.
Permanence of public data.
Security of the State and citizens.

To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is
indespensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider.
The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free
access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.
To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the
usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the
goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by
them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which
can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.
To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable
to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow
control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to
third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are
required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and
by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our
proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code
will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*.
In the same way, our proposal strengthens the security of the citizens,
both in their role as legitimate owners of information managed by the
state, and in their role as consumers. In this second case, by allowing the
growth of a widespread availability of free software not containing *spy
code* able to put at risk privacy and individual freedoms.
In this sense, the Bill is limited to establishing the conditions under
which the state bodies will obtain software in the future, that is, in a way
compatible with these basic principles.
From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:
the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software the
law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software
the law does not specifiy which concrete software to use
the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be
bought
the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can
be licensed.
What the Bill does express clearly, is that, for software to be acceptable
for the state it is not enough that it is technically capable of fulfilling a
task, but that further the contractual conditions must satisfy a series of
requirements reguarding the license, without which the State cannot
guarantee the citizen adequate processing of his data, watching over its
integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility throughout time, as these are
very critical aspects for its normal functioning.

ThirdWorld
November 5th, 2005, 04:27 AM
I'm doing some studies about the open source and close source aspect on government. It is actually really important to push toward open source OS, software and standard when it comes to public insitution, I know that the word "public" is a little strange for the folks from the USA but for the rest of the world public domain is something really important.

Yet again as I said in an earlier post the internet is not yet a right but more of a privilege. A few weeks ago there was a meeting (I think it was something related to the UN) and they were discussing the future of internet if it had to remain in private the control of the USA or if it had to go public as an internationaly shared ressource.

Open source is not really about the quality or performance issue, it's about the transparency of the process the level of thrust if you will.

An amazing paper on the topic: http://www.sida.se/content/1/c6/02/39/55/SIDA3460en_Open%20SourceWEB.pdf

I highly recommend that you read the appendix D

here's a part of the letter:

It is also necessary to make it clear that the aim of the Bill we are discussing
is not directly related to the amount of direct savings that can by
made by using free software in state institutions. That is in any case a
marginal aggregate value, but in no way is it the chief focus of the Bill.
The basic principles which inspire the Bill are linked to the basic guarantees
of a state of law, such as:

– Free access to public information by the citizen.
– Permanence of public data.
– Security of the State and citizens.

To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is
indespensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider.
The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free
access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.
To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the
usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the
goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by
them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which
can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.
To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable
to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow
control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to
third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are
required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and
by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our
proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code
will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*.
In the same way, our proposal strengthens the security of the citizens,
both in their role as legitimate owners of information managed by the
state, and in their role as consumers. In this second case, by allowing the
growth of a widespread availability of free software not containing *spy
code* able to put at risk privacy and individual freedoms.
In this sense, the Bill is limited to establishing the conditions under
which the state bodies will obtain software in the future, that is, in a way
compatible with these basic principles.
From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:
– the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software – the
law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software
– the law does not specifiy which concrete software to use
– the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be
bought
– the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can
be licensed.
What the Bill does express clearly, is that, for software to be acceptable
for the state it is not enough that it is technically capable of fulfilling a
task, but that further the contractual conditions must satisfy a series of
requirements reguarding the license, without which the State cannot
guarantee the citizen adequate processing of his data, watching over its
integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility throughout time, as these are
very critical aspects for its normal functioning.



What a great article, this is exactly what i was talking about. A law or a civil action against propietary codecs, formats or monopolistic technologies that limited access to information for people that not use the same technology. Sorry if some people in the "developed world" dont realized how serious and important this is. I think is so dificult to americans to understand the concept of "Public Domain".

blastus
November 5th, 2005, 06:12 AM
The public sector must use open standards (i.e. protocols) and open formats for creating, archiving, and disseminating public records. This ensures accessibly for all, not just those who use MS-Windows, MS-Office, and Internet Explorer. Since taxpayers support the government, and the government has an obligation to support free and competitive markets, they have no right to have a bias for any single software vendor.

raven
November 5th, 2005, 09:33 AM
I will just put my opinion as I understand "thirdworld" cause I am from one.

ex: in cuba they are poor people that would not buy a T-shirt,
cause that money is better spend on essencial needs (ex:food)
but 1 time he will need a T-shirt (ex:to find a job),
and in the shoppings you are not allowed to go in with no T-shirt,
and you need to get one to get in in the first place (you see the loop)

for me I see the internet as public libraries in the old times
where only educated and rich people can get in, so poor
will stay in a loop (if you apply the example above)
even if they are smart but that they cannot educate
themselves,I just imagine the waste of talent.
so if any of you can apply this example and use it
in the internet context and information access,
it will be very important to liberate the potential
of all humans to access these information to level the fields,
and I beleive that was the promess of the internet where
a small buisness or an induvidual can compete and educate
himself to better his life and his family.
so if a person in Africa have an idea, and want to export
his products, to get rich and better his life, he needs to buy
windows, so he can make a presentation cause he knows
that potential customers (rich countries) would not
use his presentation cause
(he does not have the T-shirt in the first place to to get in and get one aka money for closed programs)
so what all means, is GOV's need to make internet a public domain
and use all STD coding as "thirdworld" mentioned
so competing companies(MS) can compete as merrit and not as
Monoply and marketting domination (My xmas wish)
Now please those are examples and personal opinions,
you just have to apply the logic to any situation that makes sense to you.

egon spengler
November 5th, 2005, 10:08 AM
In the cases where you have a right to access that media, such as from a government related website, then you may have a case for them to use another non-proprietary, open-source format, but in the cases you mentioned you don't have a leg to stand on - the BBC has no obligation to provide you with content via their website at all.

Just for the record all UK citizens pay an annual license fee which funds the BBC and so although Third World, a Texan, may well have no grounds to complain undoubtedly the BBC should be providing content accessible to all

Sirin
November 5th, 2005, 10:21 AM
We should start a worldwide movement to persue an open source codec compatible with windows, real and quicktime or at least a unique linux open media player for all distros so if a web page want to show movies in your browser they must be forced by law to give you the choice of what media player you want to use and wich codec. So imagine a open media player besides windows media player, quicktime or real player.


The reason that almost all sites exclusively use WMCs or QuickTime Media is because most people use Windows and Macintosh. They believe that Linux (if they've even heard of it) is a complex and used-only-by-five-people operating system. If more people used Linux however, they will start supporting Ogg. The Ogg Container itself is less popular than George Bush's dog Spot.

And for the Open source codec for Windows, WinAmp natively supports Ogg. :) There is more to proprietary requirements than just codecs. I've seen some site that require you to use Windows just to enter it. I've seen some websites and companies that oppose Open Source Software and even Linux. For example: Microsoft, which is even advertising FUD campaigns against Linux. Apple supports Linux... somewhat. Don't forget, we have RedHat, which itself is a largely and successfully formed and organized company. RedHat is the king jewel of the OSS community and the largest threat to Microsoft. If anybody should go mainstream with Linux (if they haven't already done it yet), it's RedHat. ;)

poptones
November 5th, 2005, 10:49 AM
Anyone who wants to publish on the net already HAS access to open source codecs - that African who wants to publish his home video is not, in any way, compelled to use windows.

If you want to watch the beeb and all they offer is wmv and real, write them a note explaining why you won't be watching their programs. People have the right to information, but that doesn't bring with it the "right" to watch the BBC, PBS, FOX or any other.

If you really care get a capture card and rip it yourself. Then you can torrent it so those starving Afrikaans can download it to the home computers they don't have...

Malphas
November 5th, 2005, 11:01 AM
Just for the record all UK citizens pay an annual license fee which funds the BBC and so although Third World, a Texan, may well have no grounds to complain undoubtedly the BBC should be providing content accessible to all
Agreed, they certainly should, but they still have no legal obligation to. Also, you're actually slightly incorrect, only owners of a television need pay a license fee and in return you recieve the analogue BBC channels as the bare minimum. Everything else the BBC produces such as the digital and radio channels, the website etc. is an added bonus. Doesn't seem too fair considering that your license fee funds all of it, yet you're only entitled to what you have the equipment to recieve, but that's how it works.

ThirdWorld
November 7th, 2005, 05:24 PM
Anyone who wants to publish on the net already HAS access to open source codecs - that African who wants to publish his home video is not, in any way, compelled to use windows.

If you want to watch the beeb and all they offer is wmv and real, write them a note explaining why you won't be watching their programs. People have the right to information, but that doesn't bring with it the "right" to watch the BBC, PBS, FOX or any other.

If you really care get a capture card and rip it yourself. Then you can torrent it so those starving Afrikaans can download it to the home computers they don't have...


PBS is public broadcasting and by law need to be accesible to all americans. im not american, but i do support financially NPR (national public radio) wich is part of PBS. So they must use open source in my point of view.

its true most africans dont have a computer, the continent is very poor, but public libraries and schools with linux PCs and open source can provide the bridge to education and better future for most of we humans. internet can become the best learning and integration tool for humanity. i bet you those terrorist trained from teenagers to blow buildings up most likely dont have access to internet, and dont realize the world is smaller and more connected that they think.There are seas of knowlede and better things to do than hate people for their beliefs.

lerrup
November 7th, 2005, 05:50 PM
All the nonsense talked on this thread about markets, etc. fails to address the fact that Adam Smith (of the invisible hand fame) was against monopolies as it prevened the market working correctly.

Inspite of not agreeing that the market is what we need to sort the world out, this arguement is exactly what we need here. Countries such as the US and UK press for the market to work in the world so they should do so in the virtual world. The creation of secret codecs is anti-competitve as it is a barrier to entry into the market. Microsoft gained this pre-eminence by accident, but in any case is a monopolist as indeed is apple in the field of online music. therefore to equal it out if you publish you should provide the information to the recepient to be able to decode that publication how they wish.

Basically, standards are good (see: w3c versus Microsoft controlled standards).

Oh, and as a licence payer I believe that I do have a right to view/listen to content.

blastus
November 7th, 2005, 08:33 PM
All the nonsense talked on this thread about markets, etc. fails to address the fact that Adam Smith (of the invisible hand fame) was against monopolies as it prevened the market working correctly.

Inspite of not agreeing that the market is what we need to sort the world out, this arguement is exactly what we need here. Countries such as the US and UK press for the market to work in the world so they should do so in the virtual world. The creation of secret codecs is anti-competitve as it is a barrier to entry into the market. Microsoft gained this pre-eminence by accident, but in any case is a monopolist as indeed is apple in the field of online music. therefore to equal it out if you publish you should provide the information to the recepient to be able to decode that publication how they wish.

Basically, standards are good (see: w3c versus Microsoft controlled standards).

Oh, and as a licence payer I believe that I do have a right to view/listen to content.

I agree with this. However, there are some people who do not agree upon the most-basic and fundamental assumptions that we hold; namely what the definition of a monopoly is, that a monopoly can have negative effects on the economy and consumers, that Microsoft does not have a monopoly on things (no more than Apple does not have a monopoly on things), and finally that the U.S. DOJ (and the Washington DC Court of Appeals), the European Union, and every other government/state that has prosecuted Microsoft worldwide were wrong do so--in addition to every major vendor that has successfully prosecuted Microsoft and won huge settlements like AOL, Sun, RealNetworks etc... all of this is meaningless to point out to the avid Microsoft believer.

lerrup
November 7th, 2005, 09:41 PM
I agree with this. However, there are some people who do not agree upon the most-basic and fundamental assumptions that we hold; namely what the definition of a monopoly is, that a monopoly can have negative effects on the economy and consumers, that Microsoft does not have a monopoly on things (no more than Apple does not have a monopoly on things), and finally that the U.S. DOJ (and the Washington DC Court of Appeals), the European Union, and every other government/state that has prosecuted Microsoft worldwide were wrong do so--in addition to every major vendor that has successfully prosecuted Microsoft and won huge settlements like AOL, Sun, RealNetworks etc... all of this is meaningless to point out to the avid Microsoft believer.

Yeah, true.

But in the UK we have DTI which deals with monopoly and the Competition Act which to be honest both MS and Apple (in relation to online music and music players) are in breach of.

Trouble is trying to find someone to do anything about it!

poptones
November 7th, 2005, 10:52 PM
Monopolies are irrelevant until a market is matured. The DOJ uses an indexed system called The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (http://www.quickmba.com/econ/micro/indcon.shtml) to measure the relative "openness" of a marketplace. ANY young market is going to have, in the early stages, an extremely high index simply because one company will be the leader in creating that given marketplace. Desktop operating systems may presently have an HHI near 9000 (out of a max value of 10,000) but you cannot overlook the value of these high indexes in establishing markets. In the Fof the court reminisced about the "high level of competition" in the 80s and the "value" it provided in the marketplace - yet in that market of great "competition" and alleged "value" a desktop computer with capabilities even close to what I can do today cost more than $1000 (about $2000 in today's money) whether you bought it from a clone maker, Apple, or a "low end" competitor like the Amiga - a computer that was, at the time, a fantastic bargain.

This diverse market ultimately led MS to refine its desktop operating system, but ultimately the "innovation" in all these operating systems can be traced back to one common ancestor, Xerox. Amiga OS borrowed stylistically from the unix world but MS wasn't going to rewrite this "backend" code and neither was Apple. So, with or without MS, desktop operating systems would still be very similar to what we have today - perhaps a little more like linux, perhaps (and more likely) a lot more like OS5,6,7,8,9 - one can easily make the case (http://www.wohl.com/wa0188.htm) that without the competition and bad PR of MS and its control of the market Apple would never have had the motivation (or the means in the form of a well developed unix-y backend) to bring OS X to market.

Had there not been one large dominant player in the desktop marketplace it likely would not have grown so quickly to the scale we enjoy today. During the days of workstations and game machines being sold as home computers the marke may have been diverse but this diversity was a hindrance to adoption because no one wanted to buy another machine that would be relegated to the closet in six months. When companies like Sun and SGI and DIGITAL were in their heyday, the single major market for their "workstations" was - companies designing new workstations! It was the consolidation of these varied markets that created the massive desktop market we have today. As a result, the demand for desktop computers in the world has not only reduced the price of a desktop PC but also the price of ancillary technologies like television sets, DVD players and even portable music players - and all the while ensuring improved features and image quality.

Basically, standards are good (see: w3c versus Microsoft controlled standards).

See, this is what has been conveniently forgotten by the history revisionists. Well, some of us were there when all this coming about and we know the reality. It was Netscape who refused to cooperate with the W3c, not MS. Microsoft, in fact, came to the table and offerd support both in technology and in adoption of those standards for their "upcoming new browser," Internet Explorer 4 - the browser that pretty much squashed the bloated, stale, and unstable Netscape browser (why do you think Netscape focused all that attention on an "open source initiative" toward giving the browser a "ground up" redesign?).

Netscape's arrogance is not Microsoft's fault - and if it had not been for Microsoft offering an extremely competitive and well designed browser in those early days - and listening to the participants in that market (http://www.dsiegel.com/balkanization/future/futrinfo_sub2.html) - there might not even be a W3C standards body.

Netscape made the foolish mistake of concentrating on the bear instead of the market, and in the process "got et" (more foolishly, they even imagined themselves to be the equal, if not the greater, of the bear). Real did pretty much the same thing by exploiting their customers and then, during "the napster period" even going so far as to call them thieves and criminals and to declare "war" on them. You cannot argue, with any sembleance of logical proof, that Microsoft's dominance in the market was due only to predatory practices. You also cannot argue that they have increased the price of desktop computers - the historical facts of the matter well refute this.