Posted 11/15/2008 at 07:10:22am

Because of the absolutely unfair and idiotic way US law treats software consumers in the USA, every time you "buy" a piece of software, you are really only buying a license which gives you a right to use the software.

This makes sense in a corporate business environment...but makes no sense in a consumer transaction.

I've seen corporate computer licenses that say that the DVD remains the property of the seller and must be returned on demand and further restrict the use of the DVD to the original purchaser. 

Or, in this case, they could theoretically demand that the license holder pay them a royalty each time they transfer the license.  I have no idea how they would enforce this sort of draconian provision against tens of thousands of customers.

Of course, most ordinary people (consumers) who are buying software for their home don't understand the concept of licenses.  When they buy a DVD, they believe they own almost every single right to the software.   As well they should...a DVD is a tangible thing that they can hold in their hand...why shouldn't they be able to sell it?  They weren't told they couldn't resell it when they bought it.

Trying to enforce or explain restrictive rules like this to an ordinary consumer would cut into lots of sales.  People would get pissed.  There would be lawsuits for unfair consumer trade practices...it would be a mess.

I don't see this happening anytime soon.

Posted 11/15/2008 at 07:00:09am

Bzzzt...sorry...software has a finite useful life as well...I just tried to run a floppy disk of an old game I bought years ago, and it didn't work on my machine at all, since the media had failed.  I've had CDs and DVDs fail on me too.

Regardless of the merits of the analogy, "used software" can be sold for less than its original value.  The box has been open which automatically reduces the value.  The UPC barcode could have been cut out to get a rebate.  A manual might be missing.  The CD might not be in its original gem case.  Plus the new buyer is taking a risk since the original seller might still have a copy of the software on his computer using his original key, which could disable the used copy. Etc.

Posted 11/15/2008 at 06:41:30am

It is only 100 bucks more than a comparable Asus Netbook of the same size...and its a Dell, which means something to corporate type people.  I've been asked by people about my Eee and support is always an issue...Dell has lots of US support...not so sure about Asus...

Posted 11/15/2008 at 06:35:34am

There is a simple solution to this problem:  Don't click on any ads.  Period.  Educate your family and friends about computer virus' and safe computing practices.  Use Firefox with AdBlock Plus and FilterSet G Updater.  Install ClamWin and Avast! to protect yourself against virus' that do get through.

Posted 10/21/2008 at 07:06:13pm

RSS feeds are for power users who want to digest tons of information in one sitting.  Most people want to interact with websites directly,not though google reader which is essentially an old school usenet newsreader.  I use pageflakes or netvibes or igoogle to digest rss feeds because the interface is visually better to use. 

Posted 10/13/2008 at 05:19:42pm

I have gotten my X-Fi Xtreme Gamer working under Ubuntu by replacing ALSA and using the OSS drivers, with limited functionality - no surround sound and no mic.  Creative's proprietary beta drivers don't work well in Ubuntu.  As of October, the ALSA development team seems to be working on porting the OSS drivers to ALSA, but there seems to be a lot of drama trying to create an ALSA only solution.  You can read the thread here:  http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/2008-October/011133.html

Posted 09/06/2008 at 09:57:26am

I've had so much angst and trouble with Comcast TV and Internet that when I moved, and I had an option of either Cablevision or Comcast, I switched over to Cablevision.  Anything but Comcast.  Verizon FIOS.  DSL.  DirectTV or DishNetwork.

Posted 09/06/2008 at 09:20:24am

First of all, remember that this is a civil, not a criminal, case, since this is between two individuals, and doesn't involve the government. So, this isn't about "beyond a reasonable doubt".  It is about "is it more likely than not" that the dude broke copyright law.  That means that it is 51% likely that the judge is convinced that he broke copyright law and destroyed evidence.

In civil law, destroying evidence (intentional and negligent tort of spoilation of evidence) is an independent lawsuit that is seperate and distinct from copyright violation.

Furthermore, many courts will sanction a party who destroys evidence or fails to keep records in accord with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Moreover, many courts will hold the sanction would be "summary judgement" against the party who destroyed evidence or will instruct the jury that there is an "adverse inference" that evidence was destroyed.

Check out this online reference for more info: 

http://books.google.com/books?id=GPda-b9i2OYC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0

Posted 07/28/2008 at 03:50:23pm

Linux isn't perfect.  XP and Vista aren't perfect either.  I run XP on my desktop primarily, since I want to run Windows specific programs like IE and MSN and Yahoo Messenger for work and play.  My AsusEee runs linux, and does 99% of what I want my laptop to do.  I dual boot into Ubuntu on my desktop when I quickly need to check things on the 'net.  Not every tool does exactly what you want it to do, how well, and how fast I want to do it.

That being said, its stupid for an ordinary home user to flush $300 down the toilet to buy Microsoft Office or Photoshop.  OpenOffice and Gimp do fine for the majority of home users.  If you're a professional or pro-am, pony up for the software, but otherwise why waste money.

Also, certain categories of software, like anti-virus, have free versions which are superior to pay versions.

Lesson:  Nuanced opinions are always better than black and white ones.  Sometimes.

Posted 07/28/2008 at 10:56:40am

Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows commercial republication so long as certain conditions are followed.  There was a migration from the original Creative Commons license.  So, no, no one should get royalties.