61–70 of 100 posts
Citation needed. Or did I miss it amongst the self-aggrandizing?
"We had 50M monthly active users and 250M searches every month. Steve Jobs told the labels, including Warner Music, to sue us. So they did and for $40B. How do I know? I know because Steve Jobs gave them a list of music streaming sites that were competitive threats to iTunes, and told them to take care of it." Citation needed. Or did I miss it amongst the self-aggrandizing?
" If I could compile and debug kernel issues along with X11 X86Config files with assistance from a good friend at the QNX-based Caprica Internet in LA and the 2-person Slackware “helpdesk” on the East Coast every few days then I’d be able to continue to test NCSA webserver over SLIP and PPP to deliver electronic faxes with a web interface for the Mosaic Browser for a sugar company in Marin County to save them a few t…
Maybe modern Xorg config files are not rocket science, but surely you remember the days of manually listing video modes, and trying endless combinations of video drivers. Hell I think you even needed to add special directives to get three button mice to work properly. Fortunately those days are gone, but you definitely could debug xf86 config files.
They were crawling the web for mp3s the same way that Google does. Though admittedly Google hides the mp3s much better nowadays then they used to. And the web is way more balkanized into all these corporate walled gardens so there are fewer free roaming mp3s on random websites as there used to be. But technically it was a search engine the same as Google. It always bothers me that this area of the law seems to be ent…
I was under the impression that the UI was pretty incidental in most judges' interpretations that platforms used mainly to locate copyrighted material were on shakier ground than platforms which incidentally, and despite ostensibly significant efforts on the part of developers to limit it, could be used to locate copyright material. It's not like Google doesn't get hit by content-provider lawsuits either, it's just t…
It seems that making this a legal minefield that requires an existing well funded legal department is nothing short of regulatory capture.
They were crawling the web for mp3s the same way that Google does. Though admittedly Google hides the mp3s much better nowadays then they used to. And the web is way more balkanized into all these corporate walled gardens so there are fewer free roaming mp3s on random websites as there used to be. But technically it was a search engine the same as Google. It always bothers me that this area of the law seems to be ent…
The UI bit is a red herring. The question is the developers' motivation and what actions they encourage a user to take. Design of the UI may be one piece of evidence of that motivation among others.
Is a gun scope illegal because it helps a shooter hit their targets where sometimes shooting those targets is an illegal action? Should torrenting be banned because it is often used to transfer illegal files even though there are a lot of legal files in use as well?
They were crawling the web for mp3s the same way that Google does. Though admittedly Google hides the mp3s much better nowadays then they used to. And the web is way more balkanized into all these corporate walled gardens so there are fewer free roaming mp3s on random websites as there used to be. But technically it was a search engine the same as Google. It always bothers me that this area of the law seems to be ent…
I was under the impression that the UI was pretty incidental in most judges' interpretations that platforms used mainly to locate copyrighted material were on shakier ground than platforms which incidentally, and despite ostensibly significant efforts on the part of developers to limit it, could be used to locate copyright material. It's not like Google doesn't get hit by content-provider lawsuits either, it's just t…
nobody knows!
so the law is only slightly just for whoever has the money to keep appealing decisions until they find one they like (and the opponent is out of money to appeal further).
That said, HN is pretty much an echo chamber of Apple fans, so you're unlikely to get many here to admit that they do anything wrong.
"We had 50M monthly active users and 250M searches every month. Steve Jobs told the labels, including Warner Music, to sue us. So they did and for $40B. How do I know? I know because Steve Jobs gave them a list of music streaming sites that were competitive threats to iTunes, and told them to take care of it." Citation needed. Or did I miss it amongst the self-aggrandizing?
He named an engineer at Warner Music as his source.
Can somebody with background on the law please explain how this is or isn't an anti-competitive practice? i.e., Warner Bros sues Apple's rival at Apple's request.
Apple doesn't have much to do with it. They had a legal music business and negotiated to pay the labels, as they should, since the labels own the music rights. They and the labels correctly figured out their competitors were illegal, and they sued.
Should you not be able to sue someone doing something illegal just because they are in the same business as you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UI bit is a red herring. The question is the developers' motivation and what actions they encourage a user to take. Design of the UI may be one piece of evidence of that motivation among others.
Even if you can show the intention of the developer was to aid the user in taking a certain action, if that action can be legal in some cases, how can that be held against the developer? Is a gun scope illegal because it helps a shooter hit their targets where sometimes shooting those targets is an illegal action? Should torrenting be banned because it is often used to transfer illegal files even though there are a l…