8 posts • joined Wednesday 10th August 2011 10:07 GMT
Why can't these morons just be honest?
Given that it espouses major points that are polar opposites, that can be reconciled - Openness & Privacy (how can something be open if you also have the right to control and restrict data?) and Privacy and Innovation (how can you have the right to create without permission if again you have the right to control data, therefore needing permission to use that data?) This really must have been put together by a toddler which makes me wonder and the mental capacity of those scrambling to support it.
Why can’t they just be honest and call it the “pirating without personal consequence declaration” or the “something for nothing wish list” because that is what they are really aiming at. All they are saying is that they like the stuff provided by the creative industries, they just want to be able to consume it or profit from it without having to pay for it.
As one of the three people in the UK who actually has a Lumia (after moving from an Iphone), I would liken the ownership experience to the early days of owning an iphone. It’s a good product but it feels very much in it’s infancy and needs to mature. I’ve no doubt that after a couple of iterations of handset and OS it will be up there with the rest but it isn’t there at the moment and that is the issue.
The problem is that Nokia/MS have come to the party very late and the only way they are going to make an impression is if they bring something that blows the other out of the water. All they have done through is release a perfectly good phone which has a few clever ideas and that just isn’t good enough.
I also have to take issue with it’s applications store, yes there isn’t the selection that Apple have but that’s to be expected but there are glaring omissions such as Skype, which I really don’t understand given MS owns it. There is also the cost of the apps, Angry Birds for example costs £2.99 on the Nokia compared to 69p on the Iphone. You aren’t going to attract customers if you are charging more than your rivals for the same thing.
I won’t get started on the appalling marketing and PR campaign as it’s too early in the day to get myself that wound up
The Lumia is a good phone and that is it’s problem, For Nokia / MS to stand a chance it needed to be an Iphone beater and it just isn’t
Perhaps you should try reading it before passing assumptions off as fact
Article 3 - section 2
"This Agreement does not create any obligation on a Party to apply measures
where a right in intellectual property is not protected under its laws and regulations."
@the Big Yin
Can you explain why it is wrong?
Benefit of working entering the public domain
The primary benefit of work entering the public domain is that it can be used without paying for it. The main beneficiary of music entering the public domain so soon would be businesses not individuals.
Imagine a situation where the likes of Nike or Apple could have their pick of any song over 20 years old for their advertising campaigns. How would it be fair for those multi nationals to exploit creative works for their own profit without having to compensate the creator?
Correct me if I’m wrong...
But Torrents don’t count in the sales charts.
Now let me just work through the logic of this one, a group of people who believe that they shouldn’t have to pay for music are championing their cause by….. asking people to pay for music..
Of course RIM were going go public with the fact they are going to help the police. Being transparent about it was the only option they had.
When you’ve got hundreds on news reports all pointing the finger at blackberry BBM, there is no way RIM could stay silent as it would be far too damaging to it’s brand. They also can’t avoid direct questions about if they are going to help the police so by acting early they lessen the amount of negative coverage towards them.
They are morally and legally obliged to help the police and by making the announcement early all they are doing is heading off the questions before they start and attempting to protect their brand. Far from it being a bad PR decision it was the only sensible course of action.