Hiding in the fridge won't protect you from Slashdot, either.

Yes, but no.

There are other shoes that look and work like Nike shoes- therefore you can get very Nike-esq shoes from other manufacturers. Whitney wasn't allowed to sing for other labels. If someone else covers her songs, Sony can go after them (and block sales, if need be). If someone else uses similar music, they may get sued. Sure, if someone directly copied a Nike, Nike would likely send lawyers- but, short of using their trademarks and logos without permission, there's not a lot they can (or will) do. With music, it's a lot more subjective, and the threat of legal action is more than enough to not build on music that's currently with a label (unless you are also with that label).

But, more importantly, there's also the problem of exposure.

See, with shoes, there's exposure. You know you can buy shoes other than Nikes, because there are other shoes out there. With Sony's music, there is no other music. If you want pop music, you're likely buying it from them. Or from one of their close friends. This is by design.

You're unaware of the other products because you have no exposure. Everyone has feet, so everyone has shoes- but the only people allowed to broadcast music are people the labels allow to (and supply). There's very little exposure to let the public know there's music outside the major music labels.

And that, my friends, is what scares them about internet radio and piracy. It's not loss of sales, it's loss of control of exposure. As more of the public realize they can get music somewhere else, they will. That's why people who download music are pirates, internet DJs have to pay higher royalties than terrestrial radio DJs, and indie music labels are referred to as "Stepping stones" to really arriving and getting "properly" signed with a "real" label.

Taiwan, not Korea. Let the flames come.

Adding to above-

The real cause behind all this is the fact that Sony has a legal monopoly on Whitney Houston's music.

If her albums were available through other (legal) means, the free market would work. Sure, everyone would raise prices just like Sony did, but someone would raise them less than the others, and we'd have a price war on our hands. It's entirely possible that Whitney's death would result in *lower* album costs due to the increased attention and volume.

But since there's a monopoly on this particular product, the market can do nothing about it.

Maybe Korea can make some money off of all of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RgXC303Q5A

HTC and Samsung are known to be paying Microsoft royalties for the devices they sell with Android.

AC is pointing out that something similar could happen if Microsoft patented ideas it gleaned from the open source community. An "Embrace, Extend, Patent, Profit" modus, if you will.

This story should be coming from the pre-primary-bush-burning dept., as it's old news and therefore occurred before Florida's closed primary.

Does this CO2 scrubber run off of energy that was produced in a CO2-producing generation process?

I could do so many things with one of those...

It's not the languages available. It's the accessibility of the ability to create and execute code.

Jumping through a few hoops to get your code running on the device or, at a minimum, distributed to a wide audience, gives the developer the feeling that someone is watching and therefore ... is supposed to... cut down on malware and generally increase code quality. If it actually works is yet to be seen in my opinion, and even if it does work, I'm not convinced it's worth the functionality loss- but it's where we are in the mobile space.