Except that in the book, it was in base 11 and the figure was starting and ending with a line of 0 as well.

Yeah,

They produced Kazaa the mother of all malware

Then Skype which is wonderful (and they promised to to be malware free this time) but they sold it without selling the core technology so they basically screwed the buyer (eBayer)

Then they push the big red button ...

Wow ...

The're good but I dont like them. The only positive thing is that ebay can now see how it feels when having a problem with a buyer.

Exactly. Assuming that Theora is better in terms of quality, HTML5 designers and implementor need to understand that some level of backward compatibility is needed so HTML5 can reach the masses and not repain a geek feature.

Making ogg / theora mandatory is not the issue BUT

First, we need the tag to be able to render FLV in both VP6 / VP7 and H.264 contents.

Then of course support MP4 containers / 3GP2 files for mobile developments.

As a transitional phase, a plugin system would allow any codec provider to add support for a particular codec / container.

And finally, would it be good as a fight to ask for more favorable licencing terms on H.264 codec ?

Sorry to disappoint you but outskirt is the standard translation for French banlieue, which makes the whole thing less sexy.

On the other hand, if you insist on this side, I may advise you to have a look at this geek's girlfriend advise site if you read some French.

Cheers.

These are very good arguments ...

I was more or less in favor of HADOPI (not the police side of it but the fact that it was a way to punish minor offences without going the full trial / fine even prison stuff). Now I must agree more or less with the parent post.

By rejecting HADOPI, this means that copying digital music, pictures and text is legal as long as it is released to the public.

- One alternative business model proposed was the global licence.
- are they others?

You have to be aware of the very deep consequences of permitting free copy of existing work as long as it can be digitalize. What limit should we put to this new freedom?

If we do not put any limit:

1- for artist, they will be bound to make live performances to earn some money which is a good thing. However to be able to live, a large chunk of them will "sell" their services to advertisment copanies or marketing companies. Music will become either a free art or a marketing addons.

1a - iTune music store may lower the price but not disapear as it provides a distribution service but a Deezer and other free alternative will become dominant.

2- Classical music hum ... fewer symphonic orchestra

3- what about painting and photograhies? This mean that digital copies of pictures.

4- How will be movies financed if they can be legally leaked to the Web? Is a global licence enough to cover this? Does it mean that the movie producers will be directly paid by the government?

5- Software will be able to be duplicated for free. No Microsoft anymore. Great for Linux fans but what about the general public? Software product will disapear. SaaS and Open Source + paid service will become the dominant model as this will the only source of revenue.

6 - newspaper will dies more quickly. Is it a problem?

I still beleive that there must be some limit to this copy freedom. But which one?

Yes and no ...

First of all, I would agree to say that some of his former public behavior and comment are at least displaced. A person obtaining such a position should be able to control himself. Secondly, his way of locking power puy putting friends everywhere and trying to be saturate the medias and communications with his personal presence is very perverse as it gives the impression the French regime is slowly turning into an autocratic one, leaving democratic principle behind.

Despite all this, some aspects of his tenure are ignored in your post.

You might remember former government with nostalgia, I don't: Chirac might be remembered as a nice human guy that had the vision to oppose to Irak war but he was also an old style politician, channeling public monies into his political party (when he was mayor of Paris) and getting unclear counterparts. His government was prerry good at pointing some fundamental French weakness but did nothing serious to address them.

At least, Sarkozy is trying. His govt initiated major reforms regarding retirement, hostpital, uiniversty and everybody knows that it is very important for the country. Even the so despited HADOPI law has the merit to put on the table an issue that is most of the time discussed only in geek circles.

You have to recognise also that there is a poisonous atmosphere in French public opinon where Sarkozy's massive media presence (even in lefitst press) has generated a massive rejection. The problem with this is that people are unable to think clearly and discuss calmly about positive or negatve aspects of the reforms (and there are actually positive ones in my view). Your angry post is a living proof of this and a lot of people do the same. I blame Sarko directly for this reaction: it is the result of his communication strategy that leave no space for anybody.

Finally, I feel very inconfortable with the way that your post or other strong minded opinons about the French president. Political views are sided but ought to be more polite. Politness put a necessary distance that enable to have a clearer view of the real issues. And those are not related with the size of the head of state nor with the fact that he is qualified to work this toilet paper.

Finally we can see here the limits of the so called "Internet Model" were company provide services for free in return for advertisments. Maybe the entry of devevelopping world in the Web arena will promote back the old reasonnable model where you actually sell something (a good or a service) and customers buy if it meets their need with at the proper price point

Waow!

While it is understandable that prople may complain that big media / entertainment companies abuse their dominant position and lead to a price point that is unacceptable, it is difficult to me to accept that no creator deserve any protection

So writer's book can be copied and sold all over the street. Same thing for musicians. Also software makers (companies and individual) have to recourse if they decide to go closed source and make an honest living?

So you are basically against making money from creations? The world that you aspire would be only based on fabrication and distribution and private and personnal leisure. Very dull indeed.

Sorry. As much as I am against major companies milking their customers, I cannot accept such extreme and short sighted position on the argument that people wants it. Everybody want free lunches but at the end of the day someone has to grow the vegetables and raise the cow.

I am aware that there are some proponent of the "gift based economy" but it does not see it applicable here on a systematic base. The major devlopment of arts in Europe started during Renaissance as there were wealthy mécÃnes ready to PAY artists. By giving up any protection to creators, you would cause that kind of systems to be reinstated. Only a small and wealthy elite would pay for private concerts or other cultural events. Neat progress!

I read the blog post and I find the title a litle inaccurate: the EU level clearly rejected the three strike principle to be extended as a EU directive but it is unclear if the decision will force France to back down on its national law.

It may need a directive to specify that this kind of approach is forbidden. Then, it may need a formal complain from the EU commission or a French citizen size the European Court of Justice to have the law revoked or modified.

The parent post also mentionned prison here. But the law was specifically designed to avoid sending people to prison for what is a minor offence.

Personnaly, I don't find the principle of three strikes and you are disconnected so problematic as it looks like road regulationsBUT there are some serious issues with the current implementations:

• First and not least, the organisation that is in charge of monitoring and issueing warnings and disconnection order is some kind of extra judicial stuff. I believe that the final text include justice intervention but it is very thin ...

• Secondly, the ability to sue file transfer software editor is just ridiculous. It violates the principle that software is neutral and that it is individuals that perform the acts.

Ok, I guess my karma will suffer from the opinion above but please, could someone explain we what would be a balanced approach that would enforce right of creators and freedoms of Internet users?

What are your proposal slashcrowd?

Hello

I still wonder why so many people moan about H.264 licensing fees. It is quite reasonable and is not stupidly overpriced as in the case of AMR audio codec. Here are the terms of MPEG 4 LA

This means that if you would start a company that would sell a product that would embbed ffmpeg / x264 (you have to release the sources in that case because of GPL ...), you would not have to pay anything for your first 100 000 units, the above 100 000, you have to pay $20 000 / year so 0.20 $US / year / user. This sounds reasonable.

Of course such approach is not compatible with the GPL philosophy that emphasises the "no string attached" philosophy but H.264 development did not come free either. I wonder if the devlopper of x264 could not sell non GPL licences of their codec with a low price: 2$ per unit + 0.5$ per year per unit for support and patent fees. This would enable anyone wanting to do business to have a sound legal base and channel more money in open source codec developments.

Emmanuel. IVeS