Apple openly acknowledges that the iPhone is cannibalizing its iPods [CC] — and they don't seem to care;

It's better for you to cannibalize your own products, than for your competitors to do it for you. There was a recent quote from El Jobso (can't find off hand, sorry) saying that (in his absence) Apple just sat on the top end of the market with the Mac, got greedy, failed to innovate, and suffered. Their success with the ipod seems to support this. They cover nearly the whole market while still remaining the high end brand.

Use goodreader, it's tons better than iBook. You can transfer over wifi, download from a web page, & a ton of other nifty features that the official app doesn't have.

"Too bad they can't both lose"

-Henry Kissinger on the iran-iraq war

It's almost like there's multiple people making independent decisions!

I wish they'd go ahead and pull out of America too.

more:

Privacy isn't a technological binary that you turn off and on. Privacy is about having control of a situation. It's about controlling what information flows where and adjusting measures of trust when things flow in unexpected ways. It's about creating certainty so that we can act appropriately. People still care about privacy because they care about control. Sure, many teens repeatedly tell me "public by default, private when necessary" but this doesn't suggest that privacy is declining; it suggests that publicity has value and, more importantly, that folks are very conscious about when something is private and want it to remain so. When the default is private, you have to think about making something public. When the default is public, you become very aware of privacy. And thus, I would suspect, people are more conscious of privacy now than ever. Because not everyone wants to share everything to everyone else all the time.

http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2010/01/16/facebooks_move.html

Just because it's public doesn't mean it's ok to broadcast it. This blog gives a good example: If you're having an argument with your mate in public, you'd stop very fast if tv cameras show up. Privacy is really about intent & control than about the public/private distinction, which only approximates intent.

The right solution is to fix the brokenness of copyright law, not to write in a special exemption for a particular company.
For starters, we should have an orphan works provision, and the duration of copyright should be cut back down to reasonable levels.

Hahaha, good luck with that. You want to deal with disney & mickey mouse instead of google, be my guest. Besides google has said they'll open it up to other companies. It's a dirty hack, but as google sees it, fixing copyright is basically impossible now.

There's a hack out that can disable it.

Morals have nothing to do with it. The illegal bit is distorting the market. Without a huge market share, you simply don't have the market distorting power. It's annoying, true, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

...... Dude, you're replying to a post about *data liberation*. Go read it again. Lock-in is a powerful way of protecting your margins

Maybe the Hulu management needs to tighten their grip.

4) Once most books are no longer printed, it remains an open question whether it will make censorship of ideas easier or harder.

The internet has been the greatest force for information dissemination since the printed press. Logically moving to electronic versions of books should increase rather than decrease propagation.

It's only "exclusive" in the sense that google is the defendant. Any other company is quite free to go through the whole process again ie scan, get sued & make their own settlement. Anyway as I recall google is making these books available to other companies.

Actually if anyone has bought into the world economy, it's south korea. And they know very well you can't make it happen without peace (with everyone who can fight back).