Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Mar 2013 11:54 UTC
Legal "The European Commission has imposed a EUR 561 million fine on Microsoft for failing to comply with its commitments to offer users a browser choice screen enabling them to easily choose their preferred web browser. In 2009, the Commission had made these commitments legally binding on Microsoft until 2014. In today's decision, the Commission finds that Microsoft failed to roll out the browser choice screen with its Windows 7 Service Pack 1 from May 2011 until July 2012. 15 million Windows users in the EU therefore did not see the choice screen during this period. Microsoft has acknowledged that the choice screen was not displayed during that time." Burn.
Thread beginning with comment 554612
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer
by WorknMan on Thu 7th Mar 2013 23:39 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer"
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

The DMCA was crafted by corporate interests, it was never conceived for the public benefit.


I think that's too simplistic of an explanation. As far as the government was concerned, without the DMCA, there would be much more rampant piracy, which would mean an end to the content industry as we know it, and hundreds of thousands of people would be out of a job. Although opinions differ, I personally think this would've been the case. But even so, I don't think it was the government's job to save the content industry either, and they should've left it alone. When technology renders your product obsolete by making it possible to replicate your product an infinite amount of times for $0, and you can't make money anymore as a result, it's time for you to find a new career. Many industries (like the horse & buggy) have gone by the wayside as a result of technology. Why should the content industry be any different?

Anyway, the DMCA was just an example of businesses trying to survive off the government's teet; not really a whole lot different than what many individuals are trying to do. And I can understand why they did it too. Everybody wants the government to do their bidding, to make some problem that they're having go away. In the end though, they usually end up causing more problems than they solve. As far as most liberals are concerned, I don't disagree with them in regard to how shitty some things are, I just don't look at the government as our ultimate savior.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alfman on Fri 8th Mar 2013 00:58 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

WorknMan,

I agree with most of that regarding DMCA.

We're not going to see eye to eye on having no government regulation at all though. Just because some laws are bad doesn't mean we should get rid of all of them - especially those like antitrust (do correct me if I'm mistaken, but that sounded like the logic you used to reject anti-trust law).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Comment by ilovebeer
by WorknMan on Fri 8th Mar 2013 01:26 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by ilovebeer"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

We're not going to see eye to eye on having no government regulation at all though. Just because some laws are bad doesn't mean we should get rid of all of them - especially those like antitrust (do correct me if I'm mistaken, but that sounded like the logic you used to reject anti-trust law).


Well, of course I'm not an anarchist, so you and I would agree that some amount of government regulation is necessary. What we will disagree on is what is considered 'necessary' ;) I remember when EA bought exclusive rights to make NFL games (which put all Madden competitors out of commission), and of course some people were screaming 'LAWSUIT!'

Clearly, we have to draw the line somewhere, as a lot of this shit just gets superfluous. Personally, when it comes to companies being douchebags, I don't think 'it's going to suck if the government doesn't do something' is a good enough reason to get government involved. To me, anytime you ask for government interference is pretty serious, and should be reserved for dire situations. Why? As I said, the law of unintended consequences.

On a broader level though, I do believe government should be revamped. Instead of congressmen, what we really ought to have is a panel of experts in each field, that are elected by a majority, who probably have a vested interest in that particular field. For example, you probably wouldn't see many hardcore techies voting on matters of agreculture, and you wouldn't have people rejecting, for example, a candidate who might be an expert on economics, just because they don't like his/her stance on gay marriage. There wouldn't need to be 'hot button' issues anymore. Could you imagine when SOPA was brought up and we had a panel of technology gurus running that show, instead of a bunch of 60-something year-old geezers who probably couldn't manage to turn on a f**king iPod? It would've been laughed out of existence.

Reply Parent Score: 2