Page 2 sur 3Précédent 1, 2, 3 SuivantUne mamie Francaise pirate !

[frenchy]

Du bon usage de votre grand-mère...

[desesperatly]

ça apporte de l'eau au moulin des majors, donc. Non ?

Hmmm...

Pratiquer la chasse à la "mammy" (Une Grand mère en françe) et qui utilise encore kaaza sur Internet pour télécharger de la musique en ligne ..., même s'il s'agit d'une "vieille dame indigne", ne va, à mon avis, ni redorer le blason des Sociétés de Gestion de Droits, ni celui des majors ; bien au contraire...

La question n'est pas de savoir si ça va redorer leur blason, mais si ça va conforter leur crédibilité quand ils (re)diront que le p2p représente un danger pour eux.

Cela "n'apportera pas de l'eau au moulin des majors", comme tu sembles vouloir le faire croire, et tant s'en faut !

Bien au contraire... Et c'est tant mieux ! ! !

Que les majors continuent dans cette voie repressive pour l'exemple, je suis certain, que l'opinion publique et nos Magistrats, risquent de ne plus longtemps écouter leurs "doléances". (cf : "Pierre et le Loup");)

Qu'on soit contre les poursuites, d'accord (et je crois que tout le monde l'est, même les majors ; l'amendement vivendi a précisément pour objet de taper sur une cible moins impopulaire); mais je ne vois pas pourquoi une mamy contrefactrice (et qui, réellement, utilise des logiciels de p2p à des fins de contrefaçon, en connaissance de cause) devrait être plus épargnée qu'un étudiant contrefacteur.

[LS.]

on retombe sur le bon vieux pb de la légitimité et de la pertinence de la loi : faut il se soumettre à une loi en décalage avec les pratiques ? qui peut définir ce qu'est un délinquant (car c'est ce qu'est en train de devenir la mamie ou n'importe quelle personne qui télécharge : un contrefacteur, passible de sanctions pénales et d'un casier judiciaire.)

on retombe également sur la notion d'intérêt général, différente de ce côté ci de l'atlantique : quelle valeur pour une loi votée pour défendre des intérêts particuliers.

pour l'amendement vivendi : c'est également l'amendement anti-framasoft ... Les véritables contrefacteurs qui se gavent de pognon en russie et ailleurs se marrent bien.

et dès qu'on a un peu de temps on pleure également sur les bénéfices des majors, qui se portent bien merci.

bref, rien de nouveau sous le soleil depuis esope et la fontaine.

[desesperatly]

pour l'amendement vivendi : c'est également l'amendement anti-framasoft ...

Un petit FUD ne fait pas de mal...

[LS.]

pour l'amendement vivendi : c'est également l'amendement anti-framasoft ...

Un petit FUD ne fait pas de mal...

c'est pourtant le cas : framasoft deviendra un délinquant dès la parution des décrets d'application

on en a déjà parlé sur un autre post :

- soit on censure l'annuaire, mais on ne sait pas trop sur quelles bases : on commence par virer tout les logiciels de P2P (alors que ces logiciels sont aussi utilisés pour du téléchargement légal), puis on doit censurer les logiciels qui sont manifestament utilisés pour de l'échange de données protégée par le droit d'auteur (lesquels ? ça dépend des usages)

- soit on ne bouge pas et on se prend une belle assignation, et on revient au cas de figure 1 : on censure à la demande des majors

- si on refuse de censurer l'annuaire, c'est l'engrenage et framasoft disparait en qques mois, éventuellement après une résistance aussi héroique que vaine.

tout ça est très paradoxal, surtout pour un site qui s'est toujours opposé à la contrefaçon de fichiers numériques, et qui s'oppose radicalement à toute violation des droits des tiers.

pas la peine de tourner autour du pot : framasoft deviendra un délinquant avec sanctions pénales et civiles à la clé, c'est à dire des milliers d'euros de dommages et intérêts.

et on parle de framasoft pour faire simple, on ne sera pas les seuls à devoir mettre la clé sous la porte.

je ne vois pas en quoi c'est du FUD.

[desesperatly]

on en a déjà parlé sur un autre post

On en a effectivement déjà parlé.

- soit on censure l'annuaire, mais on ne sait pas trop sur quelles bases : on commence par virer tout les logiciels de P2P (alors que ces logiciels sont aussi utilisés pour du téléchargement légal), puis on doit censurer les logiciels qui sont manifestament utilisés pour de l'échange de données protégée par le droit d'auteur (lesquels ? ça dépend des usages)

Les logiciels de p2p conformes au dispositif légal ne seront pas illicites et les liens qui pointent vers eux ne le seront pas davantage. Même si ces logiciels n'existent pas encore, du moins dans le domaine du libre, ils devraient exister à (court) terme. L'énergie mise dans les lamentations serait plus utile si elle était placée dans la mise en oeuvre d'initiatives constructives (il y avait un post là-dessus, je ne sais plus où, à propos de l'adaptation d'eMule). En attendant, un message de sensibilisation avertissant que les logiciels qui seraient manifestement destinés à la contrefaçon sont illégaux devraient suffire (au moins à prouver votre bonne foi et à éviter de vous retrouver devant un tribunal sans avoir été alerté auparavant).

Là où il y a FUD, c'est quand tu considères que les industries culturelles vont vous bondir dessus. Je crois franchement qu'elles n'en ont rien à faire de framasoft et qu'elles n'ont donc aucune raison de se lancer dans des actions en justice juste pour vous écraser. Il est clair que si jamais quelqu'un n'est pas content des liens sur framasoft, il commencera par vous en informer et vous avertir. Il sera toujours temps de supprimer (temporairement, en attendant que des versions légales sortent) les liens litigieux.

Il faut arrêter la paranoia mal placée. Ce n'est pas parce que certains courants du logiciel libre sont entrés en guerre contre les majors qu'il faut croire que les majors sont en guerre contre le logiciel libre.

- soit on ne bouge pas et on se prend une belle assignation, et on revient au cas de figure 1 : on censure à la demande des majors

- si on refuse de censurer l'annuaire, c'est l'engrenage et framasoft disparait en qques mois, éventuellement après une résistance aussi héroique que vaine.

tout ça est très paradoxal, surtout pour un site qui s'est toujours opposé à la contrefaçon de fichiers numériques, et qui s'oppose radicalement à toute violation des droits des tiers.

As-tu pris contact avec les responsables des majors ? Je sais que l'approche EUCD.info n'est pas celle de la discussion mais de l'agression verbale. Framasoft n'est toutefois pas obligée de suivre cette voie là. En expliquant clairement et poliment les soucis de framasoft, je suis sûr que la discussion pourrait s'engager.

Mais apparemment, la tendance sur le forum est plus à crier à l'injustice et à la "désobéissance civique" (je sais que ce n'est pas ton cas) plutôt que de chercher à pousser le dialogue un peu plus loin. C'est dommage.

[Saint-Chinian, parti]

Lis donc les nouvelles qui proviennent de l'étranger, mon cher Desesperatly, au lieu d'essayer de nous faire avaler tes couleuvres. La liberté de l'internet, le logiciel libre, cela ne se négocie pas. En face, il n'y a que censure et repression, pour seuls dialogues !

Tiens par exemple ce jour :

I -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/c ... 019472.stm

Hollywood copes with digital age
By Richard Taylor
Editor, BBC Click

Hollywood sign
The film industry has a choice: to ignore or take on the digital age
The Hollywood studios are the lifeblood of the American movie industry. For the best part of a century they have led Tinsel town down a path paved with gold, making it into a multibillion dollar colossus.

Those same studios face a huge challenge with the advent of the internet age.

They must adapt to meet the challenges of the newly democratised digital age, seek new opportunities and develop new business models.

Or else they will be reactive rather than proactive, trying to pretend nothing has happened and carry on with business as usual.

Until now the movie studios have viewed the digital landscapes of the 21st Century with great apprehension, wary of the tech-savvy generation which has been spearheading the revolution in file-sharing.

Today, the rebellion against the entertainment establishment which started with music has become far more all-encompassing.

Sophisticated file-swapping technologies and sites have sprung up faster than old ones have been shut down.
.../...

Lire la suite en ligne

II -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5020788.stm

Amnesty to target net repression

Internet users are being urged to stand up for online freedoms by backing a new campaign launched by human rights group Amnesty International.

Amnesty is celebrating 45 years of activism by highlighting governments using the net to suppress dissent.

The campaign will highlight abuses of rights the net is used for, and push for the release of those jailed for speaking out online.

It will also name hi-tech firms aiding governments that limit online protests.
.../...

AMNESTY INTERNET PLEDGE
"I believe the internet should be a force for political freedom, not repression. People have the right to seek and receive information and to express their peaceful beliefs online without fear or interference. I call on governments to stop the unwarranted restriction of freedom of expression on the internet and on companies to stop helping them do it"

Internet censorship around the world

Lire la suite sur l'article en ligne.


III -

ZDNet Australia

Kazaa fighters appoint new boss

By Iain Ferguson, ZDNet Australia
26 May 2006 03:53 PM

Australia's music anti-piracy unit has finally appointed a new boss after operating with contractors and fill-ins since the last general manager departed in October 2005.

Sabiene Heindl, a former senior associate with law firm Allens Arthur Robinson, is the first person to take on the post following Michael Kerin’s resignation at the end of a five-month stint with Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI) from May last year.

Heindl, who is believed to have been in the role for about a month, has a strong background in copyright and intellectual property litigation, a spokesperson for MIPI told ZDNet Australia. The organisation is believed to have planned an announcement next week.

MIPI is closely ***spam*** to peak lobby group the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA), with its general manager answering to a board which includes several senior ARIA figures such as chief executive officer Stephen Peach.

Kerin -- who took on a role at the movie industry's anti-piracy operation, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) -- had himself replaced Michael Speck, who left the unit after 11 years in April last year. Speck had in recent years taken a lead role in litigation against individuals and bodies involved in copyright-infringing behaviour online, most notably the owners of the Kazaa file-sharing software.

MIPI also advertised online earlier this month for a new investigations manager. According to the advertisement, the manager’s duties would include: the management and direction of anti-piracy operations, establishment of strategies and relationships with state and national law enforcement bodies, as well as involvement in anti-piracy training, education and awareness programs.

The ad specified that "knowledge of copyright and Internet-related laws" would be an advantage in the post.

Heindl's appointment and the release of the advertisement follows ARIA boss Stephen Peach’s announcement late last year that he would restructure the general manager's brief to focus more on educating the community about the illegality of music piracy and appoint a dedicated investigator.

Under both Kerin and Speck, the general manager had carried an exhausting load which included management of enforcement -- including surveillance, forensics investigators and lawyers -- as well as fronting the media.

During his brief stint, Kerin had prepared a paper suggesting MIPI needed an lawyer and an investigations manager as well as an in-house forensics manager.

IV -

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/26/ca ... web_2.html

Friday, May 26, 2006
Can anyone own "Web 2.0?"
O'Reilly Media have taken a ton of criticism for attempting to enforce a service mark against a nonprofit group in Ireland that wanted to have "Web 2.0" conference. O'Reilly exec Dale Dougherty coined the term Web 2.0, and O'Reilly used it for a line of very successful conferences chaired by Boing Boing's business manager, John Battelle (I've been a speaker at Web 2.0 as well, and found the con to be an amazing, eye-opening experience).

The dispute seems to have been resolved amicably. O'Reilly has apologized for sending in lawyers against the con before speaking to them, and has granted the con permission to use "Web 2.0" in its name.

However, O'Reilly maintains that Web 2.0 is a service mark of their company when applied to conferences, and that other conferences that want to call themselves "Web 2.0" will have to get O'Reilly's permission -- they defend this as part of the sound business practice of defending a trademark.

Trademarks are intended to protect consumers by ensuring that goods and services aren't misleadingly labeled. A trademark holder, say, "Coke," gets the right to sue companies that use the word "Coke" in their products and services in a way that would lead the public to believe that Coke was behind them.

But trademarks aren't "property" -- they aren't words owned by companies. They're the ability to use the courts to protect a company's customers. That's a pretty good idea: the public deserves to be protected from misleading marketing.

The question is whether using "Web 2.0" in a conference name is misleading: will the average person who hears about a Web 2.0 event assume that it must be put on by O'Reilly, or will she assume that it's just an event about the Web 2.0 technology and business-practices that O'Reilly defined?

O'Reilly has an amazing, wonderful gift for popularizing hard ideas and for explaining abstruse technology in catchy ways. "Web 2.0" is only one of O'Reilly's many accomplishments, which started with the publication of the first user documentation for Unix, and has continued through many iterations of excellent, world-changing ideas and memes.

The downside of creating amazing, industry-shaking ideas is that they become embedded in the popular consciousness. While the digerati know that O'Reilly originated Web 2.0, the idea is so infectious that it's just become part of the fabric of the industry. One of the things that makes O'Reilly's ideas so great is that they go on to be part of the infrastructure, invisible and huge and powerful.

But that means that O'Reilly's ideas are also not uniquely associated with O'Reilly. When I hear "emerging technology," I think of more than the excellent "O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference" (even though I've volunteered for every ETECH programming jury so far). When I hear "Open Source," I think of more than the wonderful "O'Reilly Open Source Conferences" (where I've spoken on several occasions). And when I hear "Web 2.0," I think of more than the brilliant "O'Reilly Web 2.0 Conference."

Which is by way of saying that I'm not convinced that there is a trademark here. In O'Reilly's latest post about this, they quote my pal and colleague John Battelle saying "Remember, Web 2.0 is also about having a business that works. And not protecting your trademarks is simply bad business practice." But while that's true -- Boing Boing has on one occasion asked someone publishing a really similar blog also called "Boing Boing," with similar graphics, to consider changing its name -- it's not the whole story.

The O'Reilly Conferences' unique selling proposition is that they rewrite the rules of the industry and coalesce meaning out of the stew of ideas floating around the field. If you're going to name the next direction the world will take, you have to be prepared for the world to take that direction. Industry shifts become public property -- or rather, things that are privately controlled can't shift a diverse industry.

That means that O'Reilly needs to choose whether it's going to retain control the word "Web 2.0" for conferences, or retain control ***spam*** the shifts that created the Web 2.0 phenomenon.

I think being able to call the shots is more important than being able to own those calls. Link

V -

The Daily Telegraph

Firefox snaps at Microsoft's heels
(Filed: 28/05/2006)

A not-for-profit company that uses software written by volunteers is proving a challenge to Bill Gates, says Andrew Murray-Watson

Mitchell Baker does not look like a typical technology geek. The first thing that makes her stand out is the dyed red hair, draped in a style that is perhaps best described as more new romantic than new economy.

But Baker, as the head of the Mozilla Foundation, is one of the world's most important internet entrepreneurs. In November 2004 the company released Firefox, an internet browser. Just ***spam*** 18 months on, Firefox has an estimated 50m customers worldwide and a 15 per cent share of the global browser market. The reason you may not have heard of Mozilla is that it has no shareholders, no investors and no directors on multi-million dollar salaries.

Rather than rake in fat profits from the internet, Mozilla wants to keep it free. The organisation is a not-for-profit group and uses open-source software to develop Firefox. Open-source material is accessible to anyone who wants it in order to develop a piece of software.

Unlike rival Microsoft, which employs a legion of highly paid software engineers, Mozilla relies on a small internal team and the goodwill and hard work of tens of thousands of unpaid volunteers to create its products. Profit, dividends and returns on investment do not enter the equation. All of which means that Baker, who is a trapeze artist in her spare time (she tries to "fly" at least twice a week), is quite possibly Bill Gates's worst nightmare.

"We built that browser for the good of the internet itself," says Baker.

She joined Mozilla in 1999 when it was a division of Netscape, the internet group. Despite being made redundant in 2001 by AOL, Netscape's parent company, she stayed on as a volunteer. When AOL shut down Netscape in 2003, Baker joined the Mozilla Foundation to continue work on what was to become Firefox.

Today, Mozilla's product has gobbled up market share at the expense of Microsoft's Internet Explorer, which has been riddled with security problems for years and does not have the same function-ality as Firefox. Firefox is not just a good product; being an open-source creation immediately gives it an anti-corporate kudos among internet users.

Despite its success, however, Mozilla's fans are becoming increasingly -concerned that the organisation is moving away from its altruistic roots and becoming a fully fledged money-making operation. The company makes no secret of the fact that it turns a profit. Firefox uses Google as its preferred search engine partner. When a user carries out a search via the browser's built-in search facility, about 80 per cent of the advertising revenue from any associated hits goes back to Mozilla.

"We have got revenues in the tens of millions of dollars, but it's slightly less than the $72m mentioned in some quarters," says Baker.

Nevertheless, part of Mozilla's fan base remains unhappy at the thought that the organisation is somehow selling out. Baker, however, argues that making money is not incompatible with being an open-source company.

"We have a user base of 40m to 50m people, who use our product as their -primary way of participating on the web," she says. "That means we have a set of responsibilities and activities that we must conduct to be a responsible vendor - whether it is cool or not."

She adds: "I have started to talk about money. It does allow us to do things and build the giant infrastructure we need to support 80m people.

"But there is a set of people who wonder about what this means. Suddenly it [Firefox] is not 'pure'. But my belief is that money is involved no matter what. I don't know, in a philosophical sense, why open-source should not make money."

Baker believes that Mozilla will not lose its cool factor as long as it continues to demonstrate that the money it brings in is spent entirely on making its products even better.

Some of the cash will go into a "rainy day" fund and Baker has plans to spend some of Mozilla's income on strengthening ties with the organisation's global community of developers.

"Some of the people who created Firefox do not have an employment relationship with the company. So paying everybody would be the wrong thing to do. We could hold some conferences or something like that, but it's not been worked out yet," she says.

Firefox's emergence as a genuine challenger to Internet Explorer has made Microsoft sit up and take notice. The giant US software group has already started to respond to some of the innovative work done by Mozilla and the open-source community.

The next version of Internet Explorer will be fully implemented in Windows Vista, the next version of the operating system. However, many features inspired by Firefox are already available in the "beta", or trial, version that is now available for download. These include tabbed browsing - already a core feature of Firefox - and better security.

So how does Baker feel about Microsoft using some of Firefox's freely available technology for its browser?

After a long pause, she says: "Firefox is a good technology. If that technology were to spread further, we would be happy about it."

Bill Gates had better start taking notes.

Etc... Etc...

[desesperatly]

Lis donc les nouvelles qui proviennent de l'étranger, mon cher Desesperatly, au lieu d'essayer de nous faire avaler tes couleuvres. La liberté de l'internet, le logiciel libre, cela ne se négocie pas. En face, il n'y a que censure et repression, pour seuls dialogues !

Tiens par exemple ce jour :

I -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/c ... 019472.stm

Hollywood copes with digital age
By Richard Taylor
Editor, BBC Click

Hollywood sign
The film industry has a choice: to ignore or take on the digital age
The Hollywood studios are the lifeblood of the American movie industry. For the best part of a century they have led Tinsel town down a path paved with gold, making it into a multibillion dollar colossus.

Those same studios face a huge challenge with the advent of the internet age.

They must adapt to meet the challenges of the newly democratised digital age, seek new opportunities and develop new business models.

Or else they will be reactive rather than proactive, trying to pretend nothing has happened and carry on with business as usual.

Until now the movie studios have viewed the digital landscapes of the 21st Century with great apprehension, wary of the tech-savvy generation which has been spearheading the revolution in file-sharing.

Today, the rebellion against the entertainment establishment which started with music has become far more all-encompassing.

Sophisticated file-swapping technologies and sites have sprung up faster than old ones have been shut down.
.../...

Lire la suite en ligne

II -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5020788.stm

Amnesty to target net repression

Internet users are being urged to stand up for online freedoms by backing a new campaign launched by human rights group Amnesty International.

Amnesty is celebrating 45 years of activism by highlighting governments using the net to suppress dissent.

The campaign will highlight abuses of rights the net is used for, and push for the release of those jailed for speaking out online.

It will also name hi-tech firms aiding governments that limit online protests.
.../...

AMNESTY INTERNET PLEDGE
"I believe the internet should be a force for political freedom, not repression. People have the right to seek and receive information and to express their peaceful beliefs online without fear or interference. I call on governments to stop the unwarranted restriction of freedom of expression on the internet and on companies to stop helping them do it"

Internet censorship around the world

Lire la suite sur l'article en ligne.


III -

ZDNet Australia

Kazaa fighters appoint new boss

By Iain Ferguson, ZDNet Australia
26 May 2006 03:53 PM

Australia's music anti-piracy unit has finally appointed a new boss after operating with contractors and fill-ins since the last general manager departed in October 2005.

Sabiene Heindl, a former senior associate with law firm Allens Arthur Robinson, is the first person to take on the post following Michael Kerin’s resignation at the end of a five-month stint with Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI) from May last year.

Heindl, who is believed to have been in the role for about a month, has a strong background in copyright and intellectual property litigation, a spokesperson for MIPI told ZDNet Australia. The organisation is believed to have planned an announcement next week.

MIPI is closely ***spam*** to peak lobby group the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA), with its general manager answering to a board which includes several senior ARIA figures such as chief executive officer Stephen Peach.

Kerin -- who took on a role at the movie industry's anti-piracy operation, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) -- had himself replaced Michael Speck, who left the unit after 11 years in April last year. Speck had in recent years taken a lead role in litigation against individuals and bodies involved in copyright-infringing behaviour online, most notably the owners of the Kazaa file-sharing software.

MIPI also advertised online earlier this month for a new investigations manager. According to the advertisement, the manager’s duties would include: the management and direction of anti-piracy operations, establishment of strategies and relationships with state and national law enforcement bodies, as well as involvement in anti-piracy training, education and awareness programs.

The ad specified that "knowledge of copyright and Internet-related laws" would be an advantage in the post.

Heindl's appointment and the release of the advertisement follows ARIA boss Stephen Peach’s announcement late last year that he would restructure the general manager's brief to focus more on educating the community about the illegality of music piracy and appoint a dedicated investigator.

Under both Kerin and Speck, the general manager had carried an exhausting load which included management of enforcement -- including surveillance, forensics investigators and lawyers -- as well as fronting the media.

During his brief stint, Kerin had prepared a paper suggesting MIPI needed an lawyer and an investigations manager as well as an in-house forensics manager.

IV -

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/26/ca ... web_2.html

Friday, May 26, 2006
Can anyone own "Web 2.0?"
O'Reilly Media have taken a ton of criticism for attempting to enforce a service mark against a nonprofit group in Ireland that wanted to have "Web 2.0" conference. O'Reilly exec Dale Dougherty coined the term Web 2.0, and O'Reilly used it for a line of very successful conferences chaired by Boing Boing's business manager, John Battelle (I've been a speaker at Web 2.0 as well, and found the con to be an amazing, eye-opening experience).

The dispute seems to have been resolved amicably. O'Reilly has apologized for sending in lawyers against the con before speaking to them, and has granted the con permission to use "Web 2.0" in its name.

However, O'Reilly maintains that Web 2.0 is a service mark of their company when applied to conferences, and that other conferences that want to call themselves "Web 2.0" will have to get O'Reilly's permission -- they defend this as part of the sound business practice of defending a trademark.

Trademarks are intended to protect consumers by ensuring that goods and services aren't misleadingly labeled. A trademark holder, say, "Coke," gets the right to sue companies that use the word "Coke" in their products and services in a way that would lead the public to believe that Coke was behind them.

But trademarks aren't "property" -- they aren't words owned by companies. They're the ability to use the courts to protect a company's customers. That's a pretty good idea: the public deserves to be protected from misleading marketing.

The question is whether using "Web 2.0" in a conference name is misleading: will the average person who hears about a Web 2.0 event assume that it must be put on by O'Reilly, or will she assume that it's just an event about the Web 2.0 technology and business-practices that O'Reilly defined?

O'Reilly has an amazing, wonderful gift for popularizing hard ideas and for explaining abstruse technology in catchy ways. "Web 2.0" is only one of O'Reilly's many accomplishments, which started with the publication of the first user documentation for Unix, and has continued through many iterations of excellent, world-changing ideas and memes.

The downside of creating amazing, industry-shaking ideas is that they become embedded in the popular consciousness. While the digerati know that O'Reilly originated Web 2.0, the idea is so infectious that it's just become part of the fabric of the industry. One of the things that makes O'Reilly's ideas so great is that they go on to be part of the infrastructure, invisible and huge and powerful.

But that means that O'Reilly's ideas are also not uniquely associated with O'Reilly. When I hear "emerging technology," I think of more than the excellent "O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference" (even though I've volunteered for every ETECH programming jury so far). When I hear "Open Source," I think of more than the wonderful "O'Reilly Open Source Conferences" (where I've spoken on several occasions). And when I hear "Web 2.0," I think of more than the brilliant "O'Reilly Web 2.0 Conference."

Which is by way of saying that I'm not convinced that there is a trademark here. In O'Reilly's latest post about this, they quote my pal and colleague John Battelle saying "Remember, Web 2.0 is also about having a business that works. And not protecting your trademarks is simply bad business practice." But while that's true -- Boing Boing has on one occasion asked someone publishing a really similar blog also called "Boing Boing," with similar graphics, to consider changing its name -- it's not the whole story.

The O'Reilly Conferences' unique selling proposition is that they rewrite the rules of the industry and coalesce meaning out of the stew of ideas floating around the field. If you're going to name the next direction the world will take, you have to be prepared for the world to take that direction. Industry shifts become public property -- or rather, things that are privately controlled can't shift a diverse industry.

That means that O'Reilly needs to choose whether it's going to retain control the word "Web 2.0" for conferences, or retain control ***spam*** the shifts that created the Web 2.0 phenomenon.

I think being able to call the shots is more important than being able to own those calls. Link

V -

The Daily Telegraph

Firefox snaps at Microsoft's heels
(Filed: 28/05/2006)

A not-for-profit company that uses software written by volunteers is proving a challenge to Bill Gates, says Andrew Murray-Watson

Mitchell Baker does not look like a typical technology geek. The first thing that makes her stand out is the dyed red hair, draped in a style that is perhaps best described as more new romantic than new economy.

But Baker, as the head of the Mozilla Foundation, is one of the world's most important internet entrepreneurs. In November 2004 the company released Firefox, an internet browser. Just ***spam*** 18 months on, Firefox has an estimated 50m customers worldwide and a 15 per cent share of the global browser market. The reason you may not have heard of Mozilla is that it has no shareholders, no investors and no directors on multi-million dollar salaries.

Rather than rake in fat profits from the internet, Mozilla wants to keep it free. The organisation is a not-for-profit group and uses open-source software to develop Firefox. Open-source material is accessible to anyone who wants it in order to develop a piece of software.

Unlike rival Microsoft, which employs a legion of highly paid software engineers, Mozilla relies on a small internal team and the goodwill and hard work of tens of thousands of unpaid volunteers to create its products. Profit, dividends and returns on investment do not enter the equation. All of which means that Baker, who is a trapeze artist in her spare time (she tries to "fly" at least twice a week), is quite possibly Bill Gates's worst nightmare.

"We built that browser for the good of the internet itself," says Baker.

She joined Mozilla in 1999 when it was a division of Netscape, the internet group. Despite being made redundant in 2001 by AOL, Netscape's parent company, she stayed on as a volunteer. When AOL shut down Netscape in 2003, Baker joined the Mozilla Foundation to continue work on what was to become Firefox.

Today, Mozilla's product has gobbled up market share at the expense of Microsoft's Internet Explorer, which has been riddled with security problems for years and does not have the same function-ality as Firefox. Firefox is not just a good product; being an open-source creation immediately gives it an anti-corporate kudos among internet users.

Despite its success, however, Mozilla's fans are becoming increasingly -concerned that the organisation is moving away from its altruistic roots and becoming a fully fledged money-making operation. The company makes no secret of the fact that it turns a profit. Firefox uses Google as its preferred search engine partner. When a user carries out a search via the browser's built-in search facility, about 80 per cent of the advertising revenue from any associated hits goes back to Mozilla.

"We have got revenues in the tens of millions of dollars, but it's slightly less than the $72m mentioned in some quarters," says Baker.

Nevertheless, part of Mozilla's fan base remains unhappy at the thought that the organisation is somehow selling out. Baker, however, argues that making money is not incompatible with being an open-source company.

"We have a user base of 40m to 50m people, who use our product as their -primary way of participating on the web," she says. "That means we have a set of responsibilities and activities that we must conduct to be a responsible vendor - whether it is cool or not."

She adds: "I have started to talk about money. It does allow us to do things and build the giant infrastructure we need to support 80m people.

"But there is a set of people who wonder about what this means. Suddenly it [Firefox] is not 'pure'. But my belief is that money is involved no matter what. I don't know, in a philosophical sense, why open-source should not make money."

Baker believes that Mozilla will not lose its cool factor as long as it continues to demonstrate that the money it brings in is spent entirely on making its products even better.

Some of the cash will go into a "rainy day" fund and Baker has plans to spend some of Mozilla's income on strengthening ties with the organisation's global community of developers.

"Some of the people who created Firefox do not have an employment relationship with the company. So paying everybody would be the wrong thing to do. We could hold some conferences or something like that, but it's not been worked out yet," she says.

Firefox's emergence as a genuine challenger to Internet Explorer has made Microsoft sit up and take notice. The giant US software group has already started to respond to some of the innovative work done by Mozilla and the open-source community.

The next version of Internet Explorer will be fully implemented in Windows Vista, the next version of the operating system. However, many features inspired by Firefox are already available in the "beta", or trial, version that is now available for download. These include tabbed browsing - already a core feature of Firefox - and better security.

So how does Baker feel about Microsoft using some of Firefox's freely available technology for its browser?

After a long pause, she says: "Firefox is a good technology. If that technology were to spread further, we would be happy about it."

Bill Gates had better start taking notes.

Etc... Etc...

Les liens auraient suffi...

[Saint-Chinian, parti]

Les liens auraient suffi...

De même qu'il était inutile de quoter l'intégralité de mon post !

Tiens je t'ai gardé le meilleur pour la fin :

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=759642006

Cheap copies take a crack at Da Vinci Code

BOOTLEG DVDs of The Da Vinci Code were on sale all ***spam*** Shanghai today, days after China pipped Cannes by hours with the world premier of the movie.

Pirated DVD versions of both The Da Vinci Code and Mission Impossible 3 were selling for 5 yuan (£0.33) each, but workmanship of the cheap copies was said to be poor.

A sales assistant at one Shanghai DVD shop said the initial copies were "pirated overseas" and that "better quality" versions would probably be available early next month.

Ce n'est pas en brimant le logiciel libre et les Français sur internet, que l'on arrêtera le traffic en Asie du Sud Est...

SI ? Comment ?

[arfelas]

Les logiciels de p2p conformes au dispositif légal ne seront pas illicites et les liens qui pointent vers eux ne le seront pas davantage. Même si ces logiciels n'existent pas encore, du moins dans le domaine du libre, ils devraient exister à (court) terme.

tu as l'air bien sur de toi, des infos à nous faire partager ou est ce du vent comme d'habitude?