Slashdot Mirror

These articles sound like auditions for those outlets that we're getting the second-run of and not original, provocative content written for Slashdot.

If it locks consumers into a licence like current ones, that basically sound more like a slum-lord rental agreement (no guarantee of service, and you don't own it either, and if you [your computer] gets sick because of it, it ain't their problem) then that's an argument I can make.

This is certainly part of it. UCITA would make EULAs much more enforceable. In its current form, it would probably even allow clauses such as those that prohibit criticism or public disclosure of flaws in the software. I would hope that such things would be overturned in court, but why let it get that far if we can fix it before then?

If all it does it prevent the "warez kiddies" from their little pirate cottage industry, as said elsewhere, then how can you be against that.

If that was all it did, then I'd have no problem with it, except that it would be redundant. What "warez kiddies" do is already illegal under current law, so there is no need for further legislation for that purpose. It would only serve to confuse matters.

Sure, some software may seem overpriced, but it is the right of the company to charge what they want for it, and it is your right not to install it. If you did without paying it, UCITA or not, you just broke the law.

The problem is not the price or EULAs in and of themselves, but the fact that UCITA seems to disregard current contract law and current consumer rights. Some of this is explained in the docs I reference below.

There are a bunch of letters and papers written by various lawyers, consumer organizations, industry groups, and others on this site. Might help you out to read through some of them. Most of them seem pretty well thought out and usually emphasize that one of the worst aspects of UCITA is that it is not based on current law and will cause a lot of confusion and expensive litigation. I think this one, this one, this summary, and this article by Lawrence Lessig were some of the most informative.

In a Standard article (found and cited by Yardley in post #58) there is a quote from a content provider:

"Streambox has been stealing our streams for quite some time," says Opher Mizrahi, CEO of MovieFlix.com. "It's costing us bandwidth and we don't get the benefit of the registration. They can link to our movies illegally, and there's no reason to come to the MovieFlix Web site," he adds.

Streambox denies the theft of course, but what is the guy talking about? Deep linking? Or does the RA player provide them with some kind of statistics?

I have not used these players, but I can't see why an RA user would not be able to do the same thing as with a Streambox player.

Lars
__

In an article from Jan. 3 at The Standard, it says:
The court also ordered that RealNetworks post a $1 million bond should the court later find that the restraining order was wrongfully issued.

So, does this mean Streambox will be receiving a large cash infusion?

Is a million enough to effect RealNetwork's operations?

Everybody is saying that this thing is about content. I don't get it. If I want content, I'll watch TV or read a magazine. All these people that think that users are going to be watching TV through the Internet are out of it. People use the Internet for entirely different reasons.

What is it about? For AOL it's about marketing. TW's media are said to reach about a sixth of the planet. Now that sixth will be inundated with AOL ads and find their disks everywhere.

For TW, it's about market cap. All those Brick and Mortars out there are turning green looking at the Net stock craze. Do they want in on it? You bet your asterix. How do they get in? Merge.

See what this monster has become.

Filing the suit demonstrates the importance of digital copyrights in the digital age," said Alex Alben, RealNetworks vice president of government affairs. "We will take significant action to ensure that programming and content delivered by RealNetworks products is protected."

Protected?, Although not as easy as MP3, there really was no great "protections" scheme to begin with. If they spent half of their time working toward securing the media as they did with "Cookie Collection", this may not have happened at all.

RealPlayer has been downloaded 92 million times from RealNetwork's Web site. The software allows users to "stream" copyrighted audio and video files to their desktop. But unlike an open-source format like MP3, RealPlayer won't allow end users to make additional copies or distribute the material to others."

Yeah, Right.

Filing the suit demonstrates the importance of digital copyrights in the digital age," said Alex Alben, RealNetworks vice president of government affairs. "We will take significant action to ensure that programming and content delivered by RealNetworks products is protected."

Protected?, Although not as easy as MP3, there really was no great "protections" scheme to begin with. If they spent half of their time working toward securing the media as they did with "Cookie Collection", this may not have happened at all.

RealPlayer has been downloaded 92 million times from RealNetwork's Web site. The software allows users to "stream" copyrighted audio and video files to their desktop. But unlike an open-source format like MP3, RealPlayer won't allow end users to make additional copies or distribute the material to others."

Yeah, Right.

"Hello, little brother. Welcome to the world of DoubleClick Inc. "
--

• BBC Online
• Press Association
• Wired News
• Silicon Valley News
• Microsoft( hilarious)
• news.com
• ZDNetwork News
• The Industry Standard

  
  --

One problem with your theory...the statistics were based on hits at over 114,000 websites, not on sales.

Here's the story.