Slashdot Mirror
Latest Toast Update Combats Fair Use
gsfprez writes "Apparently, demanding future DRM installations isn't just for Windows anymore. Roxio has added a very Microsoft-esque paragraph to the Toast 5.1.4 upgrade. In part, if you install it, you 'may affect your ability to copy, display and/or play Secure Content through the Software or other applications that utilize the Software.' I'm sorry, but this is a big reason why I'm sticking with Apple, but looking for new CD/DVD burning software..." Let me know when you find it.
CD-Record? It works on NetBSD and MacOS X is based on Unix.
I feel like a broken record.
Surely in this day and age you should feel like a copy protected CD
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
>The only thing that has been blunted is your ability to illegally share those files.
//rdj
and what about my LEGAL right to share???
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Pentium 90, 16 MB RAM
12 MB free hard disk space
CD-R, or CD-RW, DVD-R/RW or DVD+RW drive*
Windows 95 / 98 / ME / NT 4.0 / 2000 / XP
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Given the dreck that Hollywood produces, I think you just shot yourself in the foot...
that and toast is horribly unstable on my box, i cant figure out why.
I want 2D games back.
Oh yeah, and along with Nero I would recommend people find a copy of VirtualDub. Fantastic program, PC only I think, but can convert between a LOT of different video formats quite well. Get the latest version here, but it also may be worth finding an old version around somewhere, 1.3 or something, because it can also convert ASF files to things like AVI/MPEG! Unfortunetly Microsoft strongarmed him to take out the feature, and I don't know if he has been able to put it back yet. Oh, and something many people here will appreciate, it is now GPLed!
no, I was not trolling. for one, i explicitly have the right to share music with my family. (please be aware, i do not live in the US..).
//rdj
i am allowed to make a copy, and give it to my sister, or my mother.
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
The actions of the second group caused the people in the first group to have their toys taken away from them.
The actions of people engaging in blatant copyright infringement are are doing the same thing to people who are doing legitimate fair use as the gangsters did to gun collectors 75 years ago. They are fucking it up for everybody.
Since a computer is as incapable of determining leagal use as the Thompson was incapable of determining legal use, the computer's ability to copy material is likely to suffer the same fate as the Thompson.
The RIAA and the MPAA are asses for pushing this soulation to their problem, but I blame the "file sharers" that are ignoring the current laws as much as the Holywood crowd for bringing this draconian approach to IP protection about.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
I really don't want to be one to have to deal with trying to figure out what I can or can't do with a system.
I think the DRM supporters need to focus their efforts on making their dedicated systems that don't allow the user
to do anything by play or run the DRM stuff ony as they intend to allow the consumer.
and then we should have another type of system that allows creativity, innovation, etc.. by and for those who want
such a system.
And so that there is no conflict, the open system simply rejects DRM stuff, where to use DRM stuff on such a system,
a special version of that item must be purchased.
Some of us bought a Computer in order to be creative, and I think it's theift for others to sneek in and take this
away, especially in doing it the little by little way.
Why don't they just go make their own DRM system, or do they know it won't sale? And if so, then isn't it theift by intention?
All I know is that I don't want the maybe it's work, maybe it won't crap wasting my time.
DRM is like a virus infecting and crippling what is otherwise a versatile system.
I rather make a clear distinction between what I can be creative with and not.
I'm not a pirate, and I don't like my creativity being taken from me because others feel they have to muscle in on it.
If you live in a country that adheres to the Berne Convention, then you are indeed bound by the copyright. It's one of those little things that makes international trade easier.
I have been pwned because my
use a version of toast below 5.1.4. 5.1.4 doesn't really add anything earthshattering and necessary, and it forces you to agree to unsolicited, unnotified, unreviewed software installation on your machine.
bottom line, don't use the software that offends you. if people stop buying the software, they'll stop doing this sort of thing. use 5.1.2 or whatever version you currently have.
Not sure about DVD burning but I got rid of both Toast and Charismac's Discribe and just use the built-in cd burning software.
.dmg images to cd to making audio cd's via iTunes.
Does everything I need from burning files or whole
And I don't have to deal with Roxio's obnoxiousness.
Any volunteers?
If you had been paying attention these changes were announced back just before Toast 5 was released. I read it on Maintouch or Maccentral. It took nearly a year for this to appear in the EULA, but is no surprise to me.
Toast is certainly easy to use, but there are other options out there. If you are making audio CDs you can just use iTunes.
If you're backing up other files why not use the built in (X at least) Disk Copy? Again, not the easiest solution, but a possibility.
Wine passes i386 instructions directly onto the processor. Macs use PowerPC processors, so the CPU might be quite confused.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
I realize that you are trolling, but that's a good question. It comes down to what you consider "sharing" to mean. If it means playing the CD in your car with your friends or lending a CD to your friend, then that is totally within your rights. If you mean making it freely available to everyone who may cross your path, that is quite illegal, as Napster (and soon Gnutella and Kazaa) learned.
The point you seem to be missing is that there is no way for the technology to know whether someone is going to use a burned/ripped copy for legal/moral uses (portable MP3 player, emailing a song to your mother) or illegal/immoral uses (offering an entire album for download). None. When DRM technology will not let you rip a CD to your brand-new $400 MP3 player, do you think that complaning to the RIAA with "But this is within my rights!" will do anything?
Don't fool yourself into thinking the issue is about copyright law. The copyright cartels have tons of tools at their disposal to prosecute copyright violators - standard copyright law being the main one - tools that they have shown no inclination to use to actually, oh, stop copyright infringement. Their current push for legally-mandated DRM technology is about control, and only control. They want to be the ones to dictate how you can use the CDs and DVDs that you buy, the music that you download, the TV shows that you watch. Your rights to perform the "legal" copyright violations that you mention will be subject to the whims of Hollywood lawyers and profit margins.
If that's the future you want, so be it. I personally find it extremely distasteful that a small band of "special" corporations (MPAA, RIAA) are going to be allowed to have the blessed stamp of "producer," and as such determine what technology can be developed, and who is allowed to distribute "authorized" content. The issues are as old as copyright itself, only the distribution method has changed, which is allowing Hollywood to paint a doomsday picture of "You must allow us to control the technology in every digital device, or else the great Republic will fall due to a lack of HIGH VALUE DIGITAL CONTENT."
Spare me. If you work at an embedded systems company, and look forward to the day you have to license DRM technolgy from Hollywood for all of your systems, bully for you. A large number of us, however, see that "copyright" is merely the smokescreen for the larger issue.
- I have a legal copy of Toast.
- I have used Toast since version 4 came out and have been very happy with it.
I am a computer consultant and regularly have to deal with reading contracts, usually written in legalese. While I am not a lawyer, my take of these things is that they are usually worse than they appear. So my take on that clause is that it gives Roxio the right to download updates to you computers at will, even when you are not looking (remember, it is allowed if it is not prohibited).
I dont know many people who would be happy with that. Suppose they decide to download some piece of DRM code which crashes my computer, requiring me to spend a day rebuilding everything. Not good for my business and I cant sue Roxio for that even though they are responsible.
This is not acceptable, it is like letting a car company come into your garage at night to mess with your car without your consent? I know I wouldnt let any car company do that, so why would I let a computer company?
This type of restriction is unacceptable, I have gone back to the previous version of Toast and have let Roxio know about this.
Cheers
Have a look at the google cache of their home page for proof. :-(
Discribe for OS X is a great product- simple, does the job, without DRM hassles.
That branding your customers as CRIMINALS and treating them as such is poor PR, and only ENCOURAGES what they call "crimes"?
Unfortunately, I suspect soon ALL commercial CD burning programs will have DRM. And when that happens, it may be used as a wedge to kill off OSS/GPL'ed OS's and software, which will most certainly remain on the side of the user.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Is there anything ammoral with this?
According to our system of copyright, yes. In the U.S., copyright is supposed to be a balance between letting producers be compensated enough to keep producing and the "advancement of the arts and sciences" (read: society, the people) with attendant fair use rights.
Producers taking this tact are trying to swing the fine balance we had for almost 200 years too far in their favor.
You can't commit mass murder with an iPod.
sulli
RTFJ.
Uh...it isn't Apple who's done this. It's Roxio. Slow down your itchy Apple-bashing trigger finger next time killer.
And rise above your name.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
What I do seem to have is a mature sense of right and wrong which anyone who tries to legitimize piracy simply doesn't yet possess.
What you don't seem to have is the ability to differentiate between piracy and fair use. Every time one of these discussions begins, there is a dedicated group of people who post and say that fair use as a concept is great but we really can't have it because every "fair user" out there might actually be a pirate at some point.
Hey, every citizen out there might actually be a murderer at some point. So what? It's a ridiculous jump to make.
I'm a writer. I have a much greater vested interest in copyright than you do. But I am also a realist -- and you are not. People are going to make copies of some chapters of my books. Maybe they will even copy the entire book and carry it around in a three-ring binder. So what? The value in selling that one copy is very low. The value in having yet another person "spreading the word" about a title I've written is much greater.
The same holds true for the audio and video content industries. Before the "MP3 revolution" I was buying maybe six CDs a year. Afterward, I'm buying 20-30 because my exposure to artists is greater. Most of my (working) friends are in the same position.
The RIAA/MPAA are complaining like babies about slightly decreased sales... and they're doing it in the middle of an economy that is tanking, worse than it's been in years. The decreases are directly related to the lack of disposable income on the part of the buying public, not to the greatly increased exposure they're getting through P2P.
Or maybe what the big media outlets are really upset about is a leveling of the playing field... the fact that maybe 80% of the CD's I've bought this year are indies or self-pubs that I wouldn't have known about had P2P never existed. We tried to do away with the studio system in Hollywood years ago for antitrust reasons, yet the music industry still functions exactly that way today and the MPAA has even managed to recreate most of the old income superstructure using intellectual property ownership rather than real property ownership as leverage. Let's try again to level the playing field, for once and for all.
Sorry, but the issue is not as simple or as black-and-white as so many devout capitalists seem to believe... not all sharing violates copyright. To end sharing because some sharing violates copyright is patently unjust and smacks of the kind of baby-with-bathwater institutional mentality Americans claim to hate.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
legal to give copies of music to up to five friends.
** Begins madly scribbling notes **
Step 1: Grab source to random open source P2P.
Step 2: Create counter for each file. Initialize to 5.
Step 3: For each file request add user to Buddy list.
Step 4: Decrement file counter.
Step 5: Send file.
P.S.
Version 2.0
BUG FOUND: Program is still sending the file when counter reaches zero.
EXPLANATION: Forgot to check the counter.
BUG FIX: Insert "Step 4.5: test counter", do not send file if counter = zero.
Version 3.0
BUG FOUND: Program no longer sending file when counter is zero, but then resumes sending the file on subsequent requests.
EXPLANATION: Counter is erroneously decremented past zero and rolls over to MAXINT.
BUGFIX: Should test for zero BEFORE decrementing the counter.
Version 4.0
BUG FOUND: Some files still being sent 1000's of times.
EXPLANATION: Rollover bug in versions 1 and 2 left many files with corrupted counters set to MAXINT.
BUG FIX: Reset all counters to 5.
Versions 5.0
BUG FOUND: Program send each file up to 5 times each session.
EXPLANATION: Counters erroneously being reset to 5 during program initialization.
BUGFIX: Mover code to reset counters from program initialization to the installer.
Version 6.0
BUGS FOUND: NONE! YAY!
This release improves speed, stability, and ease of use.
Version 7.0
BUG FOUND: Files that shouldn't be sent anymore are being sent again.
EXPLANATION: When installing new version the counter is always reset to 5.
BUGFIX: Only reset corrupted counters. If counter = MAXINT then reset counter to 5.
VERSION 8.0
BUG FOUND: Version 7.0 is still allowing some files corrupted by versions 1 and 2 to be sent 1000's of times.
EXPLANATION: Corrupted counters may have been further decremented past MAXINT.
BUG FIX: Reset counter if counter > 5.
ToDo for version 9.0:
Add international support. Different countries have different limits on how many times files may be shared. This will complicate the counter code signifigantly. Perhaps counter should start at zero and count upwards? Will require much debugging.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I just can't seem to understand why hardware manufacturers are playing ball with Big Media. If there were ever a lawsuit against a hw company for copyright infrngement, wouldn't they simply point the blame at the user for the "misuse"? In my mind implementation of DRM make hw manufacturers responsible for their users' actions.
If DRM-in-hardware were to effectively kill off open OS development and use, what are the chances that the DRM hardware companies be charged with collusory practices? Will there be "open hardware"?
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Yep, the Holy Grail for the media companies is pay for every use of the copyrighted material.
Too bad it would destroy the economy, but hey, its what they want.
When they figure out that screwing over the consumer will not have the consumer beating down your door to buy your product, it may be too late.
I haven't bought a CD in years, and whether or not I can download songs over the internet, I might not buy a CD ever again. This kind of control is going to turn more and more customers away from the market (nevermind that they seem to only be trying to sell CDs to 11-13 year olds).
thales wrote:
e place "intellectual property owners" with "artists" and even Mothra would be happy.)
> The actions of people engaging in blatant
> copyright infringement are are doing the same
> thing to people who are doing legitimate fair
> use as the gangsters did to gun collectors 75
> years ago. They are fucking it up for everybody.
[snip]
> The RIAA and the MPAA are asses for pushing this
> soulation to their problem, but I blame the
> "file sharers" that are ignoring the current
> laws as much as the Holywood crowd for bringing
> this draconian approach to IP protection about.
Let me make a few things crystal clear here:
1) The "file sharers" do not harm most of the artists, and in some cases, have been known to actually help artists, especially in the music industry. That is because sites like Napster essentially give them free exposure by allowing people to sample the music and find new artists they might never have bought music from otherwise. Some artists have seen increased sales due to Napster.
2) The people with the problem are the recording labels and the studios.
3) The problem is not theft or lost revenue. After all, they consider playing a CD in your car that you bought for your home stereo lost revenue, and not watching commercials is called theft.
4) Nope, the real problem is COMPETITION. You see, they have nice tidy cartels that have the industries all neatly tied up. They believe that they have been anointed by the government (in a process called "copyright"), as the only legal distributors of their media. They've even started making the artists "work for hire" so they don't have to worry about nasty royalties. And along come these rogue "file sharers" who ursurp their priviledged position and distribute the files from the CD's, etc., they have bought to whoever wants to listen.
5) The cartels that control the entertainment industries are badly in need of an antitrust investigation themselves. While not the best solution to antitrust behaviour, the "file sharers" are at least providing some competition. The solution that would best serve the artists and the public for the music segment would be to replace the recording industry with a set of small businesses that offer services to artists who retain their own copyrights and control over their work. CD prices could be much lower, with the artists getting the lion's share of the profits. It is my hope that Apple uses their recent acquisitions to lower the bar of entry so these small businesses can form. Then we can make a well deserved end to the greedy sharks in the recording and motion picture industries.
6) After all, it is the greedy sharks that are making off with our money in unfairly high CD prices, and tolls on CDR disks. How is that not theft and extortion? Now they want to seize control of our digital vessels, our computers. How is that not piracy? The industry sharks do more harm to the artists and the consumers than "file sharers" ever did.
I am breaking with tradition, and ending with a quote not from Mothra, but from her forever friend, Steve Jobs:
"Apple strives to protect the rights of both intellectual property owners and consumers alike and believes there is a 'middle path' in digital music distribution which actively discourages the theft of music, while at the same time preserving consumers rights to manage and listen to their legally acquired music on whatever devices they own,"
Steve Jobs, 2002 Grammy Awards, as reported on http://sg.news.yahoo.com/020227/1/2jun2.html.
(R
I'm sorry but what did this post have to do with the story? Roxio is not Apple and Apple hasn't crippled their CD burning in iTunes or the Finder the way Roxio has with Toast.
The BSD people where so desperate for someone to use their os that they didn't realize this is just another corporate exploitation...
I don't know that "desperation" was part of it. That is the whole POINT of the BSD license (well at least part of the point). They WANT their software used as widely as possible, even by money grubbing corporations.
What exactly is wrong with being a money grubbing corporation anyway? How exactly do you feed and clothe yourself? Subsistance farming? Even if you are working for a non-profit, the government or a university where do you think the money people donate came from? Sure "money grubbing" can be taken to obnoxious and even evil extremes but "money grubbing" seems to be a necessary and in itself morally neutral activity.
I would have thought slashdot people would at least be able to see through apples marketing hype but i guess not.
I think we can. At best the marketing hype gives some indication as to HOW a company may try to "grub for money" and they will abandon "enlightened" money grubbing methods if they fail to grub enough money. I'd even argue that they have a higher moral obligation to do so than to make you happy with their enlightened policy. They are responsible to pay their employees paychecks & benefits and still have enough left over to fund the retirements of many thousands of people who bought the stock in their IRA or own it through their employee pension fund. If you like their product enough to give them your money then you have nothing to complain about. If you don't like their product enough to give them money in return for it (or if you ARE a subsistance farmer to barter a few chickens & a cow) then they will change it so that you DO like it - because they are money grubbing and it's your money (or chickens) they want to grub.
There is no comparison. Toast crashes iTunes burns. Screw Roxio.
I don't burn much, just back ups. Mostly I just copy to my drive for the convenience of using iTunes at my puter.
photosMy Photostream
Use Apple's own Burn program. It's part of OS X and interfaces with iTunes. You don't have to look very far, or did you look at all?
-- DuckWing
You are following the lead of the RIAA. You are calling the Tool evil because SOME people misuse it. Both a Gun and a CD writer are material objects incapable of commiting good or evil. It takes a person to use a device for evil purposes.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
This is fine as long as people who legally purchase this content can give the content creator the finger and either:
a. bypass the copy protection for legal uses, or
b. choose similar content from other creators that is not similarly crippled.
DRM is only truly effective if bypassing it is illegal (and inclusion in hardware and software is mandatory) and non-DRM content is rejected by DRM devices. Otherwise, it is just like Macrovision, which prevents casual users from using the content they purchase in many legal ways while remaining completely useless against anyone who can buy a $50 signal cleaner. The Average Joe gets screwed, while the "pirate" is only out $50.
The BIG content providers who make this stuff want to protect their investment.
No, they want to preserve their monopoly on content creation, which guarantees future profits. To do this, they need to maintain control of their market, which they want to accomplish through technological and legal means instead of through the quality of their products.
Why shouldn't they try?
Because in doing so, they are criminalizing fair use and unfairly restricting competition by branding anything not authorized by them as "piracy." Since the technology can't tell piracy from fair use, they want to remove the distinction entirely.
Some of you have suggested that the whole process is futile ; people will always be able to hack it. The latter may be true, but if the recording companies can make it hard enough (with only allowing DRM devices to play their content, ect) they can make it so that the customer who is "on the fence" between warezing and buying it (i.e. someone who could do either) makes the right choice because warezing it is tedious.
And what about the legitimate uses that will be more tedious if done the "right" way? The same logic would make a great case for lost sales that would result if people are restricted from choosing how they want to use the content they purchase.
Thus, for the goal that the content providers want : to gain more sales from people who might otherwise pirate; DRM and other techniques may actually work!
Or they may drive away potential customers who don't like being treated like criminals for wanting to use what they buy. DRM can only work if all content uses it and there is no non-DRM alternative. This is the truly scary part.
Now, for the people who cannot or will not buy the content : yeah, they'll warez it...but the anti-piracy measures can make it tougher. By breaking up the big P2P networks, it becomes slightly harder to pirate music.
And it becomes harder to distribute independently created music. Remember how the RIAA wanted to clean up Napster? They wanted Napster to only allow the distribution of material that the content creator had specifically authorized Napster to distribute. This goes beyond "protecting" their works and impedes the distribution of works that are given away freely or are (if there are any) in the public domain, effectively giving the RIAA control over this distribution channel.
By copy protecting cds, it becomes less convenient for the average customer to burn his friend a copy.
Legitimate uses also become less convenient, decreasing the value of the product. If a price cut corresponding to the decrease in functionality does not accompany DRM, sales will drop.
But for the average joe who's been working all day and just wants to see a movie : he is probably going to get the legitimate copy to avoid all the technical headaches piracy can involve.
He would probably also want to avoid all the technical headaches that come with legitimate copies "protected" with DRM or some similar scheme. Of course, people seem to be putting up with Windows XP, so maybe most people enjoy that sort of treatment...
While making music may be an art that people do just to enjoy it, making a major movie is anything but.
Define "major." The technology needed to create something that would have been considered "major" a few years ago is now available to the masses at relatively low cost. As the tools to create movies become more readily available and the means to distribute them (P2P) remain available, the number of hobbyists will increase, resulting in an amateur talent pool similar to that of music.
While movies can be fun, its a lot of work especially for the people who add in all the extras that separate a big budget production from an Indie film.
But are these added expenses needed to produce something good? Even the worst of Hollywood movies take in millions of dollars in ticket sales, while the best of small budget films can go unnoticed. This is because the studios can get anything on a thousand screens - but what happens if more people start getting their movies from the internet instead of the theater? The studios don't have control over that distribution channel yet, and it takes more than just a few billions of dollars to get this control - it takes technology and laws. This is where some of our favorite acronyms (DMCA, DRM, SSSCA/CBDTPA, etc.) fit in.
So if noone paid for movies, films of the quality we currently experience would not be made.
What's wrong with that? If nobody is willing to pay for something, then it probably shouldn't be made. It certainly shouldn't be forced on people so they will have to spend money on something they don't want. However, there are two flaws with your argument, and both can be seen in the latest Adam Sandler movie:
1. There will always be people who will pay to see complete and utter crap.
2. Too many of the movies made today are complete and utter crap.
Making a good movie doesn't have to be expensive - even basic digital effects can be done with a few thousand dollars of equipment and the desire to learn and create. The key is a good script, and that usually requires creative freedom without influence from high-level management. Cut out the overhead and you can get a quality production at a low cost, which, if given the opportunity, could easily make its money back through viewings and direct sales. This, not "piracy," is the real threat to the copyright cartel - small content creators producing content that appeals to focused demographics, eroding the potential audience for mainstream watered down crap. With current technology and the ever-present desire to create, the creation of complex productions and the widespread distribution of them can be accomplished by anyone who chooses to do so - the cartels are no longer necessary. This is why you will see more DRM and more restrictive "protection," all backed up by law - the customer is also the enemy.
Don't upgrade.
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
2) The "Sharing" advocates are full of shit when they claim it dosen't cost the content providers anything because some of the people downloading material are doing it to avoid paying for something they would have bought if they couldn't get it for free.
3) Nobody knows if additional sales generated by someone "sampling" music outweighs sales lost to people who refuse to buy anything.
4) Copyright holders ARE the only people with the LEGAL right to distribute copyrighted material.
5) Any sleezy action by the RIAA members is beside the point. Didn't your Mother teach you that two wrongs don't make a right? Illegally distributing copyrighted materials makes it damn hard to take the moral highground.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Well, as a sort of answer:
... except games, and thatexception is only because I consider them "throw-aways". I check for studio affiliation with the MPAA before I see a movie. (This severly limits the list of movies that I will see, but I don't mind that much. Frequently I'm just as glad to have an acceptable excuse .. "Pardon me, do you happen to know if that studio is affiliated with the MPAA? You don't? Well, I guess I'll have to skip that movie then." [If they ask why, then I have a perfect opportunity to explain {well, rant} about the Hollings bills, etc.]) I'm just hoping that "Good News" comes out from an independant studio, as I would hate to skip that.
The last time I considered purchasing a computer one of the choices I considered was a Mac. Partailly because of OSX. But partially because of the built in DVD burner.
Now I decided against it, largely because it was more expensive and because Linux programs tend to be available there later than on the X86 versions. (Software frequently takes a bit of work to adapt to another architecture, and that's not where I want to spend my time.)
Well, the Mac lost out anyway. I choose a different system. But to the extent that I thought writing of DVDs would be controlled by someone else, I would have been *less* interested. As it was, I didn't even buy a DVD. There weren't enough bays in the tower, and something had to go. So it was the DVD. So that's not a *major* consideration. But it was one of the main reasons that I was even considering the Mac.
I'm not sure what Toast is, but I always pay for any commercial software I use. And I dispise DRM vendors. One and all. I will not buy (or use) copy protected software
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
He was appalled that his gun was used by criminals.
Appalled, maybe. If he was surprised, he was an idiot.
---
Roland was a warrior from the Land of the Midnight Sun
With a Thompson gun for hire, fighting to be done
The deal was made in Denmark on a dark and stormy day
So he set out for Biafra to join the bloody fray
Through sixty-six and seven they fought the Congo war
With their fingers on their triggers, knee-deep in gore
For days and nights they battled the Bantu to their knees
They killed to earn their living and to help out the Congolese
Roland the Thompson gunner...
His comrades fought beside him - Van Owen and the rest
But of all the Thompson gunners, Roland was the best
So the CIA decided they wanted Roland dead
That son-of-a-bitch Van Owen blew off Roland's head
Roland the headless Thompson gunner (Time, time, time
For another peaceful
war)
Norway's bravest son (But time stands still
for Roland
'Til he evens up the
score)
You can still see his headless body stalking through the night
In the muzzle flash of Roland's Thompson gun
In the muzzle flash of Roland's Thompson gun
Roland searched the continent for the man who'd done him in
He found him in Mombassa in a barroom drinking gin
Roland aimed his Thompson gun - he didn't say a word
But he blew Van Owen's body from there to Johannesburg
Roland the headless Thompson gunner...
The eternal Thompson gunner, still wandering through the night
Now it's ten years later, but he still keeps up the fight
In Ireland, in Lebanon, in Palestine and Berkeley...
Patty Hearst heard the burst of Roland's Thompson gun
And bought it!
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
How many times has it been pointed out on /. that it's wrong to ban a tool because someone misuses it when P2P networks and "Piracy" are being discussed? A Gun is just another tool, subject to proper use or misuse.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
I know that if I was a shareholder of ROXI, I'd be pissed right about now. They are taking on a battle that they don't need to fight, and treating the customer as a criminal.
The only thing this is going to result in is a decrease in sales for Roxio, as people turn to alternative CD burning apps. As a management decision, it's just plain stupid and somebody needs to be fired.
I would generally prefer that they leave it in their sock drawer. I would certainly prefer that they leave it their to their getting laws passed that restrict my rights.
Generally I neither listen to their music, watch their flicks, nor desire to do either. That they should buy laws that restricts my rights to use my computer as I choose in order to protect their profits makes me wish they would all go bankrupt a year ago. Or more.
They have no inherent right to stay in business. None. The copyright laws are authorized in the constitution for the purpose of distributing knowledge. Not for restricting it. When the copyright is used to restrict the distribution of knowledge, then it has transgressed against the foundation that gives it the right to special protection. (Sorry, I may have copyrights and patents confused here. I'd need to look it up to be certain. But if I don't have the wording correct, I have the intention correct.)
I do not consider that the "Masters of the Media" have demonstrated that they are a net good for the country. I consider them more like unto heroin. And that they do not deserve any special protection.
You could argue, with reason, that the artist is deserving of special protections. But these corporations aren't artists. George Lucas may be an artist. George Lucas Productions is not. George Lucas may deserve reasonable copyright protection. George Lucas Productions does not. Corporations are not people. Companies are not people. People are people. I can conceive that a GM rabbit might be a person. I can conceive that an AI might be a person. But a company or a corporation is a fundamentally different kind of entity. And while the people who operate within the company may have rights, the company only has power. Certainly it doesn't seem to have much in the way of ethics or morals. Well, that's not proof. Many people don't seem to have much of those either. But they could. They have the capability. Companies and corporations don't have that capability. At best they can have directors and management that have ethics and morals. And some do. But directors and management are subject to change.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You're absolutely correct -- it's not about copyright, it's about control. And when you state that Hollywood is blathering, "You must allow us to control the technology in every digital device, or else the great Republic will fall due to a lack of HIGH VALUE DIGITAL CONTENT," I couldn't help hearing this translation: Hollywood is doomsaying, ".. or else the Great Republic will fall due to a lack of BREAD AND CIRCUSES."
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
CD burning is built into MacOS X and works great.
D
At point 4, you could stand to go to the bathroom yourself. What gives people the right to use the state to stop other people from copying their works? The US Constitution does for the specific purpose of 'advancing the arts and sciences'. The only reason that the *temporary* monopoly exists is in order to advance the pool of knowledge and the pool of arts available to our society.
It's certainly a legitimate question whether the RIAA/MPAA actions against fair use/unsanctioned copying are advancing or hindering the arts. Are their enforcement mechanisms raising costs so much that artists are actually being paid less? There's a study that isn't going to have industry sponsorship anytime soon.
I would say that the original subject of the thread (Roxio crippling their burner program) hinders the arts and sciences by crippling the ability to copy music files whether or not such copying is legitimate (the program can't tell the difference). To the extent that Roxio is doing so under legal pressure from the RIAA, such pressure is constitutionally suspect.
This was posted to VerionTracker.com last night.
;)
I am the Toast product manager. I wanted to set the facts straight with respect to the 'Restrictions' section in the end user license agreement (EULA) that is displayed at installation of Toast 5.1.4 and Jam 5.0.1 (both the latest versions of our software). 1) Toast and Jam do not include any digital rights management (DRM) software. 2) Toast and Jam do not dynamically download and update any software on your system, either automatically behind the scenes, or upon your request. 3) Toast and Jam do not store and collect any personally identifiable information about you or what you record, or transmit anything to Roxio, any of its partners, or any content provider. 4) Toast and Jam do not restrict you from recording any content that you have the legal right to use. Toast and Jam use the same EULA that Roxio's PC burning product, Easy CD Creator, uses. Easy CD Creator leverages aspects of Windows Media Technology, which does include DRM components. Hence, the language in the EULA. Our EULAs are shared across both products because it saves time and money with respect to legal, documentation and translation into multiple languages. So no need to worry. All is well with Toast. Thank you for your continued support. Regards, The Toast Product Manager BTW - yes, you'll see that I have given our product 5 stars. I couldn't resist.
Can someone update this story or what? Moreover, next time I adise -using- this software before posting a rant to slashdot
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
http://softwareupdates.roxio.com/gm/Products/en/To ast/Titanium/v5/Toast_513_Ti_Updater.hqx
The last update without DRM
You may also want to investigate Discribe. It doens't have DRM.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
The clause you mentioned clearly sets a basis for reasonable limited copyright laws. I Don't consider life plus 95 years to be remotly reasonable, and would be delighted to see the copyright extensions struck down as unconstituional.
A Reasonable law, IMHO, would be 14 years of automatic protection, with the possibility of a one time 14 year extension apon registering the copyright. These are the times that were discussed by the framers of the Constitution, and the original copyright law. After a max of 28 years it enters the public domain.
Disagrement with a law does NOT give you the right to engage in wholesale violation of that law. If someone wanted to violate the present copyright law for the purpose of bringing a test case before the courts, I would be in full agreement with them.
However that is NOT the reason the majority of the filesharers are violating the law. They don't agree with the law and simply refuse to obey it. This blatant disrepect for the law is far more likely to result in more severe laws than to result in an improvement in the law, as many recent examples of "Anti-piracy" laws show. It makes it hard to establish the moral highground when the RIAA can paint you as a scoffatlaw at best and a thief at worse.
Mass distrubation of a song that was written last year would be illegal if the original copyright laws were still in effect. That would hardly make a good test case against the many extensions of the term of copyright. A test case would involve a song that was published over 28 years ago, something that would now be in the public domain under the original law.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
uh.. if you recompiled It I imagine you'd have the sense to recompile it for the machine you were going to run it on... IOW, PowerPC code.. hence making a translation layer utterly pointless after you'd recompiled it.
Unfortunately you are mistaken. Fair use does not normally include sharing. It can - for extracts of works used educationally - but usually doesn't. Sharing with my family member/friend has always been technically illegal - although rarely prosecuted.
Even if this were not the case - the doctrine of fair use does not require that the work be made copyable. It simply means that if you are able to copy it and your copy falls within the domain of fair use then it means that you have not infringed the rights' owner's copyright. If they make it so you are prevented from copying it - then it goes against the spirit of the Fair Use doctrine but does not break copyright law.
The issue then becomes about advertising/labelling so that people can make and informed choice.
I hope everyone who had time to gripe here on Slashdot will also have time to submit a level-headed and reasonable explanation of why you are unhappy with this and will no longer support them by buying their products as a result.
Make sure you point out competitors who aren't doing this, other software, etc.
This kind of thing will be won battle-by-battle not with one definitive law or judgment. Do your part if you really care.
--Rick
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
It's amusing to see people who are willing to ignore the Second admendment start yelling about the Bill of Rights when someone wants to ignore the first admendment.
DRM is about enforcing copyright law, A person's right to control something they created, and copyright is authorized in the Constitution. My view of DRM is that it does violate fair use, but it damn hard to argue a case of rights when you aren't willing to respect the rights of others, and the "file sharers" are showing contempt for the rights of copyright holders.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
For instance your movie producer can restrict showings to movie theatres and check everybody at the door to make sure they don't bring in a recording device. I seem to remember this was a popular way to make money on movies once upon a time...
They are also allowed to prosecute anyone they find posting or selling their copyrighted movie.
Both of these are well within their rights and do not require legislation.
If you think they are going to allow refunds because of this you are sadly deluded.
Switch.
:)
This has to be Apple's dumbest advertising campaign yet... I pretty much agree with this assertion
I personally don't respond to low key insults very well when deciding on a computer platform
Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
"Make it ten--I am only a poor corrupt official."
--Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), Casablanca
5) Any sleezy action by the RIAA members is beside the point. Didn't your Mother teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?
Two wrongs don't make a right? Gee, then I guess killing nazis to stop death camps was all fscked up. Because, you know, it was wrong to kill. Except, of course, under the circumstances it was right.
My point being, there are circumstances where I think copying "intellectual property" is not wrong. The law is wrong. You know, law can be wrong sometimes, that's why there are procedures to change it.
The full sig:
A host is a host
from coast to coast
but no one uses the host that's close
unless the host that isn't close
is busy, hung, or dead.
I'm well aware that a law can be wrong. A lot of confusion is caused by the term copyright. If you read what I have written my point concerns the DISTRUBITION of copyrighted material. You have the right to copy as much IP as you feel like, you just don't have the right to freely distrubite the copies you make. Copying is fair use, distrubiting what you have coppied is not.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
I Have never been an advocate of the "elastic" Constitution. I feel that we should follow the intents of the framers of the Constitution or follow the procedures for amending it. An "elastic" constitution in effect means it can be "amended" at will by changing the interpation.
"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
-- Jefferson
But perhaps you feel that the founding fathers were authoritarian sons of bitches who didn't want you to think for yourself. Or do you?
I Don't consider life plus 95 years to be remotly reasonable, and would be delighted to see the copyright extensions struck down as unconstitutional.
I consider it awful as well, but I don't expect the supreme court to be able to change this. It's a limited period of time and 'advancing the arts and sciences' is so fuzzy that the interpretation will be left to the politicians.
A Reasonable law, IMHO, would be 14 years of automatic protection, with the possibility of a one time 14 year extension apon registering the copyright. These are the times that were discussed by the framers of the Constitution, and the original copyright law. After a max of 28 years it enters the public domain.
I think that's even too long for software, it's obsolete so soon that there is no real benefit to society anymore after 28 years. The abandonware sites clearly show the problem of a lenghty copyright. You cannot get the arts once created except by breaking the law. Considering the better distribution methods since 1780, those 28 years may be considered to be far too long as well. It took many years to get books recognized and distributed properly at that time. Current books have to make their money in a rather short period of time and often get out of print after a decade. Perhaps we should even have different copyright periods for different products, music is far more lasting for instance and easier to obtain than 'obsoleted' books.
But again, the choice for a certain duration of copyright is so fuzzy that the supreme court cannot set one. Where is the optimum? 0 years? 10? 100? Given the fact that the supreme court doesn't believe the constitution to be infallible, they cannot accept 28 years as being the optimum, but have to let the politicians decide.
Disagrement with a law does NOT give you the right to engage in wholesale violation of that law.
I disagree. A (really) wrong law should not be followed. I'm glad that some jews were kept in hiding and thus escaped the gas chambers during WWII. Do you consider the people who disobeyed the law to help these people to be criminals? Or are they heroes?
However that is NOT the reason the majority of the filesharers are violating the law. They don't agree with the law and simply refuse to obey it.
Many people I know would gladly pay for fair-priced, full-featured MP3-downloading service or for fair-priced CD's. I don't feel bad at all about keeping the money away from these government-sponsored criminals (RIAA). And many decent people feel the same. They would gladly give money to those who deserve it (the artists), but don't accept being ripped off.
Copying software illegally is different however, although I believe it's OK for foreigners, students and others who simply cannot afford the price that companies ask (and thus cannot learn or advance their society). Of course it is different when these groups get cheap deals.
This blatant disrepect for the law is far more likely to result in more severe laws than to result in an improvement in the law, as many recent examples of "Anti-piracy" laws show.
It is the same with drugs. First the government fights it causing the mafia to grow and the prisons to be filled with decent kids. Kids that get influenced by the nasty criminals they share a cell with. And one day the politicians/citizens wisen up and legalize drugs that are not that damaging. At least, that the way it is going/did go in The Netherlands, Switzerland, England and France.
Of course, the US is not exactly a fast learner with the war on drugs either. But copyright infringement can only be stopped with fascist laws. I don't expect the american public to accept these. Although you'll probably accept every law, which begs this quote:
"In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me -
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
-- Pastor Martin Niemöller paraphrased
It makes it hard to establish the moral highground when the RIAA can paint you as a scoffatlaw at best and a thief at worse.
Perhaps I should impress them by buying all their crappy, overpriced CD's. I'll bet the bastards will be thinking about changing their ways when they sniff the line of coke that my money paid for in their favorite brothel. Having all the money in the world will worry them!
I guess that not giving them any money won't impress them at all. I guess that nobody ever will get the point and will give customers what they want for a fair price. Oh wait, someone is already getting the point. I suppose that Napster had nothing to do with this at all, though. Never in history has a positive change been brought forth because people chose to disobey their laws. The DDR also still exists and Milosevic is currently the ruler of Serbia. The french aristocracy rules France. South-Africa has Apartheid. America is a british colony.
Would the world not look far different if everybody was like you? Do you think it would be better?
Mass distribution of a song that was written last year would be illegal if the original copyright laws were still in effect. That would hardly make a good test case against the many extensions of the term of copyright. A test case would involve a song that was published over 28 years ago, something that would now be in the public domain under the original law.
Using a book is much better. Many books are under copyright, but cannot be ordered any more. That clearly shows the problems with the copyright laws of today. Besides, books are usually considered far more important to society than songs. Especially if you use some unobtainable political or philosophical works, you might get the politicians and courts to think about the consumers for a change. After all, who wants go into the history books as the one that prevented the dissemation of knowledge? You might even get free speech activists to support you on this.
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
What part of "or follow the procedures for amending it" is too complicated for you to understand? Or do you prefer a non-constitution that lacks any meaning?
" I disagree. A (really) wrong law should not be followed. I'm glad that some jews were kept in hiding and thus escaped the gas chambers during WWII. Do you consider the people who disobeyed the law to help these people to be criminals? Or are they heroes?"
Are you trying to compare risking your life to save the life of another human being to demanding that ENTERTAINMENT be provided to you on your terms regardless of the wishes of the people who created the entertainment?
"Many people I know would gladly pay for fair-priced, full-featured MP3-downloading service or for fair-priced CD's. I don't feel bad at all about keeping the money away from these government-sponsored criminals (RIAA). And many decent people feel the same. They would gladly give money to those who deserve it (the artists), but don't accept being ripped off."
Criminals? And you are going to be the vigilante that decides the RIAA are criminals, and that your kangaroo court entitles you to violate the law? Music is a LUXARY. You aren't going to die from music hunger if you do a legal protest like boycotting CDs sold by RIAA members. Don't bother trying to take the moral highground, you lost that when you violated the law over the price of entertainment. Two wrongs don't make a right.
"Copying software illegally is different however, although I believe it's OK for foreigners, students and others who simply cannot afford the price that companies ask (and thus cannot learn or advance their society). Of course it is different when these groups get cheap deals."
I Want a restored 427 Cobra but can't afford it. Does that make it OK for me to take one? Hell No. So I make do with a Chevy. Ever hear of free software? Can't afford Windows XP? Get Linux. Can't afford MS Office? Then Get Open Office. Can't afford Photo Shop? Then learn to use the Gimp.
"Of course, the US is not exactly a fast learner with the war on drugs either. But copyright infringement can only be stopped with fascist laws. I don't expect the american public to accept these. Although you'll probably accept every law, which begs this quote:"
I Read that before most people on this forum were born, read it when I was speaking out against segration in the southeastern USA at a time when you could get your ass kicked or lynched for doing so. So forget the vain attempt to prove yourself "morally superior" to me. I wasn't afraid to speak out for the people who were having their rights violated back then, and I'm not afraid to speak out for the people who's rights you want to violate with your cockamamie "IP can be taken from those I don't approve of" campaign. I don't limit myself to only speaking out for the rights of groups that are considered "correct" by the left or the right.
"Perhaps I should impress them by buying all their crappy, overpriced CD's. I'll bet the bastards will be thinking about changing their ways when they sniff the line of coke that my money paid for in their favorite brothel. Having all the money in the world will worry them!"
Don't buy the damn CDs if you disaprove of them. Just don't bitch when they write you off as a deadbeat that's too cheap to pay for entertainment because you lacked the conviction to NOT use the product instead of trying to grab it without paying for it. Boycott the Music and you send a message of Moral outrage. Steal the music and you lose the moral standing you claim you want.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Just how would "pay for every use" destroy the economy?
If "pay for every use" became standard, I think most people would just shrug and find something else to do other than sit in front of the boob tube.
Might possibly be a good thing.
Remember when OPEC had the petroleum market cornered in the 70's and created an artificial "energy crisis"? Sure, gas prices went through the roof - but consumption and demand went DOWN.
I rate music and movie entertainment as something quite a bit further down on the prioritised list of necessities of life than petroleum (which is *required* to drive to work, heat homes, cook food, etc). Maybe lower than most folks, but certainly most folks don't have it up so high that "pay for each use" wouldn't totally fuck the entertainment industry into utter collapse.
Good riddance, I say.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
At least one correspondent has indicated that the same language appeared in earlier versions (5.3 and 5.2). However, 5.4 does appear to have disabled some functionality of earlier versions, which gives me pause. Until I can clarify the point, I'll stay at 5.3 and look into alternative products.
Too bad, toast was very easy to use and looked great. But if it doesn't work, who needs it?
Not really. Can you quote the second admendment?
"Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
People always like to quote the line "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" but they always leave out the part about "a well regulated Militia"... that qualifier means a government regulated armed forces... we already have one. No where does it state the general public, which is not regulated, or a militia, can bear arms.
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour." - George Washington
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." - John Adams
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong." - Thomas Paine
The main reason the Second Admendment was added to the Constitution wasn't Hunting or Indians, or Invasion. It's the ultimate check in a system of checks and balances. The Second exists so that the people will have the means of launching a revoulation to overthrow the government of the United States if it ever becomes a tyrany.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Well, you summed it up. We don't live in 1789 and we are not in a revolution, which is clearly what they were referring to as "tyranny in government." In Israel all males are expected to serve in the army. That could be considered a modern form of Militia. But this is the US and we don't do that. And we would probably make a stink if the US Government wanted to do that.
Plus they did not have people using muskets to hold up liquor stores back then. We have far too many "ruffians." And these ruffians have way too easy access to hand guns. They didn't have police either. None of that stuff applies, including the need for a Militia.
Was anyone in your family ever murdered? I doubt my 86 year old mother having a hand gun would have made any difference, but it helped the person that killed her.
Taking history out of context doesn't work.
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
WHAT makes you think that this shortcut can be limited to the Second Admendment? If you can repeal the second by redefining the words, what will stop someone else from redefining words in other sections? If the Second can be disposed of so easily, then why not the First? The Fourth? The Fifth?
Once you create this easy method of "amending" the Bill of Rights by "Newspeak" instead of following the procedures established in the Constitution you create a precedent for others to slip in "admendments" by redefinition, some of which you might not approve of.
Do you really think a ban on guns would stop a criminal from aquiring them? Do you really think that it would be any harder to get a gun than to get drugs?
Do you think it's impossible for a government to become tyranical? Didn't the German Republic of the 1920's mutate into a monstrous tyrany in the 1930's? The Second Admendment wasn't ratified because the men who wrote it were sitting up a tyranical government, it was ratified in case the government they were setting up became tyranical at some future date.
So you are ready to give up a freedom because you fear some people abuse it? One more quote.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
ROFLMAO
So the inept "consumer" has the right to appoint Diana Moon Glampers as Handicapper General to make sure those evil producers don't take "unfair" advantage of their abilities?
Fool, granting people extra power to overcome lack of talent is a total abuse of the civil rights of the producers that society depends on.
Since you have a problem with men who are able to produce, then do without their products. Make deals with other talentless "consumers" to swap feeble attempts at producing with each other. Create your mindless "ideal" socieity. Lead the other fools into dying of starvation while they learn that hard lesson, you can't consume if no one produces.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Where are those words defined in the first place? Clearly you are interpreting the meaning.
Also please define the word "redifne"
Do you really think a ban on guns would stop a criminal from aquiring them?
It would surely make it more difficult, why make it so easy for them? I think we need a ban on the manufacture and sale of guns, except to legitimate clients, i.e., the Government can have them made. The gun makers only care about making money. What use does a plastic gun that is undetected by X-ray serve? How about Kevlar piercing bullets?
No one but law enforcement and the military should have access to guns. Hand guns do not stop crime or protect the owners. Most hand gun owners are shot with their own gun. Show me one news story where a crime was prevented by someone having a hand gun. A large number of hand guns used by criminals were stolen from gun owners. And then we have kids who take their parents guns and go to school...
Do you really think that it would be any harder to get a gun than to get drugs?
No one holds up liquor stores with drugs. So who cares. It's already easier to get drugs in most places than guns.
Plus if our Government wanted to become tyrannical, do you really think the Bill Of Rites would stop them? Would it have stopped Nazi Germany? Of course not.
-- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
What part of "or follow the procedures for amending it" is too complicated for you to understand? Or do you prefer a non-constitution that lacks any meaning?
What is your point then? There is a piece of paper that can be explained in a thousands different number of ways. Who should ascertain it's exact meaning if not for the courts?
It seems I don't understand what you mean with elasticity. Perhaps you can explain it better?
Are you trying to compare risking your life to save the life of another human being to demanding that ENTERTAINMENT be provided to you on your terms regardless of the wishes of the people who created the entertainment?
Music, newspapers and books are extremely important to our culture and have a strong influence on people's viewpoints. Do you seriously want to argue that monopolies on these important goods are a minor issue? Are you willing to argue that the fact that these goods are overpriced, censored, promoted through payola and/or become unavailable at one point is acceptable?
I used the example to point out that breaking the law is not wrong per se (I had to use an extreme example to make that point of course). I'd like to hear whether you believe that breaking the law can be acceptable, since you seem to be categorically against it. Once you accept it as a possibility, it becomes a question of limits instead of a yes/no proposition.
And you are going to be the vigilante that decides the RIAA are criminals, and that your kangaroo court entitles you to violate the law?
I'll also be so bold to claim that Hitler was a criminal, even though he was never convicted. Is this wrong as well?
You aren't going to die from music hunger if you do a legal protest like boycotting CDs sold by RIAA members.
That's hardly the point. You also won't die when you are held in slavery. It's just that we feel that slavery has no place in a free society. Hindering the spread of goods that are important to our culture in unreasonable ways is also not acceptable to me. It cannot be countered by abjuring these goods. We must show that this is unacceptable. Disobedience is a good way to do this.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Are you a pacifist then? You must disagree with every form of war if you are serious about that statement. This includes WWII and Afghanistan.
I Want a restored 427 Cobra but can't afford it. Does that make it OK for me to take one? Hell No. So I make do with a Chevy.
There is no point in argueing if you start comparing stealing physical goods with copying things.
Ever hear of free software? Can't afford Windows XP? Get Linux. Can't afford MS Office? Then Get Open Office. Can't afford Photo Shop? Then learn to use the Gimp.
Sometimes there is a decent alternative. Sometimes there isn't. What then? Should a poor student be unable to learn the software that future employers expect him to know? Or is it morally acceptable (and better for everyone involved) if he uses the software without paying for a while. Let me see:
- The student is better off since he'll get a job.
- The future employer will have a well-educated employee.
- The software company will sell more software since people know how to use it.
I Read that before most people on this forum were born, read it when I was speaking out against segration in the southeastern USA at a time when you could get your ass kicked or lynched for doing so. So forget the vain attempt to prove yourself "morally superior" to me. I wasn't afraid to speak out for the people who were having their rights violated back then, and I'm not afraid to speak out for the people who's rights you want to violate with your cockamamie "IP can be taken from those I don't approve of" campaign. I don't limit myself to only speaking out for the rights of groups that are considered "correct" by the left or the right.
Since you want to prove yourself morally superior by just speaking out and not being a 'criminal', it seems hardly appropiate for you to blame me. We both feel our way is morally superior and want to prove this (and it follows by extension that we are thus morally superior, FWIW).
Don't buy the damn CDs if you disapprove of them.
I buy CD-R's. They are taxed, with the money going to RIAA. There is no way not to pay when I don't use the CD's for music. There is no way to decide who the money goes to. They just take it from me to fund this government-sponsored monopoly.
Just don't bitch when they write you off as a deadbeat that's too cheap to pay for entertainment because you lacked the conviction to NOT use the product instead of trying to grab it without paying for it. Boycott the Music and you send a message of Moral outrage. Steal the music and you lose the moral standing you claim you want.
Since they are taking my money without asking, I'll take their stuff without asking as well. Why not? Am I more evil because I didn't bribe politicians to make my thievery legal? Am I evil because I feel that the current copyright is so fundamentally wrong that it should be ignored?
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
http://www.newsok.com/cgi-bin/show_article?ID=8860 59&pic=none&TP=getarticle
" Also please define the word "redifne" "
using a different definition of a word or phrase than the auhor of a documnet used in order to change the misrepresent the intent of the author. There is NO doubt that the Author of the Second Admendment (Madison) intended "Militia" to mean the general population. There is NO doubt that the people who ratified the admendment understood the context that Madison used the word "Militia"
Let's play your word games with a different admendment. Lets ignore the fact that "speech" was used in the context of communication in the first admendment, and redefine it to suit a political agenda. Lets narrow the definition to only covering ORAL Speech. Guess what you have just lost freedom of "speech" while using your computer.
You have an agenda to disarm the American people. You are willing to ignore the Second admendment or use sophistry to effect a "stealth" revoction of it. WHAT is going to stop someone with an agenda against free speech from following your precedent and doing the same thing to the first admendment?
" Plus if our Government wanted to become tyrannical, do you really think the Bill Of Rites would stop them?"
Launching a revoulation (the reason for the second) just might stop them, depending on which side won the ensuing civil war. NOT having the means to launch a revoulation sure as hell won't stop it.
Ever hear that old slogan "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"?. Here's one that is more frightening. "When guns are outlawed only Police will have guns"
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
I think you misunderstand my point. It's not copyright law per se that I'm going after but the ability of the RIAA to sue and threaten anybody who wants to create technology that among legitimate uses (burn your own music or non-copyrighted music) may also have uses that are illegal (illegal copying of copyrighted works).
If there was no fear of bankruptcy by interminable lawsuit, Roxio would likely not have made this move as it is certain to hurt their own bottom line.
If the punitive lawsuits were rectified, a reasonable balance on the entire copyright discussion might ensue. As long as the massive financial resources of the RIAA/MPAA can bankrupt companies that bring legal disruptive technologies to market, the intention of the copyright clause, to advance the arts and sciences, is being perverted.
The DMCA is unconstitutional because its draconian penalties hold back the arts and sciences, the only purpose for which copyright and patent is legitimate.