Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: Ascent, Patents, Transferability

Slashback tonight brings updates on iTunes music sharing (the mentioned auction's been pulled), the continuing fight against software patents in Europe, the recently scuttled balloon-record attempt, and more. Read on for the details.

Your ruse, your clever trick. On August 22nd, we reported that OpenOffice.org's OS X version had been delayed for two years.

However, bluethundr writes "Hold the phone! Is it delayed or isn't it? Well, according to this story in the register, it AIN'T DELAYED...just undermanned. Apparently there are only TWO (count 'em! one...aw heck, where was I?) developers working on the OS X development team. Dan Williams (who is one of the two in question) says that 'the Mac version is in a Catch-22: with only two developers, it desperately needs man power. But no one will join the porting effort until they see momentum behind the Aqua port.' Maybe some of the coders among us could lend them a hand?"

Too late for the colonies, help save the mothership. leif.singer writes "While there still is some time left, please consider signing Eurolinux' petition against software patents in Europe." You'll be in good company: vinsci writes "In their news section, FFII has posted a more detailed story: "Within a few days, the petition calling the European Parliament to reject software patentability accumulated 50,000 new signatures.""

Free as in FreeDOS Jim Hall writes "I thought I'd submit this before the news item fell too far down our web page. If you remember about a year ago, Dell was to offer Windows-less PC's, instead pre-installing FreeDOS. You can now order a Dell with FreeDOS (or Linux) ... and have been for a while now. They are pretty nice machines, too (3.06GHz). We have the news item (with links to Dell) at the FreeDOS Project web site."

Nasty worms ought to at least produce spice. The NRC released an alert about worm infections and nuclear power plants. This is a reaction after the SQL-Slammer attacked the shut-down Davis-Besse nuclear power plant in January.

Tomorrow is another year. RoadKillian writes "New Scientist reports thats the QinetiQ 1, the record-breaking balloon which was supposed to rise to an altitude of 40km (131,000ft) has ripped during inflation. The weather is unlikely to permit another attempt this year."

When EULAs collide. Yesterday's story about selling a song downloaded from iTunes seems to have an unhappy ending: sideswipe76 writes "As I was watching this auction today, it approached $16,600! Now, if you try and check this link from eBay you get 'invalid item.' Is eBay wussing out just to avoid any legal snafus that _might_ occur? Or did he violate some ebay policy? Thoughts?"

253 comments

  1. a PC without windows? by PopeAlien · · Score: 4, Funny

    ..I think right now I'd rather have a window without PC's..

    1. Re:a PC without windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A planet where apes evolved from man?

    2. Re:a PC without windows? by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      ..I think right now I'd rather have a window without PC's..

      It's called Defenestration

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    3. Re:a PC without windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also known as the Czech electoral system.

  2. iTunes Sale by rsmith-mac · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to News.com, the reason they scrubbed the iTunes auction was because he violated one of eBay's rules, which states that "eBay prohibits the listing of items or products to be delivered electronically through the Internet", aka the "You can't sell it if it doesn't physically exist" policy. Such as transfer may still be legal, but it looks like eBay isn't the place to do it.

    1. Re:iTunes Sale by dave420 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      As was mentioned by another poster in the original thread, eBay regularly allows electronically-transferrable items to be auctioned. the on-line game assets (gold, weapons, etc.) are traded regularly, and they can *only* be transferred electronically.

      I guess eBay is covering its ass with that clause. They probably only pull it out when there's something potentially dangerous being auctioned, and let it slide when something the RIAA isn't going to get pissed about goes under the virtual hammer. With the RIAA in the trigger-happy state its in currently, I can hardly blame them.

    2. Re:iTunes Sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Which is total hogwash. How many Everquest, Asheron's Call, and Dark Ages of Camelot (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games) items do you see on there? And they don't exist either.

      Ebay is wussing out completely.

    3. Re:iTunes Sale by Compact+Dick · · Score: 1

      That would run afoul of Apple's EULA.

    4. Re:iTunes Sale by syncrus · · Score: 1

      ...he violated one of eBay's rules, which states that "eBay prohibits the listing of items or products to be delivered electronically through the Internet"...

      But... A few weeks ago I read some news (probably in /.) about a guy who was selling virtual goods that only make sense when you are playing certain videogames. Then, it would look like eBay are a bit biased regarding that rule... Maybe it has to do with the fact that we are talking about music in internet, which may bring things like RIAA into play. Maybe it was Apple that did not like the experiment, and asked eBay to remove the auction. Something simmilar happens in Google from time to time as well.

      --
      To sig or not to sig.
    5. Re:iTunes Sale by superpeach · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can see the email from eBay to George Hotelling here, at his site as well as his reply.

    6. Re:iTunes Sale by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, maybe it is OK they didn't go through with it. It would have become popular I am sure when people started using it like a used CD store. Ebay (if they managed to defeat the RIAA and Apple) would just have ended up turning into another RIAA...

    7. Re:iTunes Sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sell the track on a burned CD along with the transfer of ownership.

      Problem solved

    8. Re:iTunes Sale by leighklotz · · Score: 1

      >which states that "eBay prohibits the listing of items or products to be delivered electronically through the Internet"

      Then why don't they shut down those zillion "INCREDIBLE PRICE ON [popular item] INFORMATION" auctions that sell only coupon codes for discounts?

    9. Re:iTunes Sale by bcrowell · · Score: 5, Informative

      eBay doesn't actually enforce those rules normally, especially if nobody complains. For instance, they theoretically have a rule against selling anything on CD-ROM. Some guy took my copylefted books, deleted the license and copyright page from each book, and started selling a CD-ROM containing my books. (It would have been OK for him to sell them, but it was a license violation to remove the license.) When I complained, they deleted his auctions, but he's still in business selling stuff like LOTR screensavers, porn screensavers, non-copylefted books, etc. -- all on CD-ROM. I filed reports on all that stuff, but they don't actually enforce this kind of rule or pull the auctions unless the victim is the one who files the report.

    10. Re:iTunes Sale by klueless · · Score: 1

      I take any ebay guideline with a grain of salt, I think it comes down to what they will enforce. A decent amount attention is required to get anything not way out of line with their guidelines removed from their listings...
      Some policies ebay follows through on poorly IMO, for example:
      Unreasonable shipping or handling costs
      Keywords describing bonus items cannot be included in the title of a listing.
      Excessive use of keywords, including (but not limited to) brand names, which are referenced for the purpose of attracting or diverting buyers to a listing is considered keyword spamming and is not permitted.

      Non-tangible item auctions pass through the system constantly (URL links, pyramid schemes, domain names (allowed I think), online game accounts/items, etc). Ebays policy is just more complicated than rules such as "you cant sell something that doesnt physically exist." Additionally, their rules are circumvented often and really a function of what they are willing to enforce. They enforce the adult content in the adult area rule very well, for example, but you will see things like "alienware comparable computer" all the time.

    11. Re:iTunes Sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the guy that sold a NURBS sphere on eBay?

    12. Re:iTunes Sale by jaaron · · Score: 1

      The way to legally get around issues like this (at eBay and other establishments) is to include some cheap object, like a ball-point pen. Then what you're selling is a really expensive pen that just happens to come with a iTunes music file (or whatever it is).

      --
      Who said Freedom was Fair?
    13. Re:iTunes Sale by wizzy403 · · Score: 4, Informative

      From the auctioneer's site:

      [Update 09-04-2003 3:02 PM]:
      My GPG signed response:
      I do not believe that my auction violates the downloadable media policy, I posted in my auction that I would not be violating it. I specifically ammended [forgot to run ispell] the auction to state that the buyer would not receive the item in question over the Internet.

      Please reinstate my auction ASAP.

      George Hotelling

      [Update 09-04-2003 2:52 PM]:
      Dear George Hotelling (me@mydomain.tld)

      **PLEASE READ THIS IMPORTANT EMAIL REGARDING YOUR LISTING(S)**
      We would like to let you know that we removed your listing(s):

      2555673237 Double Dutch Bus by Devin Vasquez

      for violating our Downloadable Media Policy. Please read our Downloadable Media Policy here:

      http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/downloadable .h tml

      We have credited any associated fees to your account. We have also notified the bidders that the listing(s) was removed, and that they are not obligated to complete the transaction.

      If you relist this item, or any other item that violates eBay policy, your account could be suspended.

      If you believe your listing was removed in error, please let us know by replying
      to this email with supporting information.

      Thank you for your cooperation.

      Respectfully,

      Customer Support (Trust and Safety Department)
      Ebay Inc.

    14. Re:iTunes Sale by tiohero · · Score: 1
      On ebay its a free-for-all regarding copyrighed works. If its not software, they won't shut down the auction unless the actual copyright holder of the work complains.

      I know some shrewd people who bought-up the most expensive/high demand service manual books on ebay (for backhoes believe-it-or-not!). Scanned them to PDF and resold copies of the books on CD-R on ebay for ~$100 apiece. They made $1000's on those auctions. It made me sick.

      A very good money-making idea if you aren't bothered by piracy.

    15. Re:iTunes Sale by Jenolen · · Score: 0

      Mirror for /. effect...

      And those too lazy to click a link...

      Does the Right of First Sale Still Exist?

      I just posted an eBay auction for a song I bought from the iTunes music store. It should be interesting to see how this works out. I only spent $0.99 on it but I bought the song just as legally as I would a CD, so I should be able to sell it used just as legally right?

      [Ipdate 09-04-2003 5:51 PM]: HTML Archive, courtesy Become The Media.

      [Update 09-04-2003 3:02 PM]:
      My GPG signed response:
      I do not believe that my auction violates the downloadable media policy, I posted in my auction that I would not be violating it. I specifically ammended [forgot to run ispell] the auction to state that the buyer would not receive the item in question over the Internet.

      Please reinstate my auction ASAP.

      George Hotelling

      [Update 09-04-2003 2:52 PM]:
      Dear George Hotelling (me@mydomain.tld)

      **PLEASE READ THIS IMPORTANT EMAIL REGARDING YOUR LISTING(S)**
      We would like to let you know that we removed your listing(s):

      2555673237 Double Dutch Bus by Devin Vasquez

      for violating our Downloadable Media Policy. Please read our Downloadable Media Policy here:

      http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/downloadable .h tml

      We have credited any associated fees to your account. We have also notified the bidders that the listing(s) was removed, and that they are not obligated to complete the transaction.

      If you relist this item, or any other item that violates eBay policy, your account could be suspended.

      If you believe your listing was removed in error, please let us know by replying
      to this email with supporting information.

      Thank you for your cooperation.

      Respectfully,

      Customer Support (Trust and Safety Department)
      Ebay Inc.
      \
      [Update 09-04-2003 12:08 PM] I'd like to apologize to eBay user shopatbanks for erroneously canceling his bid. While trying to weed out the fake bidders, I removed him as well. He says he was committed to his bid and I thank him for trying to put his money where my mouth is. Now if I can just find the guy who bid $99 million to see if he's legit...

      [Update 09-03-2003 7:44 PM] Please don't bid unless you are willing to pay the money. While this is an interesting auction, it is certainly not a joke - that's the whole point. I'm fine with the winner donating directly to eBay the EFF [typo or freudian slip?], but may request some money to cover the cost of the eBay auction if it gets too out of hand and I can't afford it. [The cost of the auction is a function of the ending price, which is why I want to see legitimate buyers only. eBay will get its cut, unless they waive auction fees when the profits go to non-profits.]

      [Update 09-03-2003 4:21 PM] I have about one good idea a year. I hope this was it.

      [Update 09-03-2003 11:25 AM] A very excellent comment below by Piggly Wiggly asks if I will convert the format for delivery. My answer right now is "no" because I don't want to cloud the issue of the sale by changing the format. Also, I'd like to thank all the people posting supportive comments who realize that this is about more than a $0.99 song being over-valued on eBay.

      [Update 09-03-2003 11:25 AM] I'd like to respond to a few points made by people:
      1. It's true that I'm seeking attention, but not for me personally. This is an experiment in property rights in the digital age, something that's gotten surprisingly little attention.
      2. I've read the iTunes agreements and found nothing denying transferability. This isn't any more a commercial venture than selling CDs at the local music store, I'm not incorporated or even DBA. Furthermore, in case anyone thinks this is a cheap way to make a buck I will be donating all profits to the EFF.
      3. When the song is successfully transferred, I will not be keeping a copy of the song. If I don't own it I shouldn't have a copy.

      [Update 09-03-2003 10:08 A

      --
      Karma is like sex. I can't remember the last time I had either of them.
    16. Re:iTunes Sale by unclebulgaria · · Score: 1

      Odd, I sold an MMORPG account (ultima online) via ebay, it even had its own category! So ebay surely approve of it!

    17. Re:iTunes Sale by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1
      WTF? eBay doesn't have any problem with auctions selling currency, items, and characters in MMORPGs. (eBay will pull such auctions if they are against the games rules, but eBay doesn't have a problem with them otherwise).

      How is this any different? The items in those auctions are delivered electronically, and don't physically exist.

    18. Re:iTunes Sale by MrLint · · Score: 1

      "Respectfully,

      Customer Support (Trust and Safety Department)
      Ebay Inc."

      Why does the trust and safety dept. make my ears ring of the ministry of the prevention of vice and the promotion of virtue.

    19. Re:iTunes Sale by questamor · · Score: 1

      Does this mean that the German auction of a newly-created and virgin empty "Untitled Folder" made on a MacOS 9 machine is also violating ebay's policy? A pity, because I need a few.

    20. Re:iTunes Sale by greenskyx · · Score: 1

      You are correct. Ebay allows the trading of Online Magic the Gathering cards which only exist in cyberspace.

    21. Re:iTunes Sale by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      All he would have had to do is burn the song to a CD and mail it. Wouldn't even matter if the song were playable ... that's the end user's problem. At least then it would have been on a physical media.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    22. Re:iTunes Sale by blincoln · · Score: 1

      No, it's only for things on CD-R. Otherwise no one could sell any game software from the last decade or so.

      They will remove auctions for material on CD-R, but only if you can prove that it is - e.g. the auction photo shows a Playstation with a stack of CD-Rs labelled with a Sharpie. If the seller uses CD labels and calls them "CDs" instead of "CD-Rs," you are right, they won't remove the auction.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    23. Re:iTunes Sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If e-bay will not host it, then set up an auction on your own site. (Get the people to send you e-mails and update your page fast.) That will get you your auction and get the real experiment going.

      Good luck with transfering the song. (You will need it.)

    24. Re:iTunes Sale by elvum · · Score: 1

      Yes, and the Ministry of Peace, and the Department of Homeland Security... ;-)

    25. Re:iTunes Sale by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      New Folder auction at eBay Germany.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    26. Re:iTunes Sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...

      he's still in business selling stuff like LOTR screensavers, porn screensavers, non-copylefted books, etc. -- all on CD-ROM.

      So how do you deliver CD-ROMs "electronically through the Internet"?

    27. Re:iTunes Sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how do you deliver CD-ROMs "electronically through the Internet"?

      e-Bay has more than one rule you know.

  3. Re:Where's the part on transferrability? by TedTschopp · · Score: 0, Redundant

    It's there, look at the last entry.

    It took me several times looking at the article to see that I wasn't going insane...

    --
    Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
  4. FreeDOS? by scosol · · Score: 2, Funny

    Come on now- what possible use is there for this?

    It sounds about as useful to me as that ~4.xxMB Win95 distribution...

    --
    I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
    1. Re:FreeDOS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A PC that works well enough to download linux?

    2. Re:FreeDOS? by Arandir · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's for all those Debian users who can't stand buying a computer with Redhat preloaded...

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    3. Re:FreeDOS? by ragingmime · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think people intend to use FreeDOS itself for anything big - the point is that you can buy a PC without the "Windows tax." If you're going to install Linux (or BSD or whatever) anyway, there's no reason to pay for a copy of windows to go with your machine. The FreeDOS I'd assume, is so that you can at least boot up the machine when you get it.

      --
      I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
    4. Re:FreeDOS? by eris_crow · · Score: 1

      The use is that you get a PC without paying for Windows license. You can then happily install whatever other OS you want without worrying about the Microsoft tax. Of course, the same result could be acheived by preloading Linux, FreeBSD, or some other free OS, but I bet it's a lot easier to create disk images of DOS. Less hassle on the initial setup and faster to boot. NPI

      Besides, DOS is old enough to have retro chic value. :-)

    5. Re:FreeDOS? by Alizarin+Erythrosin · · Score: 1

      Here at work we run systems tests on a crapload of old 386 and 486's... that run DOS 6.22. I'm currently investigating pitching a move to FreeDOS once I play with it and see if it can allow a program to use more than 640k of RAM (for some reason we can't with 6.22 and the software we use for testing, and we're running out of space).

      So it has it's uses. Plus you can use it to make some kind of distributable boot disk without having to worry about Microsoft coming after you.

      --
      There are only 10 kinds of people in this world... those who understand binary and those who don't
    6. Re:FreeDOS? by scosol · · Score: 1

      Huh?

      FreeDOS has nothing to do whatsoever with "the ability to buy a PC without Windows preinstalled"

      Buy a PC with a blank disk-
      Boot off CD to install whatever OS you want.
      done...

      FreeDOS doesn't "enable" this by any means.

      --
      I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
    7. Re:FreeDOS? by Yobgod+Ababua · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Buy a PC with a blank disk"

      Good luck. Most (if not all) OEMs will -not- ship you a system without an operating system preloaded. For many of them certain confidential contracts prohibit doing that in the name of "reducing piracy" (obviously the only reason to buy a computer with no OS is because you intend to use a pirated copy...).

      If FreeDOS satisfies their contractural obligations, then is absolutely does enable this.

    8. Re:FreeDOS? by eris_crow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My point was simply that FreeDOS is a small OS that Dell can put on the machine to give it minimal functionality while at the same time letting them ship a PC without paying a license fee to Microsoft. Remember that if you get a PC that has Windows pre-installed, then the PC maker has paid a license fee to Microsoft for that copy of Windows regardless of whether or not you use it. And no matter what the marketers may say, that license fee does get passed on to the buyer in the form of a slightly higher price for the PC. So by putting FreeDOS (or Linux, or FreeBSD, etc) on the machine instead of Windows, Microsoft is cut out of the picture.

      (At least in principle. Microsoft used to make PC makers pay a fee per shipped CPU, regardless of whether or not Windows was installed. This was supposed to have been stopped by the consent agreement from a few years ago, IIRC, but things may have changed again.)

    9. Re:FreeDOS? by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      and see if it can allow a program to use more than 640k of RAM (for some reason we can't with 6.22

      Oh man, do I feel old and I'm only 23. It's _DOS_, and the 640k limit was probably the most dispised thing about it. You may be interested in a DOS Extender, which gives you protected mode and access to more memory.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
    10. Re:FreeDOS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That small version of Win95 is great when you need to install it in order to play Hentai games.

    11. Re:FreeDOS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmm.. must not have been around during the DOS day's... you want to look into an extended ram driver, there's also somethin calles expanded ram.. both are different.. used to depend on what program you used..

    12. Re:FreeDOS? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      Come on now- what possible use is there for this?

      Do you realize what kind of frame rate you can get in Doom 1 with a 3GHz machine? Hundreds of megabytes of bloated 32-bit OS would only serve to bog things down. Don't need it.

    13. Re:FreeDOS? by profplump · · Score: 1

      This is one place that IBM shines -- you can buy IBM systems without hard drives. Handy for those of us that already own all the OSes we need.

    14. Re:FreeDOS? by Pallem · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, could be more sinister than you think. Could be required to set up Dell's DRM BIOS on a dual boot. Just have the BIOS set up a reserved area of upper memory with a web aware program that will run with kernel privilages and ..... Touche, web aware bios virus that can update itself, depending OS needs. (OUCH!) I would dump it and drag out the old win98 disk, IF it will even let you run it.

    15. Re:FreeDOS? by tonyhill · · Score: 1

      No kidding.

      If this had been an option when I got my office Dell, it so would've had FreeDOS on it.

      Tony (a happy Debian user)

    16. Re:FreeDOS? by notanatheist · · Score: 1

      You're right, I pirated my latest linux distro by going to some FTP server and downloading it. Then I burned on a CD and shared it with a friend. I even have the balls to make connections with official mirrors to update my packages. You should see my photo editing program. I've even installed it on other people's machines and I've never directly paid for it. My office suite sure gets around too. Good thing for pirating, otherwise I'd never be able to share!

    17. Re:FreeDOS? by mitheral · · Score: 1

      Actually it about testing. You need some kind of OS to test that the machine actually works after you build it. Yah you could boot off of a CD or something but that doesn't test whether that particuliar machine will boot off it's HD. You want the machine to be able to boot imediately before going out the door.

  5. Are you worried about the recall voting? by memnock · · Score: 1

    Diebold has already fixed that. Everybody wins! Money or not.

    1. Re:Are you worried about the recall voting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diebold has already fixed that.

      Fixed the voting machines, or fixed the election?

    2. Re:Are you worried about the recall voting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with such great politicians like Mary Carey running, why should we worry?

  6. A shame! by Dieppe · · Score: 1

    Ah, too bad! I would have loved to see how the sale of that iTunes song turned out! Guess I'll have to keep watching /. to learn, hm? :) $16k you say. Hmmm.

  7. Regarding the closed eBay auction... by MMaestro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This may just be a crazy theory, but maybe the RIAA "told" eBay to close the auction. After all, if the auction had gone through and people were allowed to resell songs (as long as they gave up their own -only- copy) then the RIAA would have a new set of legal arguments on hand.

    1. Re:Regarding the closed eBay auction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop it STOP IT STOP IT

    2. Re:Regarding the closed eBay auction... by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      This may just be a crazy theory...

      It is.

      The right of first sale totally and completely aplies unless--get this--it's specifically waived as a condition of the sale.

      For example, if, for some reason I sell novels and ebooks, and I include a "you may not resell this" clause in the (printed) novels but not the ebooks, and I point the clause out to everyone, and they're the exact same price... well, you're able to bandy around the ebooks, but you can't resell the novels.

      More to the point, I could take you to court for reselling the novel in breach of contract, and I wouldn't get tossed out. but if I took you to court for re-selling the ebooks, you could get me tossed out of court even without a lawyer.

    3. Re:Regarding the closed eBay auction... by Jayfar · · Score: 1

      Naw, I believe the CNET reporter effectively told eBay to pull the auction by making a live person there aware of it:

      --quote--
      Informed of the auction by a CNET reporter, an eBay representative said the item would be removed, since "it does indeed violate eBay's listing guidelines on the sale of products delivered electronically through the Internet."
      --end quote--

    4. Re:Regarding the closed eBay auction... by mod_parent_down · · Score: 1

      It'd be great if you could buy music with floating licenses. If there were a system where everyone could buy music on-line, and you could post whatever songs you stopped listening to (didn't like or got sick of, whatever) where others could transfer them for free. Music's gone from your machine, only one bought copy exists in the world at any given time. Good artists make their money, bad ones quickly fade away. . . Of course, this is more what I consider a "fair system" than a "technologically feasible system". I just hate the business model that revolves around using marketing and lawyers to sell music that sucks.

    5. Re:Regarding the closed eBay auction... by critter_hunter · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't you have to write the "you may not resell this book" clause *outside* the book? Because looks to me like it has nothing to do with copyright - more like contract law actually.

      So basically, you can't write the no resell clause inside the book and expect people to be bound by it. The consumer has to be aware of the restriction before he pays.

      Shrinkwrap licenses can go fuck themselves.

      --
      Karma: Could be worse (could be raining)
    6. Re:Regarding the closed eBay auction... by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      Couldn't the guy who put up the auction sue eBay for $16,000 of lost revenue?

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    7. Re:Regarding the closed eBay auction... by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      So basically, you can't write the no resell clause inside the book and expect people to be bound by it. The consumer has to be aware of the restriction before he pays.

      Go back and read my post. Pay attention to the "tell everyone about it." This would include the sales clerk saying "you realize this book is cheaper because you waive your right of re-sale, right?"

      IANAL(RU), but as far as I know, waiving or not-waiving the Doctrine of Fair Use is contract law.

    8. Re:Regarding the closed eBay auction... by critter_hunter · · Score: 1

      Actually, I read your post well enough the first time around, and the " unless--get this--it's specifically waived as a condition of the sale." part hinted at contract law; however, the "include a 'you may not resell this' clause in the (printed) novels" part made it unclear whether you were expecting it to be a copyright or contract law issue.

      Just wanted to clarify the matter, is all.

      --
      Karma: Could be worse (could be raining)
    9. Re:Regarding the closed eBay auction... by jcam2 · · Score: 1

      If that was ever actually implemented, wouldn't people just buy songs for the time it takes to play them only, then re-sell them afterwards? In effect, a single transferrable copy of a song could be shared between hundreds of people!

      I can see why music creators would hate this .. However, it may actually be legal under the 'first sale' doctrine.

    10. Re:Regarding the closed eBay auction... by deadmantalking · · Score: 1

      If you actually look up the law on this, you will find that some book publishers tried this stunt and were thrown out of the court for this. The "you may not resell" clause was regarded as illegal and invalid.
      No matter what they say, you CAN sell books.

      --
      A crank is a little thing that makes revolutions
    11. Re:Regarding the closed eBay auction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      More to the point, I could take you to court for reselling the novel in breach of contract, and I wouldn't get tossed out.

      Every time I've seen such a case go to court it's failed. Can you tell me the name of one case that upheld the waiving of first sale? Or are you just guessing?

    12. Re:Regarding the closed eBay auction... by arkanes · · Score: 1

      You'd have a hell of a time enforcing such an informal verbal agreement. I'd just nod at the sales clerk and re-sell the book anyway. Your "telling everyone about it" doesn't amount to a hill of beans in a legal sense.

    13. Re:Regarding the closed eBay auction... by sysadmn · · Score: 1

      Nah, the RIAA would have loved to see this auction complete. Imagine being able to tell the judge, "He had 1200 illegally downloaded songs, each worth $16,600! That's over $19 Million. With triple damages, we demand his first born as reparations!"

      --
      Envy my 5 digit Slashdot User ID!
  8. iTunes not actually property! by rnd() · · Score: 4, Informative

    The fact that the auction has been pulled should convince anyone who has wondered that DRM is the only way for companies to profitably sell music on the internet.

    Incidentally, it is also a testament to the likely success of Microsoft's upcoming music download service, where you pay an annual fee and may download any 60 songs for playback on a handful of certified devices that are digitally tied to your account. If you get tired of some of the songs, you can turn them in and exchange them for new ones.

    When you think about it, this plan makes a lot of sense, since it ushers in the new era of portable digital storage, which you can plug into your car, your expensive Harmon Karden system, or your walkman. It also makes sense in that it will probably make record companies more money than they make today, while making consumers happier.

    Wouldn't you like to pay $120 per year and be able to "rent" any 60 songs at any time for as long as you want???

    Right now, you could buy 8 or 9 CDs, or 120 iTunes songs, which for most people wouldn't be enough to really establish a satisfactory music library.

    I know this post sounds pro-Microsoft, but it's actually pro-capitalism and pro-innovation. Capitalism works so well because it always encourages companies to come up with a better mousetrap, or in this case a better music distribution system.

    --

    Amazing magic tricks

    1. Re:iTunes not actually property! by rnd() · · Score: 1

      Note: I said 120 iTunes songs because of all of the album discounts that they have on the site. In reality it would probably be closer to 80 or 90 songs for $60, assuming you had some consistent taste among artists/albums.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    2. Re:iTunes not actually property! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For $120 a year, I can buy ~8 CD's, which contain ~120 songs. I can also sell these CD's to various stores, or trade these CD's with my friends (for permanent or temporary use). After 10 years, I'll have 1200 songs, and you'll still only have 60. Sounds great.

    3. Re:iTunes not actually property! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you won't. Not legally anyway.

    4. Re:iTunes not actually property! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? I have every CD I bought over the past 10 years. I don't have to give them back, they belong to me. What's not legal about that?

    5. Re:iTunes not actually property! by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wouldn't you like to pay $120 per year and be able to "rent" any 60 songs at any time for as long as you want???

      nahh I'll stick with the 6000 I permanently will have access to and OWN.

      how about the 6 albums a week I encode.... no not lame CD's Those strange black plastic things...

      I collect rare records, and in order to enjoy them I play them ONCE in order to rip them to mp3's..

      many of them I can LEGALLY share on the internet as they are no longer copyrighted.

      nahh, there's no legitimate use for P2P music sharing and unrestricted portable music formats...

      enjoy your restricted life... I'll stay with my unrestricted music access and the car stereo, home stereo, boom box and portables that all play this unrestricted mp3 format.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    6. Re:iTunes not actually property! by sageFool · · Score: 5, Interesting

      > Wouldn't you like to pay $120 per year and be able
      > to "rent" any 60 songs at any time for as long as
      > you want???

      No I wouldn't. So assuming I am not completely braindead and I pick on average mostly songs that I like, then on average I am going to be paying $2 dollars a year for a single song. Which given that I still listen to music I bought 10 years ago (along with all the music I have bought between then and now) on a regular basis that means if I buy the sweet alubum under this plan that has ten songs, it will cost me $200 dollars in order to listen to it for 10 years. That sounds like a totally Bad Idea[tm] from my point of view.

      I think the only way I would use something like this is if I could pay 10 dollars for a single month then go through as many songs as I could, to try and find cool new music (since as we all know most 'preview' clips kind of suck and it would be nice to hear the whole song in all it's hifi glory before making a decision) then just buy the albums of what I really liked.

      Yar!

    7. Re:iTunes not actually property! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's actually pro-capitalism and pro-innovation. Capitalism works so well because it always encourages companies to come up with a better mousetrap, or in this case a better music distribution system.

      Whew, for a minute I thought your post was serious!

      The further it is from Napster, the less successful it will be. Apple is doing it pretty much right. Or as right as they can, considering.

      The first thing I'd do with this MS BS system is convert it to an .AIFF file and store it on a CDR.

      What if my walkman isn't compatible with MS BS?

    8. Re:iTunes not actually property! by WaKall · · Score: 1

      Which is preferable depends on your listening habits. Personally, I like to put huge playlists on shuffle and have my own radio station (iPod + Smart Playlists rock for this). I may not listen to the same song twice in a month, and I go through about 70 a _day_. So, that's over 2000 songs a month. Microsoft's plan would suck for me.

      Unless I exploit what I believe is a whole in MS's plan. I could trade in song N-1 for song N+1 while I play song N. Voila, I can listen to every song in their library, with no stops, as long as I am connected.

      But anyways: if you tend to stick to a few albums for a short time then completely forget them, MS's deal isn't bad. If you come back to albums or want a really broad selection, ITMS is a better deal.

      Me, I just buy CD's. They look pretty on the shelf, and I _own_ them no matter what happens to my computer or the distributor.

    9. Re:iTunes not actually property! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      The fact that the auction has been pulled should convince anyone who has wondered that DRM is the only way for companies to profitably sell music on the internet.

      You can resell CDs, this has been proven time and again, in spite of attempts of labels and artists to prevent this. This fact has not driven the commercial music industry under in spite of the fact that there are used CD stores in every city anyone is interested in living in, which means that they are near everyone in the United States, for some locally acceptable value of near.

      I'm definitely down with hardware DRM. Personally I'd like to see it come to PCs as a dongle rather than something built into the machine, but I suppose I can always just hope that free alternatives continue to be legal. In other words, as long as you can choose not to use DRM-enabled products...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:iTunes not actually property! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If, in this instance, capitalism works so well, than why has it taken five years for the industry to NOT come up with a solution?

    11. Re:iTunes not actually property! by flacco · · Score: 1
      Wouldn't you like to pay $120 per year and be able to "rent" any 60 songs at any time for as long as you want??? ... I know this post sounds pro-Microsoft, but it's actually pro-capitalism and pro-innovation.

      WOW! Another incredible innovation from Microsoft! Someone should apply the same model to, say, DVD rentals! We could call it Netflix!

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    12. Re:iTunes not actually property! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comic Book Guy? Is that you?

    13. Re:iTunes not actually property! by jakupovic · · Score: 1

      What would you do if you wanted to share/sell a song you had to a buyer? You can't sell the song without giving up complete ownership of the song and the album. now if you were renting the songs you could turn it in for a credit and transfer that to X, who would own the song theoretically :)

      --
      You always point your finger at the bad guy, but what if the bad guy points his finger at you?
    14. Re:iTunes not actually property! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, shut up, go read Rand, and then come back here.
      Second, Capitalism is about OWNERSHIP, if I buy something I OWN IT.

      You wonder why I use Linux/BSD/OS X, because I own them and I can do as I wish.

      John Galt.

    15. Re:iTunes not actually property! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bought a double 12" record on eBay last week that a band I used to be in put out in the 80's. On the 2nd of the two there are a couple of tracks we did live. They are only available on this particular record, which needless to say is quite rare. I'm going to rip them and make them available as MP3's on my web site because there are still enough fans out there who would like to hear them, and wondering what I should do if my old label brings legal action against me?

    16. Re:iTunes not actually property! by teslatug · · Score: 1

      Here's an idea I've had, but I don't know how legal it would be. Say someone creates a website, he buys a whole bunch of CD's and lets one user "check out" a CD for the duration (i.e. streams it to only one person), when he is done the CD will be available for someone else to check out. The site could also have multiple copies to satisfy demand, but no more than one person would be listening at one time. Of course, one could save the stream using some tools, but that would be against the TOS. I wonder if this would be legal. You could charge for bandwidth, and people could send in their CD's in order to be allowed to check out. I bet it would be a great system if it had a large following.

    17. Re:iTunes not actually property! by rnd() · · Score: 1

      Go ahead and stand up for what you believe in. A court may find that you owe the record company some money... if you belive that you are a modern-day Robin Hood, then maybe someday people will tell their kids stories about you... the one thing that is likely is that if the legal system catches up with you you'll end up a bit poorer.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    18. Re:iTunes not actually property! by rnd() · · Score: 1

      You have a good point. The good news for you is that Microsoft will likely come up with a plan that works for people with listening habits similar to yours. The standard annual fee is likely targeted at the average person.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    19. Re:iTunes not actually property! by rnd() · · Score: 1

      Hahaha. The further it is from Napster (total anarchy with no profits being made by anyone, not even Napster). I wonder how long that will succeed.

      The system I described would actually work better than Napster for most people: All good rips of the songs, excellent selection of songs, no viri, fully legal, it won't get shut down just when people get into it.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    20. Re:iTunes not actually property! by rnd() · · Score: 1

      Good points. I don't think anyone wants DRM to be the only choice, but it definitely makes sense for most mainstream content providers. I think it will come in the form of a dongle, or some kind of encrypted storage device that may be read only by devices that are authorized by the DRM provider.

      Of course, there will still be some artists, and a lot of people trying to spread the word about their music, who will make non-DRM music readily available.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    21. Re:iTunes not actually property! by rnd() · · Score: 1

      The answer is quite simple: The DRM technology wasn't quite there yet, and perhaps the reality of fileswappers stealing the music hadn't hit home enough for the record companies to bite on any of the many proposals for innovative distribution systems that were probably presented to them by prescient techies.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    22. Re:iTunes not actually property! by rnd() · · Score: 1

      Hmm... radio... + telephone.... let's call it a cordless phone. Too bad everyone waited years before thinking to combine the two and sell it as a cordless (or cellular) phone, even though the two technologies existed adequately in separate form for years.

      Sometimes it takes genius to market an idea that anyone could have had and make it a reality. Haven't you seen those Accenture ads?

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    23. Re:iTunes not actually property! by rnd() · · Score: 1

      If you enter into a contract with someone, you agree to live by the terms of that contract. It's not always as simple as ownership vs. non-ownership.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    24. Re:iTunes not actually property! by rnd() · · Score: 1

      I think that would count as distributing copyrighted content... you could probably do that if the RIAA agreed on the proper fee structure. Isn't that what launch.com does?

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    25. Re:iTunes not actually property! by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 1
      Just how many records do you own from prior to 1923? Isn't that the magic year copyright stops? I'm reasonable close I think, its some time in the early part of this century. I was unaware that they had that many that are a) worth owning, and b) still exist in a playable format.

      I'm kinda surprised that somebody who collects old albums doesn't insist on CD quality audio for the digital masters. I'd figure your a serious audiophile if you collect old/rare albums. Personally, I'd turn each album into a CD (full CD quality), and turn the CD's into MP3's. Maybe use FLAC or whatever it is that the Ogg guys put out as a lossless audio compression, and then convert them to Ogg. That's just me though.

      Kirby

    26. Re:iTunes not actually property! by flacco · · Score: 1
      Hmm... radio... + telephone.... let's call it a cordless phone. Too bad everyone waited years before thinking to combine the two and sell it as a cordless (or cellular) phone, even though the two technologies existed adequately in separate form for years.

      The technologies existed but they were hella expensive. The first cordless phone spectrum was allocated by the FCC in 1980. Ten years later, the cost for a half-way usable cordless was around $500 a pop.

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    27. Re:iTunes not actually property! by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      I still want to know what is there to stop me from using a logic analyser to probe the bus that goes to the sound card, and capturing the zeros and ones that make up the music after they have been decrypted, but before they get munged by the DAC and DUX. Even if the decryption is done on the sound card, the key must get sent to the card; unless every card has a different key programmed into it from day one, which would be impractical from a distributor's point of view though by no means inconceivable.

      But, if analogue copying is the only way that works, it's what people will do. As long as you make your analogue copy in a recopiable form, you have annihilated the DRM. And then you can share it yourself, using /usr/sbin/httpd .....

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    28. Re:iTunes not actually property! by SlashDread · · Score: 1

      "Wouldn't you like to pay $120 per year and be able to "rent" any 60 songs at any time for as long as you want???"

      Hell no.

      Sounds like a RIAA tax to be able to listen to unlimited Brittney Spears.

      I also would not like to pay 120 a year to rent a chair, why for fsck sake would music be different? /Dread

    29. Re:iTunes not actually property! by infolib · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't you like to pay $120 per year and be able to "rent" any 60 songs at any time for as long as you want???

      But.... Will it work on Linux???

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
    30. Re:iTunes not actually property! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Well, one proposal that was in front of Congress was to force even the DAC and ADC chip makers to include watermark detection. So even if you tried to record the output of a sound card on one computer with the line input on another, the ADC would detect the watermark and refuse to record (assuming that the DAC on the other system would even play the data.) You're right, though ... any protection can and will be defeated. The question is whether the bar can be raised high enough to eliminate all but the most determined copiers. That principle applies to pretty much all copy protection schemes. They people who implement them know they will be broken, but if the vast majority of users are unable to do so quickly and conveniently then the scheme is still a "success".

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    31. Re:iTunes not actually property! by rnd() · · Score: 1

      Ok... and by the same token DRM and efficient internet distribution (widespread broadband, inexpensive large-capacity mp3 players, evolved DRM technology) has become a lot cheaper lately too.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    32. Re:iTunes not actually property! by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      I'm going to stick my neck out and say, NO, the bar can never be raised high enough, and anyone who thinks it can is -- to trot out the tired old cliche -- probably smoking crack. [in Soviet Russia, tired old cliche trots YOU out ..... oh, never mind] In fact, I'm not sure the bar is capable of being raised at all. There is simply (a) too much legitimate need for recording ability and (b) too many reasons why it is hard to make it harder.

      Even if they complete the move to get rid of all line-ins on "consumer" sound cards, there will be plenty of old sound cards with workable line-ins. They won't all stop working at once. There is also a need for a line-in on professional sound card and, of course, it's entirely possible for a determined person to build a sound card with off-the-shelf parts. And no need to worry about drivers either, since you can write your own driver for your own home-made hardware. The old 16-bit bus was easier to develop for than the current 32-bit bus. All you need to do is take 88200 sixteen-bit samples a second, using a bilateral switch to toggle between the left and right channels with each alternate sample. This gives you 44100 samples a second on each channel, which is the CD standard.

      As for the "watermark detection", I fail to see how this could be taken seriously. Analogue signals are not susceptible to such "watermarking". The only way would be to add another analogue signal which would interfere with the original. If the watermark signal falls within the audible band, it will manifest itself audibly. This will make the recording unfit for its intended purpose, and hence unsaleable. If the watermark falls outside the audible band, it can be filtered away.

      ADC and DAC circuits are NOT just used for copying digital media. They have many valid applications in every field of industry where electronics are found {i.e. all of them}.

      Also, watermark-free DAC and ADC circuits are extremely simple to implement on breadboard using op-amps and precision matched resistors. In fact, for the world's simplest 4-bit D-to-A you can just use five resistors. The matching A-to-D uses seventeen resistors and sixteen op-amps {in the analogue domain; more digital electronics are required to change the sixteen sequentially-energised outputs to a four-bit code, but we like to pretend digital stuff is cheap}.

      And whatever protection they are using need only be broken once. As soon as one person has one listenable copy, every penny that has ever been spent on the protection scheme is wasted, because indefinitely-copiable copies can be made from that. The only scheme which has the ghost of a chance of being uncopiable for more than a week, is one where the final decryption is done inside the listener's body. Any takers on that?

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    33. Re:iTunes not actually property! by Dr.+Blue · · Score: 1
      many of them I can LEGALLY share on the internet as they are no longer copyrighted.


      How do you figure this? Albums haven't been around long enough for the copyrights to expire, so for them to be "no longer copyrighted" they'd have to have been explicitly turned over to the public domain. Have they been?

    34. Re:iTunes not actually property! by arkanes · · Score: 1
      Translation: They dropped the ball with regards to technology making thier distribution model obselete. Just let the music industry die. If it's socially worthwhile, we'll evolve it back in a new form. No, I don't know what that form is.

      Software can die too, while I'm at it. Fuck DRM. It's a slap in the face to everything that copyright is for.

    35. Re:iTunes not actually property! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      no the uncopyrighted ones I can sell all day long and never give up ownership of the origional.

      Although I am not a scumbag that would do that, but there are many that do.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    36. Re:iTunes not actually property! by rnd() · · Score: 1

      You sort of have a point. DRM is a way of coercing people to respect your copyright... kind of like using a gun to force people to respect your property rights.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    37. Re:iTunes not actually property! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      first off the quality of the recordings are pretty low. a 192 bitrate mp3 is better quality than the origional recording. Second, many MANY records were never copyrighted. There are alot of 40's and 50's blues and Chicago Jazz records that were made by poor artists that never had a label and never copyrighted them.

      Also, I find much of the older music is better than most of the crud being produced today.

      Right now I have been in search of early punk records. I was recently sent a case of records from the UK that all are garage bands that never sold their soul many dont have any copyright as my contact/friend in the UK already researched them.

      Anyways, I also have tons of newer music that I have the rights to distribute... just ask these indie bands and they are glad to let you play it on the radio, for public , even on a compilation CD for sale...

      one asked me to also share their stuff on Kazaa if I used it.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    38. Re:iTunes not actually property! by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      I know this post sounds pro-Microsoft, but it's actually pro-capitalism and pro-innovation. Capitalism works so well because it always encourages companies to come up with a better mousetrap, or in this case a better music distribution system.

      Sounds like a good money making scam to me. So it must be okay.

      It seems to me like not that long ago, I could get 60 songs on permanent media and keep them forever for $120. Now I would be paying $120/year to own nothing. And keep paying.

      Now if I could circumvent the protection, it would be a good deal. But this would violate the DMCA. Or I could just go buy and cell used CD's at my local used CD store. I could copy the ones I liked, although this would be a copyright infringement. But for used CD prices, I might just keep it until I'm tired of it. Let's work this out. 10 songs per CD. 6 CD's is 60 songs. If each used CD costs $20, then I would pay $120 for 60 songs. That sounds like new CD prices to me. But with used CD's, I might pay much less, but I could get 60 of the best songs from a larger number of CD's. Keep them forever, or trade them when I get tired of them -- without any copyright infringement. Of course, I'm sure the RIAA would love to be able to kill the used CD market.

      On the other hand, without circumvention, the same thing could be accomplished by iTumes for 99 cents per download. That would only be about $60 for 60 songs, or 120 songs for $120. But I could keep them forever. Play them as much as I want. Burn a CD of them for my "non-certified" players. (i.e. players that don't have an expensive license bundled into their price. Also, players that I already own in number.)

      Boy, what a scam. Got to hand it to Microsoft. Licenses on expensive new players. Restrictive control of how you listen. Prices worse than I could do otherwise, without infringing copyright. (I didn't even mention trading CD's with friends.) Microsoft gets to keep track of just what I'm listening to. (It's for my own good, of course.) Of course, I'm sure they will try to make sure I only use Genuine (tm) Windows in the process. Are there other hidden costs? (i.e. special software to buy? Fees for joining?)

      And I keep on paying $120 / year to own exactly what again? Boy what a scam! Rake in revenue in exchange for access to listen to music that has already been recorded and records sold via. existing business models.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    39. Re:iTunes not actually property! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I think you took me a little too seriously. And yes, you can easily raise bar enough to take out Jou User. I think you missed my point which was: is that what you (as a content holder) really want to do?

      And yes, analog signals are subject to such watermarking. If I could find some of the links I would send them to you. There are a couple of different technologies involved, and nobody knows if they would actually work in practice, but apparently it can be done.

      Yes, back in the good old days of the Apple II I built DACS and simple tracking ADCs. So, yes, I suppose that if I wanted to I could "pirate" anything. But that isn't what I'm trying to say. It isn't good for content industries to remove fair use and place such obstacles in the way of people enjoying their product. They hurt themselves in the long run. They should look at the software industry to see what accommodations were made, and how important customer satisfaction is to ultimate success.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    40. Re:iTunes not actually property! by arkanes · · Score: 1

      No, it's a way to extend your copyrights beyond the limits granted by law. Kinda like using a gun to take over your neighbors lawn.

    41. Re:iTunes not actually property! by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure if that's true or not. I'm sure your more into the legalease them I am. I thought copyright was a by default thing. I know that started sometime after the Berne Convention (sometime in the 70's). I didn't know if that was retro-active or not.

      I figured it might be that the sound quality was lower, but I still thought that the way MP3 compression worked, you'd still lose quality (it's my rough understanding that it compresses by removing certain sounds that are hard to hear).

      Just get it in writing. If they ever sell their soul to the devil, never know what the devils lawyers will do to you... :-)

      Kirby

    42. Re:iTunes not actually property! by rnd() · · Score: 1

      You're right, it is a good business model. It will be best for people who want to constantly broaden their musical horizons, and who want to do it legally. If you prefer traditional CDs as a distribution method, they'll still be around for a while.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    43. Re:iTunes not actually property! by rnd() · · Score: 1

      The limits granted by law? I assume you feel that when people download unpurchased music from Kazaa and Napster, they are doing something perfectly legal then?

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    44. Re:iTunes not actually property! by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 1


      "how about the 6 albums a week I encode.... no not lame CD's Those strange black plastic things..."

      You mean Playstation CD's?

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
    45. Re:iTunes not actually property! by arkanes · · Score: 1

      Of course not. But DRM goes the other direction - just the most obvious limitation is that it doesn't respect the passing of works into the public domain. Everyone agrees that iTunes is about as unrestrictive as the content providers are likely to allow, and the DRM on iTunes songs goes far beyond the rights granted by copyright law.

    46. Re:iTunes not actually property! by Alsee · · Score: 1

      if you belive that you are a modern-day Robin Hood

      Huh? He's not taking anything from anyone.

      legal system catches up with you you'll end up a bit poorer.

      Oh really? And why is that? Either you didn't understand what he wrote or you don't understand the law because there wasn't anything illegal in what he wrote.

      As for profitably selling music on the internet I'll start buying when they start offering a product that isn't crippled. The RIAA could have had an immensly profitable business selling downloads had they started offering a full catalo of non-crippled music at reasonable prices several years ago. They simply refused. The P2P phenomena exploded exacly because the RIAA refused to serve the market.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    47. Re:iTunes not actually property! by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I thought copyright was a by default thing. I know that started sometime after the Berne Convention (sometime in the 70's). I didn't know if that was retro-active or not.

      Right, 1976 I believe. Stuff between 1923 and 1976 which was not filed and renewed became public domain, and once something is public domain it does not return to copyright. No copyrights originated after 1976 will expire for most of this century.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    48. Re:iTunes not actually property! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He answers your point is this thread

    49. Re:iTunes not actually property! by rnd() · · Score: 1

      All of that may be true, but what we're talking about here is a contract between the purchaser and the provider for terms of use. Those may coincide precisely with what the DRM allows.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    50. Re:iTunes not actually property! by rnd() · · Score: 1

      If he only shares the ones that aren't copyrighted, then that is legal. If that is his preference, then he won't be a customer of DRM'ed music.

      You should only consider DRM to have a crippling effect if you planned on violating the allowable terms of use granted by the seller.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    51. Re:iTunes not actually property! by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Even if you do manage to make it awkward for Joe User to copy an original disc, somebody somewhere will find a way to do it, even if only for the sense of satisfaction they get from "beating the system". And there are people that would do it. Hell, I would. The sense of "hey, I just did something they said I couldn't" is one of the driving instincts behind human evolution. Apes would never have started walking upright if they hadn't got some sort of a kick out of it. Once somebody has copied a protected disc and released a non-protected version, the protection is lost forever ..... and if, as a publisher, you paid good money to protect your content and still ended up losing sales through copying, there comes a point where it would have been cheaper just to let the pirates get away with it.

      There are two distinct forms of illegal copying. Type one, organised counterfeiting for profit, relies on selling copies of CDs, purporting to be the genuine article. The people who buy these CDs probably would have bought the genuine article. Type two includes casual copying and sharing. The people who copy CDs as a favour might have been less likely to buy the genuine article, but may do so later if they feel the cost is justified for the extras - booklet, artwork, lyrics, promotional items &c. After all, if your friend buys a CD, even if you were unable to make a copy for yourself, you could still listen to it if you went round to your friend's house, or they brought it around to your house. Easy copiability just makes it more convenient for all parties.

      Releasing cheaper legitimate CDs would lower the margins on type-one bootleg CDs and also increase the attractiveness of the "real" product to type-two copiers. Copying just for the buzz of cracking protection schemes might be a third type.

      I still dispute the ability to apply an inaudible watermark to an analogue signal that can be faithfully recovered after lossy compression. It just smells of snake oil. I can see that someone would try to make a buck selling useless "copy prevention" technology to a paranoid music industry. It might even ease their conscience to know their products won't actually go far to stop the latter-day Robin Hoods who bring down the cost of popular albums for the working classes.

      And when the record companies do finally discover they got ripped off, it will be too late. The thing is, there are a vast number of consumers who simply don't get that this huge scam is going down. They prefer to pay the inflated prices rather than break the law. These people cannot stay ignorant forever. When the whole copy-prevention scam - and that is what it is; it is nothing more than a scam at every level, with confidence tricksters selling shoddy copy-prevention technologies to tat-peddling sharks who rip off hardworking musicians and treat their loyal customers, who lest we forget pay their wages, like theiving scum - is exposed, and it will be soon, then the law-abiding citizens will know they have been ripped off, and they'll be angry.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    52. Re:iTunes not actually property! by Alsee · · Score: 1

      You should only consider DRM to have a crippling effect if you planned on violating the allowable terms of use granted by the seller.

      I don't give a damn about the "allowable terms of use granted by the seller". DRM cripples a product when it blocks perfectly legal and legitimate use.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    53. Re:iTunes not actually property! by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      That is correct. However, there is a serious problem with the way many companies that sell "intellectual property", such as music and software, acquire those agreements. The "contracts" are delivered in various duplicitous ways (click through and shrink-wrap licenses, for example) that prevent the purchaser from having any idea what his rights are under that contract until the product has already been purchased. These people would like you to assume that when you give them your hard-earned dollars you actually own (and thereby control) that which you have paid for. The proud "owner" is often surprised to find that, gee, really he doesn't have anywhere near the level of control or ownership that he thought he had. That way of doing business is unethical and dishonest, and actually illegal in many places. It is, however, common. Informed consent is a legal construct that has just gone right out the window.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  9. eBay policy by dboyles · · Score: 2, Informative

    This thread addresses the part of eBay's policy that has probably been violated.

    Of course, who's to say eBay didn't just roll over under the pressure? Wouldn't be the first time.

    --
    -- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
    1. Re:eBay policy by TheTimoo · · Score: 1

      in his auction he states he will not transfer the thing by means which don't comply whith the Ebay guidelines (in this case over the internet). It's added as an update but that doesn't make it less valid.

      --
      "Be careful or be roadkill" - Calvin
  10. The people of California should modify their laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    If they're unhappy with the recall, fix it. Make it harder to do, or remove it all together. That's democracy.

  11. FreeDOS doesn't even eat it's own dogfood: by scosol · · Score: 0, Troll

    Weak.

    > The site www.freedos.org is running Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) FrontPage/5.0.2.2510 PHP/4.3.2 on Linux.

    --
    I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
    1. Re:FreeDOS doesn't even eat it's own dogfood: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because of DOS's networking abilities and Apache/DOS, you'd think they'd go with that.

    2. Re:FreeDOS doesn't even eat it's own dogfood: by DeltaSigma · · Score: 1

      So the only reason you would consider a desktop operating system, is if it was tuned to be a server?

      Does your work give you Xeons or what?

    3. Re:FreeDOS doesn't even eat it's own dogfood: by Hubert+Q.+Gruntley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A friendly reminder about it's and its:

      itsits.gif (safe for work)

      --
      Laugh at my Lisp and I keeell you.
    4. Re:FreeDOS doesn't even eat it's own dogfood: by scosol · · Score: 1

      > So the only reason you would consider a desktop operating system, is if it was tuned to be a server?

      Of course that's not the only criteria, but if it's networking and stability aren't even up to the simple simple task of serving HTTP, what am I really going to do with it?

      And you don't eat your own dogfood either:

      > The site www.openbeos.org is running Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) PHP/4.2.3 mod_perl/1.26 on Linux.

      --
      I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
    5. Re:FreeDOS doesn't even eat it's own dogfood: by geekoid · · Score: 1

      why does it sit?

      Funny that the name doesn't use it properly.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  12. Music on Ebay by igabe · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just a thought, but I have a feeling that when bidding gets to the thousands of dollars for something worth virtually nothing, Ebay starts to get a little weary.

    I know that I once had the great experience of falling for a new TiBook 1GHZ for only $1500. Bidding went well above that, and Ebay then pulled. Turned out it actually was a scam.

    My guess is that Ebay would happily risk stopping a real auction for the small chance it might be a hoax(instead of vica versa). In this case on the chance the bidders won't back their wagers.

    --
    tilTrue.info contechtext.info prettypowerful.info twitter.com/frets fb.com/prosody
  13. eBay policy by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  14. Like the buyer would pay... by ryanw · · Score: 1

    How many auctions have heard on ebay of the buyers not paying up and trying to trick the seller into shipping to a different address then is posted in his profile and sending payment after shipment is recieved.

    I have a close friend that this happened to when he was selling his Powerbook 867Mhz. The guy didn't pay and tried to get him to ship it to a different address...

    like ANYONE is going ot pay $16k for a song ..

  15. Who determines value? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If someone wants to pay a thousand dollars for a song, who is Ebay to stop them? If the person doesn't pay, they have ways of dealing with people. Ebay may not think my sock collection is worth much, but perhaps I have a rare sock someone wants?

  16. Not really by Compact+Dick · · Score: 3, Interesting
    If eBay allows it, then why do I find this:
    eBay prohibits the listing of items or products to be delivered electronically through the Internet.

    on their Downloadable Media Policy page?

    Or was that secretly added after this song was listed?
    1. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, it's just one of those rules that they state and don't enforce very actively, unless it gets to a high profile.

      Hence, people get away with selling online gaming stuff, as it doesn't get up to $16,000 and doesn't usually end up on /.

    2. Re:Not really by dave420 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      well, this link shows that eBay has a lot of electronically-distributale items up for bidding, so eBay obviously allows it, otherwise these guys wouldn't waste their time making hundreds of auctions for things that eBay doesn't allow. And, from what I read originally, eBay has had that clause for a long time, to fight off illegal mp3 dealing.

      As I said, they enforce that rule when it helps them, and lets it slide when it doesn't.

    3. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn... and I bought that penis enlargement eBook in violation of eBay's ToS.

    4. Re:Not really by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "eBay prohibits the listing of items or products to be delivered electronically through the Internet."

      Does that mean it can be delivered electronically through a different medium? What if the seller dialed up the buyer's modem and set up a zmodem transfer? Or does nobody do that any more?

    5. Re:Not really by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative
      You have to send the user a physical item. It can be a slip of paper. What most people do is sell a slip of paper with a "password" on it, and you meet the buyer in-game, and they say the password to you, at which time you give them the item.

      The buyer is protected (ostensibly) because the listing says that you will get the item when you tell them the password, thus if this is not true, you are guilty of fraud. And you comply with the letter of ebay's law. I'm guessing they feel the laws are clear on physical objects and claims but not on virtual ones, so they're bringing all the virtual things into the real world.

      Makes me wanna go watch Lain.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Not really by PetiePooo · · Score: 1

      Ah, zmodem... *wistful look*

      The first shareware program I actually registered... *sigh*

    7. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you go from an A+++ buyer to A++++++?

    8. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then promptly used it to download many many many pieces of software you never registered. ;)

  17. Email I received from eBay... by MacJedi · · Score: 3, Informative
    Got the following at about 3pm today:
    The following listing:

    2555673237 - Double Dutch Bus by Devin Vasquez has been removed from eBay for violating eBay policy. Since this listing was removed, you are not required to complete the transaction.

    For a complete list of eBay's policies, please visit: http://pages.ebay.com/help/sell/item_allowed.html

    Regards,
    Customer Support (Trust and Safety Department) Ebay Inc.

    /joeyo

    --
    2^5
    1. Re:Email I received from eBay... by tuc · · Score: 1


      They may have yanked the Double Dutch Bus auction but I'm currently the high bidder (at 79 cents) of another iTunes song on ebay, Bittersweet Sypmhony by the Verve.

      Do you think they'll yank that one too?

      --

      You write your nine symphonies, then you die.

    2. re:Email I received from eBay... by tuc · · Score: 1


      Two minutes after I posted that, I was outbid by someone else. The high bid now stands at $1.03. Do you think it'll get up to the $16,000 heights that Double Dutch Bus reached before its untimely demise?

      My max bid was 98 cents. After all, I could by it from Apple for 99 cents (if I were willing to create an iTunes account for myself) and I suspect I wouldn't have enjoyed the song much anyway.

      --

      You write your nine symphonies, then you die.

  18. Petition Dollars? by Houn · · Score: 2, Funny

    Quote:

    "Within a few days, the petition calling the European Parliament to reject software patentability accumulated 50,000 new signatures."

    Radical New Petition Method: Get everyone who signs to send one dollar. Fight Money with Money! $50,000+ should be able to buy a polititian, right?

    --
    The longer I'm a member of the Human Race, the more I believe Apocalypse is a valid solution.
    1. Re:Petition Dollars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I already payed my 50 Euros to the FFII (http://swpat.ffii.org/) and so should you.

      Beside - it is tax deducible! :)

  19. Ignore me now... by igabe · · Score: 1

    While I was writing someone commented about an article which give the true reason as being a Ebay Policy issue.

    So I no longer have a reason to speculate :)

    --
    tilTrue.info contechtext.info prettypowerful.info twitter.com/frets fb.com/prosody
  20. Dune by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    In Dune, worms produce the spice which is the basis for their wealth.

  21. iTunes by Sanity · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone brave enough to question the distilled coolade that is Apple and anything they touch since coming out with OSX ("ooh, ooh, pretty and Unix, ooh, OOH, AAaahhhh..") might find this spoof of iTunes to be an amuzing antidote.

    1. Re:iTunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That site is pretty stupid I must say.

      It's too expensive

      Lots of people seem to be willing to pay. I think the price is fair for the great experience iTunes gives you (i.e., find the song, click, listen).

      Lossy means loss iTunes AAC files don't sound as good as CDs.

      So buy the CD, genius! I personally like to download albums in a few minutes rather than a few hours.

      Apple says iTunes is "better than free" because it's "fair to artists and record companies."

      Take your pick: no music service, or iTunes?

      That page is just a bunch of crap. I don't love the record labels either but it's not Apple's fault you gotta play by their rules to get the music!

    2. Re:iTunes by alset_tech · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Interestingly, the site mentioned above doesn't seem to take into consideration that artists average about the same 10% margin when their music is sold in a store. The site blames Apple for musicians being treated unfairly, but this has been the case ever since Edison (evil man) sold recordings on lathes and kept ALL the profits.

      I would applaud Apple if they kicked more of the cash to artists, but that's like asking Best Buy to pay a share of their profits to the artist. The distribution channel is not responsible to the artist, the record company is. That's where we should look for reform.

      Dan

      --
      Standing on the shoulders of giants.
    3. Re:iTunes by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Insightful
      That is really pathetic.

      • It misstates the relationship of artists to iTunes. You do NOT have to be an RIAA-member published artist to get your music onto iTunes, and there's at least one company, CD Baby, that makes this a piece of cake with the bulk of the .99 going to the artist. iTunes insists on a middleman, it doesn't insist that Hilary Rosen be that "man".
      • It suggests that artists are ripped off by this system but somehow are not by Kazaa and their ilk. How? Not explained. Just repeated, ad-nausium, like some kind of Hanzo-San.
      • It suggests that making artists maintain the hardware and infrastructure for distributing music would, in some way, be preferable to Apple doing it and charging their 30c. Again, no explanation.
      • Ultimately the agenda is revealed in the same paragraph - apparently 99c per song is too high! It should be 50c! And the artists should foot the bill (as above)
      Downhillbattle is going to have an uphill battle unless it recognizes a few realities. Not paying artists is ripping them off - the music publishers may not be perfect, but if you buy a CD, you do ultimately transfer money in the direction of the artists, something you do not do if you download it from Kazaa. Rather than this mindless boycott campaign, if DHB really is serious and is concerned about artists (as with the rhetoric but as unsupported by every actual suggestion they make) rather than cheap music, they should be supporting the efforts to create infrastructures for the easy exchange of music (to the listeners) and money (to the artists.) I'd no more boycott CDs to help artists than I'd napalm Ethiopia to help the hungry.
      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:iTunes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a computer programmer, I'd be delighted if I saw 10% of the revenues generated by my work.

    5. Re:iTunes by cgranade · · Score: 1

      I would applaud Apple if they kicked more of the cash to artists, but that's like asking Best Buy to pay a share of their profits to the artist. The distribution channel is not responsible to the artist, the record company is. That's where we should look for reform.
      Downhillbattle does address this, as they claim that because the new distribution channel has so few of the physical costs that CD duping has, they (Apple) should work with the record companies to get at a lower rate, since they don't have to front the bill for the duping. Instead, Apple is sucking up some physical costs in their 35 that the record companies are then double-charging on as part of their cut, despite that they no longer have the same duties. While indy artists are considered, RIAA is the focus of the critique since the majority of music is discovered through the radio, which is largely controlled by RIAA. So, while the authors of downhillbattle acknowledge that non-RIAA labeled artists are treated differently, and indeed, better under iTunes, this is not the point.

      --

      #define DRM chmod 000

  22. Worms in Power Plants by benjamindees · · Score: 4, Informative

    One of the national news broadcasts just had a couple people talking about 'computer problems' as a factor in the East Coast blackout. A transcript of the first few minutes of the outage had technicians complaining that their computers were acting strangely and that they couldn't diagnose the problem because of that.

    The CEO of the company that had the 'original' problem asserted that there must have been systems failures at other sites in order to bring down the entire grid. He said his company alone could not have caused the problems that occurred.

    I wonder if any of the MS worms that were circulating at the time actually were to blame for the outage as has been speculated here before?

    The webcast of the hearing will be available here when it's ready.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    1. Re:Worms in Power Plants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if any of the MS worms that were circulating at the time actually were to blame for the outage as has been speculated here before?

      What kind of moron would have essential computers controlling something like a power plant connected to the public internet?

      Oh, that kind of moron.

    2. Re:Worms in Power Plants by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I wonder if any of the MS worms that were circulating at the time actually were to blame for the outage as has been speculated here before?

      If that's true, than the "MS worms" aren't actually to blame. The admins who left those machines open to the net and who also didn't patch two months ago are to blame.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    3. Re:Worms in Power Plants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it was connected to the network. Rather, someone took a notebook home, got the virus and then took it back to work...

      It's comforting to know that their IT guys consistently neglected all of the machines, isn't it?

    4. Re:Worms in Power Plants by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      If and when our staff start bringing in unsanitised laptops on a regular basis, I am going to buy a separate switch just for them {actually for everything except regular machines known not to have malware such as Windoze on them} and put a simple firewall between it and the "main" switch. This way, if anyone gets a virus on their laptop, it'll only ever affect other laptops. Of course if we ever get one of those horrible wireless thingies, it'll also be heavily firewalled.

      In the meantime, I've decided to pull patch leads for any sockets that don't always have a machine in them. If someone wants to plug in a laptop, they'll need mine or my boss's sayso. They can try unplugging something else, but then they will feel the force of the Blessed +1 ClueBat .....

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    5. Re:Worms in Power Plants by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I have a story in my journal that was rejected by the editors that covers some of this. Amazingly, the machines are connected to the public internet, and they got hit by Slammer last time around.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  23. But it might disable something... by Tau+Zero · · Score: 1

    ... like a section of a Microsoft contract which prohibits the shipping of desktop machines without an OS without paying Microsoft.

    --
    Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
  24. 60 lousy songs? by Tau+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I'd be bored silly. That's too low for me by at least an order of magnitude, maybe two. (I am not allergic to novelty and comforted by endless repetition of the familiar, unlike children and some other people who haven't grown up.)

    And if I have to keep paying rent instead of a flat fee, I'll go patronize artists who don't expect lifetime tenure or get huffy when I ask them "So what have you written lately?"

    --
    Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
  25. It's obvious by OYAHHH · · Score: 3, Funny

    For,

    The bids that the guy was getting for his ITunes song, Double Dutch something or nother, should make the RIAA seriously consider selling all of their music on EBAY.

    Heck, I'm thinking about recording a tune or two for that sorta money.

    --
    Caution: Contents under pressure
    1. Re:It's obvious by yerricde · · Score: 1

      Heck, I'm thinking about recording a tune or two for that sorta money.

      What agent do you have lined up to represent you to the songwriters' music publishers?

      --
      Will I retire or break 10K?
  26. FreeDOS + Malloc.. by adeyadey · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wish to inform you that I wrote the Malloc routine for FreeDOS.

    Please send me $299 for each installed copy of FreeDOS you have on your PCs..

    Darl McBride

    --
    "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
  27. Your ruse, your clever trick by Chazman · · Score: 2, Funny
    Well, then how about THESE two developers, have you heard anything about them working on the OS X port of OpenOffice???

    --
    -----Chaz
    1. Re:Your ruse, your clever trick by Kredal · · Score: 1

      No time for developing, Dr. Jones!

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
  28. FreeDOS or free DOS by ndogg · · Score: 1

    We'll, depending on what they meant, they may be getting what they want.

    --
    // file: mice.h
    #include "frickin_lasers.h"
  29. Just don't use the Internet by YetAnotherName · · Score: 1

    OK, so eBay says: "eBay prohibits the listing of items or products to be delivered electronically through the Internet."

    How about X.25? DecNET? AppleTalk? Token Ring? Maybe they could do IrDA? Or just use IP over a LAN instead of the Internet?

    1. Re:Just don't use the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a station wagon full of tapes?

  30. Why use e-bay? by KalvinB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    E-bay is a nice place for the exposure if you can't get it anywhere else and don't mind the fees, but what's stopping him from firing up a site and taking bids via e-mail? He's certainly got plenty of attention.

    Considering a 99 million dollar bid was placed it'd also be handy to list all the bids placed allowing people to bid in between in case higher bids fall through. It was also aliviate false inflation.

    No point in putting in a fake high bid if anyone can bid lower.

    It would then also be possible to contact the losing bidders at the end and ask them to donate their bid to the EFF or whatever even though they won't get a crappy song for it.

    Using e-bay doesn't test the legality of anything relevant. It simply tests E-Bay's TOS. Selling it himself would test the legality of selling the iTune.

    Ben

  31. Great by sharkey · · Score: 1
    'the Mac version ... Maybe some of the coders among us could lend them a hand?"

    Maybe Taco can lend a hand. He can lead them away from Aqua and into the purity of Violent Purple.

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  32. Routers by poptones · · Score: 1
    Not the kind that hum in the closet - the kind that hum in the workshop. A few old printers - or some surplus pipe, a few roller skate wheels, a trio of stepper motors and a sheet of plywood will provide all you need for your very own CRC machine - except the brains.

    Now, take an old 200MHz Pentium, FreeDOS, and CNC Pro and you got it all.

    There's all kinds of uses for DOS. Lots of people still use it every day, even on their desktops. There's a LOT of old systems out there and recycling is a far better use for them than landfill.

  33. $16,000 iTune? by malus · · Score: 1

    Just out of curiousity, who is the MORON that would pay $16,000 for a song? Michael Jackson got a better deal on the beatles tunes.

    1. Re:$16,000 iTune? by oneishy · · Score: 1

      some things really are priceless....

      Actually it could be worth it, to the right person to prove the whole 'right of first sale' thing. Think about it; If you were a lawyer, purchased the digital song 2nd hand, got sued by the RIAA, and won, what have you gained in addition to popularity on /. ?

    2. Re:$16,000 iTune? by Gorobei · · Score: 1

      Someone willing to donate $16,000 to the EFF and who sees that this is an interesting test of the DMCA: iTunes makes no licensing claims about the song, first sale means the copyright holder can't question the sale, now a buyer has a legally owned piece of music he can't play - can he circumvent the encryption for interoperability? Can people sell him a tool to let him play the song (the tool obviously has substantial non-infringing use?)

  34. Er. Did you read his post? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is not of the opinion that
    the website for a desktop
    operating system must be running
    on that operating system.

    You see, he thinks it's OK to
    make dogfood, feed it to his
    collies, and not eat it every
    morning for breakfast hisself.

  35. The people of Kalifornia are fascist puppets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you remember what the MPAA and the RIAA have done to the independent artists? It's a shame that in our great nation, such blatant corporate sponsorship exists in state politics. We need another LA riot. Except this time not targeted at the law enforcement officers, but instead at the 653,883 candidates running for governor.

    God bless America.

    1. Re:The people of Kalifornia are fascist puppets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh... no. California is arguably the most liberal state in the union. Somehow... I don't think that they are fascist puppets.

    2. Re:The people of Kalifornia are fascist puppets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was speaking metaphorically. Please don't use logic against my post again. Thanks.

  36. I pay ten bucks a month... by poptones · · Score: 1
    For a service that allows me to preview just about anything from just about anywhere. If it's not available right now odds are very great that within six months it will be. I can then audition as many tracks from the album as I like, keep all I want, and the quality is almost always at least 192kbps MP3. And if I really like something I can request a lossless version, and usually have it available for download within a matter of hours.

    I like the Spanish and Russian stuff the best, although I have discovered I also have a taste for Turkish hiphop and Egyptian techno.

    You can get a taste of what's available right here....

  37. Worth = principle by poptones · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He said the music was to be donated to the EFF. I suspect the people participating in the auction knew full well the track wasn't "worth" anything at all. It's "worth" was in this auction's value as a test case, and that $16,000 would, no doubt, be well used defending this sale (should it have passed) in court.

  38. Re:Worms producing spice ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's from Star Wars, I think.

    You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity.

  39. Yet another iTunes Auction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Seems like soneone saw the first auction and posted another iTunes auction. the experiment continues.

    eBay item=2555862144

  40. Re:Worms producing spice ? by jc42 · · Score: 1

    Nah; it's from Dune.

    --
    Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  41. OpenOffice already runs on OS X by penguin7of9 · · Score: 4, Informative

    OpenOffice already runs on OS X. What they are talking about is a Quartz/Aqua port. But, frankly, why bother? Even if people use Quartz/Aqua APIs, OpenOffice still won't look or behave exactly like a Cocoa-native application, so it really won't be any more "native" than the existing X11 port. Furthermore, Apple's X11 server for OS X is just fine for running software like OpenOffice, it's free, and it's easy to install.

    There probably isn't much interest in the Quartz/Aqua port because there doesn't seem to be much point to it: it's a lot of work and won't behave much differently.

    As OS X becomes more mainstream, the "purity" of its user interface (if you can call the mix of Cocoa and Carbon "pure") will increasingly go away: people will port MFC, Swing, .NET, Gtk+, wxWindows, and FLTK applications to it. OpenOffice on X11 is just another toolkit. What people could spend time more profitably on is cleaning up the few remaining glitches in the integration of X11 with the OS X desktop. Most of those can be done fairly easily, but Apple might consider adding a small X11 extension that would allow people to add OS X-specific features to their X11 applications without a complete rewrite.

    1. Re:OpenOffice already runs on OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I haven't tried the X11 port, but I can imagine there could be a metric tonne of problems: Clipboard handling, Printing, Drag-n-Drop are all very different under X11. And all of that is required by Mac end users for an "acceptable" application.

      The Mac platform has never been only about Look-N-Feel -- It's key selling point is overall integration. You ain't gonna get that by using X11 like "just another toolkit", you need a native port.

    2. Re:OpenOffice already runs on OS X by penguin7of9 · · Score: 1

      And all of that is required by Mac end users for an "acceptable" application.

      Yes, and you know what? Apple isn't the only company that has those features: they exist on all major platforms, and GUI users on all major platforms demand them. In fact, if anything, OS X lacks a few features and mechanisms that X11 has.

      But, in fact, functionally, there is very little of importance that is missing in OpenOffice/X11 on OS X. Note that cut-and-paste already works for text.

      I haven't tried the X11 port, but I can imagine there could be a metric tonne of problems: Clipboard handling, Printing, Drag-n-Drop are all very different under X11. [...] You ain't gonna get that by using X11 like "just another toolkit", you need a native port.

      No, you don't need a native port. It would not be very little work for the OpenOffice developers to add a little bit of OS X-specific code to improve desktop integration in the few areas where it isn't yet working. I think that would be cut-and-paste for images and drag-and-drop from the OS X desktop, two rarely used features. (For printing, OS X already uses CUPS, a UNIX system.)

      But if Apple cared to, they could actually just make X11 a fully functional component of the OS X desktop, indistinguishable from Carbon and Cocoa. That would involve some automatic clipboard and drag-and-drop translation (between X11 and OS X), making X11 executables double-clickable, and fixing Apple X11 window management.

      Apple has tackled a project many orders of magnitude harder: integrating the OS 9 and NeXTStep UIs and APIs. The reason Apple isn't expending the miniscule effort to fix the few remaining X11 integration issues is because they actually prefer people rewriting their apps for Apple-proprietary APIs--it's a business reason, not a technical reason.

    3. Re:OpenOffice already runs on OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > it's a business reason, not a technical reason.

      All technical reasons are business reasons in that they take time and money to implement. Things like printing, clipboard, and drag-n-drop are borked badly enough in a pure X11 environment, so I'm guessing that you are badly underestimating the difficulty in welding those things to another paradigm.

      Also, if your suggested X11 integration points are so "little work", why are the OO developers pursuing a native port?

      Utimately this scratches the major Unixhead issue that Apple didn't think X11 was "good enough" for them and chose to roll their own on top of a Unix-based OS.

    4. Re:OpenOffice already runs on OS X by luisdom · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, the main point of doing the port would be to get toolkit independence for OO: that is, it would look native on win32, gtk, qt, etc...

      Not authomatic independence, true, but it would be a lot easier to do an interesting port, like the qt/gtk one... because actually the looks of OOo is quite ugly...

    5. Re:OpenOffice already runs on OS X by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      You make a good point - does OpenOffice already offer an 'Office Toolkit' - a library for doing 'officy' things that one can wrap a native GUI around? That would be keen.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:OpenOffice already runs on OS X by penguin7of9 · · Score: 1

      All technical reasons are business reasons in that they take time and money to implement.

      Yes: less time than for thousands of UNIX programmers to rewrite their interfaces. And, in fact, the Mac is not popular enough to warrant that, so the applications stay in X11. Investing this time and money for Apple would more software more usable on their platform.

      Things like printing, clipboard, and drag-n-drop are borked badly enough in a pure X11 environment, so I'm guessing that you are badly underestimating the difficulty in welding those things to another paradigm.

      That's just the typical Apple-zealot prejudice against X11. Clipboard and drag-and-drop work just fine under X11. Printing is not a traditional part of X11, although now XPrint offers a solution that is integrated with the window system, giving you both traditional UNIX-style printing and Windows/Macintosh-style printing.

      Also, if your suggested X11 integration points are so "little work", why are the OO developers pursuing a native port?

      Well, apparently only two people are pursuing it, which is why we are discussing this in the first place. And even though they probably could solve the general problem, applications programmers don't generally think of improving the OS in order to solve their problems. Apple's party line is "port to Cocoa", and Mac programmers follow Apple's party line.

      Utimately this scratches the major Unixhead issue that Apple didn't think X11 was "good enough" for them and chose to roll their own on top of a Unix-based OS.

      Apple didn't "roll their own"; Apple bought Jobs's company, NeXT, and together with it a PostScript-based window system. Then, they hacked all of that up a little and added OS 9 compatibility. That purchase was driven by the personality of Jobs, not by the relative merits of NeXT and X11. In fact, in the market, X11 competed against other window systems and handily won over many other competitors on UNIX workstations, including SunView, NeXTStep, and NeWS. That was despite aggressive marketing by the owners of those competitors.

  42. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and toss in a -1 FUD for Downhillbattle

  43. FreeDOS if only..... by DeadBugs · · Score: 2, Funny

    From Dell I can get FreeDOS, but how do I get Free Dell?

    --
    http://www.kubuntu.org/
  44. You make some good points... by Sanity · · Score: 1

    ...but I think the real comparison is between iTunes and something which, unfortunately, doesn't exist yet - a way people can get music which actively bypasses the middlemen and sells itself on this feature. People are yearning for a way they can buy music that is fair to artists - all this site is trying to explain is that iTunes isn't it, and people should know that.

  45. Or no OS at all! by DeadBugs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    According to Tech Bargains You can get a DELL 400SC 2GHz server without an OS for $299. (3.2GHz just $622)

    Not too hard to imagine a cluster of these.

    --
    http://www.kubuntu.org/
  46. Sorry. by mindstrm · · Score: 1

    This has been tried in the past. Putting "You may not resell this book" in a book does not exempt it from the first sale doctrine.

    If you buy a book, you can sell the book.. it's NOT a license agreement.

    It will get tossed out, this *exact* thing has been tried before, many many years ago, when publishers wanted to prevent the sale of used books. It was tossed out of court, repeatedly.

    A book is an object. Copyright law protects the author enough already.

    Now, if you had some kind of contractual agreemnt and LOANED the books, that's different...

    1. Re:Sorry. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Now, if you had some kind of contractual agreemnt and LOANED the books, that's different...

      That's exactly what I'm talking about. Slap the warning label, put it on the recipt, require distributors and stores to inform the public of the terms of the sale--and sell it for a comparativly reduced price.

      It doesn't have to be a loan, but it does have to be enough to pass muster at the court as a contract and not a simple sale. :) In an area where EULAs have been held up, a sticker saying "you agree not to re-sell this book to anyone but the store you bought it from; by opening this book, you agree to not do this." or somesuch might even be enough to be a legal contact.

    2. Re:Sorry. by protoshoggoth · · Score: 1

      If this was anywhere close to legally feasible, the RIAA would have tried using it to shut down used CD stores by now. Used CD stores were their big 'X is killing music' bugbear before mp3's.

    3. Re:Sorry. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      If this was anywhere close to legally feasible, the RIAA would have tried using it to shut down used CD stores by now.

      Probably not. While it _may_ be legally feasible, it's almost certainly not economically feasible.

  47. so what? screw ebay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just contact the highest bidder from your emails and carry on.

  48. Low id??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How did you get the slashdot id 173? A 3 digit id???

    Did you buy it at ebay? What was your bid? ;-)

    1. Re:Low id??? by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      How did you get the slashdot id 173? A 3 digit id???

      Did you buy it at ebay? What was your bid? ;-)


      I hear he got it for a song B-)

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  49. Simpsons by LordKronos · · Score: 1

    Going once...going twice...sold to the small man with the runny nose for 2.3 million.
    ...
    Ok, the next highest bid was I believe yours, sir, with 2.1 million.
    ...
    Yes, well. Were there any serious bids on this item?

  50. Use DJGPP by yerricde · · Score: 1

    I'm currently investigating pitching a move to FreeDOS once I play with it and see if it can allow a program to use more than 640k of RAM

    The easiest way to use more than 600 KB of RAM in a program is to use a compiler that supports protected mode. The most popular free compiler targeted for PC DOS protected mode is DJGPP, a port of GCC with a runtime that implements a surprising amount of POSIX. And if you want to put graphics in your program, that's easy too; just install the Allegro library.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  51. Didn't bother to RTFA, huh? (was Re:FreeDOS?) by bahamat · · Score: 2, Informative

    The FreeDos website has links to the Dell 360 desktop. The interesting thing I found, was that the default configuration with Windows (any version) selected as the OS costs $2863. The exact same options with Red Hat or Free DOS is only $2234.

    Yes, that's right. Dell is rooking $629 for Windows. If that doesn't piss you off enough, read this.
    However, I do have to say that I am glad there are now 2 major hardware vendors selling desktop systems with Linux as the only OS. IMHO, this is the only thing that IBM needs to do to solidify their commitment to Linux. I love what they're doing with Linux servers, but I sure wish I could buy a Thinkpad with a hardware modem and Linux.

    1. Re:Didn't bother to RTFA, huh? (was Re:FreeDOS?) by pc486 · · Score: 1

      Dell ships a lot of other software that is bundled with Windows. If they were to not include Windows, then why would you want the bundled software? This is probably where they got $629 from :).

    2. Re:Didn't bother to RTFA, huh? (was Re:FreeDOS?) by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The FreeDos links and your link are to the Canada section of Dell - is this good in the US too?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:Didn't bother to RTFA, huh? (was Re:FreeDOS?) by eferrari · · Score: 1

      Well that would explain the price difference. Are those 600 Canadian dollars? What's that in the us? 250?

    4. Re:Didn't bother to RTFA, huh? (was Re:FreeDOS?) by Bhang · · Score: 1

      629$ canadian is $457.954 USD right now.

      --
      Sig
    5. Re:Didn't bother to RTFA, huh? (was Re:FreeDOS?) by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      Yes, that's right. Dell is rooking $629 for Windows.

      Perhaps Dell knows that Microsoft is going down, and wants to rake in as much cash as possible before they can't any more?

      I see it as a good thing.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    6. Re:Didn't bother to RTFA, huh? (was Re:FreeDOS?) by bahamat · · Score: 1

      That was a really good point that I didn't think about. But still, $500 for Windows and all the bundled crap that comes with it (most of which is downloadable or useles). It makes me glad I never bought a Dell, and sad for my friend who just did.

  52. Doom Legacy by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Do you realize what kind of frame rate you can get in Doom 1 with a 3GHz machine? Hundreds of megabytes of bloated 32-bit OS would only serve to bog things down.

    Doom 1, Doom 2, and Heretic have been ported to OpenGL as Doom Legacy. You can use the 3 GHz on your CPU plus whatever 3D acceleration your l33t R4de0n or G3F0rce has. This is true of the Windows port; I don't know whether OpenGL support has been added to the Linux version yet.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  53. Scariest line in the article... by DCowern · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The investigation also found plant computer engineering personnel were unaware of a security patch that prevented the worm from working.

    Now I hate to deride any of my fellow IT workers but does Davis-Besse employ trained monkeys to run their network? Seriously. In addition to being plastered all over Slashdot and every IT news site in the known universe, it was covered extensively on all the major news networks. That's incompetence folks, plain and simple.

    News like this (not to mention the actions of SCO, the RIAA/MPAA keiretsu, and the degredation of freedom in the US through the DMCA, PATRIOT I/II acts, et al.) makes me want to move to the most remote tropical island in the world and set up a benevolent technocracy. Who's with me? :-)

    1. Re:Scariest line in the article... by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 1

      Now I hate to deride any of my fellow IT workers but does Davis-Besse employ trained monkeys to run their network?

      Nah, the monkeys' demands were too much in this IT job market. They wanted to be paid in bananas, and by the hour no less.

    2. Re:Scariest line in the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll join you, but only if personal freedoms are highly respected, AND there is no such thing as a 'Moving Violation'.

    3. Re:Scariest line in the article... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      That's incompetence folks, plain and simple.

      Nah, they probably have a network-use policy at work that states they're not allowed to use the web. I can't imagine they get very good RF reception inside an electric plant.

      Never attribute to incompetence that which can be attributed to pointy-haired bosses.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  54. Software Patents by CyanDisaster · · Score: 0

    Five steps to get rich:

    1. Write a basic boot loader
    2. Make pathetic excuse for a kernel
    3. Patent it
    4. Sue Microsoft and SCO for patent infringement
    5. $$$

    Oh shit...now my secret's out...

    Hope be with ye,
    Cyan

  55. Evolution in Action by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    DANGER, WILL ROBINSON! You're a hair's breadth beneath the troll threshold on this one.
    ---
    Where is it written that any organization or business should be guaranteed an unending flow of green? That attitude is about as anti-capitalistic, anti-consumer, anti-innovation and for that matter anti-competitive as I can imagine, and I can imagine quite a lot. Business is supposed to respond to the dictates of the marketplace, not the other way around! And the reason that businesses listen to the market is because of competition: if you aren't keeping your customers happy, why, someone else will. And probably for less money.

    Conversely, if you give your customers what they want for a price they are willing and able to pay, they will take care of you. The genius of good business is in finding ways to keep customers happy while still turning a profit. The music industry has not, for nearly thirty years, concerned itself with improving quality or pricing. As a matter of fact, they have given us music that is of poorer quality and lesser variety than ever before, and charge us more for it. And the only way they've been able to get away with that is because they are a monopoly (quite possibly of the illegal kind) and they will do anything to maintain that status.

    We already have a perfectly functional music distribution system. It's called "The Internet" and "MP3". I simply will not relinquish control of computer equipment and software that I own in order to provide corporations that I don't like, and won't support, a guaranteed revenue stream. "Rights" my left big toe ... DRM has absolutely nothing to do with rights. It should really be called "DPM", for Digital Profit Management, since that's all it is. If this kind of thing becomes widespread "rights" will go right out the window. Who do you believe is best qualified to manage your data: you, or the RIAA? Perhaps you would feel more comfortable with Microsoft pulling your strings. If you choose anyone but yourself, you are giving up control in order to provide someone else with security. That's a defective bargain, my friend, and you would be a fool to make it.

    By way of comparison, the software industry learned to deal with illegal copying of its "intellectual property" years ago and in spite of "rampant piracy" has still managed to innovate and turn handsome profits. In fact, those companies that eliminated heavy-handed copy-protection and activation schemes are often among the most successful because they put the customer first!

    So just who are these people, that they believe they are some kind of national treasure that must be preserved at all costs? If the RIAA and all of its member companies disappeared from the face of earth tomorrow, the music would still go on. And, we would enjoy it all the more since our tastes wouldn't be dictated by a bunch of Pointy Haired Music Executives who may perform market surveys but obviously don't listen to them. Hell, some of us might even learn to (*gasp*) make our own music! Keyboards anyone? Sax?

    But more to the point, if these Luddites can't handle the pace and nature of progress and advancing technology ... that's just too bad. Let them gracefully fade into the background noise of history with the rest of the big green lizards, while those of us who walk upright on two legs will use our expanded cranial capacity to enjoy whatever takes their place. This is evolution in action, folks: enjoy the show.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    1. Re:Evolution in Action by rnd() · · Score: 1

      People voluntarily enter into contracts in a free society. The existence of copyright law is what makes record companies want to go into the business of selling music. If laws to protect that property didn't exist, the companies wouldn't have gone into business in the first place.

      You can't have it both ways. You can't have companies investing millions of dollars in recuruiting and marketing talent, and still expect to obtain the end result for free.

      To an extent, free distribution in the short term can enlighten some prospective customers to the benefits of a product (whether it's a pirated cd or a pirated copy of photoshop), but ultimately it is up to the company to define the terms on which it will invest money into advertising, and the methods it will use to accomplish such advertising.

      Make no mistake about it, you are free to buy a sax and a digital recorder and make your recordings available for free on Kazaa. In fact, I encourage you to do this. If enough people love your music, then they will stop buying or stealing the RIAA's music.

      The motivation for technological advancement that you mention brings up an interesting issue. Would you rather have industry develop better ways of distributing music (and better music)? Or would you rather have it spend money developing DRM technology to protect its investment. When people break the law and steal music, it forces recording industry dollars to be spent protecting the status quo, rather than enhancing it.

      Kind of like if you keep robbing a party store sooner or later they'll have to invest in an alarm system and bars on the windows instead of investing in hiring new employees (possibly you) or in growing the business.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    2. Re:Evolution in Action by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      The existence of copyright law is what makes record companies want to go into the business of selling music. If laws to protect that property didn't exist, the companies wouldn't have gone into business in the first place.

      That is a fundamental assumption that has yet to be proven. The existence of money is what makes record companies want to go into business. The vast majority of business across the board don't involve products that are copyrighted, and it doesn't slow them down. Customer good will (and attached wallets) is what keeps these companies in business, not copyright. All the copyright in the world won't keep your operation afloat if you have no customers.

      The existence of copyright does not prove its necessity. Thomas Jefferson (among other members of the Founding Fathers) was not convinced, by his analysis of other nation's legal systems, that copyright was a good idea, but was forced by political necessity to include it. Nations which have few copyright laws (Taiwan, until recently) seem to do well enough, plenty of investment going on.

      Current copyright terms are 99 years (yes, ninety-nine) years. In effect, for a minimum of two generations, nothing being copyrighted now will enter the public domain, and may never if some well-heeled copyright holders succeed in making copyright indefinite. Now, if copyrights are such a grand idea, wouldn't more of the same be even better? Very few think so: certainly this was not what the Founding Fathers envisioned, they were more concerned with the public domain, rather than the private one. Reversing this logic, then, wouldn't shortening those terms (or even eliminating them altogether) be an even better idea? Hard to say: but don't make the assumption that we must have copyright law as currently implemented. Originally it had some value, but those laws have been rewritten and abused to the point where their long-term utility to society as a whole is dubious at best. Certainly some serious revision is in order.

      When people break the law and steal music, it forces recording industry dollars to be spent protecting the status quo, rather than enhancing it.

      That's a very reasonable-sounding statement: unfortunately it is wrong. Other people have already made the investment in new technology for the RIAA: they don't need to spend a penny on R&D. Technology has already advanced to the point where artists and musicians can be compensated fairly for their work and achieve widespread recognition and distribution, without having to kowtow to a dangerous, erratic and demonstrably irrelevant monopoly.

      Your point is invalid for another reason as well: the RIAA has no interest whatsoever in investing in DRM or any other improved distribution technology, or in doing anything but maintain the status-quo-ante. In fact, you would be well advised to research their history: they have fought every single technological advance in their own industry since the invention of the 8-track. Cassette tapes, according to the RIAA, sounded the death knell for the entire industry. They've made similar outrageous claims for every other form of writable media and frankly I'm tired of it. And the fact that they get juice money from every single blank media sold (CDR, cassette, whatever), on the presumption that such media will be used to copy their works illegally just makes me ill.

      Their sister organization, the MPAA, is cut from the same cloth: look up the Sony vs. Universal Studios decision to get an idea of what their kind of investment really means. Kiss off VCRs, CD-burners and DVDs to start, and forget MP3 and electronic delivery of music. Remember that we are talking about lawyers here, not businessmen, and not technologists. The primary weapons in their arsenal are the law, and, more importantly, fear of the law. They don't have to capacity to innovate, develop new technologies, and compete on that

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Evolution in Action by rnd() · · Score: 1

      You may be right that a 99 year copyright term is a nonoptimal length of time to protect copyright. Perhaps the ideal time period is 4 years, or maybe 150 years.

      Copyright protection is in principle very similar to intellectual property protection. In the past, it was the work of a man's muscles that paid his wages, but as time has gone on, the product of a man's mind has become much more valuable than the work of his muscles. Today, most people could expect roughly $8/hour for their physical labor.

      It seems to me that the backlash against intellectual property and copyright protection operates somewhat in parallel to the nostalgia we feel toward hard physical labor. Labor day, in fact, celebrates those who participate in rigorous physical toil, not those whose expertise and intellect create innovations that increase everyone's productivity and standard of living.

      Getting back to copyright terms, you may be right that 99 years is too long. As I recall it was recently increased from 70 years due to pressure from Disney, etc. It may very well also be true that some companies pay lobbyists and lawyers lots of money to create laws to protect their corporate interests, and that the laws which are subsequently passed do not create a perfectly fair playing field. That is a lamentable situation that takes place in all industries and needs to be stopped. The only way to stop it is to create increased transparency for money spent by congress.

      So now let me ask you the most important question. This is a question I'm sure you've reflected on before. If the recording industry is so backwards and so stupid, why hasn't someone smarter (you, perhaps) gone into business to create a service that provides what customers want at a reasonable price and via a reasonable distribution method? It would seem that given the idiocy of the RIAA (an assertion I don't wholely disagree with) there would be plenty of room for new entrants into the music business.

      So what would be required?
      1) A good distribution platform: This already exists in the form of P2P technology and the web.
      2) Consumer interest: This also already exists -- people love music
      3) High quality music to sell to people: This also exists, since there are plenty of talented unknown musicians who would happily record music if they could get a better deal than the draconian contracts the RIAA typically signs with new artists.
      4) Seed capital: One of the other virtues of capitalism is that you only have to convince one wealthy person that you have a good idea in order to get it funded. There are plenty of rich people around.

      So why hasn't anyone done this? MP3.com appears to have made a good start, so why hasn't it replaced the RIAA yet?

      Excuse me if I sound cynical about the anti-RIAA viewpoint, but most people's answers at this point start to sound a lot like conspiracy theories.

      If anything, the increased use of DRM will speed up the migration toward garage bands and local acts (such as the music on mp3.com). People are already adapted to the new distribution mechanism, and as soon as the RIAA + DRM makes it tough to trade music, MP3.com will become the path of least resistance.

      My point to you is that there is likely going to be a change in the industry over time. The RIAA has acted sluggishly and may have actually missed the boat by allowing the public to become so adept at swapping songs and expecting to do it for free. But in order to believe that there is going to be a change you don't have to decide to toss copyright law out the window.

      Copyright law will help make MP3.com a success and will help the musicians selling music there to put food on the table without having to work as waiters and waitresses. You may have an ideological disgreement with copyright law, but for the most part (in my opinion) it does more good than harm, particularly in our age of innovation and the age of the mind's supremacy over simple physical toil.

      So, let's work within the law and create a viable alternative to music theft. The RIAA is very much a dinosaur, and you're right that it may become extinct. But wouldn't it be better to have it become extinct through its own screw-ups rather than because we all looted its property?

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    4. Re:Evolution in Action by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Well, I have to take my car in for a brake job so I'll give you shorter answer than I usually would. Essentially I don't have a problem with anyone attempting to protect their property, intellectual or otherwise. As a software engineer myself I'm certainly sensitive to that issue. However, I draw the line at the RIAA's rewriting U.S. law to suit its own interests. The DMCA (widely recognized as being a piece of very poor, backwards-thinking legislation) was largely implemented because of the RIAA and MPAA (they had significant influence in its wording and intent.) When a (possibly illegal) monopoly involves itself in rewriting critical pieces of our legal system to maintain said monopoly I have a problem. And when those changes have significant (nay crucial) impact upon the balance of the nation's economy I have an even bigger problem. There are nations where the RIAA's undue influence upon our government would be regarded as treasonous, and would be dealt with as such. Illegal copying of songs is wrong, perhaps. But what the RIAA has done (and, as you mentioned, Disney, and other large interests) is far wronger. These are remarkably unenlightened capitalists, and they do not deserve to benefit from our politico-economic system.

      The reason that nobody will invest in anything is because of the iron fist with which the RIAA rules. Fear of massive legal action (justifiable or not) is sufficient to keep most startups at bay, although there are some. Internet Radio is another avenue of technologically-advanced music distribution that the RIAA has done its level best to squelch. The RIAA is a classic example of a monopoly gone sour, and if the Sherman Antitrust act still had any teeth left the Justice Deparment would have broken them up long ago.

      The increased use of DRM may encourage more people to form garage bands. That doesn't really matter although I certainly home more people get involved in the creative process. What DRM will unquestionably do is reduce the level of control we have over our personal computers, and has tremendous potential for abuse and mistakes. The net effect of forced embedded DRM will be to reduce our personal computers to the role of mere workstations on the copyright-holders network. There is no entity on this planet that can be entrusted to have control over widespread DRM. Not the RIAA, not the MPAA, not the Federal Government, not you and not me. Although either of us are arguably more responsible than any of the others.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:Evolution in Action by Alsee · · Score: 1

      plenty of room for new entrants into the music business.

      While the RIAA decries something like a 10% drop in sales (during an economic downturn no less), many independant labels are reporting double and sometimes even triple digit growth. THAT is what has the RIAA running amok, the fear of losing their music monopoly to independants and a multitude of non-mainstream genres.

      Perhaps you haven't been following the new items such as the Webcaster Alliance lawsuit against the RIAA, but the RIAA has been getting the law changed and they have been abusing their monopoly position in order to suppress non-RIAA music. They have manipulated the CARP process and specificly sacrificed profits for the specific purpose of crushing small webcasters who primarily (or even exclusively) wish to broadcast NON-RIAA music.

      The RIAA is not only breaking the law to crush competitors, it is manipulating the substance of the law itself. The RIAA has absurd influence on capital hill.

      The RIAA also got the AHRA passed in 1992 and exterminated all new consumer recording tecnology. DAT is dead because of AHRA. Sony minidisk is dead. Some other Phillips technology is dead as well. Consumers simply refuse to buy a DRM crippled product. Other than MP3 players we haven't had a new consumer recording technology since cassettes, and MP3 players are only legal through a loophole in the law.

      So, let's work within the law and create a viable alternative to music theft.

      What a great idea. But instead of working within the law and selling to people the product they want (non-crippled music downloads), the RIAA chose to leave a complete vacuum in the online market and they set to work getting the law changed. A "black market" developed because the RIAA chose to create that vacuum.

      Copyright holders have the right to copyright protection, but they absolutely no right to any sort of legal protection for DRM. Hell, DRM itself is an affront to copyright law. Copyright law does not merely grant copyright holders certain protections, it also specificly DENIES them certain certain protections and grants the public certain rights. Legal enforcement of DRM grants copyright holders protections they have no right to receive and denies the public rights to which they are entitled.

      I submit that the DMCA is unconstitutional and that any law that attempting to enforce DRM suffers the same flaw. Why? Because any law against defeating DRM is inherently thoughtcrime. According to the DMCA you can go to prison for 10 years for sitting motionless and thinking certain thoughts. Absolutely any program that circumvents DRM can be "run" purely mentally by thinking through each line of the program. If I sit motionless and stare at a DRM'd e-book I can read that book by thinking certain specific calculations that descramble the DRM. I have violated the DMCA by circumventing the DRM and accessing the copyrighted content. Just by thinking.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    6. Re:Evolution in Action by rnd() · · Score: 1

      I really don't see DRM as such a terrible thing, since we each have the choice of whether to purchase DRM'ed products or to go without them (or purchase alternatives).

      Surely, it may take a while before all of the non-DRM alternatives come out of the woodwork, but they will in time if they represent a viable business model.

      I don't blame the RIAA or the MPAA for what they've done with their lawyers. It is congress that lacks the scrupels necessary to prevent such abuses. And for that matter it is the people who elect those congressmen and women.

      Maybe when everyone's computer is shadowed by the strictness of DRM, people will become more concerned with the DMCA and how it came to be.

      If the RIAA will make more money by sending a bunch of lawyers to Washington then it will by finding new talent, then something is wrong in Washington. The same applies to any industry expecting a handout.

      Anti-trust action, while it may be warranted, will always be slower than legitimate competition. Monopolies artificially raise prices to the point where there is a MASSIVE incentive to enter a particular market. At $18 for a piece of plastic, a jacket, and one or two decent songs, I'd say there's a pretty strong incentive right now.

      --

      Amazing magic tricks

    7. Re:Evolution in Action by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Copyright holders have the right to copyright protection, but they absolutely no right to any sort of legal protection for DRM. Hell, DRM itself is an affront to copyright law.

      Well, Alsee, I wish I could find something to argue about in your post but I'm afraid that I can't. You appear to have a good grasp upon the nature of the beast.

      Your point is well taken the the marketplace has consistently rejected DRM-crippled recording technology. My hope is that this dislike of DRM carries through to computer and operating system purchasing decisions as well.

      The biggest functional drawback to DRM is that it runs contrary to what Americans desire most from our technology: convenience. The first time many not-so-technical consumers (and including some very technical ones such as myself) find themselves unable to perform some simple action like playing their music in the device of their choice, they will balk and will protest with their wallets, if not their lawyers. Consumers may have little or no understanding of the politico-socio-techno-economic issues involved, but they do know when something they own doesn't do what it reasonably should. DRM, in any form that would be considered useful to the RIAA, will probably be completely unacceptable to the buying public for that reason alone. Joe User gets irritated at having to remember a password or program a VCR: expecting him to tolerate a technology which arbitrarily decides for him how and where he can utilize his purchases is not going to sit well.

      Obviously, the RIAA is perfectly aware of this, which is why laws have been bought to hamstring ordinary free-market processes that should have prevented this affront to copyright law from ever rearing its ugly head. In other words, if technology that works in the manner preferred by the buying public is made illegal, then we have no choice but to accept this restrictive technology to have any music at all.

      This is a horrible precedent to set, and if embedded DRM is eventually forced upon us, we will find other organizations petitioning government to outlaw technologies that they find threatening.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  56. Mac OS X 10.3 Panther will fully integrate X11 by enkidu · · Score: 1
    But if Apple cared to, they could actually just make X11 a fully functional component of the OS X desktop, indistinguishable from Carbon and Cocoa. That would involve some automatic clipboard and drag-and-drop translation (between X11 and OS X), making X11 executables double-clickable, and fixing Apple X11 window management.

    Can you say Mac OS X 10.3 Panther? According to the page above: "Panther will include a final X11 window server for Unix-based apps, improved NFS/UFS, FreeBSD 5 innovations as well as support for popular Linux APIs, IPv6 and other important acronyms.

    --

    There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
    -Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
  57. Re:Worms producing spice ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read "Dune" by Frank Herbert, arsehat.

  58. No ePatents by UPi · · Score: 1

    I just signed the petition, posted it's logo all over my webpage, asked all my users to read about it, and sign it if they agree.. The number of signatures is 229044 and counting. I took down the entire web server during the online demonstration too.. not just the frontpage (http://apocalypse.rulez.org).

    This is more important than the usual games and anime on the server.

  59. The iTunes Fear by robbway · · Score: 1

    In the eBay EULA under 9. Breach: (c) we believe that your actions may cause financial loss or legal liability for you, our users or us.

    Therefore, if they anticipate the item is going to cause legal wrangling, they'll simply pull it. Perhaps that's the clause we should assume eBay is invoking on the sale of the iTunes file.

    The seller freely admits he's testing his rights of resale, which means they could be challenged in court. I'm guessing this was a good decision for eBay.

  60. Review the patches you are unaware of by DickBreath · · Score: 1

    The investigation also found plant computer engineering personnel were unaware of a security patch that prevented the worm from working. Corrective actions include requiring documentation of all external connections to the internal network, installing an additional layer of security software, and ensuring computer personnel review new security patches and install them promptly.

    So they are supposed to review the patches that they are unaware of. Sounds to me just like what a PHB would say. How about one of the corrective actions be: to actively watch for the availibility of new security patches.

    --

    I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  61. Duce, check out the Free State Project by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 1

    News like this ... makes me want to move to the most remote tropical island in the world and set up a benevolent technocracy. Who's with me?

    About 20,000 people, that's who. Check out the Free State Project in which 20K people plan to move to one of the lesser-populated US states en masse, register to vote, and begin changing that state into a bastion for freedom.

    --
    In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
  62. And I think you are mistaken. by mindstrm · · Score: 1

    Unless they require you to read a contract & sign a contract, this would have no hope in hell (even then).

    If I walk into a store, and you sell me a book, you sold me a book. What else you said, or what stickers were on the packaging is irrelevant. It's a sale.. the object is now mine to do with as I see fit, except where other laws prevent it (copyright law, etc).

    In order to do what you are suggesting, you would need a signed contract.

    An EULA applies to software because you actually have to read AND AGREE by clicking... forcing you to agree to open a package is not good enough... and the validity of EULAs is still up in the air.

    Opening a package without reading the label is a lot different han clicking on an "I AGREE" button without reading what you agree to.. one clearly shows something you are supposed to agree to.. the other is just... a sticker.

    It's not as simple as you make it out, and if it was, it would be done, by everyone, already.

    1. Re:And I think you are mistaken. by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      I may very well be mistaken. This is /.--"I might be wrong" is as superfluous as "I am not a lawyer."

      Unless they require you to read a contract & sign a contract, this would have no hope in hell (even then).

      Not all contracts must be written; for most, it just makes proving the existance of a contract easier. Some contracts, like those dealing with Real Estate, must be in writing--but I don't know about license agreements.

      In order to do what you are suggesting, you would need a signed contract.

      Contract, yes. Signed, maybe. Even an EULA is a contract--you pay $X for an offer for a contract, rather than the full deal. (Odd, I know.)

      I didn't say it was easy, and I certainly pointed out that there were, at the least, economoic reasons not to do it. But it is theoretically feasible.

      For a less extreme topic, let's say that I'm a recording studio, in the business of selling CDs. I decide to sell my CDs only through a specific license agreement: in exchange for $X and an agreement not to re-sell your copy or your interest, you get one physical CD and a lifetime right to replace your music through whatever medium you wish. If I move to the next great format, you get a new physical copy from me at-cost. If your CD breaks, you can get a replacement from me at-cost. If you want to have oodles and ooldes of digial copies of your format, that's great--I'll even give them to you--but you can't share them with anyone.

      Simple? No. Econonomically feasible? Maybe. At least, a heck of a lot more feasible than throwing labels on books to prohibit re-selling that would cost too much to enforce.

  63. Meanwhile, in another online auction by Pope+Raymond+Lama · · Score: 1

    They had put another strange object with bidding starting at $1,00.
    AS you can see there it realy flies, and is not downloadable.

    --
    -><- no .sig is good sig.