EFF Compiles Endangered Gizmos List

Hungry Student writes "The EFF has published an "Endangered Gizmos" list of technology that is at risk of extinction from the lobbyists of the entertainment industry. Extinct species include DVD X-Copy and Napster 1.0. Among those fighting for survival are Morpheus and HDTV tuner cards. The BBC has commentary on this as well." From the article: "The EFF intends the list to be part of a wider educational and awareness project, and it will be updated regularly as more gadgets and technologies are saved or killed off."

Comments

Slashdot creates endangered dupes list

[Anonymous Coward]

EFF Creates Endangered Gizmos List

Re:Slashdot creates endangered dupes list

[OECD]

Endangered? Not here... ;-)

Re:Slashdot creates endangered dupes list

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

I really wanna register dupedot.org. All the dupes that are fit to reprint.

Re:Slashdot creates endangered dupes list

[drdink]

That can't be a Slashdot story you link to. It is posted by some guy named 'michael.' Who is that?

Re:Slashdot creates endangered dupes list

[egoff]

And the EFF published this list Jan 24...

Re:Slashdot creates endangered dupes list

[1u3hr]

Putting "endangered" in Slashdot's search:

EFF Compiles Endangered Gizmos List
On February 19th, 2005 with 61 comments
Hungry Student writes "The EFF has published an "Endangered Gizmos" list of technology that is at risk of extinction from the lobbyists of the entertainment...

EFF Creates Endangered Gizmos List
On January 28th, 2005 with 213 comments
linuxwrangler writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation this week announced the creation of the Endangered Gizmos List. According to their press release, this...

Dipshit editors.

Re:Slashdot creates endangered dupes list

[the real darkskye]

The first one was obviously the project planning page, they obviously have source code to compile now.

Give it a couple of weeks we'll see the first alpha of this list!

smile, its Friday

Re:Slashdot creates endangered dupes list

[Anonymous Coward]

dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe dupe du. du. du. dupe. dupe.

Re:Slashdot creates endangered dupes list

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

You would think that the Slashdot developers would be smart enough to write a function that automaticly searches for similar headlines, and even blurb text, and displays the results next to the article when it gets reviewed.

Well, really, they are smart enough. They're just a bit lazy.

Re:Slashdot creates endangered dupes list

[NoMaster]

So this story is, in fact, not so much a dupe as tripe?

An Open Letter to Slashdot editors

[bconway]

Dear Slashdot Editors,

If you find that a link in a story that has been submitted shows up as purple in your browser, it may be worth checking whether the reason you've already visied the site because the story was already submitted.

Your humble reader

Re:An Open Letter to Slashdot editors

[Sabotage]

You're implying that the editors actually read the articles. Everyone knows that WE don't RTFA, why should the editors?

Re:An Open Letter to Slashdot editors

[LiquidCoooled]

1) How many slashdot editors actually read the submissions?

2) Is there a SIMPLE one off search point to put keywords into and get listings of the accepted submissions? This should NOT include wading through tonnes of comments slightly similar.
(before you open your mouth and say Google, think - google won't catch the dupes within a couple of days of posting, only the older ones)

3) Does it matter THAT much if theres an occasional dupe. (Yes I realise you are a paying subscriber, and in your case, its just one article you miss out on)

I went away from slash for about a week whilst we moved house recently, and am still shocked at the number of articles I notice I've missed. The web is a big place, and many people coming and going, we can't all see everything all the time, so occasionally dupes come in.
How many times in your life have you heard a dupe joke, or seen a tv show repeated?

Having said all that, I think possibly having moderation on stories so that dupes can be quietly dropped from the front page if an overriding number of moderators select it.

Re:An Open Letter to Slashdot editors

[geoffspear]

(before you open your mouth and say Google, think - google won't catch the dupes within a couple of days of posting, only the older ones)

Really? Then how come I can find this particular story on news.google.com, and it was posted an hour ago? And if the editors can't catch dupes that are still on the front page, there's not much hope for them at all.

Re:An Open Letter to Slashdot editors

[LiquidCoooled]

I'd forgotten about the news aspect of google, and your right, it should be a workable source.

The front page links are just highly amusing, and show the editor up more than any technological issues.

thanks for responding :)

Re:An Open Letter to Slashdot editors

[mesach]

Slashdot is the Dupe of URL

Dupes not on list!!!

[Sabotage]

I couldn't find "Slashdot Dupe" on the endangered list, so I believe that phenomenon will continue to live on....

Forgive me for pontificating

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't about companies and artists being "stolen" from. It's about corporate entities finally having the kind of leverage to exert full control over content distribution from inception to consumption.

If a company can control the distribution of its "intellectual property" - e.g. a song - from the moment it's recorded until it hits your ears - then there's additional opportunities for a revenue stream at any point in that line. For instance, you can purchase a song from iTunes. Or you can pay XM $10 a month for the privilege of listening to that same song on their satellite service. Or you could go to the record store and purchase a disc you can put in your CD player and play.

But the act of copying said content, and giving it to a friend - that's completely outside the revenue stream, and the content companies seek to stop this type of action. Even if the creator of the content - the artist - would see benefit from this action. (An example: a friend recently made a copy of the Secret Machines album for me. I bought a copy for my brother, and then a copy for myself. How is this bad for the artist?)

Music, video, and other entertainment content is *not* intellectual property. Trade secrets, manufacturing methods, software - that's IP. But music in specific is undergoing a transformation. Content control is not natural in the broad scope - it's an artificial control mechanism put in place to generate revenue.

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Why is copyright not considered IP? OK, there is a joke about not requiring intellect to make, but it still falls within the IP scope as far as I can tell.

Heck, why is software considered IP and not media? Heck, a broader definition of software includes media even if it is linear and doesn't require a computing device to decode it.

Trademarks are a sub-type of IP, as are patents, copyrights, trade secrets, etc. They each have their uses and abuses.

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[Rude Turnip]

"Music, video, and other entertainment content is *not* intellectual property. Trade secrets, manufacturing methods, software - that's IP."

Yeah, but the copyright on the "music, video and other entertainment content" is intellectual property, specifically, an intangible asset. Otherwise, you're spot on.

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[no_opinion]

I recommend that you not speak for people who make a living off of music, because copyright violation is exactly what it's about. We want to let consumers do whatever they want with their music *for their own enjoyment*. The fact that you bought copies of a shared CD puts you in the minority. Most people would not bother buying something they already got for free.

As an aritist, I have a right to decide how I want to make my music available. A consumer's desire to get it for free does not trump my right to sell it - at least not in America since we don't live by communism. Try and make the same rationalization in the context of something like a movie theater. Just because you think a theater is charging too much to watch a movie does not give you the right to sneak in for and see it for free.

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[brouski]

What an arrogant statement! It most certainly gives them the right to prevent a user from giving it away.

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[brouski]

I was going to make a post along the same lines, but it sounds much better coming from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[Questioning One]

Since people have forgotten what is meant by the fair use clause and also that before the rise of P2P software. The giving away of copies by individuals was probably not that big or percieved by the content providers as not that much of a problem. Now with P2P software and here in the U.S. people forgetting what is meant by personal in the fair use clause, I can understand some of the alarm. Personal ae reference by the Fair Use clause means just YOU, the original purchaser may make and keep copies of content that they have obtain from retailers. Fair Use doesn't mean you can give away copies of content to friends,relatives or strangers. It means those copies stay in your possesion or else you obtain permission from the copyright holder to distribute.

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[Jherek Carnelian]

Personal ae reference by the Fair Use clause means just YOU

That's funny, the word "personal" is never once referenced by the Fair Use Clause:

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[DrEldarion]

What I dont think you people understand is that your right to sell it does not trump the users right to use it.

Actually, the seller has every right to put whatever restrictions they want on the use of the product. The user's only right is to refuse those restrictions and not use the product. The problem and illegality comes when the user wants to use the product AND not abide by the restrictions.

Analogy: You have a driver's license. This allows you to use public roads. Restrictions are placed upon those roads in the form of speed limits, etc. If you do not abide by those restrictions, you are breaking the law, and will be punished for it.

If you want to use the product, you need to abide by the restrictions placed upon it. I don't think "you people" understand that.

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[GoodNicsTken]

Your right, this is about copyright violation. The works of a society belong to that society. Copyright law was ment to give a TEMPORARY period for you to have control of the content to encourage works.

That idea was lost long ago, your copyrights as an artist will outlive you and probably your children. Society is currently getting the raw end of the deal so Mickey Mouse doesn't end up in the public domain.

I wish people would see both sides of this issue instead of, "he's Stealing from me."

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[hoggoth]

> it sounds much better coming from the horse's mouth

Is this the horse's mouth you are talking about?

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[Steve525]

Actually, the seller has every right to put whatever restrictions they want on the use of the product. The user's only right is to refuse those restrictions and not use the product. The problem and illegality comes when the user wants to use the product AND not abide by the restrictions.

Unless the two parties (seller and buyer) enter into some sort of legally binding contract, why is this true? I guess you are making the arguement that the seller has the right to have you sign such a contract, but when's the last time you've signed anything (besides your credit card approval) to buy a CD? I'm sorry but EULAs don't count, at least not yet. The law is still fuzzy on the enforcability/restrictions on those things.

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[Nephilium]

And for the other question: When I purchase a CD from you, am I purchasing the physical media, or a license to the music on the media? If you prevent me from copying the music off of the CD, will you provide me a replacement copy (for a modest fee of course) if/when my CD gets damaged/stolen/lost? If your song is played on the radio, what rights (if any) do I have to record it and listen to it again? Now mind you, most of the bands that I like support bootlegging their concerts (and have some songs that have not yet been released on CD) because to them it's free advertising, and they're not going to get the big top 40 radio play...

Also, just an analogy correction, it would be more of purchasing a video, the sneaking into the movie is more like sneaking into a concert...

Nephilium

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[Sancho]

Yeah, in a very real way, these corporations are "stealing" from us.

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[no_opinion]

Err... the agreement you enter into is called "copyright law". The law is pretty clear on distribution of copyrighted material. Note that none of the pro-p2p talking heads claim that it's legal to trade copyrighted files. Their point, which is valid, is that P2P *technology* is not the problem.

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[no_opinion]

Now you are just rationalizing copyright violation because you disagree with the law. Personally I agree that the term is too long, but that still doesn't give you the right to take my music without compensating me for it. And it's not a work of the society, it's MY work. You are right that I have temporary control over my work, but the attitude on slashdot is that I have NO control (for any period of time) and that consumers can do whatever they want, regardless of copyright law. It's laughable for you to argue for "both sides of the issue" when I'm being told I have no rights whatsoever.

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[Anonymous Coward]

The seller doesn't have arbitrary rights to place restrictions on a product. For example, the seller usually can't restrict the buyer's right to resell the property (doctrine of first sale). Generally, when an item is sold, the seller forfeits any interest in the object sold. If you buy a car and pay in full, the person you bought it from can't tell you not to take it apart, that you can't sell it to your neighbor, etc.

The obvious extension to media (software, CDs, etc) is that the medium should belong fully to the buyer, subject to the limitations of copyright law. That is, when someone sells you a CD, they should forfeit the right to tell you how you can play it, whether you can make "fair use" copies, whether you can microwave the CD, sell it, etc. To do otherwise would make the idea of "sale" meaningless.

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[GoodNicsTken]

Actually I didn't say violating copyright was right or wrong. In fact, OSS depends on copyright to make it work. I would disagree that it's your work. It really does belong to society. You and I are lucky enough to live in a society that grants it's citizens the right to freely express themselves through music, art, etc. If you don't belive that, move to IRAN and see how long before you are beaten or killed for creating "your music." A society owns the works of it's citizens. Ours even grants them exclusive control over their works in order to encourage citizens to contribute more to the society to make it better and better all the time. The other side of the issue that gets no press is the great things that come out of the public domain. Why do you think we are only recently seeing movies like Spiderman, hulk, LXG, etc? They recently entered public domain! See what a great system we have? Allowing things to enter the public domain has spured new creative works. I don't think anyone is telling you that you have no rights whatsoever. On the contrary, the courts agree with you, and find in favor of copyright law every day.

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[Questioning One]

I stand corrected, but I remember reading a interpetation by either a lawyer or judge when it was asked about fair use in context of personal copying.

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[no_opinion]

You are wrong about the society owning an author's works. Before making claims like that you really need to read up on the copyright law. Here's an exerpt from the government's FAQ on copyright, and notice the 2nd sentence:

"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright."

For more, check out www.copyright.gov.

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[Anonymous Coward]

you can already do that: only do live gigs then.

as for the movie, do only private screening (where the viewer must go thru metal detectors and so forth).

as a consumer, i have right to do what i want from the copy i bought, though limited. the limitation is balance between yours and mine who pays the dough. your right doesn't necessarily overwrite rights of people handing over their cash.

you want complete control, don't sell it. do only live gigs where all guests go thru metal detctors to prevent recording device getting in.

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[1u3hr]

That's funny, the word "personal" is never once referenced by the Fair Use Clause:

However, it might be relevant: "In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include...
whether such use is of a commercial nature...
the effect of the use upon the potential market
-- if for "personal use" these two considerations would tend to weigh on the side of determining that it is "fair use"; at least they wouldn't go against it.

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[1u3hr]

And it's not a work of the society, it's MY work.

You are part of society; your work is influenced by the work of other artists. In fact, though I know nothing about your work, I feel safe in claiming that your work could not exist if not for the culture you grew up in. With artists like Andy Warhol, or music "samplers" this is so obvious that it can't be denied. With others, you may just be considered to be in a particular "school" or "style".

Anyway, this doesn't mean that an artist has no moral right (we're not discussing law here) to exploit his art as he wishes, but that he should realise that at some point he should not complain, indeed he should be flattered, that his work becomes a part of the culture, and other works reference it. Only the huge media companies benefit from locking up all cultural creations indefinitely; independent artists without the power to keep their work in the public's eye will have their 15 minutes and be forgotten forever.

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[GoodNicsTken]

No_Opinion, I agree with your interpretation of copyright law, but that's not what I am talking about. I have a very good understanding of copyright law from working with my company's lswyers when developing new products and services.

What I'm referring to is the ideas upon which copyright law was originally based. That in order to encourage new works, creators are granted a temporary privelage to exclusively control the content. When that time is up, it goes back to the public domain for the good of all, so others can use it and even improve it. That cycle continues makeing the society richer and more diverse every day. Unfortunately in the US, big business may ensure that day never really comes.

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[jaelle]

Not true. People I know are buying more cd's than ever because they're finally hearing music they like again. I quit buying music back in the 70's because I got burned too many times. Now I'm buying again, because I can download the entire album first. I know one guy who downloads mega-gigs of music..but also now spends about $200/month on cd's. Music sales are the highest now that they've been in years.

Artists are also making more, and cutting the recording industry out. That's their *real* beef!

Re:Forgive me for pontificating

[doyle.jack]

How did he infringe on your right to sell it? You still have the right to sell it... even to him in this case, being that you did. But even if you didn't sell it to him, he only prevented you from selling it to him. Not from selling it in general.

If I notice on my caller id that a telemarketer is calling me and I refuse to answer the phone, have I infringed upon his right to sell his product?

Hell, what if I answer my phone... and I tell him I don't want it. Have I infringed upon his right to sell his product?

Maybe... if you say so.

Funny...

[turtled]

Dupe, yep.

Also on the list, the PC; Microsoft will make you NOT want to use your PC, Palm, CellPhone, Console game unit, home entertainment media Center, Car OSes, etc. What are we left with? Time with our family, face to face... =)

PCHDTV HD-3000

[mboverload]

I bought the HD-3000 card from PCHDTV because of their warning about the broadcast flag. Little did I know it really don't WORK unless you are a freaking linux genius. I have had mine for about 2 months now, still doesn't work.

I don't know why I cant just download a freaking driver (there is a driver but it doesn't make it work) like in windows and have it work immediatly.

Re:PCHDTV HD-3000

[enrico_suave]

Hey, I wouldn't say you have to be a linux genius... just be able to burn a bootable knopppmyth ISO =)

The latest alpha knopmyth revision has built in support for the HD-3000 IIRC.

I did find the included documentation a little thin on the HD3000, but there is a helpful hd-3000 forum and failing that you can come to my build your own PVR site with questions/pointers/etc...

Although note: I haven't gotten around to installing my HD-3000 as of yet. Too many PVR cards/software too little time.

e.

Re:PCHDTV HD-3000

[gr8_phk]

The HD3000 is now in the V4L CVS, so it will make it into the main Linux kernel soon. Unfortunately I got an HD2000 which is not fully supported yet. I expect it to work with FC4 out of the box when it's released in a couple months. I almost learned all that driver building stuff, but FC3 didn't come with source and now I'm learning about more stuff I didn't think I wanted to know yet. BTW, the site says more HD3000 cards should be in stock on Feb 20th. So people should be able to order next week.

Re:PCHDTV HD-3000

[WarmBoota]

I'll take it off your hands cheap

On the other hand, if you're willing to give it another shot, try KnoppMyth

Re:PCHDTV HD-3000

[GIL_Dude]

Because this is Linux - you are supposed to enjoy the pain of recompiling stuff, using GCC, etc. You aren't supposed to be one of those wuss windows users who expects a setup.exe to do magic for you.

Re:PCHDTV HD-3000

[AKnightCowboy]

Just get a Hauppauge WinTV PVR250 card. They work fine. HDTV is overrated... I don't expect it to take off. Other than high resolution Janet Jackson boobies, what's the point? Survivor in high definition? Who cares how good the picture is if the content sucks?

Re:PCHDTV HD-3000

[fodder69]

Hmmm, I haven't bought one yet but borrowed one from a friend.

I was impressed that I had it up and running in 15 minutes (spent compiling xine-hd) on my Mandrake 10 box with the same old ./configure; make

But it's good to know that I am a genius, although I always suspected it.

Re:PCHDTV HD-3000

[fodder69]

Better yet, buy the much cheaper ($60) PVR150 which works just as well as far as I can tell...

Re:PCHDTV HD-3000

[enrico_suave]

well, the pvr150's ivtv driver is very new/alpha.

I'd suggest, paying a little bit more for a pvr250, and having an easier go of it driver wise in linux.

But if you are in windoze, the pvr150 is cheaper, and makes more sense.

Re:PCHDTV HD-3000

[mythosaz]

One of the biggest problems with HDTV tuners isn't the problem you describe, where you've got great picture, but nothing WORTH watching in hi-def.

The problem is that most people with computer capture cards have to rely on computer-based output to their television. They only place you can watch your HDTV is on your computer monitor. Ok, sure, a lot of people have HDTV televisions, but most don't. Most projectors under $2500 are 800x600 at best, and even the ones that are 1024x768 use DLP chips that have to actually process video at 800 vertical or less.

Long story short, unless you've got a GREAT television, or a >$2,500 projector, you're going to be watching your HDTV content on your computer monitor, or it's going to look a hell of a lot like the rest of the content on your antenna.

Re:PCHDTV HD-3000

[fnj]

Who cares how good the picture is if the content sucks?

Who cares how good the content is if the picture sucks?

And how does this help?

[blanks]

In regards as to why this is happening...

Does this create inovation?

What about jobs, any new jobs? Or less jobs?

How about the customers? This helps them right?

Who exactlly does this help other then a few very large companies with very bad/old business models?

From what I understand, this suffercates inovation, really hurts customers, and causes many people to lose jobs, and many many more over the next couple of years.

Re:And how does this help?

[doublem]

It bolsters the business models the wealthy are already using.

If real innovation were permitted, media companies would have to spend money on R&D to keep up, and even roll out new product lines instead of milking the old ones.

Do you think we'd have DVDs if people hadn't found many easy ways to copy VHS tapes? Nope. Same with CDs. They exist because they're cheaper to produce than tapes, yet can be sold for more because of the "higher quality" and because they were, at the time of their release, damn difficult to copy.

Re:And how does this help?

[arcmay]

CDs have never been difficult to copy. In fact, being able to copy individual songs easily from a CD to tape (and thereby making custom mix tapes) was a big selling point in the early days of CDs and helped lead to their widespread adoption.

As far as quality issues go, taped copies of CDs wasn't much worse than a store-bought prerecorded tape. Third and fourth generation recordings of course were significantly degraded, but that problem had to do with tapes, not CDs.

Re:And how does this help?

[Idarubicin]

Do you think we'd have DVDs if people hadn't found many easy ways to copy VHS tapes? Nope. Same with CDs. They exist because they're cheaper to produce than tapes, yet can be sold for more because of the "higher quality" and because they were, at the time of their release, damn difficult to copy.

...because it took years before somebody noticed you could connect the video out from a DVD player to the video in of a VHS deck. Similarly, I'm sure it took forever for someone to notice that the audio out from a CD player could be connected to a regular tape deck. Damn those pirates and their crazy technology. Sure the duplicates (on VHS or audio tape) weren't as good as the original DVD or CD, but such copies are pretty close to as good as the VHS or audio tapes that they replaced.

If people didn't find the new format more convenient and higher in quality, then they wouldn't have bought the damn things. There was a significant period of time where both formats were sold side by side in stores, and people chose to pay the premium for the 'better' technology. Remember that some new formats have passed into obscurity--Laserdisc, for instance.

If you want to argue a conspiracy, then suggest that the manufacturers wanted to force you to rebuy your entire music collection in the new format. The last part of your argument at least is spot on--manufacturers do indeed like the new formats because they're cheaper to manufacture. That doesn't make them evil, just economically sound.

Re:And how does this help?

[doublem]

The point is not the difficulty of making copies, but the difficulty involved with maintaining quality.

You admit that quality degredation is an issue when copying a DVD to VHS. Before the dawn of cheap burners and media, you still couldn't copy a DVD or CD to the same media type without quality loss. It's that difficulty in making a lossless copy combined with the less expensive manufacturing processes that made them appealing.

Of COURSE you could still copy the mew media to old tech, which is one of the big reasons for Macrovision style technology. If you try to copy a Macrovision protected DVD tor VHS you get all sorts of video issues, mostly involving rapidly fluctuating brightness and contrast.

What the media companies have been trying to do through legislation is make it illegal to rip a cd, and they've done a great job of shutting down the people who found ways to copy DVDs.

Saying "Well you can copy it to tape / VHS so your argument is silly" is a bit of a misnomer. The quality issues and the technological hoops you have to go through are not to be underestimated.

We need to do something now!

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest a captive breeding program or at least freezing some sperm and eggs until we can get one started.

Slashdotted

[Mr_Silver]

Since the site is dead, you can read a transcript of the site anonymously posted to Slashdot the last tine we killed the server.

Re:Slashdotted

[wild_berry]

You mean that their server isn't on the list? Surely they'll fix that by the next time this dupes here.

Is it possible...

[JawzX]

That other "nerd news" organizations use slashdot as a source, somone sees the new somewhere else after missing the original slashdot post and then re-submits it to slashdot a couple weeks later?

Still, dupes are far too common here and somone needs a good switch kick in the memory.

This may be a dupe, but....

[GillBates0]

To everybody pointing out that this is a dupe:

This may be a dupe (the earlier article is still fresh in my memory), but the BBC article is from today (Feb 18).

At the very least, it's good to see that the mainstream news media has gotten wind of the article and is echoing EFF's concerns. Most of the articles in the Google News search seem to be recent (Jan/Feb 2005).

I don't mind these kinds of dupes, because Slashdot (being the techie kind of website that it is) is likely to report such articles before other generic news sites, and that is how it should be. But it doesn't hurt to post the article again once the major news media reports it.

Ofcourse, if the editors don't add something like "this was posted earlier, and now everybody's talking about it", it does seem like the dupe was not posted with this kind of intention.

Re:This may be a dupe, but....

[mesach]

Just because someone reads slashdot discovers something and then reprints an article slashdot already covered, does that make it ok to post it again?

Re:This may be a dupe, but....

[enrico_suave]

The even covered this topic on the television program that only vaguely resembles the screen savers, and since TSS seems to get all it's news from /., we should expect a dupe on TSS later this afternoon =P Which may lead somehow to ANOTHER BBC article and re-re-re-dupe on /.

This may never end.

Re:This may be a dupe, but....

[geoffspear]

Yes. We should all write blog entries about the BBC story, and then submit Slashdot stories about our individual blog entries. They won't be dupes of this story, because it's about the BBC article, not the blog entries themselves or the original piece on EFF's site.

And then some metablogger can write about all the interest this story is generating on blogs, and someone can submit a slashdot story about that, too.

Just add water

[88NoSoup4U88]

If you dealing with endangered Gizmos, just pour some water onto them : But for God's sake, don't feed 'em after midnight !

[/Obscure Gremlins reference] ;)

Re:Just add water

[Anonymous Coward]

Blatant ripoff.

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137572&c id =11503045

Re:Just add water

[natron 2.0]

sheesh! you cant even come up with your own witty comments!

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137572&cid =11503045

now we have comment dupes too!!!

Re:Just add water

[88NoSoup4U88]

I can't help it the first thought on 'endangered Gizmos' is good ol' big-eyed Gizmo ;

Good to see people are even checking if we are individuals nowadays...

Re:Just add water

[Daagar]

I feel very old if people today consider that an "obscure" reference :(

Re:Just add water

[Anonymous Coward]

In Korea, only old people have Gizmos

Re:Just add water

[Anonymous Coward]

If he'd pasted word for word it would be a dupe ;) as it stands it's just blantant karma whoring ;)

Just tell me one thing:

[killmenow]

Is BSD on the list?

Dupes...

[GonerDoug]

Why don't we just get the ability to MOD top-level articles like this as DUPE? Seems like it'd save a lot of time...

DRM is coming to everything

[Jjeff1]

I watched my dad sit at his PC trying to get his "free" song he won from a little contest a Burger King. The only thing that stopped him from loading his PC up with whatever DRM locked media player was the annoyance of having to register when trying to download the player.

My explanation of how the DRM locked tune would only work on his one PC and he could never play it anyplace else was all but pointless. He didn't understand, and didn't care. He just wanted a free song.

It's not the DRM that most users care about, they care about being annoyed by the DRM. Once the companies figure out how to put DRM onto PCs without pissing anyone off, it will be all over.

Re:DRM is coming to everything

[gr8_phk]

You can't make DRM that does what **AA want and not piss people off.

Re:DRM is coming to everything

[TheRaven64]

Putting DRM into things in a way that doesn't piss everyone off is not possible. For DRM to not piss people off, it has to not prevent them from doing anything that they try to do. If DRM doesn't prevent people from doing anything, then you may as well not use it.

Re:DRM is coming to everything

[Jjeff1]

If the web site popped up a little ActiveX installer with simple instructions to "Click Yes to Enable Burger-King Music!!", then it would be installed.

Done. PC now contains DRM player. Probably whatever stuff microsoft or real is churning out.

Later on, if Dad actually tries to buy music, he'll put in his credit card and billing info just like any other on-line purchase.

It's only when its time for an upgrade or his PC crashes that he'll encounter the restrictions in DRM, at which point it's too late.

I expect DRM features to be placed on PCs in the same ways we have spyware on old machines and pre-loaded AOL on new ones, on the sly.

Re:DRM is coming to everything

[Mournblade]

"Once the companies figure out how to put DRM onto PCs without pissing anyone off, it will be all over."

Already done. It's called FairPlay.

Re:DRM is coming to everything

[Tobias Luetke]

Its not the DRM that most users care about, they care about being annoyed by the DRM. Once the companies figure out how to put DRM onto PCs without pissing anyone off, it will be all over.

Hence apples success.

Thanks for sharing your insightÄ

Wha Happen?? EFF Under Quota?

[RobotRunAmok]

I've long had suspicions, but this confirms it: The EFF pays slashdot for all the promotion they get here.

I'm guessing this dupe was due to the fact that the weekly quota of EFF stories was not met as of Friday, Noon, Central Time, so some script in the slashcode kicks in and re-posts an EFF story from days past. (Advertiser charge-backs being a bitch, and all that)

Am I right, or am I right?

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

just to spite him

Endangered sites

[Pionar]

I hope the EFF site is on that list, because it's not just endagnered, it appears to be a victim of mass extinction caused by a slashdotterite.

Dazed and confused

[SiliconEntity]

This is really stupid. Firewire drives and CD burners are not endangered. Likewise D/A and A/D converter chips.

It's misleading and confusing to include these in the classification with technologies like Morpheus, which looks to be heading towards a loss in court with the recent admissions that it tracked individual downloads, and HDTV tuner boards which are already scheduled to be phased out this year due to the broadcast flag rules.

Re:Dazed and confused

[Anonymous Coward]

it is just typical EFF scare tactics to get more people on thier side and donate to them...

Re:Dazed and confused

[Anita Coney]

Are you kidding?! The movie industry tried to get the VCR banned, but it failed. Do you really think the RIAA or the BSA wouldn't have tried the same against CD burners?

I do admit that firewire drives are a stretch, but since you can use them to copy copyrighted materials, you know the copyright industry would love to ban them.

Re:Dazed and confused

[linuxtelephony]

Those devices may not be directly in the sights, but they could become victims of collateral damage.

Right now the analog output is a way around virtually any restriction on digital items. Once the analog outputs are eliminated, or greatly hindered, then the digital control would be virtually complete.

Perhaps the D/A items won't become totally illegal, but they could be greatly restricted until the ordinary citizen would (could) be outlawed for having such a device, as it could be considered a DRM circumvention device.

I think that's the point EFF is trying to make.

Re:Dazed and confused

[Pig Hogger]

This is really stupid. Firewire drives and CD burners are not endangered. Likewise D/A and A/D converter chips.

Don't you think that the "content" "industry" wouldn't dearly want to see them banned to the public? Only available to a few handpicked minions???

Re:Dazed and confused

[elecngnr]

I have to agree that I cannot see these items being made illegal. They are simply too ubiquitous now and they have, like the VCR, legitimate uses. I vaguely remember the ruling on the VCR suit came down to legitimate uses. If the government starting outlawing items that are clear legitimate use items, we would be in trouble. (i.e. Next on the EFF list, the automobile) I think it is fairly obvious that all of the items you mention above do have legitimate uses. And there is really no way that A/D and D/A chips are going anywhere. In fact, most decent microcontrollers have the A/D built-in because of the benefits of digital signals. More and more we are seeing typically analog devices using digital signalling. I do not think the RIAA and similar organizations have that much power.

Re:Dazed and confused

[travisco_nabisco]

Just think, if the RIAA got A/D and D/A chips banned they would no longer be able to view internet logs, because without these chips computers would not exist. No more random cases against dead people or 85 year old grandmas.

Re:Dazed and confused

[fcrick]

_Kazaa_ recently admitted to tracking individual downloads. Morpheus had nothing to do with this.

Re:Dazed and confused

[Zone-MR]

Perhaps the D/A items won't become totally illegal, but they could be greatly restricted until the ordinary citizen would (could) be outlawed for having such a device.

All it takes is a ladder of precision resistors and an op-amp to make a relatively good DAC. I don't see how a restriction on DACs could possibly be enforced.

Shit, I shouldn't have suggested that. Now resistors will be outlawed.

Re:Dazed and confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Free ipod, anyone? *speaking of firewire HDs* *ducks for cover*

Re:Dazed and confused

[Anonymous Coward]

you could have an All digital computer... but it couldn't have sound except via a piezio speaker and it's display would have to be LCD, and it couldn't have a hard drive, or an optical storage drive.. but it could use flash memory, and ram.... I'm pretty sure it couldn't have internet access, because I'm pretty sure current generation fiber optics use D/A conversion somewhere in the technology... oh, and it couldn't have a power supply brick either, because A/C is an analog signal and thus a power inverter could be used as a D/A converter... you could maybe use batteries, since thier power should be clean enough to lack any type of analog signal noise... but that's a pretty tough standard to fill no D/A conversion oh, and the PC itself would have to have a white noise ratio of 0. which is impossible, because otherwise it's broadcasting analog radio signals... so yeah banning all D/A A/D conversion would be a bitch... I'm pretty sure all modern electronic devices from an appliance like a refrigerator to an electronic xylophone would have to be banned.

Not everyone saw the article the first time

[jim_v2000]

Some of us weren't here the first time it was posted. I haven't seen it before, and find it very interesting. Thank you very much.

If you don't want to read dupes, don't read them! :)

Re:Not everyone saw the article the first time

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, then let's just have them post this article EVERY HOUR! Someone might miss it otherwise.

If what you miss on Slashdot is important, then go back and READ THE DAYS YOU MISS.

Re:Not everyone saw the article the first time

[Baricom]

Hey, then let's just have them post this article EVERY HOUR! Someone might miss it otherwise.

Clever! We could call it "Slashdot Headline News."

(With apologies to CNN, Time Warner, and any other companies in between...)

Priceless

[eno2001]

It is my belief that eff is a place where defunked professors of law go...

So... do you mean that they smell less bad or something? I think the word you wanted was "defunct" as in obsolete or in Unix parlance: "deprecated". Hehehe "defunked". That's just too good. ;p

Re:Priceless

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, no - "defunked" means somebody swiped their Parliament/Funkadelic albums. Call the Mothership!!!

Re:Priceless

[Muad'Dave]

This defilement of the English language only underscores my advice to all: Do not use a word, either spoken or written, until you've seen it used properly in a sentence.

One of my favorites: "walla" instead of "voila".

Re:Priceless

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, those guys out in Walla Walla, Washington are a disgrace.

Re:Priceless

[Anonymous Coward]

One of my favorites: "walla" instead of "voila".

i was born and raised in voila voila, wa.

Re:Priceless

[Anonymous Coward]

I think s/he means that the RIAA took away their illegal copies of the works of George Clinton and the Parliment Funkadelic.

Even More Slashcode Speculation

[RobotRunAmok]

They got pudge working on sump'n like this, even as I type:

IF [article_title] contains EFF and [user_name] = "RobotRunAmok" THEN MODIFY (Message_Score) = "-1 Flamebait"

Re:Even More Slashcode Speculation

[mmkkbb]

just like slashcode has a line that says

if ($username eq "Signal_11")
{
&StartFucking();
}

Among the endangered gizmos

[FusionDragon2099]

The EFF's server: currently slashdotted.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

it was funny the first time it was posted. Now it's -1 redundant. Just as this is -1 Flamebait

near as i can tell

[Anonymous Coward]

we are moving back towards feudalism, although the fedualist pushers don't call themselves "royal".

The new "technofeudalists" are the huge transnational corporations, who are increasingly controlling the "laws" in various nations, overtly (open lobbying, trade associations,pushing "free trade" instead of "fair trade", etc) or covertly (bribing and blackmailing their boys into power in the "legitimate" governments, copting journalists to push propoganda, etc, etc). And it's very hard to control them, because corporations act as a group of people as to profits, but the responsibilities that a normal human person might have are not conclusive or extensive enough, witness time after time corporation-x gets busted for this or that. Usually it results in a fine, said fine monies then being pushed off onto the ultimate customers to pay. The corps themselves are rarely if ever actually busted up entirely, no matter how many times their officers/managers whatever get caught in illegal acts. And to make it worse, even if that happens, they can just "go bankrupt" and most of the same people involved can just go start up another string of corporations under new corporate person names and controlling addresses.

Corporations are very similar to the old concept of "royal bloodlines" in that regard, they persist generation after generation, with the twist they can just morph away and reform, to go on and continue with unethical or illegal practices. You can't really kill them off or revolt against them,like you could with some royal feudalist gang of rank "bluebloods" in ye olden days, not in any practical sense anyway and stay inside technological civilisation.

Re:near as i can tell

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, a meta-dupe!

Long line of extinct gizmos

[davidwr]

Lobbying groups have, for good or evil, led to many items being banned or pulled off the market.

"Real" Coca-Cola with real cocaine.
Carbon Tetracloride.
R-12 auto refrigerant.
Cars without modern emissions and safety systems.
Children's jackets with drawstrings.
50-70MHz FM radios.
TVs that can receive above channel 67.
Styrofoam burger boxes at McDonalds.
Many drugs and food additives.
ScotchGuard.

The list goes on and on.

The major difference now is that unlike the above, distrubiting the blueprints (source code) to make certain computer programs can land you in court for DMCA violations if you live in the wrong country, while nobody cares if you post instructions on how to manufacture Carbon Tetrachloride on your web site.

Re:Long line of extinct gizmos

[utexaspunk]

nobody cares if you post instructions on how to manufacture Carbon Tetrachloride on your web site

I got in big trouble for that, you insensitive clod!

Re:Long line of extinct gizmos

[FencingGerbil]

Lawn Jarts!

Re:Long line of extinct gizmos

[jb.hl.com]

ScotchGard wasn't lobbied out, IIRC. 3M removed it of their own free will when they found it was being found in humans, even though no negative consequences had been reported.

Re:Long line of extinct gizmos

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember those! They were awesome.

Re:Long line of extinct gizmos

[ikegami]

I beg to differ. You can post intructions (flow chars, pseudocode) on your website to make a certain computer program. You can even post the program yourself (in source code or binary format), as long as you wrote it yourself.

That's no different than your Carbon Tetrachloride example. You can make your own Carbon Tetrachloride, but you can't take some from someone else's warehouse.

Of course, you could ripost with the "copying programs is not stealing" argument, which I won't get into.

Re:Long line of extinct gizmos

[MSZ]

Sure. Then they get you for "trafficking" in "circumvention devices".

While many activities corporations speak agains are legal, not everyone has the money to defend in courts. They are scaring us into submission :-(

Re:Long line of extinct gizmos

[ikegami]

Not at all. Many open source projects are recreation of closed source, copyrighted software. Samba and WINE come to mind instantly.

Re:Long line of extinct gizmos

[runderwo]

Are you dense? He referred to patents and the DMCA. A program that uses a patented idea, even if it was discovered independently of the patent, cannot be legally distributed without the patent holder's permission. And with a program that circumvents the CSS protection on DVDs in order to play a DVD on Linux, you are trafficking in a "circumvention device" as defined by the DMCA and you can't legally distribute this either. Neither of these has anything to do with the self-created software recreating some closed-source proprietary software.

Re:Long line of extinct gizmos

[Anonymous Coward]

TVs that can receive above channel 67.
my tv made real good in korean sweat shop, it get 125 channel, and have no filter on it's reception, but it require firmware hack to recieve past channel 67 of broadcast signal.

Re:Long line of extinct gizmos

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand -- what's at those frequencies? (788 MHz ?)

I've got an old TV that will go that high...

Not invented yet

[gr8_phk]

It's interesting to look at what things are being eliminated. But there's no way to catalog all the innovation that will not happen in the future because of this. Oh, and listing Napster is just plain stupid IMHO.

Re:Not invented yet

[ThosLives]

It is indeed interesting to see what is on the list. Of the things on the list, only a couple really struck me as being important.

The first are the A/D and D/A converters. This is bad, because these devices are actually used in things well beyond the scope of music. Think your cars, think thermometers, think anything that requires a sensor and a computer. It's a sad day when people want to keep people from using tools because 'the tools might be used for something illegal'! This argument doens't fly with "physical" tools like an axe, screwdriver, or hammer, so why should it be made to apply to electronic tools? (We'd probably have a revolution if you had to be 'licensed' to manufacture or purchase a hammer!)

Well, actually, the DACs and ADCs were the only thing that piqued my interest. The argument I had about the 'regulate the use, not the tool' also applies to things like Napster and Morpheus, I suppose; but it doesn't apply to things like Betamax (the format - it would apply to "a tool used for recording stuff").

EFF rips off Bambi Meets Godzilla

[Anonymous Coward]

The Endangered Gizmos video on the EFF home page appears to have an exact copy of the image of Godzilla's foot from the classic "Bambi Meets Godzilla" (see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064064/.) Doesn't the EFF respected intellectual property rights? And don't they know that Godzilla is not classified as a dinosaur?

YES!!!! KARMA IS MINE!!!!

[bgarcia]

I just have to cut & paste all of the +5 comments from the last time this topic was posted! YES!!!

READ THE CAPTION -

[Anonymous Coward]

It says they are under the threat from the proposed INDUCE Act.

D/A and A/D are under the requirement to be able to identify the "protected" content.

Which is not possible since these devices cannot hold enough data to know WHAT is being converted.

Since it is not possible, those idiots want the devices outlawed.

Unacceptable solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should he have to change distors to get his hardware to work.

That is totally unacceptable.

Re:Unacceptable solution

[enrico_suave]

" Why should he have to change distors to get his hardware to work.

That is totally unacceptable."

I'll feed a troll... he was stating "Little did I know it really don't WORK unless you are a freaking linux genius"

He doesn't have to change distro's, i'm sure most distro's will work, but if you want the *easy* guided way to install linux and the myriad of mythTV dependencies there's a bootable distro tailored to just this purpose. No need to recompile the wheel, eh?

When you are done trolling, go build and release a custom live CD tailored to MythTV and include the pvr250 ivtv drivers and pc-hd3000 drivers with a guided install on the distro of YOUR choice mr. unnacceptable!

e.

Re:Unacceptable solution

[Anonymous Coward]

My post was far from a troll.

It is a very valid concern. Say he has a box all set up and configured the way he wants. Now you are saying that if he buys this card then sorry, there is no easy way to configure it and he should instead install some other distro to get it to work. Where is the ease of use in that, where is the Linux for that masses in that.

You don't find this unacceptable.

Linux was great when it was young. I remember my first .9? Slackware release. Now it is getting far to specialized. I don't want to be told to install distro X so I can do function Y. I want function Y to be easily accessible and configurable to me regardless of the Distro I run.

Reasonable Profit?

[bkruiser]

Is there anything out there where one could claim reasonable profit on a produced item? Once that copywritten material has produced 300000x the cost to produce it becomes public domain? That would be in the public interest! It would promote more material and provide for the classic material to be shared by all, just like it has been for thousands of years.

Endangered gizmos...

[Faw]

... the EFF web server?

Re:YES!!!! KARMA IS MINE!!!!

[nadadogg]

I'll start you off with a classic.

LOL m$(see what I did there) suxx! gnu/linux 4 lyfe!

Dupe Jokes for Dupe Posts!

[Mars Ultor]

That joke really made me laugh - first time I read it

In other news...

[loshwomp]

The Slashdot dupes list is alive and well.

Ahhh yes...

[eno2001]

...The Awesome Power of a Fully Operational Mothership. Summer Swim anyone?

Off topic?

[charlie763]

This is probably a bit off topic, but it's been bothering me and I would like to see what others think.

For broadcasts like satellite radio and television how can it possibly be illegal to intercept them and view their contents? I feel that if you don't want me to view your satellite feed, keep your electromagnetic radiation out of my back yard.

Re:Off topic?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a public good associated with the use of the public airwaves, which you do not own - it is a "commons" that all citizens own (in the US, anyway). The public good is dictated by legislators, elected by the public with the help of campaign funds from the broadcasting... oops, never mind.

Re:Off topic?

[doyle.jack]

I've always said the same thing about cable tv. They go on TV and claim that if you're not paying for it, it's theft. Well, if you don't want me watching it, don't put your cables in my house carrying the signal. IMHO, whatever is in my house is mine.

A new HDTV species!

[Saeger]

This July, when DRM-free HDTV tuners becomes extinct, I hear that in China there will be born a new mutant species of HDTV tuner that somehow ignores the broadcast flag. My friend Al says he's all set to begin importing them too (but don't ask where he hides 'em). :-)

Endangered Gizmos Event in SF

[elemental23]

The EFF's BayFF is having a related event next Tuesday in San Francisco. I'm planning on being there.

EFF Celebrates Innovation at BayFF!
Check Out the Latest Gadgets and Hang Out with EFF at Our February BayFF

WHEN
Tuesday, February 22nd, 2005
7:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.

WHAT
Inventive Gizmos - A Celebration of Innovation

Innovation. We love it.
The upcoming BayFF is a celebration of all the technological wonders we've been able to enjoy thanks to the legal shield provided by the 1984 Sony Betamax ruling. Come check out cool new gizmos from local tech companies Elgato, Slim Devices, and Sling Media. EFF attorneys and tech gurus will talk about how you can help protect the pro-innovation environment that allows gadgets like these to flourish.

WHO
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Elgato - elgato.com
Slim Devices - slimdevices.com
Slingmedia - slingmedia.com

WHERE
111 Minna Gallery
111 Minna Street
San Francisco, CA
94105
415.974.1719
(map)

This event is free and open to the general public. You must be 21+. Refreshments will be served.

BSD reports...

[PornMaster]

Netcraft is dying.

Music copying has been around for DECADES

[Peteski_BC]

Hey folks, we have all been able to copy Intellectual Property for decades and decades. Remeber the tape recorder?. It did exactly the same thing as CD copying now. Remeber the digital audio tape recorder (DAT)?. Everyone in the music industry was completely freaking out, going mental and trying to ban the evil devices. That actually worked. You don't see DAT machines in most peoples homes do you?. Every recording studio in the world however uses them. So, copying music is not new. Cassette decks did that in the 70's, reel-to-reel tape machines did it in the 50's. The only thing that has really changed is the ability to easily distribute copied I.P. such as music. Distributing free or pirated casettes by mailing them all over the place would be a pain the butt, so nobody did it. It's very easy however to email an MP3 to someone, so everyone does it. By the way, I am both a musician and a programmer. I have an album coming up for release and yes I do worry about how many people will be playing my CD without me seeing a single penny from it. Dude, if artists can't generate income from their crafts, there won't be many good recordings coming around. Recording an album is a VERY time consuming and expensive proposition. Not many musicians will be willing to do it for free or at a loss. So if everyone expects, demands and is eventually provided with totally free MP3 music sharing, how on earth can the people who MADE the music manage to keep doing it? If you wrote a computer game, taking hundreds of thousands of dollars and months of your time, would you be OK with people just playing it for 'free' while you worry about how to pay the banks back? There has to be a solution for this, but the end result can only be that people must pay.

Re:Music copying has been around for DECADES

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, if artists can't generate income from their crafts, there won't be many good recordings coming around.

I think the quality of music would get much better, considering real artists create art for the sake of creating it, because it's something inside them that they have to get out. We wouldn't see any more pop acts like the Backstreet Boys and Ashley Simpson because those popsters are manufactured expressly and exclusively to turn a profit for recording companies. To true artists, profiting from their art it is secondary notion, if it exists at all.

Remember, people were creating music, books, plays, sculpture, etc. long before the notion of copyright ever existed, and will continue to do so long after copyright is gone.

Re:Music copying has been around for DECADES

[Peteski_BC]

Well, I agree with you that the world certainly doesn't need more 'Boy Bands' or teenager schlock like Ashley Simpson. But if musicians don't get a cent for the music they make due to MP3 file sharing, I disagree that it will get better. How can an artist be an artist unless they can afford to do it?. For example, you can't record and album, master it and produce it without cash. Same thing for films. I think you don't need kazillions to do these things (unless you are Metallica), but you do need some way to pay your way, otherwise you simply cannot execute. "To true artists, profiting from their art it is secondary notion, if it exists at all" I agree with this 100%. The only problem is you would never hear it or see it since it could never be made into a record.

Re:Music copying has been around for DECADES

[Yaa 101]

I still think that artists, like anybody else needs to perform for each reward and not let the copier make the money.

See? you can define easy copyable two ways.

I write software as part of my trade, I get paid for my performance, namely giving service, not for my great ability to copy my software.

I wouldn't have it any other way, I don't wan't to get this lazy fuck that think because he had some idea that this idea is rewarded for the rest of his/her life...

Wake up, when you want money then start to work for it.

Re:Music copying has been around for DECADES

[Anonymous Coward]

How can an artist be an artist unless they can afford to do it?.

You're still missing my point. Artists will be artists because it is who they are; creating their art is the very reason for their existance. They will create their art in spite of profiting from it. I disagree that we'd never hear them on record or see their movies. There are plently of small/independant record lables out there producing really great stuff, and have been doing it for quite a long time. The punk movement of the 1970s and the hardcore stuff of the 1980s come to mind. Films like Martin Scorcese's "Mean Streets", "Repo Man", "Do The Right Thing" and "Napoleon Dynamite" were all made on shoestring budgets. They all received wide acclaim and viewership.

If the blockbuster/garbage/utter crap movies that are made for no reason other than to make a huge profit are no longer made because movie companies can't make a profit on them anymore, something will take their place. And I think that something will be well-made, well-written small independant movies that will get their "buzz" from the internet and be distributed via bittorrent. Remember "Blair Witch Project"?

Re:Music copying has been around for DECADES

[doyle.jack]

Maybe you shouldn't be a musician if you think that it's not financially viable.

What if I were to go into business selling ice to eskimos. Well, it's pretty stupid considering the eskimos aren't willing to pay for ice.

If you're convinced that people aren't willing to pay for your music, then you should do something more worthwhile with your time.

If you think that enough people are willing to pay for it that it makes it worth your while, then go for it. Otherwise, it's a bad business decision to do that for a living.

Re:Music copying has been around for DECADES

[Peteski_BC]

I totally agree with you about your comment re: blockbuster/garbage/utter crap movies and crap music like B. Spears, Whitney Houston , Shania Twain etc. Those movies and albums are made for the sole purpose of making money and nothing else. Interesting - your comments on examples like "repo man" (one of my favorite films ever). Yes, no doubt - the indie film makers are making the best films in the world, at a fraction of what it cost to make Titanic ($100mil) and Riddick ($200mil). This is because an independent project leaves the creative control to the artists (directors, writers, actors) and not to the pin head studio execs who are always trying to make crap sequels to films that were crap in the first place. Hence, the creative vision can have follow-through and integrity. However, those indie films still cost a lot of money to make. Not a hundred mil, but Repo Man still cost over a million dollars to make. Blair Witch something like $100K. Those movies got made because someone invested money into what they thought was an inspired creative process, and took the leap of faith that they would get revenues from it to - at bare minimum - offset the cost. Don't be fooled into thinking that people will make movies like "Repo Man" if there is no way to make some money with it, or at least break even. There is absolutely NO way that those films would never have been made if there was no way the costs to make them could possibly be recouped. Who would want to invest money (i.e. the executive producers) into a film project that was going to be given away for free?. Would you do it?. So yes, artists will always create art because they are compelled to do it. Without a revenue stream however, many of those artists cannot execute what might be their grand vision. However I find the attitude that artists should not be able to make a living at it simply bizarre. Why shouldn't an artist be able to be rewarded financially so they can work full time at their craft?. Why should a creative computer programmer be rewarded, but a creative musician or film maker not?. Why do you expect someone to put thousands of hours and thousands of dollars into a film or album, so you can enjoy it for free?. You don't expect the latest X box game to be free do you?. So what is the difference between that and a killer-great album or film? Sorry, I just don't agree that art is without value. I think that artists deserve to be rewarded, and I think it is essential that a mechanism exists whereby the creators can derive benefit from those who use the work they have created. I think that paying for the music you listen to, or the film you watch is absolutely essential for the process of film making or record making to exist. Anyway, my 2 cents for the day. Rant complete. . . .

Forgive me for laughing at you

[Anonymous Coward]

but this is an exact copy of a +5 comment in the previous thread.

You guys fall for anything.

Blue box?

[nacturation]

What about all those phreaking tools such as the blue box, black box, [insert pretty much any color you can think of here] box? Those are essentially hacker tools which are now extinct and endangered only in countries with primitive telcos. Much in the same way that Napster 1.0 allowed you to use music which you wouldn't otherwise pay for, the various phreaking boxes allowed you to place long distance calls which you wouldn't have otherwise paid for.

I keep telling my Wife about the PVR Cards...

[CygnusXII]

I keep pointing out to my wife about the broadcast flags, and HDTV and the PVR Card/ Device issues. All she hears is.. Blah..Blahh..Blah..Buy Card/ Device.. Blah..Blah.. July deadline....Spend..Spend..Spend. Damn Patriot Act, DMCA (insert offending legislation here.)

Creates/Compiles

[HAInnis]

Anyone who codes knows there's a difference between 'creating' and 'compiling', which is something different again from running without errors. :)

It's not saving one "species" of gizmo

[feepcreature]

The "saved" section is much better news than the saving of one "species" of gizmo. That court case set a precedent that saved a whole family (or maybe even genus or phylum?) of gizmos.

For example when the court ruled that "Species: Sony Betamax" was protected because of substantial non-infringing use, that protected all video recorders (even those funny VHS ones) - and maybe a wider range of devices too.

OMG! ENDANGERED ?!?!?

[hanshotfirst]

Quick! Something is endangered! Protect it! Lets make lawyering illegal so Napster 1.0 can survive! Lets form a commission to study the effects on the world without HDTV tuner cards to provide visual entertainment to the disenfranchised masses who only have a PC and no HDTV console. Preserve the card's native habitat... legislate that all hardware currently with HDTV tuners installed can never be powered off and must have govt-supplied UPS systems!

Stifling Innovation

[Fragglebabe]

A few hundred years ago, no-one knew what the atom looked like, or what gravity was, or if it was possible to make an object fly. However, a few brilliant people were able to look at the accepted view of the world and throw it out of the window. Without them would we not have computers or motorised transportation, or tv, or any of the many things that we take for granted in today's world. If all of those scientists had given up when their discoveries were rejected by their peers, then we would not be where we are today.

Now it looks like a few badly worded laws are going to stifle the innovation of today. There are so many wonderful projects and ideas that never get off the ground due to lack of funds, what are we to do if the ones that do get enough funding are stopped from reaching the public through these laws?

This list really highlights the fact that these laws touch a wide range of issues, including the innovation of new technology if it brushes up against copyright issues. It is a sad day that we need such a list, but I am pleased that the issues arising from the copyright laws are being raised for us all to see.

Ugh! I hate the term "intellectual property"

[Diablerie]

Music, video, and other entertainment content is *not* intellectual property. Trade secrets, manufacturing methods, software - that's IP. But music in specific is undergoing a transformation. Content control is not natural in the broad scope - it's an artificial control mechanism put in place to generate revenue.

The term "intellectual property" is terribly imprecise.

Manufacturing methods are covered by patent law. Software is covered by copyright. Trade secrets have their own rules. All of these laws are completely different.

Lumping them all under "intellectual property" just causes confusion. It makes it sound like the same laws apply to all of the above, which is not the case.

Betamax

[angle_slam]

They listed Betamax under the saved list. They must have done a good job saving Betamax because I see them all over the place.

Re:Betamax

[codemachine]

Well it was saved from being outlawed, which is what allowed the VCR to flourish. Though the court ruling that allowed Betamax to be legal didn't exactly save Betamax in the marketplace.

DACs and ADCs

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't outlaw DACs and ADCs. Just about every embedded micro out there has a built-in ADC. It's a fundamental component and adding DRM to it would be like turning a bicycle into an SUV. On the other end, a DAC can be made from a handful of resistors - and can then be used to make an ADC. Resistors - we're talking about components that are in every electronic device on earth and are purchased for about $.002 in quantity.

They will not make such low level components illegal and fighting to do so just shows their ignorance.

And ya, I didn't see much of value on the list. It almost makes it look like the list of stuff being banned is only a little too broad. DVD rippers and "file sharing" software are exactly what they want to stop and should not be on there.

Nightly News is Betamax

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever watched the nightly news?
Betamax.
We've been using it all along, because it is a better format(TM).
Now don't you feel silly? :-)

Insightful

[davidwr]

Thank you, I stand corrected.

not true - patents and DMCA cloud the issues

[davidwr]

If I post code and someone thinks it violates his patent or someone thinks they have a DMCA issue, it can tie me up in court and unless someone wants to pay my lawyer, I'm likely to cave.

Remember the whole DeCSS mess? It could've gone the other way.

Yeah, they were cool

[davidwr]

Unfortunately they didn't ship with hardhats and other essential protection.

Part of the master plan

[Inebrius]

I remember about 10 years back talking to one of the managers for Sony about changes we would see in the future. At the time, he predicted that we would move from an ownership society to a rent and lease society.

Look at things now - think about all the things you pay a monthly subscription for. DRM locks or at least partially disables your ability to make use of content in a way you see fit. You now have to ask permission in order to access things - or have to buy add on products from the authorized supplier. Look at print cartridges (luckily the SCOTUS ruled correctly on this), ITunes, WindowsXP, etc. Everything is licensed and we have less and less control.

Even Apple showed that they could change the way content you already purchased functions.

Further down the line, we may not even purchase programs - they may exist on servers that we have access to, where you pay a monthly fee for the right to use.

The **AA industry has shown that it can force the public to adopt technology that does not necessarily benefit consumers - like not being able to fast forward through a commercial on a DVD.

With enough controls transferred to corporations by law, and consumer level gadgets outawed, corporations can move on to the next frontier - discriminatory pricing. We've already seen a few first attempts at this with regional coding on DVDs. Sure there are workarounds - but the industry keeps getting better at schemes to lock the consumer in.

So this really is a big deal - why should content creators have sway over the law at the expense of consumers and the free market?

Slashdotting, the gift that keeps on giving...

[Anonymous Coward]

and giving, and giving... you'd think with us having slashdotted them 3 times in the past 40 days they might have Upgraded the server/bandwith? Oh wait they're not ad supported doh!

one danger is that Big Media will gain control

[jonwil]

For example, what the media companies might do is build a requirement into the next generation of media formats (whatever they are) that all content be protected and that if you want to produce a player (and have access to the encryption specs) you need to enforce this in your player. Build it around some kind of public key cryptosystem so that even if it is "cracked", that doesnt allow you to make new content for the system.
And make it so that Big Media holds all the keys.

The sheeple consumers will accept this since they wont even know its there, all they know is that they can now get even better quality out of their expensive home theater systems with these new "High Definition" DVD players and DVDs.

That is why the internet is such a threat to "Big Media" because anyone with a PC, CD Burner and a miminal amount of recording gear (and some kind of abillity) can record songs on to their computer, burn them onto a CD with the CD burner and distribute the songs in formats like MP3 over the internet.

Its not about stopping "piracy", its about "control".

Only old North Koreans watch channel 68

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory North Korea post. -1.