Slashdot Mirror
Vista a Threat to Internet Freedom?
BBC columnist Bill Thompson warns readers that new DRM technology, especially that found in Vista, is damaging the freedoms that the internet was based on. "The freedom of expression that was once available to users of the Internet Protocol is being stripped away. Our freedom to play, experiment, share and seek inspiration from the creative works of others is increasingly restricted so that large companies can lock our culture down for their own profit. [...] governments and corporations around the world are making a concerted effort to dismantle the open internet and replace it with a regulated and regulable one that will allow them to impose an 'architecture of control.'"
vista is a threat to
o my job
o my life
o my sanify
o my wallet
o my security
Freedom and profit don't mix.
...there will always be people that fuck it up.
It's just a matter of how long it takes them to A. Figure out that it is good and B. to figure out how they want to fuck it up.
Living With a Nerd
Are they using this trick on TCP now? as far as I know their DRM only applies to rich enhanced Premium Content(tm) from the Big Five who are willing to pay their DRM licensing fees that exist only to stop 'amateurs' from experimenting with DRM
Then you'll have as much freedom as you can handle. Well, sort of.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Why is Vista a threat to our freedom? Because it's laden with DRM. Why is it laden with DRM? Because they feel pressure to use DRM so users can't spread media. Why do they feel this pressure? Because huge organizations full of lawyers threaten people everyday with lawsuits, they don't want to be a target of those lawsuits.
Now, I know that Vista will soon be the number one used operating system. Will it be Vista's fault that users are giving up their rights? Yes. Will it be Microsoft's fault for giving in to fears and not fighting for our rights? Yes, but no more so than the DRM that Apple puts on its iTMS. Will it be the RIAA/MPAA/other lawyer's faults for putting this fear into the corporate mentality of how to run a successful business? Most definitely.
Stop complaining about each piece of software that comes out with restricted rights attached to it and hit the root of the issue: legions of lawyers lobbying for unbelievable laws on copyrights and enough money to strong arm cases against any defendant.
The only part of this article worth pointing out (that I didn't really read) is that Microsoft is one of the few companies with the cash to fight back. But instead, they're selling the limitation of rights on their OS as a feature.
That's not a good analogy, nature is both beautiful and ugly. Natural trends are not always the best, for instance, what if I said that "the network tends towards liberal values just as a bull tends to rape any female cow next to him." Doesn't sound so enticing, does it? If you're going to use an analogy, please use one that sheds light or meaning on the situation. Your quote underneath your picture just sounds like you smoked enough dope to spew hippie peace love crap.
My work here is dung.
According to the thought experiment of The Tragedy of the Commons, any resource that is not owned will be misused. For the sake of our culture, we need to give it away to a large corporation that can care for it properly. It's the capitalist thing to do. You aren't a communist terrorist jihadist, are you?
If you aren't willing to give your culture away to a big company, then buy back whatever little pieces of it they want to dole out, then you hate capitalism, the free market, and America. Probably Mom and apple pie, too.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"Nothing to see here. Move along".
Scariest article to see that on 0_0
It is always about control; it always will be. Some love "creative destruction", most fear it. Just to throw out another quote, fear is indeed a mind-killer. It makes some think rude moon aliens are bombs, others that any freedom is a threat.
I hate to sound so negative, but someone show me where corporations and governments have actually colluded for more freedom, rather than less.
in my view, comes from DRM protected media, not an OS that supports DRM technology. Your mp3 and video collection doesn't magically become DRM protected the second you boot up Vista... This sounds like FUD to me. Now if we were talking about Zune, I could see a real point (as it does change your media).
Matt
You have 1 Moderator Point! Use it or lose it! Is that a threat? -vapid
... Because it's the MPAA and RIAA that imposed this DRM bulls**t on them. I'm not saying that they're blameless. What I am saying is they need the support of the music and movie industry to "embrace and extend."
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Every year of my 30 odd years on Earth has seen me given more access to information then the year before. I am not afraid of Bill, I have more friends then he does.
I remember the Daily Show did a really funny show on loaded questions.
Rubbish. Vista doesn't change anything having to do with the Internet Protocol. You move bits around. You move them around freely.
The question now is, what sort of bits do they want to sell you? It won't work to sell the same bits to two different people any more, because the freedom of the Internet is still just the same as it always was.
What's changing is the kind of bits they sell, and the software that they use to interpret those bits. That's an attempt to make money of the effort that they put into creating those bits.
Maybe it'll work. More likely not; somebody will always find a way to get something resembling the original form of the bits, and then people won't want the highly individualized version. I just haven't seen a good alternative yet. (And if you want to talk about live performances, reply only if you've ever tried to make a living booking venues for a band. I have. Start with an anecdote about how badly you were treated so I know you're not BSing me)
But if you want to say, "Hey, remember the good old days when I got all my music for free, and only suckers actually paid for it?", well, whatever. More power to you. Just don't expect the guys who make bits for a living to reminisce along with you.
We don't have Net Neutrality either, not when Operating Systems can pick what is permitted to run on it.
"Our freedom to play, experiment, share and seek inspiration from the creative works of others is increasingly restricted so that large companies can lock our culture down for their own profit"
Does this mean that MySpace won't be the eye sore that it is thanks to Vista?
Thanks Vista!
Would that be the Dastardly RawSockets Module?
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
If there's profit to be made, then such restrictions are inevitable. And if you're a stockholder (directly or through your 401(k) plan) of these companies, or of any of their downstream companies, you are implicitly counting on it.
If there's not room in the law for such restrictions, then room will be made via the purchase of political influence. It's a numbers game: profit = revenue - (licensing fees + production costs + lobbying costs)
Artists will largely accept this turn of events, because in their view, they've already spent more than enough years starving. Just watch how popular Gootube's click-profit-sharing plan becomes among the producers of original content.
This, then, will be the ultimate cultural revolution. When popularity can instantly stick a price tag onto cultural content, watch for a tide of new artists (now that art can finally be a bread-winning career) as well as an equal tide of consumers flowing towards still-free indy culture.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
I guess our freedoms were fundamentally restricted by CDs back when they were a pain to copy, or by books because I can't just "derive an experiment" whenever I feel like it. Whatever. The restrictions are in place because 99% of people can't resist the lure of free stuff. End of story.
No, it's only damaging to the ones that use it. The people who won't be using DRM won't be effected.
E-commerce... If you go back 10 years on the net, it was a wild and wooly place where people exchanged ideas, and software etc for nothing... or next to nothing (remember the comments that open source was communistic). Somewhere along the line more people started piling on the bandwagon leaving behind AOL, Prodigy, CompuServe et al and the business folk noticed. This lead to the .com boom and eventual bust and then, napster... which led to the first attempts at DRM. Now, everybody with a server wants to make a buck, and to protect that, one of the items in the toolbox is DRM. There are others, but if the intent for the studios is to deliver content to your computer and on to your TV, they want everybody and anybody involved to lock down the system to protect them from you and all your criminal buddies. Vista DRM is bad... sure so is Apple's DRM. Remember the claim that only pirates use linux...
They were wrong, and their parent publications were generally too stupid (or embarrassed) to archive their words on the Internet, so I don't have links for you...
And as for AOL/Compuserve... well, they hardly matter now.
My point is, the companies that try to exert greater control by giving their customers less control, the companies who spend as much effort making their products worse as making them better, do not always win. In fact, they quite often lose. It is largely up to us.
Now, cable companies and telcos tend to be an exception, because they basically have government-backed monopolies and there are so few that they can collude with each other. Even they are vulnerable in the long run, just not to market forces.
If Vista begins limiting freedom, then people will just move on to any of the other operating systems ,such as Linux or Mac, or continue using older versions of windows. That is the amazing thing about capitalism, the consumer has the power. If no one upgrades to Vista, M$ will get the message and be forced to lay off.
Klingon Software is not released, it escapes, inflicting terrible damage onto the enemy as it does
Well, I just have to point out that the article was written with way too much of a "hippie" tone for me. With comments like, "...the network tends towards liberal values just as a flower turns toward the sun"; it was hard to get the actual message across. I did find that there were some valid points being made, but I do think it is a bit of a stretch to say our freedoms on the internet are being taken away. There is a balance between security and freedoms that is at an acceptable level. Vista may be on a road to restrict some things in the name of security that might be a bit excessive; however, it is a long way off from taking away our freedoms.
I'm not a fan of Vista by any means, but I do believe in focusing on the real discrepancy, rather elevation it above where it needs to be. Vista is a very poor OS, but it's not evil.
"I only know 2 things: The love for me, and the fear of me."
When were music and movies ever free? Music, movies, games and apps are hardly something that you can consider a basic human right, so why does everyone keep pretending it is?
Don't want to pay? Get a different 'culture' or what people used to call hobbies.
It's apparent that he only mentions Vista because it's a popular topic right now. Without the references to Vista this is just another piece of pseudo tinfoil hat rubbish. Sure we need to keep the net as neutral and accessible as possible, but to claim that Vista will somehow impact that is just ridiculous. The DRM in Vista is actually a way to protect people's rights to the products they produce. People who download music or software without paying for it are arrogantly depriving the content producers of their right to prosper and what little DRM is actually implemented in Vista serves as an attempt to protect that freedom. Unfortunately some jackasses are so bent on not paying artists what they're due that they attempt to circumvent any protections available to artists. As a developer it sickens me that people would have so little respect for my work but so much need for it that they take it without giving me any sort of recompense for the time I've spent on it. Sure I enjoy programming, but enjoyment doesn't pay for food or housing.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Microsoft is Evil...
Microsoft are assholes
Microsoft is ruthless
Microsoft is anasshot
Microsoft is ...
Ok, gimme my mod points! What, I'm an AC?!? Fuck me!!!
Article is a TROLL
Slashdot is a TROLL withing the internet.
The Author is a TROLL
and YOU are a TROLL for Modding this '-1'
There is NO Freedom anymore
I WILL be suppressed!
Goddamn the MAN!
Who is he?
Look in the mirror ..including you: black folks, spanish folks, Indian (Casino Indians) folks, Irish (work'n on the railroads with tha Nigga's), Chinese folks (Yeah, you were there too! ), and me, just some stupid son-of-a-bitch white kid (Polish and German [jokes ARE welcome because I DON'T GET OFFENDED Because I'm not LOOKING for SOMETHING to GET offended about]) who's sick and tired of folks who are too lazy to change themselves but want to FORCE their belief system on others through law and guns.
All of you, get a life!
"...seek inspiration from the creative works of others..."
Is that what they call not paying what your favorite band is asking for their latest studio production these days? If the band just wants to inspire you, they can (and do) give it away. I'd like to be inspired with free subscriptions to the complete, hard work of the thousands of people that cause SciAm, the WSJ, the NYT, and others to exist, myself. Just for inspiration, mind you. No? Fascists! The MAN is controlling me!
If a filmaker wants you seek inspiration from her creative works, rather than pay for it as entertainment, she has all sorts of ways to make that work available without DRM, and without charging her audience. More likely, though, she hopes you will be inspired, but also that you'll actually pay what she's asking - so that she can eat, pay her production team, hire talent, invest in new projects, and inspire other creative people by doing things like giving them jobs with paychecks to work in the field, etc., rather than looking for a pirated copy of what she just spent three years and all of her investors' money making.
This notion that we're no longer in the good old days when a few nerdly saints had wide-reaching internet access and liberally swapped around material (read as, "physics white papers"), and that if we were all just sweet and nice, we could go back to those days... B.S.
You've got untold hundreds of millions of consumers (a microscopic fraction of which are inspiration-seeking creators) that don't see the 'net as The Glue Of Freedom, but as The Place Where I Don't Have To Pay For Things Cuz That's What My Friends Do And What Do You Mean Blank CDs Cost Money. Those that are looking to inspire and be inspired have all sorts of venues, and can and do swap their works with each other freely (AIB/S). Inspirers/ees aren't traveling in the same circles as the leeches.
Viacom telling YouTube to take down the stuff that Viacom produces and distributes isn't the same as The Man telling Professor Wonder-Visionary that he can't post video of himself standing in a bathtub reciting his Haiku for both of his fans/disciples. You can go to wonderful web sites like photo.net and see freely shared, posted, fantastic, inspiring work (complete with technical discussions!) that's there in exactly the spirit that the Beeb's guy says is going away. But you can't just go and run off with a copy of Annie Leibovitz's new collection of work because she's decided to earn money with it if the book is reviewed well enough to earn paying customers. If no one wants to pay what she's asking, then the book won't sell - but that doesn't make it reasonable to expect it to be therefore free if you just look hard enough for someone who's scanned it and put up on a web site someplace in the name of "internet freedom."
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Like it, hate it, buy it or dont, but its a fucking piece of SOFTWARE!
Someone wake me when Vista morphs out of its CD case into Godzilla, and proceeds to beat the crap out of someone until they put it in their computer and reboot?
Hell, a few weeks ago, we were reminded that water can KILL!
When do we start clamoring for laws against Oxygen-Hydrogen combining, or at least regulations preventing stupid people from drinking water without taking an instruction course?
Khaaaaaaaaaannnnnnn, Bitches!!!
That's irritating, but not as irritating that those who have contributed nothing towards the creation of culture think it's theirs.
While there are ISPs and Telecom. Companies who want to sell DSL or cable Internet access, illegal downloads will not be (massively) prosecuted. For the same reason as hardware manufacturers never minded (and keep not minding) about controlling software piracy.
I am confident on the power of money to keep your freedom.
...as soon as profit becomes the motivation in ANY area of life, the quality of that area decreases tremendously. In the case of Microsoft and the internet, this is quite obvious. Sure, they are financially successful, but they have as yet to prove themselves on the technical front. There are many things that I cannot do in Windows, that I can do on alternate platforms. To me, it's all about technical prowess and not popularity or financial gain. From that viewpoint, Microsoft is mediocre at best.
Just to give you a few analogies. Back before the web was what it is today, there was a time when Usenet was where you went for "community" and information. Back then, you could be somewhat more trusting that the person on the other side of the wire was what they said they were and the information was valid. You were interacting with the "best of the best" in the various scientific fields. At that time, the internet was not what one would consider a financial success. But it was much more successful as a tool for self education and research. (Hell, I got a response from Stephen J. Hawking that I was allowed to use in a college paper at a state school in the U.S. How cool is that?)
So why were things so much better back then? There was a natural filter in place. A barrier to entry. You HAD to be more intelligent back then to get on the net. You had to be able to deal with your computer at a deeper level than just pointing and clicking. Or, you had to be a member of an organization that was either military, research or academic. There was a silent selection process going on that ensured that people would be of a certain level of intelligence to be able to join in. As soon as Netscape was released to the Masses and companies like AOL switched from their private proprietary networks to the internet, that filter started to dissolve.
Today, ANY idiot with enough cash or access to a computer at work can jump online and post anything he or she wants to. They can be as "authoritative" as they want. Why did this happen? Because the true point of the internet (free exchange of information, ideas, collaboration on culturally and globally beneficial non-profit projects) was lost.
Instead it became a business tool to be used by one tech company to try and beat another one to death with. It became a pitched battle to be fought to the financial death of your competitor. So, Joe Dumbass was allowed onto the internet to cultivate and share his collection of porn as well as try and "hook up" with "hot chix". Jane Dumbass was allowed to get online and post her mixed photo album of baby photos, various lovers and erotic photos to say, "This is me and I rule. I take your man. I love my baby's daddy". The businesses don't care as long as they get their monthly fee paid. Yea profit motive. Way to go there. Taking what could have been a great way to augment collevtive intellience and once again (as with radio and television) and slowly turning it into another brain sucking avenue for profits and consumerism.
There was even an early time on the web where a search in Altavista would give you decent results on various topics without providing many links to companies that sell related products. But today, no matter which search engine you use, various searches inevitably turn up a lot of dreck that is meant to convince you to BUY a solution to a problem instead of BUILD one. It's no wonder that I've resorted to using Wikipedia when I have questions about things as well as AUGMENTING the information with the subscription databases that my public library provides to it's members for free. At least following those routes, one can avoid the McNet for the most part.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I wish I knew whether the "Che" image in the article is expressing a positive or a negative aspect. Ernesto "Che" Guevara was responsible for the execution of many people.
So Mr. Author of the article. Are you saying Che would of resisted control of the internet? or Embraced the Cuban style lockdown that exists now (IN Cuba).
What exactly does the image mean in the context of the article?
SP1 for Vista will correct the problem and the Internets will be free again....
"People who talk about revolution and class struggle without referring explicitly to everyday life, without understanding what is subversive about love and what is positive in the refusal of constraints, such people have a corpse in their mouth"- Raoul Vaneigem, The Revolution Of Everyday Life
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Who needs freedom when there's just got so many cool options?
The original generic sig.
How can DRM be a bad thing?
...or why I should care?
All I see in this article is an opportunistic activist using the launch of Vista to reiterate a general disdain for corporate hegemony with a bunch of vague platitudes and appeals to emotion.
Can I download DRM-free movies/music from bittorrent with Vista? Yes.
Can I rip and burn DVDs with Vista? Yes.
Can I buy a computer without Vista and install Linux on my own? Yes.
Does Vista prevent me from visiting Internet sites devoted to unpopular, taboo or anti-corporate sub-culture? No.
Does Vista curtail by ability to create art or publish my viewpoint for the entire world to see? No.
So, what's really behind this diatribe?
People always complain about how their rights are being taken away and they have no freedom. You have the freedom to install Vista or not to install Vista, or to download and install the DRM crack or not to. I haven't paid for music in any format or for any software in the last 10 years and I never will. I refuse to pay for something I don't own. So it doesn't bother me at all what music and movie business is doing these days. And if they make it so that there is no other way, I guess I won't be listening to anything other than a radio. And if they lock down Windows to the point where I can't use it at all without paying for it, I'll switch to Linux.
Just for those of you who think I've now totally gone over board,
... is that a threat to internet freedom?
"Free Speech Zones" exist. They are one of the new ways of dealing
with crazed thought criminals who band together to hurl abuse at
the state. On the more sober note they are fenced off areas usually
far away from the event people want to protest where they can shout
and chant what they want.
It only then follows that we have Free Software Zones on our computers
sandboxed environments that wont really have a whole lot of access to
hardware such as the sound card or will have its video output willfully
and on purpose degraded. Vista already does this today.
On top of that Microsoft ever since XP was released Microsoft has embarked
on a drive for a "trusted computing platform" starting with the project
they initially codenamed "Palladium".
A corporation bent on taking away control over your computer through DRM
and "trusted computing", hell bent on shutting out 3rd party competition,
forcing your computer to phone home
It is the day you need an approved software stack to connect to the net.
Microsoft is planning for that day.
Our freedom to play, experiment, share and seek inspiration from the creative works of others is increasingly restricted so that large companies can lock our culture down for their own profit
I think the current copyright law sucks, but for one basic reason--it's length. "Author's life plus seventy years." That doesn't make sense to me. When it was 28 years renewable for another 28 if you bothered, that makes sense. That means I get to control my stuff basically for my lifetime. Then it goes public domain. Then you go play with it all you want, because I'm done needing to feed myself. And with corporations like Disney copyrighting all their stuff for 'author's life + 70" seems to me to be a perversion of what copyright was intended to be in the first place. It was supposed to promote MY creativity hy giving me soem space to do it in.
Having said that.....
As an author I would like to be paid for my work. I've done that, As a programmer I would like to be able to sell my software to others. I've done that, too. As a musician I would like to be able to sell my songs. I haven't done that, but same rule applies. I would like a nominal profit--enough to eat and pay my bills. I don't expect millions. I don't expect to buy a mansion or a Gulfstream jet. I know that if my writing and my software and my songs really suck, not many people will buy them. Or if I write good stuff nobody wants to read, it won't help me, either. That's my fault. I accept that. The market will determine if my stuff is good enough. If it's REALLY good I might be able to buy beef instead of chicken or get a bigger apartment instead of a small one.
I DO NOT want to give away my stuff and then 'make my money' by selling services. That is not a place I want to live. I don't want to have to give you reading lessons so you can take advantage of my writing. I do not want to sell 'services' for my software. It's easy to use, If you can't figure it out, my suggestion is to not use it. I don't want to give away my songs and expect you on the net will be so enthralled that you will donate what you see fit or that somehow you stealing my songs will make me so popular more legitimate users will buy my songs and I'll see that profit. That's Voodoo economics to me. For some people who want to do that (Go for it Red Hat) that's fine. But I'd rather do the writing.
I am not crushing your freedom with more control if I don't want you to "share" "play" or "experiment"....(with my) creative works." It's not yours to "share." You don't own it. You didn't create it. You don't have the right to "experiment" with it. ("Play>" Yeah, sure, if it's a game. Otherwise you're sick.) You had nothing to do with it. You can "seek inspiration" with it all you want. Go read it again.
It used to be pretty difficult. Before copy machines, if you wanted to heist my stuff, you'd have to retype it. Face it, buying the book was cheaper. My copyright was safe. When copy machines came around, it got a lot easier, but the economics for lots of stuff still didn't make it worthwhile. Do you want 300 pages of loose paper at a dime a copy, or would you rather buy the book in a nice binding? Easy answer. I'm still safe. If you want to copy a few articles and use it in a classroom, cool. That's fair use. I'm still happy. If you want to share a book or check it out from the library, I'm still cool. If all 16,000 libraries buy a single copy, that's good. And all he people who can't afford to buy my book can still read it. That includes voracious readers, not just the 'poor.'
But now that life is digital it got very easy, didn't it? And what happened? Napster and the like. You know the figures. Millions of stolen works by people who have no regard for copyright at all. This is not for some exalted 'good of humanity.' They are thieves, pure and simple. And their excuses? Oh, boy! Doozies. "Well, the songs are no good." (Huh?) "The big bad corporations are greedy." (Yeah, probably. So am I. I want a new house. I'm tired of mildew.) "Copyright law is
When do we start clamoring for laws against Oxygen-Hydrogen combining, or at least regulations preventing stupid people from drinking water without taking an instruction course?
You know not the dangers of which you speak! Please educate yourself! I suggest you read a bit more about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html/. You jest about a very serious issue.
-Jeff
RMS writing under a pseudonym?
I know not how to post. Nix that trailing slash: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
-Jeff
"Microsoft's Vista will be used in millions of homes, and people will find it simpler, easier, safer and more stable than previous versions of Windows."
Funny thing is, i went to my local Circuit City this weekend, which i always do, looking for deals for clients, what's on sale, etc.
They had done a huge rollout of Vista; all their display models were Vista comps. There were 12 computers... and 9 of them were showing serious system error messages: exceptions, memory violations, etc. etc.
The guys there know me, so i asked them if they had an open terminal i could check the net for something. "Sure!" so we go to one computer... which won't connect. Hmmm. So we go to the next one... which won't connect. He offers to go to a third one and i tell him, "It's ok, i'll look it up at home."
Unfortunately, most constupors wouldn't have a clue that the various error messages being displayed were fairly serious system problems (on brand-new equipment!).
Unbelievable that CC could think this was an effective roll-out for a new product...
I heard that Vista studied at a Madasa, when it was younger.
This is HUGE!
There's nothing wrong with anything - Phillip J. Fry
I'm with you. I have to do self DRM. I *just* heard that Vista comes with DRM and I'm out the door to get a retail version. Finally, someone else's finger up my rectum!
When are you going to understand that information wants to be free?
Music, films, software, games, are nothing more than ideas, and ideas can NOT be the property of one individual. They are to be shared by all mankind. To wrap ideas in DRM and charge money for them is an affront to humanity, itself!!
GIVE ME LIBERTY (TO ENJOY ANY AND ALL DIGITAL CONTENT WITHOUT PAYMENT), OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!!!!!!!
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
> "The freedom of expression that was once available to users of the Internet Protocol is being stripped away."
Who is this Bill Thompson bozo anyway? Does he even have the vaguest idea of what IP is? It's just pure idocy to even mention IP unless he thinks Vista is somehow not fully supporting it (which TFA doesn't).
And as for our freedoms, Vista attempts (probably unsuccessfully) to enforce copyrights on content protected with DRM. It doesn't refuse to play non-DRM protected content though, does it? If consumers want to purchase DRM-protected content and purchase Vista and overpriced hardware to view it, that's just the market at work. Likely both Microsoft and the record/movie industries will lose a few customers who switch to linux/mac or simply delay upgrading. And considering Vista doesn't seem to have any remotely interesting new features (no, the flashy mac-like GUI isn't remotely interesting), it's not like Microsoft is forcing customers to accept DRM in order to get other stuff they actually want.
Not that I don't suspect Vista might not also send your personal information over the internet without your consent or even send information about the content you play to the MPAA/RIAA to attempt to detect piracy, but until someone posts tcpdump logs demonstrating something like that, this is all just bullshit.
TFA is just an alarmist piece trying to rally the support of those who don't understand technology. It's crap like this that makes the MPAA/RIAA's case for them. Vista still supports all the IP-based communication that every other OS supports. It simply supports some new content 'features' that customers probably don't consider 'features' at all. The alternative, of course, is simply not supporting such content, but shouldn't the user get to decide if they want to purchase DRM-protected content in the first place? It's really not Microsoft's job to oppose DRM, it's that of the consumer.
Well duh.. that is what large coporations and governments do..
If you had paid more attention in history class this woudnt be such a surprise.
When it gets too bad, people revolt, and we start the process all over again.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Just go Linux; be free. Especially Ubuntu; easy, free, capable and no threats. I keep telling people this, somehow they think Microsoft is some warm, fuzzy teet from which they won't wean.
Linux brings back the fun; to those times before Microsoft when you *owned* the computer, so you could put anything on it you wanted to. Guys with CP/M used to attach all kinds of funny things to their computers, always grinning when someone told them "it can't be done", yet there's the proof that it could.
And with the net, you can share the experience with everyone else. There's no "this year's agenda", there's no one to tell you no. Why on Earth would anyone give up that freedom, to get no technical support over the phone, net, or local computer store?
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Which internet?
Freedom and Equality don't mix . Freedom is being free to be better than the person next to you . Be it science, power, wealth or sports.
Freedom is ambition.
My Starcraft 2 Blog
- the only Port in a Storm?
- A Breathe of Fresh Air? A Site for Sore Eyes? Breeches of Security?
- Looking a Gift Horse in the Mouth?
- Like putting on a Ferrari?
- Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle?
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Vista is about as big a threat to Internet Freedom as Slashdot is a threat to the Oprah Winfrey Show.
One thing, if you don't read the entire post please don't comment on it. This is a long process but the biggest problem is people are acting like idiots about all this stuff and the companies are feeling threatened rather then realizing their actions are causing them problems.
First things you don't need a vista, music, movies, or anything else of that sort. This is important to understand before I proceed with this post because people have to understand music, movies, and the rest are elective choices, not rights that they are entitled to.
Second piracy is NOT an answer. I don't care how much you feel you're entitled to a movie or music. Stealing it instead of supporting that industry is theft, not "your right". I don't care what the RIAA or MPAA did to you, your mother, some random woman, or your dog. They own the rights to that music or movies. If you think that they shouldn't, inform your favorite singer, actor, director about alternatives. Don't support them, or what ever, but don't give them a reason to feel morally entitled to your money.
When you pirate anything you basically give the opposition a right to send you to jail, you have stolen the profits from them. You may not have stolen the music (that's up to you to decide) but they have less money than if you bought that copy outright. If you really wouldn't have bought the music, then don't download it. Why do we have DRM and lawsuits? Because people pirate movies and music and the RIAA feels a need to control this.
The exception to this rule is if there isn't a system in place where you can get the movies or music in your area then there is the one and pretty much only exception to this rule. There's not much you can do if you want to hear a soundtrack to a foreign film, but again realize that if X company buys the rights to the soundtrack you should expect to buy it at a reasonable price. (what ever the current rate is for cds. Remember the idea here is not to screw the company, the idea is to get them to realize that their tactics are wrong).
Third, start boycotting. This is the most important thing, don't steal it, don't borrow it and don't return it. Don't listen to that new Britney Spears/Enimem/Weird al cd unless you have bought it through a process that you agree with. Find a way to get music you like with out DRM, buy it that way. But at the same time if you are buying music don't start giving music away to all your friends. If they come over feel free to play it for them or loan them the disc but don't rip a copy for them, don't go and post it on bittorrent. That just shows you're helping people steal from the company and doesn't correctly support the process.
The bottom line is stop stealing these properties, and stop supporting them. That's the ONLY way you're going to stop DRM and stop the tactics of the groups. Find better groups and bands or alternative software if you're so pissed about it. But stealing them and bitching about DRM loses it's effectiveness once you have stolen the media because they actually do have to protect their media or at least find a way that people have a way to control the rights to their own property. Remember, the RIAA might steal from the artist but downloading the music also means the artist isn't getting any money. (I don't care if the artist only gets 25 cents from the RIAA, downloading that music means that 25 cents isn't being given.)
Oh god.. Unleash the anti-MS spam...
If you don't like Vista's DRM, don't buy it. If don't like the terms under which a song or a movie is distributed, don't buy it. If a product is defective, restrictive, or limited by design, then why in hell would you buy it. Microsoft may have an monopoly but there are alternatives. Speak with your wallet and they will listen.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
I don't think that this is the fault of the moguls involved in computer technology but rather a sign of the times both M$ & Apple have bowed to the *AA organizations and media producers to include protection for their rights within the latest and greatest operating systems.
Now we all know that bundling DRM technology into the latest and greatest OSes will not stop people from "Sharing" content, which when you get down to it is what the *AA's want. No matter who wants what, I don't see it happening.
There are only two steps in the gathering of ultimate knowledge. Open your eyes and, RTFM!
Just go Linux; be free. Especially Ubuntu; easy, free, capable and no threats.
That's a lot of FUD in one line! Ubuntu is certainly NOT easier than XP. It's NOT free, since we'd have to hire administrators that we currently don't need to use Windows. It's not capable of doing anything we need it to do (other than email), because there's no real business software available for it that's not designed for Fortune 500 companies. No threats? Really? You wanna bet?
I don't respond to AC's.
but why on earth didn't you just image your system - especially before installing a Beta OS over everything?
Didn't some states outlaw malware being installed totally without the knowledge or consent of the computer owner or as a requirement to use other software?
Also really the simpler thing to do is not try and build a secure network but move from the computer as we know it to specialized devices with carefully controlled features ala Xbox 360. This IMHO will also fail because the genie is out of the bottle.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
You've got untold hundreds of millions of consumers (a microscopic fraction of which are inspiration-seeking creators) that don't see the 'net as The Glue Of Freedom, but as The Place Where I Don't Have To Pay For Things Cuz That's What My Friends Do And What Do You Mean Blank CDs Cost Money.
Have you got figures or an impartial source for that?
Of course not.
When the scientific community found that 'their' internet was being corrupted and otherwise stressed by uses and abuses way beyond its original design intent, they went off and formed their own a few years ago (I can't remember or find its name). We 'ordinary users' need a piece carved out for 'us', where anyone else plays only by our rules. I have no proposals re how to accomplish such a thing, since all that 'dark fiber' is owned by megacorps. Perhaps something like the old-time short-wave Ham Radio, provided and operated by its user/owners.
I refuse to pay for something I don't own.
LOL - I read that and thought: "So everything you own is stolen?"
I think what you meant was "I refuse to pay for something I will not own after paying for it."
Science never settles, never rests.
This sounds quite alarming. However, this started 12 or so years ago when Windows 95 came out. Back then Microsoft made a concerted effort to do away with DOS or at least make it less visible. The reason they did this was because DOS was a gateway to programming. With DOS, Microsoft inadvertantly created a generation of command line experts. They intentionally phased out DOS to dumb down the users. There are other reasons for doing away with DOS of course, but this did happen. Anyone still remember memory management commands or pkunzip!
What did you think free software were about? Does anyone force you to use DRM cripple-ware?
With all the update features and remote deactivation and reserving the right to choose which programs you can and cannot run on your computer, they're creating the framework such that they can at any time change any of your current answers to the opposite.
It's MY computer, dammit. I will NOT let Microsoft tell me how I can and cannot use it.
Interesting. All this time I was under the impression that the internet was based upon the military's need for a robust network that could survive nuclear attack, and that said network was later expanded to include research, development, and education. Who'd have known it was actually based upon music and video file sharing!
People always complain about how their rights are being taken away and they have no freedom. You have the freedom to install Vista or not to install Vista,
Does one? I thought it came pre-installed on most PCs as sold.
or to download and install the DRM crack or not to.
That's illegal, so you do not have the freedom to do that.
I haven't paid for music in any format or for any software in the last 10 years and I never will. I refuse to pay for something I don't own.
So you refuse to pay mechanics for the work they'll do on your car? You refuse to pay for a ride on the bus? Do you watch TV or listen to the radio at all?
So it doesn't bother me at all what music and movie business is doing these days. And if they make it so that there is no other way, I guess I won't be listening to anything other than a radio.
But that in itself is payment enough - and you don't own that!
And if they lock down Windows to the point where I can't use it at all without paying for it, I'll switch to Linux.
You're making the assumption that hardware will still be supported in Linux, which is unlikely. It's illegal to bypass DRM restrictions, and if using Linux enables you to bypass those without oversight, you're stuck.
Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 24 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
How much slower can you get? When are they going to fix this broken system?
There are a number of business models existing on unsustainable business models; in short, they rely on selling a piece of information many times over, in order to stay afloat, when the nature of information is inherently nonconservative. It's only been the case historically that such business models were feasible, because of the difficulty in losslessly copying information. As this is no longer the case, it is also no long really feasible to make money by selling a plastic disc full of bits, at a price that exceeds both the marginal cost of the bits, and of the disc.
However, this doesn't mean that there isn't a market for entertainment. There is, has always been, and will always be, a vast market for entertainment of all forms. So it's idiotic to assume that no DRM means the death of the movie, music, or software industries. Those industries will continue, as long as a market for their products exists -- however, they will have to find new business models that don't rely on pretending that information is aspirin tablets, can can be turned out in factories and sold, over and over and over again.
The market for entertainment is probably quite inflated right now; I suspect that during this switch of business models, to something that's more sustainable and doesn't require draconian consumer restrictions, that the size of the movie industry, in particular, would contract dramatically. But that's the way of things -- a huge studio empire isn't required to produce a good film, and thus there's a lot of redundant overhead there, which needs to go. This change sucks if you make your living right now as a middleman in a movie studio, but it probably sucked being a buggy-whip manufacturer, too.
You cannot destroy the entirety of the entertainment industry, so long as there are people with free time and disposable income, who want to be entertained. Unfortunately, the entertainment industry as we know it today has grown fat and lazy; it has resisted change at every opportunity, even when such change has eventually benefited it (e.g. VCRs, online music sales). Either it will refuse to change, and go down with its failing business model, or it will stop fighting the inevitable, and rethink how entertainment is produced and sold. Either way, people will still be entertained.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
> If a filmaker wants you seek inspiration from her creative works, rather than pay for it as entertainment,
.. N, the zillions of vampire slayer films and all that are not art, they are just cheap
> she has all sorts of ways to make that work available without DRM, and without charging her audience.
> More likely, though, she hopes you will be inspired, but also that you'll actually pay what she's asking - so
> that she can eat, pay her production team, hire talent, invest in new projects, and inspire other creative
> people by doing things like giving them jobs with paychecks to work in the field, etc., rather than looking
> for a pirated copy of what she just spent three years and all of her investors' money making.
Could you tell me how is exactly Walt Disney is doing all this just right now? Or how Bela Bartok is getting
ever more inspired by the Bela Bartok Estate controlling who and when and where can perform the music he
wrote?
I agree with you, probably most filmmakers in Hollywood don't want to inspire you to anything, they just want to make
money. Terminator 1, 2,
entertainment - I hope their creators do not think that they have any connection to art and culture.Quite often
they don't even have an original idea, just remake old or foreign entertainment (badly) and re-sell it.
Anyway, many generations ago Walt Disney drew a mouse and people loved that mouse. Walt Disney should be rewarded.
How, exactly, is he rewarded now by the fact that every time a China made plastic pencilcase with Mickey Mouse on
it (what children today don't even recognise) is sold the till rings at the Walt Disney Corporation? I have the
sinking feeling that being a skeleton in hole dug in the dirt kind of limits the value of financial reward.
Not to mention that it would be rather hard to ask him if he still wants money for Mickey Mouse or he thinks
that now he has as much as he believes is a fair compensation for his efforts.
Have you got figures or an impartial source for that?
Which part? The part where hundreds of millions of consumers use the internet? OK, so maybe it's more like a billion+. Obviously there are well over 500 million just between the US and Europe, to say nothing of the exploding net-connected populations in India and Asia. Do you really need a specific number that's greater than 500,000,000 for my point to be somehow more valid?
As for the small fraction of content creators vs. consumers... give me damn break. I don't consider MySpace and Facebook to be pillars of creativity. But no matter how you want to test for it, ask yourself, honestly, how many people you know that professionally create music, film, text, etc... compared to how many people you know that merely consume the same. Again, the specific number is meaningless compared to the truth of the point.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You can only take so much away from the people before the people decide they want it back. This day in age the people have a ridiculous amount of power. Anyone can decide to not use a service or steal it. Your options are there and you can vote for whatever you want. The options available are up to the people. Dont feel like buying a game? Cant afford it? Download it. Vista wont let you? Theres a hack for it. Hack wont work? Theres a hack for it. Today we dont have to buy a single movie, game, application, or anything software wise. Why? It can be copied soo easily. Hardware is impossible to copy unless you have a multi-billion dollar facility. Most of us CAN ride a bike to work, or carpool. We just choose not to. If we don't like gas prices enough well do it, but that will only happen once it gets BAD.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that we don't have to put up with anyones bullshit. If you want Vista, but not the DRM crap- buy it or hack it. Simple as that. If things get out of hand and our freedom is suppressed we will take it back- with force. There has never been an insurgency that has failed, and there's a reason for that. If you want something bad enough and you really believe in it- its hard to stop you.
To summarize- Don't worry about it, yet.
...your freedom is not being stripped away by DRM. Your ability to illegally distribute someone else's artistic work, however, is.
Arguing blow-to-blow against DRM is like arguing about a little kid with a gun. While it may be illegal for him to have it, he's probably smart enough to not shoot anybody. So what's the difference, whether he has the ability to shoot someone or not? Because he could shoot someone.
Why does it matter, whether or not there's digital rights management? You're not stealing music, are 'ya? ;)
It's a threat to my continuing to use the Windows family of products... I'll stick with XP for a while but once I'm ready to upgrade I'm either going Mac or Linux.
The threat of my continued use of Windows started with XP. Because of Activation and WGA/WPA I decided to switch to Linux on my desktop and OSX on my laptop. While I beleive in innocence before guilt MS not only wants the user to prove innocence just to install Windows but once installed wants to continually spy on the user and assumes guilt at all tymes.
FalconShould there be a Law?
many generations ago
You mean, one generation ago? His daughter, for example, is in the middle of building a museum around her Dad's works. She, for example, is very much alive, and very much enjoying the work her Dad did, and the proceeds from the business he started and passed along. Just like when a guy leaves any other business to his child... or are you the sort that says a store's brand name is something that the founder of that store shouldn't be able to leave to his kids? After all, good old Bob Smithsonovitch is dead, so "Bob Smithsonovitch's Sporting Goods," which stays in business because of its recognizable brand and reputation, is making money for Bob's decendents, rather than Dead Bob, right? So, are you advocating that the various creative works, concepts, business tactics that make Bob's legacy business what is should also be stripped from the kids he intended to leave it to (or people he chooses to sell it to, etc)?
You may not personally be able to grapple with it, but some people are actually inspired to create a business or a life's work specifically so that his family will have it to work with, and to grow.
Regardless, I'm a little amused by people who fixate so intensely on why people other than its creators and designated heirs should be able to make money off of knock-off Mickey Mouse merchandise, rather than those other people creating something of their own (to do with as they please - give away, or not). Well, parasites are as old as time, I suppose.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
No freedom is damaged while you can still avoid using Vista. Of course if ever all computers will have a Fritz chip with hardware DRM it will be a different thing.
Wondering why i am doing so strange posts? I am trying to get a "+5,Flamebait" or "-1,Insightful" rating.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid you're expecting way too much of users. They'll go "bah, who cares, it's just a computer" like they do about everything else and just buy the new version of whatever crap they're expected to buy.
And they'll keep on getting searched at airports, being scared of tshirts, believing whatever imaginary threats are shown on TV and so on. Just like they're supposed to.
I fear you're not only not wrong, but also that people will sale their soul for security, and to get stuff cheap.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I have a source that seems to indicate that consumers are more willing to pay for things now (if 2002 ~= now), but you'll have to pay for it.
here
Then by your argument, the book and CD I borrowed from the library should be illegal as well. They paid for 1 copy and is being consumed by 100s of people. Your local library probably has a subscription to SciAm, WSJ and NYT.
Public libraries who take your (taxpayer's) money and buy these works and make it available to 100s of people should be even more infuriating to you. The public library where you don't have to pay for things you want.
You hit it right on the spot. That's one of the best analogies for digital copying there is. Because, what is it exactly that makes "enhanced dirt" different from any other kind of valueless dirt? Answer: the organic matter it contains. Once you get a small sample of this "enhanced dirt" you can make a culture of whatever is the living matter in it that makes it so special.
Living matter replicates itself endlessly, just like digital data. Give me one sample of a fungus or bacteria and I can make an indefinite number of copies at a very small incremental cost. And that's the reason why the corporation lobbyists have pushed for regulations that make living things patentable. There are plants, animals, bacteria, fungi, etc, that have existed for thousands or maybe millions of years, yet they are patentable by the first corporation that fills a claim. How's that for prior art???
You don't like MS, don't buy their stuff. Bottom line.
But, please stop calling "I hate MS! Grrrh, I'm so angry!", news. Can we do that, huh?
"In a world that exists without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?"
I have to pay the Gateway mafia their payola or download an illegal version of Windows and put my legal key in.
s ta-lose-your-xp-key-232647.php
With DRM what you expect and what you get may not be the same. I recall seeing some discussion of the Legal XP key becomming invalidated in the Vista upgrade process.
A quick Google search brings up gems like "Vista will invalidate your XP key (so you won't be able to set up a dual-boot option nor will you be able to use that version of XP on another machine). Not only that, but if you ever uninstall Vista, you won't be able to fall back on your copy of XP anymore. Nice"
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/software/upgrade-to-vi
Single vendor copy protected software may not provide you the privilages you expected to recieve when you bought it.
Any questions?
The truth shall set you free!
Caution: May contain nuts.
We should all go analog, then no more DRM... viva vinyl!
This is fear-mongering and FUD. The XP key is not valid to run _concurrently_ with the Vista that you upgraded it to. It will still work on its own. Try it.
It was /. culture to not RTFA, it is now time for a new /. culture: don't RTF summary!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Yeah... he seems to have got it backwards, here he is discussing the average user's experience w/vista:
"They will rarely notice the limitations, because they are not the sort of people who download films from the net or try to make copies of their DVDs."
It's my understanding that these are exactly the people who will notice the limitations. They are the ones who will try to play legit DRM'ed media through (unknown to most of them) insecure channels and have the audio/video quality degraded.
Those of us downloading DRM free content shouldn't have this problem.
Not that I'm upgrading to Vista anytime soon....... I see absolutely no compelling reason for, and many reasons against. It cracks me up that the some of the most touted features by MS, Sidebar and Search, have been available for XP, free, from Google (and others) for over a year.... with an arguably better implementation.
I have to pay the Gateway mafia their payola or download an illegal version of Windows and put my legal key in. $10? Why didn't he burn the CD like they told him to? oh well.
With DRM what you expect and what you get may not be the same. I recall seeing some discussion of the Legal XP key becomming invalidated in the Vista upgrade process.
A quick Google search brings up gems like "Vista will invalidate your XP key (so you won't be able to set up a dual-boot option nor will you be able to use that version of XP on another machine). Not only that, but if you ever uninstall Vista, you won't be able to fall back on your copy of XP anymore. Nice"
I recall seeing discussions about alien mind control with quick google searches as well, it doesn't mean it's true. Anyone with half a brain knows that an upgrade clause does not equal deactivation. Get your collective heads out of your asses and stop libeling Microsoft.
Single vendor copy protected software may not provide you the privilages you expected to recieve when you bought it.
Home grown software may not provide you with an improved experience as well.
Saying you own the "right" to a specific order of notes, is as about stupid as a photographer trying to claim he owns the copyright on a photo. If I retake the photo with my own camera, in the same location, and same time of day, do I now _also_ have copyright?!
I agreed with your statement until I got to the end and read this, above. A photographer does own the rights to any and all photos s/he takes unless they shoot while working for hire or until they sale the rights. That does not mean they have the right to prevent someone else from taking the same photo, except in certain circumstances. For instance I have the right to take a photo of someone in a public space without their permission just as everyone else does. Now if the person is identifiable I can't sale the photo unless I get their permission, but I can sale it without a release if the person is not identificable. I can't prevent someone else from enjoying the same rights however,. I love to walk around a lake near where I live and take photos of the wind surfers on the lake, often I wish I were out there too, and I have no right to prevent others from doing the same though I do have the right to prevent someone else from using the photo I took.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'm endlessly amused by all the passionate arguments about Vista, and DRM, and Internet freedom.
For once, I'm finally starting to see a few people thinking about this objectively. The truth is simple. It only matters what they do in Redmond if you use their stuff. If you don't, Redmond doesn't matter. DRM only matters if you want to watch HD-DVDs or Blue-Ray or whatever. DRM doesn't matter if you don't care.
Far as Internet freedom... I do care about this one. There is only one Internet and I want to make sure it stays neutral and equal. I want this to the extent that I hope all costs are passed down to end users equally and not based on content or anything else. This is what we have now and it's fine. Even with all the file sharers clogging my bandwidth, I still don't want anything to differentiate content with pipe speed. I also don't want e-mail taxed at all... ever!
What I want is for people, government and businesses to leave me alone as much as possible. I don't want "things" invading my life. Vista doesn't invade my life and neither does DRM. So who really gives a shit what they're doing in Redmond or Hollywood? Only people that don't like them and continue to grovel back to them for a fresh beating.
Fresh horses and more whiskey for my men.
The last episode of the Linux Tech Show was just about this,
and I found it very informative.
Just skip the first few minutes of the hosts struggling with their own machinery, as always.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheLinuxLinkTechSh
No mention B. Gate, S. Ballmer or (Former) Co-President Jim Allchin; they made the product. What about the next release? Even more freedoms will be eroded.
Then by your argument, the book and CD I borrowed from the library should be illegal as well
... it's just not working.
Why? The library owns it, and you're using it, and then you put back. Not you and 100 other people at the same time. If you ripped a copy of the CD and used some p2p service to serve it up to 1000 anonymous "friends" online, that would be different. You reading a book from the library isn't any different than you reading a book that I give or lend to you. The copyright isn't violated, because you're not making a copy.
Public libraries who take your (taxpayer's) money and buy these works and make it available to 100s of people should be even more infuriating to you. The public library where you don't have to pay for things you want.
Why? I have as much a vested interest in people reading and learning as I do in protecting the copyrights of authors. Those things are not in any way at odds with each other. I only care about the taxes that support a library when the funding is used in politicized, or idealogically slanted way. But then, I feel the same way about school funding or pretty much any other government spending. Sorry, but badly baiting me with a completely wrong analogy in an attempt to make yourself feel better about actually ripping off content
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
To encourage creativity and progress.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You lose your XP key if you do a Vista UPGRADE.
If you use a mixer to "upgrade" oranges into orange juice, and later you decide you don't like it you can't get the oranges back.
If you want to keep your old XP you have to purchase the FULL Vista, much like if you want to keep your oranges you have to buy orange juice.
You can't have your oranges and drink them too.
You can't upgrade XP and keep it too.
Why isn't this obvious to everybody?
Ask yourself the following question honestly: If the thirteen year old girls who lie about their age and the anti-porn soccer moms and the raving liberal/conservative/moon landing hoax/peak oil/global warming is a myth lunatics all suddenly disappear from the Internet into some gilded cage from which they'll never escape, nor complain about wanting to escape from, would that really be a bad thing?
Those who know will always be aware of Linux. And they'll always be able to route around any blocking attempts. We'll always be here. The Internet will be our escape from the world of those folks who don't know or care enough to find it.
In other words: If this brings about the end of the Endless September, then it can't be a bad thing.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
In November 2006 Redhat made almost $90 million, almost all of it because of open source software.
The sell-service model is a highly limited sector.
Notice please I said selling services and support. Nowhere did I mention a self-service business model.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I suggest you read the various opinions of Thomas Jefferson, his inspirations, and his contemporaries.
Yeap, at first Thomas Jefferson was against copyrights and patents. Eventually though his friend James Madison convinced him that they would spur the arts and sciences. Once convinced he sat down with an actuary table and calculated the optimum length copyrights and patents should last was 14 years, with one 14 year exention possible. TJ eventually took out some patents himself.
FalconShould there be a Law?
...this is old news!
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I predict that a lot of people with no clue will buy HD videos, take them home, try to play them in their PC, find out that they can't do that without additional software, and return them - so the ICT will be a non-issue.
Unfortunately when they return a movie that won't play on thier computer, people will find out they can't get a refund. Once the media container is opened all they can do is exchange it.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Thank you, aging hippie liberal douche... for writing an article that truly reflects Peter's Principle. As an engineer, I often find my trick ear/eyes get going when I come across statements like this one:
;)
"It is as easy to write the CyberPatrol internet filtering program as it is to write the BitTorrent peer-to-peer file sharer."
Bram wrote bittorrent himself - unlike Cyberpatrol which was written by a software company written by attorneys oops, I mean developers.
Gee, it must be pretty easy to whip up an article for the BBC. You must use BT as your ISP
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
> Any questions?
Not really a question but an instruction, you may want to get a new source for your information.
That thing about Vista invalidating your XP key is wrong.
"READ the EULA, it doesn't state that your existing XP Key invalidated, it states that once you upgrade to Vista - you are not allowed to use the software you "upgraded".
From Vista EULA - "13. UPGRADES. To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed for the software that is eligible for the upgrade. Upon upgrade, this agreement takes the place of the agreement for the software you upgraded from. After you upgrade, you may no longer use the software you upgraded from."
many generations ago
/. chances are that your opponents are actually creating something useful and give away for free (e.g. SW), so I would
> You mean, one generation ago?
No, I did not mean one generation ago. A generation is roughly equivalent to 20 years. Mickey Mouse was created kind of before 1987, I guess.
> His daughter, for example, is in the middle of building a museum around her Dad's works. She, for example, is very much alive, and very
> much enjoying the work her Dad did, and the proceeds from the business he started and passed along. Just like when a guy leaves any other
> business to his child... or are you the sort that says a store's brand name is something that the founder of that store shouldn't be able
> to leave to his kids? After all, good old Bob Smithsonovitch is dead, so "Bob Smithsonovitch's Sporting Goods," which stays in business
> because of its recognizable brand and reputation, is making money for Bob's decendents, rather than Dead Bob, right? So, are you advocating
> that the various creative works, concepts, business tactics that make Bob's legacy business what is should also be stripped from the kids
> he intended to leave it to (or people he chooses to sell it to, etc)?
Well, do you pay Bob's family every time you put on the runnings shoes you purchased 50 years ago? No. Bob's business is still running
because it produces sporting goods. I don't know who gets the money when a John Lennon song is played, but I am almost certain that that
entity is not a songwriter or a musician who is actively producing more music/lyrics.
> You may not personally be able to grapple with it, but some people are actually inspired to create a business or a life's
> work specifically so that his family will have it to work with, and to grow.
How, exactly, is the Walt Disney Corporation "works" with Mickey Mouse to "make it grow"? We are not talking about Disney creating
the corporation and let it grow, we are talking about him creating a cartoon mouse and the fact that a century after his death
that mouse will still be making money for a corporation even though chances are that there would not be a single person on this
Earth who actually will have known Walt Disney. You would still not be permitted to draw that mouse and show it to a bunch of people.
You shall not mix a competing business with a goverment granted monopoly on an idea, nor shall you think that the right to have
a business is the same as the right to have a profit.
> Regardless, I'm a little amused by people who fixate so intensely on why people other than its creators and designated heirs should be able to make money
> off of knock-off Mickey Mouse merchandise, rather than those other people creating something of their own (to do with as they please - give away, or
> not). Well, parasites are as old as time, I suppose.
I think the parasites are those who are making money *today* from the work of a person long dead by means of *monopolising* that person's
creation based on a law which supposed to provide incentive to the artist to create more. Since the artist is dead, it is unlikely that he
would create anything like that any more. Those people who suck in the money after the mouse create nothing at all (unless you can tell me
that the shareholders of the Walt Disney Corporation are all creative artists and the Mickey Mouse income helps them to provide society with
further art).
Considering that we're on
not try to stick 'leach' and 'parasite' on them so easily. In fact, unless you do not use any free software at all, you might be benefitting
from their work without compensating them whatsoever. I refrain from the theatrical use of adjectives...
Artists will largely accept this turn of events, because in their view, they've already spent more than enough years starving.
Actually more and more artists, muscians in this case, are turning to the Creative Commons and are uploading their music to services like this one as well as Internet Archives, GoingWare, and Magnatunes amoung others.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Can I download DRM-free movies/music from bittorrent with Vista? Yes. until MS revokes the rights of your BT client from running on the basis that the downloads aren't licensed (i said nothing about legal). ... like the previous one. Of course, I expect non-DRMd meda will soon have a special seat at the MS table...
Can I rip and burn DVDs with Vista? Yes. until MS revokes the rights of your CD Ripper from running on the basis that circumventing the dvd encrytion is a dmca violation. the dmca-police are on their way...stay where you are.
Can I buy a computer without Vista and install Linux on my own? Yes. but not from a major vendor... well ok, so IBM and Dell claim it, but every story I've read on this seems to say you can't actually _order_ one...so you're into a white-box, which is fine with me, but most people like some kind of support and what-not.
Does Vista prevent me from visiting Internet sites devoted to unpopular, taboo or anti-corporate sub-culture? No. until MS decides that the site is 'wrong' for some reason and blocks you. Sure the first ones blocked won't be those that you've listed (my guess? kiddie porn will get the nod - it has in Canada) after that it's just a matter of misfiling some sites. We've already seen the damage done when you're delisted by google... Ok, so that one's not there yet, it'll probably be Vista-II before that's included - But I have faith....just think of the children!
Does Vista curtail by ability to create art or publish my viewpoint for the entire world to see? No. again
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
That said, the net is a largely free place, but Freedom is a double edged sword. People are free to use Linux or MacOS or even Vista, they're also free to use DRM if they want to download legally protected intellectual property. Don't complain when people exercise their freedom by obeying the law and buying DRM'd music.
If you want to strike a blow at the establishment, stop listening to music and watching TV/movies altogether. It leaves a lot more time in the day.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
The more you tighten your grip, MPAA, the more movie downloads will slip through your fingers.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Remember when Windows XP was going to cause the downfall of the Internet due to the fact that it implemented support for raw sockets? Oh, Windows, you wily little thing! Always trying to destroy the Internet!
look.. it's tcp/ip networking, it's not rocket science. I think the concerns on drm not allowing the viewing, copying etc.. is a legitimate concern as is obsolete equipment such as monitors filling up landfills.
chances are that your opponents are actually creating something useful and give away for free
Chances are that they also hold down day jobs, and don't do that for free. They choose which activities to pursue at no charge. If they want to produce software free for use by others, that's the same choice that musician who freely distributes her work might make. But it's a choice. When someone does decide to sell their work (for a paycheck, or in a traditionals sales model, whatever), then the person who rips them off is indeed a parasite... the creator of the content has no influence over the person that finds a technical means by which to avoid doing honest business with them.
There are times I give away my work, too. But I choose to do so, for a variety of reasons. If you take advantage of what I'm giving away, we're all square. If you rip off that which I choose to sell, you're leeching.
I think the parasites are those who are making money *today* from the work of a person long dead by means of *monopolising* that person's creation based on a law which supposed to provide incentive to the artist to create more
So, what about the person that's still alive, and produced something a year ago? Your logic seems to require that we make sure they don't make any money off of that work, either, even while they're alive. Why else would they create more if they can still pay for groceries with income generated by something they created a year ago? You're misunderstanding the purpose of copyright-type protections. It's specifically to allow for income to be generated after the fact of creation. It's to promote investment (in time, research, money, etc) in works that may only make financial sense over the long haul. You can't make back what it takes to create an opera, a novel, a video game, a studio recording after one performance or purchase. Some creators may only embark on projects if they're sure that the value of their life's work will benefit their family - and it may have taken an artist decades to reach the level of intellectual sophistication and creative mastery to produce that which they intend to last and sell to an audience for a long time to come. They may have spent a lifetime producing something that they intend to serve their family for their lifetimes.
You know, just like a family-owned business is valuable because of reputation and brand, even after the founder is gone. If the founder dies, and the family or partner has to give up the brand and business model (or give up claim to what made it special just because someone died), then much of what the creator created was worth less than he might have planned. It's a shame you can't imagine creating something of intrinsic and enduring value - upon which more can be built - that might be passed on to your family. The law you're complaining about isn't to encourage people to make more, it's to encourage people to make anything in the first place - with some assurance that it won't be immediately ripped off.
I don't know who gets the money when a John Lennon song is played
Why do you care? It was up to John Lennon (the guy that did the work!) to decide who should benefit from his work. You're just going to a lot of trouble to try to find a way to be able to lay claim to his work, and ignore his thoughts on the subject of his own work, because that will make you feel better about ripping off other people. If John Lennon had wanted you to have his work for free, or to allow other people to dive right in do whatever they might want with it, he could have done it with one stroke of a pen. He chose not to. I'm sure he'd be happy to know that you're second-guessing him, though, being so much wiser about his life's work, and his estimation of his family and heirs, than he was himself.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
They were wrong, and their parent publications were generally too stupid (or embarrassed) to archive their words on the Internet, so I don't have links for you...
Oh God.. Don't remind me. I was trying this weekend to write a college paper on the history of the internet. I eventually gave up and picked another topic because the myraid of things I remember that were interesting and not just technical simply aren't recorded or have been removed. Some of the things I remember myself (got my first email account and was big into MUDS in the last 80s) simply can't be found anymore and I needed solid references not just what I remembered. Sad really.
I don't know if they have any of it but have you thought of checking out the Way Back Machine, Internet Archives? Another place to look is Find Articles.
FalconShould there be a Law?
And I really wonder how it's a threat to freedom in any way shape or form... Thus far my Mp3 collection (which dates back to college) has not suddenly stopped working (nor my iTunes dispite Apples dire predictions). And as far as I know if anyone wants to create a new way to encode or distribute media there's nothing in the OS to prevent it. DRM will funciton with content for which it is enabled. Any unprotected content will work just like it did before... I think the OSS community needs to take a deep breath and relax.
In a country like the US, if you feel like you're losing a freedom or choice, it's not the product. It's not the company. It's not your legislator. It's not the president. It's citizen/user apathy. We get what we ask for. Unfortunately, most people don't ask for much...
Can you buy a NEW computer with XP preinstalled still? If so what manufacturer/models.
Why does it sound like Steve Gibson wrote this? Give it a rest already.
The problem is that they're trying to establish the principle that you don't get to control your own hardware. That's the only way to get DRM to work. DRM can never function the way they want it to on a true general-purpose computer.
Can I buy a computer without Vista and install Linux on my own? Yes.
Look at what happened with decss. We're going to end up with a future in which Linux is seen as a crippled platform. Have you ever watched a video of any kind on a Linux box, using OSS? Congratulations, if you're a U.S. citizen, you were almost certainly using illegal software. All the usable video codecs are patent encumbered, and the mpegla licensing only allows 100,000 copies of a particular implementation to be produced before you have to start paying royalties.
Find free books.
Today, ANY idiot with enough cash or access to a computer at work can jump online and post anything he or she wants to. They can be as "authoritative" as they want. Why did this happen? Because the true point of the internet (free exchange of information, ideas, collaboration on culturally and globally beneficial non-profit projects) was lost.
If you have gatekeepers you don't have free exchange. There is far more free exchange in the web today than on the old internet from just ten years ago. Just because a person has to take measures to make sure any info they get is true, which has always been true, does not mean free exchange has been lost. Simply the more free exchange there is the more people have to take measures to be sure about the reliability of they see or hear on the net, and tools for Google make it easier to do research.
There was even an early time on the web where a search in Altavista would give you decent results on various topics without providing many links to companies that sell related products. But today, no matter which search engine you use, various searches inevitably turn up a lot of dreck that is meant to convince you to BUY a solution to a problem instead of BUILD one. It's no wonder that I've resorted to using Wikipedia when I have questions about things as well as AUGMENTING the information with the subscription databases that my public library provides to it's members for free. At least following those routes, one can avoid the McNet for the most part.
More ten years ago I started using Altavista and I still use it. I have no problem distiguishing ads from real results in my searchs. However if you have this problem maybe you should give Mooter a try. And if it weren't for the internet and web your Wikipedia wouldn't even exist. Me, I have found the web emminently helpful and valiable. After having survived a TBI, Traumatic Brain injury, more than ten years ago (after I started using Altavista) I was able to find websites like the one above by using search engines. These websites I have found have been helpful. I have even found chatrooms I can chat with other TBI survivors and/or their caregivers as well as medical, neurological professionals. If I had to go through gatekeepers I doubt I'd ever have been able to find any of these sites. No, the internet would only be a gated community only the elite would have access to.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I guess we are talking about two different things. I do not oppose your right to reap money off of your work. I do not oppose you to control who benefits from your work.
However, the copyright law was created because WE as the society realised that we like art / entertainment and that artists need to make a living. Thus we gave the artists a limited monopoly over the duplication of their work, i.e. a legal framework through which they can make money and sustain their living, in particular, because we want them to create more work that we can enjoy. It is actually spelled out along the lines of "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." or something like that.
Now the fact that the current copyright is a) transferrable, that is, the beneficary of the monopoly powers is not the artist but any unrelated third party and b) it is practically perpetual, that is, when there is no chance that the artist will ever create anything simply because they are just a lump of fertiliser, to me at least, seems to defeat the purpose.
You claim that the copyright's purpose is to create income after the creation of the work. I don't think so. The copyright's purpose is to make it possible to create further work. The copyright law has not been created to benefit the artist, it was created to benefit society. Imagine that artists are employed just like most of the people. Your job is writing a nice novel. You draw a salary and in X years time you give me the novel. That's it. You have been paid for your work. Sounds terrible, doesn't it? That's, however, exactly the way researchers, engineers and in fact employed artists (like the designers of your household gadgets and so on) work. In fact, when a studio makes a film, there are very many talented people, artists, if you like, working on the creation of that film. Not just the actors for their 10-mil-a-pop salary but all the sound and image and backdrop people and doubles and stuntmen and so on. They get paid for their work and that's it. So how about their creation? How about the performing artists? You don't seem to care too much about, say, ballet dancers. It is art and requires many years of investment to get to the point when you can perform. Yet, apart from getting paid for their performance (possibly quite well paid, if they are good) there's no promise that their art will pay for the life of their children, grandchildren and so on, through about a century after they're gone. So why is the Terminator so much more useful for society than Anna Pavlova was or Nurayev is? It must be, because the former is heavily protected while the latter isn't. By the way, when your kid is performing on stage, you are *not* allowed to take a photo of him/her, but you have a right to purchase the photo from the photographer who is paid to make pictures at the event. Guess what, the copyright of the picture belongs to the photographer. Not your kid, who is the artist on the photo. Not to the people who organised the performance or paid the photographer. Nope, it belongs to the photographer and if he wants, he can refuse to sell you a copy. Note again, you *can not* take a photo, only the photographer. And he and his estate has the right to that photo, from your point of view, forever. So what was *his* investment that deserves all the rights of the picture showing *your* kid's artistic expression of something written by an other artist centuries ago?
Why do I care who gets the money after a Lennon song? Let's look at it from the other way: who is the artist? Lennon. Does he has any say in who gets money after his work? No. Does he have a say in where and when and how his work is performed? No. Can he control any of his work? Of course not, he's dead. Whatever entity owns the rights for his stuff has unlimited and practically perpetual power over his work. They can ban its performance, copy it if they want, can sell all these rights to other parties a
you are not allowed to use the software you "upgraded".
Sometimes you just don't know if the restriction is technical in nature such as you are not allowed to copy iTunes tracks from one iPod to another, or you are not allowed to share copyrighted MP3's on Kazza. One is technological, the other is legal.
Sometimes when reading a restriction, the wrong assumption is made.
The truth shall set you free!
"With DRM'd media you don't own the media nor can you fair use copy it without breaking the law."
For some rather creative definitions of fair use.
"Notice please I said selling services and support. Nowhere did I mention a self-service business model."
Yes, "notice please" I said sell-service, not self-service. Jesus christ, learn to read.
Sorry, my mistake, for some reason I saw "self-service" not "sell-service". Maybe it's my sore eyes, or maybe I'm just tired.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"The exception to this rule is if there isn't a system in place where you can get the movies or music in your area then there is the one and pretty much only exception to this rule."
I would make the argument that even that is not an exception. For example, say there's a demand for foreign made dolls in my general area, but no one is servicing that need. The thing for me to do is start a small import business and service that need, and mine if I'm so inclined. My example not only applies to music, but if slushdot is to be belived, it's even easier. The current crop of complainers and downloaders who use the "but I can't get it here" argument don't really want there to be a solution otherwise they would have become part of the economic system and satisfied their needs and their customers, all of it legal.
"The bottom line is stop stealing these properties, and stop supporting them. "
How many pirated LoTr? Or weird Al? How about Half-life 2? You'd think that the "good stuff" would be support by people's dollars?
"You may not have stolen the music (that's up to you to decide) but they have less money than if you bought that copy outright. "
How about the argument that piracy isn't a tax on the content creator so much as it is a burden on the honest who do pay? The funny thing is that the honest get mad at the wrong people. "Those content creators are treating me like a thief", as opposed to "Those pirates are treating me like a chump. I pay and they don't".
This was the stupidest article I've ever read. It mixed in politics and philosophy with something completely different. There's a huge difference between the two ways the word "open" is used. DRM is a technology which may or may not be used for one's good. It is the restrictions that are encoded in a license that are the problem and these restrictions come from the record labels etc. They are your real enemies, fools! You could use DRM in your own favor, for eg, if you wanted to protect that special s** session with YO MAMA!!
"There are a number of business models existing on unsustainable business models; in short, they rely on selling a piece of information many times over, in order to stay afloat, when the nature of information is inherently nonconservative. It's only been the case historically that such business models were feasible, because of the difficulty in losslessly copying information. As this is no longer the case, it is also no long really feasible to make money by selling a plastic disc full of bits, at a price that exceeds both the marginal cost of the bits, and of the disc."
And as usual slashdot in order to bolster a weak argument convienently leaves out the cost of creation of that "nonconservative information". What's also left out in the discussions is the fact that "mass production" aka "selling the same bits over and over", which interestingly enough has a physical analogy is the best way to give the widest number at the cheapest price to the masses. When I buy a Ford, I'm not buying the same atoms, however I am buying effectively the same arangement as others.
"However, this doesn't mean that there isn't a market for entertainment. There is, has always been, and will always be, a vast market for entertainment of all forms. So it's idiotic to assume that no DRM means the death of the movie, music, or software industries. Those industries will continue, as long as a market for their products exists -- however, they will have to find new business models that don't rely on pretending that information is aspirin tablets, can can be turned out in factories and sold, over and over and over again."
Ah yes, the "gravy train will go on" argument. I wonder would open-source have been, or will continue to be the high quality code, as well as movenemt it presently is, if it was OK for the majority to not only violate their wishes with impunity, but insult, disparage, or otherwise mistreat, and when they complain (whatever form that may take). Say we have a "right" to do so. The people who create the content you enjoy are people too, and they don't enjoy being mistreated. The "gravy train" may go on? But it will not be the same train your presently enjoying.
"The market for entertainment is probably quite inflated right now; I suspect that during this switch of business models, to something that's more sustainable and doesn't require draconian consumer restrictions, that the size of the movie industry, in particular, would contract dramatically. But that's the way of things -- a huge studio empire isn't required to produce a good film, and thus there's a lot of redundant overhead there, which needs to go. This change sucks if you make your living right now as a middleman in a movie studio, but it probably sucked being a buggy-whip manufacturer, too."
I've always found it fascinating that those who know the least about a field, are the loudest complainers. here's a hint for you. The distribution model (nonconservative remember?) isn't the problem. The "buggy whip" situation was about more than just getting from point A to point B faster. It was about carrying more, faster, in greater style and comfort. Cheaper transportation wasn't enough.
"You cannot destroy the entirety of the entertainment industry, so long as there are people with free time and disposable income, who want to be entertained. Unfortunately, the entertainment industry as we know it today has grown fat and lazy; it has resisted change at every opportunity, even when such change has eventually benefited it (e.g. VCRs, online music sales). Either it will refuse to change, and go down with its failing business model, or it will stop fighting the inevitable, and rethink how entertainment is produced and sold. Either way, people will still be entertained."
You do realize that crime is "inevitable" too? I recommend we stop fighting that as well, for the betterment of mankind. Cheaper too.
And which freedoms is DRM going to take away from us?
The whole fuss around DRM is that media companies want bigger profit and us consumers don't want to pay, because we are used to pirating things. That's all there is to it.
You appear to have missed the whole WGA thing. Of course your old XP install disc will accept your old XP Key, but MS can just lock you out later.
"Consider Walmart, an entire empire was built because Walmart found a way to reduce costs and pass the savings onto the customer;"
I just disagree with this premise.
I'm not a regular Wal-mart shopper, so forgive me if I don't see these savings. But every time I go to Wal-Mart, I see *higher* prices than are available elsewhere.
With one exception... when Wal-Mart has off-brands, or stuff that's made just for them, the prices can be inexpensive.
But if you take a look at items that you can compare with prices at another store.... Video Games, CD/DVD, computers, accessories, toys, electronics, televisions etc. and you compare them to prices at Bestbuy, Amazon, Circuit City, Frys, Wal-Mart prices are always at the high end. I always consider Wal-Mart the last-resort choice... I need something within the hour, otherwise, I'll order it at Amazon (overnight shipping $4). A perfect example, I needed a new headlight bulb, and Wal-Mart was close, so I went there. $10. I later check the local discount auto store....$6. I'm not angry, because the Wal-Mart was close by. I paid $4 for convenience. But cheap? Nope, the most expensive place I could go.
I'm not a Wal-Mart basher, I admire their business methods, but people think they have lower prices because Wal-Mart keeps telling them they have lower prices.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Karma: Excellent, at least on slashdot. :)
There are quite a few. If you mean George, I have more friends then him too.
fixed.
"the fruits of my labor"
Go ahead and use this phrase around any bunch of guys who are not metrosexual; my guess is they will likely punch you in the face. Men don't talk this way, nor do they tolerate anybody who does.
Now, if you're a hot chick, we'll pretend to be interested, but it's just a ruse to get you into bed.
It is possible to extract DRM out of Vista and stay with a 100% working version of the OS. No idea if its possible with MacOS too.
Have you never heard of "Hobson's Choice"?
If you don't like the contract, you not sign and fail to make any money. If you sign the contract you fail to make any money. There will be a one-on-a-thousand chance of making a packet though. We will still make a BIGGER packet.
When you pay for a lottery ticket you are 100% guaranteed to lose a pound on the deal. You have a one-in-a-thousand chance of making £10 or more back. But it isn't that chance that gets people buying: it is the one-in-14million-chance of making 10 million that gets people buying the tickets.
Now, if the RIAA want to make it a loan to cover production costs, then MAKE IT A LOAN. Require extra payment or insurance to cover the cases where the basic loan has no opportunity to be paid back and then set the rate. The money is paid back from the sales by the artist directly.
This is EXACTLY how banks do this for business loans, homes, etc. They even figure in the loss of any chance of getting ANY money back on the deal. Yet they still make huge profits.
So why does the record industry need copyrights and indentured service?
Because they have, can and will. Until these contracts are ruled invalid, there is no way around this. The industry certainly isn't going to change voluntarily.
Vista's success is a threat to:
Lunix...
OS X...
and their claims of being secure.
That is all.
MS and no other OS company provide a secure environment (no DRM).
The media industry can cut cost significantly by going online. If they don't go online, then they will miss out on that market segment. See Mobile Tunes for how profitable this can be). So not going online will cost them.
Now, without the help of MS (on 90% of home computers) they will have to have their own protected program for playing these files. That means that they'd have to work out a scheme (at their own expense) to encrpyt and secure this program, fix it against exploits and update for new OS's. Do you think that they will share this program with others? Take a look at BR/HD patent wars, or the Mobile phone tech for examples where this would have worked to their benefit if they'd risked it. So the answer is "no".
So if you want to listen to Sony music, you need one player. BMI another. Etc.
So people don't buy or get from somewhere else.
Meanwhile, the indies, where they abandon the idea that they must control the user, 'cos they have less to lose, are online, selling maybe 20% of their music out there (in practice, it would be 80% or more: people are generally honest) but the overhead is so low that it is almost all profit (using BT and just seeding means their download costs are miniscule). Because this stuff is so easy to get, people listen to it. If they haven't paid, they may listen to more. Because (as I said earlier) most people are pretty honest, this will increase sales (though not 100% of the new listenrs). The RIAA orgs become less popular and their attractiveness (getting to a lot of people) is nerfed doubly so: you cannot get online to those customers, and the word-of-mouth is being overtaken by the indies.
RIAA orgs drop in relevance and because that is the only thing they had to sell, they drop further. Repeat as necessary.
That is what would face the RIAA if MS didn't play ball.
So RIAA would PAY HANDSOMELY for DRM.
MS want it because if you need Windows to play any music, game or video (remember it is THEIR DRM: so they can license it to anyone they like and keep it from anyone they choose) then instead of being on 90% and falling home systems, it will be on 100% near enough, and stuck there. BUT, not only that, the servers serving up this content will have to have licensed this, which could be Windows OS again.
And if the internet needs to be protected from hacking this secure path..?
MS could win BIG TIME from being the One True DRM. And that is why they bow over. Not because they have to but because they want to.
And DRM is the law. Just as there is a war on drugs, there is now a war on the access to information. Just as some drugs are generally safe for the population, the control of the distribution of such drugs is paramount. Just as when there are restrictions on the supply of an item in demand, a market will form to allow for the purchase and distribution of said contraband.
DRM free information is lawless and unrestricted. One cannot control a free population, and if not enough people are doing something wrong, just make it so that what the majority is doing is wrong and all of a sudden you now have a population of criminals and, although they may not stop what they have been doing, thier freedom of expression is now restricted because they can no long speak of what they do for threat of persecution. This creates an alternate socitey, the US vs. THEM, and with this...
Well, we've all seen Star Wars here haven't we? This is how revolutions happen and the end result is sometimes no pretty for either side.
Yes, it's just information (heh), but information is the lifeblood of the internet, and as a result, the way to distribute and desiminate the way of thought of the culture. I highly doubt that Net Neutrality will exist for more than a couple of years, and with that the net will be reduced to television, with those that are still able to access and publish that are not Big Media considered rouges and those that consume revolutionaries.
Sometimes the result is for the revolutionaries (which makes for a great story) but normally the rulers crush them out without even a side note in the history books. But sometimes, the revolution gets so big and the seperation so deep that there's no way to stop it and the rulers are destroyed from within, like a cancer.
The Law is about control, but it's not always right for everyone and if everyone listens to the Law, even if they know they are doing no wrong and no harm, then everyone is under control. Freedom of Choice should be maintained if we desire to be human and not human resources in this giant corporate machine of society.
You claim that the copyright's purpose is to create income after the creation of the work. I don't think so. The copyright's purpose is to make it possible to create further work
And they way it allows you to create further work is through the artist's ability to be collecting money after the fact of creating previous work. If you want a novelist to be able to live off his book sales while writing yet another book, by definition, you want him to be able to collect money for the sales of his previous (as in, written in the past) works. That's what copyright is all about: control over the right to make copies of an existing work. Period. As long as there is an audiece for yet more copies of a work, the person who has those rights will be able (if they choose) to derive whatever income might be possible from the sale of those new copies. The moment the last page of a novel is written, its production is in the past. If you cannot separate, across time, the act of creating something, and the act of transacting the sale of copies of that thing you've created, then you're proposing instead that all novelists should be performanc artists who charge people to watch them write. Personally, I'd rather pay for a DVD of a great film and enjoy the experience than try to arrange to spend several years watching it being made.
Imagine that artists are employed just like most of the people. Your job is writing a nice novel. You draw a salary and in X years time you give me the novel. That's it. You have been paid for your work. Sounds terrible, doesn't it?
Yes, it does. Who's paying? Who decides which artists are good enough to draw a salary? Should anyone that feels that they are a novelist be entitled to such a salary? Here's an idea: demonstrate, in the market, that you have the skills, talent, and ability to stick to the multi-year task of producing something like that, and then convince a publisher that it's worth them risking money (in exchange for them getting a piece of the action later) to write you an advance check. It's called investing. And most such investments are lost, because most people simply aren't talented, and most books (and every other creative activity) aren't actually good enough to delight enough people for the artist to actually make a living producing such work. But some of them are, and they risk everything (or someone else risks it for them, in a deal they both strike) to produce something they hope enough of us will buy. There's risk involved, and if you want to take the risk out of it (salaried novelists, working for who... Acme Novels? The Federal Ministry Of Culture?) then you'll get exactly the mediocrity you'd expect.
That's, however, exactly the way researchers, engineers and in fact employed artists (like the designers of your household gadgets and so on) work.
And how do you suppose the money is gathered in advance of those people actually producing anything in order to pay those people? Either through investment (risk), or because previous efforts, in the past, are now making money. If there's no expectation that the work you're doing might result in something that will result in sales, how can you convince your investors to part with the money you'll be using to pay your designers, your engineers, and your researchers? Or are you saying that all people who want to be designers, engineers, and researchers should draw government salaries fueled by tax dollars, and we'll just hope that at least some of them produce something useful, or beautiful? Nonsense. Let the market work it out. An engineer working on something large and complex draws a salary because, in practical terms, there's no way to produce a (for example) hybrid car drive train without lots of people workig on it. Just like the novelest who risks all of the time he's put into writing a novel that may not sell, the employer of that engineer is risking everything they put into supporting the engineer while he works
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
DRM is very beneficial to Apple. It locks all of their customers into a proprietary format that cannot be legally migrated to anyone else's format. In your example above, "re-ripping" your copies of iTunes files would be a federal crime, specifically a violation of Section 1201(a)(1)(A) of the DMCA, which reads, "(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
Now that you're locked into Apple, forget about using any other manufacturer's device to play back that content on your new hi-def TV, or changing to another portable player. You're (legally) stuck.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Keep telling yourself that, you sweaty, chair tossing bastard.
And stop complaining. If you don't like DRM, then start your own movie distribution company and don't use DRM. Good luck signing major studios, BTW.
DVIX can give us hope.
damaged by dogma
I agree that this article didn't make sense. He didn't offer a single concrete example of the phenomena he was decrying. His concern was losing the end to end principle, and the only controversy there I'm aware of is the "net neutrality" debate, which pits Google against the telecomm companies. That doesn't have anything to do with Vista. If net neutrality is what he's worried about, he ought to say so.
Unfortunately when they return a movie that won't play on thier computer, people will find out they can't get a refund. Once the media container is opened all they can do is exchange it.
Unfortunately? Fortunately is more like it. Fortunate for those of us who love freedom, that is.
If you look at my post history you can see I love and value freedom, yet I still beleive it's unfortunate I can't get a refund once I open the wrapping of a movie. I have had to return movies more than once because the disk was bad. And no, I didn't try to play the movie on my computer, I have a stand alone dvd player but no dvd drive installed in any computer. I even had to exchange the media for one movie twice. I have several disks that won't play at all but I can't get a refund and I should be able to, when I buy something I expect it to work and if it doesn't I should be able to get a refund. Otherwise they're, the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer are ripping me off selling me defective merchandize. That is theft. Would you not return a PC if after buying it it didn't work?
FalconShould there be a Law?
"The root of the problem is a corporate mentality that users don't have any rights."
It's called fascism, pure and simple. Sad to see the "arsenal of democracy" turn into a fascist state.
OK, let's the artist have a right to earn money with each copy (s)he makes. How about the right of not giving you a copy? If you want market forces everywhere, then how come that you give monopoly rights for a product to an entity and in the same time you also give right to that entity to not supply the product (while stopping everybody else to produce the product)? Doesn't seem much like the "invisible hand".
The horrible thought of being an artist on salary is actually more real than imaginary. If you are an artist and you are working for the government, then by law all your products are in the public domain and you can not claim anything on them apart from your salary. Furthermore, if you are a performing artist you do your work for a salary and noone gives a damn about your many years of training and investment to said training because you get a paid for your work. Quite a lot of artists being employed by the entertainment industry are on salary, from back-up musicians to backdrop and scenery artist. You single out some artists and give them copyright and let the rest live on salary. It is interesting that the copyright to most DVDs I can see in the shop belongs to a corporate entity. Not an artist, not even a natural person but an artifically created legal concept that has no interest in art, only in making money.
Great grandpa went to the war because he was sent to. There was that issue with conscription. He was told that he had to do that to save the nation. He had no choice on the contract to be signed. No market forces, just sheer coercion.
As per the Soviet Union collapsing, I don't think that it was because their artists didn't receive copyright. There seemed to be a few rather talented artist, despite the lack of copyright as well as damned good scientists.
Art and science, at least basic science, IMHO, can not rely on market forces alone. If nothing is being subject to market forces, like in the USSR is an extreme, everything being a product on a market is the other extreme. Basic research is very risky because quite often many decades of work produces nothing, at least nothing that can directly be turned to money. No sane investor puts money into basic research - the investment is huge, the return unpredictable and the chance of failure is very high. Yet, without basic research we wouldn't have much progress because all practical research is based on the basic science. Now most societies realise that and provide money for basic scientific research by government run institutions or through grants/funds. The basic research is then done by salaried (pretty badly salaried, actually) people who do it because they have a personal, strongly non-financial motivation of doing it. That seemed to successfully drive science through many centuries. Similarly, in the past few thousand years most of the art was created without the benefit of copyright income and it did pretty well. The "market forces are king" is just one mentality or social model. It has no inherent superiority over any other system, except that it hasn't yet failed. There's no guarantee that it won't fail. We went through lots of models and the one size fits all doesn't seem to work that well. The USSR may have collapsed but interestingly enough South America seems to be steadily moving towards the less market driven model despite that, and the IMF is also surprised that an increasing number of third world countries say no thans to the IMF money if it comes with condition of building a market forces only system.
While the current copyright system certainly helps *some* artists, it has its drawbacks (such as discriminating between art forms and artists, serving the financial interest of investors rather than society and artists in general etc). The more and more stringent copyright legistlations were not initiated by artists or the general public - they were introduced by the industries who make their profit from the explitation of artist.
I don't know if you are aware but there are scientific papers out there in whi
Now you've changed your tune. You're not worried about people using resources without paying for it but rather about "copying" it.
Hey, I enjoy my library, and enjoy and get inspired by books that retail for $100s of dollars each (some technical books). From your old post it sounded like you were saying it's me ripping off content since I enjoyed it without paying for each book.
Anyway, you're now saying your arguement isn't that you don't want people to use content without paying for it but you don't want people to copy things. But, that's whole another arguement though.
Now you've changed your tune. You're not worried about people using resources without paying for it but rather about "copying" it.
Nope. When a library has a copy of a book, they have a copy of the book. Someone paid for that book. The author and/or his publisher sold it. Without permission from the copyright holder, the library does not get to run you off your own copy of the book, and it cannot spread the same copy around to a large, high-demand audience of lots of simultaneous readers without obtaining more simultaneous legit copies. Can you not see the difference between that (one book that's passed around, serially) and one person getting hold of an artist's new recording, and then just instantly spreading around a bit-for-bit copy of it with 100,000 anonymous "friends" who all consider themselves fans of the artist, but who are all too cheap to pay what the artist asks?
From your old post it sounded like you were saying it's me ripping off content since I enjoyed it without paying for each book.
Why? Was that book, sitting on the shelf, stolen? I'm guessing it was bought and donated to the library, or perhaps directly purchased by the library. The author gets paid.
you're now saying your arguement isn't that you don't want people to use content without paying for it but you don't want people to copy things
No, I'm saying that the copyright holder gets to say how (and for how much) her work is copied. Every other aspect of this discussion comes from there.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So am I still being cheap if I borrow the CD from the library and listen to it and call myself a fan? Is being a fan measured in terms of dollars?
However, the library paid for a single copy. It will get used by over 100 students in the course of a few years. Isn't that effectively the author getting paid 1/100th of the value? Also, the first guy who shares his copy has to buy it. If he shares it to 100 people, then the artist is also being effectively paid 1/100th of the price. I don't see what simultaneous and serial has anything to do with it. Would a sharing system where only 1 person was using the resource at one time and the rest had to queue to use it be satisfactory?
So, you are saying copying is the only thing you have a problem with.
What if a library decided to have a system installed where 100 people could watch a movie at the same time. No copying of data but simultaneous use. Would that be OK?