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
...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
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.
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.
Certainly profit and freedom can co-exist ...
The problem is that the music/movie industry's control has been lost largely because of how the internet works and they're using all of their power to regain control. If in 1998-2000 the music industry realized that they didn't need to sell physical media anymore, and passed the savings onto their customers, there would be very little piracy and there would be no need for DRM; the same thing could be said about movies today.
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.
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."
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Bull.... If the ones making the media make the media to accept only DRM enabled software, then yes it will affect you. Every time you have to install the crack in order to see that movie or listen to that song. The battle is just beginning. Whom is quicker? The software maker? or the one trying to keep a working crack to disable the DRM? Time will tell us.
"...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!!!
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?
"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
And, taking your post as some sort of anti-capitalist statement, it's not exactly as if those eeeeeevil capitalists are the first people to infringe upon freedoms in the pursuit of more profit or power for themselves (and less for others, and less overall). Why, I hear they've had kings and czars and feudal systems and wars and such going alllll the way back. All the way.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Who needs freedom when there's just got so many cool options?
The original generic sig.
And who is forcing you to consume this media, exactly? Most of my music comes from either live bootlegs or local independent musicians. DRM isn't even on my radar (not that DRM frightens me). If you want to listen to Shitney Spears and friends, and the only way it's available is on some proprietary format that you have to have a special reader for, then that's the product. The assumption that anybody should be able to use any information any way they want is where the whole DRM argument falls apart. If you don't like it, then don't buy it. It's that simple.
I don't respond to AC's.
How can DRM be a bad thing?
Check that out and get back to me. You will be a changed man.
Living With a Nerd
...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.
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
I know not how to post. Nix that trailing slash: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
-Jeff
I heard that Vista studied at a Madasa, when it was younger.
This is HUGE!
There's nothing wrong with anything - Phillip J. Fry
Profit is not just "all things good." Profit is not just income. Profit is income that is not derived from work, but from investment of money. People who take profits take money that rightfully belongs to others who actually worked for it. There is a reason Jesus got angry at the money lenders in the temple. There is a reason that lending money for profit was considered a sin.
Just because the capitalists are not the first to impose on others freedoms, and just because they do it economically rather than politically does not make it right. Freedom means having the means to support yourself. Capitalism concentrates wealth into fewer and fewer hands, because the more money you have, the easier it is to game the system. The free market can only remain free if we keep people from abusing their economic power.
Freedom means having the means to support yourself. When everything in the world is owned by a small percentage of the population, the rest of us are "free" to sell ourselves into slavery for our next meal. That is capitalism, the freedom to choose between being a slave or starving.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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
You can easily choose to be rich, or choose to be a successful scientist or anything else . It's only a matter of will . Personally I am against both democracy and capitalism , but as long as the system is flexible , anyone can be anything in it .
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?"
Jesus was a cool guy, but that doesn't mean you have to believe everything he said or did was right. Well unless you worship the guy maybe.
"In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
No man is an island. No one can be what they can not imagine. What we are capable of imagining is based on what society expects of us. There is no other place that this can come from, the individual starts out as a blank slate. The world would be a simpler place if the individualists were right, but it is far more complicated than that.
Oppression is real. Not everyone can make anything of themselves, and it isn't just a matter of will. The problem of individualism is that it actually encourages the individual to deny that the consequences of his actions have an impact on any other individual, becasue that other could just decide not to be affected by it.
The system matters. Not every flexible system is as good as any other at encouraging the best in individuals. You can in fact blame the system for the failings of individuals, just as you can blame individuals for the failings of a system. There is a complicated feedback loop between the individual and society.
If you are against democracy and capitalism, what system are you in favor of?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.)
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?
I believe there was an if, as in " If people did intelligent things, stupidity wouldn't happen." I don't know if he would have been right, but its a happy wistful hope...
Clones are people two.
"It's all well and good to believe that, but just because some random guy on Slashdot says it doesn't mean it is (or isn't) true.
...
I was almost convinced until you said something about passing the savings on to the customer. Obviously you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about!"
I admit that it is an old fashioned concept but it is not (entirely) dead
Consider Walmart, an entire empire was built because Walmart found a way to reduce costs and pass the savings onto the customer; had Walmart tried to reduce costs and increase their ROI on every product sold they would probably have never grown into what they are today.
Now I could be wrong but I believe that if music on iTunes (or any music store) was dramatically less expensive (say $0.25 per song) you would see a lot more money spent on music and few people would be willing to admit that they stole an album; at $4 per album I could see most parents buying their children a $20 iTunes card a month, and everyone would (possibly) download the entire album of an artist when they liked one song they heard. At $15-$20 per album the cost almost justifies the effort required to download the album for free.
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.
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!
The cost of production is still the same.
The cost of distribution goes from whatever it is now to practically zero.
I won't pay NZ$30 for a DVD but I would be perfectly happy to pay $3 for a legal drm-free download (about what I pay to rent a DVD now). And I'd far rather pay $3 than piss around with emule, downloading crappy handycam rips and mislabeled files at often barely-dialup speeds.
I'd probably buy three or four movies a week at that price and I suspect a hell of a lot of other people would too. I also suspect that most (but not all) people who paid would treat it like a rental; watch it a few times then delete it to make space for new movies.
I suspect that at one tenth the price they would easily sell far more than ten times the volume, making the same or likely more profit simply by giving consumers exactly what they want.
But I'll probably never find out for sure, because the MAFIAA have decided they're in the business of selling little plastic disks rather than the business of providing entertainment..
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
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!
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.
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???
What do tax collectors have to do with anything? Jesus hated people who lent money for profit, usury was a sin, tax collectors have nothing to do with either.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
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.
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
I'm having trouble with the notion that someone who enables another to buy his own house is committing a sin, but hey, it's your religion. "Jesus hated".
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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?
Not mine, and it's not a sin anymore. The good is not the best. It's the is-aught problem. Sure, a moneylender let's you buy your own house, but it is the best method for doing so?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Bah. I never said people don't need to work to support themselves. Tell me, when you own nothing and the only way to support yourself is to do whatever your landlord tells you, is that freedom?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
How else would you buy your own house? Save? That might take a while, and you'd pay a landlord the whole time.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
> 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!
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.
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!
"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?
In the UK theres a scheme being done by many banks for religions that dont allow borrowing (yes, they do exist) - the bank buys the house, the bank *owns* the house, you pay the bank rent and after a period of time you own the house without repaying any money.
Its different to how its normally done because in the UK when you take out a mortgage you immediately own the house, the bank doesnt own it unless they reposses it.
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.
"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.
Religion is funny.
These people are probably paying the bank more than if they just took out a loan.
If there's a God, he doesn't care how you finance your house - of that I am fairly certain. God only cares that you pour water over the head of your baby, or that you not eat pork. You know, important things like that.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
There is a cost involved, but thats the price of religion -
i ng/mortgages.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/liv
I actually have almost 25 years computer experience. I was merely making fun of loaded questions.
Most of my friends who download music/video do so because it is free. They don't do it because they hate record companies, or for some utopian ideals, they do it to save money. The main things that cause my other friends to not download is that it is inconvenient and they fear being sued. If the recording industry just rolled over, they would no longer fear being sued, and convenience sites like allofmp3 would be far more prevalent. Basically, far more people would download their music for free rather than paying.
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
It's actually interesting the hoops that Muslim's have to jump through. It's also kind of amusing because the goals and end results are the same, only the names are changed. It's all about how a society chooses to share risks and rewards. A loan by any other name...
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
I'm going to tell you a story.
There was a bar I used to drink in once. They had a juke box in there. An NSM Prestige (think what a hypothetical 1988 Seeburg would be like if the company had still been going then), played 45s, 160 selections. 10 pence a song, and it was always playing. Everyone who came into the place used to walk up to the machine, look at the records, drop in a coin and put on a tune.
One sunny afternoon, the man came round from the amusement hire company like he did once a fortnight, to service the machine and change the records. He also tweaked it up to 20 pence a song.
After that, people just used to walk up to the machine, look at the records, and walk away again.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Yeah, if it weren't self-inflicted it would be termed "exploitation". Instead, these banks are lauded for catering to the neglected minority. Amazing stuff. It's almost as amusing as the "Sabbath elevators" in use in some areas with large Jewish populations. They stop on every floor continuously all day long - thus removing the need to do the "work" of pushing the button. Hilarious, not because people are obeying their religion, but because they've engineered this sham workaround.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
What gets me is that this is as much as admitting that you worship a chump, a rube. If you can pull the wool over God's eyes with semantic tricks, maybe He's not worth going to the trouble over, hmmm?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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
By and large, the Movie Industry already has done that.
Witness: the sharp decline in cinema audiences.
Witness: the sharp increase in mail-order rentals.
Witness: the sharp decline of retail prices for DVD movies.
None of these factors exist for Music; which, strangely enough, is much easier to pirate via P2P downloads. It's really quite curious (to me) how the Movie and Music markets are handling these new channels and conditions so differently.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
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?
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?