Well, if the "real life stuff" that your supposed to do, or that your SO wants you to do is boring, then it's a bit more understandable. You'd rather be doing something fun than something boring. But when it becomes the only thing you do for fun, then yeah, there's probably a problem there. Especially if you start skipping work or school in order to play.
Heh. Well, that's exactly what I meant. By not interceding on behalf of these corporations and passing legislation such as teh CBDTPA, Congress will be forcing these corporations to either conform to the desires of the market or simply fail.
At least his definition of piracy showed most of the traits of what the term originally described. Only the location was different. That the term was perverted to mean something utterly incomparable to the original meaning is just... well.. perverse.
Of course the majority of MP3 downloading is illegal. That doesn't mean that artists aren't being compensated justly though. If I download some songs, and they're crap that I listen to once and then delete, I don't see why the artist (or the RIAA) should be compensated by me. On the other hand, I've found several bands that I'd never heard of before (and one that is now my all-time favorite band and I've bought every CD they've published so far, and I'm eagerly awaiting their next one this summer) and I've bought quite a few CDs as a result. Given my own experience, I find it a bit harder to believe that P2P services are quite as devastating to the RIAA and MPAA as they would have us believe. I think they're trying to pin the effects of the recession on P2P services. When Napster was in its prime, CD sales were still on the rise, breaking records in fact.
By rallying behind Gateway (and all their money) are we going to put them into a position to corner the market?
I don't think there's any danger of Gateway cornering anything. They make overpriced, underwhelming mass-market PCs. Most educated users wouldn't buy from them anyway. However, they can stand to benefit from this campaign. As I understand it, the AOL users of the world still buy their computers based on the testimony of bovine corporate representatives.
I agree that, in general, where corporations are concerned, there are no "good guys", but there are most certainly "bag guys." Those would be the ones that put profit over human life, health, and welfare. Not all corporations do this, and not all do it brazenly, but those that do can certainly be considered "bad guys."
Large corporations almost always have to be dragged, kicking and screaming (and suing), into the future. The only thing we can hope for is that Congress and the courts make the right decisions and force these corporations to conform to the market, rather than try to get legislation to make the market conform to their wishes.
Wires take up much less space than pipes, it is possible for many companies to lay wires throughout a city.
Have you *seen* the mess they make when they're laying new wires and new conduit?? They often have to close parts of roads to do it. It would *NOT* be a good idea to have some other company doing that every couple months. It is quite analogous to sewer and water pipes. It's not quite as big a pain, but it's pretty bad.
While state-run organizations may be innefficient, some regulation is often a good thing. Any time public property is involved, as is the case with cable, phone, sewer, electric, and water lines, regulation can be beneficial to consumers. The infrastructure should be regulated, the service providers should all have access to it though.
Sure, until you order a customized system from a name-brand dealer. They charge double the going rate for a memory upgrade!! And that's just the start. If you want a generic system with mediocre components, then great, buy a Dell. If you want specific, high-quality components, then you're going to double the price of the system if you buy from Dell or one of the other biggies.
This makes me wonder if the law is more focused at "entertainment" copyright protection than "software" copyright protection. So "Lord of the Rings" would be protected by this bill and not "Norton Anti-virus".
The software industry didn't really chip in to help pay for this law. Let them buy their own damn law.
Err.. yeah. And when we're gone, they'll just import a whole lot more IT people. Be interesting when the majority of the US ends up being Hindu or Muslim.:)
Hmm. With my current setup, my temp is about 37C idle and about 42C under heavy load (i.e. playing Jedi Knight 2 for an hour). I'm comfortable with those numbers. I've seen athlons run pretty hot (65-70C) for a long time without much problem, but I'm not sure how daring I want to be in that department. I think I can probably get away with using a slightly less effective fan, but I'm going to have to do the research to figure out which one will give me the best balance between temperature and decibals.
Yeah, I'm just realizing I need to get a new fan for my Athlon XP. I have a Thermalright SK-6 heatsink and a Delta fan that is loud as all hell. I want a quieter fan, but I'm a gamer and I need something that will still keep my CPU cool under heavy use. I haven't heard about any other fans that perform as well as this one, but are relatively quiet. If anyone has suggestions, then I'm open to ideas. Otherwise I may end up looking into this noise canceling thing. Though I don't think it'll help in my situation:(
So will you pay for the legal fees? Or maybe Best Buy should, since they sold the computer in the first place.
Nope. You're the one entering into the agreement with the software company. You should be responsible for obtaining whatever help you need to understand that agreement. If you can't afford to understand the agreement, then you probably shouldn't agree to it. If enough people did this, then software makers would be forced to simplify their license agreements. But since nobody bothers to read the things, they take full advantage of that fact. Like it or not, those that don't read and understand their agreements are contributing to the problem and deserve what they get.
I agree that standardization has made PCs cheaper, but I don't think Microsoft is helping much in that area. They've helped make them easy enough for regular people to use, certainly, but MS software has been comprising a greater and greater portion of the cost of a new computer for years now.
Yep. The problem is that you, and everybody else, should demand easier agreements from the companies you purchase software from. Or you should simply not buy their software.
If you don't understand it, then you should get someone to explain it to you, preferably a lawyer. Actually preferably a computer scientist with a degree in contract law. If you sign something you don't understand, then you're an idiot. Now, if they actually lie to you about what you're signing, that would be another matter. But I don't see that happening in this case.
What do you mean "hiding" something in the license agreement? If you read the agreement, as you are supposed to do, before clicking "I agree", then you would know what you were agreeing to. If you don't read it, then you deserve to get screwed.
Huh? What if I'm using an open source compiler? Hardware is another matter, but one that is dealt with differently. I don't sign (or click) an agreement when I buy hardware, so they would not be able to sneak in some sort of trojan legally as this company seems to have done. And if they can't do it legally, then it becomes a major liability for the company if it is discovered (and it would be discovered eventually), and someone would likely go to jail for it.
True, and as long as those rules are aimed at bettering the product for the consumer, and not aimed at hurting MS, I'm all for it.
The goal of the remedies phase is to pave the way for the restoration of competition to the relevant market(s). If this involves "harming" Microsoft, then so be it. It has already been established by the court, and confirmed by the appeals court that Microsoft gained financially through illegal tactics. If you steal money, they don't let you keep it. Same principle applies here. It's expected that the remedy should be something that Microsoft will find quite unappealing. But it will probably be necessary in order to level the playing field so that others will have a chance at gaining marketshare again.
That said, I think the states are being complete idiots about this. They should focus on opening up the APIs, protocols, and file formats. They should be ensuring that Microsoft is not allowed to use its monopoly to coerce OEMs and others into offering Microsoft's products exclusively or to offer incentives (or disincentives) to them to not promote competitor's products. Right now the states are making fools of themselves and turning this case into a joke. We're all gonna lose (well, all except Microsoft) if they don't pull their heads out of their asses real quick and do the smart thing. Somehow I'm not too optimistic about our chances.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if the "real life stuff" that your supposed to do, or that your SO wants you to do is boring, then it's a bit more understandable. You'd rather be doing something fun than something boring. But when it becomes the only thing you do for fun, then yeah, there's probably a problem there. Especially if you start skipping work or school in order to play.
How could they be "stealing" the crap that I don't like, and therefore don't have on my hard drive?
Heh. Well, that's exactly what I meant. By not interceding on behalf of these corporations and passing legislation such as teh CBDTPA, Congress will be forcing these corporations to either conform to the desires of the market or simply fail.
At least his definition of piracy showed most of the traits of what the term originally described. Only the location was different. That the term was perverted to mean something utterly incomparable to the original meaning is just... well.. perverse.
Of course the majority of MP3 downloading is illegal. That doesn't mean that artists aren't being compensated justly though. If I download some songs, and they're crap that I listen to once and then delete, I don't see why the artist (or the RIAA) should be compensated by me. On the other hand, I've found several bands that I'd never heard of before (and one that is now my all-time favorite band and I've bought every CD they've published so far, and I'm eagerly awaiting their next one this summer) and I've bought quite a few CDs as a result. Given my own experience, I find it a bit harder to believe that P2P services are quite as devastating to the RIAA and MPAA as they would have us believe. I think they're trying to pin the effects of the recession on P2P services. When Napster was in its prime, CD sales were still on the rise, breaking records in fact.
By rallying behind Gateway (and all their money) are we going to put them into a position to corner the market?
I don't think there's any danger of Gateway cornering anything. They make overpriced, underwhelming mass-market PCs. Most educated users wouldn't buy from them anyway. However, they can stand to benefit from this campaign. As I understand it, the AOL users of the world still buy their computers based on the testimony of bovine corporate representatives.
I agree that, in general, where corporations are concerned, there are no "good guys", but there are most certainly "bag guys." Those would be the ones that put profit over human life, health, and welfare. Not all corporations do this, and not all do it brazenly, but those that do can certainly be considered "bad guys."
Large corporations almost always have to be dragged, kicking and screaming (and suing), into the future. The only thing we can hope for is that Congress and the courts make the right decisions and force these corporations to conform to the market, rather than try to get legislation to make the market conform to their wishes.
Wires take up much less space than pipes, it is possible for many companies to lay wires throughout a city.
Have you *seen* the mess they make when they're laying new wires and new conduit?? They often have to close parts of roads to do it. It would *NOT* be a good idea to have some other company doing that every couple months. It is quite analogous to sewer and water pipes. It's not quite as big a pain, but it's pretty bad.
While state-run organizations may be innefficient, some regulation is often a good thing. Any time public property is involved, as is the case with cable, phone, sewer, electric, and water lines, regulation can be beneficial to consumers. The infrastructure should be regulated, the service providers should all have access to it though.
No. Not if you piss them off. If you try to defraud them, then perhaps. Maybe you should read your service agreement again.
Ok, how many megabytes of storage would it take to contain the Library of Congress. Then I can just multiply by 35.
Sure, until you order a customized system from a name-brand dealer. They charge double the going rate for a memory upgrade!! And that's just the start. If you want a generic system with mediocre components, then great, buy a Dell. If you want specific, high-quality components, then you're going to double the price of the system if you buy from Dell or one of the other biggies.
This makes me wonder if the law is more focused at "entertainment" copyright protection than "software" copyright protection. So "Lord of the Rings" would be protected by this bill and not "Norton Anti-virus".
The software industry didn't really chip in to help pay for this law. Let them buy their own damn law.
Err.. yeah. And when we're gone, they'll just import a whole lot more IT people. Be interesting when the majority of the US ends up being Hindu or Muslim. :)
Hmm. With my current setup, my temp is about 37C idle and about 42C under heavy load (i.e. playing Jedi Knight 2 for an hour). I'm comfortable with those numbers. I've seen athlons run pretty hot (65-70C) for a long time without much problem, but I'm not sure how daring I want to be in that department. I think I can probably get away with using a slightly less effective fan, but I'm going to have to do the research to figure out which one will give me the best balance between temperature and decibals.
Yeah, I'm just realizing I need to get a new fan for my Athlon XP. I have a Thermalright SK-6 heatsink and a Delta fan that is loud as all hell. I want a quieter fan, but I'm a gamer and I need something that will still keep my CPU cool under heavy use. I haven't heard about any other fans that perform as well as this one, but are relatively quiet. If anyone has suggestions, then I'm open to ideas. Otherwise I may end up looking into this noise canceling thing. Though I don't think it'll help in my situation :(
So will you pay for the legal fees? Or maybe Best Buy should, since they sold the computer in the first place.
Nope. You're the one entering into the agreement with the software company. You should be responsible for obtaining whatever help you need to understand that agreement. If you can't afford to understand the agreement, then you probably shouldn't agree to it. If enough people did this, then software makers would be forced to simplify their license agreements. But since nobody bothers to read the things, they take full advantage of that fact. Like it or not, those that don't read and understand their agreements are contributing to the problem and deserve what they get.
I agree that standardization has made PCs cheaper, but I don't think Microsoft is helping much in that area. They've helped make them easy enough for regular people to use, certainly, but MS software has been comprising a greater and greater portion of the cost of a new computer for years now.
Yep. The problem is that you, and everybody else, should demand easier agreements from the companies you purchase software from. Or you should simply not buy their software.
If you don't understand it, then you should get someone to explain it to you, preferably a lawyer. Actually preferably a computer scientist with a degree in contract law. If you sign something you don't understand, then you're an idiot. Now, if they actually lie to you about what you're signing, that would be another matter. But I don't see that happening in this case.
And yes, I do understand that they said "with the owner's permission" but what's to say they're not just saying that as a "cover my ass" line?
When you installed the software and agreed to the EULA, you gave them permission. That's what they mean.
KaZaA is a program used exclusively to steal music, movies, and software.
You would have to remove the word "exclusively" from that sentence for it to have any hope of being considered accurate.
To my mind, people have downloaded a program, expecting it to do one thing, and really it has a payload that con do something completely different...
To my mind, this says people are stupid and should've read the damn EULA that they agreed to before they clicked "I agree."
What do you mean "hiding" something in the license agreement? If you read the agreement, as you are supposed to do, before clicking "I agree", then you would know what you were agreeing to. If you don't read it, then you deserve to get screwed.
Huh? What if I'm using an open source compiler? Hardware is another matter, but one that is dealt with differently. I don't sign (or click) an agreement when I buy hardware, so they would not be able to sneak in some sort of trojan legally as this company seems to have done. And if they can't do it legally, then it becomes a major liability for the company if it is discovered (and it would be discovered eventually), and someone would likely go to jail for it.
True, and as long as those rules are aimed at bettering the product for the consumer, and not aimed at hurting MS, I'm all for it.
The goal of the remedies phase is to pave the way for the restoration of competition to the relevant market(s). If this involves "harming" Microsoft, then so be it. It has already been established by the court, and confirmed by the appeals court that Microsoft gained financially through illegal tactics. If you steal money, they don't let you keep it. Same principle applies here. It's expected that the remedy should be something that Microsoft will find quite unappealing. But it will probably be necessary in order to level the playing field so that others will have a chance at gaining marketshare again.
That said, I think the states are being complete idiots about this. They should focus on opening up the APIs, protocols, and file formats. They should be ensuring that Microsoft is not allowed to use its monopoly to coerce OEMs and others into offering Microsoft's products exclusively or to offer incentives (or disincentives) to them to not promote competitor's products. Right now the states are making fools of themselves and turning this case into a joke. We're all gonna lose (well, all except Microsoft) if they don't pull their heads out of their asses real quick and do the smart thing. Somehow I'm not too optimistic about our chances.