Only front-line mathematicians will really understand the STW conjecture. But you could say "there exists a modular form of weight two and level N which is an Eigenform under the Hecke series and has a Fourier series".
IBM couldn't even sell OS/2 installed. If you wanted it, you could buy it, but you were still gonna get (and pay for) Windows whether you liked it or not. They'd send a retail OS/2 along with it though so you could install it yourself. Hell of a choice.
Hopefully more cases will be filed against MS in which punative damages WILL be levied as a result of the current trial. If they used illegal means to gain a lot of that money, they deserve to lose it.
What if someone else is a musician named Billy Joel? Would he have the right to prevent them from using their own name on their album? I know it's highly unlikely that it would happen, I'm just curious to know how well they've thought these things out.
Perhaps we should evaluate what effect working for certain types of people can have on us.
I don't think he had a problem with this statement, and neither do I. I agree that it's worth looking into. The problem that's being raised is that certain groups with "an axe to grind" against SouthPark might simply exploit the situation without even examining it first.
Entirely not true. I've seen both types of posts moderated up and responded to in a civil fashion.
True. You're more likely to get a fair shake on/. than in most other venues. Of course there will always be a few people who will simply flame people for making statements that they don't agree with, but by and large, most/.ers will discuss things in a reasonable manner.
Hastings (music, books, movies, software store) sells Linux games as well. Don't know how widespread their stores are though. They had Civ:CTP and Myth2 for Linux.
Say I buy a CD. Now, if I don't have a CD player, I can have a friend record the CD onto a cassette tape which I have a player for. This would be considered fair use. Now, if I buy a DVD, they are trying to say that I can't convert it into a format that I can use on my Linux machine. That would be considered BS.
I would hope that the archive copy provision applies to CDs and DVDs just as it does to floppies. If I break or scratch the hell out of a CD I bought, I'd rather not have to buy the same data again because the storage medium can't handle my lifestyle.:)
The next format for digital audio is up in the air. It'll be real nice, 96khz or more sampling, 24 or more bit. And it will be so closed it will make DVD look like it's under the GPL.
Who cares? The RIAA wants complete and total control of our methods of obtaining and listening to music. If it was up to them, we'd have a pay-per-play fee every time we pop in a cd. They'd turn our stereos into audio-divx players. They're going to try to do this whether we fight it or not. I'd rather not make it easy on them.
If MP3s become popular enough and some bands start making some cash by selling their music online without the RIAA pimping for them, maybe we'll get somewhere. Before online music buying becomes common, I think we need CD players that can read the MP3 format and cheap CD burners. If people are going to pay for digital music, I think they're going to want to make a permanent copy. Hard drives are not exactly ideal permanent storage devices for an MP3 collection. Maybe then working for the giant pimp-corps who take the bad-ass-fire-breathing-three-headed-lion's share of the profits, won't seem so appealing to the artists anymore.
The ONLY legal way to use napster is to download a file from soneone who own original media as a backup to your original media.
Oh give me a break! You spout crap just like the RIAA does. ALL MP3s ARE NOT ILLEGAL! I have many legitimate MP3s. Many are from relatively unknown groups or individuals that put them up for public download. Many are freely distributable. You are trying to say that all MP3s are illegal unless you own the original media. That's a flat out lie, and one that is often implied by the statements from the RIAA. Sometimes the MP3 IS the original media.
If the RIAA wants to go after individuals who are making illegal copies of copyrighted works, fine. But going after a company that makes what amounts to an ftp program for MP3s because people are using it to aid in committing an illegal act is just plain wrong. Why not go after all the makers of ftp software or IRC clients? They are used much more widely than Napster for illegally distributing copyrighted material. Nah... it's much easier to pick on a little guy. Already failed at trying to pick on the bigger guys.
Maybe they should introduce some legal MP3s in court and watch the RIAA side recoil in horror as their skin starts to smolder from being so close to freely distributable music. That would be fun:)
How many webhits you get from a browser, how many Windows machines how many Linux..
First of all, I doubt there are many pirated browsers out there since the most-used (by far) are free. Second, the number of hits from Windows or Linux machines doesn't do much to tell us how many copies are out there.
And server counting projects.
Ok, this I suppose I can buy.
When computers interact as they do today they let others know what software your using and many people gather that information and record it for using statitics.
They can tell what percentage of hits on various sites come from machines running a certain OS, browser, plugins, and sometimes some other software, but how is that information meaningful in determining the amount of illegal software out there?
The problem here is short attention span. "Piracy" dosn't give a person a sence of knowing what is going on but once they hear "illegal copying" they know all copying is illegal and figure thats all they need to know.
Ok, I'll concede that "illegal copying" is probably not the best term either, but I also think that the term "piracy" is an attempt by software makers to make something that is no worse than simple theft seem more equivalent to terrorism. Not to mention the fact that they seem to roll a guy who shares a copy of Windows on his and his wife's computer into the same group as the guys that are burning 5000 copies of WinNT and selling them for $50 apiece. It's similar to the way hacking into a computer and defacing a website is considered to be a much worse crime than simple vandalism which is what it really is.
Perhaps they should just call it a EULA violation or copyright violation instead of piracy.
Re:Copyright, Patent, Trademark...
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 1
Time to benefit != lifespan of creator
Yes, this even permits corporate copyright as long as the corporation exists.
How would you deal with tranferal of ownership? What if a corporation merged with or was bought by another? Should corporations be able to sell the rights to IP, thus perpetuating those rights? I think all IP rights should be limited to a set amount of time. I would say 10 years or less for copyrights. If the information is still relevant after that time, perhaps it should be freely available so that everyone can benefit from it and use it as they see fit.
Re:Greedy Corporate Scumfucks
on
Copyright!
·
· Score: 1
Oh really? How are you going to do that? Forbid upon pain of death the release of binary files?
Actually, you couldn't prohibit the release of binary files. Of course nobody could prevent anyone else from copying or reverse engineering their software either. If you refuse to share your code with others, others might decide they don't want to have anything to do with you or your products either.
I understand that. I probably should have said proprietary there.
Without IP laws, there would be no GPL.
No, its just a side effect. Probably the full sentence should be "a world were no one can make money writing code, but can selling support" right?
I personally haven't been able to imagine how things would work if we had no IP laws. I am currently more in favor of very limited IP laws. I think copyright should be reduced to 5-10 years. I think software patents should last 2-3 years. I think physical device patents should last 5 years. I think the PTO needs a serious rework to get them functioning in a rational manner. I don't think there should be restrictions on copying devices if they have legitimate uses as well. I don't think there should be laws against reverse engineering. I don't think shrinkwrap licenses should exist. I don't think EULAs should be able to take away an individual's rights under IP law (i.e. re-selling a piece of software or other protected work, making copies for their own use, or installing the software on multiple machines that they own. Note: I believe that corporations do not qualify as individuals). I could keep going, but I think you get the point. I'm still considering some of these ideas, as well as others. They're very subject to change.
Contrary to the arguements coming from the prosecutors and Judge in this case, there are plenty of options available when a consumer is choosing an OS.
Unfortunately, the business community and home users already have a ton of money sunk into the Microsoft option. It's difficult to change to something that isn't really compatible unless you can get everyone else to do it as well. The barriers to entry for other OSes are very real. If the applications that your company depends on don't exist on another OS, you aren't likely to switch to that one until the cost of doing so is lower than the cost of sticking with what you have. Hence the statements about Microsoft's price not being maxed out, but being well above what it should be. They know that if it's too high, then it might be cheaper for many to switch. Since no other OS exists that is Windows compatible, they can be assured that customers who run their business on Windows will stay with Windows and be milked because it isn't quite expensive enough to make switching to something else a real option. This, combined with their active efforts to prevent anything from breaking their monopoly power (i.e. OS-independent platforms such as Java or browsers) allows them to gouge customers indefinitely while supressing new innovation. This cannot be tolerated.
If you want to disagree with this, maybe you should just come out and say Linux Sucks, BeOS sucks, OS/2 sucks, *BSD sucks, etc. and get on with life.
They don't suck. They just aren't compatible and/or don't have the massive application support that Windows has. This is due, in large part to natural barriers, but also artificially enforced by Microsoft's dirty tactics.
You're on the record if you say these things, however, and we don't wanna hear your Open Source blathering anymore.
I find it ironic that on a site dominated by Linux enthusiasts, people constantly post in favor of industry regulation; justifying it by claiming Microsoft as an example of a market failure!
What are you talking about? The industry exists as it does today BECAUSE OF regulation. The industry is governed by laws. These laws attempt to keep it running properly in a manner that benefits everyone. When something goes out of whack, there are laws designed to facilitate repairs. The anti-trust laws exist for this very purpose.
I think this article illustrates some of the problems quite well:
The best way to handle Microsoft is to write better code. The rest will fall into place.
Nice thought, but I think you're deluded if you believe it. Money buys politicians. Politicians make the law. Monopolists naturally make huge amounts of money. Get the picture? You can't win when the other side is making the rules to benefit themselves. With reverse engineering outlawed, screwy patent and copyright laws, control of key patents and/or software protocols, monopoly power that enables coercion of other industry leaders and organizations, misinformation spread to placate the ignorant people, huge amounts of cash to line the pockets of decision makers, and many other things, monopolists have it made. The only thing we have to stop a monpolist with are anti-trust laws. I would definitely like to see them put to use before things get worse or we end up with an administration that doesn't believe in anti-trust enforcement.
Oh, btw, I wouldn't vote for Bush or Gore either. They're both more concerned about their own interests than those of the rest of the country. I doubt Gore will win anyway, but I feel especially ill when I think about Bush getting into office. *shudder*
Since law enforcement is a responsibility of the executive branch, I would expect that they should be the ones prosecuting the case. Since interpretation of the laws is the judicial branch's area, it's perfectly correct that a judge is hearing the case and making the legal decisions.
All those clowns from the executive branche on the prosecuting team (you know, the ones leading the prosecution- the Attorney General and her underlings) should be yanked off the case and sent off to do something productive.
The executive branch exists, in part, to enforce the law (i.e. prosecuting). That's why they are able to bring this case against Microsoft. The judicial branch interprets the law. That's why a judge is hearing the case and making the decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
Only front-line mathematicians will really understand the STW conjecture. But you could say "there exists a modular form of weight two and level N which is an Eigenform under the Hecke series and has a Fourier series".
Ahh... it's all becoming clear now.
IBM couldn't even sell OS/2 installed. If you wanted it, you could buy it, but you were still gonna get (and pay for) Windows whether you liked it or not. They'd send a retail OS/2 along with it though so you could install it yourself. Hell of a choice.
Thanks. That cleared a few things up.
Technically, Bill Gates could easily copyright his name since it is almost synonymous with Microsoft.
Yeah, guess that's true. Think we could still use the name "Billgatus of Borg" in relation to products without getting sued? :)
Hopefully more cases will be filed against MS in which punative damages WILL be levied as a result of the current trial. If they used illegal means to gain a lot of that money, they deserve to lose it.
the curious should poke around in better and more interesting bookstores for a magazine called Green Egg....
They also have a publication called H.A.M. (How About Magic: A children's Pagan Magazine) You'd think it was a religion started by Dr. Seuss :)
I thought the DMCA didn't go into effect until January next year. Am I mistaken?
What if someone else is a musician named Billy Joel? Would he have the right to prevent them from using their own name on their album? I know it's highly unlikely that it would happen, I'm just curious to know how well they've thought these things out.
Perhaps we should evaluate what effect working for certain types of people can have on us.
I don't think he had a problem with this statement, and neither do I. I agree that it's worth looking into. The problem that's being raised is that certain groups with "an axe to grind" against SouthPark might simply exploit the situation without even examining it first.
Entirely not true. I've seen both types of posts moderated up and responded to in a civil fashion.
True. You're more likely to get a fair shake on /. than in most other venues. Of course there will always be a few people who will simply flame people for making statements that they don't agree with, but by and large, most /.ers will discuss things in a reasonable manner.
I'm 24. I doubt I'll see anything like that happen in my lifetime.
Hastings (music, books, movies, software store) sells Linux games as well. Don't know how widespread their stores are though. They had Civ:CTP and Myth2 for Linux.
Yep. No going back now. It's basically everywhere. Lawsuits won't change that.
Say I buy a CD. Now, if I don't have a CD player, I can have a friend record the CD onto a cassette tape which I have a player for. This would be considered fair use. Now, if I buy a DVD, they are trying to say that I can't convert it into a format that I can use on my Linux machine. That would be considered BS.
I would hope that the archive copy provision applies to CDs and DVDs just as it does to floppies. If I break or scratch the hell out of a CD I bought, I'd rather not have to buy the same data again because the storage medium can't handle my lifestyle. :)
What exactly is the point of them adding the "YOU CERTIFY THAT YOU ARE NOT A MINOR" part if the kid can't even legally agree to that part?
The next format for digital audio is up in the air. It'll be real nice, 96khz or more sampling, 24 or more bit. And it will be so closed it will make DVD look like it's under the GPL.
Who cares? The RIAA wants complete and total control of our methods of obtaining and listening to music. If it was up to them, we'd have a pay-per-play fee every time we pop in a cd. They'd turn our stereos into audio-divx players. They're going to try to do this whether we fight it or not. I'd rather not make it easy on them.
If MP3s become popular enough and some bands start making some cash by selling their music online without the RIAA pimping for them, maybe we'll get somewhere. Before online music buying becomes common, I think we need CD players that can read the MP3 format and cheap CD burners. If people are going to pay for digital music, I think they're going to want to make a permanent copy. Hard drives are not exactly ideal permanent storage devices for an MP3 collection. Maybe then working for the giant pimp-corps who take the bad-ass-fire-breathing-three-headed-lion's share of the profits, won't seem so appealing to the artists anymore.
The ONLY legal way to use napster is to download a file from soneone who own original media as a backup to your original media.
Oh give me a break! You spout crap just like the RIAA does. ALL MP3s ARE NOT ILLEGAL! I have many legitimate MP3s. Many are from relatively unknown groups or individuals that put them up for public download. Many are freely distributable. You are trying to say that all MP3s are illegal unless you own the original media. That's a flat out lie, and one that is often implied by the statements from the RIAA. Sometimes the MP3 IS the original media.
If the RIAA wants to go after individuals who are making illegal copies of copyrighted works, fine. But going after a company that makes what amounts to an ftp program for MP3s because people are using it to aid in committing an illegal act is just plain wrong. Why not go after all the makers of ftp software or IRC clients? They are used much more widely than Napster for illegally distributing copyrighted material. Nah... it's much easier to pick on a little guy. Already failed at trying to pick on the bigger guys.
Maybe they should introduce some legal MP3s in court and watch the RIAA side recoil in horror as their skin starts to smolder from being so close to freely distributable music. That would be fun :)
How many webhits you get from a browser, how many Windows machines how many Linux..
First of all, I doubt there are many pirated browsers out there since the most-used (by far) are free. Second, the number of hits from Windows or Linux machines doesn't do much to tell us how many copies are out there.
And server counting projects.
Ok, this I suppose I can buy.
When computers interact as they do today they let others know what software your using and many people gather that information and record it for using statitics.
They can tell what percentage of hits on various sites come from machines running a certain OS, browser, plugins, and sometimes some other software, but how is that information meaningful in determining the amount of illegal software out there?
The problem here is short attention span. "Piracy" dosn't give a person a sence of knowing what is going on but once they hear "illegal copying" they know all copying is illegal and figure thats all they need to know.
Ok, I'll concede that "illegal copying" is probably not the best term either, but I also think that the term "piracy" is an attempt by software makers to make something that is no worse than simple theft seem more equivalent to terrorism. Not to mention the fact that they seem to roll a guy who shares a copy of Windows on his and his wife's computer into the same group as the guys that are burning 5000 copies of WinNT and selling them for $50 apiece. It's similar to the way hacking into a computer and defacing a website is considered to be a much worse crime than simple vandalism which is what it really is.
Perhaps they should just call it a EULA violation or copyright violation instead of piracy.
Time to benefit != lifespan of creator
Yes, this even permits corporate copyright as long as the corporation exists.
How would you deal with tranferal of ownership? What if a corporation merged with or was bought by another? Should corporations be able to sell the rights to IP, thus perpetuating those rights? I think all IP rights should be limited to a set amount of time. I would say 10 years or less for copyrights. If the information is still relevant after that time, perhaps it should be freely available so that everyone can benefit from it and use it as they see fit.
Oh really? How are you going to do that? Forbid upon pain of death the release of binary files?
Actually, you couldn't prohibit the release of binary files. Of course nobody could prevent anyone else from copying or reverse engineering their software either. If you refuse to share your code with others, others might decide they don't want to have anything to do with you or your products either.
I understand that. I probably should have said proprietary there.
Without IP laws, there would be no GPL.
No, its just a side effect. Probably the full sentence should be "a world were no one can make money writing code, but can selling support" right?
I personally haven't been able to imagine how things would work if we had no IP laws. I am currently more in favor of very limited IP laws. I think copyright should be reduced to 5-10 years. I think software patents should last 2-3 years. I think physical device patents should last 5 years. I think the PTO needs a serious rework to get them functioning in a rational manner. I don't think there should be restrictions on copying devices if they have legitimate uses as well. I don't think there should be laws against reverse engineering. I don't think shrinkwrap licenses should exist. I don't think EULAs should be able to take away an individual's rights under IP law (i.e. re-selling a piece of software or other protected work, making copies for their own use, or installing the software on multiple machines that they own. Note: I believe that corporations do not qualify as individuals). I could keep going, but I think you get the point. I'm still considering some of these ideas, as well as others. They're very subject to change.
Contrary to the arguements coming from the prosecutors and Judge in this case, there are plenty of options available when a consumer is choosing an OS.
Unfortunately, the business community and home users already have a ton of money sunk into the Microsoft option. It's difficult to change to something that isn't really compatible unless you can get everyone else to do it as well. The barriers to entry for other OSes are very real. If the applications that your company depends on don't exist on another OS, you aren't likely to switch to that one until the cost of doing so is lower than the cost of sticking with what you have. Hence the statements about Microsoft's price not being maxed out, but being well above what it should be. They know that if it's too high, then it might be cheaper for many to switch. Since no other OS exists that is Windows compatible, they can be assured that customers who run their business on Windows will stay with Windows and be milked because it isn't quite expensive enough to make switching to something else a real option. This, combined with their active efforts to prevent anything from breaking their monopoly power (i.e. OS-independent platforms such as Java or browsers) allows them to gouge customers indefinitely while supressing new innovation. This cannot be tolerated.
If you want to disagree with this, maybe you should just come out and say Linux Sucks, BeOS sucks, OS/2 sucks, *BSD sucks, etc. and get on with life.
They don't suck. They just aren't compatible and/or don't have the massive application support that Windows has. This is due, in large part to natural barriers, but also artificially enforced by Microsoft's dirty tactics.
You're on the record if you say these things, however, and we don't wanna hear your Open Source blathering anymore.
Strong words from an AC. Sheesh.
I find it ironic that on a site dominated by Linux enthusiasts, people constantly post in favor of industry regulation; justifying it by claiming Microsoft as an example of a market failure!
What are you talking about? The industry exists as it does today BECAUSE OF regulation. The industry is governed by laws. These laws attempt to keep it running properly in a manner that benefits everyone. When something goes out of whack, there are laws designed to facilitate repairs. The anti-trust laws exist for this very purpose.
I think this article illustrates some of the problems quite well:
http://www.thelinuxshow.com/003_view.sht ml
The best way to handle Microsoft is to write better code. The rest will fall into place.
Nice thought, but I think you're deluded if you believe it. Money buys politicians. Politicians make the law. Monopolists naturally make huge amounts of money. Get the picture? You can't win when the other side is making the rules to benefit themselves. With reverse engineering outlawed, screwy patent and copyright laws, control of key patents and/or software protocols, monopoly power that enables coercion of other industry leaders and organizations, misinformation spread to placate the ignorant people, huge amounts of cash to line the pockets of decision makers, and many other things, monopolists have it made. The only thing we have to stop a monpolist with are anti-trust laws. I would definitely like to see them put to use before things get worse or we end up with an administration that doesn't believe in anti-trust enforcement.
Oh, btw, I wouldn't vote for Bush or Gore either. They're both more concerned about their own interests than those of the rest of the country. I doubt Gore will win anyway, but I feel especially ill when I think about Bush getting into office. *shudder*
Since law enforcement is a responsibility of the executive branch, I would expect that they should be the ones prosecuting the case. Since interpretation of the laws is the judicial branch's area, it's perfectly correct that a judge is hearing the case and making the legal decisions.
All those clowns from the executive branche on the prosecuting team (you know, the ones leading the prosecution- the Attorney General and her underlings) should be yanked off the case and sent off to do something productive.
The executive branch exists, in part, to enforce the law (i.e. prosecuting). That's why they are able to bring this case against Microsoft. The judicial branch interprets the law. That's why a judge is hearing the case and making the decisions.
Perhaps this is why the telcos don't seem to be in any hurry to get dsl to a wider area?