I was unclear in my post. What I was asking was if the problem is unique to just Media Center? If this is some kind of industry standard blocking ability, then it should be present in more systems, no?
Also, whatever the reason for the block, what I meant about the other part was that I've been looking into buying a digital decoder for cable for my computer (quite expensive today, terrestrial decoders are half the price, I guess the card reader is a part of the problem). And that I found it strange that reports of this kind of problem just makes me more interested in trying for some reason.
Does this only apply to Media Center? Maybe I'm wierd, but this actually makes me more interested in buying a cable-digital card for my computer and running MythTV or something.:)
Actually, what do you think is running the machine pumping blood through your veins during surgery? Software. In a hospital today there are any number of machines that run on software that keep people alive. However, I doubt very much any of them are using pirated software since the software is written specifically for each machine and the machine won't work without it. Buy the machine, get the software free.
The whole thing seems a bit lame to me. That part, anyway. Criminalizing attempted crimes is already common. Attempted murder is a crime, as is attemted terrorism or whatever. The reasoning is that your incompetence as a criminal shouldn't allow you to try again until you succeed.
So logically speaking it's actually hard to argue against such a law when there already are a number of similar laws except on one very important point: severity. Attempting to do something should only be criminalized in severe crimes. Copyright infringement is a petty crime. Unless done on an industrial scale. And the people doing that on an industrial scale won't be attempting it, they'll be doing it.
For my money it could go either way. Yes, people are worried that the movies they buy won't work on their device. Probably to the point where they won't even try it once. This can be helped by offering a 3-minute preview of the show in question in the exact format of the purchaseable file, for example. This is an obstacle that can be overcome.
However, IF you can watch the same thing for free, with similar quality, only the irritant of commercials remain. However, this is a big irritant and I think most people would skip them if possible. As long as people are able to skip the commercials somehow, then the free option will prevail, however, the providers will never stand for this.
Buying content will allow people to play said content on portable devices. Commercials fed services will have to be streaming to keep the user from skipping commercials. So, different users will want different kinds of content.
Ah, but does Douglas Adams ever state the base of the number? Maybe it's actually base 13! Maybe the answer to life, the universe and everything is 54.
Thanks for correcting me, though you couldn't have been more overbearing of you had been dancing the flamenco on my head while saying that. I'm Swedish, so a smidge of confusion on the intricacies of the english language is allowed, I think. But I feel heartened at the fact that I am not the only one using the "fallacy" in this meaning.
From Wikipedia: "Today, the phrase is also incorrectly used in a different usage with the meaning "raise the question." This usage is contested."
I'm assuming you are one of the ones contesting this use. I'm one of the people who think that language is meant to convey meaning and if the meaning of a word or phrase has changed through the years then the new meaning is just as valid as the old.
However, as I said, I accept your correction and also feel that I have learned something today.
What I found interesting was that Eta Carinae apparently behaves the same way as the other star, which begs the question: could we survive the supernova? The explosions of stars certainly are powerful enough to destroy such delicate lives as ours if they are close enough. Question is, is Eta Carinae close enough?
Well, yeah, I can agree it's a bit muddled in my explanation.
Copyright in Sweden is the same as anywhere else, it means that you as the author of anything you have written/composed has the rights to decide who can make copies of it.
What's different is that a work that has no definite author (anonymous work) will be copyrighted by the publisher. Though, I guess this is more of a technicality. What I went on and on about in my post was mostly the publisher's responsibility for his published works, whether or not he/she is the author. When you publish here you have to have a person, given by name in the book/magazine, that is responsible for what the material says in the eyes of the law.
So, yeah, you're right, these are two different things that I guess are intermingled in some special cases.
I don't know what the confusion is on what is right or not. Just ask yourself, if the reverse was true. If an american citizen had broken the copyright and distributed material of large quantities of any other country, would there be any circumstance where the US would extradite him/her to stand trial abroad?
Cirtainly not. It's even the case that the US believes so much in the principle of trying its own citizens themselves that they have vowed to break any of their military personnel out of any jail anywhere in the world if they are incarcerated, even if the charge is crimes against humanity and the jailor is the international community (UN).
The hipocricy is so pungent that it's becoming hard to breathe. Or maybe that's just the carbondioxide from millions and millions of beefcows eating their way through the rainforests of southamerica.
The reason for this is that you must have a person who is responsible for all publications (in written form) in Sweden. This is to prevent slander or hate-speech, for example, being published and the publisher then claiming "not to know who wrote it". This way, there is always someone (even if it is not the author) responsible for a published text in the eyes of the law.
But Copyright DOES expire in Sweden, just as everywhere else. So there is no need to start shouting "but where is the public domain!?". I'm not sure of the exact length of time, but some time after the copyright-holder's demise (unfortunate or not), the work goes into the public domain.
Another reason why Copyright in this manner is not such a big deal here in Sweden is the simple fact that ALL published works (this includes leaflets for advertisement, and such) must be sent in at least one copy to be archived at a central library in Stockholm. From this library anyone can order a copy for viewing (at the cost of copying the text). This is, for example, the reason why there is nowadays always a member of Scientology at that library, checking out the copy of the Fishman affidavit that exists there. Although, if you wanted to you could get the library to make you a copy.
No, this doesn't mean that the library can get you a copy of the latest Harry Potter-book, the copy would have to be returned, just like any other library book.
I might be wrong on some of the details here, but the gist of it is true.:)
Also, and this might be communist thinking, I don't know, but even if you *do* have copyright on something, that doesn't automatically mean that you have to sue anyone that violates that copyright. Just a thought.
Beta has been abused a lot in software firms across the board. This is how it is, and should be:
Alpha release, is a software release that essentially works, but lacks some functionality that is planned for final release. It is released to a limited set of users (or maybe just in the firm that created the software) for ironing out the worst bugs.
Beta release, is a software that has all functionality, which has been tested internally, but which needs some real world testing with users.
Then we have the whole "Release Candidate" debacle which appeared much later because of the frequent use of "beta" for what was actually alpha-releases.
Alpha - Untested not yet complete.
Beta - Untested complete.
Then 1.0:)
Lately I've also thought about why Google has so much beta testing, but then I found out that the write in Python and then it all became clear. Python, as a type-unsafe-programming language requires E X T E N S I V E user testing to iron out the bugs.
Slashdot Mirror
I was unclear in my post. What I was asking was if the problem is unique to just Media Center? If this is some kind of industry standard blocking ability, then it should be present in more systems, no?
Also, whatever the reason for the block, what I meant about the other part was that I've been looking into buying a digital decoder for cable for my computer (quite expensive today, terrestrial decoders are half the price, I guess the card reader is a part of the problem). And that I found it strange that reports of this kind of problem just makes me more interested in trying for some reason.
Does this only apply to Media Center? Maybe I'm wierd, but this actually makes me more interested in buying a cable-digital card for my computer and running MythTV or something. :)
Actually, what do you think is running the machine pumping blood through your veins during surgery? Software. In a hospital today there are any number of machines that run on software that keep people alive. However, I doubt very much any of them are using pirated software since the software is written specifically for each machine and the machine won't work without it. Buy the machine, get the software free.
The whole thing seems a bit lame to me. That part, anyway. Criminalizing attempted crimes is already common. Attempted murder is a crime, as is attemted terrorism or whatever. The reasoning is that your incompetence as a criminal shouldn't allow you to try again until you succeed.
So logically speaking it's actually hard to argue against such a law when there already are a number of similar laws except on one very important point: severity. Attempting to do something should only be criminalized in severe crimes. Copyright infringement is a petty crime. Unless done on an industrial scale. And the people doing that on an industrial scale won't be attempting it, they'll be doing it.
However, IF you can watch the same thing for free, with similar quality, only the irritant of commercials remain. However, this is a big irritant and I think most people would skip them if possible. As long as people are able to skip the commercials somehow, then the free option will prevail, however, the providers will never stand for this.
Buying content will allow people to play said content on portable devices. Commercials fed services will have to be streaming to keep the user from skipping commercials. So, different users will want different kinds of content.
Talk about meta-movie.
Ah, but does Douglas Adams ever state the base of the number? Maybe it's actually base 13! Maybe the answer to life, the universe and everything is 54.
From Wikipedia: "Today, the phrase is also incorrectly used in a different usage with the meaning "raise the question." This usage is contested."
I'm assuming you are one of the ones contesting this use. I'm one of the people who think that language is meant to convey meaning and if the meaning of a word or phrase has changed through the years then the new meaning is just as valid as the old.
However, as I said, I accept your correction and also feel that I have learned something today.
Now that's an Extinction Level Event.
"Ooh! Aaah!" dead
Copyright in Sweden is the same as anywhere else, it means that you as the author of anything you have written/composed has the rights to decide who can make copies of it.
What's different is that a work that has no definite author (anonymous work) will be copyrighted by the publisher. Though, I guess this is more of a technicality. What I went on and on about in my post was mostly the publisher's responsibility for his published works, whether or not he/she is the author. When you publish here you have to have a person, given by name in the book/magazine, that is responsible for what the material says in the eyes of the law.
So, yeah, you're right, these are two different things that I guess are intermingled in some special cases.
Cirtainly not. It's even the case that the US believes so much in the principle of trying its own citizens themselves that they have vowed to break any of their military personnel out of any jail anywhere in the world if they are incarcerated, even if the charge is crimes against humanity and the jailor is the international community (UN).
The hipocricy is so pungent that it's becoming hard to breathe. Or maybe that's just the carbondioxide from millions and millions of beefcows eating their way through the rainforests of southamerica.
But Copyright DOES expire in Sweden, just as everywhere else. So there is no need to start shouting "but where is the public domain!?". I'm not sure of the exact length of time, but some time after the copyright-holder's demise (unfortunate or not), the work goes into the public domain.
Another reason why Copyright in this manner is not such a big deal here in Sweden is the simple fact that ALL published works (this includes leaflets for advertisement, and such) must be sent in at least one copy to be archived at a central library in Stockholm. From this library anyone can order a copy for viewing (at the cost of copying the text). This is, for example, the reason why there is nowadays always a member of Scientology at that library, checking out the copy of the Fishman affidavit that exists there. Although, if you wanted to you could get the library to make you a copy.
No, this doesn't mean that the library can get you a copy of the latest Harry Potter-book, the copy would have to be returned, just like any other library book.
I might be wrong on some of the details here, but the gist of it is true. :)
Also, and this might be communist thinking, I don't know, but even if you *do* have copyright on something, that doesn't automatically mean that you have to sue anyone that violates that copyright. Just a thought.
Beta has been abused a lot in software firms across the board. This is how it is, and should be:
Alpha release, is a software release that essentially works, but lacks some functionality that is planned for final release. It is released to a limited set of users (or maybe just in the firm that created the software) for ironing out the worst bugs.
Beta release, is a software that has all functionality, which has been tested internally, but which needs some real world testing with users.
Then we have the whole "Release Candidate" debacle which appeared much later because of the frequent use of "beta" for what was actually alpha-releases.
Alpha - Untested not yet complete. :)
Beta - Untested complete.
Then 1.0
Lately I've also thought about why Google has so much beta testing, but then I found out that the write in Python and then it all became clear. Python, as a type-unsafe-programming language requires E X T E N S I V E user testing to iron out the bugs.