It contains a list of pieces that are stored on separate computers and detailed instructions on how these pieces are assembled into files. It's much more than just a link. It's a link that can only possibly ever be used to infringe copyright (assuming distributing the file is infringing copyright). It's even possible that none of the individual pieces actually infringe copyright.
No it does not. A ".torrent" file contains no data other than that which is needed to join the correct swarm, and initiate communication. Therefore a link. The clever assembly stuff is handled by the torrent client and the torrent protocol. just as a URL does not contain any information from a web page, but it provides a web browser the means to identify and connect to the right page out of all the billions of pages on the net.
Hell, a 1400 gigabytes of video data can be contained on a 9GB DVD, or even a 1GB h264. It's not the representation of the data that's copyrighted, but the data that it represents. A torrent file represents exactly the same thing as the file it's used to download. You can't say the same of a link.
A compressed video file is made from an original file that has been compressed to make the new file. The data contained in the new compressed file is a subset of the original data.
A torrent file contains no compressed information. It has zero bytes of the video file or whatever. There is no mathematical or logical process by which the content can be extracted from the.torrent file, because it was never there to begin with. just as the string of characters "http://www.slashdot.org" contains none of the content of the slashdot website. It is a pointer. If someone deleted the slashdot website, then you could type that in your browser all you want, and you still would not get to the site.
I'm not totally convinced by my own argument either. But I certainly don't agree that a.torrent is simply a link. Nor do I accept it as a certainty that a link to copyrighted data should automatically be assumed to be non-infringing if the intent of the link is to knowingly infringe copyright.
Then this is the problem. When you understand how a link works and how a torrent works, you will be able to understand why they are both neutral to the act of infringing copyright and why they must stay that way if the internet is to continue to function.
But they don't sell it to you, they "license" it. And if they keep saying it, it will be true. Just like me having a replica of something you also still have is "stealing" it from you when you still have it.
Then perhaps it is time to stop licensing and start selling. And a "friend" as big as Amazon might be just the thing to stop the nonsense. going further and further.
But a specific torrent file has no purpose other than to facilitate distribution of a set of files. I think there's at least an argument that that makes it an infringing file. It's a set of data that when the correct algorithms are combined forms a copyright infringing file. An mp3 is a set of data that when the correct algorithms are combined forms some PCM audio data. They both have no purpose other than to generate some specific data. If the generated data infringes copyright, then why isn't the data generator also copyright infringing?
It's an argument, but not a supportable one.
A torrent file contains no copyrighted material. The algorithms generate a link to a named file on a given set of computers. Nothing more. Unless you can show me how an entire movie or album can be contained in a few bytes. So essentially, it's a link. Not under copyright.
An MP3 file is data. And when algorithms are used (an MP3 codec), they generate sound from the data. An MP3 file is not a link. It is copyrighted information stored in a a data file.
I thought we were waiting for the Linux-based firmware that would let you run arbitrary programs so you can read all the formats they don't support.
Nope.. Most of them already ship with Linux, and there is even an open source project called Open Inkpot working on making new firmware for some of the readers.
And apart from the Kindle, it seems pretty common for many of the readers to support multiple formats..Mobi, PDF, TXT, HTML ePub etc..
Frankly, Microsoft BENEFITS from having a small & noisy group of people loudly insisting there are alternatives to Windows. It lets them point and say, "See, we aren't REALLY a monopoly!
Yes.. but that only works with people not bright enough to understand that Monopoly in the sense that Microsoft is defined legally as being, does not require 100% of any given market.
Please note.. this does not include the lawyers or judges who administer such definitions. So not really of any practical use.. Unless you consider Windows fanboys whining about being victimized by the global court systems to be useful.
I already got it for the Wii. I belive it is same for much of the players interested in this game. The linux sale will be low because of this.
And you are entitled to your beliefs.
I'm a Linux user, and I have a Wii, I waited for and bought the Linux version. These guys made a native Linux version, so I bought it. And I have absolutely no reservations when it comes to buying games for Linux if they exist. Just because I use a free OS and apps, doesn't mean I have a philosophical problem with paying for software.
Problems with your assertion..
1) Not all Linux users have a Wii.
2) Not all Wii users have connected their Wii to the net. It isn't exactly a highly net centric console like the PS3 or the Xbox.
3) Not all game players will want to play it on the Wii.
4) You underestimate the appeal of supporting Linux as a viable development and gaming platform by waiting for and buying a native Linux game.
5) ???
6) Profit.
Personally, I had the option, but didn't want to buy the Wii version. It involves purchasing Wii points and usually having a few left over, which I find annoying. Then if I decide to get rid of the Wii at some point, I lose the ability to play the game I bought.
If I buy the PC version, I keep that ability to play on my next PC and my next and so on. And it looks like there is going to be a healthy user created game community, which is a huge point in it's favour as far as I'm concerned.
Basic suggestion: get 50 people. Go to the "Author's Guild" offices, stage a sit-in, and everyone start reading some book aloud.
To make it REALLY funny, make it a freely-available Creative Commons book. Maybe Free Culture by Lessig.
Or more appropriately, Dracula. Out of copyright and freely available as an e-book.
A 2.5GHz Core 2 Duo based system isn't going to be silent. I think The requirement for a media centre is silent operation. (and I don't mean silent 2.0 as defined by the marketers these days)
Depends. If you go with all cheapest possible ordinary parts, then yes. The fan noise will be loud enough to be annoying. But if you go for quiet fans and a pretty heavy gauge metal case, it will be as near silent as a DVD player.
A couple of these quiet case fans and a PSU with a slow 120mm cooling fan is surprisingly quiet. And even the stock AMD cooler is pretty quiet(no idea about Intel). The computer is for watching video, not playing the latest dual SLI graphics cruncher games, so passively cooled video cards are also fine. And there are quiet hard drives, which can be made even more quiet by mounting them in an acoustic caddy.
We are talking about desktop operating systems. A discussion about wobbly windows doesn't fit in any other context. Sure a minimalistic definition of what an operating system is may exclude the user interface but that doesn't fit here in this discussion.
Ahh.. this is where we have been going wrong. I was replying (as far as I remember)to a post about OSX being light on eye candy in comparison to either Linux with Compiz or Vista and later.. by stating that Linux has as much or as little as the user decides on. And that some of the Compiz stuff is quite useful rather than just pretty. I still don't know what your point is.
As with many loosely defined words and phrases in the English language, you need to use the definition that makes sense in within the context of the discussion.
Really? what definition are we using this time. Just so I don't have to spend time with a long post explaining the word definition as I did with third party.
If we are talking about KDE, Gnome, and OS X then yes KWin and Metacity are built in parts of the OS.
OK.. And Compiz is like I said a couple of posts back, an optional extension to this. What is the problem?
You don't go around correcting Mac users when they say their OS is user friendly do you? Or does it make you head explode when someone says "I like the default icon theme in OS X?"
Sorry I was a bit vague. I understand what 3rd party is in relation to the others two mentioned.
Good. I thought I was being clear.
What I don't understand is people are talking as if Compiz is the only one out there. Both KWin and Metacity are default parts of their respective desktop environments. They are as much a "built in part of the OS" as KDE or GNOME is.
No. KDE and Gnome are desktops. built into the distro perhaps, but not built into the OS. Compiz is a pretty layer on top of the default features of the desktops that people can choose if they want. And Compiz fusion(used to be beryl) is a more eye candy orientated version. Compiz is installed on Fedora by default, but not active because it needs a 3D accelerated driver. Not something that can be guaranteed to be present except for those using cards with open source drivers that are included in the distro.
Compiz being third party really is irrelevant in light of the other two that are essentially built in and mostly do the same thing. You make it sound as if you have to go out of your way to get these things. It's only 4 or 5 clicks with KDE 4.2 to get windows wobbling.
Never suggested otherwise. Once you instll the 3D drivers, Compiz is easy to install, as is most of the repository supported software. Amarok isn't part of the Gnome desktop, but I use it anyway. A few clicks and I'm done. It's still optional. Haven't used KDE4.2 I'm a Gnomie myself. So no idea how easy it is on the most recent version.
My original point was that while OSX has the eye candy built into the OS from first boot, Linux has more options. Different target audiences, different systems.
You could say "Windows don't wobble by default." and I'd take no issue with it because it's generally true. Don't make off like it's something the user has to go down some dark 3rd party alleyway to see some shady vendor to get.
Windows only wobble if you choose to make them wobble. No dark invocations, no shady third party vendor down a back alley. No big deal. It's an option. A choice. One of many.
The only thing that saves users is what gets decided as to be a reasonable default. It's not really that much of a stretch for distros to make things wobble by default and not touch the third party stuff.
Saves? What is so terrible about the option of having a few fun bits if you want them? It's a trivial task to use it or not. And actually, it might be a bit of a stretch to do it without a 3D driver and still have enough processor power left to do the useful stuff.
Do you consider KWin (KDE) and Metacity (Gnome) "third party" also? Both are compositing window managers capable of mostly the same things offered by Compiz.
KWin is developed by the same people as develop the KDE environment, so not third party.
Metacity is developed by the Gnome team, so also not third party.
Compiz is developed by neither, so qualifies as third party in relation to the desktop environment in question.
There may be some common developers in two or more of the projects, And I would assume some communication, but still a separate project. So still third party. What the various window managers do is irrelevant.
Compared to other OS's MacOS is actually quite lite with its eye candy. Oddly enough OS X focuses more of the function of the UI more then how it looks. Every effect has a reason for it, and is used to help people grasp rather abstract concepts better. Vs. Say Wobbly windows in Ubuntu Linux which only hinders usage in order to look fancier aka (Window stuttering when it gets close to an other window)
You do know that Compiz is an optional third party add on for various desktops that you can use or not by choice? Not a built in part of the OS. And you can have as many or as few effects turned on as yo choose. Personally, I have it enabled on my desktop, but not on my laptop. My choice.
Agreed.. most of it is just eye candy, but there are a few useful functions.
The reveal all open windows on all desktops (forget what it's called) when I move my mouse to the top right corner is something I use all the time instead of alt tabbing through a whole bunch of windows on different desktops.
The preview window on mouse over for the task bar.
And surprisingly, the wobbly windows effect, which allows me to drag a maximised window to another desktop without minimising it. Not something I use much, but still useful. I've never had it stutter though. Must be a problem with the way Ubuntu implemented Compiz.
I have to admit though.. it is nice to see the expression on someone's face the first time they close a window on my desktop and it turns into a paper dart and flies away.
Can I legally play a DVD on a Linux box in the US?
Yes.
Ask Dell. They now include a closed source DVD player app to cover this niggle. The rest of the world uses the free codecs and the libdvdcss library just fine.
Another Linux roadblock gone eh.. Soon people will have to come up with real arguments.
Slashdot Mirror
According to Microsoft, they have a better track-record at fixing bugs faster than Linux.
Well they would do. they use a different track.
It contains a list of pieces that are stored on separate computers and detailed instructions on how these pieces are assembled into files. It's much more than just a link. It's a link that can only possibly ever be used to infringe copyright (assuming distributing the file is infringing copyright). It's even possible that none of the individual pieces actually infringe copyright.
No it does not. A ".torrent" file contains no data other than that which is needed to join the correct swarm, and initiate communication. Therefore a link. The clever assembly stuff is handled by the torrent client and the torrent protocol. just as a URL does not contain any information from a web page, but it provides a web browser the means to identify and connect to the right page out of all the billions of pages on the net.
Hell, a 1400 gigabytes of video data can be contained on a 9GB DVD, or even a 1GB h264. It's not the representation of the data that's copyrighted, but the data that it represents. A torrent file represents exactly the same thing as the file it's used to download. You can't say the same of a link.
A compressed video file is made from an original file that has been compressed to make the new file. The data contained in the new compressed file is a subset of the original data.
A torrent file contains no compressed information. It has zero bytes of the video file or whatever. There is no mathematical or logical process by which the content can be extracted from the .torrent file, because it was never there to begin with. just as the string of characters "http://www.slashdot.org" contains none of the content of the slashdot website. It is a pointer. If someone deleted the slashdot website, then you could type that in your browser all you want, and you still would not get to the site.
I'm not totally convinced by my own argument either. But I certainly don't agree that a .torrent is simply a link. Nor do I accept it as a certainty that a link to copyrighted data should automatically be assumed to be non-infringing if the intent of the link is to knowingly infringe copyright.
Then this is the problem. When you understand how a link works and how a torrent works, you will be able to understand why they are both neutral to the act of infringing copyright and why they must stay that way if the internet is to continue to function.
But they don't sell it to you, they "license" it. And if they keep saying it, it will be true. Just like me having a replica of something you also still have is "stealing" it from you when you still have it.
Then perhaps it is time to stop licensing and start selling. And a "friend" as big as Amazon might be just the thing to stop the nonsense. going further and further.
But a specific torrent file has no purpose other than to facilitate distribution of a set of files. I think there's at least an argument that that makes it an infringing file. It's a set of data that when the correct algorithms are combined forms a copyright infringing file. An mp3 is a set of data that when the correct algorithms are combined forms some PCM audio data. They both have no purpose other than to generate some specific data. If the generated data infringes copyright, then why isn't the data generator also copyright infringing?
It's an argument, but not a supportable one.
A torrent file contains no copyrighted material. The algorithms generate a link to a named file on a given set of computers. Nothing more. Unless you can show me how an entire movie or album can be contained in a few bytes. So essentially, it's a link. Not under copyright.
An MP3 file is data. And when algorithms are used (an MP3 codec), they generate sound from the data. An MP3 file is not a link. It is copyrighted information stored in a a data file.
I thought we were waiting for the Linux-based firmware that would let you run arbitrary programs so you can read all the formats they don't support.
Nope.. Most of them already ship with Linux, and there is even an open source project called Open Inkpot working on making new firmware for some of the readers. And apart from the Kindle, it seems pretty common for many of the readers to support multiple formats. .Mobi, PDF, TXT, HTML ePub etc..
Janet Street-Porter
Wouldn't that be text tooth speech.
Jack Straw stranded in Nigeria? It's more likely than you think.
Given the proximity to reality most of them seem to exist in, stranded in Narnia is more plausible.
Frankly, Microsoft BENEFITS from having a small & noisy group of people loudly insisting there are alternatives to Windows. It lets them point and say, "See, we aren't REALLY a monopoly!
Yes.. but that only works with people not bright enough to understand that Monopoly in the sense that Microsoft is defined legally as being, does not require 100% of any given market. Please note.. this does not include the lawyers or judges who administer such definitions. So not really of any practical use.. Unless you consider Windows fanboys whining about being victimized by the global court systems to be useful.
MS says IE can't be removed from Windows therefore it is part of Windows and you buy it everytime you but Windows.
Now where have I heard that before.....
Every time you paid for a Windows license.
Then I want a refund.
Time and time again, even with ie8, they have shown themselves inept at producing quality, standards-oriented software.
Yeah, and the worst thing is that it sells so well.
Really? And when did you last buy IE?
Tell me about the King Kong defence. Please compare and contrast it to the Chewbacca defence, to provide an adequate frame of reference.
No Ewoks in the King Kong defence.
They're just verbing their nouns, thereby incentivizing efficiency.
Not to mention innovating the linguistic scope to leverage the creation of value from the verbal interface.
Or some such bullshit.
Windows 7 is the greatest thing since sliced bread. The most secure and fastest O/S Microsoft has ever released.
Oh come on.. They only released a beta recently. You can't really tell if it's that bad yet.
I already got it for the Wii. I belive it is same for much of the players interested in this game. The linux sale will be low because of this.
And you are entitled to your beliefs. I'm a Linux user, and I have a Wii, I waited for and bought the Linux version. These guys made a native Linux version, so I bought it. And I have absolutely no reservations when it comes to buying games for Linux if they exist. Just because I use a free OS and apps, doesn't mean I have a philosophical problem with paying for software. Problems with your assertion.. 1) Not all Linux users have a Wii. 2) Not all Wii users have connected their Wii to the net. It isn't exactly a highly net centric console like the PS3 or the Xbox. 3) Not all game players will want to play it on the Wii. 4) You underestimate the appeal of supporting Linux as a viable development and gaming platform by waiting for and buying a native Linux game. 5) ??? 6) Profit. Personally, I had the option, but didn't want to buy the Wii version. It involves purchasing Wii points and usually having a few left over, which I find annoying. Then if I decide to get rid of the Wii at some point, I lose the ability to play the game I bought. If I buy the PC version, I keep that ability to play on my next PC and my next and so on. And it looks like there is going to be a healthy user created game community, which is a huge point in it's favour as far as I'm concerned.
Basic suggestion: get 50 people. Go to the "Author's Guild" offices, stage a sit-in, and everyone start reading some book aloud. To make it REALLY funny, make it a freely-available Creative Commons book. Maybe Free Culture by Lessig.
Or more appropriately, Dracula. Out of copyright and freely available as an e-book.
A 2.5GHz Core 2 Duo based system isn't going to be silent.
I think The requirement for a media centre is silent operation. (and I don't mean silent 2.0 as defined by the marketers these days)
Depends. If you go with all cheapest possible ordinary parts, then yes. The fan noise will be loud enough to be annoying. But if you go for quiet fans and a pretty heavy gauge metal case, it will be as near silent as a DVD player.
A couple of these quiet case fans and a PSU with a slow 120mm cooling fan is surprisingly quiet. And even the stock AMD cooler is pretty quiet(no idea about Intel). The computer is for watching video, not playing the latest dual SLI graphics cruncher games, so passively cooled video cards are also fine. And there are quiet hard drives, which can be made even more quiet by mounting them in an acoustic caddy.
Also, stupid name.
Yes Sakdoctor. Very stupid name.
Oh how I wish this had any basis in reality.
Oh how I wish it hadn't.
We are talking about desktop operating systems. A discussion about wobbly windows doesn't fit in any other context. Sure a minimalistic definition of what an operating system is may exclude the user interface but that doesn't fit here in this discussion.
Ahh.. this is where we have been going wrong. I was replying (as far as I remember)to a post about OSX being light on eye candy in comparison to either Linux with Compiz or Vista and later.. by stating that Linux has as much or as little as the user decides on. And that some of the Compiz stuff is quite useful rather than just pretty.
I still don't know what your point is.
As with many loosely defined words and phrases in the English language, you need to use the definition that makes sense in within the context of the discussion.
Really? what definition are we using this time. Just so I don't have to spend time with a long post explaining the word definition as I did with third party.
If we are talking about KDE, Gnome, and OS X then yes KWin and Metacity are built in parts of the OS.
OK.. And Compiz is like I said a couple of posts back, an optional extension to this. What is the problem?
You don't go around correcting Mac users when they say their OS is user friendly do you? Or does it make you head explode when someone says "I like the default icon theme in OS X?"
Which is relevant in what way?
Sorry I was a bit vague. I understand what 3rd party is in relation to the others two mentioned.
Good. I thought I was being clear.
What I don't understand is people are talking as if Compiz is the only one out there. Both KWin and Metacity are default parts of their respective desktop environments. They are as much a "built in part of the OS" as KDE or GNOME is.
No. KDE and Gnome are desktops. built into the distro perhaps, but not built into the OS. Compiz is a pretty layer on top of the default features of the desktops that people can choose if they want. And Compiz fusion(used to be beryl) is a more eye candy orientated version. Compiz is installed on Fedora by default, but not active because it needs a 3D accelerated driver. Not something that can be guaranteed to be present except for those using cards with open source drivers that are included in the distro.
Compiz being third party really is irrelevant in light of the other two that are essentially built in and mostly do the same thing. You make it sound as if you have to go out of your way to get these things. It's only 4 or 5 clicks with KDE 4.2 to get windows wobbling.
Never suggested otherwise. Once you instll the 3D drivers, Compiz is easy to install, as is most of the repository supported software. Amarok isn't part of the Gnome desktop, but I use it anyway. A few clicks and I'm done. It's still optional. Haven't used KDE4.2 I'm a Gnomie myself. So no idea how easy it is on the most recent version.
My original point was that while OSX has the eye candy built into the OS from first boot, Linux has more options. Different target audiences, different systems.
You could say "Windows don't wobble by default." and I'd take no issue with it because it's generally true. Don't make off like it's something the user has to go down some dark 3rd party alleyway to see some shady vendor to get.
Windows only wobble if you choose to make them wobble. No dark invocations, no shady third party vendor down a back alley. No big deal. It's an option. A choice. One of many.
The only thing that saves users is what gets decided as to be a reasonable default. It's not really that much of a stretch for distros to make things wobble by default and not touch the third party stuff.
Saves? What is so terrible about the option of having a few fun bits if you want them? It's a trivial task to use it or not. And actually, it might be a bit of a stretch to do it without a 3D driver and still have enough processor power left to do the useful stuff.
"Another Linux roadblock gone eh." How about Blu-Ray?
Another != All
Do you consider KWin (KDE) and Metacity (Gnome) "third party" also? Both are compositing window managers capable of mostly the same things offered by Compiz.
KWin is developed by the same people as develop the KDE environment, so not third party.
Metacity is developed by the Gnome team, so also not third party.
Compiz is developed by neither, so qualifies as third party in relation to the desktop environment in question.
There may be some common developers in two or more of the projects, And I would assume some communication, but still a separate project. So still third party. What the various window managers do is irrelevant.
Compared to other OS's MacOS is actually quite lite with its eye candy. Oddly enough OS X focuses more of the function of the UI more then how it looks. Every effect has a reason for it, and is used to help people grasp rather abstract concepts better. Vs. Say Wobbly windows in Ubuntu Linux which only hinders usage in order to look fancier aka (Window stuttering when it gets close to an other window)
You do know that Compiz is an optional third party add on for various desktops that you can use or not by choice? Not a built in part of the OS. And you can have as many or as few effects turned on as yo choose. Personally, I have it enabled on my desktop, but not on my laptop. My choice.
Agreed.. most of it is just eye candy, but there are a few useful functions.
The reveal all open windows on all desktops (forget what it's called) when I move my mouse to the top right corner is something I use all the time instead of alt tabbing through a whole bunch of windows on different desktops.
The preview window on mouse over for the task bar.
And surprisingly, the wobbly windows effect, which allows me to drag a maximised window to another desktop without minimising it. Not something I use much, but still useful. I've never had it stutter though. Must be a problem with the way Ubuntu implemented Compiz.
I have to admit though.. it is nice to see the expression on someone's face the first time they close a window on my desktop and it turns into a paper dart and flies away.
Can I legally play a DVD on a Linux box in the US?
Yes.
Ask Dell. They now include a closed source DVD player app to cover this niggle. The rest of the world uses the free codecs and the libdvdcss library just fine.
Another Linux roadblock gone eh.. Soon people will have to come up with real arguments.
About 9 years ago.
It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard.