...since this came from Forbes. Not exactly where one would expect to find the most accurate information about technology.
When I read:
``Even more important, who is accountable? Linux is an amalgamation of the input of many companies and individual software engineers. So whom do you call when it breaks? Also, contrary to popular belief, Linux is not really "free." How are large-scale licensing agreements to be worked out?''
I found myself laughing out loud.
Has anyone successfully found Microsoft accountable for broken software? Or CA? Or any software vendor for that matter?
Has anyone heard of Red Hat or any other Linux distributor making people pay licensing fees for the use of the software? Of course, Forbes is confusing a license to use the software (the sort of license that Oracle, for example, makes you pay for) with a support contract (which companies like Oracle make you pay for in addition to the usage license).
The day when Red Hat starts asking people to pay for license keys that have to be loaded on each system or pieces of paper that they need to keep on file is the day they should put a big ``Going Out Of Business'' sign in front of their corporate offices.
Not that I'd expect an old money magazines like Forbes to really understand the difference between Linux and other software products but how difficult would it have been for the writer to have called up someone in the OSS movement to get a comment and, perhaps, make sure the article didn't come off sounding like it was written by someone totally clueless.
``I wish the article had discussed the reverse-engineering issues of needing 'virgins' who have never seen the product being reverse-engineered and how MS's newly broad distribution of its code makes finding virgins much more difficult.''
Well... the.NET is supposedly based on open protocols so there shouldn't be a problem, right? But who can guarantee that one or more of these protocols won't be extended by MS and made proprietary and covered by patents and trade secrets? ``Just Say No'' is probably the best thing you could do when MS comes 'round bearing gifts.
Don't you wonder about the day when MS decides to take a bunch of recent college graduates to court claiming that they're using ideas that they must have seen while they had access to this proprietary MS code in college? I'd hope that the judge would throw the case out on its ear after commenting that ``You can't let whole college CS programs have access to your code and then prohibit them from writing code because you think they're using an idea that you let them see in the first place''. Unless they somehow make all the CS students sign NDAs. Which, if I were a CS student, would spur me to start the process of transferring to another school ASAFP. (Making a student pay a lab fee is one thing but making them sign away their right to write code and earn a living would be another thing altogether.)
... these aren't that new are they. I saw and used such a device back in the late '80s for a remote conference. The new one probably has some new bells and whistles but it's not so innovative (IMHO). Now if I scrape my fingernails across it... does it record a grating, screechy sound and transmit it to others for listening on their PC? Now that would be fun.
Personally, I hope this doesn't spell the end of chalk. It doesn't dry out like those damned whiteboard markers.
``...it seems the US and Russia have changed places.''
I think it was Khrushchev that first noticed this happening.
Re:And where does the "Approved Content" come from
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
``But in however many years' time, how will they find the next Britney Spears if she's unable to record music?''
We could only be so lucky. Hopefully it'd take them...um, let's see: life expectancy is X and I'm currently Y. Let's hope it takes X - Y + 10 years. That'd be just great.
``It's difficult to make money out of providing content if you don't actually have any.''
Which is why, when companies like Disney lobbied for copyright extensions, they made sure the law was written to be retroactive. They haven't created anything in recent years that is as high a quality as the stuff that was produced 40-50 years ago. Michael Eisner's job is now much easier since he doesn't have to actually have keep producing new, high quality content. Just keep repackaging the older material in news ways and re-releasing it. These guys don't give a damn if the copyright doesn't end until after they, you, and I are dead. They'll still be making a ton of money. That's all they care about.
``the power of an abacus''
``In technology news... reports of a 1 DIP abacus sent technology stocks soaring. Industry officials stated that the `The ability to perform ten operations per second has been a long time in developing in the 20 years since the passing of the old computer era that was legislated out of existence by the DMCA and SSSCA.'. A spokeperson from the MPAA warned that this new technology could be yet another threat to the rights of copyright holders and they are closely watch its development.''
Re:I never thought I'd say this but....
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
Yah. Isn't it odd that inversely proprotional relationship. If it doesn't matter we have tons of choices. If it really matters, we're lucky to have any alternatives at all.
Re:It's all about Hollywood/Disney's Greed!
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
``The days of the MPAA and RIAA are numbered. Imaging artists and musicians able to bypass the hollywood mafia, they'll be able to publish thier [sic] work on the internet, sell for far less money, and earn more profit.''
Doubtful that this could ever happen for movies. I suppose a bunch of renegade actors/actresses could band together and produce a movie that they distributed themselves. It'd better be of a higher quality than Blair Witch though. They'd be pretty hard pressed to include all the glitzy CGI effects that today's sheeple need in order to be entertained.
Musicians have much better chance to pull this off. I'd bet that some musicians could go over to a friend's house, turn on the recorder while they're playing in the living room, and wind up with a better product than the drek that you find in most CD bins nowadays.
Re:Go, Johnny, go go go!
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
``I am apprehensive, however, of proposals that select technological winners and losers and mandate government intervention in the marketplace.''
Hasn't the good senator heard? It's already government policy to select winners and losers. Or was he napping when the DoJ handed Microsoft that `get out of jail free' card?
Re:If you can't copy, it's not a computer
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
If I recall correctly, there was once a huge argument about whether ``copying'' software into RAM was something that a law needed to cover. How ridiculous can one get?
Re:There's alway a way to break copy protection
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
``They teach you to wake up not when your body tells you to, but when the alarm goes off. They teach you to respond to bells and orders. They teach that displaying any extraordinary skills or talents will result in persecution.''
That, IMNSHO, isn't education... it's conditioning. Especially the reaction to any display of special skills. Kids already torment the bejeezus out any of their classmates that show
an inclination toward academic excellence.
``A society of passive consumers and docile workers maintains the status quo.''
And that's point of all this, isn't it? Maintaining the status quo? As I noted in another reply: Imagine what might have been had the buggy whip makers had deeper pockets. We might not be having this ``conversation'' unless we were standing in the same room.
``Maybe then people will get sick of it and start thinking more about creating rather than consuming.''
But ordinary people won't pay for the ``professional'' grade of equipment that will be mandatory if you're going to create content. And it surely won't be long before you'll need to have a license to distribute content. So you better just shut up and leave content creation to Disney and other people who know what's best for you.
I hear they're working making `possession of free will' a felony as well.
Re:No, it won't be fun at all
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Interesting quote. Here's another one that's, I think, closely related:
``With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him.''
-- attributed to Robert Jackson (FDR attorney general and Supreme Court Justice)
Another that's been making the rounds lately:
``There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit.''
-- Robert Heinlein (in Life-Line)
All of these seem particularly apropos to what's been going on in the U.S. Congress lately. Crimeny if these hearings (along with the Enron fiasco) aren't reason enough to institute strict campaign contribution regulations then I don't know what is. One wonder what might have been had buggy whip manufacturers had deeper pockets...
Re:This is the end of PC and general purpose hardw
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
You just figured that out? That's been apparent for several years now.
Personally, I think the reason that the Internet became so popular is that it wasn't television. Then the TV execs figured out where all the eyeballs were going. And you see the result.
Anyway, the more people figure this out the better. So pass the word.
Re:There's alway a way to break copy protection
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
``I think we're on the verge of self-destructing our $1T technology industry goodbye for the $50M Hollyweird industry. ''
I disagree with your dollar figures (I think they're too low but that's just a gut feeling) but I heartily agree with your assessment of the long term effect that this legislation will have.
``Your kids, by government edict, won't have such advantages. Valenti, Eisner and Hollings would rather have the nation's kids watch The Lion King so Disney can make a 5-year profit projection. ''
Heh heh. On those infrequent occasions when I let my daughters watch the Saturday morning cartoons, it always makes me want to vomit when I hear ABC/Disney call their programming ``illuminating television''. What the hell's so illuminating about Winnie the Pooh or Mickey Mouse? The FCC used to mandate that a certain portion of a networks programming had to be educational. Apparently, Eisner and company have had good luck convincing the FCC that ``The House of Mouse'' qualifies as an educational programming in Washington nowadays. I've yet to see how these programs educate anyone
in anything other than what new toys are on the market.
Sadly, this trend is nothing new. I've watched the passing of a great many good educational shows since the '60s (remember the ``Discovery'' shows? Anyone?). Heck, even Bill Nye the Science Guy (aka `science for the ADD afflicted') doesn't have a show anymore. But we do have Winnie the Pooh educating children that it's good to be nice to each other. Not that that's bad but it hardly qualifies as educational.
``... kid tinkering with a soldering iron.''
It's already too late for American kids for that. Mention `soldering iron' to an American teenager and they'll assume that you're talking about something that gets the wrinkles out their shirts. And it's been that way ever since Zenith screwed up Heath and finally killed it off. Electronics education in this country is barely more than little tinker toys that kids put together that make lights blink. How anyone could ever get interested in the electronics field any more and wish to major in it in college is beyond me.
And I hope you don't mind... but your post just went into my ``quotes'' file.
Re:THE BIG FREAKING POINT.
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 2
``Is that copyright is NOT there to guarantee that people make lots of money, copyright is there to guarantee that society has literature, art, and music, by making sure artists can earn money through creation.''
Right. I may be wrong here, but I recall that the portion of the Constitution that deals with copyright was put in specifically to address the onerous conditions that English publishers had placed on access to books, etc.
If this passes, what's next? We dump the idea of elected office and create our own monarchy? Oh wait... we're nearly there now.
``Have you read "The Future of Ideas" by Lessing? He has plenty of good ideas.''
Not according to Jack Valenti. Crimeny, when you read his letter printed in the Washington Post you could almost picture him foaming at the mouth while he was blasting (based on, IMHO, a wild misinterpretation of) Lessig's ideas.
``Time to switch my machine BIOS to the Linux BIOS''
Nice try. But you better hurry. Before long it it will be illegal to own a PROM burner or to hack your motherboard to add the jumper allowing you to flash the BIOS like you once were able to.
``A recent survey revealed that 68 percent of all home computer users say they're satisfied with their normal 56K computer modem.''
They're satisfied with 56Kbps because that's all they can get. BTW, who did this survey and where were the results published?
``not much (legal) material is out there that's chock full of graphics and in a consumer-friendly
format to create the need for a cable modem or a digital subscriber line (DSL)''
Way to go. When I get my DSL line will my name be enshrined in a manilla folder at the MPAA as a potential copyright infringer?
``Because making movies is so expensive, only two in 10 films ever retrieve their production and marketing investment from domestic theatrical
exhibition.''
Two solutions, in my mind: Don't make the other eight if they're money losers. Or, perhaps, make decent movies without all the multi-million dollar special effects. If you're looking for reasons why noone's going to the movies, it's because most of them assume that their audience has the intelligence of a cabbage. We're looking for a good plot, believable characters, and other things that, frankly, you'll never be
able to get by adding more and more expensive CGI. Not everyone is distracted by the fancy computer generated effects to the point that they can't tell that the movie, as a whole, stinks.
``use the Internet as a new delivery system to speed movies to consumers' homes for rent or sale''
But you'll probably push for a prohibition of the consumer's ability to store this purchased movie onto anything more permanent than a hard disk. When that dies then I'll have to buy another copy won't I? Ah... I see the plan for the studios' future revenue stream.
``Other
ingredients are necessary to protect digital content, but it gets too complex to explain in a few sentences.''
I, personally, suspect that it's difficult to explain briefly because it'll take a new 200-page law which will trample the rights of most every computer user. And you don't really want the general public actually knowing what's being planned until it's too late anyway.
``...that copyrighted movies are destroying digital innovation -- what the critics mean
by "innovation" is legalizing the breaking of protection codes, without which there is no protection''
Nice try. Lessig doesn't (in anything that I've read anyway; I'm still reading his latest book) say that ``copyrighted movies are destroying digital innovation''. It's the new copyright extensions that you and the rest of the MPAA have lobbied for and gotten enacted into law that threaten to kill off innovation. Particularly when they're being applied to things other than your precious movies.
``Movie producers are eager to populate the Net with movies in a consumer-friendly format.''
Just my opinion, mind you, but anything that obsoletes existing computer equipment will never be considered ``consumer-friendly''.
``Congress must step in to protect valuable
creative works on the Net and thereby benefit consumers by giving them another choice for movie
viewing.''
Here's a clue (free of charge): The internet does not exist to provide the movie industry with a convenient conduit to pipe their crummy movies to the public. And, since the vast majority of the people using the Internet seem to be happy with slow, slow, 56Kbps connections (your assertion), they're not going to be lining up to replace their modems with DSL routers any time soon. Besides, if you haven't noticed, most of the U.S. cannot even get broadband. Consider those who have cable access: why haven't more signed up in large numbers to receive pay-per-view movies? It's a dud. If it were popular, wouldn't you think more people would have demanded that their cable providers include it (or more of it)? BTW, most of the people that I have heard of even having a PPV service cancel it after a short time. Are you and your cohorts banking on the public paying for movies that they'll watch at home because it'll be more convenient to see a bad movie at home as opposed to having to get in the car and drive to see the same bad movie? I'm pretty sure that the movie-going public isn't that gullible.
You need to get over this fantasy that we're all clamoring for Hollywood's product and that the MPAA members are performing some sort of noble service by churning out the drek that passes for a Hollywood movie.
Because Microsoft cannot control it. And they haven't figured out how to corrupt it like they did Kerberos. So it's gotta go.
Yah, let's throw out a simple protocol and replace it with something that only people who've been to a half dozen Microsoft approved training classes can understand. No one really believed in that Open standards stuff anyway. IMHO, Microsoft has really come full circle now. At one time (back in the earliest days of the PC) they were the ones encouraging people to use PCs and escape the tyranny of the priesthood inhabiting the corporate data center. Now it is Microsoft that's encouraging the use of ever more complex technologies that no one except... tada!... another priesthood will be able to understand.
And Microsoft doesn't want to come up with something that would coexist with HTTP. That would make it too easy to label their technology as proprietary and easy to dismiss. Of course, even today, can anyone really argue that Microsoft's products are any less proprietary than the products they were competing against when Microsoft was the underdog?
Personally, I smell some Microsoft software -- loaded down with more software patents than you can shake a stick at -- just waiting in the wings to be offered up as the silver bullet that will solve this (artificial) protocol crisis. Just wait until Microsoft starts pushing the idea that all the software you are currently using for Internet-related things should be replaced. I can imagine a backlash like you wouldn't believe.
I recently read an opinion piece -- wish I could remember where -- that made the comment that Microsoft's arrogance would eventually cause them to do something that would cause their customers to run away in droves. I think that the author was really onto something.
But, only temporarily, though, right? Didn't they just push the deadline out from the original Oct. 2001 date? Even if they're not pursuing that plan any more, who wants to deal with a vendor that tries to pull these stunts? I guess some folks don't have enough to worry about yet.
``...imagine a plan that requires clients to upgrade their software but doesn't require Microsoft to guarantee that the upgrade will contain the same functionality.''
Or, even better, they decide that the time that you will do the upgrade is on their schedule, and not yours, or your support will disappear. Yah, I want to base a research effort on resources that can change or disappear like that.
``almost everything on win2k is remotely scriptable through WMI.''
Gosh, that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy as I wonder whether this scripting is as secure as the other scriptable interfaces available on Microsoft products. [cringe]
...do you suppose it will be before software vendors eliminate the use of scripting in products because to allow an end user to write their own extensions to the software will inevitably run afoul of some patented idea. I'm just waiting for someone to patent the concept of automatically updating cells in a spreadsheet. (Actually, I'll be surprised if that hasn't already been patented.) Then every business on the planet that attempts to run a spreadsheet with formulas will owe someone a royalty. Won't that be nice.
Slashdot Mirror
...since this came from Forbes. Not exactly where one would expect to find the most accurate information about technology.
When I read:
I found myself laughing out loud.
Has anyone successfully found Microsoft accountable for broken software? Or CA? Or any software vendor for that matter?
Has anyone heard of Red Hat or any other Linux distributor making people pay licensing fees for the use of the software? Of course, Forbes is confusing a license to use the software (the sort of license that Oracle, for example, makes you pay for) with a support contract (which companies like Oracle make you pay for in addition to the usage license).
The day when Red Hat starts asking people to pay for license keys that have to be loaded on each system or pieces of paper that they need to keep on file is the day they should put a big ``Going Out Of Business'' sign in front of their corporate offices.
Not that I'd expect an old money magazines like Forbes to really understand the difference between Linux and other software products but how difficult would it have been for the writer to have called up someone in the OSS movement to get a comment and, perhaps, make sure the article didn't come off sounding like it was written by someone totally clueless.
Jeez...
Well... the .NET is supposedly based on open protocols so there shouldn't be a problem, right? But who can guarantee that one or more of these protocols won't be extended by MS and made proprietary and covered by patents and trade secrets? ``Just Say No'' is probably the best thing you could do when MS comes 'round bearing gifts.
Don't you wonder about the day when MS decides to take a bunch of recent college graduates to court claiming that they're using ideas that they must have seen while they had access to this proprietary MS code in college? I'd hope that the judge would throw the case out on its ear after commenting that ``You can't let whole college CS programs have access to your code and then prohibit them from writing code because you think they're using an idea that you let them see in the first place''. Unless they somehow make all the CS students sign NDAs. Which, if I were a CS student, would spur me to start the process of transferring to another school ASAFP. (Making a student pay a lab fee is one thing but making them sign away their right to write code and earn a living would be another thing altogether.)
...will dismiss testimony out declaring it ``hearsay''.
(My but I'm pessimistic today...)
... these aren't that new are they. I saw and used such a device back in the late '80s for a remote conference. The new one probably has some new bells and whistles but it's not so innovative (IMHO). Now if I scrape my fingernails across it... does it record a grating, screechy sound and transmit it to others for listening on their PC? Now that would be fun.
Personally, I hope this doesn't spell the end of chalk. It doesn't dry out like those damned whiteboard markers.
I think it was Khrushchev that first noticed this happening.
We could only be so lucky. Hopefully it'd take them...um, let's see: life expectancy is X and I'm currently Y. Let's hope it takes X - Y + 10 years. That'd be just great.
Which is why, when companies like Disney lobbied for copyright extensions, they made sure the law was written to be retroactive. They haven't created anything in recent years that is as high a quality as the stuff that was produced 40-50 years ago. Michael Eisner's job is now much easier since he doesn't have to actually have keep producing new, high quality content. Just keep repackaging the older material in news ways and re-releasing it. These guys don't give a damn if the copyright doesn't end until after they, you, and I are dead. They'll still be making a ton of money. That's all they care about.
``In technology news... reports of a 1 DIP abacus sent technology stocks soaring. Industry officials stated that the `The ability to perform ten operations per second has been a long time in developing in the 20 years since the passing of the old computer era that was legislated out of existence by the DMCA and SSSCA.'. A spokeperson from the MPAA warned that this new technology could be yet another threat to the rights of copyright holders and they are closely watch its development.''
Yah. Isn't it odd that inversely proprotional relationship. If it doesn't matter we have tons of choices. If it really matters, we're lucky to have any alternatives at all.
Doubtful that this could ever happen for movies. I suppose a bunch of renegade actors/actresses could band together and produce a movie that they distributed themselves. It'd better be of a higher quality than Blair Witch though. They'd be pretty hard pressed to include all the glitzy CGI effects that today's sheeple need in order to be entertained.
Musicians have much better chance to pull this off. I'd bet that some musicians could go over to a friend's house, turn on the recorder while they're playing in the living room, and wind up with a better product than the drek that you find in most CD bins nowadays.
Hasn't the good senator heard? It's already government policy to select winners and losers. Or was he napping when the DoJ handed Microsoft that `get out of jail free' card?
If I recall correctly, there was once a huge argument about whether ``copying'' software into RAM was something that a law needed to cover. How ridiculous can one get?
That, IMNSHO, isn't education... it's conditioning. Especially the reaction to any display of special skills. Kids already torment the bejeezus out any of their classmates that show an inclination toward academic excellence.
And that's point of all this, isn't it? Maintaining the status quo? As I noted in another reply: Imagine what might have been had the buggy whip makers had deeper pockets. We might not be having this ``conversation'' unless we were standing in the same room.
Cheers...
But ordinary people won't pay for the ``professional'' grade of equipment that will be mandatory if you're going to create content. And it surely won't be long before you'll need to have a license to distribute content. So you better just shut up and leave content creation to Disney and other people who know what's best for you.
I hear they're working making `possession of free will' a felony as well.
Interesting quote. Here's another one that's, I think, closely related:
Another that's been making the rounds lately:
All of these seem particularly apropos to what's been going on in the U.S. Congress lately. Crimeny if these hearings (along with the Enron fiasco) aren't reason enough to institute strict campaign contribution regulations then I don't know what is. One wonder what might have been had buggy whip manufacturers had deeper pockets...
You just figured that out? That's been apparent for several years now.
Personally, I think the reason that the Internet became so popular is that it wasn't television. Then the TV execs figured out where all the eyeballs were going. And you see the result.
Anyway, the more people figure this out the better. So pass the word.
I disagree with your dollar figures (I think they're too low but that's just a gut feeling) but I heartily agree with your assessment of the long term effect that this legislation will have.
Heh heh. On those infrequent occasions when I let my daughters watch the Saturday morning cartoons, it always makes me want to vomit when I hear ABC/Disney call their programming ``illuminating television''. What the hell's so illuminating about Winnie the Pooh or Mickey Mouse? The FCC used to mandate that a certain portion of a networks programming had to be educational. Apparently, Eisner and company have had good luck convincing the FCC that ``The House of Mouse'' qualifies as an educational programming in Washington nowadays. I've yet to see how these programs educate anyone in anything other than what new toys are on the market.
Sadly, this trend is nothing new. I've watched the passing of a great many good educational shows since the '60s (remember the ``Discovery'' shows? Anyone?). Heck, even Bill Nye the Science Guy (aka `science for the ADD afflicted') doesn't have a show anymore. But we do have Winnie the Pooh educating children that it's good to be nice to each other. Not that that's bad but it hardly qualifies as educational.
It's already too late for American kids for that. Mention `soldering iron' to an American teenager and they'll assume that you're talking about something that gets the wrinkles out their shirts. And it's been that way ever since Zenith screwed up Heath and finally killed it off. Electronics education in this country is barely more than little tinker toys that kids put together that make lights blink. How anyone could ever get interested in the electronics field any more and wish to major in it in college is beyond me.
And I hope you don't mind... but your post just went into my ``quotes'' file.
Right. I may be wrong here, but I recall that the portion of the Constitution that deals with copyright was put in specifically to address the onerous conditions that English publishers had placed on access to books, etc.
If this passes, what's next? We dump the idea of elected office and create our own monarchy? Oh wait... we're nearly there now.
Not according to Jack Valenti. Crimeny, when you read his letter printed in the Washington Post you could almost picture him foaming at the mouth while he was blasting (based on, IMHO, a wild misinterpretation of) Lessig's ideas.
Nice try. But you better hurry. Before long it it will be illegal to own a PROM burner or to hack your motherboard to add the jumper allowing you to flash the BIOS like you once were able to.
Just a few comments...
They're satisfied with 56Kbps because that's all they can get. BTW, who did this survey and where were the results published?
Way to go. When I get my DSL line will my name be enshrined in a manilla folder at the MPAA as a potential copyright infringer?
Two solutions, in my mind: Don't make the other eight if they're money losers. Or, perhaps, make decent movies without all the multi-million dollar special effects. If you're looking for reasons why noone's going to the movies, it's because most of them assume that their audience has the intelligence of a cabbage. We're looking for a good plot, believable characters, and other things that, frankly, you'll never be able to get by adding more and more expensive CGI. Not everyone is distracted by the fancy computer generated effects to the point that they can't tell that the movie, as a whole, stinks.
But you'll probably push for a prohibition of the consumer's ability to store this purchased movie onto anything more permanent than a hard disk. When that dies then I'll have to buy another copy won't I? Ah... I see the plan for the studios' future revenue stream.
I, personally, suspect that it's difficult to explain briefly because it'll take a new 200-page law which will trample the rights of most every computer user. And you don't really want the general public actually knowing what's being planned until it's too late anyway.
Nice try. Lessig doesn't (in anything that I've read anyway; I'm still reading his latest book) say that ``copyrighted movies are destroying digital innovation''. It's the new copyright extensions that you and the rest of the MPAA have lobbied for and gotten enacted into law that threaten to kill off innovation. Particularly when they're being applied to things other than your precious movies.
Just my opinion, mind you, but anything that obsoletes existing computer equipment will never be considered ``consumer-friendly''.
Here's a clue (free of charge): The internet does not exist to provide the movie industry with a convenient conduit to pipe their crummy movies to the public. And, since the vast majority of the people using the Internet seem to be happy with slow, slow, 56Kbps connections (your assertion), they're not going to be lining up to replace their modems with DSL routers any time soon. Besides, if you haven't noticed, most of the U.S. cannot even get broadband. Consider those who have cable access: why haven't more signed up in large numbers to receive pay-per-view movies? It's a dud. If it were popular, wouldn't you think more people would have demanded that their cable providers include it (or more of it)? BTW, most of the people that I have heard of even having a PPV service cancel it after a short time. Are you and your cohorts banking on the public paying for movies that they'll watch at home because it'll be more convenient to see a bad movie at home as opposed to having to get in the car and drive to see the same bad movie? I'm pretty sure that the movie-going public isn't that gullible.
You need to get over this fantasy that we're all clamoring for Hollywood's product and that the MPAA members are performing some sort of noble service by churning out the drek that passes for a Hollywood movie.
Have a nice day!
Because Microsoft cannot control it. And they haven't figured out how to corrupt it like they did Kerberos. So it's gotta go.
Yah, let's throw out a simple protocol and replace it with something that only people who've been to a half dozen Microsoft approved training classes can understand. No one really believed in that Open standards stuff anyway. IMHO, Microsoft has really come full circle now. At one time (back in the earliest days of the PC) they were the ones encouraging people to use PCs and escape the tyranny of the priesthood inhabiting the corporate data center. Now it is Microsoft that's encouraging the use of ever more complex technologies that no one except... tada!... another priesthood will be able to understand.
And Microsoft doesn't want to come up with something that would coexist with HTTP. That would make it too easy to label their technology as proprietary and easy to dismiss. Of course, even today, can anyone really argue that Microsoft's products are any less proprietary than the products they were competing against when Microsoft was the underdog?
Personally, I smell some Microsoft software -- loaded down with more software patents than you can shake a stick at -- just waiting in the wings to be offered up as the silver bullet that will solve this (artificial) protocol crisis. Just wait until Microsoft starts pushing the idea that all the software you are currently using for Internet-related things should be replaced. I can imagine a backlash like you wouldn't believe.
I recently read an opinion piece -- wish I could remember where -- that made the comment that Microsoft's arrogance would eventually cause them to do something that would cause their customers to run away in droves. I think that the author was really onto something.
But, only temporarily, though, right? Didn't they just push the deadline out from the original Oct. 2001 date? Even if they're not pursuing that plan any more, who wants to deal with a vendor that tries to pull these stunts? I guess some folks don't have enough to worry about yet.
Or, even better, they decide that the time that you will do the upgrade is on their schedule, and not yours, or your support will disappear. Yah, I want to base a research effort on resources that can change or disappear like that.
Though your bias shows, too. You mention that
as though they're some sort Neanderthals for wanting to do so or that, perhaps, you're miffed that they didn't sign some big purchase orders.
At least that's the way your comment came across.
Gosh, that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy as I wonder whether this scripting is as secure as the other scriptable interfaces available on Microsoft products. [cringe]
Except for the spelling error, that'd just about sum it up, eh?
...do you suppose it will be before software vendors eliminate the use of scripting in products because to allow an end user to write their own extensions to the software will inevitably run afoul of some patented idea. I'm just waiting for someone to patent the concept of automatically updating cells in a spreadsheet. (Actually, I'll be surprised if that hasn't already been patented.) Then every business on the planet that attempts to run a spreadsheet with formulas will owe someone a royalty. Won't that be nice.