I hate to burst your bubble, but you are completely incorrect.
The reason why I got broadband is NOT for P2P.
Hey, that's exactly why I got broadband as well! (Probably the same for most other people here as well.) So, hmmm, maybe people who get broadband aren't crooks. But, broadband enables piracy. (Of course, so do computers and so do photocopiers.)
So now maybe you see why I posted such an obviously ridiculous reply to the original poster's opinion that those who enable piracy are crooks. This opinion is flawed. Just because something enables a crime does not make having it a crime, nor does it make the manufacturer a crook.
My reply just extended the stupid (IMHO) opinion that P2P makers are crooks because P2P can be used for piracy. Photocopiers can be used for piracy, so Xerox is a crook. The internet enables piracy. PC's enable piracy. Hard drives enable piracy. Microprocessors. But all of these things, including broadband, and P2P have legitimate uses. Heck, FTP enables piracy. Windows file sharing enables piracy.
One could argue that P2P is designed to enable piracy, where PC's and the Internet are not. But I would counter that P2P is just a file sharing tool. I can share legit files through p2p. P2P is just a more convenient form of putting up an FTP site, or web site, and saying to the world, come to my site and download some files. P2P just makes this much more convenient. Before P2P, people were using other technologies, HTTP, FTP, Usenet, floppy disks, to infringe copyright. So p2p is not the problem. It is just a tool. If people are using the most convenient tool of the day to infringe copyright, then this is a social problem, not a technological problem. There is nothing wrong with p2p, any more than with http or ftp. If this infringement is extremely widespread, just like drinking during prohibition, then maybe our social expectations need to change. Maybe some people have an outdated business model. Maybe it is wrong to hoard something that has an extremely low cost of duplication. (By hoard, I don't mean trying to make a living, but trying to charge extortionate prices for something that is trivially cheaply reproduced.) Maybe copyright in its current form is outdated and needs to be seriously reformed. Maybe it is nothing like the constitution originally envisioned copyright to be.
And yes, finally, maybe some P2P makers have less than ideal motives of trying to capitalize on the social phenomena that most people don't respect copyright. (Wonder why?)
Finally! This is what the RIAA has been trying to say all along! Finally someone on/. gets it.
We need to shut down the Internet. It enables piracy. All these ISP's are crooks, just selling something to enable piracy.
If we don't shut down the whole Internet, then at least shut down broadband. The only reason people get broadband is the same reason they get P2P: to do something illegal. (The same reason they got a PC in the first place, I might add.)
we now return you to your regular p2p downloading.
It is the best OpenNap client I've seen. Open source. Written in Java. I've used it on Linux, MacOS X, and... Win XP.
Try it, you'll like it -- especially if you've been using a Gnutella client. Just download the ".jar" file, and double click it. You'll never go back to gnutella.
(Requires Java to be installed. Use either Microsoft's or Sun's -- both are free as in beer. If you're not running XP, then you almost certianly already have Java installed. If not just download Sun's JRE 1.4 and run setup.exe.)
One of the early ones in the 80's was called THE LAST WORD. I remember reading about it in PCW.
Perhaps you mean THE LAST ONE.
They ran big ads for it for months in major computer rags. It promised the sky. The end of programming as we know it. Comming next summer.
It sure generated a buzz. But when it finally came out and both humans and review writers got hold of it, the buzz turned out to be a real fizzle. Your local library probably has magazine archives from the period.
Wait a bit, go on moon trip for $20,000 and bring back a big round ol' rock the size of a new iMac and photos of you having low-grav sex with loved one (or the stanger in seat 3F. Yeah, row 3....)
Did I hear correctly? Ymean any geek can have sex if they will go to the moon?
The first step is admiting you have a problem.... now that Microsoft has gotten past the denial stage they can now move to stage 2, that is doing something about it....
I thought step 2 was to either sue someone or get some new legislation written, or at the very least create a new marketing slogan.
They are sending a clear message that its ok with someone as big as them for the business to change.
They are sending a clear message that it is okay to buy a PVR, if the money goes to SONY, but that it is NOT okay to commit the crime of using a PVR.
I see no official change of policy from SONY. Therefore, I believe the previous sentence to be exactly right. Yes, I know I'll get modded all to #*!$ for this.
If there can be a new entrant to the marketplace this easily, then MS cannot genuinely have a monopoly in the strictest sense of the word.
MS does have a monopoly in the strictest sense of the word. They don't have a monopoly on browsers. But they DO have a monopoly on desktops.
What MS did was to leverage a monopoly (which is illegal). They used their monopoly in one area to force their bundled product onto users of a competing product. (They also did other illegal things, such as monopoly maintenance, but this, and other acts are a different topic.) If you followed the antitrust court case (several years ago now!) closely, reading day-by-day events in the courtroom, you would be aware of all of the evidence of how Microsoft deliberately attempted to kill Netscape and build IE into a monopoly. Evidence included things such as top company officials discussing "cutting off Netscape's air supply".
So the parent poster's statement is sort of correct. We need a monopoly to beat a monopoly.. It is incorrect insofar as that AOL has a monopoly, which they do not. But it is correct that Microsoft has a monopoly. (In desktops.)
Finally, I would point out that Microsoft was found by judge Jackson's court to have a monopoly, despite Microsoft's extensive denials, manuverings, testimony, and other tactics. They couldn't spend enough money to buy a non-monopoly finding.
Apple as the license holder can allow the Linux kernel to release their implementation GPL. License's don't restrict copyright owners.
You are correct that copyright holders could have multiple licenses or none at all.
But on your first point, if Apple allows Linux kernel to release under GPL, then this is tantamount to GPL licensing it to anyone. If I see a GPL licensed XYZZY in the Kernel, then I am free to take it, use it in anything else, so long as it continues to be GPL licensed.
(Moderation hints: Troll: -1)
Moderation should be done according to how much you agree with the post.
And that lessens the load on the network exactly how?
If you are on the opt-out list, and they check it, then this lessens the load.
If they don't check it, but put ADV or ADV-ADULT, then it is trivially filtered by any modern mail client. Economics and response rate eventually kills spam.
I would go further and say that they are designed to become obsolete quickly.
I have had several generations of Dell boxes. On my 3rd one right now. (P4-1800, 512Mb) The first time we switched from a Gateway 2000 to a Dell was back when 16 MB was a fair amount. (PII 200) Later as that box was at the slow end of our PC's it got shifted to other duties. It was upgraded to the max. ram that it could take -- 64 MB. This very limit forced this PC to be prematurely obsolete. We had upgraded its drive. It would make a nice little server. (At the time, 1999, it needed to run NT 4 as part of a pilot project we were involved in.) Later in order to do some experimenting with Win2K, this box was unsuitable due to the 64 MB limit.
The story does have a nice ending. In 1999, I was just getting into Linux. Sometime in 2000, my boss let me set up this old obsolete box with Linux. (Used SuSE 6.4) Was a wee bit slow, but worked. Shut down the GUI and it made a great little server. Good enough that my boss decided that we should set up a permanent Linux server. (Now does Apache, NetATalk, Samba, HtDig, PHP, SSH, on SuSE 7.2 -- uptime was 320 days, until we needed to swap scsi cards. Compare to NT 4 which we also run.) So what did he buy to run this nice server on? A Dell. (P3 1GHz, 256MB, summer 2001) The 320 day uptime started on 7/23/2001.
Not true! Sometimes the media and/or government will make a criminal out of someone rich for the sole purpose of making sure that the above statement is NOT true!
Therefore, the above statement is NOT true. There are exceptions.
For the sake of argument assume we have downloaded The Little Mermaid under license from Disney, and we are only allowed to play it once.
Once! Allowed to play it! What makes you think that paying for a license to download it gives you the right to play it? You must first also purchase a license to store it onto your hard drive and another to hold a copy in the RAM of your computer, and one more license to send a copy to the monitor. Once the trusted system properly verifies that each of these licenses are in place, then finally, it can check on the license for each eyeball that will be observing the monitor. Oh, don't forget a license to click the play button.
If managing and validating all these licenses were simple, you wouldn't need a Digital Rights Management system now would you? Like an accounting system, it automates a lot of paperwork. If it were simple, computers probably never would have taken off in business.
I am probably missing something, but it makes for interesting thinking.
I'll say. You oversimplify a lot. You failed to mention anything about fees for encryption, fees for decryption, royalties on the patent allowing them to collect fees on encryption, etc.
Do you think that Microsoft will obey the intent of a judgment as long as a single weaselwording workaround exists?
Nope. I don't believe that Microsoft will obey anything. Contracts they sign. Court ordered judgements. Consent decrees. Laws. Concepts of fair play. Ethics. Their concience. (I assume some of them still have one?)
All that matters is making sure that all opportunity within the computer industry only exists at Microsoft's pleasure and profit. If you making your living doesn't depend upon Microsoft, they it must be stopped.
If it's the same price, it seems foolhardy to purchase the OS-less Dell and forego the free MS license.
No, it's a good thing! Dell pockets the difference. (1) no windows tax. (2) no support costs on Windows for this box. (3) save time trouble to format / install an OS. Just throw a floppy disk in the box.
Why is it good to give Dell the extra money? Because the hardware business is fiercly competitive and has thin margins. Therefore it follows that Dell would fight hard for this very attractive extra profit. It also gives them additional negotiation wiggle room with big volume customers.
If Dell fights hard to preserve this extra profit, then it gives them competitive advantage. Therefore, their competitors will do it. Sooner or later it becomes standard practice to offer FreeDOS PC's. Sooner or later, then someone will sell them for less.
In fact, if eventually Dell were to start giving you half the savings in the form of a lower price, then Dell still has a higher margin on these FreeDOS boxes, (or Linux boxes) and has reason to promote them more heavily.
Finally, it is in Dell's best interest to offer full service and support on FreeDOS than it is on Linux.
Its an assumption on our part that as part of the new licensing rules that MS has set up with Dell, HPaq, etc. that they don't pay MS for every box that goes out the door. Perhapse that IS part of the new deal with MS - every box out the doors of Dell means $10 to Redmond.
This is exactly what MS did before 1995. In 1995, when it was too little, too late, the DOJ finally got MS to sign a consent decree not to do this anymore. Do you really think Microsoft would again start a practice that they were previously prosecuted for and for which they signed a consent decree? This is good ol' upstanding American corporation Microsoft we're talking about. I'm sure they wouldn't do it!
Slashdot Mirror
I hate to burst your bubble, but you are completely incorrect.
The reason why I got broadband is NOT for P2P.
Hey, that's exactly why I got broadband as well! (Probably the same for most other people here as well.) So, hmmm, maybe people who get broadband aren't crooks. But, broadband enables piracy. (Of course, so do computers and so do photocopiers.)
So now maybe you see why I posted such an obviously ridiculous reply to the original poster's opinion that those who enable piracy are crooks. This opinion is flawed. Just because something enables a crime does not make having it a crime, nor does it make the manufacturer a crook.
My reply just extended the stupid (IMHO) opinion that P2P makers are crooks because P2P can be used for piracy. Photocopiers can be used for piracy, so Xerox is a crook. The internet enables piracy. PC's enable piracy. Hard drives enable piracy. Microprocessors. But all of these things, including broadband, and P2P have legitimate uses. Heck, FTP enables piracy. Windows file sharing enables piracy.
One could argue that P2P is designed to enable piracy, where PC's and the Internet are not. But I would counter that P2P is just a file sharing tool. I can share legit files through p2p. P2P is just a more convenient form of putting up an FTP site, or web site, and saying to the world, come to my site and download some files. P2P just makes this much more convenient. Before P2P, people were using other technologies, HTTP, FTP, Usenet, floppy disks, to infringe copyright. So p2p is not the problem. It is just a tool. If people are using the most convenient tool of the day to infringe copyright, then this is a social problem, not a technological problem. There is nothing wrong with p2p, any more than with http or ftp. If this infringement is extremely widespread, just like drinking during prohibition, then maybe our social expectations need to change. Maybe some people have an outdated business model. Maybe it is wrong to hoard something that has an extremely low cost of duplication. (By hoard, I don't mean trying to make a living, but trying to charge extortionate prices for something that is trivially cheaply reproduced.) Maybe copyright in its current form is outdated and needs to be seriously reformed. Maybe it is nothing like the constitution originally envisioned copyright to be.
And yes, finally, maybe some P2P makers have less than ideal motives of trying to capitalize on the social phenomena that most people don't respect copyright. (Wonder why?)
These guys are their own worst enemy. The RIAA doesn't need to do anything. These companies will end up destroying themselves.
Yep, yep, and yep.
This is not the type of PR these guys need.
Wrong. This is exactly the kind of PR these guys need.
Crap like this is going to Kill P2P
Only commercial spyware, adware type P2P.
News Flash: People who enable piracy are crooks
/. gets it.
Finally! This is what the RIAA has been trying to say all along! Finally someone on
We need to shut down the Internet. It enables piracy. All these ISP's are crooks, just selling something to enable piracy.
If we don't shut down the whole Internet, then at least shut down broadband. The only reason people get broadband is the same reason they get P2P: to do something illegal. (The same reason they got a PC in the first place, I might add.)
we now return you to your regular p2p downloading.
XNap. (Look it up on freshmeat.net)
It is the best OpenNap client I've seen. Open source. Written in Java. I've used it on Linux, MacOS X, and... Win XP.
Try it, you'll like it -- especially if you've been using a Gnutella client. Just download the ".jar" file, and double click it. You'll never go back to gnutella.
(Requires Java to be installed. Use either Microsoft's or Sun's -- both are free as in beer. If you're not running XP, then you almost certianly already have Java installed. If not just download Sun's JRE 1.4 and run setup.exe.)
How about CEO In A Box?
C*O In A Box?
Hey, can I get a discount if I buy all those boxes together? Why not bundle them all together into a single package? Corporation In A Box.
Managers who want Engineer In A Box 2.0 should be required to use it instead of real engineers for the rest of their careers.
Real engineers should be freed from managers.
We'll see where the real innovation comes from.
Maybe Anand would have a hissy fit over deep linking?
One of the early ones in the 80's was called THE LAST WORD. I remember reading about it in PCW.
Perhaps you mean THE LAST ONE.
They ran big ads for it for months in major computer rags. It promised the sky. The end of programming as we know it. Comming next summer.
It sure generated a buzz. But when it finally came out and both humans and review writers got hold of it, the buzz turned out to be a real fizzle. Your local library probably has magazine archives from the period.
Wait a bit, go on moon trip for $20,000 and bring back a big round ol' rock the size of a new iMac and photos of you having low-grav sex with loved one (or the stanger in seat 3F. Yeah, row 3....)
Did I hear correctly? Ymean any geek can have sex if they will go to the moon?
+1 Insightful.
The first step is admiting you have a problem.... now that Microsoft has gotten past the denial stage they can now move to stage 2, that is doing something about it....
I thought step 2 was to either sue someone or get some new legislation written, or at the very least create a new marketing slogan.
They are sending a clear message that its ok with someone as big as them for the business to change.
They are sending a clear message that it is okay to buy a PVR, if the money goes to SONY, but that it is NOT okay to commit the crime of using a PVR.
I see no official change of policy from SONY. Therefore, I believe the previous sentence to be exactly right. Yes, I know I'll get modded all to #*!$ for this.
How about...
If there can be a new entrant to the marketplace this easily, then MS cannot genuinely have a monopoly in the strictest sense of the word.
MS does have a monopoly in the strictest sense of the word. They don't have a monopoly on browsers. But they DO have a monopoly on desktops.
What MS did was to leverage a monopoly (which is illegal). They used their monopoly in one area to force their bundled product onto users of a competing product. (They also did other illegal things, such as monopoly maintenance, but this, and other acts are a different topic.) If you followed the antitrust court case (several years ago now!) closely, reading day-by-day events in the courtroom, you would be aware of all of the evidence of how Microsoft deliberately attempted to kill Netscape and build IE into a monopoly. Evidence included things such as top company officials discussing "cutting off Netscape's air supply".
So the parent poster's statement is sort of correct. We need a monopoly to beat a monopoly.. It is incorrect insofar as that AOL has a monopoly, which they do not. But it is correct that Microsoft has a monopoly. (In desktops.)
Finally, I would point out that Microsoft was found by judge Jackson's court to have a monopoly, despite Microsoft's extensive denials, manuverings, testimony, and other tactics. They couldn't spend enough money to buy a non-monopoly finding.
Incorrect. The GPL clearly states that it only covers DISTRIBUTION of the software, not USE of the software.
Apple as the license holder can allow the Linux kernel to release their implementation GPL. License's don't restrict copyright owners.
You are correct that copyright holders could have multiple licenses or none at all.
But on your first point, if Apple allows Linux kernel to release under GPL, then this is tantamount to GPL licensing it to anyone. If I see a GPL licensed XYZZY in the Kernel, then I am free to take it, use it in anything else, so long as it continues to be GPL licensed.
(Moderation hints: Troll: -1)
Moderation should be done according to how much you agree with the post.
And that lessens the load on the network exactly how?
If you are on the opt-out list, and they check it, then this lessens the load.
If they don't check it, but put ADV or ADV-ADULT, then it is trivially filtered by any modern mail client. Economics and response rate eventually kills spam.
It is not just general lack of upgradability.
I would go further and say that they are designed to become obsolete quickly.
I have had several generations of Dell boxes. On my 3rd one right now. (P4-1800, 512Mb) The first time we switched from a Gateway 2000 to a Dell was back when 16 MB was a fair amount. (PII 200) Later as that box was at the slow end of our PC's it got shifted to other duties. It was upgraded to the max. ram that it could take -- 64 MB. This very limit forced this PC to be prematurely obsolete. We had upgraded its drive. It would make a nice little server. (At the time, 1999, it needed to run NT 4 as part of a pilot project we were involved in.) Later in order to do some experimenting with Win2K, this box was unsuitable due to the 64 MB limit.
The story does have a nice ending. In 1999, I was just getting into Linux. Sometime in 2000, my boss let me set up this old obsolete box with Linux. (Used SuSE 6.4) Was a wee bit slow, but worked. Shut down the GUI and it made a great little server. Good enough that my boss decided that we should set up a permanent Linux server. (Now does Apache, NetATalk, Samba, HtDig, PHP, SSH, on SuSE 7.2 -- uptime was 320 days, until we needed to swap scsi cards. Compare to NT 4 which we also run.) So what did he buy to run this nice server on? A Dell. (P3 1GHz, 256MB, summer 2001) The 320 day uptime started on 7/23/2001.
Now when we get to the point of more users than distributions, then we'll really be cooking.
Then the next milestone will be more users than Windows has bugs. (Or should that be security exploits?)
I think you have it all wrong. How about these.
Because only the poor can be criminals.
Not true! Sometimes the media and/or government will make a criminal out of someone rich for the sole purpose of making sure that the above statement is NOT true!
Therefore, the above statement is NOT true. There are exceptions.
For the sake of argument assume we have downloaded The Little Mermaid under license from Disney, and we are only allowed to play it once.
Once! Allowed to play it! What makes you think that paying for a license to download it gives you the right to play it? You must first also purchase a license to store it onto your hard drive and another to hold a copy in the RAM of your computer, and one more license to send a copy to the monitor. Once the trusted system properly verifies that each of these licenses are in place, then finally, it can check on the license for each eyeball that will be observing the monitor. Oh, don't forget a license to click the play button.
If managing and validating all these licenses were simple, you wouldn't need a Digital Rights Management system now would you? Like an accounting system, it automates a lot of paperwork. If it were simple, computers probably never would have taken off in business.
I am probably missing something, but it makes for interesting thinking.
I'll say. You oversimplify a lot. You failed to mention anything about fees for encryption, fees for decryption, royalties on the patent allowing them to collect fees on encryption, etc.
Do you think that Microsoft will obey the intent of a judgment as long as a single weaselwording workaround exists?
Nope. I don't believe that Microsoft will obey anything. Contracts they sign. Court ordered judgements. Consent decrees. Laws. Concepts of fair play. Ethics. Their concience. (I assume some of them still have one?)
All that matters is making sure that all opportunity within the computer industry only exists at Microsoft's pleasure and profit. If you making your living doesn't depend upon Microsoft, they it must be stopped.
If it's the same price, it seems foolhardy to purchase the OS-less Dell and forego the free MS license.
No, it's a good thing! Dell pockets the difference. (1) no windows tax. (2) no support costs on Windows for this box. (3) save time trouble to format / install an OS. Just throw a floppy disk in the box.
Why is it good to give Dell the extra money? Because the hardware business is fiercly competitive and has thin margins. Therefore it follows that Dell would fight hard for this very attractive extra profit. It also gives them additional negotiation wiggle room with big volume customers.
If Dell fights hard to preserve this extra profit, then it gives them competitive advantage. Therefore, their competitors will do it. Sooner or later it becomes standard practice to offer FreeDOS PC's. Sooner or later, then someone will sell them for less.
In fact, if eventually Dell were to start giving you half the savings in the form of a lower price, then Dell still has a higher margin on these FreeDOS boxes, (or Linux boxes) and has reason to promote them more heavily.
Finally, it is in Dell's best interest to offer full service and support on FreeDOS than it is on Linux.
Its an assumption on our part that as part of the new licensing rules that MS has set up with Dell, HPaq, etc. that they don't pay MS for every box that goes out the door. Perhapse that IS part of the new deal with MS - every box out the doors of Dell means $10 to Redmond.
This is exactly what MS did before 1995. In 1995, when it was too little, too late, the DOJ finally got MS to sign a consent decree not to do this anymore. Do you really think Microsoft would again start a practice that they were previously prosecuted for and for which they signed a consent decree? This is good ol' upstanding American corporation Microsoft we're talking about. I'm sure they wouldn't do it!