And to think I thought capitalism worked. (in some sense of the word work, anyway)
Granted, it is rather uncool that there is no DVD player for linux. And it is really uncool that someone should be arresed for making software that would make it easier to do something vaugely related to doing something with something with a dvd and a computer, somewhere. (how most of the world, myself often included, understands this case.
As I understand it, the people who are buying dvd drives for their linux boxes are buying them with the knowledge that there is no dvd player for linux. It is not as though this is suddenly a surprise when they get the drive home. This being a good capitalist economy, I would think that these people would tell the companies that they are not going to buy a dvd drive until the company makes a dvd player for linux (or amiga, or whatever). The company might just act based upon that sort of information, especially when delivered in a polite way.
Companies, generally, at least try to act in their own best interests. They don't always, but they try to. And making a product that would make money is something that is in a companys best interest.
Ask them nicely. Once they realize how much money is involved, they may just think differently.
The question should not be who owns a domain, but what the ownder does with the domain.
The web site at domain X should be consistent with the domain name, at least for generic names. People surf to a generic domain, like linux.com, either because they hope the site will have good resources for things in that category, or because the domain is easy to find. They do not expect or want the message "This site is for sale" or anything to that effect.
People who buy generic domains with the intent of resale have the duty, at least to provide links to sites that provide the sort of information their domain name implies. This is not to say that they should be forced to, just that it is the right thing to do, and that the more useful their domain is, even just as a set of links, the more desirable the domain becomes. Without content, any domain becomes less desirable.
The logical question, in my mind, is: "What is the precedent for physical property?"
Surely safes have been seized as evidence in other trials. What happens when an individual will not turn over the combination for the safe? What if the government cannot force the safe open?
The most proper solution would be to apply the answer to these questions to the encrypted files.
I disagree with the author. A really well designed gui would be wonderful, but who would use it? All of the people who really know computers extremely well, like many of the readers of slashdot probably would, but the readers of slashdot are but a minority in the group of all computer users. More important than quality is consistency. My father, a man who has had a home computer since 1987, hates the way each time he buys a new computer, he has to learn a new system, first DOS, then Win3.1, and now Win98. And he uses the computer more than the "average" user. What he, and I think most people want is a system that is consistent. Sure, upgrade the system, make it more capable, but keep the user interface consistent with something people know, so that they can focus on actually creating a product with the computer, rather than learning how to use it.
Yes, I am sure that it is possible to get Hong Kong DVDs for $3, if you happen to be in Hong Kong. When I first heard about the availability of HK DVDs over the net, it sounded great, but by the time I added up shipping and associated charges, the price was as high as a normal dvd in the States. At that price, I will buy the legit version. The cost of copying legit material is just not worth it, for CDs or DVDs. I keep hearing about this threat of people copying CDs, yet the only CDs I see copied are either compilations, to save space, or material that is not available comercially. And perhaps there is a legitimate concern about people copying concert recordings. But it just doesn't seem to be worth it. Sure, people try to copy discs, and by the time they have purchased the recorder, the bandwidth, the media, the money expended is enough ot make copying worthless. Perhaps there is some easy cheap way to copy CDs or DVDs and sell them on the street corner. I have yet to find anyone who can do this. So long as the cost of the media is more than, say, a dollar, the recording companies will have nothing to worry about. A dollar is a very reasonable price for the storage and stability of a CD, and I don't think that there is anything to worry about.
Slashdot Mirror
And to think I thought capitalism worked. (in some sense of the word work, anyway)
Granted, it is rather uncool that there is no DVD player for linux. And it is really uncool that someone should be arresed for making software that would make it easier to do something vaugely related to doing something with something with a dvd and a computer, somewhere. (how most of the world, myself often included, understands this case.
As I understand it, the people who are buying dvd drives for their linux boxes are buying them with the knowledge that there is no dvd player for linux. It is not as though this is suddenly a surprise when they get the drive home. This being a good capitalist economy, I would think that these people would tell the companies that they are not going to buy a dvd drive until the company makes a dvd player for linux (or amiga, or whatever). The company might just act based upon that sort of information, especially when delivered in a polite way.
Companies, generally, at least try to act in their own best interests. They don't always, but they try to. And making a product that would make money is something that is in a companys best interest.
Ask them nicely. Once they realize how much money is involved, they may just think differently.
The question should not be who owns a domain, but what the ownder does with the domain.
The web site at domain X should be consistent with the domain name, at least for generic names. People surf to a generic domain, like linux.com, either because they hope the site will have good resources for things in that category, or because the domain is easy to find. They do not expect or want the message "This site is for sale" or anything to that effect.
People who buy generic domains with the intent of resale have the duty, at least to provide links to sites that provide the sort of information their domain name implies. This is not to say that they should be forced to, just that it is the right thing to do, and that the more useful their domain is, even just as a set of links, the more desirable the domain becomes. Without content, any domain becomes less desirable.
The logical question, in my mind, is: "What is the precedent for physical property?"
Surely safes have been seized as evidence in other trials. What happens when an individual will not turn over the combination for the safe? What if the government cannot force the safe open?
The most proper solution would be to apply the answer to these questions to the encrypted files.
I disagree with the author. A really well designed gui would be wonderful, but who would use it?
All of the people who really know computers extremely well, like many of the readers of slashdot probably would, but the readers of slashdot are but a minority in the group of all computer users.
More important than quality is consistency. My father, a man who has had a home computer since 1987, hates the way each time he buys a new computer, he has to learn a new system, first DOS, then Win3.1, and now Win98. And he uses the computer more than the "average" user. What he, and I think most people want is a system that is consistent. Sure, upgrade the system, make it more capable, but keep the user interface consistent with something people know, so that they can focus on actually creating a product with the computer, rather than learning how to use it.
Yes, I am sure that it is possible to get Hong Kong DVDs for $3, if you happen to be in Hong Kong.
When I first heard about the availability of HK DVDs over the net, it sounded great, but by the time I added up shipping and associated charges, the price was as high as a normal dvd in the States. At that price, I will buy the legit version.
The cost of copying legit material is just not worth it, for CDs or DVDs. I keep hearing about this threat of people copying CDs, yet the only CDs I see copied are either compilations, to save space, or material that is not available comercially. And perhaps there is a legitimate concern about people copying concert recordings. But it just doesn't seem to be worth it.
Sure, people try to copy discs, and by the time they have purchased the recorder, the bandwidth, the media, the money expended is enough ot make copying worthless.
Perhaps there is some easy cheap way to copy CDs or DVDs and sell them on the street corner. I have yet to find anyone who can do this. So long as the cost of the media is more than, say, a dollar, the recording companies will have nothing to worry about. A dollar is a very reasonable price for the storage and stability of a CD, and I don't think that there is anything to worry about.