Windows 98 had no such "protection" and was cheaper than XP and Vista.
Why wouldn't you be able to comply with the request?
My connection could be down.
And once again, it doesn't matter how "easy" it may be. A legitimate user shouldn't have to do it if they don't want to, and the performance of their system shouldn't be compromised as a result.
You personally have had trouble with a legally purchased copy of Windows Vista and WGA? Or are you just parroting the vocal minority because that's the slashdot way?
I called the system "unacceptable". That means I don't use Windows, because I don't like the strings attached, regardless of how "transparent" people want to claim it is.
The only input it requires is asking if it can do so, and a warning that failure will result in the shirt automatically turning itself inside out once in a while. Microsoft isn't saying "you have to come to a microsoft support center and tell us you have windows", it's a fairly painless and automatic procedure.
And if for some reason I'm unable to comply with the request, the performance of my legitimately acquired product will be affected, even though I AM a legit costumer. That's unacceptable.
And leaving logistical issues aside, there is no reason for a seller to keep tabs on me once his goods have been exchanged for my money. I refuse to be hassled or inconvenienced by someone who'll have no trouble using the money they got from me.
Microsoft are no more 'treating their customers like thieves' than a store that has security tags on the clothes and a scanner by each exit. Amazingly, only the shoplifters get bent out of shape about those.
Once I leave the store, I don't have to check in with the store owner when I want to use the product I already paid for.
I'm against software piracy. But I'm also against intrusive control mechanisms that will annoy legitimate users.
Well, Islam is roughly 1300 years old. What was Christianity like when it was 1300 years old? Oh, right, the crusades. Nevermind.
However, as much as I agree with the view that fanatical Islam is a tiny minority of the faith itself, it would be very nice if that large majority of moderate, mainstream Muslims would condemn the fanatics a little louder.
Stallman has said he is in favor of using "proper terminology" in order to avoid needless confusion, hence terms such as "GNU/Linux". But when it comes to the word "freedom", some of his followers (I did refer to "zealots", didn't I?) seem to toss that notion out the window. You're either for freedom, or against it. With those people (again, "zealots", not FSF supporters in general), there's rarely talk of being in favor of "the FSF's concept of software freedom" (cumbersome, but "proper"), there's simply those who support freedom and those who oppose it. And I don't think that attitude does anyone any favors.
I'm not trying to polarize the discussion (dude, it was polarized when I was still in pre-school), I'm just commenting on a trend I've observed since I started using Linux. A couple examples:
"I suspect what you really object to is that RMS is winning: the future belongs to freedom of software. He is whomping all the smartly-dressed gangsters who enjoy restricting the freedom of other people -- such as yourself. History will remember RMS and his GPL, not Bill Gates or you."
"Even to people who don't highly value freedom, his stand on drivers isn't necessarily ridiculous. There is a pragmatic reason to be skeptical about closed drivers: unauditable/unreviewable code is a security risk [kerneltrap.org]."
I don't even necessarily disagree with the second quote, but the use of "freedom" bothers me. I use Linux. I wholeheartedly thank RMS for the work he's done. But I use proprietary software on my system if it performs a task I need. Sometimes I write it, too. My concept of freedom differs from that of the FSF's. But that doesn't make me "against freedom".
Just one more comment on your response:
And just as they won't strive to remove the right for you to hold your opinions, neither should you attempt to do the opposite. I did not do that at any point in my post. Criticizing an attitude is hardly comparable with suppressing it, or attempting to do so. You say you'd rather I toned down my words; well, I'd like to be spared baseless accusations.
I suppose it's O.K. if you don't think freedom is the most important thing--everyone has an opinion and you have every right to disagree. And that, right there is my chief issue with RMS and his movement, the hijacking of the word "freedom". It's not that someone doesn't think "freedom is the most important thing", it's that they simply don't share RMS' definition of "freedom". But to hear an FSF zealot tell it (not meaning you, novakyu), anyone who doesn't have a pathological hatred of proprietary software somehow hates "freedom".
The "release early, release often" mantra is great for developers, but potentially terrible for end users.
If I evaluate KDE 4.0 with developer's eyes, I see a ton of potential, and I KNOW it will be incredible in a year or so. But as an end user? It's appallingly incomplete.
This should have definitely been marked "for developers only", but the KDE team were so eager to make their already-rescheduled deadline that they seem to have said "fuck it" and released anyway. When your release comes with "reviewer reminders", you know something's wrong.
That's a perspective I hadn't really considered. I'm a programmer, but not a hacker. Coding is a vehicle that gets me from point A of point B. As such, I'd never thought of software as art, save for games, where artwork, music and writing come into play. But your post makes perfect sense. Cheers.
Ehh... There's a couple points I'd like to touch on here.
One: Yes, the RIAA is full-blown evil, and its disappearance can only be a good thing, not only for those being unfairly persecuted by it (whom these days seem to be anyone who's even heard a song they don't own while riding a friend's car), but also (even if they don't realize it yet) for the record labels themselves. The sooner they try to adapt to the changing marketplace instead of trying to plug an iceberg tear with sellotape, the better for everyone involved.
Two: However, art is not interchangeable in the same way software can be. I can say "Microsoft isn't needed anymore" because there are alternatives that perform the same functions, and often better and cheaper (or even free), but I can't say "Artist X isn't needed anymore". Because art (music in this case) doesn't merely "perform" a "function". Not good music, anyway.
One of my favorite bands ever is Gyllene Tider, from Sweden. I can barely understand half the lyrics, but their melodies are pure gold. A friend, while listening to them, mentioned a couple bands who sound kinda like them. "Why would you listen to songs you can't understand? If it's bouncy pop you want, you can get it in English". I was dumbstruck by the idea, even though I routinely tell friends "Why would you use expensive software that's broken half the time? I can install Linux for you in half an hour".
Free Art isn't like Free Software in that every artistic expression is unique. That particular expression may suck, but it's unique in its suckitude. And if you like one particular form of art, or a particular artist, there's no "switching" the way there is for software. So initiatives like this, while cool as hell, are not a way to "replace" anything. I can't imagine making a point of listening to stuff solely because it agrees with me ideologically, the same way I wouldn't drop the Star Wars films in favor of stuff like the Revelations fan film.
Of course, I may have just misread your point and am rambling on needlessly, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.
OK, I won't steal the physical CD you have. The minute that I use my labor to duplicate something else, that product is mine. If I see you made a neat toilet, and I spend my hours buying porcelain, laying it into a form, and making my own toilet, you should have little control over how I move my arms, and use my mind, to duplicate the product that I want. Copyright, and other intellectual property restrictions, do little to promote new content or creations. The biggest wall for content creators is distribution, not creation. Millions, even billions of people create content, but only a few are able to distribute it. And you're welcome to write your own songs, books, or even produce your own movies.
Look, if you build your own toilet, you're replicating a template. If you digitally copy a song, film, novel, whatever, you're not copying a design, you're appropriating a unique expression of it. It's not like hand-crafting your own version of an existing product at all, which is why I wish people participating in this sort of debate would give up trying to draw analogies to physical products.
Slashdot Mirror
Why wouldn't you be able to comply with the request?
My connection could be down.
And once again, it doesn't matter how "easy" it may be. A legitimate user shouldn't have to do it if they don't want to, and the performance of their system shouldn't be compromised as a result.
I called the system "unacceptable". That means I don't use Windows, because I don't like the strings attached, regardless of how "transparent" people want to claim it is.
And if for some reason I'm unable to comply with the request, the performance of my legitimately acquired product will be affected, even though I AM a legit costumer. That's unacceptable.
And leaving logistical issues aside, there is no reason for a seller to keep tabs on me once his goods have been exchanged for my money. I refuse to be hassled or inconvenienced by someone who'll have no trouble using the money they got from me.
Once I leave the store, I don't have to check in with the store owner when I want to use the product I already paid for.
I'm against software piracy. But I'm also against intrusive control mechanisms that will annoy legitimate users.
As much as I hate grammar/spelling nazis... Dude, it's "McVeigh".
Well, Islam is roughly 1300 years old. What was Christianity like when it was 1300 years old? Oh, right, the crusades. Nevermind. However, as much as I agree with the view that fanatical Islam is a tiny minority of the faith itself, it would be very nice if that large majority of moderate, mainstream Muslims would condemn the fanatics a little louder.
Apologies for the giant paragraph, I must have messed up my tags.
The "release early, release often" mantra is great for developers, but potentially terrible for end users.
If I evaluate KDE 4.0 with developer's eyes, I see a ton of potential, and I KNOW it will be incredible in a year or so. But as an end user? It's appallingly incomplete.
This should have definitely been marked "for developers only", but the KDE team were so eager to make their already-rescheduled deadline that they seem to have said "fuck it" and released anyway. When your release comes with "reviewer reminders", you know something's wrong.
That's a perspective I hadn't really considered. I'm a programmer, but not a hacker. Coding is a vehicle that gets me from point A of point B. As such, I'd never thought of software as art, save for games, where artwork, music and writing come into play. But your post makes perfect sense. Cheers.
Ehh... There's a couple points I'd like to touch on here.
One: Yes, the RIAA is full-blown evil, and its disappearance can only be a good thing, not only for those being unfairly persecuted by it (whom these days seem to be anyone who's even heard a song they don't own while riding a friend's car), but also (even if they don't realize it yet) for the record labels themselves. The sooner they try to adapt to the changing marketplace instead of trying to plug an iceberg tear with sellotape, the better for everyone involved.
Two: However, art is not interchangeable in the same way software can be. I can say "Microsoft isn't needed anymore" because there are alternatives that perform the same functions, and often better and cheaper (or even free), but I can't say "Artist X isn't needed anymore". Because art (music in this case) doesn't merely "perform" a "function". Not good music, anyway.
One of my favorite bands ever is Gyllene Tider, from Sweden. I can barely understand half the lyrics, but their melodies are pure gold. A friend, while listening to them, mentioned a couple bands who sound kinda like them. "Why would you listen to songs you can't understand? If it's bouncy pop you want, you can get it in English". I was dumbstruck by the idea, even though I routinely tell friends "Why would you use expensive software that's broken half the time? I can install Linux for you in half an hour".
Free Art isn't like Free Software in that every artistic expression is unique. That particular expression may suck, but it's unique in its suckitude. And if you like one particular form of art, or a particular artist, there's no "switching" the way there is for software. So initiatives like this, while cool as hell, are not a way to "replace" anything. I can't imagine making a point of listening to stuff solely because it agrees with me ideologically, the same way I wouldn't drop the Star Wars films in favor of stuff like the Revelations fan film.
Of course, I may have just misread your point and am rambling on needlessly, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.
Look, if you build your own toilet, you're replicating a template. If you digitally copy a song, film, novel, whatever, you're not copying a design, you're appropriating a unique expression of it. It's not like hand-crafting your own version of an existing product at all, which is why I wish people participating in this sort of debate would give up trying to draw analogies to physical products.